Agenda Title of Slide Current specifications Recap of CO 2 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
agenda
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Agenda Title of Slide Current specifications Recap of CO 2 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 13, 2023 318 likes •517 views

Title of Slide BP CATS Mod 498 CO 2 7 th August 2014 Agenda Title of Slide Current specifications Recap of CO 2 forecasting Historical relationship CO 2 and other spec: Gross Calorific Value Wobbe Index

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Title of Slide

BP CATS – Mod 498 – CO2

7th August 2014

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Title of Slide

Agenda

  • Current specifications
  • Recap of CO2 forecasting
  • Historical relationship – CO2 and other spec:

– Gross Calorific Value – Wobbe Index (GSMR) – Soot Index (GSMR) – Incomplete Combustion Factor (GSMR)

  • User concerns response

– Tata Steel – GrowHow – SSE

  • Alternative options – offshore / onshore CO2 removal
  • Summary

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Title of Slide

Current specifications

  • CATS existing CO2 spec is 2.9mol%
  • NEA has Reasonable Endeavours right for short-term breaches of CO2 to

4mol%

  • Other UK terminals have a 4.0mol% NTS entry spec
  • CATS strictly adheres to all NEA specifications which includes:

– Wobbe >48.14 <51.41; ICF <0.48; SI <0.60

  • NEA does not contain a total inerts specification
  • CATS have requested a revised CO2 spec to 4mol%
  • Two main benefits:

– avoid restricting throughput of existing gas fields – avoid risk of potential new gas fields not being developed

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Title of Slide

Action 0601a - Recap of CO2 forecasting

  • Analysis based on current gas fields + two material, potential new gas fields c2019
  • 2014-2018

– Expect CO2 > 2.9mol% for maximum of 5% of time at peak of 4mol% – Tend to occur during summer months for short periods (2-3 days) – Estimate an overall impact of 0.03mol% on annual average

  • 2019+

– Based on two material, potential new gas fields – non-summer months – between 2.66mol% and 3.57mol% (flow dependent)

  • CATS expect CO2 concentrations >2.9mol% the majority of the time but

expect maximum to be approximately 3mol% – summer months – between 2.66mol% and 4mol% (flow dependent)

  • CATS expect CO2 concentrations >2.9mol% the majority of the time but

expect maximum to be approximately 3.6mol%

  • Other prospective gas fields with lower CO2 levels will lessen the impact

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Title of Slide

Action 0601a - Historical relationship – CO2 & other spec

  • Various concerns have been raised by Users at Mod 498 Workgroup
  • Principal concern relates to the impact on energy content of the gas
  • CATS has assessed the relationship between CO2 and GCV, WI, SI and ICF

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Title of Slide

Action 0601 - Gross Calorific Value (GCV)

  • Daily averages from 1/1/13 – 7/7/14
  • Scatter in normal operating conditions
  • Value at 4.0mol% remains above midpoint of GCV spec range
  • Impact of 2.9mol% to 4.0mol% = c0.4MJ/SCM decrease

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Measured GCV (MJ/SCM) CO2 (mol%)

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Title of Slide

Action 0601 - Wobbe Index (WI)

  • Daily averages from 1/1/13 – 7/7/14
  • Scatter present in normal operating conditions
  • Value at 4.0mol% remains above midpoint of WI spec range
  • Impact of 2.9mol% to 4.0mol% = c0.5MJ/SCM decrease

48.0 48.5 49.0 49.5 50.0 50.5 51.0 51.5 52.0 52.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Wobbe (MJ/SCM) CO2 (mol%)

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Title of Slide

Action 0601 - Soot Index (SI)

  • Daily averages from 1/1/13 – 7/7/14
  • Scatter present in normal operating conditions, only an upper

constraint, so scatter below trend line is acceptable

  • Value at 4.0mol% falls well within specification
  • Impact of 2.9mol% to 4.0mol% = c0.01 decrease

0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 SI CO2 (mol%)

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Title of Slide

Action 0601 - Incomplete Combustion Factor (ICF)

  • Daily averages from 1/1/13 – 7/7/14
  • Scatter present in normal operating conditions, only an upper

constraint, so scatter below trend line is acceptable

  • Value at 4.0mol% falls well within specification
  • 1.0
  • 0.8
  • 0.6
  • 0.4
  • 0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 ICF CO2 (mol%)

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Title of Slide

User concerns response

  • BP CATS response to the following Users concerns

– Tata Steel – GrowHow – SSE

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Title of Slide

Action 0601c - Tata Steel

  • Tata Steel:

– GCV, WI, SI & ICF will all remain within current specification limits during periods when CO2 peaks at 4.0mol%. Estimates of new averages shown below: – GCV & WI have increased significantly in the last year (see below) – this would still be a net increase with the effect of increased CO2

Specification Parameter

  • Spec. Range

Data Extrapolation HYSYS Modelling GCV (MJ/SCM) 36.9 – 42.3 40.5 – 40.7 40.7 WI (MJ/SCM) 48.14 – 51.41 49.8 – 50.2 49.4 ICF <0.48

  • 0.25 – -0.3
  • 0.57

SI <0.60 0.54 0.58 40.0 40.5 41.0 41.5 42.0 42.5 43.0 43.5 49.5 49.7 49.9 50.1 50.3 50.5 50.7 50.9 51.1 51.3 51.5 01/01/2013 11/04/2013 20/07/2013 28/10/2013 05/02/2014 16/05/2014 GCV (MJ/SCM) WI (MJ/SCM) WI GCV

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Title of Slide

GrowHow

  • GrowHow:

– EU ETS costs – please provide details of the impact and we can work together to gain a better understanding of the impact (Action 0602) – Extra CO2 treatment loading – only required for short periods in summer months – GCV is expected to be within specifications, therefore systems should be designed to cope with this

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Title of Slide

Action 0602 - SSE

  • OEM inerts limit:

– Total inerts level remains approximately constant with increasing CO2 as less N2 is required – CATS historically used 7.0mol% as total inert limit – There is no limit in the NEA – NEA currently includes an obligation to accept short–term breaches of CO2 up to 4.0mol% – BP operating experience is that gas turbines can cope with 10 – 15vol% inerts and that new machines may be tailored to the expected gas specification

  • Unpredictable re-tuning:

– High CO2 will predominantly occur during summer months – Gas field maintenance can generally be predicted, so warning can be given – Variation will occur within current specifications and be similar to what has been experienced in the past

– EU ETS costs – please provide details of the impact and we can work

together to gain a better understanding of the impact

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Title of Slide

Action 0604: How does Mod 0498/0502 fit with the proposed BS EN 16726?

  • BP has given due consideration to the EU Gas Quality Standard/ BS EN 16726

developments, given their relevance with Mod 0498/0502.

  • While the impact is uncertain, as provisions could be amended and the binding status is

undecided (see next slide), BP has worked assuming the latest draft Standard becomes mandatory.

  • On the basis of current wording, Mod 0498/0502 does fulfil all conditions CEN developed
  • Context:

– CEN has drafted a Standard under EU Commission mandate and recommended (developing on previous EASEE-gas work on gas quality) that gas with CO2 levels below 2.5% cannot be refused entry to the system on grounds of CO2 content. – Co2 level can be increased to 4% subject to certain conditions being met

  • Condition 1: Gas does not flow to other member states:
  • Condition 2: Network is a dry network
  • Condition 3: The Network is not connected to installations that are sensitive to 4% CO2

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Title of Slide

Action 0604 - continued

  • Condition 1: Gas does not flow to other member states: Modelling provided by NGG during previous

Workgroup meetings showed that even under the worst theoretical scenarios, no scenario of gas flow/ composition could achieve a 4mol% Co2 gas flown to other member states, as: – Teesside gas does not flow to Ireland under any reasonable circumstances. – In the low demand scenario, Teesside natural gas could be in proximity of Bacton. However, in a peak flow scenario high CO2 fields represent only a small flow proportion blended out with low Co2 gas, as well as by Easington, Theddlethorpe, Barrow (and Isle of Grain) gas. Under a scenario with 4mol% gas flown at Teesside, no peak flow is possibly envisageable.

  • Condition 2: Gas flows into a dry network: NTS is a dry network
  • Condition 3: the network is not connected to installations that are sensitive to 4% CO2

– Affected network users are being extensively consulted in order to share concerns, which are under

  • discussion. In addition, extensive investigation is being conducted to assess risks. Hence by definition,

approving the 0498/0502 would reasonably imply that sensitivity is non existent or negligible. – As the concept of “sensitive” is not defined in the Draft Standard, BP expects that DECC and Ofgem will make sure its impact is compatible with the national interest and the specific circumstances of GB market and UKCS.

  • Notwithstanding the above, EU gas quality Standard is still a draft:

– DG Energy could turn the standard binding by amending EU NC on interoperability – EU Standard could apply only at IPs, at least on interim basis – Significant unresolved incompatibilities suggest that further debate looks likely

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Title of Slide

Action 0606 - Alternative options

  • If Mod 498 is not approved, there are three potential outcomes:
  • new gas fields will build offshore facilities to remove CO2
  • CATS will build onshore removal facilities to remove CO2 at Shippers expense
  • material costs of CO2 removal may result in certain gas fields not being

developed which could adversely impact CATS remaining life

  • CATS is currently exploring these options with a potential new gas field
  • BG operated Jackdaw field

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Title of Slide

Action 0606 - Alternative options - example

Jackdaw field

  • Jackdaw Field was discovered in 2005
  • Contains gas/condensate at very high pressure and temperature

– c. 1200bar and 200oC – categorised as “ultra” HPHT

  • Technically complex project
  • Plan to send gas to Teesside via CATS pipeline
  • Significant resource but economically challenging due to high costs
  • High costs exacerbated by presence of H2S and 4% CO2

17

Source: BG All figures BG estimates 4Q’13

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Title of Slide

Action 0606 - Alternative options – example

Jackdaw processing costs

  • In Q4 2013 Jackdaw evaluated processing options for 300mmcfd of gas

– Offshore removal of H2S and CO2 – Onshore removal of H2S and CO2 – Onshore removal of H2S with relaxed NTS entry spec for CO2

  • Cost of offshore facilities to remove H2S and CO2 is significant: £126million
  • But cost of onshore removal of H2S and CO2 is greater still: £200million

– Amine sweetening, glycol dehydration, new flare system, electricity substations – Contaminants now introduced to much larger volume of gas to be treated – Challenges of project being undertaken at operating facility

  • Relaxation of NTS entry spec for CO2 reduces cost of onshore processing

significantly to £58million

18

Source: BG All figures BG estimates 4Q’13

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Title of Slide

Summary

  • Expect minimal impact on CO2 levels during 2014-2018
  • Modelling suggests CO2 levels will increase 2019+ but other

prospective gas fields will lessen the impact

  • Historic analysis shows that higher CO2 levels will have minimal

impact on the energy content of the gas

  • CO2 removal for one field estimated at offshore - £126m, onshore -

£200m, + ongoing opex

  • risk of non-development due to challenging economics
  • Request to users to share details on :
  • potential EU ETS cost impact
  • OEMs in operation that stipulate a maximum level of 4% inerts

19