DOCSLIB.ORG

Humber Refinery Fire and Explosion United Kingdom, 2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Humber Refinery Fire and Explosion United Kingdom, 2001 Case History Humber Refinery Fire and Explosion United Kingdom, 2001 Edna Mendez PhD Student Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering Texas A&M University Steering Committee Meeting, April 25th 2017 Outline • Background • Incident description • Consequences • Chemical and process description • Analysis • Lessons learned 2 Humber Refinery • Located 0.5 km east of the village South Killingholme • Constructed in 1969 and commissioned in 1969/1970 • Employees: 1,200 including contractors • Crude Capacity: 221,000 bbl/day http://latitude.to • Products: - Petroleum coke, propane/butane (LPG), gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel - Low sulfur oil and vacuum gas oil - Specialty graphite cokes 3 Sequence of Events • April 16th, 2001: Holiday – 185 staff onsite instead of usual 800 • Shift handover scheduled at 3:00 pm 2:20 pm: Pipe failure and release 20-30 sec later: Cloud found ignition source Massive explosion and fireball 2:35 pm: Release from adjacent pipework Additional explosion and fireball 2:50 pm: Further pipework failure Explosion and fireball Photo courtesy of Andy Trott (HSE, 2005) 3:30 pm: Fire under control 9:01 pm: Fire completely extinguished 4 Consequences • 180 tonnes of flammable liquids and gases released • Hydrogen sulfide (1/2 tonne) • 71 claims for injuries • Short-term environmental impact • Significant damage to refinery – shutdown for weeks • Damage within a 1 km radius offsite including adjacent refinery Damage to the SGP after the explosion (HSE, 2005) • Fined with £895,000 plus £218,854 costs by HSE 5 Release • Propane/butane (LPG), H2S and trace salts (400 psi) • 80 tonnes released from Saturate Gas Plant - 65 tonnes gas and 15 tonnes liquid • 100 tonnes from adjacent plants Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG): Liquefied through pressurization comes from natural gas processing and oil refining Property Butane Propane Boiling Temperature -1 to 1 °C (30 to 34 ° F) -42 °C (-43.6 °F) Flammability Limits 1.86% – 8.41% 2.15% – 9.60% Flash Point -60 °C (-76 °F) -104 °C (-155 °F) AIT 288 °C (550 °F) 470 °C (878 °F) 4 4 1 0 2 0 6 Saturate Gas Plant (SGP) • Separation of hydrocarbon products Feed water Line P4363 Pipe failure Propane condenser Static Feed water mixer Reflux From naphtha stabilizer From catalytic Sour water reformer Product to De-ethanizer next stage (removes methane, ethane, H2S) Diagram prior to incident (HSE, 2005) 7 Water Injection System Purpose: Remove salts that can deposit in the system and cause fouling 1-inch Water Injection Point (9 meters above ground level) Free water jet 300 °F, 300 psi Water Line P4363 Injection Point Failed Elbow Heat exchangers De-ethanizer Failed Elbow 8 Analysis: Ruptured Pipe • Failure of the 6” elbow close to a water injection point • Water injected washed away passivation layer • Exposed carbon steel attacked by corrosive agents • Wall thinning of pipe wall - From 7-8 mm to 0.3 mm • Rupture due to erosion corrosion - Full bore rupture Erosion corrosion: • Acceleration in rate of corrosion due to motion of corrosive fluid/metal surface Ruptured Elbow (HSE, 2005) - Design creating turbulence - Flow restrictions - Abrupt changes in flow direction 9 Analysis: MOC for Water Injection Point • Water injection system not well-documented 1995 1981 Intermittently or as Continuous use required Not part of the No MOC original design 2000-2001 2000 Water injection back MOC to modify to continuous use nozzle diameter No MOC MOC form completed MOC: Management of Change 10 Analysis: Corrosion Management Technical Advisory Bulletin (1992) 1994 Inspection • Mentioned vulnerability of • Extensive corrosion of first carbon steel pipework near to injection point water injection points • Inspection to P4363 water • Action: Reviewed water injection injection points in continuous use • Elbow not included P4363? - Recommendation: Frequent inspections (Not in database) 1996: Inspection Survey P4363 not inspected: Injection point taken as blinded – erosion corrosion considered halted After 1996: No inspections to this pipe 11 Analysis: Corrosion Management • No procedure for inspecting pipework around water and chemical injection points • Database to document results of inspections of pipework was poorly populated and alerts were unreliable Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) Program (2000) • The injection point was not considered • Report still identified pipe as high risk • No criteria for unacceptable risk level • Inspection planned for July 2001 12 Analysis: What Went Wrong? Failed to conduct MOC for process changes Lack of communication and information sharing Failed to keep updated inspection database Failed to implement effective inspection and maintenance Pipe failure explosion and fireballs 13 Barrier Analysis Prevention Detection Control Release Mitigation Design Emergency MOC Monitoring, maintenance and inspection Gas detectors Shutdown systems PHA Blast resistant buildings (e.g., control room) Emergency response team 14 Actions Implemented After the Incident . HSE safety alert to all UK for water injection points . Company listed all water injection points and developed inspection strategies . New procedure for wash water inspection based on API 570 . Updated database and revalidated RBI . Inspection program of higher risk piping system started – £10.16 million (15% refinery piping) . Further inspection of lower risk piping – £3 million . Third party audit in 2001 of all company facilities . Refinery’s Community Advisory Panel to share information with the local community 15 Actions Implemented After the Incident • Inspection, RBI and Corrosion groups UK US OSHA - Mandatory reviewers of MOC Regulations PSM 14 (COMAH Elements • New division of Asset Integrity and Requirements) Reliability: - Process Management Function • Rebuilt SGP and recommissioned in 2003 New Injection - Modern design and following injection Point engineering standards point - Washing system improved - Overhead washing system modified Heat exchangers De-ethanizer COMAH: Control of Major Accident Hazards 16 Lessons learned • Pipework inspection program based on industry practices and adjusted to the process conditions • Management of Change programs need to be established and used for plant and process modifications • Communication among departments and record keeping of process changes and inspection results • Companies with potential high impacts to communities need to develop programs to communicate risks and train the public in case of emergencies 17 References • Health and Safety Executive (2005) Public Report of the Fire and Explosion at the ConocoPhillips Humber Refinery on 16 April 2001. [Online] Available: http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/conocophillips.pdf • Jonathan Carter, Peter Dawson and Robert Nixon, Explosion at the Conoco Humber refinery – 16th April 2001, Hazards XIX: Process Safety and Environmental Protection. What do we know? Where are we going? Symposium Series 151, IChemE, 2006, available at https://www.icheme.org/communities/subject_groups/safety%20and%20loss%20prevention/resources/hazards%20archive/~/med ia/Documents/Subject%20Groups/Safety_Loss_Prevention/Hazards%20Archive/XIX/XIX-Paper-70.pdf • David Hughes, ConocoPhillips response to the Saturate Gas Plant fire and explosion incident, XIX: Process Safety and Environmental Protection. What do we know? Where are we going? Symposium Series 151, IChemE, 2006 • The Phillips 66 Humber Refinery, www.phillips66.com • What is LPG? http://www.elgas.com.au/blog/492-what-is-lpg-lpg-gas-lp-gas • Erosion, NACE International, https://www.nace.org/Corrosion-Central/Corrosion-101/Erosion/ • BBC News, Major blast at oil refinery, April 17 2001, Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1281221.stm • The Guardian, Major blast at oil refinery, April 16 2001, Available at https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/apr/16/1 • BBC News, Oil firm fined £ 1m over explosion, June 2005, Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/humber/4635301.stm • Sam Fletcher, Blast shakes Conoco’s Humber refinery in England, April 16 2001, Oil & Gas Journal, http://www.ogj.com/articles/2001/04/blast-shakes-conocos-humber-refinery-in-england.html • Martin Wainwright, Two hurt in oil refinery explosion, The Guardian, April 16 2001, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/apr/17/martinwainwright • Dave Mark, ConocoPhillips admits breaches which led to 'potentially catastrophic' gas explosion in 2001 Oil firm's £1m 'safety error' bill, The Yorkshire Post, 2005, Available at at http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/conocophillips-admits-breaches-which- led-to-potentially-catastrophic-gas-explosion-in-2001-oil-firm-s-163-1m-safety-error-bill-1-2423098 • The Swiss Cheese Model, https://stratog.rcog.org.uk/tutorial/human-factors/the-swiss-cheese-model-8888 • The James Reason Swiss Cheese Failure Model in 300 Seconds, 2005, https://whatsthepont.com/2015/08/03/the-james-reason- swiss-cheese-failure-model-in-300-seconds/ • James Reason Swiss Cheese Model. Source: BMJ, 2000 Mar 18:320(7237): 768-770 • Michael Deighton, Facility Integrity Management: Effective Principles and Practices for the Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Industries, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2016 18 Acknowledgements • Dr. Sam Mannan • Dr. Bin Zhang • Research team • Sankhadeep Sarkar • Valerie Green • Alanna Scheinerman • Members of Steering Committee • Members of MKOPSC 19 THANK YOU! [email protected] 20 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Report Are Commission-Free
    Table of Contents 1 Letter to Our Shareholders 4 Financial Highlights 6 Our Businesses Midstream Chemicals Refining Marketing and Specialties 7 Our Value Chain 8 Our Strategy Operating Excellence Growth Returns Distributions High-Performing Organization 28 Board of Directors 30 Executive Leadership Team 31 Non-GAAP Reconciliations 32 Form 10-K | ON THE COVER AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Lake Charles Refinery WESTLAKE, LA In 2019, Lake Charles Manufacturing Complex achieved a sustained safety record of more than 55 months, equivalent to 7.5 million safe work hours. 2019 PHILLIPS 66 ANNUAL REPORT 1 To Our Shareholders We have the right strategy in place to create shareholder value, and our employees are executing it well. Phillips 66 achieved 34% total shareholder return during 2019, which exceeded our peer group average and the S&P 100. In 2019, we delivered earnings of $3.1 billion and earnings per share of $6.77. Adjusted earnings were $3.7 billion or $8.05 per share. During the year, we generated $4.8 billion of operating cash flow. We reinvested $3.9 billionback into the business and returned $3.2 billion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. We increased our quarterly dividend 12.5% and announced a $3 billion increase to our share repurchase program. Since our formation, we have returned $26 billion to shareholders through dividends, share repurchases and exchanges, reducing our initial shares outstanding by 33%. Operating excellence is our No. 1 priority and core to everything we do. Our goal is zero incidents, zero accidents and zero injuries. We believe this is attainable, and we strive for it daily.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Jet Fuel for Aviation
    Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Erik C. Wormslev, Jakob Louis Pedersen, Christian Eriksen, Rasmus Bugge, Nicolaj Skou, Camilla Tang, Toke Liengaard, Ras- mus Schnoor Hansen, Johannes Momme Eberhardt, Marie Katrine Rasch, Jonas Höglund, Ronja Beijer Englund, Judit Sandquist, Berta Matas Güell, Jens Jacob Kielland Haug, Päivi Luoma, Tiina Pursula and Marika Bröckl TemaNord 2016:538 Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Erik C. Wormslev, Jakob Louis Pedersen, Christian Eriksen, Rasmus Bugge, Nicolaj Skou, Camilla Tang, Toke Liengaard, Rasmus Schnoor Hansen, Johannes Momme Eberhardt, Marie Katrine Rasch, Jonas Höglund, Ronja Beijer Englund, Judit Sandquist, Berta Matas Güell, Jens Jacob Kielland Haug, Päivi Luoma, Tiina Pursula and Marika Bröckl ISBN 978-92-893-4661-0 (PRINT) ISBN 978-92-893-4662-7 (PDF) ISBN 978-92-893-4663-4 (EPUB) http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2016-538 TemaNord 2016:538 ISSN 0908-6692 © Nordic Council of Ministers 2016 Layout: Hanne Lebech Cover photo: Scanpix Print: Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk Copies: 100 Printed in Denmark This publication has been published with financial support by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or recom- mendations of the Nordic Council of Ministers. www.norden.org/nordpub Nordic co-operation Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involv- ing Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Fact Book 2 Our Businesses Our Strategy Midstream Chemicals Refining Marketing and Specialties Energy Research & Innovation Global Asset Map General Information
    Cover Photo: Taft Storage Facility at Gray Oak Pipeline TAFT, TX Contents 3 4 5 OUR BUSINESSES OUR STRATEGY MIDSTREAM Ferndale Ferndale Rail Terminal* Renton North Spokane Tacoma (MT) Yellowstone Cut Bank Moses Lake Thompson 17Falls Rail 24 14 Spokane Terminal Palermo* UROPE DLE EA Portland D Great Falls E I ST Portland (MT) Missoula Rail Terminal M Yello Glacier Sacagawea* Missoula wsto Helena Roundup Keene CDP* ne Billings Crude* Bozeman Billings Billings Humber SPCo & S-Chem ooth Sheridan* Semino Bakk Beart en Bayway MiRO CHEMICALS REFINING * MARKETING AND SPECIALTIES Bighorn e* Linden* Q-Chem I & II Casper* Tremley Pt. (MT)* * Po Rock Springs wd Bayway Rail eminoe er Ri Terminal* S Harbor Red Line Oil North Salt Lake Pioneer ve Des Moines s r Sacramento Rockies Expr Hartford Lincoln ess Line 20 ess Richmond (MT) Rockies Expr San Francisco Denver Borg Conway Kansas City* Po 0 Rockies Expres to Wichita wd Paola er-Den Gold Line* Wood River er Riv Wichita N.* Products* HeartlandPaola* Blue Line 0 Wichita S.* E. St. ver Jeerson City* Junction er Louis* Southern Hills* m Cherokee North* r*Hartford* Line 30 re Line 40 ol Standish* La Junta * h Ponca City* Explo his Ponca City ld Line C Crude* Go 0 Los Angeles Medford* eeMount Vernon* ok t Los Angeles Borger CherEas Torrance Cherokee Colton Borger to Amarillo* Blue LineSouth* Glenpool* Ponca Selmer Line O* * CushPo* Albuquerque* K PL Sk AC ATA Line* elly ST Cushing City SA Oklahoma City* Amarillo* -Belvieu Los Angeles AL Borger Oklahoma Crude* * Explor Wichita Falls* Lubbock* Savannah North
    [Show full text]
  • Investor Update February 2018
    Investor Update February 2018 NYSE: PSX www.phillips66.com Lake Charles Refinery Cautionary Statement This presentation contains certain forward-looking statements. Words and phrases such as “is anticipated,” “is estimated,” “is expected,” “is planned,” “is scheduled,” “is targeted,” “believes,” “intends,” “objectives,” “projects,” “strategies” and similar expressions are used to identify such forward-looking statements. However, the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements relating to the operations of Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP (including their respective joint venture operations) are based on management’s expectations, estimates and projections about these entities, their interests and the energy industry in general on the date this presentation was prepared. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecast in such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in filings that Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP make with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP are under no obligation (and expressly disclaim any such obligation) to update or alter these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. This presentation includes non-GAAP financial measures. You can find the reconciliations to comparable GAAP financial measures at the end of the presentation materials or in the “Investors” section of the websites of Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Prospects for Northwest European Refining
    LONG-TERM PROSPECTS FOR NORTHWEST EUROPEAN REFINING ASYMMETRIC CHANGE: A LOOMING GOVERNMENT DILEMMA? ROBBERT VAN DEN BERGH MICHIEL NIVARD MAURITS KREIJKES CIEP PAPER 2016 | 01 CIEP is affiliated to the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. CIEP acts as an independent forum for governments, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, media, politicians and all others interested in changes and developments in the energy sector. CIEP organizes lectures, seminars, conferences and roundtable discussions. In addition, CIEP members of staff lecture in a variety of courses and training programmes. CIEP’s research, training and activities focus on two themes: • European energy market developments and policy-making; • Geopolitics of energy policy-making and energy markets CIEP is endorsed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, BP Europe SE- BP Nederland, Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. ('Rabobank'), Delta N.V., ENGIE Energie Nederland N.V., ENGIE E&P Nederland B.V., Eneco Holding N.V., EBN B.V., Essent N.V., Esso Nederland B.V., GasTerra B.V., N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, Heerema Marine Contractors Nederland B.V., ING Commercial Banking, Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V., N.V. NUON Energy, TenneT TSO B.V., Oranje-Nassau Energie B.V., Havenbedrijf Rotterdam N.V., Shell Nederland B.V., TAQA Energy B.V.,Total E&P Nederland B.V., Koninklijke Vopak N.V. and Wintershall Nederland B.V. CIEP Energy
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidated Income Statement
    CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT Millions of Dollars 2011 2012 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD Revenues and Other Income Sales and other operating revenues* 56,530 65,627 62,784 59,872 244,813 56,132 56,132 Equity in earnings of affiliates 1,017 1,160 1,298 602 4,077 1,220 1,220 Gain on dispositions 616 78 (480) 1,793 2,007 942 942 Other income 84 96 27 122 329 60 60 Total Revenues and Other Income 58,247 66,961 63,629 62,389 251,226 58,354 58,354 Costs and Expenses Purchased crude oil, natural gas and products 42,376 50,133 47,597 45,761 185,867 41,889 41,889 Production and operating expenses 2,628 2,606 2,768 2,768 10,770 2,696 2,696 Selling, general and administrative expenses 499 514 466 599 2,078 685 685 Exploration expenses 176 264 266 360 1,066 679 679 Depreciation, depletion and amortization 2,070 2,075 1,870 1,919 7,934 1,838 1,838 Impairments - 2 486 304 792 259 259 Taxes other than income taxes* 4,364 4,830 4,579 4,534 18,307 4,521 4,521 Accretion on discounted liabilities 112 115 114 114 455 114 114 Interest and debt expense 262 247 235 228 972 209 209 Foreign currency transaction (gains) losses (36) (17) 68 (31) (16) (11) (11) Total Costs and Expenses 52,451 60,769 58,449 56,556 228,225 52,879 52,879 Income before income taxes 5,796 6,192 5,180 5,833 23,001 5,475 5,475 Provision for income taxes 2,754 2,773 2,549 2,423 10,499 2,520 2,520 Net Income 3,042 3,419 2,631 3,410 12,502 2,955 2,955 Less: net income attributable to noncontrolling interests (14) (17) (15) (20) (66) (18) (18) Net
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Jp-5, Jp-8, and Jet a Fuels
    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry March 2017 JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS ii DISCLAIMER Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Public Health Service, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A Fuels, Draft for Public Comment was released in February 2016. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences Environmental Toxicology Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE Mailstop F-57 Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027 JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS iv This page is intentionally blank. JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS v FOREWORD This toxicological profile is prepared in accordance with guidelines* developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The original guidelines were published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1987. Each profile will be revised and republished as necessary. The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances described therein. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a substance's toxicologic properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study on Co2 Transport Pipeline Network Design for Humber Region in the Uk
    CASE STUDY ON CO2 TRANSPORT PIPELINE NETWORK DESIGN FOR HUMBER REGION IN THE UK Tihomir Lazica, Eni Okoa,b and Meihong Wanga,b,* aProcess Systems Engineering Group, School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK bSchool of Engineering, University of Hull, HU6 7RX, UK *Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1482 466688. E-mail address: [email protected] ABSTRACT Reliable, safe and economic CO2 transport from CO2 capture points to long term storage/enhanced oil recovery (EOR) sites is critical for commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Pipeline transportation of CO2 is considered most feasible. However, in CCS applications there is concern about associated impurities and huge volumes of high pressure CO2 transported over distances likely to be densely populated areas. On this basis, there is limited experience for design and economic assessment of CO2 pipeline. The Humber region in the UK is a likely site for building CO2 pipelines in the future due to large CO2 emissions in the region and its close access to depleted gas fields and saline aquifers beneath the North Sea. In this paper, various issues to be considered in CO2 pipeline design for CCS applications are discussed. Also, different techno- economic correlations for CO2 pipelines are assessed using the Humber region as case study. Levelized cost of CO2 pipelines calculated for the region range from 0.14 to 0.75 GBP per tonne of CO2. This is a preliminary study and is useful for obtaining quick techno-economic assessment of CO2
    [Show full text]
  • The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity
    Greater Lincolnshire UK The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity Greater Lincolnshire UK The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity 03 Business Location Guide Contents Contents Contents 03 The Low Carbon Investment Opportunity 04 The UK Low Carbon Market Opportunity 06 The Low Carbon Industrial Investment Opportunity 08 The Circular Economy Investment Opportunity 10 The Offshore Renewable Energy Investment Opportunity 12 Low Carbon & Related Industry Clusters 14 Low Carbon Knowledge, Research & Technologies 16 Workforce, Education & Skills for Low Carbon Sectors 18 Industrial Sites & Property Solutions 26 Humber Freeport Sites & Benefits28 Ports & Logistics Infrastructure 30 Fast UK & Global Market Access 32 Greater Lincolnshire’s Location & Connectivity 34 UK Market Access 35 Support for Your Low Carbon Sector Business Investment 36 Greater Lincolnshire UK The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity 04 Greater Lincolnshire UK The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity 05 Business Location Guide Business Location Guide Growth opportunities aligned with Greater ambitious UK sustainability goals Lincolnshire UK: UK-leading industry clusters The Low Carbon in Low Carbon energy and industrial sectors Investment Building on established strengths in energy generation, energy-intensive industries, and port logistics, including within the Humber Energy Advanced Low Carbon research, Estuary, the area is home to the UK’s most Opportunity ambitious Industrial Decarbonisation project, a innovation
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Aviation Fuels Road-Map
    SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUELS ROAD-MAP Fueling the future of UK aviation sustainableaviation.co.uk Sustainable Aviation wishes to thank the following organisations for leading the work in producing this Road-Map: Sustainable Aviation (SA) believes the data forecasts and analysis of this report to be correct as at the date of publication. The opinions contained in this report, except where specifically attributed to, are those of SA, and based upon the information that was available to us at the time of publication. We are always pleased to receive updated information and opinions about any of the contents. All statements in this report (other than statements of historical facts) that address future market developments, government actions and events, may be deemed ‘forward-looking statements’. Although SA believes that the outcomes expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance: actual results or developments may differ materially, e.g. due to the emergence of new technologies and applications, changes to regulations, and unforeseen general economic, market or business conditions. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1.1 Addressing the sustainability challenge in aviation 1.2 The role of sustainable aviation fuels 1.3 The Sustainable Aviation Fuels Road-Map SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUELS 2.1 Sustainability of sustainable aviation fuels 2.2 Sustainable aviation fuels types 2.3 Production and usage of sustainable aviation fuels to date THE FUTURE FOR SUSTAINABLE
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign ICAO 3LD Additions, Deletions, and Modifications (Excluding U.S.)
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N JO 7340.589 NOTICE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Air Traffic Organization Policy Effective Date: July 14, 2020 Cancellation Date: July 14, 2021 SUBJ: Foreign ICAO 3LD Additions, Deletions, and Modifications (excluding U.S.) 1. Purpose of This Notice. This notice modifies FAA Order J 7340.2, Contractions, Chapter 3, Sections 1, 2, and 3, ICAO Aircraft Company Three-Letter Identifier and/or Telephony Designator. This notice reflects recent changes initiated by countries other than the United States (U.S.) including new ICAO three letter designators (3LDs), deletions of defunct ICAO 3LDs, and modifications to ICAO 3LDs, associated telephonies, and companies/agencies. This Notice supplements FAA Order JO 7340.2 until the additions and modifications are incorporated into the Order. This Notice does not replace or substitute for GENOTs issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Organization (ATO) for ICAO 3LDs assigned and authorized for U.S. aircraft operators. 2. Audience. This notice applies to the following Air Traffic Organization (ATO) service units: Air Traffic Services, and System Operations Services; ATO Safety and Technical Training; and all associated air traffic control facilities. This notice is informational in nature and does not require documentation as supplemental training in FAA Form 3120-1, Training and Proficiency Record. 3. Where Can I Find This Notice? This notice is available on the MyFAA employee website at https://employees.faa.gov/tools_resources/orders_notices/ and on the air traffic publications website at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. 4. Source Document. The source document for the ICAO 3LD additions and modifications contained in this notice is ICAO Document 8585, Designators for Aircraft Operating Agencies, Aeronautical Authorities, and Services.
    [Show full text]
  • Explosion at the Conoco Humber Refinery – 16Th April 2001
    SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 151 # 2006 Crown Copyright EXPLOSION AT THE CONOCO HUMBER REFINERY – 16TH APRIL 2001 Jonathan Carter, Peter Dawson and Robert Nixon Health and Safety Executive, Hazardous Installations Directorate # Crown Copyright 2006. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland An explosion and fire occurred at the Conoco Humber Refinery on 16th April 2001, following the catastrophic failure of a 600 overhead pipe from a de-ethaniser column on the Saturate Gas Plant. Investigation revealed that the failure of the pipe was due to internal corrosion that had not been identified by the refinery pipework inspection regime. The paper describes the event and the emergency response. It also examines the immediate cause of the event, and how failures of the management of pipework inspection and management of change failed to prevent the accident occurring. The paper concludes with the lessons that can be learned from this event. THE REFINERY The Humber Refinery is located on the south bank of the estuary of the River Humber on the east coast of England, approximately 1.5 km north-west of the town of Immingham and 0.5 km east of the village of Killingholme. In 2001 Conoco Ltd owned the refinery. In August 2002 Conoco merged to form ConocoPhillips Ltd., the current owners of the refinery. The refinery was constructed between 1966 and 1969 and commissioned in 1970. The current capacity of the refinery is about 225,00 US barrels per day of crude oil, or about 11.4 million tonne per year.
    [Show full text]