TVU CCS Pre FEED WP6 Offshore Transportation & Storage Study

Transcription

1 TVU CCS Pre FEED WP6 Offshore Transportation & Storage Study Optioneering & Screening Report Author: Progressive Energy Ltd This report contains TVU Category 3 information A1 Issued for Design 16/01/15 19/01/15 19/01/15 R1 Issued for Comment JMA 18/11/14 DJH 18/11/14 RKE 19/11/14 Issue Rev Issue or Revision Description Origin By Date Chkd By Date Appd By Date Appd By Date Progressive Energy Limited OTHER MS986 1 of 42 i-xx-05905

2 Revision Changes Notice Rev. Location of Changes Brief Description of Change Changes within the document from the previous issue are indicated by a change triangle List of HOLDS HOLD No. Location of HOLD Reason for HOLD MS986 2 of 42 i-xx-05905

3 Table of Contents Revision Changes Notice... 2 List of HOLDS... 2 Table of Contents... 3 Glossary of Terms Executive Summary Introduction Background to the Tees Valley Industrial CCS Project Work Packs Background Screening Criteria Design and Implementation Concerns Screening Criteria Design Basis CO 2 Specification CO 2 Delivery Conditions HSE Rating of CO 2 Pipelines Booster Station Flow Assurance and Pressure Considerations Physical Constraints to all Offshore Alternatives Other Constraints Alternative Routes to Storage Complexes The National Grid Store Known as 5/ New build offshore pipe to a location onshore in Yorkshire New build pipeline to a new T-piece in the offshore section New build pipeline directly to the 5/42 Storage Complex The Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex All Onshore to St Fergus Entirely Offshore from Teesside to Goldeneye Offshore Teesside to Tie in Onshore in the Central Belt Offshore from Teesside to St Fergus & Tie into Shell Line (alt Route) Summary of General Comments from the WP6 Workshop Route Selection from the WP6 Workshop The National Grid Store Known as 5/ The Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex Information Required from the Other WPs & Technical Enquires for WP Appendices Appendix Technical Queries MS986 3 of 42 i-xx-05905

4 Glossary of Terms Abbreviation Description BOC British Oxygen Company CATS Central Area Transmission System NG pipeline CCS Carbon Capture & Storage CO 2 Carbon Dioxide EDF Électricité de France FEED Front End Engineering Design HDD Horizontal Directional Drill ISO International Standards Organisation ITT Invitation to Tender mtpy Million tonnes per year NEPIC North East of England Process Industry Cluster NGC National Grid Carbon PEL Progressive Energy Limited PIGs Pipeline Inspection Gauges PK Pipeline Kilometre PLET Pipeline End Termination PBD Pale Blue Dot SSI Sahaviriya Steel Industries TQ Technical Query TVU Tees Valley Unlimited WP6 Work Package 6 MS986 4 of 42 i-xx-05905

5 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to document the process undertaken to initially identify and evaluate transport alternatives to deliver dense phase CO 2 from a Teesside industrial regional gathering system to one of two offshore CO 2 storage complexes being investigated under the UK Government CCS Commercialisation Programme. The storage complexes are: (a) The National Grid store known as 5/42 associated with the White Rose CCS Project in West Yorkshire, and (b) The Shell Goldeneye store associated with the Peterhead CCS Project in Scotland. These broad concepts are shown indicatively on the map below (Figure 1.1). Map showing possible destinations for the Teesside Industrial CO 2 Figure 1.1: Map showing the possible destinations for the Teesside Industrial CO 2 There are three broad options for the pipeline to the National Grid store known as 5/42: 1. New build offshore pipeline to a location onshore in Yorkshire, where the CO 2 would be comingled with the White Rose CO 2 and pumped offshore, 2. New build pipeline to a new T-piece in the offshore section of the National Grid pipeline, and 3. New build pipeline to the National Grid pipeline to the 5/42 store offshore. MS986 5 of 42 i-xx-05905

6 There are at least three routes under review from Teesside to the Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex which include: 1. All onshore to St Fergus and then on to the Goldeneye store, 2. Entirely offshore from Teesside to the Goldeneye store, and 3. Offshore from Teesside to tie in onshore in the Central Belt. The purpose of the initial element of WP6 of the Technical Work Contract was to identify the most appropriate routes to each of the two stores from the three options under consideration and select within the context of a collaborative workshop one route for each storage complex. These selected routes are to provide the basis for subsequent concept engineering development, which will enable estimated costs of transportation to storage to be calculated in Work Package 7. From this, the Project Co-ordinator will develop a compelling business case for supporting a project, which includes an oversized transport and storage system, to enable additional industrial emitters in the Teesside area to connect at an economic cost. The collaborative workshop was attended by Pale Blue Dot, Industrial partners and members of the Progressive and AMEC teams. The design and implementation concerns expressed and discussed in the Workshop were reduced to the following list of Screening Criteria: (a) Reliable, (b) Maintainable, (c) Inspectable, (d) Simple, (e) Executable, (f) Efficient, and (g) Cost Effective. A simple scoring system was applied to these criteria to assist in making a relative comparison between alternatives. Route Selections from the WP6 Workshop The following two preferred alternatives were selected as a result of the WP6 Workshop for the pipeline transportation of CO 2 from Teesside to the two storage complexes The National Grid Store Known as 5/42 The third alternative or direct route to the NGC 5/42 Storage Complex was viewed as the most favourable alternative of the three alternatives to the NGC Storage Complex because: A single booster station was required to manage flow and pressure, The CO 2 could be fed directly onto the platform, The additional cost of another shore approach was avoided minimising the cost differential between the onshore Yorkshire connection and the direct route to 5/42, The CO 2 could be directly injected into dedicated wells without comingling with White Rose CO 2 if this was desired to avoid operational coordination issues or potential problems with different CO 2 specifications (particularly levels of O 2 ), The line could be designed to handle either the low or high flow scenarios without impacting the proposed plans of the NGC Yorkshire Infrastructure or the White Rose Project, Simpler systems would experience less coordination issues which might impact schedules and costs of implementation, and Ticks all the boxes as seen below on a 1-5 scale with 5 being the best score. MS986 6 of 42 i-xx-05905

7 Relative Screening Criteria: Score 34 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost The Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex The third alternative or direct route to the Goldeneye Storage Complex was viewed as the most favourable alternative of the four reviewed alternatives to the Shell Storage Complex because: All onshore alternatives appeared to be more costly and complex due to: o larger diameter pipelines to connect to existing infrastructure, o the need for additional compressor stations, o additional cost for refurbishment of existing network, o higher energy costs for compression (and potential re-gasification), o the systems would not handle the higher flow scenario of 15 mtpy, and o more complex planning procedures for Major Infrastructure Project, A single booster station was required to manage flow and pressure, The line could be fed directly to the subsea manifold upstream of the Subsea Isolation valve and then onto the platform, The additional cost of another shore approach was avoided minimising the cost differential between the shorter St Fergus connection and the direct route to Goldeneye, Simpler systems would experience less coordination issues which might impact schedules and costs of implementation, and Ticks all the boxes as seen below on a 1-5 scale with 5 being the best score. Relative Screening Criteria: Score 33 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost MS986 7 of 42 i-xx-05905

8 2.0 Introduction 2.1 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 hastaken 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. Through the City Deal Tees Valley Unlimited (TVU) the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has commissioned two projects, one examining the business case 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. 2.2 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 summarises the optioneering workshop carried out under Work Pack 6 (WP6). MS986 8 of 42 i-xx-05905

9 3.0 Background The purpose of this report is to document the process undertaken to initially identify and evaluate transport alternatives to deliver dense phase CO 2 from a Teesside industrial regional gathering system to one of two offshore CO 2 storage complexes being investigated under the UK Government CCS Commercialisation Programme. The storage complexes are: 1. The National Grid store known as 5/42 associated with the White Rose CCS Project in West Yorkshire, and 2. The Shell Goldeneye store associated with the Peterhead CCS Project in Scotland. These broad concepts are shown indicatively on the map below (Figure 3.1) Map showing possible destinations for the Teesside Industrial CO 2 Figure 3.1: Map showing the possible destinations for the Teesside Industrial CO 2 MS986 9 of 42 i-xx-05905

10 There are three broad options for the pipeline to the National Grid store known as 5/42 1. New build offshore pipeline to a location onshore in Yorkshire, where the CO 2 would be comingled with the White Rose CO 2 and pumped offshore, 2. New build pipeline to a new T-piece in the offshore section of the National Grid pipeline, and 3. New build pipeline to the National Grid Platform to the 5/42 store offshore. There are at least three routes under review from Teesside to the Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex which include: 1. All onshore gaseous pipeline to St Fergus and then a dense phase pipeline on to the Goldeneye store, 2. Entirely offshore from Teesside to the Goldeneye store, and 3. Offshore from Teesside to tie in onshore in the Central Belt. Work Package 6 (WP6) will evaluate the alternative routes for transport infrastructure from an onshore booster station at Teesside to the offshore storage complexes. As specified by the Project Coordinator, the infrastructure is to be sized for two flow rates of CO 2 : 5 million tonnes per year (mtpy) from the four (4) industrial stakeholder; SSI, GrowHow, BOC and Lotte (previously stated in TVU ITT as 3.5 to 4.5 mtpy), and 15 mtpy from an expanded Teesside Regional System. The purpose of the initial element of WP6 of the Technical Work Contract was to identify the most appropriate routes to each of the two stores and select within the context of a collaborative workshop one route for each storage complex. These will provide the basis for subsequent concept engineering development to enable estimated costs of transportation to storage in Work Package 7. From this, the Project Co-ordinator will develop a compelling business case for supporting a project which includes an oversized transport and storage system to enable additional industrial emitters in the Teesside area to connect at an economic cost. On 14 th October 2014, AMEC and Progressive Energy conducted the WP6 Workshop. In attendance were: Jay Brooks (BOC) Emily Brogan (AMEC) David Hanstock (Progressive) John Baker (Lotte) James Watt (AMEC) Andy Brown (Progressive) Richard Tweedle (GH) Steve Murphy (PBD) Mike Austell (Progressive) Table 3.1 Workshop Attendees A briefing package on the issues and design criteria to be considered throughout the WP6 assessment was prepared. Route options were outlined and ideas regarding further routes were solicited. TVU and PBD directed the use of 5 mtpy for the low flow case going forward through the MS of 42 i-xx-05905

11 WP6 assessment. AMEC opened the discussions to generate the Options and Screening Criteria that would be applied by the group to assist the group in identifying the preferred transport route for each storage complex such that costs could then be established for both the 5 mtpy case and the 15 mtpy case. Preliminary flow assurance work was completed to look at the pipeline diameters required to deliver such volumes of CO 2 to each of the storage complexes and identify issues related to pipeline configurations and connections and to understand the impacts of gaseous and dense phase transport of CO 2. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

12 4.0 Screening Criteria To assist the down selection of a preferred route to each storage complex, AMEC lead the Workshop through a discussion of decision criteria to be applied. Additional discussions amongst the AMEC and Progressive team members further refined these to specific screening criteria. 4.1 Design and Implementation Concerns The following issues were expressed as concerns with respect to the evaluation of the proposed alternatives being considered: Reliability: The proposed offshore solutions are to be designed for a 40 year life and reliability will be a key factor in maintaining the pipeline infrastructure across that 40 year life. Maintainability: Off shore is an expensive environment in which to work. Solutions need to be simple in their design to minimise costs to maintain. Able to be Inspected: To assure reliability the pipeline infrastructure needs to be inspected regularly to assess needs for maintenance and assure pipeline integrity. The pipeline design must incorporate the ability to launch and receive Pipeline Inspection Gauges (PIGs) for this purpose. Simplest Design with Lowest Practical Costs: Cost is always a major consideration in evaluating alternatives, but the Workshop participants wanted to highlight the need for solutions to reduce complexity. Able to be Brought into Operation on Time and Under Budget: A corollary to simplest design with lowest practical costs was a desire to have a demonstrable history associated with the chosen solution that provided high confidence to successful completion within budget. Lowest Energy Costs for Operation: It was highlighted that energy costs associated with the transfer of CO 2 was associated with flow rates, pipeline diameters and whether the CO 2 was in the gaseous or dense phase (liquid or supercritical fluid). Gaseous pipelines would be thinner walled but larger diameter pipelines for the same flow and may require significant intermediate compression to transport CO 2 onshore to St Fergus. The Workshop participants were conscious that increased energy use would contribute to additional CO 2 emissions and therefore wanted to minimise energy consumption. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

13 4.2 Screening Criteria The design and implementation concerns were reduced to the following list of Screening Criteria: Reliable, Maintainable, Inspectable, Simple, Executable, Efficient, and Cost Effective. By using a simple 1 to 5 scoring system for each of these criteria to apply in the selection process, where 1 is lowest score and 5 is highest score, a relative score for each of the route alternatives was developed. This was not meant as a rigorous analysis but a relative comparison of alternatives based on the above Screening Criteria. Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost MS of 42 i-xx-05905

14 5.0 Design Basis Information supplied by AMEC and presented in the Briefing Package from Progressive Energy informed the discussion about the importance of certain design criteria. These design criteria once refined and agreed will enable the development of the Basis of Design for all activities under the Work Package 6 for the Offshore Transportation to Storage Pipeline Infrastructure 5.1 CO 2 Specification At the time of producing this report the CO 2 specification is being developed under the other Work Packages. In order to progress the work WP6 is drawing on public information to point out the impacts of different specifications, and highlight the importance of developing a proposed TVU CO 2 Specification, which can be used in discussions with the different Storage Complex Operators. The following specifications were reviewed in the Workshop and used subsequently in developing the TVU CO 2 Specification. The first specification for CO 2 composition was taken from previous work done on the EU funded Dynamis Project (see Table 5.1.1) while the second set of specifications are derived from publicly available information regarding CO 2 specifications for the two UK storage complexes and a draft proposed specification under consideration for an ISO Standard (see Table 5.1.2). Table 5.1.1: Dynamis CO 2 Specification MS of 42 i-xx-05905

15 Table 5.1.2: Potentially Proposed CO 2 Specifications The following issues were highlighted in the workshop with respect to a CO 2 specification: CO 2 composition will be greater than 95% CO 2 and all non-condensable gases (N 2, O 2, Ar, CH 4 and H 2 ) should not total more than 4%, CO 2 needs to be dried to a level to avoid corrosion and hydrate formation within the pipelines and wells. Currently opinions on this desired level range between 20 and 200 ppmv, A problem associated with the Shell Goldeneye pipeline previously restricted H 2 S to a very low level but this restriction may no longer be applicable because an alternative that avoids the sensitive pipe area has been found, and O 2 levels in the CO 2 should be less than 10 ppm to avoid the promotion of the growth of sulphur reducing bacteria that may reduce the injectivity of the CO 2 into the storage complexes. The Oxygen Fired White Rose project is currently able to reduce the O 2 levels to 40,000 ppm with relative ease, but may be required by NGC to meet the same <10 ppm criteria through further treatment and oxygen scavenging. The facilities at Teesside should all be able to meet the Dynamis and ISO specifications. PBD is seeking clarification from NGC and Shell with respect to their proposed specifications. It was discussed in the workshop that CO 2 will need to be monitored and tested at the capture point before MS of 42 i-xx-05905

16 putting it into the regional gathering pipeline. If it is out of specification, it will need to be discharged at the capture point. From the discussion of the CO 2 specification at the workshop and subsequent work done within WP5, a proposed TVU Specification was developed to be used on this study and this has been reported in Document No DC00-SPE While this does not meet either of the proposed storage owners specifications, they have both indicated a willingness to review reasonable changes as discussed herein and included in the proposed TVU Specification. The Workshop Participants highlighted the need for the suppliers of CO 2 and the transporter to discuss and agree the measuring and monitoring of delivered CO 2 and the protocols and remediation procedures to be applied in the event of off spec CO 2 being delivered to the pipeline. 5.2 CO 2 Delivery Conditions PBD obtained clarification on the delivery conditions for the CO 2 from the two storage developers. The delivery pressure and the location and height of the desired delivery connections are required for further development of the flow assurance models. Shell has called for a maximum delivery pressure of 120 bar and NGC has called for a minimum pressure of 100 bar and not to exceed 180 bar. A delivery pressure of 100 bar has been chosen for this analysis. NGC has called for a delivery point on top of the platform at an elevation of 30 metres. Shell has informed the team that the existing Goldeneye facility will not accept the flows contemplated by the study so the team has chosen to use an identical top of platform delivery point for Goldeneye assuming an additional platform structure will be developed for larger capacities. This will enable like for like comparison between the two storage complexes. 5.3 HSE Rating of CO 2 Pipelines Dense Phase CO 2 is classified for the purposes of BS PD8010 as an E Class Fluid. Natural gas is also classified as an E Class Fluid. The CATS and Breagh natural gas pipelines were designed with design factors of 0.3 for the onshore portion of the lines and 0.6 for the offshore portions of the lines. BS PD8010 would also require a design factor of 0.3 for onshore pipelines, but requires the same factor for offshore pipelines as well. For this reason, offshore lines are typically designed to DNV OS F101 specifications which call for an offshore design factor for an E Class Fluid of The increased factor for offshore pipelines reflects the results of empirical data and the reduced risks associated with third party interference. The design factor is used to add a safety margin to the minimum wall thickness by dividing the computed wall thickness by the design factor. This means that low design factors increase the wall thickness significantly above a computed minimum thickness at significantly higher costs, especially for large diameter pipelines. However, crack arrestors may be another alternative solution to consider and they have been successfully used in the US and Canada. Current experimental work being conducted within the CCS industry has preliminarily indicated that more conservative design factors may need to be applied to avoid Running Ductile Fractures (RDF). For an on-shore pipeline, this would imply a design factor of <0.27. However, more tests are planned for November 2014 and February 2015, and a design factor review will follow. The WP6 working MS of 42 i-xx-05905

17 group will monitor this situation during the time of this study to see if further results will clarify this issue. The views of the Health and Safety Executive are being sought by Andy Brown at a meeting on 21 st October, and a report back to the meeting was requested. POST MEETING NOTE: The planned meeting with HSE was cancelled because of illness. Another meeting is to be organised as soon as possible. 5.4 Booster Station A Booster Station is required for the delivery of dense phase CO 2 into any offshore pipeline when the shoreline pressure is insufficient to maintain the CO 2 in the dense phase throughout the offshore delivery system. While the WP5 efforts have not yet established the upstream delivery pressure to the booster station for the onshore gathering system, a delivery pressure of 100 bar was being assumed for preliminary work. The Booster Station is designed for 99% availability which will require either two (2) 100% pumps or three (3) 50% pumps. A configuration being looked at for this project to accommodate an increasing supply of CO 2 over time, is that two 100% pumps of the initial supply level (up to 5 mtpy) may be installed with space provided for a third pump when the supply increases. Additional capacity may be added in the future if the flow grows to the full 15 mtpy design capacity, and the Booster Station design should accommodate this possibility. The Booster Pump facility will include: Instrumentation & Control, A Vent System, High Level Safety and Leak Detection System, Piping, Building Enclosures, Foundations and Piping, and Utilities including Power, Instrument Air, Nitrogen and Lubricating Oil. It was agreed that, if possible, there should be no cooling of the CO 2 at the Booster Station. Progressive has reviewed locations for the Booster Station and has concluded that it will be best to locate the Booster Station on the south side of the River Tees because: the largest share of the CO2 is located there, the river crossing will be through a smaller diameter pipeline the North Sea shore and area north of the river is already very congested minimising acceptable shore approaches the corridor between the existing CATS Pipeline and the EDF Wind Farm provides an acceptable access to either a northward or southward offshore CO 2 pipeline. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

18 The preferred location for the Booster Station is on a corner of Tata owned land southeast of the SSI Hot Metal Line off Gare Road. From there a Horizontal Direction Drilled pipeline can be driven to the middle of the beach just North of the CATS and Breagh natural gas pipelines and just south of the EDF electrical cable from the offshore wind farm in Tees Bay. See Figure SSI Blast Furnace BS SS Figure 5.4.1: Location of Proposed Booster Station Southeast of the SSI Hot Metal Line off Gare Road 5.5 Flow Assurance and Pressure Considerations The Booster Station is to control the pressure of the CO 2 from the onshore supply infrastructure to the required supply pressure at the storage complex. The CO 2 in the offshore infrastructure will be a dense phase liquid and it is critical that the pressure is not reduced such that the CO 2 goes into two phase flow (gaseous and liquid). This operating requirement is a key criterion in establishing the chosen design supply and delivery pressures to avoid any harmful or destructive circumstances associated with liquid hammer or pump cavitation. The Booster Station, pipelines and delivery pressure control systems are designed to maintain the required delivery pressure. A key part of this MS of 42 i-xx-05905

19 design is the flow assurance work to set the pipeline diameters such that the pressure loss along the pipeline length is acceptable for any given flow. Preliminary flow assurance work was undertaken to establish possible line sizes for the direct routes to the 5/42 and Goldeneye storage complexes. To complete this work certain initial assumptions were made: Supply Pressure of CO 2 from the onshore infrastructure would be 100 bar, Delivery Pressure of CO 2 at the top of the storage complex platform would be 100 bar, Booster Station is at 3 meters above sea level, Top of storage complex platforms would be 40 meters above sea level, Smaller diameter pipelines (14-18 inch) would have a wall thickness of 17.8 mm, Larger diameter pipelines (24 28 inch) would have a wall thickness of 26 mm, and. Flows of 5 mtpy and 15 mtpy were assessed. The results indicated that: For a 5 mtpy offshore pipeline infrastructure the possible line sizes are: For the NGC 5/42 Storage Complex (~142 km pipeline): 18 pipe: 133 bar input pressure 16 pipe: 160 bar input pressure (trenched line) 14 pipe: 222 bar input pressure (excessive for 17.8 mm) For the Goldeneye Storage Complex (~350 km pipeline): 18 pipe: 176 bar input pressure 16 pipe: 240 bar input pressure (trenched line and excessive pressure) 14 pipe: Error pressure drop too great For a 15 mtpy offshore pipeline infrastructure the line sizes are: For the NGC 5/42 Storage Complex (~142 km): bar input pressure For the Goldeneye Storage Complex (~350 km): 28 pipe: 167 bar input pressure 27 pipe: 181 bar input pressure (non standard) 26 pipe: 199 bar input pressure (excessive for 26 mm) MS of 42 i-xx-05905

20 For the wall thickness specified in this preliminary investigation it is desirable to keep the operating pressure for the pipelines below 190 bar so the instantaneous peak pressure will be below 210 bar. From these results it is likely that both lines to carry 5 mtpy of CO 2 to the two storage complexes will be 18 inches in diameter. While the line to the 5/42 complex could be 16 inches, a pipeline of this diameter must be trenched along its complete length to avoid snagging and dislocation. This would increase the installation costs such that the 18 inch line is more practical and economic. However, it was reported by AMEC at the Workshop that Shell was seeking a 120 bar delivery pressure at their complex and that would require a pressure on that 18 inch line of 196 bar and most likely require a 20 inch line to deliver such a pressure. Further flow assurance work will be done in the design phase of this study when the technical data queries are all answered. See responses to Technical Queries in Appendix 2. With respect to the 15 mtpy cases, a 24 inch line is practical for the NGC 5/42 Storage Complex and a 28 inch line is sufficient for the Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex even at a delivery pressure of 120 bar. While a 27 inch line is also acceptable, it is not a standard diameter. However, this needs to be evaluated further in the design phase because the length of this line may mean that the costs for the supply of a non-standard pipeline diameter may result in an overall lower cost than the increased amount of metal in the larger diameter pipeline. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

21 5.6 Physical Constraints to all Offshore Alternatives Physical Constraints to all offshore alternatives include: SSI Hot Metal Line and TATA Cooling Water Lines, Gare Road and Golf Course, CATS Line and Metering Station, Breagh Line and Metering Station, EDF Wind Farm location and Electrical Transmission Line, and Rock out crops south of the Breagh Line. See Figures 5.6.1, and below which highlight these obstacles and constraints. Figure 5.6.1: Location of Proposed Booster Station and Other Physical Barriers MS of 42 i-xx-05905

22 Figure 5.6.2: Potential Horizontal Directional Drill of Pipeline across Dunes to beach position North of CATS Line and South of EDF Electrical Transmission Line MS of 42 i-xx-05905

23 Figure 5.6.3: Shore Approach of Pipeline North of CATS Line and South of EDF Electrical Transmission Line directed at PK20 across NORPIPE from Ekofisk Oil Field to Conoco Philips Refinery. For Line to NGC 5/42 Storage Complex CO 2 line to cross CATS Line at PK Other Constraints The Workshop participants highlighted the importance of energy consumption by the transportation system and sought solutions to minimise this consumption. An offshore pipeline is typically designed for a 40 year life and may require inspection through the use of Pipeline Inspection Gauges referred to as PIGs. Therefore, connections to other pipelines and platforms need to accommodate the launching and receiving of these PIGs in a satisfactory manner. PBD is to discuss with each of the storage developers the availability of storage capacity for the Teesside generated CO 2. Installation of the pipeline will not be allowed during the winter bird nesting season. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

24 6.0 Alternative Routes to Storage Complexes At least three alternative routes were examined for each of the two alternative storage complexes. The Routes are described below and a record of the Workshop discussions of the Advantages (Pros) and Disadvantages (Cons) for each route are recorded here. 6.1 The National Grid Store Known as 5/42 The three routes under review from Teesside to the NGC 5/42 Storage Complex associated with the White Rose CCS Project in West Yorkshire includes: 1. New build offshore pipe to a location onshore in Yorkshire, where the CO 2 would be comingled with the White Rose CO 2 and pumped offshore, 2. New build pipeline to a new T-piece in the offshore section of the National Grid pipeline to 5/42 Storage Complex, and 3. New build pipeline directly to the National Grid Aquifer 5/42 Storage Complex. Figure below depicts the offshore conditions for a pipeline run directly to the NGC 5/42 Storage Complex. The red boundary depicts a region in which the direct pipeline might run. Note the obstacles to this route include: The EDF Wind Farm (as seen in Figure 5.6.3), The CATS Natural Gas Line, The Breagh Natural Gas Line (South of CATS), The Langeled Natural Gas Line, The CANTAT 3 SEG F4 Communications Cable, The UK Germany 6 Communications Cable, The VSNL Northern Europe Communications Cable, The Teesside North Export Cable Route (future Wind Farm), The Teesside South Export Cable Route (future Wind Farm), The Creyke Beck Export Cable Route (future Wind Farm), and Other waste dump areas (small pink outlines in Figure & shown in 5.6.3), ship wrecks (not shown), munitions dumps (not shown) and Submarine Exercise Area (shown on Figure below along route of pipeline). MS of 42 i-xx-05905

25 Revision A1 Figure 6.1.1: Offshore Conditions for Pipeline Runs to NGC 5/42 Storage Complex MS of 42 i-xx-05905

26 Submarine Exercise Area Figure 6.1.2: Other Offshore Conditions for Pipeline Runs to NGC 5/42 Storage Complex New build offshore pipe to a location onshore in Yorkshire New build offshore pipe to a location onshore in Yorkshire, where the CO2 would be comingled with the White Rose CO2 and pumped offshore Advantages (Pros) Could operate offshore line at lower pressure because of opportunity to boost pressure in Yorkshire, Shorter Pipeline, and Could be piggable from onshore Teesside to onshore Yorkshire without need for subsea (wet) pig trap. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

27 Disadvantages (Cons) Additional shore approach at significant expense, Would require additional trenching because of wave action close to shore on second approach, and Requires more booster capacity in Yorkshire at greater cost than higher pressure boosters at Teesside. This is especially the case for the 15 mtpy flow case. Other Issues Not able to operate independently of Yorkshire pipeline system. Relative Screening Criteria: Score 26 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost New build pipeline to a new T-piece in the offshore section New build pipeline to a new T-piece in the offshore section of the National Grid pipeline to the 5/42 Storage Complex. Advantages (Pros) Potentially shortest length of pipeline from Teesside. Disadvantages (Cons) Not able to operate independently of Yorkshire pipeline system, Requires wet pig catcher, and Informed that NGC does not plan a T-piece in their offshore pipeline. Other Issues Should have T-piece located sufficiently off shore so pipeline from Teesside is not trenched from about pipeline kilometre 20 (PK20), T-piece may be anywhere along length of offshore section of pipeline all the way to just before Storage Complex Platform (should install T-piece at initial construction of NGC pipeline), Need tie in manifold to enable pigging of pipeline from Teesside to wet pig catcher, and Need capacity and pressure of NGC Pipeline to 5/42. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

28 Relative Screening Criteria: Score 26 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost New build pipeline directly to the 5/42 Storage Complex. Advantages (Pros) Delivery independent of CO 2 deliveries from Yorkshire, Most secure and reliable delivery, Could have pig catcher on top of platform (if allowed), Disadvantages (Cons) Longest pipeline, and Wet pig catcher at Pipeline End Termination (PLET) if indirect connection to top of platform is required. Other Issues Assumes separate riser to storage complex platform, and Could be connected to separate wells in storage complex to avoid problems associated with potentially high levels of Oxygen in White Rose CO 2. Relative Screening Criteria: Score 34 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost The Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex The three routes under review from Teesside to the Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex associated with the Peterhead CCS Project in Scotland include: 1. All onshore, 2. Entirely offshore from Teesside to Goldeneye, and 3. Offshore from Teesside to tie in onshore in the Central Belt. plus an additional alternative of 4. Offshore from Teesside to St Fergus and then tie into Shell line to Goldeneye. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

29 Figure below depicts the offshore conditions for a pipeline run directly to the Goldeneye Storage Complex. The red boundary depicts a region in which the direct pipeline might run. Note the obstacles to this route include: The EDF Wind Farm, The CATS Natural Gas Line, The NorPipe Oil Pipeline, The Fulmer to St Fergus Natural Gas Pipeline, The Forties to Cruden Bay Oil Pipeline, The Britannia PDQ to St Fergus Natural Gas Pipeline, The Miller Natural Gas Pipeline (decommissioned, The SAGE Beryl & Brae to St Fergus Natural Gas Pipeline (Possible), The Goldeneye Pipeline, and Three discontinued communication cables. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

30 Revision A1 Figure 6.2.1: Offshore Conditions for Pipeline Runs to Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex MS of 42 i-xx-05905

31 6.2.1 All Onshore to St Fergus Advantages (Pros) Reduction in required new pipeline length by using existing NGC gaseous line. Disadvantages (Cons) Running a gaseous system requires multiple booster stations and significant energy input throughout life of project, Some of NGC network may not be available, Existing gaseous line requires significant refurbishment for CO 2 service, Diameter of new gaseous pipeline from Teesside would be significantly larger than offshore liquid pipelines (36 inch diameter if matched to existing Feeder) and may boost costs well above savings from reusing existing pipelines, Proposed concept would be unable to handle 15 mtpy quantity (maximum allowable 8 to 11 mtpy), and Requires re-qualifying of existing pipeline for CO 2 duty (informed at workshop that this has already been completed by NGC). Other Issues Would not run a liquid line to connection with existing NGC gaseous line and re-gasify the liquid CO 2. This would require a significant heat source to overcome Joule-Thompson effects, and Long onshore pipeline risks being classified as Major Infrastructure Project lengthening and complicating consenting process. Relative Screening Criteria: Score 17 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost MS of 42 i-xx-05905

32 6.2.2 Entirely Offshore from Teesside to Goldeneye Advantages (Pros) Direct route, Not dependent on operation of Shell line from Scotland, Most secure and reliable delivery, and Could have pig catcher on top of platform (if allowed). Disadvantages (Cons) Longest and highest pressure pipeline, and Wet pig catcher at Pipeline End Termination (PLET) if required. Other Issues Assumes separate riser to storage complex platform or tie in to proposed manifold at base of platform. Relative Screening Criteria: Score 34 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost Offshore Teesside to Tie in Onshore in the Central Belt Advantages (Pros) Shorter offshore pipeline. Disadvantages (Cons) Need to re-gasify to get into onshore system, Need heat source to correct for J-T effects, More energy intensive as need to recompress at St. Fergus, and Dependent on operation of Shell Line. Other Issues Not considered as viable alternative and propose alternative case below. Relative Screening Criteria: Score 15 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost MS of 42 i-xx-05905

33 6.2.4 Offshore from Teesside to St Fergus & Tie into Shell Line (alt Route) Offshore from Teesside to St Fergus and then Tie into the Shell Line to Goldeneye (alternative Route) Advantages (Pros) Shorter and lower pressure Offshore Northern Pipeline, All liquid and no need to re-gasify to get into system, and Flexible connection options to Shell pipeline or other pipelines for access to more future storage complexes. Disadvantages (Cons) May be dependent on operation of Shell Line, and Will not be able to get 15 mtpy into Shell Line and would require alternative line(s) Other Issues Additional landfall but with ability to boost pressure for further transit. Relative Screening Criteria: Score 31 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost MS of 42 i-xx-05905

34 7.0 Summary of General Comments from the WP6 Workshop The participants in the workshop were engaged in the discussions and particularly focused on the following points: Less complex systems were viewed as more favourable from the stand points of: o Lower capital costs, o Lower risks to schedule to complete, o Easier to operate and maintain, and o Lower energy costs, The CO 2 delivered to the onshore pipeline infrastructure should meet specifications or be discharged at the capture plant. No further treatment other than pressure management and flow measurement would be carried out at the Booster Station, Monitoring methodologies need to be developed and discussed in other Work Packages, There were no large apparent savings from connecting into any of the existing pipelines run as gaseous lines and potentially larger costs for refurbishment and the installation of larger diameter pipelines and additional compressor stations, Long onshore pipelines were subject to more complex planning procedures under the Major Infrastructure Project designation which might jeopardise the success of the approval process The location of the Teesside Booster Station is best located on a corner of Tata owned land southeast of the SSI Hot Metal Line off Gare Road. From there a Horizontal Direction Drilled pipeline can be driven to the middle of the beach just North of the Cats and Breagh natural gas pipelines and just south of the EDF electrical cable from the offshore wind farm in Tees Bay to establish a shore approach and provide the best solution to receiving CO 2 from the onshore pipeline infrastructure and working around existing infrastructure and obstacles onshore and offshore, An onshore connection to either the NGC CO 2 Pipeline or the Shell Pipeline near St Fergus would have the costs of an additional shore approach and may not be able to handle the 15 mtpy flows in the proposed connecting pipelines, and Likewise, a connection into the offshore pipeline to the NGC 5/42 Storage Complex might not handle the 15 mtpy flows and operation may be subject to operation of the Yorkshire Infrastructure, and There were many obstacles to work around in the offshore environment (existing pipelines, cables, future power cables and dump sites etc.) but nothing that has not already been done successfully in the past with respect to oil and gas pipelines and deliveries to and from platforms. MS of 42 i-xx-05905

35 8.0 Route Selection from the WP6 Workshop The following two preferred alternatives were selected as a result of the WP6 Workshop for the pipeline transportation of CO 2 from Teesside to the two storage complex 8.1 The National Grid Store Known as 5/42 Option 3: The Direct route to the NGC 5/42 Storage Complex was viewed as the most favourable alternative of the three alternatives to the NGC Storage Complex because: A single booster station was required to manage flow and pressure, The CO 2 could be fed directly onto the platform, The additional cost of another shore approach was avoided minimising the cost differential between the onshore Yorkshire connection and the direct route to 5/42, The CO 2 could be directly injected into dedicated wells without comingling with White Rose CO 2 if this was desired to avoid operational coordination issues or potential problems with different CO 2 specifications (particularly levels of O 2, The line could be designed to handle either the low or high flow scenarios without impacting the proposed plans of the NGC Yorkshire Infrastructure or the White Rose Project, Simpler systems would experience less coordination issues which might impact schedules and costs of implementation, and Ticks all the boxes as seen below on a 1-5 scale with 5 being the best score. Relative Screening Criteria: Score 34 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost The Shell Goldeneye Storage Complex Option 2: The Direct route to the Goldeneye Storage Complex was viewed as the most favourable alternative of the four reviewed alternatives to the Shell Storage Complex because: All onshore alternatives appeared to be more costly and complex due to: o larger diameter pipelines to connect to existing infrastructure, o the need for additional compressor stations, o additional cost for refurbishment of existing network, o higher energy costs for compression (and potential re-gasification), o the systems would not handle the higher flow scenario of 15 mtpy, and o more complex planning procedures for Major Infrastructure Project, A single booster station was required to manage flow and pressure, The line could be fed directly to the subsea manifold upstream of the Subsea Isolation valve and then onto the platform, MS of 42 i-xx-05905

36 The additional cost of another shore approach was avoided minimising the cost differential between the shorter St Fergus connection and the direct route to Goldeneye, Simpler systems would experience less coordination issues which might impact schedules and costs of implementation, and Ticks all the boxes as seen below on a 1-5 scale with 5 being the best score. Relative Screening Criteria: Score 33 Reliable Maintainable Inspectable Simple Executable Efficient Cost MS of 42 i-xx-05905

37 9.0 Information Required from the Other WPs & Technical Enquires for WP6 While preliminary information was used to prepare briefing information to the participants of the WP 6 Workshop and highlight the key issues in identifying a preferred alternative, to complete Work Package 6, it is necessary to have the following information from the other Working Groups or from the two developers of the storage complexes. 1. A CO 2 Specification for each pipeline infrastructure and storage complex. (see TQ 001 & 002 in Appendix 2 and subsequent WP5 CO 2 Specification from AMEC) 2. Delivery Pressure of CO 2 from onshore gathering infrastructure. (see TQ 001 & 002 in Appendix 2) 3. Required delivery conditions for each storage complex including location and elevation of connection and required pressure at connection or highest elevation. (see TQ 001 & 002 in Appendix 2) 4. Limits on capacity or maximum capacity of both storage complexes. (additional enquiry) MS of 42 i-xx-05905

38 10.0 Appendices MS of 42 i-xx-05905

39 Appendix 1 Technical Queries TVU 200- TQ-001 Technical Query/Information Request to National Grid Carbon Request No: 001 Issued to: Steve Murphy, Pale Blue Dot Position: Project Co-ordinator Please provide the following information by: 15/10/14 Documents drawings related to query: None The TVU project considers storage of Carbon Dioxide in the NGC facility proposed for block 5/42 in the southern North Sea. Can National Gird supply the following information? 1. CO 2 Specifications for the transport and the storage complex 2. CO 2 Delivery Criteria (temperature, pressure, connection point elevation) to either the offshore pipeline or platform 3. Is NGC considering connection of other pipelines into the White Rose to 5/42 offshore pipeline via a Tee connection or delivery form other pipelines to the platform. AMEC have previously received NGC/SP/PIP/25 National Grid Carbon Specification for Carbon Dioxide Quality requirements for Pipeline Transportation, 2014 Which specifies NGC specifications for components. Can AMEC use this document as a reference in a summary document in answer to [1]? Requested by James Watt Date 7/10/14 Approved by Date MS of 42 i-xx-05905

40 Reply: 1. AMEC is advised to use the specification in NGC/SP/PIP/25 National Grid Carbon Specification for Carbon Dioxide Quality requirements for Pipeline Transportation, CO 2 Delivery Criteria; a. Temperature at the storage facility is expected to be at ambient sea temperatures (4 o C). b. Pressure should be a minimum of 100barg and less than 182barg to safeguard storage site containment integrity. It is assumed that the lower pressure should be satisfactory at the start of field life but will climb as the stored inventory builds. c. Elevation = 30m. 3. No tee pieces are planned for the subsea pipeline from the Yorkshire coast to 5/42. Signature: R Cooper Position: Technical Assurance Manager Client: MS of 42 i-xx-05905

41 TVU 200- TQ-002 Technical Query/Information Request to Shell Carbon Request No: 002 Issued to: Steve Murphy, Pale Blue Dot Position: Project Co-ordinator Please provide the following information by: As soon as possible Documents drawings related to query: None The TVU project considers storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Shell Goldeneye facility as proposed in the Peterhead CCS project. Can Shell provide supply the following information? 1. CO 2 Specifications for the transport and the storage complex 2. CO 2 Delivery Criteria (temperature, pressure, connection point elevation) to either the offshore pipeline or platform 3. Can Shell confirm pipeline configuration of the proposed Peterhead project is offshore from Peterhead as stated in the document 4. Is Shell considering connection of other pipelines into the Goldeneye facility? If so, a. Is the connection of additional pipeline likely to be via direct approach to the platform b. Via connection in a pipeline c. Via the onshore facility at Peterhead Requested by James Watt Date 22/10/14 Approved by Date MS of 42 i-xx-05905

42 Reply: 1. CO 2 specification - see table below 2. CO 2 delivery - see table below 3. The document in the link is the Onshore Impact Assessment (IA) Scoping Report. You are encouraged to review the Offshore Impact Assessment (IA) Scoping Report which is also available on our website. 4. There are currently no well-developed future connections in our design although the following would be possible: a. An additional pipeline connection on the platform would be very challenging as there are no spare J-tubes. A subsea tie-in at the SSIV manifold nearby the platform is a possible solution. b. The Peterhead Project tie-in to the existing Goldeneye to St Fergus pipeline (approx. 20km from the beach) will be via flanged or mechanical connectors. A future tie-in point is feasible at this point. c. Space has been left for a possible tie-in downstream of the export compressor in the high pressure above ground section of the Peterhead facility. MS of 42 i-xx-05905