AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
Revision Changes Notice
A1
Rev.
Location of Changes
Brief Description of Change
A1
Addition of Section 5
Addition of section on consideration and screening of shipping and onshore trunk pipelines.
A1
1.0
Correction of Lotte Emission numbers
A1
8.1
Statement eliminating shipping on onshore trunk lines.
Changes within the document from the previous issue are indicated by a change triangle
List of HOLDS HOLD No.
MS986
Location of HOLD
Reason for HOLD
2 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
Table of Contents Revision Changes Notice .................................................................................................................... 2 List of HOLDS ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 3 Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.0
2.0
3.0
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1
Background to the Tees Valley Industrial CCS Project ................................................. 6
1.2
Work Packs .................................................................................................................. 6
Scope and Format ................................................................................................................... 7 2.1
Work Pack 5 Scope...................................................................................................... 7
2.2
Work shop purpose ...................................................................................................... 7
2.3
Work shop format ......................................................................................................... 7
Onshore Infrastructure Brief ..................................................................................................... 8 3.1
Area Definition ............................................................................................................. 8
3.2
Overview of infrastructure .......................................................................................... 10
3.3
Key Emitters............................................................................................................... 10
4.0
Optioneering .......................................................................................................................... 11
5.0
Transport Options .................................................................................................................. 12 5.1
Local Shoreline .......................................................................................................... 12
5.2
Alternatives to local shoreline ..................................................................................... 12
5.3
Shipping ..................................................................................................................... 13
5.4
Onshore Routes ......................................................................................................... 15
6.0
Constraints and Drivers ......................................................................................................... 20
7.0
Options and Points of Discussion .......................................................................................... 21
8.0
7.1
Entry Specification ..................................................................................................... 21
7.2
Gas vs Liquid ............................................................................................................. 22
7.3
River Crossing ........................................................................................................... 22
7.4
Shore landing ............................................................................................................. 23
7.5
Route Options ............................................................................................................ 25
7.6
Scenario 2 Emitters Scenarios ................................................................................... 25
Coarse Screening and Further Definition ............................................................................... 25 8.1
MS986
Eliminated Options ..................................................................................................... 25 3 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
MS986
Revision : A1
8.2
Points of discussion - Entry Specification ................................................................... 26
8.3
Further Definition........................................................................................................ 26
4 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
Glossary of Terms Abbreviation Description
MS986
TVU
Tees Valley Unlimited
FEED
Front End Engineering Design
CCS
Carbon Capture and Storage
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
PTA
Purified Terephthalic Acid
SSI
Sahaviriya Steel Industries
UK
United Kingdom
LEP
Local Enterprise Partnership
INCA
Industry Nature Conservation Association
HDD
Horizontal Directional Drill
EU ETS
European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
NTS
National Transmission System
ASL
Above Sea Level
5 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
1.0
Introduction
1.1
Background to the Tees Valley Industrial CCS Project The Teesside Process Industry Cluster is one of the largest in the UK covering a diverse sector base of chemicals, petrochemicals, steel and energy companies. The cluster employs c. 20,000 people, has a GDP of c.£10bn and exports of c. £4bn per annum. The nature of these industries also makes Teesside one of the most carbon intensive locations in the country. The sector has taken huge strides in improving energy efficiencies in recent years; however emissions of carbon dioxide are an inherent part of many of the processes and a real step change in emissions can only be made by implementing carbon capture and storage. The Tees Valley’s economic vision is to build on the strengths of the existing cluster and establish Teesside as an integrated carbon-efficient industrial hub, achieving economic stability and growth through the production of low carbon energy and products.
A1
Through the City Deal Tees Valley Unlimited (TVU) the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has commissioned four projects, examining the business case, external communications and investment support mechanism and this project providing pre-FEED concept selection and engineering. This project is seeking to address pre-FEED design options for four industrial sites, onshore and offshore networks and cost estimates to support a business case model.
1.2
Work Packs The project is divided into 8 work pack’s; 1. SSI – Steel works 2. Growhow – Ammonia Plant 3. BOC – Steam Methane Reformer 4. Lotte – PTA Plant 5. Onshore Infrastructure 6. Offshore Infrastructure 7. Cost Estimation 8. Project Management This report summaries the optioneering workshop carried out under Work Pack 5.
MS986
6 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
2.0
Scope and Format
2.1
Work Pack 5 Scope
Revision : A1
The onshore transportation scope of work involves defining a route for an onshore pipeline or pipelines linking the four CO2 emission sites (Lotte, Growhow, BOC and SSI) together, and undertaking a preliminary design on the pipeline The total CO2 emissions to be captured from the four sites are uncertain, but for only the initial capture projects are likely to be about 3.5 million tonnes per annum, calculated as follows
~2.2 million tonnes from the SSI site dependent on the chosen option.
~600,000 tonnes from the Growhow site (100% capture of all the CO2 that is already captured and emitted)
~225,000 tonnes from the BOC site (assuming 90% capture rate)
~50,000 tonnes from the LOTTE site (assuming 90% capture rate)
A1
A1
Two scenarios are to be assessed:
2.2 A1
Pipeline sized to just take the proposed volumes from the 4 sites (preliminary estimates suggest this will be 12 -16 inches diameter)
Pipeline deliberately oversized to collect ~15 million tonnes of CO2 in the Teesside area (preliminary estimates suggest this will be 28-32 inch diameter)
Work shop purpose The work shop format and process is focused on identifying constraints and drivers for potential pipeline routes on Teesside. It does not down select routes, providing only criteria and data for route selection and screening of options in other elements of Work Pack 5. There are some technical issues for discussion and constraints/drivers that will help to inform route selections. The intent of the workshop is discuss issues that require resolution prior to routing and derive constraints and drivers that affect route selection.
2.3
A1
Work shop format The workshop was carried out on 7th October and followed an agenda but within the guidance of the chair was a fairly informal discussion of issues, attendees are listed in Appendix 1. The workshop and optioneering process is discussed in 2000-0000-DC00-PHL-001 Optioneering Philosophy. The set agenda is outlined below; •
Prelims •
MS986
Introductions & Safety Moment
7 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
•
•
•
•
Briefing material
•
Rules of the road
Revision : A1
Area briefing •
Brief overview of the area
•
Overview of the process
•
Emitter locations
Transport •
Restrictions, constraints and limitations
•
Technical, planning, environmental, timing, cost, land use etc.
•
Possible coarse screening criteria
Route Options •
Briefing on previous work by AMEC
•
Process options
•
Entry Specification
•
Blue sky / high level and alternative options
3.0
Onshore Infrastructure Brief
3.1
Area Definition The area of study is strictly the bounds of the Billingham, Seal Sands and Wilton chemical complexes and adjacent sites, Figure 1. It does not consider the wider North East with the exception of considering onshore routes to storage. In general the area is three complexes, mutually supporting and connected by utility and commodity pipelines. The Billingham area is dominated by the Growhow fertiliser plant along with other chemical plants and two Energy from Waste power plants. Seal Sands is the geographically larger complex, including SABIC Petrochemicals, Conoco Phillips, the BP CATS and px Breagh gas handling facilities, Huntsman, two new plasma gasification energy from waste plants and several storage complexes. The south shore of the River Tees hosts the Wilton Chemical Complex which includes SABIC Petrochemicals, Lotte, Ensus (Bioethanol), Sembcorp Utilities and a larger number of smaller process plants. Outside of the complex in the “greater” Wilton area between Middlesbrough and Redcar are several installations, including the Teesport port frontage and logistics warehouses but is dominated by the SSI steel facility at Redcar and the Tata steel mills at Lackenby, adjacent to the Wilton complex.
MS986
8 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
(i)
Revision : A1
Ariel overview
SEAL SANDS
GREATER WILTON AREA “SOUTH SHORE”
BILLINGHAM WILTON CHEMICAL COMPLEX
(ii)
Complexes Figure 1 - Teesside Study Area
MS986
9 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001 3.2
Revision : A1
Overview of infrastructure The infrastructure is required to collect and move captured Carbon Dioxide across the area to a nominal point from which onward transport to the store commences. The infrastructure scenarios are clear;
Collection from the four stakeholder sites (site tie-in pipe size to suit possible CO2 capture)
Collection of a nominal 15 million tonnes per year in the region
There are two critical elements to consider, other than the route through the area. Firstly the entry specification, the quality of the Carbon Dioxide acceptable to the infrastructure and secondly the operational conditions of the network. 3.3
Key Emitters 3.3.1
Current Emitters
The current emitters, Figure 2, are spread across the area with Growhow at the extreme west of the complex. The BOC facility is located on the Seal Sands complex, adjacent to the SABIC petrochemical site. The steelworks of SSI are dispersed over several kilometres, the bulk of emission points are located at the main site, adjacent to an area known as North Gare, west of Redcar, whilst the BOS plant is located at Lackenby with the southern coke ovens located nearer Middlesborough. Lotte is centrally located in the Wilton complex.
A1
MS986
Any pipeline transitioning the area needs to pick up emitters as necessary, moving to an assumed north or south shore position for a beach landing pipeline to storage would result in the BOC plant connecting into a north shore pipeline from Growhow. The current emitters are expected to provide up to 3.5 – 4.5 million tonnes per annum of Carbon Dioxide. Regional emissions were 10.8 million tonnes in 2013, the four sites emitted ~4 million tonnes in the same period. An assessment of emitter Scenarios is made in 2000-0005-DC00-RPT-002 Route Selection.
10 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
Figure 2 - Stakeholder Emitters
3.3.2
Future Emitters
The future scenario is a proposed 15 million tonnes per annum regional network. The emitters in this network are not specified. How this shapes the network needs to be considered in some outline scenario planning and emitter mapping. This scenario also allows for import of carbon dioxide from other regions. A1
This scenario planning is considered as one of the points to resolve in the definition stage. It is examined and reported in 2000-0005-DC00-RPT-002 Teesside Emitter Scenarios.
4.0
Optioneering The optioneering process is defined in 2000-0000-DC00-PHL-0001 Optioneering Philosophy. The workshop held for work pack 5 included representatives of the client, a regional stakeholder and project personnel involved in emitter and offshore infrastructure workpacks. The purpose of the work shop was to examine constraints and drivers, both stakeholder and physical for the development of the regional infrastructure. The workshop format was used to examine the area and discuss with stakeholders potential options and issues. In particular;
Constraints and drivers identification
Geography/area examination
Technical discussions
MS986
o
Entry Specification
o
Gas vs. Liquid
Route Discussions 11 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
o
Tunnel Access
o
Wayleaves
o
Onshore/Offshore Transition
The workshop included briefing material from AMEC who previously studied infrastructure and pipelines in the region for One North East and the Eston Grange project. A1
5.0
Transport Options
5.1
Local Shoreline The local access to sea fall is another positive for the region as the coastal location reduces cross country paths. In fact the Seal Sands complex has a sea facing perimeter, whilst the SSI site abuts directly onto a short public access strip on the beach. Access through the river mouth has also been provided before. A sea fall could be mad north or south of the river, or through the river mouth.
Figure 3 - Local Shoreline
5.2
Alternatives to local shoreline In discussing the “Onshore/Offshore Transition” in the workshop two issues arose for further consideration. The first is an alternative to the pipeline, transportation by ship. The second transportation overland to alternate shore line connections. Both options were discussed in the workshop but quickly discarded both.
MS986
12 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
Shipping was generally considered out of scope for the moment. The scope for the project focused on the two proposed storage hubs in the UK CCS Commercialisation programme. Here both hubs have selected fixed installations, one existing, and not shipping options. Focus offshore has therefore been on a pipeline solution to both locations studied in this project. It is considered in Section 5.3 to clarify the options available and suggest further work that may be recommended to consider the option in further detail. Other pipelines options exist in addition to going offshore directly from Teesside. The two target storage sites could be served by different routes. The target east of the Humber could be connected to at the beach, if the offshore pipeline allowed the increased capacity. The northern target could in theory route overland from Teesside to Ste Fergus, either as a new pipeline or utilising the National Grid NTS Feeder 10 pipeline, previously identified as part of the Longannet CCS project as being potentially available for CCS service. These options are discussed further in Section 5.4. 5.3
Shipping The alternate option to pipelines for large bulk transportation is shipping. Transportation of carbon dioxide by ship does occur, for the chemicals or beverage markets but in relatively small volumes and hence a small number of vessels in the capable fleet. There is also a point where the costs of pipelines become so large that shipping is cost effective, however this is typically at long distances or low volumes. Shipping as a subject on Teesside has been studied before, in the 2010 as part of a study by One North East. It has also been studied as part of the ROAD project in the Netherlands with both shipping and engineering firms involved, and by Chiyoda for the GCCSI. Wider studies in the Baltic1 and ZEP2 give a number of comparative options with shipping. Solutions appear viable but the level of engineering detail and economic analysis is low. Such schemes in general consider a number of options. Ships can transport to platforms or subsea connections and inject from the ship or act as shuttle tankers. The shuttle tankers would transfer the bulk fluid to an injection unit and remain in place until unloaded, or to injection facility with offshore storage. The concept here is that of the floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) used in oil and gas industry. Shuttle tankers would relay liquid carbon dioxide to larger vessels typically in a semi-permanent position generally referred to as floating storage and injection unit (FSIU)3 or floating liquefaction storage and offloading (FLSO)4. Shuttle tankers could also be used to direct hook up to a buoy mooring for injection however this would require pressurisation equipment on board each shuttle tanker and stores operating in with a batch flow.
1
http://basrec.net/ccs-initiative/network/ http://www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/ccs-technology/transport.html 3 http://www.maersktankers.com/activities/pages/co2%20shipping.aspx 4 http://www.tge-marine.com/files/co2_gastech_2009__concepts_for_carbon_capture_and_storage_projects.pdf 2
MS986
13 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
Figure 4 - Shipping Options
In general the carbon dioxide is liquefied and transported at low temperature and a moderately low pressure. It is collected, shipped and then offloaded. The options at either end of the chain become the real issue, aside from the batch nature of the operation where storage sites prefer a smooth constant load. Dockside the facility must include the condition management processes to move gas to liquid, or move high pressure gas to medium pressure and cold gas. Gas management becomes an issue for any bulk storage, although the storage adds an element of flexibility into any scheme, and as additional equipment and risks are added. The analogy to draw is LNG import/export terminals, with one key exception. Here the management of boil of gas (BOG) is simply to recompresses and inject into the tank which incurs an energy penalty. In LNG the energy penalty is offset by using the BOG gas to power the plant. This is not possible in liquid carbon dioxide (LCO2) storage, where the gas has no inherent value as a fuel. The depressuring of carbon dioxide on receipt to the terminal may produce a refrigeration resource or a power recovery options via a turbo-expander, but that would be highly dependent on the pressures involved. Once the ship connects and loads the next hurdle becomes the on ship management of the gas which needs to duplicate the dockside process or vent. If venting the boil off gas then this volume of vented gas has to be measured and features in the overall fiscal balance of the carbon stored. Once at the store it is unlikely that it will be accepted at the transport conditions. The fluid therefore needs pressure raising again and possibly warming which needs to be achieved on ship or on the platform. Whilst the injection process takes place the delivery vessel, often MS986
14 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
referred to as a shuttle tanker, needs to remain on station and connected. Unless the injection unit is an FISU/FLSO, where the shuttle offloads the volume to the FISU/FLSO and departs. Without a FISU/FLSO the storage injection is more likely to be a batch process which may be an issue. For offshore facilities without shipped based storage and conditioning the batch receipt and preparing the carbon dioxide for injection requires additional equipment and that has yet to be considered in detail. That Teesside is suitable for a shipped solution is obvious. The location geographically perfectly services the North Sea, whether for direct service to remote storage or EOR assets or to receive shipped carbon dioxide from remote assets. There are facilities on Teesside and the port is capable of handling suitable tankers. Space is also available to provide a buffer or storage facility on the shore. However the size of the facility needs to be assessed, in line with the pattern of flow. Previous work on Teesside discussed the final possibility, that a pipeline arising in Teesside could receive volumes from shuttle tankers for onward transport via the pipeline. The critical element to consider here, and for potential export shipping, is the terminal arrangements and design, particularly focusing on the energy consumptions. Such a facility would potentially serve international emitters in addition to remote or so called “stranded” emitters in the UK with no storage access. The storage solutions considered in this project are fixed installations but do not have sufficient space or power to accommodate on platform pressure raising. They are within the distance where pipelines are believed to provide the economical option for the target volumes. Therefore shipping is not considered further as part of this study. It is recommended however that the shipping option, particularly import, should be considered further, with a focus on the size and design of the onshore terminal. 5.4
Onshore Routes 5.4.1
Onshore Options
The two storage locations, Block 5/42 and Goldeneye/Captain are accepted in this study as being accessible by offshore pipeline. Work pack 6 will consider the offshore options. Onshore there are three options to consider, although each onshore option requires an offshore pipeline. 1. Onshore network with a Teesside sea-fall to offshore pipeline 2. North – overland route to offshore access in Scotland 3. South – overland connection to the proposed Barmston pumping station, part of the Humber CCS project by National Grid. The options are presented in general in Figure 5. In general option 1 is selected for further study and as the defining point for the onshore network. However the issues with the other routes need to be considered.
MS986
15 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
Figure 5 - Onshore Options
5.4.2
North Options
Within a northerly routing of the pipeline a number of options present. 1. Pipeline around Newcastle and Durham - Northumberland coast could easily be used as a sea fall north of Lynmouth 2. Sea fall east of Edinburgh 3. Re-use of NTS Feeder 10 4. Sea fall east coast of northern Scotland – Tay to St Fergus In general the options are multiple and a study would be required to find a suitable crossing if such were needed in Northumberland and Scotland, other than those already established. There is significant benefit in targeting any onshore/offshore transition at a location where it exists already, such as Cruden Bay or St Fergus.
MS986
16 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
Potential Sea fall
NTS Feeder 10 or new pipeline
New pipeline
Figure 6 - North Onshore Options
In terms of new pipeline any route north would require a minimum of 250 km (a minimum of 270km to connect to Feeder 10). Connecting to Feeder 10, or a new pipeline from central Scotland to St Fergus would incur a further 250-300km. Typically the total pipeline length could be as high as 600km onshore, with a run of 105 km offshore. A total length of approximately 700km, compared to a direct offshore approach of approximately 400km. Changing the sea fall location to the coast prior to St Fergus will decrease the total distance, but only marginally so moving offshore in Northumberland makes significant onshore savings, but the increased offshore element the route is still circa 450km. The issue here is the inland route moves the pipeline away from the target area, and avoids urban, populated or protected areas and finding a route is not as linear as for offshore. All these factors extend the route. This is not solely an issue of length. The distance of the pipeline is only one of three critical sizing factors, along with the method of raising pressure and providing momentum and the optimal diameter. For a 600km onshore pipeline driven by a single compressor would require a 600mm pipeline at 120 bar initial pressure for 5 million tonnes/year. There would be little if any spare capacity going forward and an additional compressor station would be required at the onshore pipelines termination point. Moving to a smaller pipeline necessitates a higher pressure, MS986
17 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
larger pressure drop and typically an intermediate booster station. This assumes dense phase transmission. Moving to gas would be required if Feeder 10 were to be considered and the capacity of this line is limited. Gas transmission at 34 bar inlet pressure on Teesside would require between 2-4 booster stations, plus the final terminal booster station. Over such a distance this additional cost is likely to equal the saving made by re-using an existing asset. With the additional compression and infrastructure costs this is likely to unviable economically. For a 15 million tonne/year pipeline a 1000mm pipeline or larger would be required at 120 bar inlet pressure. There are other issues of course that would need to be considered, principally the route and the planning issues associated with a new pipeline. However given the direct approach offshore is within a comparable distance the need to have compressor stations at start and finish balances the economics generally in favour of the offshore solution. Technically such a route is achievable but further study would be warranted to assess the routes, process design of the pipeline and the cost etsimates of such a solution. In terms of coarse screening this option would score badly on route, planning/consent, construction (longer) and economics. 5.4.3
South Option
The route south would be connecting to the proposed Humber CCS pump station at Barmston. A direct line route would be ideal, however between Teesside and Humber is the North York Moors National Park. Whilst pipeline access through the park may be technical possible, the positives of the short route are constrained by the technical challenges of the gradients, the park is typical 200-300m ASL, and the environmental and consent issues around the park. Before proposing any pipeline solution through the area further work is recommended as to the ability of a pipeline to gain consent to be built in the park, or an alternative route around it. Pipelines do traverse the area. A single National Grid NTS HP Gas Feeder runs from Bishop Auckland to Dimlington and Ineos operate an Ethylene pipeline from Wilton to Saltend. However both routes avoid the national park, taking a westerly route towards Thirsk. Options could therefore include a direct access route, a westerly route around the moors or a route that basically follows that of the NTS, Figure 7. The westerly route is considered more viable at this stage on the grounds of consent in not having to seek consent in the park, technical due to not crossing the moor gradients and cost. The land on the moors could reasonably be expected to be more difficult to traverse and construct in. This southern path is the shorter of the two onshore pipelines and even a long route west of the moors is only 132km. This is within reach of a 5 million and 15 million tonne/year pipeline without any intermediate boosting, but may have delivery implications at Barmston. The pipeline exit pressure would need to be balanced with the Humber region output or run through a dedicated pump set. This is not technically difficult to achieve in any case. But there are implications. The direct approach by sea to block 5/42 is 154km, the route onshore 90-132km with the additional impact of either a new pipe offshore of 90km5, or an increase in size of the pre-installed pipe. It is assumed that the offshore pipeline would be installed initially 5
http://nationalgrid.opendebate.co.uk/files/Yorkshire_Humber_CCS_Project_-_EIA_Scoping_Final_Copy.pdf
MS986
18 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
as per the current plan 600mm to accommodate 17 million tonnes/year. This would accommodate the lower volume case, however the larger volume from Teesside would necessitate either a much higher inlet pressure, increased diameter of the initial pipeline or a duplicate 90km 600mm pipeline. Each case is not cost neutral. There would also be potential operational impacts for the Humber network. These issues would all have to be discussed with National Grid Carbon and further study is therefore recommended. Overall there would be a cost impact unlikely to challenge the cost of the 154km offshore pipeline direct approach. In addition to the challenges with consent, technically and construction the option onshore is screened and dropped at this point Therefore whilst further study is recommended and the onshore option is feasible, the offshore option is selected for study. Teesside North Access Route
Teesside South Access Route
Westerly Access Route
Direct Route
Easterly (NTS following) Access Route
Figure 7 – South Onshore Routes
MS986
19 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
6.0
Revision : A1
Constraints and Drivers The constraints and drivers raised in the workshop are recorded in the worksheet in Appendix 1 and here in Table 1. The normal constraints and conditions to consider applied to pipeline design as discussed in BS PD 8010 Part 1, Code of Practice for pipelines: Steel Pipelines on Land are also applied to route selection.
Subject Planning
Environmental
A1
Economics
Constraint
Driver
Local area is subject to industrial development, areas are identified and where possible should not be limited by pipeline access routes
Local planning relationships are good. Local population mature and supportive of industry
Penetration into or closing on the population centres should be avoided.
Area is heavily industrialised with already existing infrastructure
Area is industrialised but has significant environmentally sensitive areas
Local environment group INCA maintains a close relationship with industry which can be drawn upon.
Cross sensitive sites only when unavoidable, or significantly disadvantaged by cost or re-route. Assessment required on a case by case basis.
Industry and nature stakeholders have a mature co-operative relationship.
Optimised for future investment
Reduced cost, using shared infrastructure. Future expansion, access should be enabled.
A1
River crossing
River crossing: HDD access limited
River Crossing: Tunnel access may be available, particularly in Tunnel 2. River Crossing: HDD access is possible adjacent to Tunnel 2, BOC have recent pipelines in this area.
Technical
MS986
Entry specification needs to enable the industry, not restrict
20 of 31
Permit flexibility of future development and expansion
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001 Subject
Revision : A1
Constraint
Driver Use of existing routes where possible would be preferential. This impacts on safety distances and wayleaves Sembcorp access is likely to be possible.
Gas vs liquid – needs to be defined. Impacts location and routing so can be both driver and constraint Routes
Access for a Horizontal Directional Drive can be limited.
BOC advise HDD possible and has been done recently adjacent to Tunnel 2 Tees service tunnels believed to have capacity.
Areas identified of future or current development Access past Steel House limited, identified as Breagh pipeline route Table 1 – Constraints and Drivers Workshop outcomes
7.0
Options and Points of Discussion The post work shop screening worksheet is included in Appendix 1, please refer to the report 2000-0005-DC00-RPT-002 Route Selection for further details..
7.1
A1
Entry Specification The entry specification of the infrastructure is required to define acceptable limits of components in the gas stream. This sets the requirements for capture performance, conditioning and dehydration. But it is not limited solely to the emitter and capture technology employed. The pipeline design needs to be considered, but increasingly dominant are the requirements of the storage facility. In this case information from the stores is procured from the the two CCS commercialisation programme projects. A pre-workshop discussion took place within the project team, particularly between the onshore and offshore infrastructure teams. Information from the storage sites needs to be provided to confirm applicable storage limits. In the meantime an existing entry specification used by AMEC was discussed. Specific issues exist around water, hydrate, Hydrogen Sulphide, material strength and pressure regimes.
MS986
21 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
The discussion led to agreement on a number of compositions supported by further analysis and an Entry Specification, and summaries of key discussions are presented in the proposed project specification in 2000-0000-DC00-SPC-001 Entry Specification.
7.2
Gas vs Liquid The fluid phase of the transport system was not determined at the point of the work shop. It is a critical determining factor. For gas pipelines the pipeline risk profile maybe lower, but the pipe diameter larger for the same mass flow. Gas systems will need to operate a relatively low pressure to ensure that phase transitions do not occur due to changes in temperature, typically gas pressure would be limited to under 40 barg in UK conditions. Gas pipelines however require compression prior to the trunk pipeline to storage, this adds additional facilities and cost to any infrastructure. Liquid pipelines are smaller in diameter to transport the same mass flow. They are however a different risk category and marginal more difficult to route. Typically higher costs of pipeline are outweighed by the provision of smaller diameter pipelines and savings, for the infrastructure provider in onward compression or pumping costs.
A1
The workshop discussed at length the issues and options for consideration. The discussion is summarised in a technical assessment 2000-0005-DC00-RPT-003 Network Operating Phase Selection. This report further defines the discussion points and provide selection criteria including discussions on;
Pressure vs. cost
Operational considerations
Effects of contaminants
Transmission conditions
Cost influences
Location factors
Supporting plant sizes
The outcome was to provide a network operating in liquid or dense phase, although the selection between gas and liquid was less defined than in larger networks where cost becomes a much greater influencing factor than the others. 7.3
River Crossing The workshop identified that there are three options.
MS986
Tunnel 1
22 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Tunnel 2
New crossing
Revision : A1
It was believed that access to the Tunnels, Figure 8, was possible and capacity would be available for a reasonable pipeline size. This could be confirmed with Sembcorp as part of discussions regarding charges for using existing Sembcorp pipeline routes and wayleaves. A new crossing is possible particularly as a horizontal directional drill (HDD) and there is recent experience of this. The footprint of an HDD can be significant but could be accommodated around Tunnel 2, although there are 6” and 10” pipelines installed by BOC in the same footprint. The area around Tunnel 1 or other alternatives would need to be considered in detail.
Figure 8 - River Tees Existing Tunnels
7.4
Shore landing The shore landing, where the onshore and offshore pipelines meet has been studied before for both North and South directions of storage. Work executed as part of the Eston Grange, Teesside Low Carbon and a previous infrastructure study on Teesside for One North East identified a preferred location. For this region there is a larger coastal access from all points than some other clusters. Typically site selection is based on a number of distinct issues;
MS986
23 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Constraints
Environmental
Physical o
Access
o
Planning
o
Utility supply
o
Existing infrastructure
Revision : A1
In the case of most networks the existence of previous infrastructure such as gas and oil landing terminals provides the best solution. Whilst infrastructure for utilities may need reinforcement it has to be present at the existing site. Planning is generally more favourable given expansion or replacement projects on a brown field basis. The constraints also need consideration, but previous installations indicate the ability to manage access into a constrained area. In the case of Teesside the access to the shoreline is considerable. Three options have been considered in previous work, two on the north shore and one on the south near Redcar.
North shore options
South shore options
Figure 9 - Onshore/Offshore Interface
The north shore options have to be considered carefully. Whilst both are on brownfield and utilities are available the access to the shore line brings problems. Seal Sands and the Tees mouth are significantly environmentally constrained. Available areas are constrained by operating plant and any facility would impact those sites. The Ekofisk pipeline also lands in this area. The busy nature of the waterway also brings complications for siting a shore line station on the north shore. MS986
24 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
To the south the coast still has environmental constraints however the coastline hosts the land fall of the CATS and Breagh pipelines. The majority of emissions are also on the south shore. Regardless of location a river tunnel under the Tees would be required. However siting the compressor/pump station to the south minimises the size of the tunnel. As the studies largest emitter, SSI, is located on the south of the Tees and transporting large volumes over shorter distances is clearly more cost effective. Given the environmental constraints on Seal Sands the site on the south of the Tees proposed by previous studies remains the most likely and suitable location. This site is not without issues as the coastline is also constrained. However the previous work in the region has concluded that a south Tees site is most appropriate. 7.5
Route Options No specific route options were discussed, although a general discussion outlined route corridors previously identified. The selection of routes is dependent on a large number of factors, including the points of discussion in this section. Specific routing would be considered in detail in the next phase and screened accordingly.
7.6
Scenario 2 Emitters Scenarios Scenario 2 considers the transport of 15 million tonnes per annum of Carbon Dioxide on Teesside. To achieve this significantly more emitters must join the network. The location of these emitters is determined by the current installations in the region, in addition to proposed and then theoretical emitters that may appear. One of the issues raised was the development of this dataset. Current emitters are known through their verified and actual emissions recorded under the EU ETS scheme. Future emitters sometimes publish emitter data in planning documents such as the Environmental Impact Statement, if not they can be estimated compared to known installations or metrics. To examine known future emitters a desk based survey is under taken of regional planning agencies, stakeholders and project databases. In addition a longer term estimation can be made, such as assuming chemical or power plants are replaced with similar sized units. This screening exercise is held separately to the work shop, as part of further work in Work Pack 5. It also forms part of the constraints mapping process where constraints and restrictions are marked on a map of the region to enable routing.
8.0
Coarse Screening and Further Definition
8.1
Eliminated Options
A1
Shipping and onshore trunk line connections to remote sea falls are eliminated. Both however are recommended for further study. Coarse screening only eliminated the north Tees position for the onshore/offshore transition. Other options need to be considered against the constraints and drivers, route maps and
MS986
25 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
determination of gas vs liquid options these are examined and screened in more detail as further work in Work Pack 5. 8.2
Points of discussion - Entry Specification The entry specification has been specified in line with discussions in 2000-0000-DC00-SPC001.
8.3
Further Definition Further work prior to screening is required, specifically
Gas vs. Liquid
Route Selection
Route selection needs to be defined in terms of constraints and drivers. However it is heavily influenced by the location of emitters and regional constraints. These will be considered in the design work. Identified routes will then be assessed and screened to determine the optimum routing.
MS986
26 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
Revision : A1
Appendix 1 Selection Assessment
MS986
27 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
MS986
Revision : A1
28 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
MS986
Revision : A1
29 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
MS986
Revision : A1
30 of 31
i-XX-05905
AMEC Project No. 1720 2000 Client Ref: TVU Industrial CCS
Document No. 2000-0000-DC00-RPT-001
MS986
Revision : A1
31 of 31
i-XX-05905
