Project: ACT Acorn Feasibility Study

Terms of Use

The ACT Acorn Consortium partners reserve all rights in this material and retain full copyright. Any reference to this material or use of the material must include full acknowledgement of the source of the material, including the reports full title and its authors. The material contains third party IP, used in accordance with those third party’s terms and credited as such where appropriate. Any subsequent reference to this third party material must also reference its original source. The material is made available in the interest of progressing CCS by sharing this ACT work done on the Acorn project. Pale Blue Dot Energy reserve all rights over the use of the material in connection with the development of the Acorn Project. In the event of any questions over the use of this material please contact [email protected].

Acorn

D02 CO2 Supply Options 10196ACTC-Rep-02-02 October 2017

www.actacorn.eu

ACT Acorn, project 271500, has received funding from BEIS (UK), RCN (NO) and RVO (NL), and is co-funded by the European Commission under the ERA-Net instrument of the Horizon 2020 programme. ACT Grant number 691712. D02 CO2 Supply Options Contents

Contents

Document Summary

Client Research Council of Norway & Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

Project Title Accelerating CCS Technologies: Acorn Project Title: D02 CO2 Supply Options

Distribution: Client & Public Domain

Date of Issue: 12th October 2017

Prepared by: Tim Dumenil, Hazel Robertson, David Pilbeam (all Pale Blue Dot Energy), Dr. Peter Brownsort (SCCS)

Approved by: Steve Murphy, ACT Acorn Project Director Amendment Record Rev Date Description Issued By Checked By Approved By V02 12/12/17 Final Issue C Hartley T Dumenil S Murphy

Disclaimer:

While the authors consider that the data and opinions contained in this report are sound, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when using it. The authors do not make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the report. The authors assume no liability for any loss or damage arising from decisions made on the basis of this report. The views and judgements expressed here are the opinions of the authors and do not reflect those of the client or any of the stakeholders consulted during the course of this project.

The ACT Acorn consortium is led by Pale Blue Dot Energy and includes Bellona Foundation, Heriot-Watt University, Radboud University, Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage (SCCS), University of Aberdeen, University of Edinburgh and University of Liverpool.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 3 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Contents

Table of Contents

CONTENTS ...... 3

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 9

2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 11

3.0 SCOPE ...... 17

4.0 CO2 EMISSIONS INVENTORY ...... 19

5.0 CO2 SUPPLY VOLUME PROFILES ...... 31

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 37

7.0 REFERENCES ...... 38

8.0 ANNEX 1 MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS ...... 40

9.0 ANNEX 2 DETAILED EMISSIONS INVENTORY ...... 44

10.0 ANNEX 3: CO2 OFFTAKE SERVICES TERM SHEET ...... 45

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 4 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Contents

CONTENTS ...... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 4 FIGURES ...... 7 TABLES ...... 8

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 9

2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 11

ACT ACORN OVERVIEW...... 11 ACORN DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ...... 15

3.0 SCOPE ...... 17

PURPOSE ...... 17 SCOPE ...... 17 STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS ...... 17

4.0 CO2 EMISSIONS INVENTORY ...... 19

INTRODUCTION ...... 19

CO2 QUALITY SPECIFICATION ...... 19

CURRENT CO2 SOURCES ...... 20 4.3.1 St Fergus ...... 20 4.3.2 Feeder 10 Pipeline Route ...... 22 4.3.3 Port ...... 25

FUTURE OF EXISTING CO2 SOURCES...... 26 4.4.1 St Fergus ...... 26 4.4.2 Feeder 10 Pipeline Route ...... 26 4.4.3 Peterhead Port ...... 26

FUTURE POTENTIAL CO2 SOURCES ...... 29 4.5.1 St Fergus ...... 29

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 5 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Contents

4.5.2 Feeder 10 Pipeline Route ...... 29 4.5.3 Peterhead Port ...... 30

5.0 CO2 SUPPLY VOLUME PROFILES ...... 31

REFERENCE CASE ...... 31 SCENARIO A ...... 32 SCENARIO B ...... 34

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 37

7.0 REFERENCES ...... 38

8.0 ANNEX 1 MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS ...... 40

9.0 ANNEX 2 DETAILED EMISSIONS INVENTORY ...... 44

10.0 ANNEX 3: CO2 OFFTAKE SERVICES TERM SHEET ...... 45

INTRODUCTION ...... 45 MATERIAL TERMS ...... 45 10.2.1 Primary Service ...... 45 10.2.2 Legal Boilerplate ...... 45

10.2.3 CO2 Specification ...... 45 10.2.4 Charging Mechanisms ...... 45 10.2.4.1 EPC Charge ...... 45 10.2.4.2 Capacity Rights Charge ...... 46 10.2.4.3 Use of Network Charge ...... 46 10.2.5 Liabilities ...... 46 10.2.6 Information Sharing ...... 46 10.2.7 Asset Ownership ...... 46 10.2.8 CO2 Title ...... 46

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 6 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Contents

Figures

FIGURE 1-1 COMPARISON OF CO2 SUPPLY PROFILES ...... 9 FIGURE 2-1: ACT ACORN CONSORTIUM PARTNERS ...... 11 FIGURE 2-2: KEY AREAS OF INNOVATION ...... 12 FIGURE 2-3: ACT ACORN WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE ...... 13 FIGURE 2-4: ACORN OUTLINE MINIMUM VIABLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ...... 15 FIGURE 2-5: ACORN BUILD OUT SCENARIO FROM THE 2017 PCI APPLICATION ...... 16 FIGURE 4-1 MAP OF EXISTING EMISSIONS 50KM FROM ST FERGUS ...... 20 FIGURE 4-2 MAP OF EXISTING EMISSIONS WITHIN 50KM OF FEEDER 10 COMPRESSOR STATIONS ...... 22

FIGURE 4-3. TANKER JETTY AT PETERHEAD PORT, WHICH COULD BE USED FOR CO2 IMPORT VIA SHIP (PETERHEAD PORT AUTHORITY, 2017) ...... 25 FIGURE 4-4. PETERHEAD AREA ...... 25

FIGURE 5-1 REFERENCE CASE CO2 SUPPLY PROFILE ...... 31

FIGURE 5-2 SCENARIO A CO2 SUPPLY PROFILE BY REGION ...... 33

FIGURE 5-3 SCENARIO A CO2 BY EMISSION TYPE ...... 33

FIGURE 5-4 SCENARIO B CO2 SUPPLY PROFILE BY REGION ...... 36

FIGURE 5-5 SCENARIO B CO2 SUPPLY PROFILE BY SITE TYPE ...... 36

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 7 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Contents

Tables

TABLE 2-1: ACT ACORN MILESTONES AND DELIVERABLES ...... 14 TABLE 3-1 CAPTURE POTENTIAL ASSUMPTIONS PER INDUSTRY ...... 18

TABLE 4-1 OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS FOR CO2 CAPTURE ...... 19 TABLE 4-2 INVENTORY OF EXISTING EMISSIONS IN 2015 GREATER THAN 100,000T/YR WITHIN 50KM OF ST FERGUS ...... 21 TABLE 4-3 INVENTORY OF EXISTING EMISSIONS IN 2015 LESS THAN 100,000T/YR WITHIN 50KM OF ST FERGUS ...... 21 TABLE 4-4 INVENTORY OF EXISTING EMISSIONS IN 2015 GREATER THAN 100,000T/Y WITHIN 50KM OF FEEDER 10 COMPRESSOR STATIONS ...... 23 TABLE 4-5 INVENTORY OF EXISTING EMISSIONS IN 2015 LESS THAN 100,000T/YR AND WITHIN 50KM OF FEEDER 10 COMPRESSOR STATIONS ...... 24 TABLE 4-6 INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS THROUGH PETERHEAD ...... 28

TABLE 4-7 INVENTORY OF FUTURE CO2 SOURCES AT ST FERGUS...... 29 TABLE 4-8 INVENTORY OF NEW EMISSION SOURCES AT GRANGEMOUTH ...... 30

TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF TOTAL CO2 CAPTURE ...... 31 TABLE 5-2 INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS SOURCES FOR SCENARIO A ...... 33 TABLE 5-3 INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS SOURCES FOR SCENARIO B ...... 36 TABLE 8-1: INVENTORY OF SITE DATA USED IN MODELLING ...... 41 TABLE 8-2: SUMMARY OF SITES INCLUDED IN EACH SCENARIO ...... 43 TABLE 9-1: DETAILED EMISSIONS INVENTORY ...... 44

TABLE 10-1: CO2 SPECIFICATION...... 45 TABLE 10-2: MATERIAL LIABILITIES ATTACHED TO PARTIES...... 46

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 8 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Executive Summary

1.0 Executive Summary

The purpose of this deliverable is to establish a reference profile of CO2 supply that will be used for the design of the St Fergus capture facilities, the storage This deliverable has established a CO2 supply development plans, economic analysis for the project and the build-out vision. Reference Case that will be used in the ACT project. The outputs will feed into D17 Feeder 10 Business Case, D03 Basis of Design The Reference Case assumes a flat rate of for St Fergus Facilities and D18 Expansion Options Report. 200,000T/yr can be captured from one of the gas terminals at St Fergus, starting in 2022.

Two scenarios (A and B) are also proposed, which include an inventory of 13 existing sources, plus future emissions, including CO2 importation from Europe to Peterhead via ship.

In Scenario A, 255MT CO2 could be captured over the 38 year period to 2060 at a peak rate of 9MT/yr.

In Scenario B, 450MT CO2 could be captured over the 38 year period to 2060 at a peak rate of 16MT/yr. Figure 1-1 Comparison of CO2 Supply Profiles 90% of Scotland’s large site emissions are within 90% of Scotland’s large site emissions lie within 50 km of the Feeder 10 pipeline 50km of Feeder 10 and as such it is a key piece of and so it is a key piece of strategic infrastructure. For this study, assessment of strategic infrastructure. the suitability of infrastructure was largely ignored and so further work on its re- use potential is required.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 9 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Executive Summary

This Deliverable brings together current thinking and knowledge on existing, The Reference Profile assumes a flat rate of 200,000T/yr CO2 can be captured known planned and possible emissions in St Fergus, Grangemouth and from the gas processing Terminal at St Fergus, starting in 2022. imported to Peterhead Port. Scenario A is intended to give a conservative profile representative of a slow An inventory of existing emissions sources, based on the Scottish decarbonisation effort or a greater focus on decarbonising England over

Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Scottish Pollutant Release Inventory Scotland. The maximum CO2 rate is 8.6MT/yr, with cumulative emissions (SPRI) data (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, 2017), was compiled captured of 255MT from 2022 to 2060. and screened for those sites with capture potential of over 100,000T/yr within Scenario B is intended to be a more optimistic decarbonisation pathway for the 50km of Feeder 10. UK with a more rapid uptake of hydrogen as an energy vector and CCS for

The portfolio of existing emitters has been overlain with known planned industry. The maximum CO2 rate 16MT/yr, with cumulative emissions captured emissions sources and possible new emissions sources. These future of 450MT from 2022 to 2060. emissions include those within Scotland, at St Fergus and Grangemouth, as well as those that could be imported by ship from Teesside and Rotterdam via

Peterhead Port, as detailed in the CO2 SAPLING PCI bid (Pale Blue Dot Energy, 2017).

From this, a Reference Case of CO2 supply and two further Scenarios (A and B) were established Figure 1-1. These will be used for subsequent analysis in the

ACT Acorn project. These scenarios were aligned with the CO2 SAPLING PCI bid and a subset of Scenario A in the UK East Coast CCS Study: the macroeconomic case for CCS in the UK (Summit Power, 2017) and could potentially be developed given the right policies, support and industry engagement.

There are high levels of uncertainty in what the future energy landscape and therefore emissions sources might be and so a scenario-based approach provides a way to capture a range of potential outcomes in which the ACT Acorn project sits.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 10 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Introduction

2.0 Introduction

ACT Acorn Overview The research and innovation study addresses all thematic areas of the ACT Call including ‘Chain Integration’. The project includes a mix of both technical and ACT Acorn, project 271500, has received funding from BEIS (UK), RCN (NO) non-technical innovation activities as well as leading edge scientific research. and RVO (NL), and is co-funded by the European Commission under the ERA- Together these will enable the development of the technical specification for an Net instrument of the Horizon 2020 programme. ACT Grant number 691712. ultra-low cost, integrated CCS hub that can be scaled up at marginal cost. It will ACT Acorn is a collaborative project between seven organisations across move the Acorn development opportunity from proof-of-concept (TRL3) to the Europe being led by Pale Blue Dot Energy in the UK, as shown in Figure 2-1. pre-FEED stage (TRL5/6) including iterative engagement with relevant investors in the private and public sectors.

Specific objectives of the project are to:

1. Produce a costed technical development plan for a full chain CCS

hub that will capture CO2 emissions from the St Fergus Gas

Terminal in north east Scotland and store the CO2 at an offshore storage site (to be selected) under the North Sea. 2. Identify technical options to increase the storage efficiency of the selected storage site based on scientific evidence from

geomechanical experiments and dynamic CO2 flow modelling and through this drive scientific advancement and innovation in these areas. 3. Explore build-out options including interconnections to the nearby

Peterhead Port, other large sources of CO2 emissions in the UK

region and CO2 utilisation plants 4. Identify other potential locations for CCS hubs around the North Sea regions and develop policy recommendations to protect

relevant infrastructure from premature decommissioning and for

Figure 2-1: ACT Acorn consortium partners the future ownership of potential CO2 stores.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 11 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Introduction

5. Engage with CCS and low carbon economy stakeholders in Europe The project will be delivered over a 19-month period, concluding on the 28 th and worldwide to disseminate the lessons from the project and February 2019. During that time, it will create and publish 21 items known as encourage replication. Deliverables. Collectively these will provide a platform for industry, local partnerships and government to move the project forward in subsequent CCS is a new and emerging industry. Maturity improvements are required in the phases. It will be driven by business case logic and inform the development of application of technology, the commercial structure of projects, the scope of UK and European policy around infrastructure preservation. The deliverables each development and the policy framework. are listed in The key areas of innovation in which the project will seek insights are summarised in Figure 2-2. Milestone Deliverable D01 Kick-off Meeting Report 1) St Fergus Hub Design D02 CO2 Supply Options D17 Feeder 10 Business Case D03 Basis of Design for St Fergus Facilities 2) Site Screening & D04 Site Screening Methodology Selection D05 Site Selection Report D13 Plan and Budget for FEED 3) Expansion Options D18 Expansion Options D10 Policy Options Report D11 Infrastructure Reuse Report 4) Full Chain Business D14 Outline Environmental Impact Assessment Case Figure 2-2: Key areas of innovation D15 Economic Model and Documentation The project activity has been organised into 6 work packages as illustrated in D16 Full Chain Development Plan and Budget

Figure 2-3. Specific areas being addressed include; regional CO2 emissions; St D06 Geomechanics Report Fergus capture plant concept; CO2 storage site assessments and development 5) Geomechanics D07 Captain X Storage Development Plan and plans; reservoir CO2 flow modelling, geomechanics; CCS policy development; Budget infrastructure re-use; lifecycle analysis; environmental impact; economic modelling; FEED and development plans; and build out growth assessment. D08 Site 2 Storage Development Plan and Budget

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 12 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Introduction

6) Storage Development Plans D09 Eclipse Model Files 7) Lifecycle Assessment D12 Carbon Lifecycle Analysis D21 Societal Acceptance Report 8) Project Completion D19 Material for Knowledge Dissemination Events D20 Publishable Final Summary Report

Table 2-1.

Figure 2-3: ACT Acorn work breakdown structure

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 13 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Introduction

Milestone Deliverable D01 Kick-off Meeting Report

1) St Fergus Hub Design D02 CO2 Supply Options D17 Feeder 10 Business Case D03 Basis of Design for St Fergus Facilities D04 Site Screening Methodology 2) Site Screening & Selection D05 Site Selection Report D13 Plan and Budget for FEED 3) Expansion Options D18 Expansion Options D10 Policy Options Report D11 Infrastructure Reuse Report 4) Full Chain Business Case D14 Outline Environmental Impact Assessment D15 Economic Model and Documentation D16 Full Chain Development Plan and Budget D06 Geomechanics Report 5) Geomechanics D07 Captain X Storage Development Plan and Budget D08 Site 2 Storage Development Plan and Budget 6) Storage Development Plans D09 Eclipse Model Files 7) Lifecycle Assessment D12 Carbon Lifecycle Analysis D21 Societal Acceptance Report 8) Project Completion D19 Material for Knowledge Dissemination Events D20 Publishable Final Summary Report

Table 2-1: ACT Acorn Milestones and Deliverables

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 14 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Introduction

The Consortium includes a mix of industrial, scientific and CCS policy experts in keeping with the multidisciplinary nature of the project. The project is led by Pale Blue Dot Energy along with University of Aberdeen, University of Edinburgh, University of Liverpool, Heriot Watt University, Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (SCCS), Radboud University and The Bellona Foundation. Pale Blue

Dot Energy affiliate, CO2DeepStore are providing certain input material. Acorn Development Concept

Many CCS projects have been burdened with achieving “economies of scale” immediately to be deemed cost effective. This inevitably increases the initial cost hurdle to achieve a lower lifecycle unit cost (be that £/MWh or £/T) which raises the bar from the perspectives of initial capital requirement and overall project risk.

The Acorn development concept use a Minimum Viable Development (MVD) approach. This takes the view of designing a full chain CCS development of industrial scale (which minimises or eliminates the scale up risk) but at the lowest capital cost possible, accepting that the unit cost for the initial project may be high for the first small tranche of sequestered emissions.

Acorn will use the unique combination of legacy circumstances in North East Scotland to engineer a minimum viable full chain carbon capture, transport and offshore storage project to initiate CCS in the UK. The project is illustrated in Figure 2-4 and seeks to re-purpose an existing gas sweetening plant (or build a new capture facility if required) with existing offshore pipeline infrastructure connected to a well understood offshore basin, rich in storage opportunities. All the components are in place to create an industrial CCS development in North Figure 2-4: Acorn Outline Minimum Viable Development Plan

East Scotland, leading to offshore CO2 storage by the early 2020s.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 15 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Introduction

A successful project will provide the platform and improve confidence for further low-cost growth and incremental development and will provide a cost effective practical stepping stone from which to grow a regional cluster and an international CO2 hub.

The seed infrastructure can be developed by adding additional CO2 capture points such as from hydrogen manufacture for transport and heat, future CO2 shipping through Peterhead Port to and from Europe and connection to UK national onshore transport infrastructure such as the Feeder 10 pipeline which can bring additional CO2 from emissions sites in the industrial central belt of Scotland including the proposed Caledonia Clean Energy Project, CCEP. A build out scenario for Acorn used in the 2017 Projects of Common Interest (PCI) application is included as Figure 2-5.

Pale Blue Dot Energy is exploring various ways and partners to develop the Acorn project.

Figure 2-5: Acorn build out scenario from the 2017 PCI application

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 16 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Scope

3.0 Scope

Purpose Statement of Assumptions

The purpose of this scope of work is to establish a reference profile of CO2 The assumptions detailed in this section apply to the Acorn Project under the supply that will be used in the economic analysis of the project, the build-out ACT ERA-NET funding package. For future Acorn project development, these vision and the design of the St Fergus capture facilities and storage assumptions may be revised. development plans. Alignment with previous work Scope • To align with the Committee on Climate Change’s Central Scenario decarbonisation pathway as far as possible, capture from bioenergy The scope of work includes: is assumed to begin no earlier than 2035 and hydrogen for transport • Inventory of existing emission sources within (i) St Fergus facilities no earlier than 2030. (for the basis of design - BOD) and (ii) 50 km of Feeder 10 and (iii) • Potential sources and build out of CO2 emissions have been imported into Peterhead; developed to align with a subset of Scenario A in the UK East Coast • Inventory of planned & possible new emission sources (e.g. Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) Study: the macroeconomic case hydrogen) within Scotland; for the UK work (Summit Power, 2017) and the CO2 SAPLING PCI

• Inventory of known, planned & possible sources of imported CO2; bid (Pale Blue Dot Energy, 2017). • Inventories to contain: name, age of source (if existing), location, • It is assumed that CO2 from Teesside will be shipped to Peterhead timing, raw quantity, type (e.g. biogenic or fossil (& type, e.g. gas rather than piped and that the shipping will be a short-term solution turbine)), capture potential; ahead of a store being developed nearer Teesside. • (i) Scenario profile(s) to 2060 and (ii) Reference profile from 2022- New power generation 2032 from St Fergus to feed in to BOD; • All new energy generation (heat and/or power) in Scotland going • Statement of any assumptions in building reference profile; forward will be low carbon. Screening criteria • Summary of discussions with St Fergus CO2 owners; • A maximum distance of 50km and a minimum CO2 emission rate of • Develop a draft Head of Terms for CO2 offtake. 100,000T/yr has been used to screen the list of existing emissions sources.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 17 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Scope

• Industry capture potentials adapted by Brownsort, P. A (2016) from Proportion of General total amine post- Pershad (2013) have been used to calculate the captured emissions, Overall capture Industry emissions combustion Table 3-1. potential available for capture Infrastructure capture efficiency • Infrastructure capacity has not been fully considered. The profiles Power Generation 100% 90% 90% are intended to give an estimate of amounts of CO2 available in each Gas Processing 75% 90% 67.5% region and relevant infrastructure sizing (e.g. for Feeder 10 or (Petro)Chemicals 50% 90% 45% pipeline from Peterhead Port to St Fergus) would require further Cement and Minerals 100% 90% 90% work. Energy from Waste 100% 90% 90% • Similarly, storage site build-out capacity for potential future Metal Processing 100% 90% 90% emissions in Scenarios A and B will likely be required as expansion options. This has not been considered within this scope. Table 3-1 Capture Potential Assumptions per Industry

Data • The most recent (2015) SEPA Scottish Pollutant Release Inventory (SPRI) (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, 2017) and European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) (European Commission, 2017) data sets are assumed as a true and accurate representation of emissions from sites across the UK. Exclusions • Emissions associated with hydrocarbon production offshore are excluded. • Shipping from Norway has been excluded as Norway are currently developing further storage solutions in the Norwegian Continental Shelf.

In general, it is also assumed there are no barriers that would impact schedule, for example no delays in policy.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 18 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

4.0 CO2 Emissions Inventory

Introduction CO2 Quality Specification

To build the CO2 supply profile, CO2 from sources at St Fergus, sources along The quality of CO2 will vary significantly across different emission sources with the Feeder 10 pipeline route and sources which could potentially be shipped into wide variation in concentration, temperature, pressure etc. This impacts the Peterhead port were considered. capture potential of each emission source as outlined in Table 3-1. However,

irrespective of source, all captured CO2 will need to meet a minimum quality Emissions from St Fergus are the initial choice for the capture of CO2 emissions specification for transport and storage. due to the proximity to existing offshore transport and storage assets.

Heads of Terms (HoTs) for CO2 offtake were drafted by Pale Blue Dot as part of Since 90% of Scotland’s large site emissions are within a 50km radius of the the Teesside iCCS project (Pale Blue Dot Energy, 2015). Annex 3 – CO2 Offtake Feeder 10 pipeline route, building out from St Fergus would involve repurposing Services Term Sheet, details the likely material commercial terms expected to Feeder 10 or some equivalent infrastructure to transport CO2 from the Central form the basis of a CO2 Offtake Agreement for users of the Acorn transport and Belt in Scotland to St Fergus. storage network. The table in the Term Sheet, replicated below, outlines Emissions from further afield could be imported using the deep-water port at composition for captured CO2 entering an onshore transport network. Peterhead and initial targets for shipping would be the Teesside region in England and from Rotterdam in Europe. Attribute Condition CO2 >95.5% This section will set out the CO2 emissions inventory, from which a Reference Water < 50ppm Case profile and two scenarios (A and B) have been developed. O2 < 10ppm Section 4.3 summarises the current emissions of existing sites and likely capture Table 4-1 Operational Parameters for CO2 Capture potential, Section 4.4 estimates the future emissions of existing sites and Pressures and temperatures are likely to vary within a transport network, the key Section 4.5 provides a projection of future emissions associated with new areas to bear in mind with respect to Acorn are local gathering networks, the emissions sources. Each section is subdivided into three geographies: i) St Feeder 10 pipeline and the pipeline transferring CO2 from shipping from Fergus, ii) Feeder 10 corridor and iii) importation of CO2 to Peterhead. Peterhead port to St Fergus. The specification of Feeder 10 and the pipeline from Peterhead are important to the entry conditions to compression facilities at St Fergus prior to offshore transport.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 19 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

Current CO2 Sources

Existing emitters were identified using the SPRI (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, 2017) and EU ETS (European Commission, 2017) data sets.

These CO2 sources were then screened based on geography and the amount of CO2 that they emitted.

4.3.1 St Fergus

Gas from the North Sea is brought onshore at the . The terminal consists of three gas receiving plants that pass the gas onto a fourth facility, National Grid Gas, connected to the National Transmission System (NTS). The gas receiving plants are responsible for the gas clean-up and sweetening operations prior to compression and injection into the NTS.

For the analysis of potential CO2 supply to St Fergus a radius of 50km from the terminal has been used as a cut off. A minimum of 100,000T/yr has been used as a cut off. However, the latter results in a shortlist of two emissions sites as summarised in Table 4-2. For information Table 4-3 has also been included to show the scale of 10,000-100,000T/yr emitters at/near St Fergus. Figure 4-1 Map of Existing Emissions 50km from St Fergus For the purposes of the ACT work, the following assumptions are made about the magnitude of existing emissions: Pale Blue Dot Energy have ongoing dialogue with operators of the three gas arrival and processing facilities at St Fergus. • 200,000T/yr of CO2 is assumed straightforward to capture from the heaters at the Shell terminal. This is based on total emissions of 330,000T/yr, with an assumption that ~60% of this can be captured (including a 90% capture efficiency). • The gas sweetening emissions from the SAGE gas terminal, around 14,000T/yr, are not considered to be large enough to capture and have been deducted from the reported emissions.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 20 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

Raw CO Capture CO Quantity Name Closest to 2 2 Category Source Quantity (T/yr) Potential (T/yr) Shell UK Ltd St Fergus Gas Plant St. Fergus 331,559 60.0% 198,935 Gas Processing SEPA Apache Beryl Sage Gas Terminal St Fergus St. Fergus 135,862 67.5% 91,707 Gas Processing SEPA

Table 4-2 Inventory of Existing Emissions in 2015 Greater than 100,000T/yr within 50km of St Fergus

Raw CO Capture CO Quantity Name Closest to 2 2 Category Source Quantity (T/yr) Potential (T/yr) National Grid N.Sea Gas Terminal Peterhead St. Fergus 59,538 67.5% 40,188 Gas Processing SEPA SSE Gen Peterhead Power Station Peterhead St. Fergus 54,696 90.0% 49,226 Power Generation SEPA PX Ltd St Fergus N.Sea Terminal St. Fergus 45,191 67.5% 30,504 Gas Processing SEPA SITA UK. Stoneyhill Environ Pk St. Fergus 31,800 90.0% 28,620 Energy from Waste SEPA

Table 4-3 Inventory of Existing Emissions in 2015 Less than 100,000T/yr within 50km of St Fergus

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 21 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

4.3.2 Feeder 10 Pipeline Route assumed to be from onsite heat and power flue gas. Some emissions sites from the data set have since closed. Feeder 10 is part of the national gas network or the National Transmission System (NTS) and is one of four high-pressure gas pipelines in Scotland that transport natural gas from St Fergus, where it comes onshore from North Sea fields, to the Central Belt and beyond. The pipeline is 280km long and 36” (900mm) in diameter, with compressor stations located roughly every 70km at Aberdeen, Kirriemuir and Avonbridge/Bathgate.

Around 90% of Scotland’s CO2 large site emissions, before capture, lie within 50km of the Feeder 10 compressor stations and St Fergus. In previous work, 80% of all large point source emissions in Scotland were found to lie within a similar screening distance (40km) perpendicular from Feeder 10 pipeline. (Brownsort P. A., 2016)

As the North Sea production has declined, Feeder 10 capacity has become redundant with the pipeline already having been considered for reservicing for

CO2 transport, initially for the Longannet CCS Project in the UK Demo1 Competition ( CCS Consortium, 2011) and more recently for the Caledonia Clean Energy Project (Summit Power, 2016). The business case for reuse of Feeder 10 for CO2 transport is discussed in D17 Feeder 10 Business Case (Pale Blue Dot Energy, 2017).

Emissions sources within a 50km radius of each of the compressor stations have been considered giving a good coverage of possible emissions sources along the length of the pipeline.

The inventory of emissions greater than 100,000T/yr is summarised in Table

4-4. Emission sources less than this were not used in the profiles but are summarised in Table 4-5. Emissions from the OI Glass manufacturing plant are Figure 4-2 Map of Existing Emissions within 50km of Feeder 10 Compressor Stations

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 22 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

Raw CO Capture CO Quantity Name Closest to 2 2 Category Source Quantity (T/yr) Potential (T/yr) Petroineos Manufacturing Scotland Limited Grangemouth 1,595,534 45.0% 717,990 Petrochemicals SEPA ExxonMobil Chemical Ethylene Plant Grangemouth 820,771 45.0% 369,347 Petrochemicals SEPA Grangemouth CHP Grangemouth 697,936 90.0% 628,142 Power Generation SEPA INEOS Chemicals Grangemouth Limited Grangemouth 491,732 45.0% 221,279 Petrochemicals SEPA BP Forties Pipeline System - Kinniel Grangemouth 451,108 45.0% 202,999 Petrochemicals SEPA Ineos Infrastructure (Grangemouth) Limited Grangemouth 414,479 45.0% 186,516 Petrochemicals SEPA RWE Innogy Markinch Limited Grangemouth 382,000 90.0% 343,800 Power Generation SEPA Norbord Europe Limited Grangemouth 265,213 90.0% 238,692 Paper and Wood SEPA Shell UK Limited. Fife NGL Plant Cowdenbeath Grangemouth 150,083 67.5% 101,306 Gas Processing SEPA O-I Manufacturing Glasshouse Loan Grangemouth 132,805 90.0% 119,525 Glass SEPA EPR Scotland Ltd Westfield Biomass Plant Fife Grangemouth 111,087 90.0% 99,978 Power Generation SEPA Dundee Energy Recycling Baldovie Kirriemuir 92,681 90.0% 83,413 Energy from Waste SEPA Arjo Wiggins Fine Papers Ltd. Stoneywood Mill Aberdeen 64,770 90.0% 58,293 Paper and Wood SEPA

Table 4-4 Inventory of Existing Emissions in 2015 Greater than 100,000T/y Within 50km of Feeder 10 Compressor Stations

Raw CO Capture CO Quantity Name Closest to 2 2 Category Source Quantity (T/yr) Potential (T/yr) Syngenta Limited Grangemouth 53,801 45.0% 24,210 Chemicals EU ETS National Grid Gas Kirriemuir Compressor Station Kirriemuir 52,477 90.0% 47,229 Power Generation SEPA SMW Ltd Daldowie RDF Plant Grangemouth 46,710 90.0% 42,039 Energy from Waste SEPA Versalis UK Ltd Grangemouth Grangemouth 43,600 45.0% 19,620 Chemicals SEPA FCC Waste Services (UK) Limited Grangemouth 42,820 90.0% 38,538 Energy from Waste SEPA Glasgow City Council Grangemouth 36,580 90.0% 32,922 Energy from Waste SEPA Veolia Edinburgh Sewage Treatment Works Grangemouth 35,000 90.0% 31,500 Energy from Waste SEPA Patersons of Greenoakhill Ltd Grangemouth 33,300 90.0% 29,970 Cement and Minerals SEPA North Lanarkshire Council Grangemouth 31,080 90.0% 27,972 Energy from Waste SEPA

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 23 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

Raw CO Capture CO Quantity Name Closest to 2 2 Category Source Quantity (T/yr) Potential (T/yr) Liberty Steel Dalzell Park Grangemouth 30,713 90.0% 27,642 Metal Processing SEPA National Grid GasBathgate Compressor Station Grangemouth 28,369 90.0% 25,532 Power Generation SEPA National Grid Gas Aberdeen Compressor Station Aberdeen 25,778 90.0% 23,200 Power Generation SEPA Daldowie Fuel Plant Grangemouth 24,112 90.0% 21,701 Energy from Waste EU ETS Energen Biogas Grangemouth 21,519 90.0% 19,367 Power Generation SEPA CalaChem Limited Grangemouth 20,672 45.0% 9,302 Chemicals EU ETS Veolia Dalkia CHP Plant Grangemouth 20,436 90.0% 18,392 Power Generation SEPA Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Kirriemuir 19,300 90.0% 17,370 Energy from Waste SEPA Markinch CHP Grangemouth 19,256 90.0% 17,330 Power Generation EU ETS Scotia Water Dalmuir Grangemouth 18,000 90.0% 16,200 Energy from Waste SEPA Scottish Water Shieldhall Grangemouth 17,000 90.0% 15,300 Energy from Waste SEPA Scottish Power Dupont Power Plant Grangemouth 16,115 90.0% 14,504 Power Generation EU ETS Muir Dean Surface Mine Grangemouth 15,066 90.0% 13,559 Cement and Minerals SEPA Angus Council Restenneth Landfill Kirriemuir 14,440 90.0% 12,996 Energy from Waste SEPA Kelda Water Services (Grampian) Ltd. Nigg Aberdeen 14,000 90.0% 12,600 Energy from Waste SEPA Oatslie Sandpit Grangemouth 13,920 90.0% 12,528 Cement and Minerals SEPA Viridor Waste Management Rigmuir Landfill Grangemouth 12,900 90.0% 11,610 Energy from Waste SEPA South Glasgow Hospitals Grangemouth 11,692 90.0% 10,523 Power Generation SEPA Knapton Generating Station Grangemouth 11,304 90.0% 10,174 Power Generation EU ETS Catchment Tay Limited Hatton STW Kirriemuir 11,000 90.0% 9,900 Energy from Waste SEPA UK Waste Management Wellbank Quarry Kirriemuir 10,300 90.0% 9,270 Energy from Waste SEPA Cabot Norit (UK) Limited Grangemouth 10,027 45.0% 4,512 Chemicals SEPA Fife Council Lower Melville Woods Kirriemuir 10,000 90.0% 9,000 Energy from Waste SEPA

Table 4-5 Inventory of Existing Emissions in 2015 Less than 100,000T/yr and Within 50km of Feeder 10 Compressor Stations

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 24 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

4.3.3 Peterhead Port

Peterhead Port is in the northeast of Scotland, about 20km south of St Fergus gas processing terminal (Figure 4-4), and is mainly used for vessels in the fishing and oil and gas industries.

It is a deep-water port with a jetty designed for tankers up to 50,000 tonnes deadweight, which could be used to import CO2 for onward transport to St Fergus and subsequent storage in Central North Sea storage sites. A picture of the tanker jetty is shown in Figure 4-3.

Figure 4-3. Tanker jetty at Peterhead Port, which could be used for CO2 import via ship (Peterhead Port Authority, 2017)

Figure 4-4. Peterhead area

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 25 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

Currently there is no facility to import CO2 into Peterhead harbour. CO2 in CO2 from gas sweetening. The quantity of CO2 released from the SAGE offloading and transportation infrastructure would need to be installed, including terminal has also been reduced by 14,000T/yr to discount the CO2 emissions as for transportation of CO2 from the harbour to St Fergus. There is an existing a direct result of gas sweetening. natural gas pipeline that runs between St Fergus and the power station slightly 4.4.2 Feeder 10 Pipeline Route south of the town. Once the infrastructure is in place then Peterhead would be a prime location to import CO2 for storage purposes either within the UK or more As with the existing emissions at St Fergus, capture is assumed to last for 15 broadly from Europe. years once installed, this is to offset the fact that plants are already operational. First targets for capture are likely to be the large single point sources of An initial feasibility study on CO2 importation via ship to Peterhead Port was emissions in the Grangemouth area. Establishing infrastructure for onshore conducted by Petrofac (2012) which concluded that CO2 transport via Peterhead transport will enable other sites in Grangemouth to capture CO2 by reducing the Port was technically viable. The study also looked at the logistics of onward upfront cost of entering a gathering network and reducing risk by sharing it transportation from the port to St Fergus and found that re-use of existing (low among a carbon capture cluster. pressure) regional pipeline infrastructure constrains the maximum CO2 that could be imported per year to 1.2 to 1.5MT/yr. If a new 20” high pressure pipeline 4.4.3 Peterhead Port was built then this increases to 5.7MT/yr. Several projects around the North Sea basin are considering storage options in

Future of Existing CO2 Sources the Central North Sea, which could involve transport of CO2 via ship into Peterhead Port and onward transport to St Fergus. These projects are Future potential sites are highly speculative and are intended to line up with UK discussed in the North Sea Basin Taskforce strategic regional plan on CCS decarbonising efforts. These may consist of low carbon thermal generation to transport infrastructure (2017), in the SCCS working paper (Brownsort, Scott, & replace existing generating capacity, a shift towards hydrogen as an energy Sim, 2015) and some have recently been submitted for inclusion on the Projects vector and import of emissions from Europe to capitalise on the UK CO2 storage of Common Interest (PCI) list for CO2 transportation (GCCSI, 2017), including potential. the CO2 SAPLING Transport Infrastructure Project (Pale Blue Dot Energy, 4.4.1 St Fergus 2017).

Discussions with operators indicate that existing emissions can be expected to The CO2 transportation PCI projects that have been submitted are: continue well into the 2030s, with a reduction from the gas sweetening CO2. • CO2 SAPLING Transport Infrastructure Project Capture has been assumed to last for 15 years once it is installed. For the Shell • Teesside CO2 Hub terminal a capture potential of 60% has been assumed to account for a reduction • Rotterdam Nucleus

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 26 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

• Cross-border transportation to storage on the Norwegian Continental they are relatively small when compared to emissions volumes). CO2 is Shelf assumed to be shipped from Teesside only until a specific storage solution for Teesside is developed. In this CO2 Supply Options report, as in the CO2 SAPLING PCI Application (Pale

Blue Dot Energy, 2017), only potential CO2 import from Teesside and Rotterdam This Phase 1 of Teesside shipping to Peterhead starts in 2023 with 700,000T/yr are considered. This is because both projects have indicated preliminary interest and as carbon capture infrastructure develops in Teesside, CO2 exports to in the Central North Sea as a storage option, whereas the Norwegian project is Peterhead could grow, leading to further phases of CO2 transport. It is assumed focussed on storage in the Norwegian Continental Shelf. Synergies between the that another 700kT/yr is shipped in Phase 2 (2025) and 1MT/yr in Phase 3 Norwegian project and the Acorn CCS project mean there may be opportunities (2035). for both projects to provide storage site back-up for the other, but this was not Rotterdam included in the modelling. In June 2017, the ROAD CCS project involving Maaskvlakte power station in the Teesside Netherlands was cancelled and some refocusing on industrial emissions is now

The Teesside region is highly industrial and could be a capture cluster. In 2015 expected to take place. This suggests that the potential CO2 volumes that could Pale Blue Dot Energy were commissioned by the Teesside Collective to put be imported into Peterhead Port will be reduced and that the previous timeline together a business case for industrial CCS at Teesside (Pale Blue Dot Energy, assumed in the CO2 SAPLING PCI bid (Pale Blue Dot Energy, 2017) will be 2015). pushed back.

More recently, the Teesside Collective have provided input on CO2 shipping With the ROAD CCS project cancelled there is no longer a storage solution rates over time to the UK East Coast Carbon Capture & Storage Study, which being developed for emissions captured at the port of Rotterdam. However, looks at the macroeconomic case for CCS in the UK (Summit Power, 2017). The there is still a desire to capture emissions in the region, which could be shipped analysis in the study includes a range of CCS build out scenarios for the UK, of to Peterhead for storage. The CO2 shipments are assumed to be phased, which shipping from Teesside and Europe forms a component. The shipping beginning with 1MT/yr in 2038 and a second phase of a further 1.5MT/yr in 2040. rates and timings for Teesside have fed into the model for this CO2 Supply Shipments are modelled for 20 years.

Options report, and align with the CO2 SAPLING PCI bid (Pale Blue Dot Energy, Norway 2017). It is assumed that any CO2 from Teesside arrives via ship into Peterhead. It is assumed that no emissions will be imported from Norway because there is Prior to investment and development of a storage solution closer to Teesside, ample storage resource in the Norwegian continental shelf. Development of CO2 the onshore capture and gathering could start pre-emptively with CO2 exported import by ship in Norway could relieve some of the risks associated with CCS via the existing CO2 loading facilities for the supply of industrial gases, (albeit

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 27 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory storage in the UK; while there is no plan to import or export CO2 between the UK and Norway each party could play a role in offering a route to storage should storage sites not perform as well as expected or in the event of a planned or unexpected outage requiring a pause in injection.

In addition to the emissions imported via ship, the Peterhead power station, located just to the south of Peterhead, is assumed to be redeveloped.

Site Name Quantity (kT/yr) Closest to Start Year Longevity Capture Potential Capture Quantity (kT/yr)

Ship Received CO2 From Teesside phase 1 700 Peterhead 2023 18 100% 700

Ship Received CO2 from Teesside phase 2 700 Peterhead 2025 15 100% 700

Ship Received CO2 from Teesside phase 3 1,000 Peterhead 2035 5 100% 1,000

Ship Received CO2 from Europe 500 Peterhead 2035 20 100% 500

Ship Received CO2 from Rotterdam phase 1 (PCI) 1,000 Peterhead 2038 20 100% 1,000

Ship Received CO2 from Rotterdam phase 2 (PCI) 1,500 Peterhead 2040 20 100% 1,500

Redeveloped Peterhead Power Plant 2,222 Peterhead 2030 40 90% 2,000

Table 4-6 Inventory of Emissions through Peterhead

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 28 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

Hydrogen for transport is not envisaged for St Fergus because the existing gas Future Potential CO2 Sources grid would allow transport of the gas closer to the point of use, otherwise there 4.5.1 St Fergus would be a need for significant investment in hydrogen transport infrastructure.

St Fergus is a remote location and might not be of great interest to traditional Raw CO Start Longevity Capture 2 industry, however hydrogen generation in the form of steam methane Name Quantity Quantity Year (years) Potential (kT/yr) (kT/yr) reformation (SMR) would be ideally located at St Fergus. An SMR requires St Fergus natural gas as a feedstock and, for the hydrogen generated to be low carbon, 1,000 2030 30 90% 900 SMR Phase 1 would look to capture and sequester CO2 produced as a by-product. Movement St Fergus towards hydrogen as an energy vector is anticipated to be phased and would 1,000 2040 30 90% 900 SMR Phase 2 likely begin with hydrogen injection into the existing gas grid. Table 4-7 Inventory of future CO2 sources at St Fergus Each phase of SMR plant consists of two 250MW units producing 0.5MT/yr of 4.5.2 Feeder 10 Pipeline Route CO2 emissions. Assuming that there is no reduction in gas coming ashore at St 3 Fergus (currently around 70M Sm per day) one phase of SMR would be New CO2 sources are primarily expected to be in the Grangemouth industrial capable of supplying the NTS with ~5% hydrogen by volume. area. Projects are expected be driven by low carbon thermal generation as well as hydrogen generation. Currently the limit of H2 in the UK NTS is less than 0.1% on a molar basis, however, as per the current grid specification in other countries, i.e. Germany, The Caledonia Clean Energy Project (CCEP), a full chain carbon capture and there is potential to increase this to 10% before the Wobbe index of the gas is storage project, is assumed to be the first carbon captured in the Grangemouth altered significantly. The addition of 5% H2 into the grid in 2030 is assumed to region and has been scheduled for 2025, with the potential to capture 3MT/y of be a part of a UK initiative to begin decarbonising the grid using hydrogen and CO2. Starting with a baseload power plant allows for a single source of storing the CO2 offshore. significant emissions, avoiding gathering arrangements, and clarity on the The second phase of hydrogen generation, depending on the success of quantity and rate of CO2 that needs to be transported. Once up and running hydrogen as an energy vector, could either increase hydrogen content to 10% capture of additional sources is simplified by the existence of transport or could supply the energy needs of Aberdeen and Moray if they were converted infrastructure. to hydrogen grids. The proposed Silva 200MW biomass plant at Grangemouth has recently been awarded a Contract for Difference (CfD) (BEIS, 2017) and so has been included in the list of potential emissions sources.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 29 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Emissions Inventory

The Longannet site is assumed to be redeveloped due to the attraction of the Raw CO CO 2 Start Longevity Capture 2 Name Quantity Quantity existing electrical export connection. The site is assumed to emit much less than Year (years) Potential (kT/yr) (kT/yr) the original coal plant, this is due to uncertainty in size, technology, type of fuel and even the future demand for baseload generation. Caledonian Clean Energy 3,333 2025 40 90% 3,000 Hydrogen generation in the Central Belt is anticipated to happen in two phases, Plant one phase to generate hydrogen for transport and another phase to establish a Grangemouth Biomass CHP 330 2035 25 90% 297 hydrogen grid. Plant Looking further ahead in the profile some new industry in Grangemouth has Redeveloped been assumed. An arbitrary selection of cement, Combined Heat & Power Longannet 2,100 2035 40 90% 1,890 Power Plant (CHP) and chemical industries have been included, while this industry has been Grangemouth speculated as new industry existing sites could be redeveloped at the end of 500 2035 30 90% 450 SMR Phase 1 their life. Grangemouth 500 2045 40 90% 450 4.5.3 Peterhead Port SMR Phase 2 New While CO2 emissions in the Teesside area are likely to grow, further shipments Grangemouth 500 2050 40 90% 450 to Peterhead are unlikely to continue once a storage solution for Teesside has Cement Plant been developed. New Grangemouth 750 2050 40 45% 338 Imported CO2 from Europe (other than from Rotterdam) has been included in Chemical Plant the profile starting in 2035 at 0.5MT. While some European countries have New ample storage resources for their own CO2 it has been assumed that the UKCS Grangemouth 600 2045 40 90% 540 CHP is a prime target for storing emissions from European countries that do not have their own storage resource, i.e. Germany. Table 4-8 Inventory of New Emission Sources at Grangemouth

There has not been an attempt to speculate on the sources of CO2 shipped to Peterhead.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 30 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Supply Volume Profiles

5.0 CO2 Supply Volume Profiles

Three scenarios have been looked at based on the CO2 emissions inventories Reference Case identified in the previous section. The reference case only includes capture from the Shell gas processing terminal at St Fergus and is the basis for the Acorn The Reference Case will capture CO2 emissions from the Shell gas processing development before potential build out is considered. terminal at St Fergus starting in 2022.

There is a huge amount of uncertainty in the potential to capture carbon from As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the captured CO2 emissions from the Shell existing industry let alone potential capture of speculative industry. As a result, terminal are assumed to be 200,000T/yr. a scenario approach has been used to capture a range of outcomes that can be For now, the Reference Case does not consider emissions sources from any used to position ACT Acorn project to build out from the reference case. other source. The two scenarios A and B are based around themes of low carbon thermal generation and hydrogen production in Scotland:

• Scenario A is intended to give a conservative profile representative of a slow decarbonisation effort or a greater focus on decarbonising England over Scotland. • Scenario B is intended to be a more optimistic decarbonisation pathway for the UK with a more rapid uptake of hydrogen as an energy vector and CCS for industry.

A headline summary of each profile is presented in Table 5-1

St Fergus Grangemouth Peterhead Total Scenario (MT) (MT) (MT) (MT) Reference Case 3 0 0 3

Scenario A 31 191 33 255 Scenario B 50 251 150 451 Figure 5-1 Reference Case CO2 Supply Profile

Table 5-1 Summary of Total CO2 Capture

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 31 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Supply Volume Profiles

Scenario A expansion. The initial development used in the build out consists of three 260MW biomass units outputting 2.1MT/yr of CO2. Scenario A is intended to be a conservative estimate of potential capture Further in the future hydrogen production begins in the Central Belt using steam projects that could use Feeder 10 and the St Fergus terminal as the starting methane reformation. Hydrogen is used either in a dedicated hydrogen grid point for developing a CCS industry in the UK, with a slow decarbonisation effort following the success of previous projects in England or for transport. or a greater focus on decarbonising England over Scotland. Towards the very end of the timeframe most of the existing emissions sites are An inventory of the individual sites that make up the profile is included in Table assumed to have ceased operation and some new industry is established in 5-2, and CO2 profiles over time are shown in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3. Grangemouth. This may be entirely new industry or redevelopment of the St Fergus existing sites.

Scenario A includes capturing emissions from the SAGE terminal adjacent to Peterhead the Shell plant at St Fergus. Capture at the SAGE terminal will consist of post CO2 from Teesside is shipped to Peterhead prior to development of a transport combustion capture in the same way as the proposed capture at the Shell and storage solution for Teesside. terminal. Despite cancellation of the ROAD project the Rotterdam port area begins Slow uptake of hydrogen as an energy vector leads to two 250MW steam capturing CO2 and without an identified storage resource ship the CO2 to methane reformers to give a 5% gas mix in the NTS but no dedicated hydrogen Peterhead. grids in Scotland.

Grangemouth

Carbon capture in Grangemouth starts with the Caledonia Clean Energy Project (CCEP) following a need for replacement baseload generation and a desire to further decarbonise power. CCEP acts as an enabler for other large point sources such as the Grangemouth CHP plant, however the decarbonisation effort is slow and the incentive for industry to capture emissions is lacking.

Decarbonisation of power generation continues with a redevelopment of the Longannet site for biomass. The redeveloped site is assumed to consist of modular units to take advantage of existing grid connections for future

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 32 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Supply Volume Profiles

Raw CO 2 Longevity CO Quantity Site Name Closest to Quantity Start Year Capture Potential 2 (years) (kT/yr) (kT/yr) Shell UK Ltd St Fergus Gas Plant St Fergus 332 2022 15 60% 199

Ship Received CO2 From Teesside phase 1 Peterhead 700 2023 18 100% 700 Caledonian Clean Energy Plant Grangemouth 3,333 2025 40 90% 3,000 Apache Beryl I Ltd. Sage Gas Terminal St Fergus 122 2025 15 68% 82 St Fergus SMR Phase 1 St Fergus 1,000 2030 30 90% 900 Grangemouth CHP Grangemouth 698 2030 15 90% 628 Redeveloped Longannet Power Plant Grangemouth 2,100 2035 40 90% 1,890

Ship Received CO2 from Rotterdam phase 1 (PCI) Peterhead 1,000 2038 20 100% 1,000 New Grangemouth CHP Grangemouth 600 2045 40 90% 540 Grangemouth SMR Phase 2 Grangemouth 500 2045 40 90% 450 New Grangemouth Cement Plant Grangemouth 500 2050 40 90% 450 New Grangemouth Chemical Plant Grangemouth 750 2050 40 45% 338

Table 5-2 Inventory of Emissions Sources for Scenario A

Figure 5-2 Scenario A CO2 Supply Profile by Region Figure 5-3 Scenario A CO2 by Emission Type

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 33 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Supply Volume Profiles

Scenario B Peterhead Prior to a storage solution for Teesside, captured emissions are transported to Scenario B is intended to reflect fuller decarbonisation efforts in the UK, Peterhead Port via tanker. Volumes of captured CO2 increase as industry is focussed on low carbon thermal generation, hydrogen generation for incentivised to capture emissions faster than storage in Teesside can be decarbonised heat and developing Peterhead into a CO2 import hub for Europe. developed. Shipments from Teesside ultimately stop once storage injection An inventory of the CO2 sources in the profile are shown in Table 5-3 and profiles rates in the Southern North Sea are larger than capture rates. Teesside are shown in Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5. emissions are driven by industrial carbon capture and gathering of emissions St Fergus from thermal generation in the surrounding area.

Hydrogen generation occurs in two phases at St Fergus. The first phase Decarbonisation efforts across Europe result in captured emissions with no establishes a hydrogen demonstration centre intended to facilitate development storage site. Peterhead becomes an attractive option for CO2 export from of hydrogen technology off the back off a SMR plant capable of supplying a 5% Europe. Despite the cancellation of the ROAD project, Rotterdam port and the hydrogen mix to the NTS. The second phase of hydrogen generation supplies surrounding area press on with carbon capture plans utilising Peterhead port to the gas energy requirement of Aberdeen and Moray as dedicated hydrogen export the emissions as an alternative to developing a storage solution. grids are rolled out across the UK. European countries without storage resource also look to Peterhead as a Grangemouth solution.

The first mover is still assumed to be CCEP as it allows the CO2 profile for Feeder 10 to have a strong staring point of 3MT/yr for the duration of the proposed power generation plant life. Once Feeder 10, or an equivalent pipeline, is established for CO2 transport a wave of industrial capture projects begins to develop a gathering network in Grangemouth.

New projects in the area are focussed on thermal generation to service the electrical demand with some potential for combined heat and power to provide some heat locally. Decarbonising heat on a larger scale occurs with the build out of hydrogen in the Central Belt. Hydrogen generated in Grangemouth is also used for transport as hydrogen fuel cells are developed to rival electric vehicles.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 34 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Supply Volume Profiles

Raw CO 2 Capture CO Quantity Site Name Closest to Quantity Start Year Longevity (years) 2 Potential (kT/yr) (kT/yr) Shell UK Ltd St Fergus Gas Plant St Fergus 332 2022 15 60% 199

Ship Received CO2 From Teesside phase 1 Peterhead 700 2023 18 100% 700 Caledonian Clean Energy Plant Grangemouth 3,333 2025 40 90% 3,000

Ship Received CO2 from Teesside phase 2 Peterhead 700 2025 15 100% 700 Apache Beryl I Ltd. Sage Gas Terminal St Fergus 122 2025 15 68% 82 Redeveloped Peterhead Power Plant Peterhead 2,222 2030 40 90% 2,000 St Fergus SMR Phase 1 St Fergus 1,000 2030 30 90% 900 Grangemouth CHP Grangemouth 698 2030 15 90% 628 Redeveloped Longannet Power Plant Grangemouth 2,100 2035 40 90% 1,890 Petroineos Manufacturing Scotland Grangemouth 1,596 2035 15 45% 718

Ship Received CO2 from Teesside phase 3 Peterhead 1,000 2035 5 100% 1,000

Ship Received CO2 from Europe Peterhead 500 2035 20 100% 500 Grangemouth SMR Phase 1 Grangemouth 500 2035 30 90% 450 Grangemouth Biomass CHP Plant Grangemouth 330 2035 25 90% 297 EPR Scotland Ltd Westfield Biomass Plant Fife Grangemouth 111 2035 15 90% 100

Ship Received CO2 from Rotterdam phase 1 (PCI) Peterhead 1,000 2038 20 100% 1,000

Ship Received CO2 from Rotterdam phase 2 (PCI) Peterhead 1,500 2040 20 100% 1,500 St Fergus SMR Phase 2 St Fergus 1,000 2040 30 90% 900 ExxonMobil Fife Ethylene Plant Mossmorran Grangemouth 821 2040 15 45% 369 RWE Markinch Limited Glenrothes Grangemouth 382 2040 15 90% 344 BP Forties Pipeline System - Kinneil Grangemouth 451 2040 15 68% 304 Norbord Europe Limited. Grangemouth 265 2040 15 90% 239

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 35 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options CO2 Supply Volume Profiles

Raw CO 2 Capture CO Quantity Site Name Closest to Quantity Start Year Longevity (years) 2 Potential (kT/yr) (kT/yr) INEOS Chemicals Grangemouth Grangemouth 492 2040 15 45% 221 Grangemouth Infrastructure Grangemouth 423 2040 15 45% 190 O-I Manufacturing Glasshouse Loan Grangemouth 133 2040 15 90% 120 Shell UK Limited. Fife NGL Plant Cowdenbeath Grangemouth 150 2040 15 68% 101 New Grangemouth CHP Grangemouth 600 2045 40 90% 540 Grangemouth SMR Phase 2 Grangemouth 500 2045 40 90% 450 New Grangemouth Cement Plant Grangemouth 500 2050 40 90% 450 New Grangemouth Chemical Plant Grangemouth 750 2050 40 45% 338

Table 5-3 Inventory of Emissions Sources for Scenario B

Figure 5-4 Scenario B CO2 Supply Profile by Region Figure 5-5 Scenario B CO2 Supply Profile by Site Type

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 36 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Conclusions

6.0 Conclusions

Future recommendations/ considerations: 1. This study provides a Reference Case CO2 Supply profile that can be used in future design work for Acorn CCS. The CO2 capture potential for the Both the new-build Grangemouth biomass plant, which was recently awarded a Reference Case is 200,000T/yr, solely from St Fergus, starting in 2022. Contract for Difference (CfD) (BEIS, 2017), and possible redevelopment of 2. This study also proposes two possible scenarios (A and B) that could Longannet site for biomass could be prioritised as capture-ready. This would potentially be developed given the right policies, support and industry enable them both contribute negative emissions for Scotland.

engagement. Once the expansion options for Acorn have been established, (D18 Expansion

3. There are high levels of uncertainty in what the future energy landscape and Options), further work aiming to aggregate CO2 emissions for transport to St therefore emissions sources might be and therefore high levels of Fergus should seek to: uncertainty in the proposed scenarios. This uncertainty points to a phased 1. Ensure that previous studies on the conversion of Feeder 10 to approach to infrastructure, as planned in the Acorn CCS Project. CO2 use is still accurate and relevant; 4. The scenarios approach is useful to frame what the future CO2 supply 2. Provide emitters with a reason to engage (e.g. policy and support) profiles could look like. This will be useful to feed into future work on before further determining the volume of emissions and method of infrastructure requirements and storage development plans. capture; For this study, assessment of the suitability of infrastructure was largely 5. 3. Determine how “first user” emissions will be aggregated within ignored. This simplified the scope but means that further work is required. Grangemouth and transported to Feeder 10, while ensuring there Specifically, an assessment of: is potential for other emitters to be able to access the gathering a) The longevity of Feeder 10; network later; b) Whether Feeder 10 could operate in dense phase; 4. Engage with Peterhead Port Authority and relevant stakeholders in c) How large volumes from the central belt emissions sources will get to planning and designing a CO2 import and transfer infrastructure St Fergus (e.g. additional pipeline network to connect to Feeder 10). between the deep-water port and St Fergus; 6. For the Reference Case, Scenario A and Scenario B the Feeder 10 5. Evaluate the compression duty required and whether any existing throughput is within its maximum theoretical range of 10MT/yr, although its compression facilities can be reused. optimal capacity has been estimated to be 7MT/yr.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 37 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options References

7.0 References

AMEC. (2015). TVU CCS: Pipeline Network CO2 Quality Specification. Pale Blue Dot Energy & Axis Well Technology. (2016). D13 WP5D Report - Captain X Storage Development Plan. Energy Technologies Institute. BEIS. (2017, October 4). Contracts for Difference Second Allocation Round Results . Retrieved from GOV.UK: Pale Blue Dot Energy. (2015). Blueprint for Industrial CCS in the UK: Executive https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d Summary. Teesside Collective. ata/file/643560/CFD_allocation_round_2_outcome_FINAL.pdf Pale Blue Dot Energy. (2017). CO2 SAPLING Transport Infrastructure Project: Brownsort, P. A. (2016). Reducing costs of carbon capture and storage by Project of Common Interest Application.

shared reuse of existing pipeline - Case study of a CO2 capture cluster Pale Blue Dot Energy. (2017). D17 Feeder 10 Business Case. for industry and power in Scotland. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 52, 130–138 . Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd. (2015). A Blueprint for Industrial CCS in the UK - Business Case. Retrieved from http://www.teessidecollective.co.uk/wp- Brownsort, P., Scott, V., & Sim, G. (2015). Carbon Dioxide Transport Plans for content/uploads/2015/06/Teesside-Collective-Business-Case1.pdf Carbon Capture and Storage in the North Sea Region. SCCS Working Paper. Pershad, H. S. (2013). The costs of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for UK Industry—A High Level Review. Committee on Climate Change. (2015). The Fifth Carbon Budget: The next step towards a low-carbon economy. Peterhead Port Authority. (2017). Introduction to Peterhead Port: Acorn CCS kick-off meeting. Element Energy. (2014). Scotland and the Central North Sea - CCS Hub Study. Petrofac. (2012). Peterhead CO2 Importation Feasibility Study. CO2DeepStore. European Commission. (2017, October 5). The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS): Revision for Phase 4 (2021–2030). Retrieved from Climate Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, October 5). Scottish Pollutant Action: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/revision_en Release Inventory. Retrieved from Scottish Environmental Protection Agency: http://apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/Search/Options.aspx GCCSI. (2017, October 3). Projects of Common Interest. Retrieved from GCCSI: https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/projects-common-interest Scottish Power CCS Consortium. (2011). UK CCS Demonstration Competition - FEED Close Out Report. DECC. North Sea Basin Task Force. (2017). NSBTF strategic regional plan on CCS transport infrastructure. Shell. (2016). Peterhead CCS Project.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 38 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options References

Summit Power. (2016). Caledonia Clean Energy Project: Developing our energy future . All Energy. https://www.all-energy.co.uk/RXUK/RXUK_All- Energy/2016/Presentations%202016%20Day%202/Carbon%20Captur e/Alan%20Simpson.pdf?v=635996059433138387.

Summit Power. (2017). UK East Coast Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) Study: the macroeconomic case for the UK.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 39 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Annex 1 Modelling Assumptions

8.0 Annex 1 Modelling Assumptions

Site Name Quantity (kT/yr) Location Start Year Longevity Capture Potential Current Emitters Shell UK Ltd St Fergus Gas Plant 332 St Fergus 2022 15 60% Apache Beryl I Ltd. Sage Gas Terminal 122 St Fergus 2025 15 68% Petroineos Manufacturing Scotland 1,596 Grangemouth 2035 15 45% ExxonMobil Fife Ethylene Plant Mossmorran 821 Grangemouth 2040 15 45% Grangemouth CHP 698 Grangemouth 2030 15 90% INEOS Chemicals Grangemouth 492 Grangemouth 2040 15 45% BP Forties Pipeline System - Kinneil 451 Grangemouth 2040 15 68% Grangemouth Infrastructure 423 Grangemouth 2040 15 45% RWE Markinch Limited Glenrothes 382 Grangemouth 2040 15 90% Norbord Europe Limited. 265 Grangemouth 2040 15 90% Shell UK Limited. Fife NGL Plant Cowdenbeath 150 Grangemouth 2040 15 68% O-I Manufacturing Glasshouse Loan 133 Grangemouth 2040 15 90% EPR Scotland Ltd Westfield Biomass Plant Fife 111 Grangemouth 2035 15 90%

Known Sites Caledonian Clean Energy Plant 3,333 Grangemouth 2025 40 90% Grangemouth Biomass CHP Plant 330 Grangemouth 2035 25 90%

Potential Sites

Ship Received CO2 From Teesside phase 1 700 Peterhead 2023 18 100%

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 40 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Annex 1 Modelling Assumptions

Site Name Quantity (kT/yr) Location Start Year Longevity Capture Potential

Ship Received CO2 from Teesside phase 2 700 Peterhead 2025 15 100%

Ship Received CO2 from Teesside phase 3 1,000 Peterhead 2035 5 100%

Ship Received CO2 from Europe 500 Peterhead 2035 20 100%

Ship Received CO2 from Rotterdam phase 1 (PCI) 1,000 Peterhead 2038 20 100%

Ship Received CO2 from Rotterdam phase 2 (PCI) 1,500 Peterhead 2040 20 100% Redeveloped Peterhead Power Plant 2,222 Peterhead 2030 40 90% St Fergus SMR Phase 1 1,000 St Fergus 2030 30 90% St Fergus SMR Phase 2 1,000 St Fergus 2040 30 90% Redeveloped Longannet Power Plant 2,100 Grangemouth 2035 40 90% Grangemouth SMR Phase 1 500 Grangemouth 2035 30 90% Grangemouth SMR Phase 2 500 Grangemouth 2045 40 90% New Grangemouth Cement Plant 500 Grangemouth 2050 40 90% New Grangemouth Chemical Plant 750 Grangemouth 2050 40 45% New Grangemouth CHP 600 Grangemouth 2045 40 90%

Table 8-1: Inventory of Site Data Used in Modelling

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 41 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Annex 1 Modelling Assumptions

Site Name Reference Build Out A Build Out B Current Emitters Shell UK Ltd St Fergus Gas Plant 1 1 1 Apache Beryl I Ltd. Sage Gas Terminal 1 1 Petroineos Manufacturing Scotland 1 ExxonMobil Fife Ethylene Plant Mossmorran 1 Grangemouth CHP 1 1 INEOS Chemicals Grangemouth 1 BP Forties Pipeline System - Kinneil 1 Grangemouth Infrastructure 1 RWE Markinch Limited Glenrothes 1 Norbord Europe Limited. 1 Shell UK Limited. Fife NGL Plant Cowdenbeath 1 O-I Manufacturing Glasshouse Loan 1 EPR Scotland Ltd Westfield Biomass Plant Fife 1

Known Sites Caledonian Clean Energy Plant 1 1 Grangemouth Biomass CHP Plant 1

Potential sites

Ship Received CO2 From Teesside phase 1 1 1

Ship Received CO2 from Teesside phase 2 1

Ship Received CO2 from Teesside phase 3 1

Ship Received CO2 from Europe 1

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 42 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Annex 1 Modelling Assumptions

Site Name Reference Build Out A Build Out B

Ship Received CO2 from Rotterdam phase 1 (PCI) 1 1

Ship Received CO2 from Rotterdam phase 2 (PCI) 1 Redeveloped Peterhead Power Plant 1 St Fergus SMR Phase 1 1 1 St Fergus SMR Phase 2 1 Redeveloped Longannet Power Plant 1 1 Grangemouth SMR Phase 1 1 Grangemouth SMR Phase 2 1 1 New Grangemouth Cement Plant 1 1 New Grangemouth Chemical Plant 1 1 New Grangemouth CHP 1 1

Table 8-2: Summary of Sites Included in Each Scenario

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 43 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Annex 2 Detailed Emissions Inventory

9.0 Annex 2 Detailed Emissions Inventory

Name Emissions Biomass Capture Capture Source Location Type

(TCO2) ( %) Potential Potential

(%) (TCO2) Petroineos Manufacturing Scotland Limited 1,595,534 0 45% 717,990 SEPA Grangemouth Petrochemicals ExxonMobil Chemical Ethylene Plant Mossmorran 820,771 0 45% 369,347 SEPA Grangemouth Petrochemicals Grangemouth CHP 697,936 0 90% 628,142 SEPA Grangemouth Power Generation INEOS Chemicals Grangemouth Limited 491,732 0 45% 221,279 SEPA Grangemouth Petrochemicals BP Forties Pipeline System - Kinniel 451,108 0 45% 202,999 SEPA Grangemouth Petrochemicals Ineos Infrastructure (Grangemouth) Limited 414,479 0 45% 186,516 SEPA Grangemouth Petrochemicals RWE Innogy Markinch Limited 382,000 95 90% 343,800 SEPA Grangemouth Power Generation Shell UK Ltd St Fergus Gas Plant 331,559 0 60% 198,935 SEPA St. Fergus Gas Processing Norbord Europe Limited 265,213 0 90% 238,692 SEPA Grangemouth Paper and Wood Shell UK Limited. Fife NGL Plant Cowdenbeath 150,083 0 68% 101,306 SEPA Grangemouth Gas Processing Apache Beryl Sage Gas Terminal St Fergus 135,862 0 68% 91,707 SEPA St. Fergus Gas Processing O-I Manufacturing Glasshouse Loan 132,805 0 90% 119,525 SEPA Grangemouth Glass EPR Scotland Ltd Westfield Biomass Plant Fife 111087 97 90% 99,978 SEPA Grangemouth Power Generation Dundee Energy Recycling Baldovie 92681 0 90% 83,413 SEPA Kirriemuir Energy from Waste Arjo Wiggins Fine Papers Ltd. Stoneywood Mill 64770 0 90% 58,293 SEPA Aberdeen Paper and Wood National Grid N.Sea Gas Terminal Peterhead 59538 0 68% 40,188 SEPA St. Fergus Gas Processing SSE Gen Peterhead Power Station Peterhead 54696 0 90% 49,226 SEPA St. Fergus Power Generation Syngenta Limited 53801 0 45% 24,210 EU ETS Grangemouth Chemicals National Grid Gas Kirriemuir Compressor Station 52477 0 90% 47,229 SEPA Kirriemuir Power Generation SMW Ltd Daldowie RDF Plant 46710 0 90% 42,039 SEPA Grangemouth Energy from Waste PX Ltd St Fergus N.Sea Terminal 45191 0 68% 30,504 SEPA St. Fergus Gas Processing Versalis UK Ltd Grangemouth 43600 0 45% 19,620 SEPA Grangemouth Chemicals FCC Waste Services (UK) Limited 42820 0 90% 38,538 SEPA Grangemouth Energy from Waste Glasgow City Council 36580 0 90% 32,922 SEPA Grangemouth Energy from Waste Veolia Edinburgh Sewage Treatment Works 35000 0 90% 31,500 SEPA Grangemouth Energy from Waste Patersons of Greenoakhill Ltd 33300 0 90% 29,970 SEPA Grangemouth Cement and Minerals SITA UK. Stoneyhill Environ Pk 31800 0 90% 28,620 SEPA St. Fergus Energy from Waste North Lanarkshire Council 31080 0 90% 27,972 SEPA Grangemouth Energy from Waste Liberty Steel Dalzell Park 30713 0 90% 27,642 SEPA Grangemouth Metal Processing National Grid GasBathgate Compressor Station 28369 0 90% 25,532 SEPA Grangemouth Power Generation National Grid Gas Aberdeen Compressor Station 25778 0 90% 23,200 SEPA Aberdeen Power Generation Daldowie Fuel Plant 24112 0 90% 21,701 EU ETS Grangemouth Energy from Waste Energen Biogas 21519 100 90% 19,367 SEPA Grangemouth Power Generation CalaChem Limited 20672 0 45% 9,302 EU ETS Grangemouth Chemicals Veolia Dalkia CHP Plant 20436 0 90% 18,392 SEPA Grangemouth Power Generation Suez Recycling and Recovery UK 19300 0 90% 17,370 SEPA Kirriemuir Energy from Waste Markinch CHP 19256 0 90% 17,330 EU ETS Grangemouth Power Generation Scotia Water Dalmuir 18000 0 90% 16,200 SEPA Grangemouth Energy from Waste Scottish Water Shieldhall 17000 0 90% 15,300 SEPA Grangemouth Energy from Waste Scottish Power Dupont Power Plant 16115 0 90% 14,504 EU ETS Grangemouth Power Generation Muir Dean Surface Mine 15066 0 90% 13,559 SEPA Grangemouth Cement and Minerals Angus Council Restenneth Landfill 14440 0 90% 12,996 SEPA Kirriemuir Energy from Waste Kelda Water Services (Grampian) Ltd. Nigg 14000 0 90% 12,600 SEPA Aberdeen Energy from Waste Oatslie Sandpit 13920 0 90% 12,528 SEPA Grangemouth Cement and Minerals Viridor Waste Management Rigmuir Landfill 12900 100 90% 11,610 SEPA Grangemouth Energy from Waste South Glasgow Hospitals 11692 0 90% 10,523 SEPA Grangemouth Power Generation Knapton Generating Station 11304 0 90% 10,174 EU ETS Grangemouth Power Generation Catchment Tay Limited Hatton STW 11000 0 90% 9,900 SEPA Kirriemuir Energy from Waste UK Waste Management Wellbank Quarry 10300 0 90% 9,270 SEPA Kirriemuir Energy from Waste Cabot Norit (UK) Limited 10027 0 45% 4,512 SEPA Grangemouth Chemicals Fife Council Lower Melville Woods 10000 0 90% 9,000 SEPA Kirriemuir Energy from Waste

Table 9-1: Detailed Emissions Inventory

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 44 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Annex 3: CO2 Offtake Services Term Sheet

10.0 Annex 3: CO2 Offtake Services Term Sheet

Introduction 10.2.3 CO2 Specification

There is considerable UK and global experience of the operational and A full description can be found in the CO2 specification document produced as commercial issues involved in gas transportation, including carbon dioxide. As part of the Teesside iCCS project, Amec (2015), with primary attributes in Table drafted for the Teesside iCCS work (Pale Blue Dot Energy, 2015), Annex 3 is as 10-1. This section will also likely contain the throughput ramp rates. a pro-forma Term Sheet which outlines the likely material commercial terms that Attribute Condition could be expected to form the basis of a CO2 Offtake Agreement. CO > 95.5% Material Terms 2 Water < 50ppm 10.2.1 Primary Service O2 < 10ppm For a Network Operator the primary service will be the transportation by pipeline of CO2 that meets the network specification, from a defined system entry point Pressure 100 barg to a defined exit point, likely the CO2 storage reservoir. Metering is also part of Temperature 35oC the primary service. The primary requirement of a Network User is to supply CO2 at a certain rate for a specific period of time and within the required Table 10-1: CO2 Specification. compositional specification. 10.2.4 Charging Mechanisms

10.2.2 Legal Boilerplate The design of the charging mechanism may be affected by legal or regulatory

Primarily the boilerplate will include definitions, terms, termination, parties, legal factors, of relevance are regulations regarding third party access to CO2 jurisdiction and confidentiality. In the first instance the Parties are expected to transport and storage infrastructure. The aggregate charge seems likely to be the initial Network Users: e.g. one or more St Fergus Operators. comprise three separate charges: 10.2.4.1 EPC Charge The EPC Charge covers the costs associated with the engineering, procurement and construction of network capacity. The EPC Charge may also include those pre-project kick-off concept and development costs which are to be recovered

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 45 of 46

D02 CO2 Supply Options Annex 3: CO2 Offtake Services Term Sheet

as part of the project as well as any other asset associated costs and costs of Party Liabilities risks (e.g. decommissioning costs, post-closure risks, etc.).

CO2 leakage from the onshore network 10.2.4.2 Capacity Rights Charge Network Supply of CO2 to the System Exit point The Capacity Rights Charge is the charge associated with the acquisition of the Operator Inability for Offshore Network to receive CO2 right to use a proportion of the capacity in the infrastructure network. This charge

is likely to be primarily fixed operational and maintenance costs, i.e. those costs Consequences of supplying “off-spec” CO2 which are incurred due to the operation of the assets but which are not related CO2 Suppliers Consequences of not meeting any “send or pay” to the level of network throughput, e.g. pipeline surveys. obligations

10.2.4.3 Use of Network Charge Table 10-2: Material liabilities attached to Parties. The Use of Network Charge reflects those costs which are wholly and directly 10.2.6 Information Sharing attributable to the act of transporting and/or storing CO2 in the infrastructure network. This charge would cover the variable cost of asset use (incremental There will be obligations on the Parties to share certain information such as fuel cost, incremental financial security and insurance costs, etc.). The fee will planned shutdowns, unplanned interruptions to CO2 flow, changes to CO2

mostly likely be in the form of a charge per quantity (e.g. £/Tonne) of CO2 composition, safety, operational or environmental critical items. transported. 10.2.7 Asset Ownership

10.2.5 Liabilities The pipeline network and associated equipment are likely to be owned by the Specific liabilities attaching to the Parties will depend wholly on the commercial transportation company. Use of the network is unlikely to confer any ownership structure of the project and how it is funded. The following table summarises rights. those liabilities considered at this stage to likely be the most material. 10.2.8 CO2 Title

Certain liabilities and obligations attach to the entity that has title to the CO2. This is a highly uncertain area and there are no precedents within the EU. It seems most likely that in most cases title will remain with the emitter, with the

possible exception of once the CO2 has been injected.

ACT Acorn Consortium Page 46 of 46