DOCSLIB.ORG

A Systematic Approach Linking Condenser Performance to Heat Rate and CO2 Emissions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Systematic Approach Linking Condenser Performance to Heat Rate and CO2 Emissions A Systematic Approach Linking Condenser Performance to Heat Rate and CO2 Emissions Peter de Graaf, Nalco Europe BV Martyn Gilbert, Rocksavage Power Station Ltd, and Andrew Hurst, Nalco Ltd ABSTRACT A systematic approach to cooling system management was taken at InterGen’s Rocksavage Power Station with the objective of improving the overall performance of the cooling tower and condenser under varying conditions. The approach included a combination of engineering, operational and chemistry initiatives that led to measurable performance improvements. This paper will present the path taken by the Rocksavage Power Station to not only improve condenser performance, but also to quantify the impact on plant heat rate and CO2 emissions. Plant data over a multi-year timeframe was used to document the improved operating practices and control. Due to the implementation of these systematic improvements, a significant improvement in system cleanliness was achieved that resulted in reduced steam turbine backpressure and better cooling tower efficiency. Savings opportunities in terms of gas consumption and reduced carbon dioxide emissions were highlighted. These gains can help to improve the environmental performance of the Station, which would result in reduced total operating costs of the cooling system while maintaining condensing performance. INTRODUCTION Power plant condenser cooling systems play a vital role in maintaining generation efficiency and plant heat rate. Deposition in the condenser or cooling tower fill will increase turbine backpressure and require higher steam flow to maintain power. Higher steam flow will require more fuel to be burned, assuming the boiler system has the capability to generate more steam. In some cases, the plant cannot generate at full power with a fouled condenser the result of which is de-rating. The increased fuel requirement increases plant heat rate, which translates directly to fuel cost and emissions. Even though the increase in fuel consumption may be small (< 1%), the environmental and financial impacts may be significant, as emission-trading schemes (cap-and-trade) for greenhouse gasses are directly affected. Condenser and cooling tower performance-monitoring helps to link cooling system performance to heat rate and can be expressed in terms of environmental performance and compliance. Condenser cooling operating variables can be combined with cooling system chemistry performance as well as control data and engineering calculations to help document the impact of cooling system performance on heat rate, fuel consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases. The lowest environmental impact can thus be achieved from existing plant equipment. This paper will be presented in a case history format using actual plant data. The paper builds on a previous paper presented at POWER-GEN Asia in 2006.1 THE EU EMISSION CREDIT TRADING SCHEME Signatories to the Kyoto protocol, including all Member States of the European Union (EU), have committed to control and reduce emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) in order to decrease their impact on global warming.2 The European Commission has mandated an Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)3 to manage the cost-effective reduction in GHG emissions across the 27 EU countries. The ETS gives each plant an annual GHG ‘allowance’ or emission volume in metric tons of carbon dioxide & the amount of other GHG with the equivalent global warming potential to CO2. The allowance is calculated on the basis of the National Allowance Allocation Plan for GHG control agreed to by each EU Member State. Each following year, the plant has to ‘surrender’ an allowance allocation equivalent to the actual volume of GHG emitted during the previous year. If emissions are below the allowance, they become credits that may be ‘traded’ with other plants that are exceeding their 1 particular allowance. Credits may also be earned by participation in Joint Implementation (JI) or Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. If a plant fails to ‘surrender’ an amount of allowance equivalent to the previous years’ emissions, meaning for example that it exceeded its maximum permitted emission volume, then a penalty is payable for the excess emissions. Up until January 1, 2008, the penalty is €40 per ton of carbon dioxide or equivalent; thereafter the amount increases to €100 per ton. Payment does not remove the legal obligation to still surrender the necessary allowance. Note that the penalty is well in excess of the expected trade value of the credits, providing an incentive for producers to meet their emission goals through performance, trading, or offsets. The first cycle of emission allowances commenced on January 1, 2005 and covers the three years to January 1, 2008. The commitment of the EU to the Kyoto Protocol drives the control of the total GHG emission volume for the EU as a whole, or, in other words, the sum of all National Allowance Allocation Plans across EU27. Plans will be reviewed every 5 years from 2008. It is expected that Emission Allowances will be progressively reduced every five years. ROCKSAVAGE POWER STATION Rocksavage Power Station is a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) plant located in Runcorn, Cheshire, UK with a nominal output of 743 MW. The station is 100% InterGen owned and operates in a load following mode. It is one of the cleanest and most efficient power plants in the UK, with an average availability of 94% during the last four years. The Station consists of two Alstom GT26A combustion turbines, two triple-pressure unfired HRSG’s and one Alstom, 284 MW, steam turbine. It has a two pass surface condenser which is cooled using filtered river water supplied from a 12 cell plume-abated cooling tower with a system volume of approximately 5,000 m3 (1,320,000 gallons). Photo 1 – Arial photograph of Rocksavage Power Station The UK National Allocation Plan GHG annual allowance for Rocksavage Power Station for the trading period 2008-2012 is 1.08 million tons of CO2 equivalent, which is a considerable shortfall compared to current emissions.4 This shortfall has to be traded on the Carbon Exchange market; 5 futures (2008-2009) indicate a cost in the range of €20-25 per ton of CO2. The calculated estimate for the GHG emission cost for the Rocksavage Power Station is in excess of 10 million Euros per year. There is a clear incentive to trim GHG emissions in every possible way. 2 DETERMINATION OF CONDENSER PERFORMANCE IMPACT ON HEAT RATE AND EMISSIONS Instead of walking the reader through the input fields required to determine condenser performance, this paper will focus on the key empirical correlations that are the backbone to the calculation model. We will first look at establishing bogey backpressure and what that means in practice. Then we will examine the relationship between heat rate and condenser backpressure, and finally how the heat rate loss is extrapolated to fuel and emissions cost, or alternatively MW de-rating. The bogey backpressure is the expected backpressure for a condenser if the tubes are clean and the condenser is operating to design specifications. We can estimate the bogey backpressure based on the cooling water outlet temperature and the design terminal temperature difference for the condenser. An alternative method is the use of condenser design graphs that contains correlations between condenser load and backpressure as function of cooling water inlet temperature and condenser cleanliness (Figure 1). Figure 1 – Condenser design graph 12.0 Condenser Cleanliness Factor is 90% 11.0 10.0 29.4oC (85oF) 9.0 8.0 24.4oC (76oF) 7.0 21.1oC (70oF) 6.0 5.0 15.6oC (60oF) 4.0 10.0oC (50oF) 3.0 4oC (39oF) 2.0 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% Condenser Load [%] The backpressure readings from the sensors in the condenser should not be below the theoretical bogey backpressure. They can read low, however, if steam condenses in the sensing element. If apparent backpressure is below bogey, the plant must perform sensor maintenance to allow accurate performance measurements. For the Rocksavage Power Plant, with three pressure sensors on the condenser, the backpressure readings that were below bogey were corrected by establishing a correlation between the LP exhaust pressure and condenser backpressure as shown in Figure 2. The crux of the model revolves around the establishment of the correlation between heat rate and condenser backpressure. This correlation forms the basis for calculating the fuel and emissions penalties. The plant heat rate is the net efficiency in heat conversion and transfer of the various stages of the process: the gas turbine, the HRSG, the steam turbine, plus the plant operating practices. Empirical correlations between heat rate and backpressure are not straightforward, and this is shown in Figure 3. One can argue that a better correlation could be established by looking at steam turbine heat rate versus backpressure, but this brings additional complexity to the model that does not 3 necessarily have a payoff in terms of a more precise result relative to the effort that a performance engineer needs to make. Figure 2 – Empirical correlation between backpressure and exhaust steam pressure 11.00 LP Exhaust Steam Pressure = 10.50 0.7925 Back Pressure + 2.5094 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Condenser Back Pressure [kPa] Figure 3 – Empirical correlation between heat rate and bogey backpressure 7400 Heat Rate = 44.14 (Backpressure - Bogey Backpressure) + 6,930 7300 7200 7100 7000 6900 6800 6700 6600 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Backpressure - Bogey [kPa] 4 The heat rate penalty for Rocksavage Power Station, according to this empirical correlation, is 44 kJ/kWh per kPa change in condenser backpressure (141 BTU/kWh for 1“ Hg).6 This equals 0.63% of efficiency loss per kPa (2.15% for 1” Hg) deviation from the theoretical backpressure using the design terminal temperature difference.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Objection to Environmental Permit Application EPR/EP3731XL/A001
    Halton Action Group Against The Incinerator (HAGATI) Objection to Environmental Permit Application EPR/EP3731XL/A001 PART TWO Response to the Environmental Permit Application Halton Action Group Against The Incinerator (HAGATI) Executive Committee Chairman Sir Kenneth Green Kt; BA; MA; DLitt; CIMgt Vice Chairman Mr Jeff Meehan HNC Elect Eng; End Electronics/Computing Secretary Mrs Sue Bowden (Local Government Officer) Treasurer Mr Alan Gorry (Company Director (Retired)) Committee Members Dr John Beacham CBE; DSc; FRSC Dr Simon La Frenais MB; ChB; DObstRcog Mrs Debbie Middleton JP Mr Mike Stackpool MSc; Cphys; MIinstP Advisers Professor John S. Dearden BSc; MSc; PhD; ACGI; MRPhrmS Mrs Susan Smith BSc. Hons. MInstP. CPhys . 2 Index PART TWO – Environmental Permit Application Page Section 1 Objection Overview 4 Section 2 Environmental Justice 11 Section 3 Chimney Height 16 Section 4 Size of Development 26 Section 5 Existing Industrial Pollution 29 Section 6 Filters and Abatement 32 Section 7 Fuel Variations 34 Section 8 Transportation 36 Section 9 Carbon Emissions 38 Section 10 Accident Risks 39 Section 11 Air Quality 40 Section 12 Emissions 42 Section 13 Existing Air Quality 46 Section 14 The Health Impact Assessment 47 Section 15 Best Available Technique (BAT) 48 Section 16 The Stockholm Convention 52 Section 17 Randle Island 63 3 SECTION 1 Objection Overview a) This is HAGATI’s formal objection to Permit Application EPR/EP3731XL/A001, recommending that a permit be refused, for the reasons detailed within. The objection, outlining our concerns, follows the same format as that of the Permit Application itself as far as possible, rather than any order of importance, with additional sections relating to Environmental Justice, Randle Island and other relevant issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence Chapters
    2020-21 Mid Year Report Evidence Chapters 21 October 2020 Contents Operating the electricity system through the COVID-19 Pandemic 2 A. Role 1 Control Centre operations 7 A.1 Evidence of consumer benefits for Role 1 9 A.2 Stakeholder views 17 A.3 Plan delivery 22 A.4 Outturn performance metrics and justifications 27 B. Role 2 Market development and transactions 44 B.1 Evidence of consumer benefits for Role 2 46 B.2 Stakeholder views 57 B.3 Plan delivery 66 B.4 Outturn performance metrics and justifications 72 C. Role 3 System insight, planning and network development 81 C.1 Evidence of consumer benefits for Role 3 83 C.2 Stakeholder views 93 C.3 Plan delivery 100 C.4 Outturn performance metrics and justifications 107 2 Operating the electricity system through the COVID-19 Pandemic Changing energy usage The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of life in the UK, as well as across the world. Home working and lockdown periods have meant a decrease in energy use from commercial and industrial consumers and contributed to a decrease in electricity demand. The lockdown coincided with the traditionally lower demand period, as warmer, longer days require less electricity for lighting and heating than in winter months. The growth in generation connected at distribution level also lowers the demand seen on the transmission system during windy and/or sunny days. At times, electricity demand in Great Britain has been 20% lower than we would otherwise expect, and on 28 June it dropped to its lowest ever level of 13.4GW (prior to 2020 the lowest national demand figure observed was 15.8 GW).
    [Show full text]
  • BGS Report, Single Column Layout
    INDUSTRIAL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND CARBON DIOXIDE STORAGE POTENTIAL IN THE UK Report No. COAL R308 DTI/Pub URN 06/2027 October 2006 Contractor British Geological Survey Keyworth Nottingham NG12 5GG United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)115 936 3100 By S. Holloway C.J. Vincent K.L. Kirk The work described in this report was carried out under contract as part of the DTI Carbon Abatement Technologies Programme. The DTI programme is managed by Future Energy Solutions. The views and judgements expressed in this report are those of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect those of the DTI or Future Energy Solutions First published 2006 © DTI 2006 Foreword This report is the product of a study by the British Geological Survey (BGS) undertaken for AEA Technology plc as part of agreement C/07/00384/00/00. It considers the UK emissions of carbon dioxide from large industrial point sources such as power stations and the potential geological storage capacity to safely and securely store these emissions. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the UK DTI for funding the work, and Dr Erik Lindeberg of Sintef Petroleum Research for provision of a programme to calculate the density of CO2. Contents Foreword.........................................................................................................................................i Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................i Contents...........................................................................................................................................i
    [Show full text]
  • Wrexham Power Limited
    The Wrexham Gas Fired Generating Station Order 16.1. The Applicant’s Responses to the Examining Authority’s requests for further information Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 PINS Reference Number: EN010055 Document Reference Number: 16.1 Regulation Number: Lead Author: Wrexham Power Limited Revision: Date: Description: 0 January 2017 Post-submission version SEC5-REPORTS AND STATEMENTS_A4 coversheets.indd 6 15/03/2016 10:54 Wrexham Power Limited Planning Inspectorate reference: EN010055 The Wrexham Gas Fired Generating Station Order Examination deadline 7 Applicant’s response to the ExA’s request for further information APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO EXA REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE Compiled for Wrexham Power Limited by: Savills Wessex House Wimborne Dorset BH21 1PB ii WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO EXA REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION C o n t e n t s 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Overview of the Scheme and the DCO Application ................................................................... 1 Purpose of This Statement ......................................................................................................... 3 2. Applicant’s responses ................................................................................................ 4 R17Q no.1 - Question for the Applicant, WCBC, NRW, Cadw, WAG and IPs ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Industry Background
    Appendix 2.2: Industry background Contents Page Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Evolution of major market participants ....................................................................... 1 The Six Large Energy Firms ....................................................................................... 3 Gas producers other than Centrica .......................................................................... 35 Mid-tier independent generator company profiles .................................................... 35 The mid-tier energy suppliers ................................................................................... 40 Introduction 1. This appendix contains information about the following participants in the energy market in Great Britain (GB): (a) The Six Large Energy Firms – Centrica, EDF Energy, E.ON, RWE, Scottish Power (Iberdrola), and SSE. (b) The mid-tier electricity generators – Drax, ENGIE (formerly GDF Suez), Intergen and ESB International. (c) The mid-tier energy suppliers – Co-operative (Co-op) Energy, First Utility, Ovo Energy and Utility Warehouse. Evolution of major market participants 2. Below is a chart showing the development of retail supply businesses of the Six Large Energy Firms: A2.2-1 Figure 1: Development of the UK retail supply businesses of the Six Large Energy Firms Pre-liberalisation Liberalisation 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
    [Show full text]
  • Modified UK National Implementation Measures for Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System
    Modified UK National Implementation Measures for Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System As submitted to the European Commission in April 2012 following the first stage of their scrutiny process This document has been issued by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, together with the Devolved Administrations for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. April 2012 UK’s National Implementation Measures submission – April 2012 Modified UK National Implementation Measures for Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System As submitted to the European Commission in April 2012 following the first stage of their scrutiny process On 12 December 2011, the UK submitted to the European Commission the UK’s National Implementation Measures (NIMs), containing the preliminary levels of free allocation of allowances to installations under Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System (2013-2020), in accordance with Article 11 of the revised ETS Directive (2009/29/EC). In response to queries raised by the European Commission during the first stage of their assessment of the UK’s NIMs, the UK has made a small number of modifications to its NIMs. This includes the introduction of preliminary levels of free allocation for four additional installations and amendments to the preliminary free allocation levels of seven installations that were included in the original NIMs submission. The operators of the installations affected have been informed directly of these changes. The allocations are not final at this stage as the Commission’s NIMs scrutiny process is ongoing. Only when all installation-level allocations for an EU Member State have been approved will that Member State’s NIMs and the preliminary levels of allocation be accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashurst Low Carbon Pulse
    PROGRESS TOWARDS NET-ZERO EMISSIONS 29 JUNE 2021 Low Carbon Pulse - Edition 20 GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS IN PROGRESS TOWARDS NET-ZERO EMISSIONS Welcome to Edition 20 of Low Carbon Pulse – sharing significant current news on progress towards net-zero emissions globally. This edition covers the period from Monday June 14, 2021 to Sunday June 27, 2021 (inclusive of each day). Please click here for the previous Edition of Low Carbon Pulse. Please also click here and here for the first two articles in the Shift to Hydrogen Series (S2H2): Elemental Change series: the S2H2 series provides a narrative and perspective on hydrogen generally. Please click here for the first feature in the Hydrogen for Industry (H24I); H24I features provide an industry by industry narrative and perspective. Edition 20 will be posted again on July 1, 2021 to pick-up those reading later in the week. The Week Ahead: Trading to commence on China ETS: During the week beginning June 21, 2021, it was reported widely that the PRC's emissions trading scheme is to commence trading before the end of June (see Editions 6, 9 and 12 of Low Carbon Pulse). On Sunday June 27, 2021 this remained the case. The Month Ahead: The first anniversary of A hydrogen strategy for a climate neutral Europe (EUH2S): July 8, 2021 is the first anniversary of the release EUH2S. Edition 21 of Low Carbon Pulse will reflect on progress during the first year after the release of EUH2S in respect of each Key Action. In some ways, this edition of Low Carbon Pulse "tees-up" some of the areas in which progress has been made and in which policy settings need to be developed and firmed-up.
    [Show full text]
  • Socio-Technical Transitions and Infrastructure Networks: the Cases of Electricity and Heat Distribution in the UK
    Socio-Technical Transitions and Infrastructure Networks: the cases of electricity and heat distribution in the UK Ronan Patrick Gerard Bolton A thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September, 2011 The University of Leeds Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment ii The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own, except where work which has formed part of jointly-authored publications has been included. The contribution of the candidate and the other authors to this work has been explicitly indicated below. The candidate confirms that appropriate credit has been given within the thesis where reference has been made to the work of others This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement © 2011 The University of Leeds and Ronan Patrick Gerard Bolton Publication Related to this thesis: Bolton, R. and Foxon, T. 2011. Governing Infrastructure Networks for a Low Carbon Economy: Co-Evolution of Technologies and Institutions in UK Electricity Distribution Networks. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 12, 2-26 In writing this paper I received direction and advice from the second author; however as the lead author its content largely draws from my own field work and literature review. Relevant sections are marked within the text. iii Acknowledgements Without assistance and support from a number of sources this thesis would not have been possible. A debt of gratitude is owed to the following people: To my primary supervisor Dr. Tim Foxon who offered guidance and support throughout the entire process.
    [Show full text]
  • Gas Ten Year Statement 2020 Gas Ten Year Statement 2020
    Gas Ten Year Statement 2020 Gas Ten Year Statement 2020 Welcome > Welcome • How to use this document > • Welcome to our 2020 Gas Ten Year Statement > Introduction > Introduction > Chapter 1 Drivers of change > Chapter 2 Network Capability > Chapter 3 Option Assessment > Chapter 4 Development > Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Drivers of change > Chapter 5 Network Capability > Option Assesment > Looking forward > Appendix > Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Development > Looking forward > Appendix > Gas Ten Year Statement Welcome 2020 How to use this document Home Glossary Welcome > We have published the 2020 This will take you to the Defined words and additional Gas Ten Year Statement (GTYS) home page. information (indicated by ) can be viewed by clicking the yellow Introduction > as an interactive document. book symbol in the left-hand navigation bar. Chapter 1 Drivers of change > Chapter 2 Arrows Network Click on the arrows to move Capability > backwards or forwards a page. Chapter 3 Option Assessment > Chapter 4 Development > Chapter 5 ‘Linked’ content Looking Enlarge/reduce forward > Hover over the magnifying Words in light blue and underlined Appendix > icon to make charts bigger have links to other pages or smaller. in this document, or are URLs. The URLs have an additional superscript number next to them, These are listed in ‘Index of links’ at the back of the book and give you the URLs in full. GTYS | 2020 01 Gas Ten Year Statement Welcome 2020 to our 2020 Gas Ten Year Statement Welcome > We are in the midst of an energy revolution. The economic In 2020, we are in a position where we need to transform the National landscape, developments in technology and consumer Transmission System (NTS) from transporting natural gas and work behaviour are changing at a remarkable rate, creating towards a net zero future by switching to low-carbon gases such as Introduction > more opportunities than ever before for our industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation Notice
    Notice of variation and consolidation with introductory note The Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016 Rocksavage Power Company Limited Rocksavage Power Station Cow Hey Lane Runcorn Cheshire WA7 4FZ Variation application number EPR/BS5380IC/V004 Permit number EPR/BS5380IC Rocksavage Power Station LCP permit review-Variation and consolidation number EPR/BS5380IC/V004 1 Rocksavage Power Station Permit number EPR/BS5380IC Introductory note This introductory note does not form a part of the notice. Under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations (EPR) 2016 (schedule 5, part 1, paragraph 19) a variation may comprise a consolidated permit reflecting the variations and a notice specifying the variations included in that consolidated permit. Purpose of this variation (EPR/BS5380IC/V004): This variation is required to assess the permit for compliance with the revised Best Available Techniques (BAT) Conclusions for the LCP sector published on 17 August 2017 including the incorporation of relevant BAT Associated Emission Levels (AELs) into the permit. Review permit conditions Article 21(3) of the IED requires the Environment Agency to review conditions in permits that it has issued and to ensure that the permit delivers compliance with relevant standards, within four years of the publication of updated decisions on BAT Conclusions. We have reviewed the permit for this installation against the revised BAT Conclusions for the LCP sector published on 17 August 2017. Only activities covered by this BAT Reference
    [Show full text]
  • UK Installations.Docx
    UK Installations: for submission into the main EU ETS System Installation ID Operator Name Installation Name DTI0200 Centrica Storage Limited Rough 47/3B DTI0300 EnQuest Heather Limited Kittiwake Alpha DTI0400 Apache North Sea Limited Forties Alpha DTI0600 Apache North Sea Limited Forties Charlie DTI0700 Apache North Sea Limited Forties Delta DTI1000 ConocoPhillips (UK) Britannia Limited Britannia DTI1001 Chrysaor Limited Lomond DTI1002 Chrysaor Limited Everest North DTI1004 Total E&P North Sea UK Limited Ailsa FSO DTI1005 Total E&P North Sea UK Limited Culzean DTI1006 Hurricane Energy PLC Aoka Mizu DTI1007 ONE-DYAS UK Limited Sean DTI1008 Serica Energy (UK) Limited Bruce DTI1009 EnQuest Heather Limited Magnus DTI1010 Spirit Energy North Sea Oil Limited Sevan Hummingbird FPSO DTI1011 Perenco UK Limited Trent Compression Facilities DTI1013 EnQuest Heather Limited Northern Producer Floating Production Facility DTI1014 Neptune E&P UK Limited Cygnus Alpha Platform DTI1015 Premier Oil E&P UK Limited Voyager Spirit FPSO DTI1200 Spirit Energy Production UK Limited Morecambe Central Processing Complex DTI1300 Dana Petroleum (E&P) Limited Triton FPSO DTI1600 Apache Beryl I Limited Beryl Alpha DTI1700 Apache Beryl I Limited Beryl Bravo DTI1900 Perenco UK Limited Indefatigable 23A DTI2000 Perenco UK Limited Leman 27A DTI2100 Chevron North Sea Limited Captain FPSO DTI2200 Chevron North Sea Limited Alba Northern Platform (ANP) DTI2300 Chevron North Sea Limited Alba FSU DTI2600 Eni Hewett Limited Hewett 48/29A DTI2700 Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Limited
    [Show full text]
  • The East Irish Sea CCS Cluster: a Conceptual Design – Appendices to Technical Report Hydrocarbon Resources Ltd and Peel Energy Ltd
    The East Irish Sea CCS Cluster: A Conceptual Design – Appendices to Technical Report Hydrocarbon Resources Ltd and Peel Energy Ltd Authors: Andrew Coulthurst Sam Taylor Adam Baddeley February 2011 Report for: Hydrocarbon Resources Ltd and Peel Energy Ltd Prepared by: Andrew Coulthurst Sam Taylor Adam Baddeley Approved by: …………………………………………………. Mike Brown Contact Details Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd 37 Queen Square Bristol BS1 3QS United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)117 9450100 Fax: +44 (0)8717 142942 Web: www.eunomia.co.uk Disclaimer Eunomia Research & Consulting has taken due care in the preparation of this report to ensure that all facts and analysis presented are as accurate as possible within the scope of the project. However no guarantee is provided in respect of the information presented, and Eunomia Research & Consulting is not responsible for decisions or actions taken on the basis of the content of this report. Contents A.1.0 Summary of Key UK CCS Consents ................................................................... 1 A.2.0 List of Existing and Planned Emitters ................................................................ 5 A.3.0 Structure of CCS Mini-clusters .......................................................................... 8 A.3.1 Western Scotland Mini-Cluster Development ................................................... 8 A.3.2 East Ireland Mini-Cluster Development ........................................................... 11 A.3.3 Northern Ireland Mini-Cluster Development ..................................................
    [Show full text]