industrial ccs on teesside – summary...
TRANSCRIPT
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report
20
15
www.pale-blu.com
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Contents
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd
Contents Document Summary
Client Tees Valley Unlimited (TVU)
Project Title Industrial CCS on Teesside
Title: Summary Report
Distribution: M Lewis Classification: Client Confidential
Date of Issue: 12th October 2015
Name Role Signature
Prepared by: T P Dumenil Energy Consultant
Approved by: S J Murphy Project Manager
Disclaimer: While the authors consider that the data and opinions contained in this report are sound, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when using it. The
authors do not make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the report. There is considerable uncertainty around the
development of CO2 stores and the available data are extremely limited. The authors assume no liability for any loss or damage arising from decisions made on the basis of this
report. The views and judgements expressed here are the opinions of the authors and do not reflect those of TVU or any of the stakeholders consulted during the course of this
project.
Amendment Record
Rev Date Description Issued By Checked By Approved By Client Approval
V03 16/06/15 Issued for Client Review T P Dumenil S D Gomersall S J Murphy
V04 03/07/15 Final Report T P Dumenil A T James S J Murphy
V05 12/10/15 Final Report V2 T P Dumenil S J Murphy A T James
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Contents
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd
Contents 1. Executive Summary _________________________________________________________ 6
2. Recommendations __________________________________________________________ 9
3. Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 11
4. Project Overview ___________________________________________________________ 13
4.1 Battery Limits ................................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Outline Technical Solution ............................................................................................. 15
5. Commercial Overview _______________________________________________________ 26
5.1 CO2 Emission Profiles ................................................................................................... 26
5.2 Project Structure ........................................................................................................... 27
5.3 Outline Commercial Solution ......................................................................................... 29
5.4 New Entrants ................................................................................................................ 31
6. Business Case ____________________________________________________________ 33
6.1 Introduction, Reference Case & Business Model ........................................................... 33
6.2 Business Case Insights & Conclusions .......................................................................... 35
6.3 Other Key Points from the Business Case ..................................................................... 39
7. Execution_________________________________________________________________ 45
7.1 Project Execution Plan .................................................................................................. 45
7.2 Key Milestones .............................................................................................................. 45
7.3 Project Schedule ........................................................................................................... 46
8. Getting to FEED ___________________________________________________________ 50
9. Conclusions _______________________________________________________________ 51
Annexes ___________________________________________________________________ 55
Annex A - Transport Services Term Sheet ........................................................................... 55
Annex B - Infrastructure Sizing Report................................................................................. 57
Annex C - Potential Ownership Options for Onshore Transport of CO2 ................................ 65
Annex D - References ......................................................................................................... 84
Annex E - Glossary ............................................................................................................. 85
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Contents
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd
Figures
Figure 1 - Teesside Collective ICCS Feasibility Project Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 - High Level Project Schedule ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 3 - Overview of TVU Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4 - Major Industrial Sites across the Tees Valley Region ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5 - Store Locations .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 6 - Steel Process (Source Amec Foster Wheeler) ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 7 - Overview of SSI Option 1 (Source Amec Foster Wheeler) .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 8 - Overview of SSI Option 2 (Source Amec Foster Wheeler) .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 9 - Overview of Onshore Gathering Network Route Options (Source Amec Foster Wheeler) ............................................................................................... 18
Figure 10 - Preferred Blue and "Big Blue" Onshore Gathering Network Routes (Source Amec Foster Wheeler) ............................................................................. 19
Figure 11 - Offshore Network route to the NGC 5/42 Store (Source Amec Foster Wheeler) ............................................................................................................ 20
Figure 12 - Offshore Network route to the Goldeneye Store (Source Amec Foster Wheeler) .......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 13 - Dynamic Storage Capability of an Aquifer .................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 14 - Captain 1, 2 & 3 Stores ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 15 - Bunter 1, 2 & 3 Stores .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 16 - Capex and 40 year Opex for a 15 mTpa system connected to Bunter ........................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 17 - Current Teesside emissions depending on source size ................................................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 18 - Cumulative Emissions Profile ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 19 - Low Medium and High emissions forecasts for Teesside .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 20 - Project Structure for CCS ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 21 - Commercial Structure for Teesside ICCS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 22 - Funding Mechanisms for Teesside ICCS (Source: adapted Societe Generale image)................................................................................................... 29
Figure 23 - Comparison of Levelised Costs between Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 24 - Comparison of the Financial Support Required for each Scenario ................................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 25 - Distribution of Cost along ICCS Chain (2015 terms) ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 26 - £/T Cost of Capture by Industrial Processes (PV terms, 7% discount rate) ................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 27 - Transportation Economies of Scale .............................................................................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 28 - Breakdown of Transportation and Storage Costs for each Store ................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 30 - Headline Process......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Contents
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd
Figure 31 - High Level Timeline for the Teesside Collective ........................................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 32 - High Level Project Schedule ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 33 - Execution Schedule from Progressive Energy's TVU CCS Pre-FEED Study for the Outline Execution Strategy for delivery of the SSI Anchor Project .. 49
Figure 34 - Key cost considerations for getting to FEED and beyond.............................................................................................................................................. 50
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Contents
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 5 of 86
The Reference Scenario allows for expansion with the scope to feed in a further
2.2million tonnes of CO2 a year. A more ambitious scheme could treble the pipeline
capacity to 15 million tonnes of CO2 a year, with only 8% additional support required
and has the potential to reduce the cost per tonne of CO2 stored to below £80.
This would provide a platform for new low carbon investment supporting in excess
of 2,600 permanent jobs in new plant, £2billion in additional annual economic
activity and £1.2billion in additional exports annually by the 2030s.
Teesside Collective has a technically viable, end-to-end plan that encompasses the
capture of CO2 from four energy intensive anchor companies and its transportation
and permanent storage under the North Sea. With the right level of support
Teesside Collective could be up and running in time to deliver on the Committee on
Climate Change’s recommendation of industrial CCS being deployed in the UK from
the mid-2020s. It could be an expanding network, with new clean industrial
production attracted to the area to plug in to the infrastructure.
Teesside Collective is a cluster of leading industries with a shared vision: to
establish Teesside, in Tees Valley, as the go-to location for future clean industrial
development by creating Europe’s first Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
equipped industrial zone.
This Summary Report presents the case for the Teesside Collective ICCS project.
A conservative Reference Scenario could see the capture of 2.8 million tonnes of
CO2 each year from four industrial plants (SSI, GrowHow, BOC and Lotte) and
inject the CO2 into a saline aquifer store in the Southern North Sea. The project
could be operational from 2024 and over 20 years permanently store 57 million
tonnes of CO2 at a cost of £95/tonne of CO2 or £1.5 billion of financial support.
Figure 1 - Teesside Collective ICCS Feasibility Project Summary
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 1. Executive Summary
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 6 of 86
1. Executive Summary
Background
The Teesside Collective is a cluster of leading industries based in North East
England who are collaborating to create Europe’s first Industrial Carbon
Capture and Storage (ICCS) equipped industrial zone. Teesside Collective is
not a traditional CCS project. Its focus is on capturing and storing emissions
from chemical, steel and process industries rather than the power sector.
In 2013 the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change provided £1m
under the “City Deal” to Tees Valley Unlimited (TVU), the local Regional
Development Agency, to undertake an Industrial CCS Feasibility Project to
produce a coherent and compelling business case for three specific scenarios
for deploying ICCS in the Teesside area.
Decarbonising Teesside will be vital in mitigating the effects of climate change.
The region is home to 5 of the UK’s top 25 CO2 emitting plants and emissions
per person are 3 times UK average. In total, Teesside process industries are
responsible for 5.6% of UK’s industrial emissions. Teesside presents a good
location for ICCS with large amounts of CO2 in a compact area adjacent to the
shoreline and relatively close to potential CO2 stores offshore, i.e. Bunter 5/42.
The region has business engaged in the ICCS concept, sites that already
capture and transport CO2 and a culture of developing regional infrastructure
for shared use. Teesside has the potential and the collective desire to develop
a national industrial asset that puts the UK at the forefront of the global drive to
decouple growth from emissions. The project is crucial in keeping the UK on
target to meet its 2050 80% CO2 reduction target and will help prevent
industries (and jobs) moving to countries where they may end up emitting
more CO2 than they would have in the UK.
Strategic Highlights
ICCS from Teesside is technically and commercially viable, with financial
support from Government, and provides a cost abatement option for the UK.
ICCS can reduce industrial CO2 emissions by 90% and with the right financial
support mechanism it can represent good value for money for Government.
The project leverages Government investment in CCS projects by planning to
use knowledge gained on the stores currently being evaluated in the CCS
Commercialisation Programme.
The project could be operational within 7 years of the funding mechanism
being negotiated between government and the developers. This lead time
could be reduced if a separate arrangement was to be put in place to cover the
detailed engineering, design and planning work required before the final
investment decision point.
To gain insight into likely CO2 transportation infrastructure requirements and
change to one or more anchor sites, three scenarios were developed to
estimate future levels of CO2 that could be captured on Teesside. These
scenarios allow for variation in the start date of capturing, system longevity and
also the number of capture projects and their respective captured emissions
rates. The base and high scenarios indicates that CO2 transportation
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 1. Executive Summary
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 7 of 86
infrastructure should be sized to carry 10mT CO2/year, both include a new-
build IGCC plant in the region.
The ICCS project is commercially complex with a number of different
outcomes possible. Whilst several parties have indicated a degree of interest
in owning and operating the onshore elements of the project, no potential CO2
storage company has been identified (it seems unlikely that either of the two
participants in the CCS Commercialisation Programme would be interested in
undertaking an additional CO2 storage venture). Several outcomes are
presented in the report and one that attracted a lot of attentions was the
concept of nationally owned infrastructure for the transportation and storage of
CO2 was considered briefly and is likely to be the subject of further study – it
would be a potential route through the current impasse.
Financial Highlights
The infrastructure will have an operational life of at least 40 years and, with a
significant number of existing and future CO2 supplies, the network can quite
reasonably be expected to operate beyond the 20-year evaluation period.
The cost of capture ranges between £37 – 215/T for the different process
industries and the different scales at which they operate.
The reference scenario captures and exports 2.8 mTpa of CO2 from four
industrial sites on Teesside to the Bunter saline aquifer store 155km away
under the Southern North Sea resulting in the export and storage of 56 mT of
CO2 over the 20-year project life and costs £95/T of CO2, amounting to some
£5.3bn of cost over the project evaluation period (£1.5bn in present value
terms using a 7% discount rate). This assumes a 13% rate of return after-tax
to each of the project participants.
A range of different possible networks were explored which confirmed
considerable economies of scale exist. The cost of ICCS can fall to below
£77/T if, for example an additional 5 mT/year of CO2 is available to capture (as
might be the case from a large power plant, etc.)
An additional 8% investment could treble the transportation capacity and
provide ullage for future CO2 supplied from Teesside. Fully utilizing the
transportation infrastructure over its life can dramatically reduce the unit costs
for transportation by up to 80%, equivalent to £10/T to a Bunter store.
Two commercial mechanisms were evaluated; a store payment arrangement
and a CO2 Contract for Difference (CfD) arrangement. From an economic
perspective there was no discernible difference in the two approaches.
An outline term sheet for the transportation of CO2 is provided in Annex A. The
key terms are considered to be the charging mechanism (a combination of
capital investment, capacity rights and use of system) and allocation of
liabilities between the suppliers (emitters) and the transporter and in particular
who has the commercial liability of suppling the CO2 to the storer. The
implications of admitting New Entrants to the system were also considered
The major areas of CCS specific risk are considered to be associated with the
geological storage of CO2. A qualitative assessment of risk allocation between
Government and the developers of the store shows that the level of support is
dependent upon the share of risk borne by developers, and vice versa.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 1. Executive Summary
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 8 of 86
Looking Ahead
Pale Blue Dot Energy completed the business case work during the first half of
2015, following a stage of engineering design and costing commissioned by
TVU. The project was guided by a steering board chaired by TVU with input
from teams at the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
Future work should build upon the Amec Foster Wheeler Engineering Study,
Pale Blue Dot Energy Business Case and the associated commercial
mechanism work by Societe Generale, to further develop an appropriate
financial support mechanism. The next phase of work should be a significantly
more detailed analysis, (commercial, technical, financial and policy), based on
the CO2 CfD Model and Storer Model. The aim should be to develop a model
that is acceptable to both Industry and Government such that investors are
prepared to invest in the next phase of engineering in 2017. If this can be
attained then construction could start three years later and the project could be
operational by 2024.
Annex E contains a Glossary to assist the reader if required.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 2. Recommendations
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 9 of 86
2. Recommendations With respect to techno-economic aspects, the Feasibility Study shows that
Industrial CCS at scale is technically feasible and that it is essential to
establish an attractive commercial support mechanism with the UK
Government as soon as possible. This will ensure the scheme delivers the
economic benefit directly from CCS and indirectly through developing
sustainable heavy industrial manufacturing centres coupled with Decarbonised
Power Generation at key locations across the UK.
The study has established the technical and infrastructure solutions required to
capture and store 2.8 mTpa of CO2 from four industrial sites by the early
2020’s and offers the potential for other emitters to connect to the network to
enable the sequestration of significantly higher volumes through a 15 mTpa
infrastructure. A portfolio approach should be taken to ensure a broad mix of
emitters to mitigate risk of one or more emitters leaving the network.
Building on the Feasibility Project, Teesside Collective now need to steer the
project through to completion. As shown in Figure 2, an initial “Bridge” stage is
required to link the existing Feasibility Study work to Pre-FEED (Front End
Engineering Design), then progress into FEED and ultimately to a Financial
Investment Decision (FID) envisaged for 2020. A successful FID enables
construction to be complete leading to carbon being sequestered before the
mid-2020s.
The Bridge Stage is expected to take 12 months, Pre-FEED is expected to
take 6 months whilst FEED is expected to take 18 months. A Store Appraisal
will need to be completed in parallel with FEED. Execution and Financing
through to FID is expected to take 2 years. Engineering Procurement
Installation & Commissioning is expected to take 4 years and is expected to
cost £0.77-2.12bn depending on the technology and capacities chosen for the
installed scheme. Operational Expenditure (Opex) is expected to cost £7.4-
14.7bn again dependent on system design and sizing and with a life time of 20
years for capture plant and 40 years for transportation and storage
infrastructure.
Agreeing an appropriate commercial support mechanism with the UK
Government is the critical path item for the overall project whilst ongoing
communications and engagement via the Teesside Collective is fundamental
to promoting ICCS and delivering a successful project.
Figure 2 - High Level Project Schedule
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 2. Recommendations
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 10 of 86
The Teesside Collective will need to continue to provide leadership and
establish the route by which Industrial CCS can be delivered in the UK. The
three immediate next steps recommended are:
a. Establish The Teesside Collective as the implementation company
b. Maintain focus on ICCS and build on the progress made to date
c. Commence project development activity through delivery of the initial
“Bridge Stage” that secures funding for and initiates the Pre-FEED work.
Other key recommendations are:
1. The Commercial Structure could mirror the three battery limits, i.e.
Capture, Gathering and Transportation & Storage Ventures.
2. For Capture the recommended solution delivers 2.8 mTpa of CO2 for a
capex of £311m. Sahaviriya Steel Industries (SSI) would be the initial
anchor project for the regional CCS infrastructure with smaller
contributions from GrowHow, BOC and Lotte. If SSI went ahead alone it
would deliver 2.1 mTpa of CO2 for a capex of £192m.
3. Capture plant could be owned by the process company or a third party
operator at each emission site. Potentially the same entity could own and
operate the capture plant for all four emission sites.
4. A trebling of onshore and offshore pipeline capacity from 5 to 15mT is
achievable at a relatively modest incremental capex spend of £92-104m,
leading to the recommendation of a 15 mTpa transportation infrastructure.
5. The Onshore Gathering Network delivers 15 mTpa of capacity through
>34km of 100barg pipeline for a capex of £77m. The Gathering Venture
will either be a Sole Operator or a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) involving
emitters alongside a proven network operator, i.e. The Teesside Collective.
6. For Transportation & Storage it is viable to transport dense phase CO2 to
either the Bunter or Captain sandstone saline aquifers. The lower costs
offered by the Bunter make it the preferred Store. For the Bunter an
Offshore solution would have a one off capex cost of £254m and an
annual opex cost of £294m for a 5 mTpa system, representing £47.4/T for
Transport and Storage. Alternatively, for a 10 mTpa system it would have a
one off capex cost of £579m and an annual opex cost of £294m,
representing £30.3/T for Transport and Storage. Further appraisal of the
Bunter area is needed to ensure sufficient capacity for a 10 mTpa.
7. With National Grid Carbon (NGC) the prospective operator of a storage
project in the Bunter it is possible that transport and storage could be
provided by NGC.
8. Key for progressing commercial arrangements will be securing necessary
up-front commitments or guarantees around the future usage of a scaled-
up network through Transportation Agreements, a vital component of the
network financing. Title will be a significant area to resolve, i.e. simple
Throughput Service or Title of Transfer at each Boundary.
9. Two commercial support mechanisms were evaluated: a store payment
mechanism and a CfD style arrangement with the emitter. The same level
of support is required from the UK Government whichever of the two
commercials mechanisms is applied.
A charging mechanism would need to be developed with the aggregate
charge likely to comprise of three separate charges; an EPC Charge
(Engineering, Procurement & Construction), a Capacity Rights Charge and
a Use of Network Charge. Who is charging whom and how will depend on
which of the two commercial support mechanisms are chosen as money
will flow from the store to the capture site for the store payment
mechanism whilst flow in the opposite direction for the CfD arrangement.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 3. Introduction
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 11 of 86
3. Introduction Tees Valley Unlimited (TVU) is a Local Enterprise Partnership between the five
local authorities of Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland
and Stockton and private sector industrial partners. TVU secured £1m of
central government funding under the “City Deal” for a Concept Study to
examine the case for a pioneering Industrial CCS (ICCS) initiative centred on
Teesside and to develop insights into an appropriate subsidy mechanism.
Teesside is home to the largest concentration of chemical facilities in the UK
and the second largest in Western Europe (based on manufacturing capacity).
The project is different as it holistically looks at capture technology,
transportation & storage, business case, finance, Her Majesty’s Government
(HMG) funding and external communications.
Decarbonising Teesside will be vital in mitigating the effects of climate change.
The region is home to 5 of the UK’s top 25 CO2 emitting plants and emissions
per person are 3 times UK average. In total, Teesside process industries are
responsible for 5.6% of UK’s industrial emissions. Teesside presents a good
location for ICCS with large amounts of CO2 in a compact area adjacent to the
shoreline and relatively close to potential CO2 stores offshore, i.e. Bunter 5/42.
The region has business engaged in the ICCS concept, sites that already
capture and transport CO2 and a culture of developing regional infrastructure
for shared use. Teesside has the potential and the collective desire to develop
a national industrial asset that puts the UK at the forefront of the global drive to
decouple growth from emissions. The project is crucial in keeping the UK on
target to meet its 2050 80% CO2 reduction target and will help prevent
industries (and jobs) moving to countries where they may end up emitting
more CO2 than they would have in the UK.
TVU contracted Pale Blue Dot Energy to lead a large multi-company, multi-
disciplinary project to develop the business case for Industrial CCS on
Teesside. TVU also engaged Amec Foster Wheeler to deliver the Engineering
Package, Societe Generale the Commercial Package and Madano the
Communications Package.
The Teesside project aimed to establish the technical design, costs,
commercial arrangements and potential investment mechanism for an
Industrial CCS network on Teesside fed by captured emissions from a variety
of industrial manufacturing sites. The objectives for the project are outlined in
Figure 3 below.
Figure 3 - Overview of TVU Objectives
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 3. Introduction
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 12 of 86
The 12 month project commenced in July 2014. Pale Blue Dot’s scope was
three fold:
1. Ensure full and timely delivery from all contractor teams, specifically the
Engineering and Commercial contractors
2. Produce a coherent and compelling business case for three specific
scenarios:
a. An anchor project based around export of CO2 from the SSI steelworks
b. A business case for 3 additional industrial emitters (Growhow, BOC and
Lotte) to connect to the network based on an anchor project
c. A business case for the 3 additional industrial emitters to develop a
network if the anchor project does not go ahead
3. Provide advice and guidance to the Steering Board
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 13 of 86
4. Project Overview The Teesside Collective is a cluster of leading industries with a shared vision:
to establish Teesside, in Tees Valley, as the go to location for future clean
industrial development by creating Europe’s first Carbon Capture & Storage
(CSS) equipped industrial zone.
The Teesside Collective consist of:
• Tees Valley Unlimited (TVU) - the Local Enterprise Partnership covering
an area which includes the Teesside industrial base. TVU manages the
Teesside Collective project in close collaboration with its industrial
partners.
• Sahaviriya Steel Industries (SSI) UK - iron and steelmaking facilities with
a capacity of 3.6 million tonnes of slab production per annum.
• BOC - an industrial gas supplier and operates the UK’s largest hydrogen
plant in Teesside. It supplies compressed, bulk and pipeline gases,
chemicals, engineering solutions and innovations in clean energy
technologies, including carbon capture and storage.
• GrowHow - the UK’s leading manufacturer of ammonium nitrate and
compound fertilisers and a major supplier for process chemicals and
utilities.
• Lotte Chemical UK - produces in excess of 150,000 tonnes of
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) resin chips every year.
• National Grid - runs the gas and electricity systems, distributing energy to
the nation’s homes and businesses. National Grid bring their expertise on
gas transport and storage to the project.
• North East Process Industry Cluster (NEPIC) - a body representing over
500 chemical, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, Energy and Renewables
businesses and their support companies across the North East of
England.
• Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) - a UK Government
Department working to make sure the UK has secure, clean, affordable
energy supplies and promoting international action to mitigate climate
change.
The Teesside Collective is a pioneering infrastructure project offering a
compelling opportunity to progress the UK’s industrial and environmental
interest’s hand-in-hand. Tees Valley Unlimited, has been awarded £1m
funding by DECC to develop a business case for deploying industrial CCS in
the Teesside cluster and to make recommendations for a funding mechanism.
To complete and promote the Concept Study, the Teesside Collective are
being supported by:
• Pale Blue Dot Energy (PBDE) - Management Consultants for The Energy
Transition delivering advice in three key area: Carbon Capture & Storage,
Oil & Gas Transition and Emerging Energy Systems.
• Amec Foster Wheeler - Consultancy, engineering, project management,
operations and construction services, project delivery and specialised
power equipment services for the oil & gas, clean energy, environment &
infrastructure and mining markets.
• Societe Generale - One of the largest financial services groups in Europe
offering a range of businesses: corporate and investment banking to
private banking, asset management, and securities services, as well as
specialised financial services including vehicle and equipment finance.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 14 of 86
• Madano - One of the UK’s leading strategic communication consultancies
with a wealth of specialist knowledge to deliver powerful communications
that enable and inspire.
• Process Industries CCS Initiative (PICCSI) - a Teesside based industry
led group supporting CCS development across the region.
4.1 Battery Limits
The proposed Teesside ICCS infrastructure comprises of four main
components:
1. Capture plants at emission sites
2. Onshore Gathering Network for CO2
3. Booster Station and Offshore Network for CO2
4. Offshore Injection and Storage
Figure 4 depicts many of the large industrial sites across the Tees Valley
Region. Previous work has evaluated the carbon emissions from these sites
prioritising their carbon capture potential, engaged the businesses into the
concept of a regional ICCS project and ultimately led to the formation of the
Teesside Collective. The locations of the four industrial entities in the
Collective are shown as A-D on Figure 4. These are the four Emitter Sites &
Capture Points considered within the project.
• SSI - a steel manufacturer with the second largest blast furnace in Europe
which produces circa 6-7m tonnes of steel annually. The site has seven
CO2 emission points within operation totalling 7.1mTpa. The project has
evaluated a number of Pre- and Post-Combustion Capture technology
options. The project assumes precombustion capture of 2.1mTpa.
• GrowHow - the manufacturer of ammonia for fertilisers in the UK. The
ammonia manufacturing process also produces a pure CO2 coproduct
stream of 375kTpa which only requires to be dried and compressed for
Capture.
• BOC - a manufacturer and supplier of industrial gases. BOC supplies
hydrogen through a local network. A coproduct of the hydrogen
manufacturing process is 305kTpa of CO2 which can be captured using
Post Combustion Capture technology.
• Lotte - a manufacturer of PET resin for plastic bottles. The aim is to use
Post Combustion Capture technology to capture 50kTpa.
B
A
C
A
D
A
E
Figure 4 - Major Industrial Sites across the Tees Valley Region
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 15 of 86
Once the CO2 has been captured at each site it would be transported via
pipeline through an Onshore Gathering Network. The project study required
consideration of various routes for the Onshore Gathering Network utilising the
existing pipework corridors where
possible, (see Figure 4). The Onshore
Gathering Network would culminate at a
Booster Station adjacent to SSI, point E
on Figure 4, at which point the CO2
pressure would be boosted to meet
offshore storage requirements. The scope
required evaluation of various routes for a
pipeline from the Booster Station to
offshore and the subsequent route and
sizing off an Offshore Pipeline to either of
two predetermined storage locations
under the North Sea, Figure 5. The
captured CO2 would be injected into and
stored in a sandstone saline aquifer in either the Captain Aquifer (Goldeneye
area) or Bunter Aquifer (5/42 area). The scope required size and costing
evaluation for both 5mTpa and 15mTpa captured volume scenarios.
For the Business Case, three Battery Limits have been established, one at
each of the three principal interfaces: Capture, Gathering and Transportation &
Storage.
Capture: The design, installation & operation of capture plant at four capture
sites that exports 100barg CO2 within specification into the Onshore Gathering
Network.
Gathering: An Onshore Gathering Network for gathering and co-mingling
multiple sources of metered CO2 at the required specification to the onshore
Booster Station.
Transportation & Storage: An Offshore System from the Booster Station inlet
that increases the CO2 pressure to 160barg for pipeline transportation to the
offshore facilities for injection into the subsurface store.
4.2 Outline Technical Solution
4.2.1 Capture Solutions
4.2.1.1 SSI Main Site
The SSI Main Site is expected to emit 7.1mTpa of CO2 with the majority arising
due to the chemistry of steelmaking.
For SSI a total of 32 capture
options were coarse screened
leading to further optioneering
of 13 options that were fine
screened down to two
Concept Development options
utilising by-product gas
streams to fuel a new turbine
unit. Blast Furnace Gas (BFG) is a by-product of reducing iron ore with coke to
metallic iron and Basic Oxygen Steelmaking (BOS) gas is a by-product of
blowing oxygen over the molten metal. Both BFG and BOS are forms of low
calorific syngas. The two Concept Development options reviewed were:
Figure 5 - Store Locations
Figure 6 - Steel Process (Source Amec Foster Wheeler)
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 16 of 86
1. Post combustion capture via a chemical or physical solvent on the flue gas
of a BFG fired turbine resulting in circa 1.7mTpa. A new power station
would be built incorporating a gas turbine fuelled by BFG and natural gas.
The turbine flue gas would be rich in CO2 (30%). The flue gas would pass
through an amine unit which would strip out the CO2. The amine is
regenerated using steam from a new auxiliary boiler to produce a stream
of pure CO2. The CO2 is compressed, conditioned, metered & exported.
2. Chemically shifting a mix of BFG and BOS gases and then capturing
2.1mTpa of CO2 via pre-combustion capture using a physical solvent
absorption process to separate out the CO2 before the fully decarbonized
fuel gas enters the turbine. Shifting adds water to the CO in the fuel
stream to create CO2 and H2. The solvent is regenerated to a pure CO2
stream which is compressed, conditioned, metered & exported.
The work to date has confirmed that SSI has the potential to be the anchor
project underpinning the regional CCS infrastructure. The final selection
between the two specific options will depend on costs of capture and on wider
site plans for fuel gas utilisation. At this stage, the second pre-combustion
capture option appears to offer the most attractive economic and technical
solution. These options represent the ‘lowest hanging fruit’. The site has
further CO2 which could be captured in the future once the infrastructure is
established, subject to the commercial case.
4.2.1.2 GrowHow
GrowHow’s integrated manufacturing facility produces fertilizer, ammonia and
nitric acid. The ammonia plant uses natural gas as base feedstock and
removes CO2 using Benfield DEA capture technology producing around
950kTpa CO2. A further CO2 stream of circa 500kTpa from reformer flue gas
was outside the study scope.
A major proportion of the CO2 from the Benfield process is purified,
compressed and sold to the food industry in liquefied form. An average
375kTpa excess captured CO2 is emitted from the Benfield vent. The
composition of this CO2 is close to the network requirements and only requires
dehydration and compression prior to metering and export. The conceptual
design utilizes proven technology from established suppliers and involves a
new facility based around two 50T/hr 100barg compressors.
Figure 7 - Overview of SSI Option 1 (Source Amec Foster Wheeler)
Figure 8 - Overview of SSI Option 2 (Source Amec Foster Wheeler)
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 17 of 86
4.2.1.3 BOC
At BOC, CO2 emissions result from the steam methane reforming (SMR)
process used to produce hydrogen and from the combustion of fuel and
process gases. Three initial options for CO2 capture were reviewed with
Concept Development on one option for post combustion capture on the SMR
flue gas. The flue gas from the Reformer will be diverted to a new
Conventional Amine Process (MEA) to capture circa 305kTpa. The amine
would be regenerated using co-produced steam with the released CO2 stream
then compressed, conditioned, metered & exported. The MEA technology is
well proven with several providers.
4.2.1.4 Lotte
CO2 emissions result from combustion of methane to create heat for the PET
production process. A total of 14 capture options were coarse screened
leading to further optioneering of five technology types in fine screening
leading to two Concept Development options. Only post capture technology is
feasible with circa 50kTpa of CO2 removal from flue gas through either
membranes or chemical/physical solvents. The chosen solution is an off the
shelf packaged amine capture solution.
4.2.1.5 Sizing Scenarios
The table below provides a summary of the Concept Development options for
CO2 capture across the four sites. With Option 2 preferred for SSI the following
total potential capture volumes can be considered for each of the three specific
scenarios outlined in Section 3.
a. 2.1 mTpa for the Anchor Emitter (SSI) only
b. 2.8 mTpa for the Anchor Emitter plus 3 Smaller Emitters (GrowHow, BOC,
Lotte)
c. 0.7 mTpa for the 3 Smaller Emitters only
4.2.2 Onshore Gathering Network Solutions
4.2.2.1 Onshore Gathering Network Route
Two Concept Development options have been evaluated:
• Option 1: a 5 mTpa pipeline sized to just take the proposed volumes from
the 4 sites.
• Option 2: a 15 mTpa pipeline deliberately oversized to collect CO2 from
across the Teesside area.
The study considered whether the Onshore Gathering Network should be
contain CO2 in Gas or Liquid phase, reviewed the CO2 quality specification
required for entry and also reviewed the emitter potential for the 15 mTpa
scenario. The review considered use of existing river crossings versus the
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 18 of 86
creation of a new crossing. Further considerations included were: safety, major
crossings (i.e. rail, road, National Grid NTS Feeder route etc.), urban
populations, environmental constraints, historical sites, the re-use of way-
leaves and access to a suitable shore landing.
Figure 9 below shows the multiple route options available on Teesside for the
Onshore Gathering Network. Three main routes were tested, Blue, Red and
Orange. The Green route presents an alternative option for crossing to the
proposed Booster Station location. The Purple route presents a mix of the
orange and blue routes. The Yellow route presents a Wilton Collection
Network.
Post screening the Blue route was confirmed as the preferred option. The Blue
route is technically the most feasible, optimizing the use of existing wayleaves
or routes with fewer issues associated with navigating obstacles. Also Blue’s
route across the river through the existing Tunnel 2 is likely to have space for a
15 mTpa pipeline with a river crossing possible if not. Whilst the Orange route
was cheapest by less than 1%, point access to/from Tunnel 1 on both the
north and south shore is complicated. The red route has issues with proximity
to Port Clarence, environmental constraints, complex routing from the spine to
BOC and also complex routing south of the river.
4.2.2.2 Sizing Scenarios
Onshore Gathering Network routes have been confirmed for both the 5 mTpa
and 15 mTpa sizing scenarios requiring a central pipeline diameter of 300-
400mm and 700–800mm respectively. In Figure 10 the Blue route maps out
the 5 mTpa network which can be expanded to a “Big Blue” 15 mTpa network
through the larger central pipeline and the Pink route extensions. Importation
of CO2 from out with the immediate Teesside Region may be necessary to fill
the “Big Blue” network. The Blue route has 17kms of pipeline whilst the “Big
Blue” network is more than double that length.
Operating conditions within the Onshore Gathering Network will be 100barg
and 35oC entry conditions as assumed for the design work at the four capture
sites. The CO2 composition will be defined by the offshore storage
requirements but have been assumed at >95% CO2, <50ppm water and
<10ppm O2.
Figure 9 - Overview of Onshore Gathering Network Route Options (Source Amec Foster Wheeler)
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 19 of 86
4.2.3 Offshore Network Solutions
A total of 7 Offshore Transportation were reviewed which led to further
optioneering of 2 options that were fine screened with both options going onto
Concept Development. In short these were 5 mTpa and 15 mTpa options for
both the 5/42 and Goldeneye stores. All have a common start point at the
Booster Station and all finish at the top of the riser of the host platform.
The Offshore Infrastructure is made up of Five Key Subcomponents:
• The Booster Station
• The Onshore Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) Line to the Beach
• The Shore Approach
• The Main Pipeline
• The Delivery Termination
4.2.3.1 Booster Station
The Booster Station consists of PIG receivers from the Onshore Gathering
Network, metering, booster pumps to assure delivery pressure and a PIG
launcher for the Offshore Network. There will be three 50% duty Flowserve
booster pumps to ensure 99% uptime. These proven centrifugal pumps are
widely used on US CO2 networks and will boost the CO2 pressure from circa
100barg to that required by each of the stores which is 120barg for Goldeneye
and 100-182barg for 5/42.
4.2.3.2 Offshore Network Route
The Offshore Network route starts with a 1km long onshore HDD pipeline to
the beach navigating two natural gas lines on route. The first section of
offshore pipeline, known as the Shore Approach, requires a pre-trench area to
float the fabricated pipeline to a beach connection. The other end connects to
the Main Pipeline which conveys the CO2 to the Store location. The Transport
Line is trenched and buried in water under 50 metres deep and then laid on
the seabed. The pipeline is concrete coated to maintain depth and stability of
the line as it is installed and to protect it from interactions from ship anchors or
fishing gear. The offshore end of the pipeline consists of a subsea isolation
B
A
D
C
A E
Figure 10 - Preferred Blue and "Big Blue" Onshore Gathering Network Routes (Source Amec Foster Wheeler)
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 20 of 86
valve, platform riser and connection to the injection facilities. The proposed
Offshore Transport Infrastructure is designed for a high level of uptime at 99%.
A key consideration for the Offshore Network are the crossings over other
services such as pipelines, electrical transmission cables and communication
cables. Bridges are constructed out of concrete mattresses and dumped rock
again to protect the pipeline and the service that it crosses from interactions
with fishing gear and ship anchors.
Concept 1, Figure 11, is routed from the Booster Station to the NGC 5/42
Storage Complex. Pipeline Diameters have been established at 18 inch / 450
mm and 24 inch / 600 mm for 5 and 15 mTpa respectively. The 154km
involves:
• 3 Pipeline Crossings,
• 3 Communication Cable Crossings
• 3 Potential Electrical Transmission Cable Crossings
• A Submarine Exercise Area
Concept 2, Figure 12, is routed from the Booster Station to the Shell
Goldeneye Storage Complex. Pipeline Diameters have been established at 20
inch / 500 mm and 30 inch / 760 mm for 5 and 15 mTpa respectively. The
433km route involves four Pipeline Crossings.
It is viable to transport dense phase CO2 to either destination using proven
equipment, technologies, materials and techniques and account for such
transport through measuring and monitoring systems. Preliminary hydraulic
Figure 11 - Offshore Network route to the NGC 5/42 Store (Source Amec Foster Wheeler)
Figure 12 - Offshore Network route to the Goldeneye Store (Source Amec Foster Wheeler)
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 21 of 86
assurance has been completed which will be refined during FEED. The major
technical risk associated with the installation and operation of the offshore
infrastructure is maintaining the CO2 in the dense phase. This will be
accomplished through simple pressure management thus avoiding two phase
flow and its potential consequences of liquid hammer, drop out of dissolved
water and pump cavitation.
4.2.3.3 Injection & Storage
In the project scope it was predetermined that captured CO2 would be injected
into and stored in a sandstone saline aquifer in either the Captain Aquifer
(Goldeneye area) or Bunter Aquifer (5/42 area).
The Captain sandstone aquifer is 1500m below the seabed off the coast of
Aberdeenshire. The aquifer is well characterized with many well penetrations
enabling the long term projection of dynamic information. Further knowledge
exists through 7 years of gas production from Goldeneye and interaction with
adjacent fields. Carbon storage capacity is estimated at 34 mT in the depleted
gas field with a further estimated storage capacity of 300 mT across the
Captain aquifer as identified in the Captain Storage Development Plan
completed by Pale Blue Dot.
The Bunter sandstone aquifer is 1100m below the seabed in the 5/42 area of
the North Sea off the Yorkshire coast. The aquifer is poorly characterized with
just 3 wells and no dynamic information. Carbon storage capacity is estimated
at 200-300 mT as identified in the Bunter Storage Development Plan
completed by Pale Blue Dot.
Dense phase CO2 would arrive at an offshore facility and be injected. This
would require either a minimal facilities platform or a subsea manifold with a
number of injection wells. Metering, control and power will be connected to the
nearest hub or shore point.
The geology and local conditions, i.e. porosity, pressure, temperature etc. will
influence both the rate of injection at any one point in time and the total volume
that can be injected at a single point as simplistically represented in Figure 13
above. In other words identical wells will have differing injection capacity
dependent on the specific local geology of the store. Thus the total storage
capacity of identical wells at different parts of the store may vary between 5
and 20 mT as per the fictitious example above. Assuming each well can inject
up to 1 mTpa CO2 and store a total of 20 mT, the 5 mTpa scenario would
require 5 active wells at any one time and between 6 and 20 wells in total
across the lifetime of the operation. Wells are likely to be drilled in two to three
stages, 10-15 years apart.
Figure 13 - Dynamic Storage Capability of an Aquifer
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 22 of 86
4.2.3.4 Sizing Scenarios
Current operators of the potential Bunter and Captain stores are National Grid
and Shell respectively. Initial discussions were completed with both operators
indicating that neither store was likely to have injection capacity to handle an
additional 5-15 mTpa nor handle an extra 200-600 mT over 40 years. This
could be resolved by drilling additional wells and/or development of additional
stores.
For Captain, the 5 mTpa scenario would involve a development at Captain 1, a
subsea development, approximately 10km west of the Goldeneye platform.
Power and utilities are provided from St. Fergus. The Teesside Collective
pipeline goes directly to the Captain 1 subsea centre which would involve five
deviated wells, each with an injectivity of 1 mTpa and capable of storing circa
100 mT in total.
For Captain, the 15 mTpa scenario would involve two extensions to Captain 1
involving a Captain 2 subsea centre 20km west of Captain 1 and a Captain 3
subsea centre 50km west of Captain 1. A pipeline extension would run from
Captain 1 to Captain 2 and onto Captain 3. Power etc. for Captain 2 & 3 would
come from Captain 1. Captain 2 and 3 would be replicas of Captain 1 involving
five deviated wells with the same injection and storage capacity as Captain 1,
(Reference: Captain Storage Development Plan).
The Bunter Stores would be satellites of the proposed NGC development of
the 5/42 aquifer. For Bunter, the 5 mTpa scenario would involve a Bunter 1
subsea development, circa 10km east of the planned 5/42 platform. Power and
utilities are provided from 5/42. The Teesside Collective pipeline goes directly
to the subsea centre which would involve five deviated wells, each with an
injectivity of 1 mTpa and capable of storing circa 100 mT in total.
Figure 14 - Captain 1, 2 & 3 Stores
Figure 15 - Bunter 1, 2 & 3 Stores
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 23 of 86
For Bunter, the 15 mTpa scenario would involve two extensions in the 5/43
aquifer, 60km east of 5/42. Bunter 2 would require a new facilities platform
whilst Bunter 3 would be a subsea development. A pipeline extension would
run from Bunter 1 to Bunter 2 and onto Bunter 3. Power etc. for Bunter 2 & 3
would come the 5/42 host platform. Bunter 2 and 3 would be replicas of Bunter
1 involving five deviated wells with the same injection and storage capacity as
Bunter 1. Aquifer 5/43 is estimated to have a storage capacity of circa 334 mT
(BGS), (Reference: Bunter Storage Development Plan).
4.2.4 Key Operational Considerations
4.2.4.1 Term Sheet
Annex A - Transport Services Term Sheet, outlines the likely material
commercial terms that could be expected to form the basis of a CO2
Transportation Agreement for users of the proposed Teesside Collective CO2
network. The table in Section 2.3 of the Term Sheet, replicated below, outlines
the main operational parameters for captured CO2:
Attribute Condition
CO2 > 95.5%
Water < 50ppm
O2 < 10ppm
Pressure 100 barg
Temperature 35oC
4.3 Development Cost Estimate
A Cost Estimating Process was agreed to establish the Capital Expenditure
(Capex) estimate based off the Material & Equipment Lists (MEL) concluded
for each solution during the Engineering Work Package. A Cost Basis was
established to agree which items would be estimated via a Measured Cost
basis and which items would be estimated via a Factored Cost basis.
Assumptions, Battery Limits and Exclusions were also determined. The AACE
(Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering) Class 5 definition (-
20% to +50% accuracy) was used for a Low, Medium and High projection
whereby the Medium scenario is the Capex estimate with Low being Medium-
20% and High being Medium+50%.
For the Operational Expenditure (Opex) full cost estimates were developed for
additional direct labour and associated payroll, administration and overhead
burden. Annual Maintenance and Insurance were factored at percentages of
the Capex cost. Power and water volume requirements were identified but not
costed.
4.3.1 Capture Solutions
The table below details the Capex cost estimates for the Capture Solutions
and summarises the total Capex costs for the three scenarios outlined in
Section 3. The optimum solution delivering 2.8 mTpa is estimated at £311m.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 24 of 86
The table below details the Opex cost estimate for the Capture sites and
summarises the total Opex costs for the three scenarios. The 2.8 mTpa
solution Opex is estimated at £125m per year.
Site Opex £m pa
SSI – 1 73.2
SSI – 2 92.6
GrowHow 15.2
BOC 12.8
Lotte 4.4
Total Scenario a) (SSI 2) 92.6
Total Scenario b) (SSI 2) 125.0
Total Scenario c) 32.4
4.3.2 Onshore Solution
The table below details the Capex cost estimates for the Onshore
Transportation for the 5 mTpa and 15 mTpa scenarios.
For simplicity the Opex for both Onshore and Offshore Transportation have
been combined together and is estimated at £10.7m pa. The Opex is the same
for the two scenarios.
4.3.3 Offshore Solution
The first table below details the Capex cost estimates for the Offshore
Transportation Pipeline for the 5 mTpa and 15 mTpa scenarios. Note that a
trebling of onshore and offshore pipeline capacity from 5 to 15mT is achievable
through a relatively modest incremental capex spend of £92-104m.
The second table below details the Capex and Opex cost estimates for the
Offshore Injection and Storage for the 5 mTpa and 15 mTpa scenarios.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 4. Project Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 25 of 86
The Injection and Storage estimates are on the basis of the Storage
Development Plans completed by Pale Blue Dot and ongoing discussions with
both NGC and Shell. The Opex shown is a total life of project estimate based
on a 40 year operation of the Offshore System and subsequent 30 year post
closure monitoring. The Financial Security figures are from EU Guidance
Document 4 and have been benchmarked with the ROAD project in The
Netherlands.
4.3.4 Overall Cost Summary
There are a number of overall cost summaries depending on whether Scenario
a), b) or c), outlined in Section 3, is chosen and what assumptions are taken
regarding further carbon volumes from future entrants determining whether a 5
mTpa or 15 mTpa infrastructure is built onshore and offshore and at either
Bunter or Captain. Thus, included below is a very preliminary whole system
overall cost summary estimate over 40 years on a likely system design.
The system design involves Scenario b), i.e. all four emitter sites with the
precombustion option (SSI 2) at SSI capturing a total of 2.8 mTpa. The
transportation and storage infrastructure are sized for the 15 mTpa case and
CO2 is injected into the Bunter Aquifer Store. The costs are based on 2015
money with no escalation and no risk included. The opex is based on 20 year
life for the Capture plant and 40 year life for the transportation and storage
infrastructure. The preliminary whole system capex and opex cost for transport
and storage over 40 years totals £9.1bn.
The capex and opex data outlined in Section 4.3 formed data used in a
comprehensive financial model developed by Pale Blue Dot to evaluate the
Business Case for ICCS on Teesside. Section 6 summarises the key
conclusions from Pale Blue Dot’s Business Case Report.
Figure 16 - Capex and 40 year Opex for a 15 mTpa system connected to Bunter
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 5. Commercial Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 26 of 86
5. Commercial Overview
5.1 CO2 Emission Profiles
As a part of the Teesside Collective Business Case preparation, Pale Blue Dot
conducted an Infrastructure Sizing Study, see Annex B – Infrastructure Sizing
Report, on the potential demand for
CO2 transportation infrastructure
between 2020 and 2069. The aim of
the study was to determine the
potential size of CO2 transportation
infrastructure required and to verify
the assumption that the
infrastructure capacity would be
between 5 and 15 mTpa of CO2.
Using European
Union Transaction
Log Data, it was
estimated that
12mT of CO2 is
currently emitted on
Teesside from the
industrial sites
every year. In 2013
this figure was
10.8mT. Figure 17 presents the distribution of the current 12mT of emissions
depending on the emitter size, where Tier 0 represents sites with emissions
level above 1000kTpa, Tier 1 above 50kTpa and Tier 2 above 5kTpa. In Figure
18 all existing sites were arranged decreasingly according to their emissions
size. It has been found that over 80% of the cumulative emissions were
produced by only four sites, the four in this study and that SSI represents 60%
of the total emissions at just under 7.5mTpa of which only 2.1mTpa is being
considered for capture at this stage.
By predicting future emissions levels the Infrastructure Sizing Study identified
the potential demand for the CO2 transportation infrastructure on Teesside
between 2020 and 2069. The profile depends on: the start date of CCS
projects, the number of new sites opened and the operational life of the
emitting sites. Although the transportation infrastructure may have a design life
Figure 18 - Cumulative Emissions Profile
Figure 17 - Current Teesside emissions depending on source size
Figure 19 - Low Medium and High emissions forecasts for Teesside
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 5. Commercial Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 27 of 86
of 40 years there is less certainty that all the industrial businesses will maintain
their current operation for such a period. CO2 emissions are proportional to
industrial output and this is in turn is related to market demand for products
and so is very different to the situation of a base-load power plant which would
have a more predictable output. Thus a future forecast was made using
probabilistic modelling of emission sources of known and possible new
additional emitters as well as reduced emissions due to business closure.
Within the model Low, Medium and High captured volume scenarios were
forecasted for the transportation and storage infrastructure, i.e. the High
volume scenario would involve every industrial site capturing at high rate and
one or more CCS Power Stations connected to the network.
In conclusion, the demand for the CO2 transportation infrastructure on
Teesside will be driven by emitters of significant size. For the four current main
emitters a capture volume of 2.8mTpa was identified. The CO2 infrastructure
would only see volume in excess of 10 mTpa in the event of a number of new
large emitters who are attracted to Teesside due to the region’s CO2
infrastructure, i.e. power stations as depicted in Figure 19 above. The
infrastructure could be also used for transportation of CO2 exported from other
parts of the UK. In such cases, investing in infrastructure of capacity 15 mTpa
could be justified.
5.2 Project Structure
As shown in Figure 20, although there is only one physical route for the CO2
the project is commercially very complex with multiple options for commercial
interfaces.
Each emission site will require a capture facility, which may be operated by the
process company, or by a third party. The operation of an Onshore Gathering
Network for gases is commonplace with many interested players for a Sole or
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) ownership model for the Onshore Gathering
Network potentially involving one or more emitters. The operation of an
Offshore Network for gases is also commonplace but with fewer interested
players. There are very few operators in the CO2 storage domain.
Contractually, an emitter could decide to build, own and operate (BOO) their
own capture plant and also enter into separate contracts with each of an
Onshore Transportation Operator, an Offshore Transportation Operator and a
Storage Operator. Alternatively, a disaggregated model would see commercial
contracts following the flow of CO2, i.e. an emitter has a contract with a
Capture Operator who in turn has a contract with an Onshore Transportation
Operator who in turn has a contract with an Offshore Transportation who in
turn has a contract with the Storage Operator. Or there could be a new
business opportunity for an aggregator who takes on the whole infrastructure
from Capture through to Storage. It is important to highlight the commercial
complexity associated with the Capture Sites which are likely to be a mix of
Figure 20 - Project Structure for CCS
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 5. Commercial Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 28 of 86
current and future Industrial and Power solutions with a number of existing
emitters choosing to join as New Entrants at a later stage.
The CO2 network, particularly the offshore aspects, could also be created as a
piece of National Infrastructure, potentially even pan-European, to help kick
start the ICCS market. This could potentially deliver lower commercial risk and
speed up the reduction of transportation and storage costs to marginal prices.
For at least the last three decades the trend has been towards divestment of
assets by HMG alongside a strong preference for major new infrastructure
projects to be privately financed. Whilst it isn’t clear what future role HMG will
play in financing transport and storage, it is assumed for Teesside that the:
• Current HMG approach would be to provide financial support to
Competition (Phase 1) projects that enables private sector delivery of
oversized infrastructure.
• Phase 2 projects could then come forward as a lower subsidy transition to
Phase 3 projects that are stand-alone and cost competitive.
Thus, HMG will not seek to deliver Transport and Storage infrastructure via
other routes, despite potential risk, cost and programme benefits but may be
requested/expected to provide support during the operational phase.
In Section 4.1, three Battery Limits were outlined, one at each of the three
principal interfaces: Capture, Gathering and Transportation & Storage. The
study has concluded that the most likely commercial structure could mirror
these interfaces resulting in the creation of three separate Ventures as
depicted in Figure 21.
Although possible that each emitter may undertake a BOO arrangement for
their capture plant an alternative is that a Sole Operator will step forward to
become the Capture Venture. The same company could possibly complete a
BOO arrangement at all four sites, either independently or potentially through a
joint venture arrangement with the emitter(s) and/or other Venture partners.
Again a Sole Operator could become the Gathering Venture much in the same
way that a Network Operator functions for the UK’s Gas or Electricity Grid.
Nearly every Gathering Network for CO2 in the USA has been built by and is
then owned and operated by a Sole Operator. However, there is also a strong
case for the Gathering Venture to be an SPV which fits well with the Teesside
Collective philosophy. As part of the study a report was prepared, which is
contained in Annex C – Potential Ownership Options for Onshore Transport of
CO2. The report looked at a broad range of ownership aspects, which are
applicable to other parts of the ICCS infrastructure, including the risks and
opportunities associated with the pipeline sizing, construction, operation, and
maintenance and charging options and how the risks and liabilities will be
shared between each element of the chain. The creditworthiness and ability to
raise finance of different ownership models were also evaluated. The report
concluded with the recommended ownership option being a Special Purpose
Vehicle (SPV) involving emitters alongside a proven network operator, and
Figure 21 - Commercial Structure for Teesside ICCS
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 5. Commercial Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 29 of 86
with either direct Government involvement or as a minimum clear Government
sponsorship, guarantees and financial support mechanisms.
5.3 Outline Commercial Solution
The working assumption for the Teesside Collective project it that Government
support will be both necessary and made available for the project to be both
built and operated. The Outline Commercial Solution is considered in two
parts, firstly the Commercial Support Mechanism governing how centrally
funded subsidy for ICCS could be applied to the Project and secondly the
nature of Commercial Agreements that Ventures would need to have in place.
5.3.1 Commercial Support Mechanism
Figure 22 shows a model for two different options for a Funding Mechanism:
1. a Storage Mechanism Payment, and
2. a CO2 CfD Emitter Mechanism
In the Storage Mechanism Payment option the CCS Authority pays a carbon
subsidy to the Transportation and Storage Venture who purchases CO2 from
the Capture Venture(s) at a contracted price customized for each emitter, pays
fixed fees to the Gathering Venture and recovered fixed fees from within the
subsidy for their own costs for the transportation and storage of CO2.
The CfD Emitter Mechanism option assumes reversed flow of the central funds
where emitting sites, via the Capture Venture(s), receive subsidy from the CCS
Authority and pay a fee for usage for each part of the transportation and
storage infrastructure.
The analysis within Pale Blue Dot’s Business Case Report evaluates which
mechanism constitutes the more cost-efficient solution with regard to
governmental support of the project. This is summarised in Section 6.
5.3.2 Commercial Agreements
The principal aspect to resolve for the network ventures will be the securing of
necessary up-front commitments or guarantees around the future usage of a
scaled-up network through Transportation Agreements, e.g. long-term supply
and off-take agreements. The need to address non-supply and non-demand
Figure 22 - Funding Mechanisms for Teesside ICCS (Source: adapted Societe Generale image)
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 5. Commercial Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 30 of 86
risk is at the core of the contractual framework for a CCS network. This issue
is not uncommon in other projects based on investments requiring successful
multi- or bi-lateral commercial relationships. Long-term CO2 supply and off-
take contracts between the Emitters, Capture Venture, Gathering Venture and
Transportation & Storage Venture which are mutually agreeable is therefore a
key priority. As with natural gas pipelines, the commercial arrangements are
likely to be based on the need to secure known capacity levels. Such contracts
generally also contain penalty provisions and clauses addressing specific
concerns such as project failure or non-performance. Ultimately, the
negotiation process to develop commercial contracts may determine the
network capacity to be built.
A network approach entails many challenges, in particular from commercial,
financial, and legal perspectives, including:
• The design of a multi-user charging framework linked to the allocation of
capacity in the system that reflects the initial investment cost alongside
ongoing operation and maintenance costs;
• The development of innovative commercial structures that accommodate
first and new users/partners/owners and their different priorities for access
to the network;
• The ability to finance the construction of a network that may initially be
‘oversized’ in anticipation of future volumes of CO2 being added; and
• The metering or monitoring of the different sources of CO2 which feed into
the common network. Each source could fluctuate, so sources need to be
individually tracked and different entities need to receive specific
benefits/charges for each tonne of CO2 supplied.
Once established, the Commercial Solution should offer a reasonable amount
of flexibility with scope for future exit and entry of first users and new entrants
to provide the greatest means to insulate risk and leverage debt into the
project through the presence of well-capitalised, creditworthy entities. In
practice, a structured and negotiated process will need to emerge that serves
to bring the Venture partners along, requiring first the development of initial
memoranda of understanding, collaboration agreements, moving then towards
letters of intent and finally structured contracts.
A Transportation Agreement is a vital component of the network financing and
is likely to represent the main source of revenue for the project to service its
debt. For trust to ensue, both emitters and financial backers will seek long term
stability, flexibility, transparency and efficient local administration from the
network operator. Key areas to be covered by the transportation agreement
are:
• Volume
• Price
• Title/Liability Issues
The Transportation Agreement is typically an availability-based contract, where
the emitter's obligation to pay is independent of whether or not it ships CO2
through the pipeline, i.e. a ship-or-pay basis. The ship-or-pay obligation of the
emitter must be sufficiently tight to ensure certainty of payment. This would
need to be backed up with a robust take or pay supply agreement with the
offshore operator to ensure onward transportation.
A charging mechanism would need to be developed for emitters. This could be
based on a Capacity Only Model, Throughput Only Model or a combined "Cost
Plus" Capacity & Throughput Model. The network operators would want the
reward mechanism to focus on capacity versus utilisation to establish high
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 5. Commercial Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 31 of 86
fixed costs and low variable costs. Thus an annual capacity fee to recover
capital cost over the contract length, associated Opex as recoverable rolling
fixed fees and a variable charge for gas transferred. Entry requirements and
service costs would need careful clarity and negotiation and ensure that first
movers do not become disadvantaged as the network grows. However, once
the network is established the most efficient use of capacity is promoted by
unbundling ownership from capacity and moving towards setting tariff
structures in line with variable costs. There is already extensive experience of
agreements and tariff mechanisms for private, self-regulated cooperation on
utility infrastructure on Teesside meaning that both the Onshore Gathering
Network operator and emitters should be able to develop arrangements
without too much difficulty. The design of the charging mechanism may be
affected by legal or regulatory factors.
The aggregate charge would likely comprise of three separate charges:
• EPC Charge: This covers the costs associated with the Engineering,
Procurement and Construction (EPC) of network capacity. The EPC
Charge may also include those pre-project kick-off concept and
development costs which are to be recovered as part of the project as
well as any other asset associated costs and costs of risks (e.g.
decommissioning costs, post-closure risks, etc.).
• Capacity Rights Charge: This is the charge associated with the acquisition
of the right to use a proportion of the capacity in the infrastructure
network. This charge is likely to be primarily fixed operational and
maintenance costs, i.e. those costs which are incurred due to the
operation of the assets but which are not related to the level of network
throughput, e.g. pipeline surveys.
• Use of Network Charge: The charge reflects those costs which are wholly
and directly attributable to the act of transporting and/or storing CO2 in the
infrastructure network. This charge would cover the variable cost of asset
use (incremental fuel cost, incremental financial security and insurance
costs, etc.). The fee will mostly likely be in the form of a charge per
quantity (e.g. £/Tonne) of CO2 transported.
Title will be a significant area to resolve, i.e. simple Throughput Service or Title
Transfer at each Boundary? The general view is the latter with emitters not
wanting to be involved beyond their boundary fence. However, this places a
major obligation on the Capture Venture, Gathering Network Venture and
Transport & Storage Venture to take on all of the long term risk/liability for all
the capture, transportation and storage. Who benefits from Grandfathered
Emission Trading rights if the captured carbon a) goes down the pipeline, or b)
doesn’t go down for whatever reason? Two possible scenarios are that a) the
Store Owner gets EU ETS benefits or b) the Emitters gets EU ETS benefits.
As the emitters currently get the benefit we can assume that the Network
Operator(s) have no connection to EU ETS rights and so provide a simple
conduit only.
Annex A - Transport Services Term Sheet and Annex C – Potential Ownership
Options for Onshore Transport of CO2 offer further commercial insights.
5.4 New Entrants
The potential to establish a competitive market for the Onshore Gathering
Network capacity should be pursued through continually seeking to attract
New Entrants. The efficiency of the Onshore Gathering Network design is
improved through ensuring the provision of blanked T's to enable easy low
cost access for New Entrants. System dynamics and operating regimes will
need to be reconsidered with each New Entrant.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 5. Commercial Overview
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 32 of 86
The framework for the commercial terms for future entry should be developed
upfront and then determined in detail to match the specific needs of each New
Entrants, i.e. onshore network extension, and their impact on the existing
network, i.e. profile of incremental volume. A possible principal is that whilst
New Users should be subjected to the same Capacity Rights Charge and Use
of Network Charge as First Users, New Users should only incur an EPC
charge associated with any bespoke connection to the network and
subsequent network extensions. This would mean that recovery of the EPC
costs associated with setting up the initial Gathering, Transport and Storage
infrastructure would be borne by the First Users.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 33 of 86
6. Business Case
6.1 Introduction, Reference Case & Business Model
6.1.1 Introduction
The “Industrial CCS on Teesside - The Business Case” report issued by Pale
Blue Dot Energy provides a full summary of the business case work with a
condensed summary presented within Section 6 of this report. The Business
Case work was completed during the first half of 2015, following the phase of
engineering design and costing commissioned by TVU. The project was
guided by a steering board chaired by TVU with input from teams at BIS,
DECC (Heat and Industry and OCCS).
Key issues to be addressed by the business case were identified at the start of
the project and extended during the course of the modelling work. The eight
key goals addressed are summarized below.
1. Quantify the level of financial support that might be required from
Government for various network options and demonstrate the benefit of
having an anchor project.
2. Assess the impact of two commercial support mechanisms suggested by
Societe Generale.
3. Generate insights into two potential store locations.
4. Estimate the potential benefits from installing infrastructure that is oversized
for the current demand but that could reasonably be expected to be utilised
in the future.
5. Quantify the impact of new entrants joining the network in the future.
6. Identify the likely investment returns that participant companies and future
investors might expect for the level of risk assumed.
7. Explore the impact of varying the balance of risk and reward between
private and public sector participants on the level of financial support
required.
8. Estimate the impact of a greater level of public sector participation in the
provision of offshore transportation and storage services.
6.1.2 Reference Case
A Reference Scenario was agreed that represents a credible project development scenario built around an agreed set of assumptions as summarized below.
• Emissions captured from all 4 process sites and a total of 2.8mTpa of CO2
exported into the onshore gathering system, boosted at a coastal
pumping station and piped to an as yet un-appraised and undeveloped
southern part of 5/42 aquifer.
• System transportation capacity of 5mTpa of CO2.
• Nominal storage capacity of 100mT (i.e. assume White Rose uses the
other 100mT in the structure) provided by a new platform with 5 injection
wells all controlled by the NGC platform in the northern part of 5/42.
• Transportation infrastructure life of 40 years.
• CO2 emissions from the initial anchor group of 4 sites, run for 20 years.
• The financial support mechanism has a 20 year tenor (duration).
• Commercial operations start 1/1/2024. All sites commence operations at
the same time (in practice this would likely be phased, GrowHow starting
first and their CO2 used to help commission the system).
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 34 of 86
• A common 4 year construction period, preceded by a 2 year period (2017
– 2018) of planning, development, permitting, project structuring and
design work. Effectively this assumes that there is sufficient visibility of an
investment mechanism by mid-2016.
The technical solution includes eight elements:
SSI Pre-combustion capture of 2.1mTpa CO2 using a physical absorption process on chemically shifted excess gas from the blast furnace and steel making process.
GrowHow
CO2 is captured during the Benfield process used to create ammonia. The excess CO2 (that is not used elsewhere or sold) is approximately 375kTpa and is dehydrated and compressed before export into the gathering system.
BOC Post-combustion of 305kTpa CO2 using monoethanolamine (MEA) absorption process on flue gas from the steam methane reformer unit.
Lotte Post combustion capture of 50kTpa CO2 using a MEA process on flue gas from the oil-fired heaters.
Onshore Gathering
A 17km, 14” diameter pipeline transporting CO2 in dense phase at 100bar and 35oC connecting the 4 industrial sites to the pumping station at Redcar.
Pumping Station
Three 50% duty pumps boosting pressure from 100bar to 160bar export. The station includes metering facilities.
Offshore Transport
A 154km, 18” diameter carbon steel pipeline operating in dense phase from the pumping station to the injection platform.
Injection and Storage
Platform development of the southern part of the Bunter anticline aquifer known as 5/42. 5 deviated wells each with an injectivity of 1mTpa and collectively able to store approximately 100mT. The platform receives power and utilities from the 5/42 platform 10km to the west.
The Reference Scenario exports and stores 56.5mT of CO2 over the 20 year
evaluation period, whereas transportation infrastructure has an asset life of 40
years. A 13% IRR, rate of return after-tax, to each of the project participant was
identified by the Project Steering Board as a level of return on investment that
their organisations would normally seek to cover project risks and specific CCS
technology and commercial risks. The analysis looks at the cost components of
all the project stages as well as costs for individual sites. Reference Scenario
results have been use as an orientation point for further analysis.
6.1.3 Business Model
The primary purpose of the business case modelling work was to fill a
knowledge gap in the understanding of how an industrial CCS project could work
commercially. A number of techno-economic studies have been carried out in
the past and these have tended to provide an estimate of the construction and
operating costs of projects and/or clusters. The Pale Blue Dot Energy work goes
further and examines the economic returns that are likely to be sought by project
participants. The basis is a full cost assessment including all activities from pre-
FEED through to decommissioning for all elements of the ICCS chain.
The decision–focused model was built in Excel 2013 and comprises of four main
modules; 1. Control Panel, 2. Assumptions, 3. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)
Calculations, and 4. Results. In addition, four aspects of the Reference Scenario
were examined: the ICCS chain as a whole; industrial process; elements of the
industrial product and cost sensitivity. Results show the Developer return unless
specified otherwise. Results excluding Developer return are also provided.
Nine scenarios were designed and built to provide further the information
required by the eight key goals. The detailed composition of each scenario is
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
© 2015 Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 35 of 86
described in the Business Case Report. The following summary described how
each scenario differs from the Reference Scenario.
A Reference Scenario
B Large pipeline to the Bunter aquifer store (15MT/y rather than 5MT)
C Storage in the Captain aquifer
D Large pipeline to the Captain aquifer store
E Anchor project only (SSI)
F Ancillary emitters only
A* Low IRR for offshore transport & storage service
A** High IRR for offshore transport & storage service
G New emitter joins network, no additional infrastructure
G* New emitter joins network, additional store required
H Alternative Pricing Mechanism
A number of sensitivities were also run. All the above culminated in a wide range
of outputs being calculated and reported:
• Economic metrics include capex, opex, NPV, IRR, PIR, LCoCTS, and
unit costs.
• Operational performance in terms of production levels, CO2 created, CO2
exported, transported and injected.
• Store capacity in terms of the total volume used and appraised.
• Asset utilization in terms of proportion of pipeline capacity used.
• Numerical and graphical format
6.2 Business Case Insights & Conclusions
6.2.1 Insights
1. ICCS on Teesside is technically and commercially viable with financial
support from government. It presents a significant opportunity to export
considerable volumes of CO2 to offshore storage and in doing so make a
significant contribution to meeting climate change targets. In particular, the
initial phase described by the Reference Scenario would meet 60% of the
CCC 2030 targets for ICCS.
2. The two storage sites under consideration for the UK Government CCS
Commercialisation Programme do not have sufficient capacity or injectivity
to accept the quantities of CO2 likely to be exported from Teesside in
addition to their currently publicised commitments. Consequently
alternatives will be required for sequestering emissions from Teesside.
3. Significant economies of scale are possible if the pipeline capacity can be
more fully utilised over its lifetime. If the 15mTpa capacity pipeline were
fully utilised throughout its life then unit transportation costs would be
reduced by 80%.
4. In the smaller, 5mTpa capacity pipeline, an increase in throughput from 3
to 5mTpa reduces the transport cost by 50% on a per tonne basis.
5. Current total emissions from Teesside are approximately 12mT, 60% of
which are from the SSI steel plant. New industrial and power plant
developments could join the network to make the case for a capacity of
15mTpa over the longer term. Imports of CO2 would be also feasible.
6. Trebling the pipeline capacity to 15mTpa can be achieved with a modest
additional capital investment of approximately £104m which would require
a 7-8% increase in the level of financial support.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 36 of 86
7. This initial phase of the Teesside Collective project includes a third of the
emissions from SSI and capturing additional CO2 from the SSI complex is
considered to be feasible but would require additional investment.
8. A transportation and storage service provider with some substantive
storage risks underwritten by Government may provide greater value for
money, i.e. require less financial support, than one where the majority of
risk is borne by the private sector. In the example provided, financial
support is reduced by 14% to £1334m.
9. Two commercial support mechanisms were evaluated: a storer payment
model and a CO2 CfD style model. The same level of support is required
whichever of the two commercial mechanisms is applied. The policy
implications of the two options did not form part of this work.
10. Storage in the Captain Aquifer provides ready access to many of the oil
fields that are being considered for CO2 EOR – there is no such
opportunity for the Bunter Aquifer store.
11. The pricing methodology used assumes a post-tax rate of return for each
participant: this is normal from an investor perspective and may not
represent best value for money from a government perspective. An
alternative methodology such as return on capital & cost-plus might
represent a reasonable compromise.
12. The two potential storage locations have very different risk profiles; the
Captain Aquifer is quite well characterised due to 20 years of hydrocarbon
production from contiguous hydrocarbon fields such as Britannia. There is
not yet any similar understanding of how the Bunter Aquifer behaves under
dynamic conditions.
13. As in all areas of business investors will seek a larger IRR in return for
investing their capital into a risky project.
6.2.2 Conclusions
1. A Reference Scenario was designed and used as a basis against which to
test numerous sensitivities. The Reference Scenario includes CO2
captured from the 4 industrial anchor group sites, an onshore gathering
network and export via a 145km pipeline to an aquifer store in the Bunter
Formation in the Southern North Sea.
2. In the Reference Scenario 2.8mTpa of CO2 is exported. The modelling
was restricted to an evaluation period of twenty years. The infrastructure is
likely to have an operational life of at least forty years and with a significant
number of existing and future CO2 supplies the Teesside Collective project
can quite reasonably be expected to exist beyond the evaluation period.
3. The Reference Scenario exports and stores 56mT of CO2 over the 20 year
project life and requires £95/T of support amounting to £5.3b over the
project evaluation period (£1.5b in present value terms using a 7%
discount rate). This provides a 13% rate of return after-tax to each of the
project participants.
4. The pipeline has a capacity of 5mT and a lifetime of forty years, and thus
has a lifetime utilisation factor of 28%.
5. If only the SSI plant is considered then the CO2 export is reduced by 25%
to 46mT and the level of support required is 16% lower at £1.2b (PV7).
6. Removing the SSI plant from the project reduces the CO2 export by 75%
but only reduces the level of support by 33% to £1.0b (PV7).
7. Cost of capture ranges between £37-215/T for the different process
industries and the different scales at which they operate.
8. Neither of the two specific sites in the CCS Commercialisation Programme
(the depleted Goldeneye gas field overlying the Captain Formation and the
northern portion of 5/42 structure in the Bunter Formation) have sufficient
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 37 of 86
storage capacity or injectivity to accommodate the quantities of CO2 to be
exported from Teesside.
9. The two potential stores outlined in this report are locations in the Captain
and Bunter Formations in close proximity to the Goldeneye and 5/42
stores but distinct from them.
10. The 5mTpa capacity pipeline to the Bunter store is estimated to cost
£125m; some £286m less than providing the same capacity pipeline to
Captain.
11. The Captain store is approximately 433km from the planned pumping
station at the coast on Teesside. This is almost three times the distance to
the Bunter store. This greater distance causes a bigger pressure drop for a
given pipeline diameter. Thus, for a given throughput, the pipeline to
Captain will also need to have a greater diameter.
12. The Captain aquifer store in the Central North Sea (CNS) is substantially
better appraised than the Bunter aquifer store in the Southern North Sea
(SNS) for two major reasons:
13. Greater amounts of data exist for Captain.
14. The availability of dynamic performance information resulting from
decades of water injection and hydrocarbon production in the CNS region.
This provides significant confidence in the connectivity of the formation
across a large area and therefore confidence in the storage capacity
levels.
15. Appraising the Bunter is expected to cost more than at Captain due to the
differing risk profile mentioned in Insight 11. If the appraisal maturity of the
Bunter were to be raised to that of Captain with respect to its dynamic
performance then the appraisal cost would be very significant, potentially
£50m - £150m.21
16. Developing an already appraised store in the Bunter for a capacity of
100mT is estimated to cost £97m (27%) less than developing the same
capacity at the Captain Store. Again, there are two main reasons:
17. The Captain formation is situated approximately 1500m below sea level,
500m deeper than the Bunter. Consequently the wells are longer and thus
the cost of accessing the Captain store is greater.
18. The water depth at the proposed location for the Captain facility is
approximately 130m, compared to less than 50m at the Bunter location.
The deeper water requires a different and more costly style of
development.
19. A discount rate of 7% was chosen to be representative of how the
organisations represented on the Project Steering Board would evaluate
investment decisions.
20. For new supplies of CO2 that do not require additional infrastructure to the
Reference Scenario the only additional costs are associated with the new
capture plant and the incremental power used to pump the additional CO2.
Costs per tonne are reduced by 19%.
21. If the new supplies of CO2 exceed the Reference Scenario infrastructure
capacity of 5mTpa then a bigger pipeline and potentially an incremental
store are required, as well as the new capture plant. This incurs additional
capital investment. Even so, the benefits of the additional CO2 can be
significant, reducing the unit costs by 15% compared to the Reference
Scenario, depending on the magnitude of the additional CO2 supply.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 38 of 86
Figure 23 shows the levelised cost of capture, transport and storage (LCoCTS)
for the various scenarios and highlights the three cases that examine the
impact of changing the composition of the anchor group emitter sites. The
lowest LCoCTS results from Scenario G* with a new entrant with 5mTpa of
CO2. This is driven by maximising the utilisation of the transportation
infrastructure and the store capacity. The highest LCoCTS (£391/tonne) occurs
where the amount of CO2 captured and stored is the smallest (Scenario F,
without the steel plant) and is only 27% of the CO2 captured in the Reference
Scenario. The LCoCTS fluctuates accordingly to the level of capital investment
required.
Figure 24 - Comparison of the Financial Support Required for each Scenario
The financial support required for each scenario depends on the amount of
CO2 captured and stored as well as the level of IRR required by each element
of the chain. Figure 24 shows the variation between the scenarios.
The highlighted bars represent the Reference Scenario with differing levels of
return for the transport and storage services. In the Low IRR case, the Present
Value (PV) support required is reduced by 10% (Scenario A*) whereas in the
High IRR case the required support is increased by 56% (Scenario A**).
Scenario F requires the lowest level of PV support due to smallest amount of
CO2 captured.
Figure 23 - Comparison of Levelised Costs between Scenarios
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 39 of 86
6.3 Other Key Points from the Business Case
6.3.1 Reference Scenario LCoCTS - Capture
For the entire ICCS Chain, a total of £5.4b (£1.5b PV7) of financial support is
required to meet the target return over the evaluation horizon of 20 years,
equating to £95/T. Figure 25 illustrates the distribution of that support along the
ICCS chain. However, the PET plant has a much higher cost of capture per
tonne than the other sources (see Figure 26). Excluding that plant the cost per
tonne falls to £93/T.
Figure 25 - Distribution of Cost along ICCS Chain (2015 terms)
The cost of capture is £44.8/T, as illustrated in Figure 25, over the 20 year
evaluation period this equates to £2,508m (PV7 £732m). Note that £44.8/T is
the volume-weighted average of the undiscounted financial support for all four
industrial processes. The elements of cost for each of the four processes are
illustrated in Figure 26.
Figure 26 - £/T Cost of Capture by Industrial Processes (PV terms, 7% discount rate)
Scenarios E and F show the impact of changing the composition of the anchor
group and the results compared to the Reference Scenario are summarised in
the bullets below.
• With only the steel plant included (Scenario E), financial support is
reduce to £1291m and 42MT of CO2 is captured, increasing the cost
per tonne to £107.
• Without the steel plant (Scenario F), financial support is reduced to
£1001m (PV7) and 15MT of CO2 is captured, increasing the cost per
tonne to £238 (undiscounted).
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 40 of 86
The SSI steel plant generates an order of magnitude more CO2 than any of the
other industrial plants. In this analysis the steel plant accounts for almost 75%
of the 56.5mT CO2 exported over the 20 year evaluation period.
The cost of capture ranges between £37 - £215/T CO2 according to a
combination of the CO2 intensity of the industrial process and the complexity of
the capture process. The lowest cost capture is at the GrowHow ammonia
plant which produces high quality CO2 as part of the production process.
Consequently only minimal gas conditioning and compression is required to
export CO2 at the required specification. The SSI steel works uses a more
complex process but benefits from enormous economies of scale. By contrast
the Lotte PET plant may well be able to use an “of the shelf” amine capture
plant but produces limited volumes of CO2 such that the unit costs of capture
are higher than for the other sites.
In terms of cost uncertainty, the analysis clearly shows that the greatest impact
on the amount of financial support required is the capital cost of the store and
the steel plant, closely followed by the electricity price. The uncertainty of the
capex estimates for the other three plants is not significant. This is because of
the capex required for capture at the steel plant is an order of magnitude
greater than at the other three plants.
6.3.2 Reference Scenario LCoCTS - Gathering
The terms of reference for the project stipulated that transport infrastructure of
capacities of 5 and 15 mTpa should be evaluated. The Reference Scenario
assumes capture of 2.8mTpa of CO2 and so infrastructure of 5mT capacity is
sufficient for the purposes of the current project. However a number of new
industrial and power projects are considering locating to Teesside and may wish
to use the CO2 infrastructure to minimize their emissions, in which case
oversizing to 15mT capacity would be beneficial. The characteristics of the four
permutations of pipeline are summarised in the table below.
Bunter Captain
Capacity (mTpa) 5 15 5 15
Length (km) 125 125 434 434
Diameter (in) 18 24 20 30
Capex (£m) 125 184 411 456
Cost (£m/km) 1.00 1.47 0.95 1.05
The unit cost of the large pipeline to the Bunter store is significantly higher than
any of the others. This is due to the relatively short length and non-standard
combination of diameter and wall thickness specification resulting from the flow
assurance work. In practice it is likely that a more cost effective compromise
would be available.
The analysis was conducted in two parts. First, using Reference Scenario
assumptions the transportation capex, financial support requirements and unit
cost were calculated for both 5 and 15mT capacity infrastructure. Secondly, the
impact of increased throughput was investigated using the larger infrastructure
capacity. Each part of the analysis was conducted for both the Bunter and
Captain stores.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 41 of 86
Capacity
(MT/yr) Throughput (MT)
Gathering and Transport Cost
(£/T, excluding Return)
MT/y MT Bunter Captain
5 (Reference
Scenario) 2.8 56.5 13.6 20.2
15 3 60 15.9 22.0
15 5 100 8.6 11.9
15 10 200 4.6 6.3
15 15 300 3.2 4.3
Figure 27 - Transportation Economies of Scale
Figure 27 shows how the unit costs of transportation fall as the pipeline
throughput increases. The Reference Scenario outcomes are shown by the two
bars, one for each store location. The lines illustrate the unit costs for the larger,
15mTpa pipeline. Trebling the infrastructure capacity only requires an additional
8% of support (£64m PV7) to the project. The incremental cost and amount of
financial support required to install the larger infrastructure is almost identical for
both store locations despite their significant difference in distance from
Teesside. This is due to the higher unit cost of the large Bunter pipeline.
Larger infrastructure enables a higher level of throughput which, if utilized, would
significantly decrease the cost per tonne. An increase in throughput from 3 to
5mTpa reduces the transport cost by 50% on a per tonne basis. Additional
increases in throughput continue to reduce costs per tonne but have significantly
diminishing marginal benefit. If a 15mT capacity pipeline were fully utilized over
its 40 year life then transportation costs would be reduced by 80%.
6.3.3 Reference Scenario LCoCTS - Transport & Storage
Analyses for both storage sites were conducted using Reference Scenario
assumptions. The cost of the offshore transport infrastructure for each storage
location was calculated. Cost-effectiveness was compared between the
Captain and Bunter locations using the following indicators: capital cost
(capex), operational cost (opex) and total cost per tonne of CO2 (assuming
56.5 mT over the over the first 20 years of the life of these assets, and
therefore assuming that capital invested is repaid over that time. Inherent in
this analysis is that the two storage locations are appraised to a similar degree,
and in the case of Bunter that the White Rose project has progressed and
further appraised 5/42. Estimates of appraisal costs for each store are
included. The estimate included for the Bunter store assumes that the White
Rose project proceeds and includes further appraisal of the 5/42. If this turns
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 42 of 86
out to not be the case than an additional £50-£150m could be required to fully
appraise the formation for the quantities of CO2 contemplated here.
Cost (£m) (Undiscounted) Bunter Captain
Storage Capex 254 351
Storage Opex 504 504
Purchase of CO2 3880 5011
Offshore Transport Capex 167 469
Offshore Transport Opex 488 488
Total 5326 7061
The table above illustrates the costs associated with transporting, injecting and
storing 56.5 mT of CO2 at the two different sites. The purchase of CO2 is a
feature of the Storer Mechanism and is used to fund the capture, gathering and
transportation activity.
Figure 28 compares the components of the transportation and storage cost for
each of the stores. The major difference is the capex required for the offshore
pipeline due to Captain being approximately treble the distance from Teesside
compared to Bunter. When more than 100mT storage capacity is required an
extension or step-out store is also required. These are storage developments in
their own right and can be expected to cost a similar amount of money to develop
as the first store. Assuming that the two stores are appraised to a similar level
of maturity then the cost of offshore transport and storage for Captain is almost
25% greater than for Bunter, reaching £125 and £94/T respectively.
In addition to the transportation capex difference stated above, the Captain
Formation is 1500m below sea level. This is 500m more than the Bunter
Formation near 5/42 and since well costs are very significantly proportional to
depth the wells cost more to drill at Captain. In addition the water depth at the
proposed location for the Captain facility is approximately 130m, compared to
less than 50m at the Bunter location. The deeper water requires a different and
more costly style of development at Captain compared to Bunter. It is possible
that if the White Rose project does proceed and the Teesside ICCS project is
sufficiently mature that the development of the store at 5/42 could be altered to
provide a solution that is optimal for both sources of CO2. In this situation some
synergy would likely be possible, perhaps removing the need for a bespoke
platform and reducing capital requirements by approximately £65m. However
this outcome is considered too speculative at this stage.
Figure 28 - Breakdown of Transportation and Storage Costs for each Store
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 43 of 86
Operating costs for each store are currently estimated to be the same and to be
largely driven by the frequency of remedial work on injection wells. Offshore
transportation opex is dependent on CO2 throughput rather than length of
pipeline and therefore is the same for both storage sites.
Extending the store at Captain is considered easier and lower cost than at
Bunter. This is because the step-out Bunter store at 5/43 is approximately 60km
from 5/42 and requires an additional platform, additional wells, an in-field
pipeline and control umbilical. The subsea development at Captain would
requires additional wells and extension of the existing subsea infrastructure.
6.3.4 Funding Mechanism
A number of potential commercial support mechanisms were identified during
the study and following analysis and discussion with various stakeholders two
were considered to have the greatest potential. These two options, as
introduced in Section 5.3.1, are outlined below and followed by an assessment
of their economic impact on the project.
Storer Payment Model
Financial support flows directly to the Storer who buys CO2 from each of the emitters. The emission sites pay for gathering and transportation service
Emitter CO2 CfD Model Financial support flows directly to the Emitters who each pay for gathering, transportation and storage services
Both models are described in detail in a separate report by Societe Generale,
including implementation and policy issues. The conclusions from that report
related to each option are replicated below.
“If structured well, the Storage Driven Model helps to resolve a number of the
challenges implicit in the Emitter CfD Model, including counterparty risk, volume
risk and motivation for investment in the transport and storage assets. In
addition, the concept of availability-based commercial agreements has been
widely used for many years and is accepted by the finance market. However,
there are still significant challenges to be overcome in adapting this precedent
to the ICCS arena, including the substantial reliance government for
underpinning of the capacity payment obligations.
The Emitter CfD Model is a relatively elegant solution to the funding of an ICCS
project or cluster in that it provides for a volume based mechanism, which can
be linked to the market price of the commodity (CO2) to which it relates, and
which would adjust the subsidy level automatically with the evolution of this
price. It is also likely to benefit directly from the work already being done on the
power CfD, including commercial structuring and financing for the White Rose
CCS project if this proceeds to a successful conclusion. However, there are a
number of challenges specific to ICCS that may not be adequately addressed
directly by the mechanism, particularly around credit risk and incentive to invest.
With further work it is anticipated that some or all of the challenges could be
resolved but the result may be either a scheme where government is effectively
backstopping a range of risks or alternatively, the level of complexity is such that
neither Emitters nor potential T&S providers can be attracted to invest in the
industry.” - Societe Generale
Based on the work done to date, there does not appear to be any significant
economic difference between the two commercial mechanisms; each requires
£1.54b (PV7) of support in order to sustain the project. The amount of money
paid in storage fees is 20% less when using the CO2 CfD mechanism compared
to the Storer mechanism. This is due to the compound nature of the IRR used
in the pricing calculation. Understanding the detail of how the mechanisms might
differ in their application is a topic for substantial further study.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 6. Business Case
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 44 of 86
Mechanism
Storer CO2 CfD
Financial Support (£m PV7) 1,542 1,541
Capture Cost (£/T) 44.2 44.2
Gathering Cost (£/T) 3.2 3.2
Transporting Cost (£/T) 17.1 17.1
Storage Cost (£/T) 30.3 26.6
Total Cost (£/T) 94.7 91.1
One significant practical difference between the two models is that with an
emitter payment the storer will not be able to plan and size the project until all
emitters have reached their Financial Investment Decision (FID) - without adding
a risk premium to account for emitters "failing to get there". Quantification of the
risk premium was outside the scope of this study and consequently the impact
of it is not included with in the analysis presented here. understanding what this
premium may be is viewed as a key outcome of the CCS Commercialisation
programme.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 7. Execution
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 45 of 86
7. Execution
7.1 Project Execution Plan
In simple terms the Project Execution Plan can be described through the three
stages of Initiate, Influence and Implement as shown in Figure 29 below.
Figure 29 - Headline Process
The Initiate Stage involved the completion of the Feasibility Study between
July 2014 and June 2015 whereby the commercial viability of ICCS on
Teesside was assessed, quantified and qualified through the completion of the
Business Case, Commercial and Engineering work packages by experienced
advisors. This required continued engagement with the 4 process industry
companies and collaboration with DECC and BIS to sense check outputs as
they arose. The Concept Study output has been collated into a series of
reports, including this Summary Report.
At the start of 2015 the Influence stage commenced. Initially this involved the
rebranding of the project as Teesside Collective with a number of key
engagements completed, i.e. Westminster Launch Event, Knowledge Share
Event at Wynyard Hall etc. Going forward the Influence stage will see
Teesside Collective continuing to lead the engagement of DECC and others on
the Business Case and Commercial Mechanism until the Final Investment
Decision (FID) stage and potentially beyond.
Finally, the Implement stage, commenced in Q2 2015 with the aim of evolving
the key outputs from the Concept Study in to a coherent project
implementation plan that will deliver the UK’s first Regional ICCS Project.
Pale Blue Dot facilitated a risk workshop and produced a summary report,
Teesside ICCS Risk Workshop Report, outlining the key risks to be considered
in the Execution Plan for the Teesside Collective project.
7.2 Key Milestones
Figure 30 provides a highlevel overview of the project’s key milestones. The
overview shows the major milestones for the Teesside Collective project
alongside key external factors that present considerable political and market
risk and opportunity. The project faces two General Elections with new
Governments /Ministers in place to change plans for the better or worse. The
project is running in parallel with the UK CCS Commercialisation Programme,
both Phase 1 (Peterhead & Whiterose) and the proposed Phase 2 follow on
projects.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 7. Execution
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 46 of 86
Building on the Feasibility Project, Teesside Collective will need to now steer
the project through Pre-FEED (Front End Engineering Design) into FEED and
ultimately a Financial Investment Decision (FID) envisaged for 2020. A
successful FID enables construction to be complete leading to carbon being
sequestered before the mid-2020s. The aspiration is to be able to bring these
key milestones forward. Agreeing an appropriate commercial support
mechanism with the UK Government is the critical path item for the project.
7.3 Project Schedule
To be successful the Teesside Collective will need to continue to provide
leadership and establish the route by which Industrial CCS can be delivered in
the UK. No other region yet has a project at the same level of maturity and with
sufficient ambition to lead the way. Industrial CCS is critical to enable the UK
to meet its carbon reduction targets, and unlike power generation, more
difficult to substitute with alternative energy sources. Teesside Collective
should therefore continue to provide leadership by progressing though the next
stage of development.
The proposed Project Schedule, Figure 31, expands the high level timeline in
Section 7.2. The Project Schedule outlines the six major Milestones, the four
Delivery Stages and the Key Deliverables that are required for successful
project implementation. An initial ‘Bridge’ stage links the existing Feasibility
Study work with Pre-FEED. This is followed by FEED and then Execution and
Financing, which lead to FID. The overall period for these activities to FID, is
shown as 5 years. Each of the Stages is discussed in further detail in the
subsequent sections.
Given the pace of power generation CCS in the UK over the last 8 years, the 5
year timing to FID could be regarded as overly ambitious. However, the timing
is important for two reasons; firstly, pressing forwards with the Teesside
Collective project will demonstrate the need to progress funding mechanisms
Figure 30 - High Level Timeline for the Teesside Collective
Figure 31 - High Level Project Schedule
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 7. Execution
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 47 of 86
for ICCS and; secondly, the need for action on climate change mitigation is
becoming ever more urgent.
Each Delivery Stage would comprises of eight major Workstreams:
• Engineering & Design
• Consenting & Permitting
• Commercial Development
• Finance & Economics
• Communications
• Knowledge Transfer
• Storage Development
• Project Management
Of particular note, the ongoing Communications Workstream is fundamental to
the success of the project. Teesside Collective provides a project brand and
professional image with which to promote ICCS and the project. Providing a
distinct communication portal enables promotion of the project and improved
communication to external stakeholders to maintain and build momentum and
enables the launch of reports and engagement material locally, nationally and
internationally. A lobbying plan has been developed for the project including
key messages, key people, key outputs and key dates that drives the
development of meetings with key people including UK government, EU
Commission, Trade Associations, NGO’s, and others. The overall aim is to
promote the project in a way that captures attention and embeds the outcomes
required for successful delivery of the project within government work
programmes and the other seven major Workstreams.
The Feasibility Study has moved a project concept into a clearly articulated
project development opportunity. The work completed lays the foundations for
the next steps. However, for a number of reasons the project is not yet ready
to commence Pre-FEED. Most important of these, is the need to develop a
funding plan and funding sources to enable Pre-FEED activity to take place.
There is a need for a Bridge stage to link the existing work with the Pre-FEED
activity. This stage is expected to take 12 months with activities including:
• Securing public funding for the pre-FEED stage
• Preparing for pre-FEED
• Developing options and routes for a) FEED funding and b) project delivery
• Putting in place a Project Development vehicle
• Building depth in the Teesside Collective brand
• Transitioning into Project delivery mode
• Continuing to progress the funding model for ICCS
• Retaining a position at the centre of UK CCS thinking
• Maintaining engagement with industrial partners
• Allowing time for the DECC Commercialisation projects to move forwards
The key aim of the Pre-FEED Delivery Stage is to secure the funding
necessary to complete FEED. This involves taking and refining the Basis of
Design for capture, transportation and storage developed at the Concept
Stage and using this to develop a detailed Cost Time Resource Plan for
delivering FEED. In parallel the Business Case and Commercial Mechanism
thinking will be evolved and be used alongside the FEED Plan to establish
both the funding levels required and funding routes for FEED whilst also
concluding the optimum Project Developer solution. Activity may include
application for FEED funding through NER400 or DECC Phase 2 projects,
depending on timing of these initiatives. Pre-FEED success involves a clear
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 7. Execution
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 48 of 86
view of the longer term project funding mechanism or the process and
timetable by which it is expected to be developed, along with investment and
risk material. Pre-FEED is expected to take 6 months.
The FEED stage is expected to be similar in nature to the FEED activities
undertaken on the previous and current UK CCS projects. It will address a
wide range of technical design aspects for the full CCS chain, commercial and
contractual arrangements, project finance, permitting and environmental
matters and stakeholder engagement. The output will provide sufficient
confidence that the project can be delivered with a reasonable cost certainty
and the risks are manageable. If funded with public support it is likely there will
be a strong Knowledge Transfer element. FEED is expected to take 18
months. Separately a Store Appraisal will be required.
The final Stage prior to FID is the Execution and Financing. During this stage
the material developed during FEED is translated into the technical and
commercial documents and arrangements required to deliver the project. The
Project Contract would be finalised with the Authority, EPC contracts would be
finalised for the detailed design and construction of the project, permits and
consents would be in place or available shortly thereafter, agreements
between project partners would be in place and project finance arranged. Two
key challenges of this period are that FID may be determined, to some extent,
by external factors; and the project team assembled for FEED are likely to
disperse, during what is essentially a commercial/finance stage, before being
needed back for project execution. Execution and financing is expected to take
up to 2 years.
The project will then move into the fourth and final Delivery Stage of
Construction / Implementation of the full supply chain solution. The Operations
& Maintenance plan will be finalised in parallel. The ICCS network will be
commissioned and commence operation via a phased ramp up plan.
Figure 32 provides an early stage indication of Construction Stage scheduling.
The schedule focuses on SSI, the anchor site for the project given SSI delivers
the material amount of CO2 that justifies the offshore infrastructure investment.
Equivalent schedules would be developed for the capture installations at
GrowHow, BOC and Lotte. Note that the schedule for SSI involves CO2 from
GrowHow. It is anticipated that the far simpler solution for post process capture
of further material volume of CO2 at GrowHow will ensure that there is a
suitable supply of CO2 for fully commissioning and proving the full
transportation and storage infrastructure ahead of commissioning the more
complex capture technology at SSI. A further schedule would be developed for
the storage infrastructure installation.
The aim would be to place all EPIC (Engineering Procurement Installation &
Commissioning) contracts within 3 to 6 months of Financial Close. The
contract for pipe supply and pipeline fabrication is a critical path item with the
need to schedule fabrication time within the factory for the line pipe and ensure
slots for lay barges are reserved well in advance of the detailed engineering
being completed.
Detailed engineering will take 12-15 months from Financial Close. Fabrication
of the line pipe will be undertaken in parallel and take approximately 12
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 7. Execution
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 49 of 86
months with a further 3 months required to complete the concrete coating. The
pipeline installation commences with a pre-lay survey and route clearance, in
parallel with the onshore construction of the horizontal directional drill (HDD)
line from the booster station to the beach, the beach preparation works and
shore approach pre-dredging activities. Line pipe will be assembled offshore
on the lay barge and floated through the pre-dredged area to be connected to
the HDD line and the remainder of the pipeline will be installed off the rear of
the lay barge. Pipeline and cable crossings will be erected ahead of the lay
barge so that they can support the laid pipeline. Final connections will be
completed at the selected storage complex.
The commissioning activities include pressure testing of the installation and
drying out the entire pipeline length through the use of pigs, air drying and
slugs of methanol between two pigs. An integrity survey will be completed prior
to the pipeline being filled with nitrogen and then filled gradually using CO2
from GrowHow.
The entire EPIC duration should be within 42 months of Financial Close, with
SSI coming on stream 3-6 months later. Thus an overall schedule of around 48
months from Financial Close to full commercial operation of the SSI anchor
project including injection of CO2 into the offshore store.
Figure 32 - Execution Schedule from Progressive Energy's TVU CCS Pre-FEED Study for the Outline Execution Strategy for delivery of the SSI Anchor Project
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 8. Getting to FEED
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 50 of 86
8. Getting to FEED In order to successfully deliver the UK’s first Regional Industrial CCS scheme
on Teesside, three immediate next steps are recommended:
Establish The Teesside Collective as the implementation company.
Teesside Collective contains representation from four main industrial emitters
in the region. Transforming Teesside Collective into an SPV results in an
Industry led business delivering the implementation of the project. The SPV
would be jointly owned by TVU, the emitters and developers involved. The
commercial structure should allow new parties to join the Collective and also
provide exit options at various points of project development. A Teesside
Collective SPV is likely to be equivalent in size to a FTSE 250 business which
would require to be adequately funded, resourced and governed.
Maintain focus on ICCS and build on the progress made to date. The
DECC funded Industrial CCS Feasibility Study has proved that ICCS on
Teesside is viable. The outline design has been validated with capture and
transport and storage options narrowed down and evaluated and fully costed
scenarios presented. Business and Commercial Cases have been developed
and a lauded Teesside Collective profile established. In short, “the what” has
been established. Teesside Collective now need an interim plan that
commences work on “the how”, specifically covering the transition from the
end of the Feasibility Study through to start of the Pre-FEED activity as
outlined as the Bridge stage in Section 7.3.
Commence project development activity. Teesside Collective should seek
to create a project structure that is operationally and financially credible and
engage with a number of experienced developer organisations on each of the
elements of the project. A number of developers have already indicated
interest. As stated in Section 7.2, agreeing an appropriate commercial
mechanism with the UK Government that leads to a DECC Contract is the
critical path item for the project. This would need resolution before any
significant investment will be found that would enable progress beyond Pre-
FEED.
Figure 34 provides an overview of some of the key cost considerations for
delivering each of the key stages.
Figure 33 - Key cost considerations for getting to FEED and beyond
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 9. Conclusions
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 51 of 86
9. Conclusions 1. ICCS on Teesside is technically and commercially viable and presents a
significant opportunity to capture, gather, transport and store considerable
volumes of CO2.
2. The study has established the technical and infrastructure solutions
required for a Reference Scenario to capture and store 2.8 mTpa of CO2
from four industrial sites by the early 2020’s and offers the potential for
other emitters to connect to the network to enable the sequestration of
significantly higher volumes.
3. At 7.1 mTpa SSI accounts for approximately 65% of the 10.8 mT emitted
from Teesside in 2013. Only a third of the SSI volume is recommended for
capture at this stage alongside much smaller volumes from GrowHow,
BOC and Lotte. The region would need significant advancement in capture
technology and cost reduction together with major new built plants in the
region or CO2 imported from other regions in order to fill 15mT capacity
infrastructure. A portfolio approach should be taken to ensure a broad mix
of emitters to mitigate risk of one or more emitters leaving the network.
4. Three Battery Limits have been established, one at each of the three
principal interfaces: Capture, Gathering and Transportation & Storage.
5. For Capture the optimum solution delivers 2.8 mTpa of CO2 for a capex of
£311m and opex of £125m per annum. Key technical and cost insights for
Capture are:
a) SSI can be the anchor project that underpins a regional CCS
infrastructure.
b) At SSI, precombustion capture on furnaces gases delivers 2.1 mTpa of
CO2 for a capex of £192m and opex of £ 93m pa.
c) At GrowHow, straight forward dehydration and compression delivers
375 kTpa of CO2 for a capex of £28m and opex of £15m pa.
d) At BOC, post combustion capture via a bespoke conventional amine
process delivers 305 kTpa for a capex of £56m and opex of £13m pa.
e) At Lotte, post combustion capture via an off the shelf packaged amine
solution delivers 50 kTpa for a capex of £35m and opex of £4m pa.
f) For the three specific scenarios outline in Section 3:
i) Anchor Emitter (SSI) only: As per b) above.
ii) All four sites: 2.8 mTpa for a capex of £311m and an annual opex
of £125m.
iii) Three smaller sites: 0.7 mTpa for a capex of £118m and an annual
opex of £32m.
6. For Gathering the optimum solution delivers 15 mTpa of capacity through
>34km of 100barg Onshore Gathering Network infrastructure for a capex
of £77m and a combined onshore and offshore transportation annual opex
of £11m.
7. For Transportation & Storage it is viable to transport dense phase CO2 to
either the Bunter or Captain sandstone saline aquifers. Key technical and
cost insights for Transportation & Storage are:
a) With a design life of 40 years and a High Volume emissions scenario,
a 15mTpa gathering and transportation infrastructure would gradually
be brought up to full capacity and would require a three stage storage
development at either Bunter or Captain, with each stage totalling
100mT. Each stage would require five active 1 mTpa injection wells at
any one time and between 6 and 20 wells in total across the lifetime of
each stage.
b) For Bunter an Offshore solution would have a one off capex cost of
£254m and an annual opex cost of £294m for a 5 mTpa system or
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 9. Conclusions
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 52 of 86
alternatively have a one off capex cost of £579m and an annual opex
cost of £294m for 10 mTpa scenario involving two stages of storage
development.
c) For Captain an Offshore solution would have a one off capex cost of
£351m and an annual opex cost of £294m for a 5 mTpa system or
alternatively have a one off capex cost of £640m and an opex cost of
£294m per pa for 10 mTpa.
d) The Captain store is 433km from the planned booster station at the
coast on Teesside. This is almost three times the distance to the
Bunter store. This greater distance causes a bigger pressure drop for
a given pipeline diameter, thus necessitating a greater diameter
pipeline to Captain.
e) The Captain aquifer store is substantially better appraised than the
Bunter aquifer store for two major reasons:
i) Greater amounts of data exist for Captain; and
ii) The availability of dynamic performance information resulting from
decades of water injection and hydrocarbon production in the
Central North Sea region. This provides significant confidence in
the connectivity of the formation across a large area and therefore
confidence in the storage capacity levels.
f) Capex for developing the Bunter store is significantly lower than the
Captain Store for two main reasons:
i) The Captain formation is situated approximately 1500m below sea
level, 500m deeper than the Bunter. Consequently the wells are
longer and thus the cost of accessing the Captain store is greater.
ii) The water depth at the proposed location for the Captain facility is
approximately 130m, compared to less than 50m at the Bunter
location. The deeper water requires a different and more costly
style of development.
8. A trebling of onshore and offshore pipeline capacity from 5 to 15mT is
achievable through a relatively modest incremental capex spend of £92-
104m. Hence the conclusion that the transportation infrastructure should
be set at 15 mTpa.
9. The most likely Project / Commercial Structure going forward may seek to
mirror the three battery limits, i.e. a Capture Venture, Gathering Venture
and a Transportation & Storage Venture.
10. Although feasible that an emitter may wish to build, own and operate
(BOO) their capture plant it is more likely that a third party sole operator
will become the Capture Venture at each emitter and potentially the same
entity for all four emitter sites.
11. Pale Blue Dot complete a report on “Potential Ownership Options for
Onshore Transport of CO2” which concluded that the Gathering Venture
could be a Sole Operator or ideally a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
involving emitters alongside a proven network operator, i.e. The Teesside
Collective.
12. The Commercial Solution should offer a reasonable amount of flexibility
with scope for future exit and entry of first users and new entrants to
provide the greatest means to insulate risk and leverage debt into the
project through the presence of well-capitalised, creditworthy entities. In
practice, a structured and negotiated process will need to emerge that
serves to bring the Venture partners along, requiring first the development
of initial memoranda of understanding, collaboration agreements, moving
then towards letters of intent and finally structured contracts.
13. Key for the three Ventures will be securing the necessary up-front
commitments or guarantees around the future usage of a scaled-up
network through Transportation Agreements, a vital component of the
network financing. Title will be a significant area to resolve, i.e. simple
Throughput Service or Title of Transfer at each Boundary.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 9. Conclusions
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 53 of 86
14. A charging mechanism would need to be developed with the aggregate
charge likely to comprise of three separate charges; an EPC Charge
(Engineering, Procurement & Construction), a Capacity Rights Charge and
a Use of Network Charge.
15. Pale Blue Dot complete a Business Case for ICCS on Teesside. The
Insights and Conclusions from the Business Case are listed in Section 6.2.
with the Executive Summary from the separate report included below:
Strategic Highlights
The economics of industrial CCS (ICCS) are different to those in power
CCS. The cost of CCS in the power industry, where international trade is
minimal, can be passed onto consumers via a Contract for Difference,
(CfD). However, the competitive nature of globally traded commodity
products means industrial emitters are unable long term to do this. The
current absence of a funding mechanism means that no private company
will develop an industrial CCS scheme on its own.
ICCS from Teesside is technically and commercially viable, with financial
support from government, and provides a cost abatement option for the
UK. ICCS can reduce industrial CO2 emissions by 90% and with the right
financial support mechanism it can represent good value for money for
government.
The Teesside ICCS project would leverage Government investment in
CCS by planning to use knowledge gained on the stores currently being
evaluated in the CCS Commercialisation Programme.
The project could be operational within 7 years of the funding mechanism
being negotiated between government and the developers. This lead time
could be reduced if a separate arrangement was to be put in place to
cover the detailed engineering, design and planning work required before
the final investment decision point.
In GVA terms, the economic impact on the region is estimated to be in
excess of £500m annually.
Financial Highlights
The Reference Scenario requires £1.5 billion of financial support (in
present value terms using a 7% discount rate), which equates to
£95/tonne (undiscounted) for the 56.5mT of CO2 stored over the 20 year
evaluation period. Transportation and storage costs are spread between
all uses on a cost per tonne basis.
In present value terms the capital investment required to construct (and
later decommission) the network is £0.5 billion; the operational
expenditure to run the network is £0.6 billion and the investment return
likely to be sought by developers is £0.4 billion. The bulk of the capital
spend is on capture at the steel plant (25%) and development of the
offshore CO2 store (35%). The offshore pipeline accounts for a further 20%
of capital investment.
The four industrial processes considered have differing levels of CO2
intensity and consequently the cost impact of CO2 capture on the creation
of industrial products varies widely and is between £16 and £302 per
tonne.
During the course of this study a number of organisations have indicated a
degree of interest in investing in specific elements of the chain, subject to
an appropriate funding mechanism being in place.
Two commercial mechanisms were evaluated; a storer payment
arrangement and a CO2 CfD arrangement. From an economic perspective
there was little difference in the two approaches.
Significant economies of scale are possible, particularly in the offshore
pipeline element of the chain, where costs per tonne of CO2 transported
could be reduced by up to 80%. An additional 8% investment in financial
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report 9. Conclusions
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 54 of 86
support could treble the transportation capacity and provide space for
future CO2 supplied from Teesside.
The major areas of CCS specific risk are considered to be associated with
the geological storage of CO2. A qualitative assessment of risk allocation
between Government and the developers of the store shows that the level
of support is dependent upon the share of risk borne by developers, and
vice versa.
Looking Ahead
Future work should build upon the Business Case Study, and the
associated work by Societe Generale, to further develop an appropriate
financial support mechanism. The next phase of work should be a
significantly more detailed commercial, technical, financial and policy
analysis based on the CO2 CfD Model and Storer Model. The aim should
be to develop a model that is acceptable to both Industry and Government
such that investors are prepared to invest in the next phase of engineering
in 2017. If this can be attained then construction could start three years
later and the project could be operational by 2024.
16. Building on the Feasibility Project, Teesside Collective will need to now
steer the project through to completion. An initial “Bridge” stage is required
to link the existing Feasibility Study work to Pre-FEED (Front End
Engineering Design), then progress into FEED and ultimately to a
Financial Investment Decision (FID) envisaged for 2020. A successful FID
enables construction to be complete leading to carbon being sequestered
before the mid-2020s.
17. The Bridge Stage is expected to take 12 months. Pre-FEED is expected to
take 6 months. FEED is expected to take 18 months. Execution and
Financing through to FID is expected to take 2 years. Engineering
Procurement Installation & Commissioning is expected to take 4 years and
cost circa £0.77-2.12bn depending on the technology and capacities
chosen for the installed scheme. Operational Expenditure (Opex) is
expected to cost £7.4-14.7bn again dependent on system design and
sizing and with a life time of 20 years for capture plant and 40 years for
transportation and storage infrastructure.
18. Agreeing an appropriate commercial support mechanism with the UK
Government is the critical path item for the overall project whilst ongoing
communications and engagement via The Teesside Collective is
fundamental to promoting ICCS and delivering a successful project.
19. The Teesside Collective will need to continue to provide leadership and
establish the route by which Industrial CCS can be delivered in the UK.
The three immediate next steps recommended are:
a) Make Teesside Collective the implementation company
b) Build on the progress made to date
c) Commence project development activity through delivery of the initial
“Bridge Stage” that secures funding for and initiates the Pre-FEED
work.
With respect to techno-economic aspects, the Feasibility Study is showing that
Industrial CCS at scale is technically feasible and that it is essential to
establish an attractive commercial support mechanism with the UK
Government as soon as possible. This will ensure the scheme delivers the
economic benefit directly from CCS and indirectly through developing
sustainable heavy industrial manufacturing centres coupled with Decarbonised
Power Generation at key locations across the UK.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 55 of 86
Annexes
Annex A - Transport Services Term Sheet
Industrial CCS on Teesside
Transport Services Term Sheet for First Users and
New Users
Author: Pale Blue Dot Energy
1. INTRODUCTION
There is considerable local and global experience of the operational and
commercial issues involved in gas transportation, including carbon dioxide.
This document is drafted as a pro-forma Term Sheet and outlines the likely
material commercial terms that could be expected to form the basis of a CO2
Transportation Agreement for users of the proposed Teesside CO2 network.
2. MATERIAL TERMS
2.1 Primary Service
For the Network Operator the primary service will be the transportation by
pipeline of CO2 that meets the network specification, from a defined system
entry point to the system exit point at the pressure boosting pumping station at
Redcar. Metering is also part of the primary service.
The primary service of a Network User is to supply CO2 at a certain rate for a
specific period of time and within the required compositional specification.
2.2 Legal Boilerplate
Primarily; definitions, term, termination, parties, legal jurisdiction,
confidentiality. In the first instance the Parties are expected to be the Network
Users: SSI, GrowHow, BOC, Lotte Chemicals and the Network Operator.
2.3 CO2 Specification
This is described in detail in the CO2 specification document produced as part
of this overall project, reference 2000 0005-DC00-SPC-0001. The primary
attributes are listed below. This section will also likely contain the throughput
ramp rates.
2.4 Charging Mechanisms
The design of the charging mechanism may be affected by legal or regulatory
factors, of particular relevance are regulations regarding third party access to
CO2 transport and storage infrastructure. The aggregate charge seems likely
to comprise three separate charges:
Attribute Condition
CO2 > 95.5%
Water < 50ppm
O2 < 10ppm
Pressure 100 barg
Temperature 35oC
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 56 of 86
2.4.1 EPC Charge
This covers the costs associated with the engineering, procurement and
construction of network capacity. The EPC Charge may also include those pre-
project kick-off concept and development costs which are to be recovered as
part of the project as well as any other asset associated costs and costs of
risks (e.g. decommissioning costs, post-closure risks, etc.).
2.4.2 Capacity Rights Charge
This is the charge associated with the acquisition of the right to use a
proportion of the capacity in the infrastructure network. This charge is likely to
be primarily fixed operational and maintenance costs, i.e. those costs which
are incurred due to the operation of the assets but which are not related to the
level of network throughput, e.g. pipeline surveys.
2.4.3 Use of Network Charge
The charge reflects those costs which are wholly and directly attributable to the
act of transporting and/or storing CO2 in the infrastructure network. This
charge would cover the variable cost of asset use (incremental fuel cost,
incremental financial security and insurance costs, etc.). The fee will mostly
likely be in the form of a charge per quantity (e.g. £/Tonne) of CO2 transported.
2.5 Liabilities
Specific liabilities attaching to the Parties will depend wholly on the commercial
structure of the project and how it is funded. The following table summarises
those liabilities considered at this stage to likely be the most material.
Network Operator CO2 leakage from the onshore network
Supply of CO2 to the System Exit point, i.e. Pumping Station
Inability for Offshore Network to receive CO2
CO2 Suppliers Consequences of supplying “off-spec” CO2
Consequences of not meeting any “send or pay” obligations
2.6 Information Sharing
There will be obligations on the Parties to share certain information such as
planned shutdowns, unplanned interruptions to CO2 flow, changes to CO2
composition, safety, operational or environmental critical items.
2.7 Asset Ownership
The pipeline network and associated equipment are likely to be owned by the
transportation company. Use of the network is unlikely to confer any ownership
rights.
2.8 CO2 Title
Certain liabilities and obligations attach to the entity that has title to the CO2.
This is a highly uncertain area and there are no precedents within the EU. It
seems most likely that in most cases title will remain with the emitter, with the
possible exception of once the CO2 has been injected.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 57 of 86
Annex B - Infrastructure Sizing Report
Industrial CCS on Teesside
TVU Infrastructure Sizing Report
Author: Pale Blue Dot Energy
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a part of the Teesside Collective Business Case preparation, the Pale Blue
Dot Energy (PBDE) team conducted a study on the potential demand for CO2
transportation infrastructure between 2020 and 2069. To forecast potential
demand, three possible Cases have been considered: Lower, Base and
Upper. Based on the analysis completed it has been concluded that
infrastructure with a capacity of 10 mTpa will be required for the project.
2. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis completed The Teesside Collective should seek to size
the CO2 transportation infrastructure on Teesside to meet a future demand for
the CO2 sequestration in the order of 10 mTpa. Although potential demand in
excess of 10 mTpa is highly unrealistic, if Teesside Collective were to choose
between their two Business Case capacity options of 5 mTpa or 15 mTpa then,
from an emissions profile perspective, the recommendation would be 15
mTpa, given both the Base and Upper Cases far exceed 5 mTpa.
3. INTRODUCTION
The Process and Steel Industries on Teesside are seeking a regional industrial
Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) solution. The aim of the PBDE infrastructure
sizing study was to provide a recommendation on the potential size of required
CO2 transportation infrastructure and to verify the previously stated
assumption that the project will require between 5 and 15 mTpa in CO2
infrastructure capacity.
Using European Union Transaction Log Data, PBDE estimated that 12 mT of
CO2 is currently emitted in Tees Valley every year. By predicting future
emissions levels PBDE study identified potential demand for the CO2
transportation infrastructure on Teesside between 2020 and 2069.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 58 of 86
4. DEMAND FOR CO2 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
4.1 Current emissions
12 mT of CO2 is currently emitted on Teesside from the industrial sites every
year. Figure 1 presents distribution of those emissions depending on the size,
where Tier 0 represents sites with emissions level above 1000kTpa, Tier 1
above 50kTpa and Tier 2 above 5kTpa.
In Figure 2 all existing
sites were arranged
according to their
emissions size, largest
to smallest. It has
been found that over
80% of the cumulative
emissions were
produced by only 4
sites.
It can be observed that
the marginal impact of
capturing emissions decrease with each subsequent site. Therefore, whether
or not CO2 is captured from each of the biggest 4 emitters will have a
significant impact on the required infrastructure size.
4.2 Future emissions and capture
To predict future levels of CO2 captured on Teesside PBDE modelled three
potential Cases: Lower, Base and Upper while allowing for variation in the start
date of capturing, system longevity and also the number of capture projects
and their respective captured emissions rates. Appendix 1 includes detail
assumptions for each of the Cases. The summery of the levels of captured
emissions between 2020 and 2069 is showed in Figure 3. Each of the Cases is
discussed in more detail in sections 4.2.1-4.2.3 respectively.
9.7
2.30.3
12Mt CO2 currently emitted
Tier 0, > 1000ktpa
Tier 1, > 50ktpa
Tier 2, > 5ktpa
Figure 1 Current emissions depending on source size
Figure 2 Cumulative percentage of emission according to number of
industrial site in Tees Valley
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 59 of 86
4.2.1 Lower Case
Distribution of the total captured emissions depends on the start date of the
capture infrastructure, the duration of operation and capture volume of capture
plants at existing emitter sites on Teesside and also the number of new emitter
sites opened on Teesside and their respective capture volume and duration of
operation. The Lower Case model assumed low emissions (based on 2008
emissions data), short longevity of capture (8 years), comparatively low
capture rate (75%), and limited number of sites capturing CO2 (see
Appendix 1). First capture is to take place in 2025 due to slow progress of the
project. The maximum utilisation of the infrastructure is 5.2 mTpa over a period
of 6 years, excluding a 6.3 mT one year peak in 2032. The summary of the
results for the first 15 years from the analysis model is presented in Table 1
(detailed data may be found in Appendix 2). The comparison of emitted and
captured CO2 is presented in Figure 4.
Table 1 – Lower Case 2020-2035 Results: Total CO2 emitted (mTpa), Total CO2
Captured (mTpa) and captured percentage.
Figure 3 CO2 captured rate prediction for Lower, Base and Upper Case
Figure 4 CO2 emissions vs capture rate prediction for Lower Case
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 60 of 86
4.2.2 Base Case
The Base Case model assumes business as usual emissions (based on 2013
emissions data), medium longevity of the capture infrastructure (15 years)
and an average capture rate (80%). The model assumes that all the existing,
planned and possible new sites, including a new IGCC power plant, will start
capturing at different points in time, (see Appendix 1). The first capture is to
take place in 2020. The summary of the results for the first 15 years is
presented in Table 2 (detailed data may be found in Appendix 2). The
comparison of emitted and captured CO2 is presented in Figure 5. The
maximum utility of the infrastructure is equal to 15 mTpa and only lasts two
years, which is not long enough to consider it as a required maximum. With the
peak excluded an appropriate infrastructure capacity is 10 mTpa.
Table 2 – Base Case 2020-2035 Results: Total CO2 emitted (mTpa), Total CO2 Captured (mTpa) and captured percentage.
4.2.3 Upper Case
The Upper Case model assumes a high level of emissions (110% of 2013
emissions data), long longevity of the projects (25 years) and a high capture
rate (90%). All the existing, planned and possible new capture sites, including
a new IGCC power plant, will start capturing very early with over 50% of
emissions already being captured by 2020. The maximum utility of the
infrastructure is equal to 19 mTpa with maximum utilisation lasting 19 years.
The summary of the results for the first 15 years is presented in Table 3
Figure 5 CO2 emissions vs capture rate prediction for Base Case
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 61 of 86
(detailed data may be found in Appendix 2). The comparison of emitted and
captured CO2 is presented in Figure 6. This scenario is very unlikely.
Table 3 – Upper Case 2020-2035 Results: Total CO2 emitted (mTpa), Total CO2 Captured (mTpa) and captured percentage.
CONCLUSIONS
The demand for the CO2 transportation infrastructure in Tees Valley will be
driven by emitters of significant size. Only in the event that a number of new
sites start operating with large emissions will future demand on the CO2
transport infrastructure exceed 10 mTpa. The transportation infrastructure
could be also used for CO2 exported from other parts of the UK. If the latter
were to occur at scale then investing in 15 mTpa of infrastructure capacity
could be justified.
Governmental policy supporting or requiring industrial carbon capture and
storage will play a significant role in the decision making of businesses on
whether or not to invest in carbon capture technologies. This will be especially
important with the potential for changing ownership of operational sites where
the emission duration will outlive the companies that own such sites.
The presented results are predictions developed to provide input for the
economic assumptions developed for the purpose of the Teesside Collective
Business Case. It has to be stressed that these predictions may be subject to
significant change depending on the future economic circumstances of the
Teesside Region.
APPENDIX 1 - MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS
The following two pages contain a copy of the assumptions used in the model
for each emitting site.
Figure 6 CO2 emissions vs capture rate prediction for Upper Case
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 62 of 86
APPENDIX 2 – DETAILED RESULTS
The following 2 pages show Lower, Base and Upper Case detailed results.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 63 of 86
LOW CASE 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044
Total CO2
Emitted (ktpa) 7516 7516 7516 7516 7516 7516 7516 7516 7516 7516 7656 7656 8382 3536 3579 1745 1745 1745 1745 1745 1032 1032 1032 1032 1032
Total CO2
Capture (ktpa) 0 0 0 0 0 2944 2944 5102 5102 5102 5207 5207 6287 2652 2685 1309 1309 1309 1309 1309 774 774 774 774 774
Captured
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 39% 39% 68% 68% 68% 68% 68% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%
2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069
Total CO2
Emitted (ktpa) 892 892 166 166 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total CO2
Capture (ktpa) 669 669 125 125 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Captured
Percentage 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%
BASE CASE 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044
Total CO2
Emitted (ktpa) 10850 10850 10850 10850 10850 10901 10901
1090
1
1090
1
1090
1
1209
6
1209
6
1209
6
1210
1
1210
1
2071
2
2071
2 13679 13679 13679 11435 11435 11435 11435 11435
Total CO2
Capture (ktpa) 131 131 4838 4838 4838 7462 7462 7462 7462 7462 9339 9339 9339 9778 9778
1666
7
1666
7 11040 11040 11040 9245 9245 9245 9245 9245
Captured
Percentage 1% 1% 45% 45% 45% 68% 68% 68% 68% 68% 77% 77% 77% 81% 81% 80% 80% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81%
2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069
Total CO2
Emitted (ktpa) 10233 10233 10233 9806 9806 8611 8611 8611 8611 8611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total CO2
Capture (ktpa) 8284 8284 8284 7845 7845 6889 6889 6889 6889 6889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Captured
Percentage 81% 81% 81% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 64 of 86
UPPER CASE 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044
Total CO2
Emitted (ktpa) 12117 12117 12117 12117 12117 13210 13210
1321
0
1321
0
1321
0
2163
6
2163
6
2163
6
2163
6
2163
6
2163
6
2163
6 21636 21636 21636 21636 21636 21636 21636 21636
Total CO2
Capture (ktpa) 6566 6566 6566 9764 9764 11471 11471
1147
1
1147
1
1147
1
1959
2
1959
2
1959
2
1959
2
1959
2
1959
2
1959
2 19592 19592 19592 19592 19592 19592 19592 19592
Captured
Percentage 54% 54% 54% 81% 81% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%
2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069
Total CO2
Emitted (ktpa) 13437 13437 13437 11150 11150 10204 9995 9995 9983 9983 9513 9513 9513 9513 9513 8419 8419 8419 8419 8419 0 0 0 0 0
Total CO2
Capture (ktpa) 12214 12214 12214 10155 10155 9304 9115 9115 9105 9105 8561 8561 8561 8561 8561 7578 7578 7578 7578 7578 0 0 0 0 0
Captured
Percentage 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 65 of 86
Annex C - Potential Ownership Options for Onshore
Transport of CO2
Industrial CCS on Teesside
Potential Ownership Options for Onshore Transport
of CO2
Author: Pale Blue Dot Energy
1. INTRODUCTION
The preferred method for large scale gas transportation is via pipelines with
millions of kilometres of pipelines around the world that transport various
gases, including CO2. There are over 50 CO2 pipelines currently operating in
the US alone, transporting roughly 68 mTpa of CO2 (Global CCS Institute -
Global Status of CCS 2014). These onshore pipelines, around 6500 km in
length, deliver mainly naturally sourced CO2 for EOR purposes. Thus CO2
pipelines are an established technology, both on land and under the sea. CO2
pipelines pose no higher risk than that which is already safely managed for
transporting hydrocarbons.
The Teesside Collective ICCS Feasibility Project considers three
scenarios/business cases (BC). BC1 involves just the Anchor Site, SSI. BC2
involves all four businesses identified, SSI, GrowHow, BOC and Lotte. BC3 is
as per BC2 but without the Anchor Site, SSI. The anticipated CO2 volumes for
the sites are:
• Circa 2.20 mTpa from SSI if 90% of the power generation emissions are
captured. This could increase by up to a further 1 million tonnes if other
sources on the SSI site were to be captured.
• Circa 0.38 mTpa from GrowHow with 80% capture assumed as some
CO2 is already captured and sold for food.
• Circa 0.30 mTpa from BOC assuming a 90% capture rate, and
• Circa 0.05 mTpa from Lotte assuming a 90% capture rate.
Thus the total CO2 emissions to be captured from the four sites are uncertain
but are likely in the region of 3 mTpa. Further opportunity to capture CO2
volumes exist across Teesside now and also through potential future
schemes, i.e. power generation which has led to views of an onshore network
capable of taking 15 mTpa. Over the past few years, a number of power
station with carbon capture capability projects have been evaluated within the
Tees Valley area, i.e. Lynemouth Power Station and it's 2.25mte CO2 per year.
None appear to have progressed beyond the concept feasibility stage. BC2
would require a pipeline of 300-400mm whilst a 15 mTpa pipeline would be
circa 700-800mm. The route would be the same. A trebling of capacity can be
provided at a fraction of additional cost. The Amec One North East Study
confirmed that for large emitters the network solution represents a factor of 3
to 4 saving over single source and can be up to a factor of 60 more economic
for smaller emitters. So networks are effective at enabling small and medium
emitters achieve low transport costs. Thus with respect to ownership options
for the onshore network we have considered a range of 3-15 mTpa. However,
although there may be considerable benefit to plan for an oversized transport
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 66 of 86
infrastructure this requires commercial justification. The clear rationale and
cost/benefit analysis for whether an oversized pipeline is considered or not is
covered within the Business Case evaluation.
With respect to ownership options it is assumed that the Onshore Network
design will be a shared pipeline from the four emitting sites. The onshore
network will carry CO2 in at 100barg thus dense phase and feed a
compression station adjacent to the SSI location which will then transfer CO2
for its offshore sequestration. The Engineering Workstream has evaluated
routes and confirmed a preferred route as marked in blue below. For the
purpose of network ownership we have assumed the blue route. The CO2
pipeline would start from GrowHow travelling along the north side of the river
to pick up BOC, crossing the river through Pipeline Tunnel 2 and continuing
along the south side of the river to the compression station. There would be
separate spurs to Lotte and SSI. Given the pivotal role of SSI as the anchor
project and being located adjacent to the compression station consideration is
given to a standalone point to point pipeline connecting SSI directly to the
station.
An onshore CO2 network presents an economy of scale benefit for first users
and lowers the barrier of entry for subsequent CCS projects wishing to join the
network. The ownership structure for the onshore network needs to consider
the risks and opportunities associated with the pipeline sizing, construction,
operation, and maintenance and charging options and how the risks and
liabilities will be shared between each element of the chain.
2. RECOMMENDATION
A network approach entails many challenges, in particular from commercial,
financial, and legal perspectives, including:
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 67 of 86
• The design of a multi-user charging framework linked to the allocation of
capacity in the system that reflects the initial investment cost alongside
ongoing operation and maintenance costs;
• The development of innovative commercial structures that accommodate
first and new users/partners/owners and their different priorities for
access to the network;
• The ability to finance the construction of a network that may initially be
‘oversized’ in anticipation of future volumes of CO2 being added; and
• The metering or monitoring of the different sources of CO2 which feed into
the common network. Each source could fluctuate, so sources need to be
individually tracked and emitters need to receive specific benefits for each
tonne of CO2 supplied.
Ultimately the network requires an Owner/Operator. Whilst there is only one
physical route for the CO2, there are multiple options for commercial interfaces
and ownership. An emitter could have separate contracts with an onshore
network operator, an offshore network operator and a store operator.
Alternatively contracts could follow the CO2 flow so an emitter has a contract
with an onshore network operator who in turn has a contract with the offshore
network operator and so on. Finally you could see a vertical or aggregated
model where either a private entity of the UK Government take on the whole
infrastructure.
For at least the last three decades the trend has been towards divestment of
assets by the Government alongside a strong preference for major new
infrastructure projects to be privately financed. So whilst the UK Government
are considered as a potential Network Owner it is unlikely that they will want to
play more than a key supporting role. The Element Energy report
commissioned by One North East and NEPIC late 2010 for CCS in the
Teesside area concluded two modes for project development and structuring;
1) Single Entity Promoter, and 2) Joint Venture Development. Element Energy
repeated this view in a report completed for the Energy Technologies Institute
in 2012 where five potential options for CO2 transport and storage
infrastructure development within the UK were considered. From their
stakeholder engagement on these options they recommended two options
worthy of more detailed analysis; 1) Regulated regional private monopolies,
and 2) Regulated regional public-private JV monopolies. Thus the options
considered below focus on private solutions, i.e. Sole Operator and Joint
Venture arrangements. Upstream, downstream and mid-stream led pipeline
investor models exist for gas pipeline infrastructure and the same is being
considered for the Teesside Collective Project. Thus, the same (aggregated
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 68 of 86
model) or different entities (disaggregated model) could own the Onshore
Network, the Offshore Network and/or the Store.
The table on the following page evaluates ownership options that have been
considered for the onshore network. Key attributes are summarised for each
option and are covered in detail in the following sections of the report.
The recommend ownership option is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
involving emitters alongside a proven network operator, i.e. National Grid
Carbon and with either direct Government involvement or as a minimum clear
Government sponsorship, guarantees and financial support mechanisms.
As stated in the Amec One North East report on Teesside CCS, the small
physical size of the cluster lends itself to private ownership of the onshore
network via established CO2 pipeline, industrial gas, gas transmission or utility
companies. The Element Energy report for One North East and NEPIC also
considered the JV model using a project finance approach to be the most
promising method for the Teesside onshore network. The network could be
promoted and developed by a "coalition of the willing‟ made up of Teesside
operators, via a JV consortium and using a project finance model (SPV). There
is significant potential to build an appropriate vehicle through which to promote
and develop the project, building on existing relationships and structures in the
Tees Valley (e.g. the North East Process Industry Cluster; NEPIC) – to this
end, ten NEPIC members have already signed up to a Collaboration
Agreement – the Process Industry Carbon Capture and Storage Initiative
(PICCSI) to further explore potential of a CCS network. This is the first small
step in the process of moving towards a JV, as described previously. Element
Energy state that the results from a survey of Teesside operators showed the
majority considered that a consortium approach would be the most effective
means of developing a CCS network in the area.
As surmised by Element Energy, once established, the SPV could offer a
reasonable amount of flexibility with scope for future exit and entry of direct
participants and new market entrants and offers the greatest means to insulate
risk and leverage debt into the project through the presence of well-capitalised,
creditworthy counterparties. Furthermore, once built and proven, the equity
holders could potentially exit and/or refinance, leveraging new sources of
lower cost commercial debt (including mezzanine arrangements, structured
finance), which could serve to lower financing costs. In practice, a structured
and negotiated process will need to emerge that serves to bring the JV
partners along, requiring first the development of initial memoranda of
understanding, collaboration agreements, moving then towards letters of intent
and finally structured contracts and a SPV entity with its associated articles of
incorporation and shareholder agreements.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 69 of 86
Evaluation of Onshore Network Ownership Options Risk Categorisation: High Medium Low
Consortium SPV
(UJV) (IJV)
Description An existing incorporated company, limited by guarantee A joint venture where the parties do not form a corporation. Thus a
group of parties that form a legally structured partnership.
A Special Purpose Vehicle or Incorporated JV. A joint venture in
which the companies involved create a separate corporation and
divide its shares between themselves as an equitable way to
distribute JV income and risk.
Government owned and operated company.
Example BOC, NGC or Denbury (USA)
GDF SUEZ E&P on ROAD Project
Central Area Transmission System (CATS) (BG 62.42%, BP 36.01%,
ConocoPhillips 0.66%, Eni 0.34%, and Total 0.57%. The operator is
BP.
Interconnector (UK). Formed when nine energy companies made
long-term shipping commitments and also became shareholders.
Motorways, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Raising Finance Challenging and likely based on project sponsor's credit worthiness
and access to capital (corporate finance). Few corporate sponsors
likely to have sufficient profile
Likely to be promising, subject to developing a strong corporate
coalition of the willing with good track records and credit ratings.
Over time equity shares can be changed. Enables multiple sources
and levels of equity funding via the parties. Potential issues around
asset ownership and rights. Lenders likely to conduct extensive due
diligence.
Likely to be promising, subject to developing a strong corporate
coalition of the willing with good track records and credit ratings.
Over time equity shares can be changed. Enables private
capital/debt funding alongside equity funding from parties. Well
capitalised and creditworthy entities improve the chances of
attracting private capital.
High risk, due to Government involvement and commitment
(subject to incentives and project terms). Highly disruptive
intervention, contrary to current policy so challenging to obtain
funding. Public investment may distort energy, oil, carbon and CCS
markets. As a national requirement and directed investment the
project can be removed from funding issues associated with risk on
future EU ETS prices.
Creditworthiness Significantly exposed to all non supply and demand risk due to
limited involvement of underlying users of network.
Effectively addressed as equity involvement ensures commitment
of partners with interest in underlying assets, i.e. investment by
emitters reduced stranded asset risk. Ability to take small equity
share limits downside risk for individual investors and to better
match the different risk-reward profiles for different industries.
Effectively addressed as equity involvement ensures commitment
of partners with interest in underlying assets, i.e. investment by
emitters reduced stranded asset risk. Ability to take small equity
share limits downside risk for individual investors and to better
match the different risk-reward profiles for different industries.
Effectively addressed as Government has capacity to create new
regulation and economic framework to support objectives and
enforce payments in cash flow model. Potential for efficiency
capacity over long-term particularly when expected future
capacities are high.
Decision Making Coordination without excessive standardisation or bureaucracy.
Could limit innovation / new projects.
More complex given multiple parties and dependent on the
strength of the lead party.
More complex given multiple parties and dependent on the
strength of the lead party.
Central planning may reduce innovation and flexibility, raising
costs.
Transportation
Agreement
Operator would have little or no recourse to the underlying asset
creating entities. It would rely on the development of a watertight
supply and off-take agreements, or a very robust demand case for
CO2, i.e. EOR.
Emitters integrated alongside network operators could enable
increased levels of assurance and trust. Again dependent on the
role played by a lead party.
Emitters integrated alongside network operators could enable
increased levels of assurance and trust. Again dependent on the
role played by a lead party.
More complicated business models but could deliver an
aggregated/vertical solution.
Supply Risk Most exposed if supply volumes fail to match expectations and/or
are late. Again can be mitigated via watertight agreements.
If emitters involved in ownership then provides greater onus to
ensure volumes are supplied on time, in specification and at
volume specified. Again dependent on robust agreements and the
role played by a lead party.
If emitters involved in ownership then provides greater onus to
ensure volumes are supplied on time, in specification and at
volume specified. Again dependent on robust agreements and the
role played by a lead party.
If established as National Infrastructure this would better enable
the installation of a future proofed infrastructure that can
accommodate short-medium term exposure on supply risks.
Construction Simplest structure enabling direct interface between EPC
Contractor and Owner to deliver the project.
Experience of local players in previous infrastructure projects can
help expedite the onshore build providing clear decision making is
in place, ideally through a designated lead player.
Experience of local players in previous infrastructure projects can
help expedite the onshore build providing clear decision making is
in place, ideally through a designated lead player.
Significant pace of development. Government ownership could
enable a long term plan to ensure right sizing of pipeline to future
capacity.
Operations "First of Kind" technical risk remains overriding barrier to attracting
commercial debt. Non-supply and demand risks can be addressed
through design of suitable contractual arrangements
"First of Kind" technical risk remains overriding barrier to attracting
commercial debt. Non-supply and demand risks can be addressed
through design of suitable contractual arrangements
"First of Kind" technical risk remains overriding barrier to attracting
commercial debt. Non-supply and demand risks can be addressed
through design of suitable contractual arrangements
Technical risks remain but can be underwritten by Government, key
operating risks can also be managed through use of Government
supply and demand guarantees. Government can lease or outsource
the operational requirements and if necessary change operator.
HSE & Regulation Can Self Regulate. Clear accountable entity for HSE, OFGEM. Likely
to be a known trusted entity on Teesside for gaining rights of way
licenses etc. Will benefit from Government support and
intervention already in place.
Can Self Regulate. Potentially unclear accountable entity for HSE,
OFGEM. As a Group may find gaining access rights, approvals etc.
more difficult. Will benefit from Government support and
intervention already in place. Public Sector involvement in the JV
reduces policy and regulatory risk.
Can Self Regulate. Potentially unclear accountable entity for HSE,
OFGEM. As a Group may find gaining access rights, approvals etc.
more difficult. Will benefit from Government support and
intervention already in place. Public Sector involvement in the JV
reduces policy and regulatory risk.
Would required HSE and OFGEM to Regulate. Easier route for
licences, permits etc. with Government as sponsor and primary
policy maker / regulator.
Likelihood of success Unclear and dependent on profile and track record of project
sponsor in addition to level of Government support
Dependent on level of equity involvement, suitability of lead party
and the ability to de-risk counterparty commercial linkages. Proven
track record on Teesside in building investment consortia and
facilities sharing
Dependent on level of equity involvement, suitability of lead party
and the ability to de-risk counterparty commercial linkages. Proven
track record on Teesside in building investment consortia and
facilities sharing
Contingent on the development of new government policy and
regulation. Approach at odds with current UK policy approach.
Overall, an SPV model involving Government support presents
a compelling option for the Onshore Network Operator
Clarity of decision making is easiest via a Sole Owner but could
be replicated within an SPV/UPV via a clear lead party with a
clear remit.
Minimal difference between owner options. More suited to a
Sole Operator or UJV/SPV with a clear lead entity with proven
track record and long term outlook.
Minimal difference between owner options. More suited to a
UJV/SPV involving emitters or National Infrastructure where
Government guarantees may be needed to underwrite supply
volume risks and asset cost recovery mechanisms.
The risks associated with the network construction and
integration require underwriting with the Government best
placed to provide this.
Operations is unlikely to influence the ownership route
although a JV or Public arrangement provides greater
flexibility in the event of Operator failure.
HSE & Regulation is likely to have minimal influence on
ownership route.
Attributes Sole Public
Key Takeaway
An SPV model is likely to be the most successful in securing
finance
Although an unlikely route, a Public solution presents the
strongest credit position. An SPV/UPV solution is most likely
with creditworthiness dependent on the mix of parties
involved.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 70 of 86
3. RATIONALE
Pipelines are usually developed by multiple parties whom have an interest in
either selling or buying the item being moved. These parties may own the
project by either an incorporated joint venture (“IJV”) or an unincorporated joint
venture (“UJV”). The IJV or SPV structure is the more traditional form of
corporate vehicle selected. The Teesside region has both the capabilities to
deliver the shared infrastructure that would be needed and also several parties
that could either act as a Sole operator or come together and form an SPV as
demonstrated by the shared pipeline infrastructures for steam, hydrogen,
oxygen and wastes already existing on Teesside.
3.1 Raising Finance
Whether Sole Operator or SPV the ability to raise sufficient finance to
construct and operate the onshore network will be the biggest hurdle faced.
The complexity of building a shared large-scale infrastructure is not the main
challenge. Key is the demonstration of a UK first commercial scale industrial
CCS network and whether the policy framework and economic fundamentals
are sufficient to attract finance. Whether Sole or SPV, the Network Owner
would fully expect the project to pay back debts and provide profit/dividends.
A Sole Operator would be a large company with appropriate expertise, e.g.
BOC, Linde, National Grid Carbon, who has financial resource to make the
necessary investment based on a speculative view of the presented business
case. Whilst not risk averse, such companies could perceive significant
opportunity costs.
The SPV model presents an attractive option. Equity involvement by a number
of emitter site operators would significantly de-risk the project from the point of
view of non-supply risk, probably the most important factor affecting the
commercial viability of the network. It is also more likely to ensure fair and
equitable self-regulation of the network operation and commercial model. The
involvement of these entities would improve the sourcing of private capital.
The presence of the well-capitalised "anchors" with equity in the JV, alongside
other equity investors, presents a more stable long term proposition. Lenders
will take security over the proceeds of the CO2 transportation agreements,
along with any other security which local law will permit, such as a pledge of
other assets. Lenders may seek to take security over the pipeline itself.
Where a UJV is used, it gives rise to questions of how the pipeline and other
assets are owned by the developing sponsors (e.g., tenants in common), how
are those ownership interests evidenced and what are the rights and
obligations which attach to those ownership interests (e.g. what are the
funding obligations). Where one of the sponsors is seeking to project finance
its share of the costs, then that raises additional questions that require its
lenders to conduct extensive due diligence on the underlying UJV structure.
Sponsors of a pipeline may fund the construction of a pipeline purely through
equity contributions or other shareholder funds to the project company, but
may also wish to obtain debt funding from commercial banks, export credit
agencies and/or multilateral financial institutions. Where the project company
is borrowing from third party lenders in order to fund construction costs, the
lenders will need to be comfortable that the transportation agreement related
to the pipeline is bankable, not least because the lenders will typically only
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 71 of 86
have recourse to the revenue stream generated by the pipeline owner from
transporting the CO2, and will typically have no recourse to any assets not
related to the project. Transportation agreements will also typically be
structured on an availability/send-or-pay basis, such that the project company
is being paid a capacity fee if the pipeline is operational. The capacity fee
would be sufficient to cover interest and principal on the project finance loan
and other fixed costs. It would also be paid a separate variable fee to cover
variable costs.
Where different parts of the overall supply chain (for example, the upstream
facilities, the pipeline, and the downstream facilities) are owned by different
sponsors and being project-financed by different syndicates, the construction
of a pipeline in that chain may be further complicated by the different
syndicates’ competing interests.
The main issue for the Onshore Network is that it is a "Mid-Stream" project
built to link supply and demand. Such projects are rare and are most at risk
from changes in business plans at either end. Risks for mid-stream projects
are reduced when supply contracts and tariffs are arranged in advance.
However, in the case of Teesside Collective the supply and demand are also
both "greenfield" and themselves requiring project financing so the risks for the
Onshore Network Owner are high.
Thus, one possible route is for vertical integration from emitter sites through to
sink. This could be via a National Infrastructure model, a Sole Operator such
as National Grid Carbon or a collaborative SPV approach by emitters and sink-
holders. The latter presents the lowest end to end risk from a finance
perspective and enables the parties to share the value of the emission
allowances between them. In practice a vertical SPV should provide the basis
for the signing of long terms contracts for pipeline capacity enhancing the
ability to secure finance for the construction investment. Whilst such an
arrangement may present concerns around localised monopoly power this
could be mitigated by imposing a requirement on the pipeline to allow the
future connection of new emitters. For an effective market in CO2
transportation to exist a degree of liquidity will be required. Thus, the network
needs to be able to accommodate capacity reductions and disconnections due
to loss of first users with the possibility of new users joining. Therefore, having
a pool of potential new users would benefit overall network functioning and
efficiency.
In summary, wherever possible the potential to establish a competitive market
for the onshore network capacity should initially be pursued. The second route
would be through a JV among market participants ahead of vertical integration.
Where the latter emerges as the preferred option the ability to integrate a
competitive provision in network investment and use should be considered.
3.2 Creditworthiness
In terms of creditworthiness the order of preferred onshore network owner
would be from the UK Government, SPV, UJV through to Sole Operator. As
already stated, for the purpose of this report, Public ownership has been ruled
out. Although an unlikely outcome, the UK Government may play a role within
a JV to provide support, i.e. creditworthiness, capital investment, regulatory
support, etc. As a minimum, given the Teesside project is viewed as a
pioneering major infrastructure project of national interest the UK Government
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 72 of 86
may position themselves as a backer of last resort to enable others to secure
the necessary finance to construct and operate the network.
Whilst an SPV / UJV presents a vehicle to share first mover risk, their
perceived creditworthiness is dependent on the mix of parties involved. With
the creditworthiness of SSI, the anchor emitter, in question, it will be essential
that parties with deep pockets and an appetite for major infrastructure are
brought into the mix to cover both the initial investment and continuity in the
event the anchor volume is lost.
In terms of a credible Sole Operator, one can realistically envisage an
established pipeline operator such as BOC or National Grid Carbon.
3.3 Decision Making
In terms of decision making the order of preferred onshore network owner
would be in reverse from Sole Operator, UJV/SPV to UK Government.
Examples of some of the decisions faced are listed below, i.e. should the
onshore network be oversized or not, route of network, commercial terms for
use, how handle leavers/joiners etc. The ability for a single entity to make a
decision is clearer than that involving multiple parties within a UJV/SPV.
However, it is common for a UJV/SPV to have a lead party to whom decision
rights are assigned. With a Public option, the UK Government would need to
fully assign responsibility to a single entity to construct/operate the onshore
network on their behalf to avoid protracted consultation and decision making.
Some thoughts on a few of the issues and decisions likely to be faced:
• Onshore Network route sizing. Should the network be sized to the
maximum possible or just match First User volumes? If to be "future
proofed" then where and how are the future connection points to be
established? What route is to be taken? How are way leaves to be
handled?
• Volume commitments. What volumes do emitters commit to? What
happens if these commitments are not realised? How are metering
discrepancies handled?
• User exit. What happens when an emitter's business fails and they leave
the network?
• Future Entrants / New Users. What would the commercial terms for future
entry be? Are these established at the onset on when each new user
arises?
• Commercial model. Capacity Payment versus Throughput Payment or
combination of both? Transfer of Title/Ownership of CO2?
• Liabilities associated with the onshore network. How is ongoing operation
and liability handled in the event of a) leaks from the network, b)
equipment failure that prevents transport, c) CO2 quality issues, etc.?
How is a COMAH event handled?
• How will the onshore network be regulated? Self or external?
3.4 Transportation Agreement
With respect to the transportation agreement the difference between the
potential options for choice of network owner would be minimal. A robust
transportation agreement can be developed just as easily by a Sole Operator,
UJV/SPV or the UK Government. The transportation agreement is a vital
component of the network financing and is likely to represent the main source
of revenue for the project to service its debt. Where project financing is part of
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 73 of 86
the sources of funding, then lenders will wish to review the connection
agreements entered into by the operator as part of their due diligence. For
trust to ensue, both emitters and financial backers will seek long term stability,
flexibility, transparency and efficient local administration from the network
operator. Thus, more suited to a Sole Operator or UJV/SPV with a clear lead
entity with proven track record and long term outlook. OFGEM or an equivalent
may be required to ensure checks and balances on the operator.
Key areas to be covered by the transportation agreement are:
• Volume
• Price
• Title/Liability Issues
The transportation agreement is typically an availability-based contract, where
the emitter's obligation to pay is independent of whether or not it ships CO2
through the pipeline, i.e. a ship-or-pay basis. The ship-or-pay obligation of the
emitter must be sufficiently tight to ensure certainty of payment. This would
need to be backed up with a robust take or pay supply agreement with the
offshore operator to ensure onward transportation. Where project financing is
part of the sources of funding, then lenders will wish to review the connection
agreements entered into by the onshore operator as part of their due diligence.
The transport agreement may need to reflect different configurations for
infrastructure, i.e. SSI may want a simple point to point agreement with a
connection at the compressor whilst other emitters are likely to utilise a shared
pipeline. The efficiency of onshore network is improved through providing
blanked T's. This enables new entrants and promotes competition on price.
The mechanisms for how New Entrants and network extensions are charged
for should be developed upfront with the prevailing view that New Entrants
should be charged the same or more that First Users with capacity costs re-
phased across all players. Similarly the mechanism for treating a First User
that buys an option on oversizing, i.e. use it or lose it, transfer of rights etc.
A tariff mechanism would need to be developed for emitters. This could be
based on a Capacity Only Model, Throughput Only Model or a combined "Cost
Plus" Capacity & Throughput Model. The network operator would want the
reward mechanism to focus on capacity versus utilisation to establish high
fixed costs and low variable costs. Thus an annual capacity fee to recover
capital cost over the contract length, associated O&M as recoverable rolling
fixed fees and a variable charge for gas transferred. Entry requirements and
service costs would need careful clarity and negotiation and ensure that first
movers do not become disadvantaged as the network grows. However, once
the network is established the most efficient use of capacity is promoted by
unbundling ownership from capacity and moving towards setting tariff
structures in line with variable costs. There is already extensive experience of
agreements and tariff mechanisms for private, self-regulated cooperation on
utility infrastructure on Teesside meaning that both the onshore network
operator and emitters should be able to develop arrangements without too
much difficulty.
With volume based variable charges, a notable part of service and hence
Transport Agreement will be metering. Duplex fiscal meters to enable
calibration and continuity would be required and accessible at emitter
boundaries with the recommendation of one or more duplex metering points
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 74 of 86
on the network spine. Within the agreement details can be captured to cover
meter calibration, tolerances, meter failures, discrepancies etc.
A useful reference document is the Capacity Charging Mechanism for Shared
CO2 Transportation and Storage Infrastructure report prepared by National
Grid Carbon Limited for the Global CCS Institute for the purposes of sharing
National Grid Carbon Limited’s work in developing a conceptual model for a
charging mechanism for application to shared CCS infrastructure systems.
One tariff mechanism suggested is for three separate charges an EPC
Charge, a Capacity Rights Charge and a Use of System Charge.
Finally with respect to the Transportation Agreement some thoughts on title
and liability issues. Sembcorp currently own the way leaves rights to the
majority of pipeline routes. Way leaves and their associate title rights and
costs (upfront and ongoing) will need to be covered within the Transport
Agreement.
Title will be a significant area to resolve. Will we see a simple Throughput
Service or Title Transfer at each Boundary? General view is the latter with
emitters not wanting to be involved beyond their boundary fence. However,
this places a major obligation on the Network Operator(s) to take on all of the
long term risk/liability for all transportation and storage. Who benefits from
Grandfathered Emission Trading rights if the captured carbon a) goes down
pipeline, or b) doesn’t go down for whatever reason? Two possible scenarios
are that a) the Store Owner gets EU ETS benefits or b) the Emitters gets UE
ETS benefits. As the emitters currently get the benefit we can assume that the
Network Operator(s) have no connection to EU ETS rights and so provide a
simple conduit only. Note that the European Union CCS Directive states that
the Store Owner has ultimate liability if a store leaks, unless a fully vertical
arrangement is established.
All parties will want to avoid contractual liability for leakage. This is discussed
in more detail in the Supply Risk section below. Within the Transport
Agreement what happens in the event of a) leaks, b) capture equipment
failure, c) transfer equipment failure etc. will need to be spelt out. The initial
view is that for events <12 hours no liability costs are due, for >12hours to < 1
month is covered by emitter/operator insurance and anything >1 month is
considered Force Majeure.
3.5 Supply Risk
Although there are a number of significant supply risks associated with the
onshore network as per 3.4 above they should be manageable through robust
agreements/contracts and/or term sheets together with robust ongoing risk
management. From a supply risk perspective, the onshore network ownership
is more suited to a UJV/SPV involving emitters and with a clear lead party with
an appetite for risk and a proven track record for long term stability. However,
Government guarantees may be necessary to underwrite the volume risks and
associated infrastructure costs involved. Key risks are viewed as:
• CO2 Supply Volumes
• CO2 Quality
• Leakage
• Technical risk associated with the integration of the chain
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 75 of 86
The main risk for the pipeline operator is that there is insufficient supplied
volumes to take up the pipeline’s capacity. To a certain extent, ship-or-pay
obligations in the agreements may mitigate these risks, but the operator's
ability to make full use of the pipeline will nonetheless be reduced. For
example, will the pipeline outlast all the First User emitters?
As stated in the section above leaks and meter inaccuracies present volume
risk which need to be covered contractually but also addressed on an ongoing
basis through operational procedures that regularly complete check and
balances to capture leaks and meter errors timeously. Such controls may
require internal or third party regulation to ensure they remain robust.
The following section, and associated part table from the Element Energy One
North East report provides a useful view on associated supply risks. The
principal aspect to resolve for the network operator will be the securing of
necessary up-front commitments or guarantees around the future usage of a
scaled-up network (e.g. long-term supply and off-take agreements). The need
to address non-supply and non-demand risk is therefore at the core of the
contractual framework for a CCS network. This issue is not uncommon in other
projects based on investments requiring successful multi- or bi-lateral
commercial relationships. The use of long-term CO2 supply and off-take
contracts between supply parties (i.e. by CO2 capture entities and/or a
midstream network operator), midstream operators (where these are separate
to supply parties) and demand parties (i.e. CO2 storage and/or EOR
operator(s)) which are mutually agreeable is therefore a key priority. As with
natural gas pipelines, the commercial arrangements are likely to be based on
the need to secure known capacity levels (i.e. capacity rights, capacity
payments, with ability to re-sell capacity rights in a secondary market). Such
contracts generally also contain penalty provisions and clauses addressing
specific concerns such as project failure or non-performance. Ultimately, it is
this type of negotiated process, perhaps even involving bidding rounds or
open-seasons for capacity rights, which will serve to determine the network
capacity to be built at least in the first phase. Element Energy’s discussions
with Teesside stakeholders suggest that nearly three-quarters of those spoken
with would potentially be interested in considering entering into an initial long-
term supply contract for a Teesside network, either before 2020, or soon
thereafter.
The need to address “first of a kind” technology risk is also central to the
success of the contractual framework and commercial basis of the network.
Performance guarantees for equipment must be provided before lenders can
consider investing. Again, because of the "project-on-project" risk, these will be
required across the entire system including each plant, all the capture
equipment and any new build plants (known as a “wrap”). General
performance guarantees do not typically provide for the full range of technical
risks associated with operating the entire CCS network. For example, there will
be concerns around whether emitting plants can operate satisfactorily with the
capture equipment across all operating modes, fuel input variations and
exhaust gas streams, over their expected lifetime. As it is extremely unlikely
that insurance for technology failure will be available, commercial lenders will
therefore require equipment vendors to stake their reputation on providing
performance guarantees for equipment. This will ensure that it is in the
vendor's interest to overcome any operational problems. A further element to
consider for shared infrastructure is the risk of change of ownership. This
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 76 of 86
could affect incumbent contracts, and potentially prevent access to the system.
Use of non-disturbance agreements will typically be required to manage this
risk.
An extract of a table from the Element Energy report below summarises some
of the key supply risks associated with developing the CCS network and the
range of potential approaches to managing them.
The table shows that while many of the risk management options can be dealt
with primarily by the private sector (through various commercial and legal
arrangements typical of large multi-party investment projects), other areas of
risk will likely require government policy and regulatory support. In this context,
it is important to note that some CCS risks are viewed by investors as potential
“deal-breakers” unless addressed by the policy framework (e.g. EU Allowance
price, long-term liability) whereas others can be managed through well
understood existing approaches (CO2 supply and demand risk, tariff
arrangements).
Another key supply risk for the network operator is the quality of the carbon
dioxide received. With multiple sources of CO2, clear entry specifications are
required. The onshore network operator will have to specify composition of
gas, aiming for >95% purity of CO2. Key is the minimisation of water or oxygen
as both present a corrosion risk to a mild steel pipeline. Each emitter site will
need to install molecular sieves at their boundary interfaces to remove water.
Gas contaminants specific to individual sites will need to be risk assessed, i.e.
ammonia from GrowHow. Potential disputes, i.e. "Your rubbish CO2 caused
my leak", need to be covered off upfront via clarified specifications in the form
of a Term Sheet. Liability should lie with the Network Owner with the
development of robust Term Sheets minimising risk. National Grid Carbon
have provided a standard specification which provides a good starting point.
With regards to leakage from the onshore network COMAH Safety
arrangements will be required including a Safety File, risk assessments and
associated risk mitigation plans together with routinely tested procedures to
deal with leaks. To determine when a leak occurs, leak detectors and/or
differential pressure gauges may be required to supplement a real time
automated meter reading analysis. The onshore network would need
Emergency Shutdown Valves every 1-2kms. This can then enable
quantification of loss in the event of line ruptured.
The final area to touch on briefly are the technical risk associated with the
integration of the chain. Multiple capture technologies are proposed. Thus a
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 77 of 86
network connecting multiple sources needs to be designed to account for
differing specifications being amalgamated into an appropriate CO2 stream
composition, temperature, pressures and velocities. The onshore network then
integrates with the offshore network at which point the CO2 will be further
compressed providing another layer of complexity and risk, i.e. what happens
to the CO2 within the onshore network in the event of a compressor failure.
3.6 Construction
There are two common approaches to the contractual framework for the
engineering, procurement and construction of a pipeline. The onshore network
operator can contract all the required services through the EPC contractor
alone. The EPC contractor will then be obliged, under the terms of the contract
with the operator to procure all necessary services, by itself contracting with,
for example, the pipe supplier. Alternatively, the operator can contract
separately with each contractor. In this scenario, the operator would have
separate contracts with a pipe supplier to supply the pipes and a contractor to
build the pipeline. This gives rise to enhanced interface risk, although this
would not necessarily make it impossible to obtain project financing as it is
possible to mitigate interface risk. That said, where the sponsors are seeking
to obtain project financing, then this contractual structure becomes subject to
additional scrutiny as lenders will wish to ensure that the contract(s) required
to build the pipeline are as time and cost certain as possible.
Sembcorp own 90% of the pipe corridors in the area. Rather than one off
payments Sembcorp normally rent out way leaves for pipeline land. Terms
would need to be agreed prior to construction commencing. National Grid have
statutory rights to land access via a compensatory mechanism.
Adjacent to SSI, the coastline still has environmental constraints but the
coastline hosts the landfall of the CATS natural gas pipeline. Thus precedence
exists and environmental considerations are expected to be manageable. The
shoreline is a RAMSAR marine reserve in additional to being designated a
Special Protected Area and recognised as an Important Bird Area.
A host of technical and engineering challenges may result in the delayed or
sub-optimal phasing of the network's evolution at emitter sites, within the
onshore arrangements and also within the offshore arrangements. The
integration of the chain through the successful sequencing of each required
component presents the biggest construction challenge. The risks associated
with the onshore network construction and integration will require underwriting
as any supporting tariff mechanism may not necessarily cover these risks.
3.7 Operations
System dynamics and operating regimes will need to be considered. In terms
of system dynamics, a CO2 pipeline has different operating modes to consider
at both ends. The CO2 injection facility may require the CO2 to be delivered in
a constant flow, whereas the CO2 capture unit at the emitter sites may operate
on an intermittent basis. The requirements of the storage formation, such as
flow, pressure and temperature, set the downstream conditions. The emitter,
on the other hand, provides another set of upstream conditions in terms of flow
rates, ramp-rates, temperature, pressure and composition. These conditions
from both the storage and capture facilities need to be taken into account (and
optimised) in both the design and operation of the onshore network.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 78 of 86
Beyond the initial design and associated risk aspects, the network operator will
need to consider the operational aspects of gas impurities and managing their
impact. As mentioned above the majority of the network’s CO2 will come from
production and capture systems that will intrinsically add small quantities of by-
products or impurities to the CO2. There are a number of consequences to
such additions. These impurities can influence the thermodynamic properties
and behaviour of the CO2 stream, creating variations to the equations of state
of the CO2, resulting to changes in flow rate (both in terms of mass and
volume) of the CO2 stream and its phase. Two-phase flow in a pipeline may
present problems for compressors and transport equipment, due to slugging
and fatigue, and this form of transportation is also inefficient. The interaction of
certain impurities (particularly free water) in the CO2 stream may result in
equipment and pipeline corrosion, increased failure rates and fracture
propagation, damage and clogging (due to hydrate formation). Thus for system
integrity and injection/storage efficiency further cleaning steps may be
necessary, i.e. compression, heating, more injection wells, chemical additives,
filters etc.
The ultimate aim of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) program is to
assure safety at all times. Additionally an O&M program should provide
environmental protection and economic efficiency. A routine, ideally real time
automated, mass balance utilising network meters will be useful in detecting
large leaks but not sensitive enough to detect small leaks. Thus an inspection
and maintenance program is required to assure safe operations. A robust
asset care programme including full FMECA will be required to a) minimise the
risk of leakage, and b) maximise the reliability of the pipeline and associated
plant. The network operator will need to have prepared and systematically
follow each standard operating procedure for both routine operation and
maintenance of the system and the handling of abnormal operations and
emergencies.
The network operator will need to administer meter readings and the
associated billing process. In the event of meter failure, procedures will need
to cover retro charging on allocation via mass balance and historical data.
With respect to operational liabilities associated with leaks and plant failure,
the associated costs of loss/repair can be easily recovered through the
recommended Cost Plus Model, i.e. repair costs going into next year's budget
and spread across the network users.
3.8 HSE & Regulation
The construction of the onshore network will require the consent of a number
of statutorily empowered bodies. These consents come in the form of various
approvals, licences and permissions and ensure a large range of statutory
rules with respect to rights of way, protection of others’ interests,
environmental protection, health and safety, etc. are complied with. Gaining
consent is likely to require lengthy application procedures and/or studies to be
carried out. However, these are unlikely to a) create a major barrier to the
onshore network and b) have minimal influence on ownership route.
Regulatory and competition law issues will need to be considered in relation to
the construction and operation of the network. The most important policy from
the EU is the Storage Directive (Directive 2009/31/EC), the so-called “CCS
Directive” which is globally one of the most comprehensive examples of CCS
specific legislation. The Directive creates a framework regime, allowing the
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 79 of 86
capture and transport of CO2 to be regulated under existing legislation, and
establishing a regulatory permitting regime for the storage of CO2. The
Directive establishes liability (although civil liability is explicitly excluded),
responsibility and sets a range of obligations and for storage; including site
selection, operating, closure and monitoring activities.
Rules may require the operator to operate the pipeline in a way which is less
than optimal with regards to its interests, and by extension, those of the
lenders. For example, in the European Union, refusing third parties access to
spare capacity in the pipeline could fall foul of the EU regulatory regime and/or
infringe the competition law prohibition on the abuse of a dominant position
within the market, since as a general rule EU law requires third parties to be
granted access to a pipeline where capacity is available (subject to limited
exceptions) on the basis of non-discriminatory and cost-reflective tariffs. As
per existing utility networks on Teesside, network capacity access and charges
are likely to be set by the network owner and not by the Government. The
regulatory regime in the EU also requires the ownership and operation of a
pipeline to be separated (“unbundled”) from any gas production, electricity
generation and gas or electricity supply operations, which means that in many
of the EU Member States the ownership of the pipeline and its operation must
be fully separated from any production or supply operations. This would need
to be assessed, in the event that say BOC were to operate the network. There
is precedent on Teesside for bundled energy/gas networks.
CO2 pipelines have operated for multiple decades with an excellent safety
record applying internationally adopted standards and codes of practice.
However, these codes have been mainly applied for pipeline systems
transporting naturally occurring CO2 through sparsely populated areas for use
in EOR operations and do not specifically address CO2 transport as part of
CCS systems. Standards organisations in Europe are reviewing existing
standards in light of planned large-scale CCS projects. The establishment of
an international standard has the potential to harmonise and guide both
regulators and operators alike, and improve design, construction, and
operation of CO2 pipelines. It will take a minimum of two years to get the
current Working Draft of the International Standard for CO2 pipeline transport
to a Final Draft. Once finalised, this new international standard might become
mandatory if adopted by a government and/or becomes part of business
contracts.
Section 12.3 of the Amec One North East report addresses the question of
whether a Teesside CO2 network should be regulated or non-regulated. The
current view is for possibly a bit of both. Whilst recognising that national
network equivalents such as National Grid and Interconnector UK are
regulated by OFGEM, for what is in effect a small private network a robust
governance process should lead to the majority if not all areas being
adequately self-regulated by the network operator. One or two exceptions may
require control via OFGEM or HSE, i.e. CCS Third Party Access Regulations,
COMAH, etc. The authority would act such that a private organisation could
operate networks and infrastructure but under regulations that enforce fair
access, structured pricing and costs, underlying development work and long
term contracts. A role by OFGEM would likely be required where a non-vertical
structure between emitters and store exits, i.e. potentially three different
operators for the Onshore Network, Offshore Network and Store. With respect
to regulation, the National Grid Carbon report for GCCSI on Capacity Charging
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 80 of 86
Mechanism for Shared CO2 Transportation and Storage Infrastructure would
be a useful guide when drawing up the business contracts and governance
process.
4. FURTHER RELEVANT CONTEXT
Denbury are a network operator with access to over 940 miles of CO2 network
in the US Gulf Coast region, majority privately owned by them. Denbury's
primary focus is on enhanced oil recovery utilising CO2. One of the principles
of their corporate strategy is to create, a competitive advantage as a result of
their ownership or use of CO2 reserves, oil fields and CO2 infrastructure.
Denbury transport and supply their own CO2 but also third party CO2.
National Grid Carbon, on behalf of the Global CCS Institute, have compiled an
86 page report providing insight on how to run the commercial side of a CO2
network. Titled "Capacity Charging Mechanism for Shared CO2 Transportation
and Storage the report focuses on:
• Shared Networks
• Optimal sizing
• Capacity Charging Mechanisms
• Case Studies
National Grid Carbon are the Network Operator for the proposed Yorkshire
and Humber CCS Project. Thus, an aggregated/vertical Sole Operator model.
The network has the White Rose CCS project at Drax as its anchor project
from where a 67km high pressure onshore Cross Country Pipeline will transfer
captured carbon dioxide to the coast for sequestration in the North Sea. The
long term aspiration is for the Cross Country Pipeline to be the foundation for a
regional CCS network. National Grid Carbon will own and operate both the
onshore and offshore network. The potential exists for an integrated offshore
solution for the White Rose and Teesside Collective projects.
The Maasvlakte CCS or ROAD Project involves the retrofit of a 250 MWe
equivalent post-combustion capture and compression unit to a newly
constructed 1,070 MWe ultra-supercritical power plant located within the
Maasvlakte section of the Rotterdam port and industrial area in Zuid, Holland.
The retrofitted post-combustion capture and compression unit will have the
capacity to capture 1.1 million tonnes of CO2 per annum at 99% purity.
Captured CO2 will be compressed, cooled, dehydrated and metered onsite. It
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 81 of 86
will then be transported 5 km / 3 miles over land via a 41 cm / 16 inch pipeline
that commences at the discharge of the CO2 compressor and crosses
Rotterdam’s Yangtze Harbour. From the coast, the proposed pipeline will run 1
metre / 3.3 feet below the seabed of the North Sea; transporting the captured
CO2 to depleted gas reservoirs located approximately 20 km / 12 miles off the
coast of Rotterdam. A joint venture formed by E.ON Benelux N.V. and
Electrabel Nederland N.V. (a subsidiary of GDF SUEZ Group), is responsible
for managing all aspects of the ROAD Project. The Project’s intended partners
include GDF SUEZ E&P Nederland B.V. for the transport of CO2 and TAQA
Energy B.V. (a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi National Energy Company PJSC) for
injection and permanent storage of CO2. Thus, ROAD have taken a
disaggregated SPV route.
Ecofys and SNC-Lavalin completed a detailed review of "CO2 Pipeline
Infrastructure" on behalf of IEA GHG, published 18th December 2013. The
report, summarising 29 projects from across the globe, provides a reference
document for project developers, decision makers, regulators and
governmental bodies. Key points from this report are captured below.
In the US, EOR has been the primary driver for CO2 pipeline infrastructure
development. Most EU projects focus on CO2 storage within emissions
reduction schemes. Except for the US, most countries have little or no
experience with CO2 pipelines or CO2-EOR operations. The pipelines can
usually handle the flexible operational needs of both supplier and user. A
number of pipeline network examples exist in the US. These hubs have no
specific set of rules, as each system has its own standards for CO2 purity and
operating conditions.
When completing the IEA GHG report, the contractors created a reference
manual, database and interactive web tool detailing information on 29 CO2
pipeline projects worldwide. Figure 2 from the report indicates the Sources of
CO2 across the projects and the Sinks that the pipelines supply.
A version of Table 2 from the IEA GHG Report, see following page, includes
details of the Pipeline Owner, Pipeline Operator and Ownership Model
reviewed within the study. Over 80% of the pipelines are owned and operated
by Sole businesses, with the remainder being JV operated. There are some
interesting examples of hubs in the US where CO2 from individual sources is
gathered and from which various CO2 customers are supplied. The US has
seen private companies or consortia join forces to develop a project as a
commercial venture with the EOR revenues providing project justification. In
some cases projects have been abandoned due to changing market
conditions, i.e. low oil price. Carbon offsets may provide a supplemental
source of revenue. In a number of projects existing oil or gas pipelines or
infrastructure were reused for CO2 transportation and / or injection. Where this
is possible substantial savings in investment costs may be realised.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 82 of 86
A version of Table 2 from the IEA GHG Report including details of the Pipeline Owner, Pipeline Operator and Ownership Model reviewed within the study.
Project Name Country Status Pipeline Owner Pipeline Operator Model Length
(km)
Capacity
(Mton/y)
On/Offsho
re
Sink
1 CO2 Slurry CA P Enbridge Enbridge Sole Unknown Unknown Onshore EOR
2 Quest CA P Athabasca Oil Sands Project Shell Canada (60%) Chevron Canada (20%) and
Marathon Oil Sands L.P. (20%)
JV 84 1.2 Onshore Saline Aquifer
3 Alberta Trunk Line CA P Enhance Energy Inc. Enhance Energy Inc. Sole 240 15 Onshore Unknown
4 Weyburn CA O Dakota Gasification Company Dakota Gasification Company Sole 330 2 Onshore EOR
5 Saskpower Boundary Dam CA O Cenovus Energy Cenovus Energy Sole 66 1.2 Onshore EOR
6 Beaver Creek US O Devon Energy Devon Energy Sole 76 Unknown Onshore EOR
7 Monell US O Anadarko E&P Company Ltd Anadarko E&P Company Ltd Sole 52.6 1.6 Onshore EOR
8 Bairoil US O ExxonMobil Petro Source Corporation Sole 258 23 Onshore Unknown
9 Salt Creek US O Anadarko E&P Company Ltd Anadarko E&P Company Ltd Sole 201 4.3 Onshore EOR
10 Sheep Mountain US O Kinder Morgan (Occidental Permian and ExxonMobil own northern
portion, while Occidental Permian, ExxonMobil and Amerada Hess own the
line south of Bravo Dome.)
Occidental Permian operates both sections Sole 656 11 Onshore CO2 Hub
11 Slaughter US O Kinder Morgan Occidental Permian Sole 56 2.6 Onshore EOR
12 Cortez US O Kinder Morgan CO2 Pipeline Company L.P. Kinder Morgan Sole 808 24 Onshore CO2 Hub
13 Central Basin US O Kinder Morgan CO2 Pipeline Company L.P. Kinder Morgan Sole 232 27 Onshore CO2 Hub
14 Canyon Reef Carriers US O Kinder Morgan CO2 Pipeline Company L.P. Kinder Morgan Sole 354 Unknown Onshore Unknown
15 Choctaw (NEJD) US O Denbury Onshore, LLC Denbury Onshore, LLC Sole 294 7 Onshore EOR
16 Decatur US O University of Il l inois and DOE NETL Archer Daniels Midland Company Sole 1.9 1.1 Onshore Saline Aquifer
17 Snohvit NO O StatoilHydro StatoilHydro Sole 153 0.7 Both Porous Sandstone
formation
18 Peterhead UK P Shell UK, SSE Shell UK Sole 116 10 Offshore Depleted oil/gas field
19 Longannet UK C National Grid National Grid Sole 380 2 Both Depleted oil/gas field
20 White Rose UK P National Grid National Grid Sole 165 20 Both Saline Aquifer
21 Kingsnorth UK C E.On E.On Sole 270 10 Both Depleted oil/gas field
22 ROAD NL P Maasvlakte CCS Project C.V. (Joint venture between E.On Benelux and GdF
Suez Energie Nederland)
GDF SUEZ E&P Nederland B.V. JV 25 5 Both Depleted oil/gas field
23 OCAP NL O Nederlandse Pijpleidingmaatschappij (NPM) OCAP (joint venture between GasBenelux and
VolkerWessels) and Pipeline Control
JV 97 0.4 Onshore Greenhouses
24 Barendrecht NL C Shell OCAP JV 20 0.9 Onshore Depleted oil/gas field
25 Janschwalde DE C Vattenfall GdF Suez (assumed) Sole 52 2 Onshore Sandstone Formation
26 Lacq FR O Total Total Sole 27 0.06 Onshore Depleted oil/gas field
27 Rhourde Nouss-Quartzites DZ P Sonatrach Sonatrach Sole 30 0.5 Onshore Depleted oil/gas field
28 Qinshui CN P China United Coal Bed Methane Company Ltd. (CUCBM) - Client tbc tbc 116 0.5 Onshore ECBMR
29 Gorgon AU P Chevron Texaco Australia Chevron Texaco Australia Sole 8.4 4 Onshore Sandstone Formation
O = Operational C = Cancelled
Country Codes: AU = Australia, CA = Canada, CN = China, DE = Germany, DZ = Algeria, FR = France, NL = Netherlands, NO = Norway, UK = United Kingdom, US = United States. EOR = Enhanced Oil Recovery, ECBMR = Enhanced Coal Bed Methane Recovery
Status Codes: P = Planned
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 83 of 86
A key finding in the IEA GHG study is that CO2 pipelines are both similarities
and differences when compared to other gas pipelines, natural gas in
particular. As relatively similar gases the regulations and standards used for
CO2 originate from natural gas pipeline codes. However, the different physical
properties of CO2 do result in different design parameters and a higher risk
perception, which the public usually associates with the security of geological
storage of CO2. The key distinguishing features fall into three specific areas:
• Regulatory agencies and members of the public are usually not familiar
with CO2 pipelines
• CO2 pipelines are not separated in the public mind from the perceived
risks associated with geological storage of CO2 and arguably there are
parallels
• Properties of CO2 gas result in different design parameters, risk contours
and assessment than for natural gas.
In 1989 specific regulations were published for CO2 pipelines in the US, not
because of the CO2 industry’s safety record, which was good, but rather the
possibility of a high consequence incident if a break in a CO2 pipeline
occurred. The permitting and approval processes play a large role in
realisation of the project timeline. This can take much longer than expected
and exceed the construction time by far. The CO2 pipelines in the UK have a
>40year history of operation with no civilian injuries or fatalities. Public
opposition can lead to cancellation of the whole project as in the case of
Barendrecht.
Typically the pipeline will be the most operationally reliable component of a
CCS infrastructure. The pipeline can usually handle the operational flexibility of
both the supplier and user. In most countries construction activities are
prohibited within a specified distance of a pipeline corridor, typically 5m, to
avoid the risk of impact. Weekly visual checks are completed to ensure no
construction activity has occurred within the corridor.
For project developers it is important to understand what the key drivers of
public concern are so that focused action can be taken. Interviews with several
pipeline operators suggested that in many cases a CO2 pipeline itself is less of
a focal point of increased public concern and is not regarded much differently
from other pipeline projects. Instead, typically, public concern is related to the
power plant or CO2 storage project that the pipeline is tied to.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 84 of 86
Annex D – References
1. Teesside ICCS Risk Workshop Report, Pale Blue Dot Energy
2. Captain Aquifer Outline Storage Development Plan, Pale Blue Dot Energy
3. Bunter Aquifer Outline Storage Development Plan, Pale Blue Dot Energy
4. Teesside CO2 Emissions Report, Pale Blue Dot Energy
5. Teesside ICCS Project Technical Summary Report, Pale Blue Dot Energy
6. Teesside ICCS business case model V16.xls, Pale Blue Dot Energy
7. SSI Steel Plant CO2 Capture Concept Report, Amec Foster Wheeler
8. GrowHow Ammonia Pant CO2 Capture Concept Report, Amec Foster
Wheeler
9. BOC Hydrogen Plant CO2 Capture Concept Report, Amec Foster Wheeler
10. Lotte Plant CO2 Capture Concept Report, Amec Foster Wheeler
11. Onshore CO2 Network Concept Report, Amec Foster Wheeler
12. Offshore CO2 Transportation Concept Report, Amec Foster Wheeler
13. Capture and Transportation Cost Estimate Report, Amec Foster Wheeler
14. ICCs Incentive Mechanism Report, Société Générale
15. 17R-97 Cost Estimating Classification System, American Association of
Cost Engineers International
16. The Economic Impact of Developing a CCS Network in the Tees Valley,
Cambridge Econometrics 2015
17. Green Book and Optimism Bias Supplement, H M Treasury,2013
18. Directive 2009/31/EC on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide.
European Parliament, 2009
19. The Road Project - CCS Permitting Process, Maasvlakte CCS Project C.V.,
2013
20. Captain Clean Energy Project, CO2DeepStore, 2011
21. UK Storage Appraisal Project, Energy Technologies Institute, 2011
22. Delivering CO2 storage at the lowest cost in time to support the UK
decarbonisation goals. UK Transport and Storage Development Group,
2013.
23. Capacity Charing Mechanisms for Shared CO2 Transportation and Storage
Infrastructure. Global CCS Institute and National Grid, 2013.
24. Delivering a CCS Network in the Tees Valley Region. Element Energy and
Carbon Counts, 2010.
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 85 of 86
Annex E - Glossary
Name Definition
B Billion
BIS Department of Business, Innovation and Skills
BOC BOC
BRAM Baseline Risk Allocation Matrix published by DECC as part of the CCS Commercialisation Programme
Bunter Bunter Formation aquifer 5/42 and 5/43
Capex Capital Expenditure
Captain Formation aquifer underlying the Goldeneye depleted gas field and extending NW from there
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CCS Authority Carbon Capture and Storage Authority
CCS Commercialisation
The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Commercialisation Competition
CfD Contract for Difference
CNS Central North Sea
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DCF Discounted Cash Flow
DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change
DPI Discounted Profitability Index (1+PIR)
Emitter Industrial site emitting CO2
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
EU European Union
FEED Front End Engineering Design
Gathering System Onshore transport system required to collect CO2 and transport it to the compressor
GDP Gross Domestic Product
Government Her Majesty's Government
HMG Her Majesty's Government
ICCS Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage
IRR Internal Rate of Return
LCoC Levelised Cost of Capture
LCoCTS Levelised cost of Capture, Transport and Storage
LCoS Levelised Cost of Storage
MT Million Tonnes
NEPIC North East Process Industry Cluster
NPC Net Present Cost
NPV Net Present Value
OCCS Office for CCS (part of DECC)
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OPEX Operational Expenditure
PBDE Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PIR Profit Investment Ratio (NPV/Discounted Capex)
Pre-FEED Pre- Front End Engineering and Design
Project Teesside Collective Carbon Capture and Storage Project
PV Present Value
PV7 Present Value at a 7% discount rate
SNS Southern North Sea
Industrial CCS on Teesside – Summary Report Annexes
Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd Page 86 of 86
SSI Sahaviriya Steel Industries
Store Location of the CO2 storage site
Storer Developer organisation responsible for the storage
TC Teesside Collective
Transportation System
Offshore transport system required to transport CO2 from the compressor to the store
TVU Tees Valley Unlimited Local Enterprise Partnership
UK United Kingdom