Publication - Progress report

Draft Sectoral Marine Plans for Offshore Renewable Energy in Scottish Waters: Socio - Economic Assesment

Published: 25 Jul 2013
Part of:
Marine and fisheries
ISBN:
9781782567509

The study reported here provides a high level socio-economic appraisal of the potential costs and benefits to activities that may arise as a result of offshore wind, wave or tidal development within the Draft Plan Options as part of possible future Scotti

383 page PDF

4.7 MB

383 page PDF

4.7 MB

Contents
Draft Sectoral Marine Plans for Offshore Renewable Energy in Scottish Waters: Socio - Economic Assesment
C3. Carbon Capture and Storage

383 page PDF

4.7 MB

C3. Carbon Capture and Storage

C3.1 Scoping Results

The results of the scoping assessment are presented in Table C3.1 (Offshore Wind), Table C3.2 (Wave) and Table C3.3 (Tidal) and indicate whether more detailed assessment is required (Y/N).

Table C3.1 Offshore Wind

North North-East South-West West North-West
OWN1 OWN2 OWNE1 OWNE2 OWSW1 OWSW2 OWW1 OWW2 OWW3 OWNW1
Draft Plan Option areas overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas N Y* - for central and high scenarios only Y* - for central and high scenarios only Y* - for central and high scenarios only N N N N N N
Cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas Y Y N N N

* Draft Plan Option areas lie inshore of possible CCS areas and thus could require extended pipeline routeing. However, arrays for low scenario occupy <5% of Draft Plan Option areas and it has been assumed that spatial planning of the Draft Plan Option areas can be used to avoid significant impacts under this scenario.

Table C3.2 Wave

North West North-West
WN1 WN2 WN3 WW1 WW2 WW3 WNW1 WW4
Draft Plan Option areas overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas N* N* N N N N N N
Cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas Y N N


* Draft Plan Option areas lie inshore of possible CCS areas and thus could require extended pipeline routeing. However, arrays for all scenarios occupy <1% of Draft Plan Option areas and it has been assumed that spatial planning of the Draft Plan Option areas can be used to avoid significant impacts under all scenarios.

Table C3.3 Tidal

North South-West West
TN1 TN2 TN3 TN4 TN5 TN6 TN7 TSW1 TW1 TW2
Draft Plan Option areas overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas Y* - for high scenario only N N Y* - for high scenario only N N N N N N
Cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas Y N N

* Draft Plan Option areas lie inshore of possible CCS areas and thus could require extended pipeline routeing. However, arrays for low and central scenarios occupy <5% of Draft Plan Option areas and it has been assumed that spatial planning of the Draft Plan Option areas can be used to avoid significant impacts under these scenarios.

C3.2 Assessment Results - Estimation of Costs and Benefits

C3.2.1 Competition for Space

The UK Government has called for proposals for a variety of new projects to support the building of the UK's first carbon capture and storage ( CCS) plants as part of its CCS Commercialisation Competition. On 30 October 2012, the Government announced that four projects had been shortlisted to be taken forward into a new intensive phase of negotiations before decisions on which projects to support further are taken in 2013 ( CCSA, 2012). The UK Government currently intends for the chosen projects to start demonstrating the CO 2 capture, transport and storage by 2016-2020 ( DECC, 2013). Two of the currently shortlisted projects are located on the east coast of Scotland and include:

  • Captain Clean Energy Project - Grangemouth, Scotland; and
  • Scottish and Southern Energy ( SSE) Generation Limited - Peterhead, Scotland.

The CCS proposal at Grangemouth is led by Summit Power and involves CO2DeepStore, a Petrofac subsidiary, and National Grid. The scheme, named the Captain Clean Energy Project, would see a full-chain commercial-scale CCS plant developed at Grangemouth with the plant using CCS technology in a bid to reduce emissions by more than 90%. The project proposes to capture CO 2 emissions at the plant, transporting the CO 2 via a new 18km pipeline under the Grangemouth Harbour which will then link up to an existing onshore pipeline transporting the CO 2 to St Fergus in Aberdeenshire ( CCSA, 2012). From there CO 2 will be transferred offshore, as far as possible re-using existing pipeline infrastructure, and stored beneath the North Sea in a vast saline aquifer called The Captain Sandstone. In addition, the developer has raised the prospect of using captured CO 2 to pump out more oil from the North Sea in a process known as enhanced oil recovery ( EOR) ( WWF-Scotland, 2012; CO 2DeepStore, 2012).

At Peterhead, Shell and SSE plan to retrofit part of the existing gas power station to capture CO 2 emissions after combustion. The CO 2 will then be transported to the St. Fergus gas terminal in Aberdeenshire where it will be further treated for dispatch and transported offshore to the Shell-operated Goldeneye gas field in the North Sea, which will have ceased production ( SCCS, 2012). Given the location and quantity of emissions anticipated from the Peterhead CCS demonstration project, the requirement for new transport infrastructure is limited to an onshore CO 2 pipeline running from Peterhead Gas Station to the St Fergus gas terminal, a distance of approximately 16km (Scottish Enterprise, 2011).

The developers of the Peterhead and Grangemouth projects envisage that in the short term (up to 2020) compressed CO 2 in dense phase will be dispatched offshore from St Fergus via existing pipeline routes for injection and storage at the Goldeneye field and the Aspen formation within the Captain sandstone, respectively (Scottish Enterprise, 2011). Due to the fact that these oil and gas pipelines already exist, any impacts and associated costs of spatial overlap with the proposed Draft Plan Option areas, in particular the wind array areas OWNE1 and OWNE2 and their proposed cable routes (see Figure C3), will be borne by the wind array developer.

In addition, the proposed pipeline under the Grangemouth Harbour, linking the CO2 captured at the power plant with existing onshore pipelines, does not overlap with any of the proposed Draft Plan Option areas and thus there will be no additional costs to the CCS developers.

The Office of Carbon Capture and Storage ( OCCS) were unable to comment on the methodology at the time of consultation due to their focus on the on-going Commercialisation Competition. Following consultation with the Carbon Capture and Storage Association ( CCSA) they were able to confirm that in the main (excluding the pipeline under Grangemouth Harbour), existing pipelines will be used in the early stages of CCS (assuming these projects are the Grangemouth and Peterhead projects currently in the CCS Commercialisation Programme). CCSA also confirmed that once the next decision has been made regarding which of the four shortlisted projects under the CCS Commercialisation Programme will receive funding it will be easier to estimate the likelihood of these projects going ahead.

Therefore, in the short term (up to 2020), there is considered to be no economic impact on CCS development.

Presuming the successful completion of the demonstration projects at Peterhead and Grangemouth, CCS will move into the deployment phase by 2030. Where practical, CCS deployment into the North Sea will utilise existing oil and gas pipelines. As mentioned previously, as these oil and gas pipelines already exist, any impacts and associated costs of spatial overlap with the proposed Draft Plan Option areas, in particular the wind array areas OWNE1 and OWNE2 and their proposed cable routes (see Figure C3), will be borne by the wind array developer.

In the long term, post 2020, the Scottish Government envisage that clusters of source emitters, such as along the Firth of Forth, will be linked to collection hubs to reduce costs and risks to CCS infrastructure. A pipeline network would be used to transport CO 2 to offshore storage hubs for local distribution to diverse storage sites. The preferred route, identified by SCCS and the Scottish Government, is through an onshore pipeline from the Firth of Forth to St Fergus, then onwards to an offshore storage hub. However, they also note that there may be issues associated with a change of use for transporting CO 2 in existing onshore pipelines and that an offshore pipeline route from the Firth of Forth should also be considered ( SCCS and Scottish Government, 2011). Transport of additional CO 2 from North East England would also be best served by a pipeline direct to an offshore storage hub ( SCCS and Scottish Government, 2009; Scottish Enterprise, 2011).

At this early stage in CCS development these potential pipeline routes are still indicative and no defined pipeline routes have been suggested. The Scottish Enterprise's CO 2 Transport Options for Scotland Report (2011) under its 2030 scenario suggested indicative pipeline routes linking the Firth of Forth to Peterhead and Tees Valley to the offshore Goldeneye hub. A number of potential shipping routes were also identified within the Scottish Enterprise report, however, for the purposes of this assessment it has been assumed that pipelines are the preferred transportation method.

This assessment has assumed that the preferred pipeline routes would take the shortest route possible and thus neither of these identified pipelines intersect with any of the Draft Plan Option areas ( Figure C3). Therefore, there are assumed to be no costs associated with pipeline deviation.

However, were pipeline deviation needed CCSA commented that in the extreme, re-routing a pipeline may be too costly or technically unfeasible for a project, making the project financially unviable. There are also non-cost impacts of re-routing a pipeline which must be considered, such as re-routing through a difficult offshore area ( e.g. trenches) which would have been avoided in the original design.

The potential pipeline linking the Firth of Forth with Peterhead is likely, however, to pass inshore of the OWNE1 Draft Plan Option area and thus there are associated costs with cable crossings. Table C3.4 shows how these costs were calculated.

Table C3.4 Costs of Cable Crossings Associated with OWNE1

Scenario Notional iNstalled Capacity ( MW) Export Cable Capacity (kV) Number of Cables Needed Cost Per caBle Crossing (£M) Total Cost of Cable Crossings (£M)
High 1943 132 000 15 1 15
Medium 900 7 7
Low 372 3 3

The cost of potential cable crossings was estimated to be £15million (high scenario), £7million (medium scenario) and £3milliom (low scenario).

These costs are considered to be one off costs which will be incurred during construction. Costs have been estimated at 2012 rates, although the year of construction has been estimated as 2028.

C3.2.2 Data Limitations

Future scenarios for CCS development have been based on DECC investment plans as well as Scottish Government reviews of CCS opportunities in Scotland. These are not established developments and the schemes proposed in this chapter have yet to be approved. This means that assumptions about future costs are based on projections that might arise from future plans rather than on existing approved actions.

C3.2.3 Summary

There are no socio-economic impacts on CCS from the proposed wave and tidal Draft Plan Option areas. However, there are potential costs associated with a possible future CCS pipeline route, linking the Firth of Forth to Peterhead, crossing the cable corridor from the OWNE1 wind array. Under the low, medium and high scenarios the total cost of cable crossings is estimated to be £3m, £7m and £15m respectively. This will be a one off cost during construction, estimated to be incurred in 2028.

C3,3 References

Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., Moffat, C.F., (Editors), 2011. Scotland's Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh.

Brown A., 2009. 2008 Survey of the UK Seafood Processing Industry. Published by Seafish. 104 pages.

Carbon Capture and Storage Association ( CCSA), 2012. CCS project proposals. http://www.ccsassociation.org/why-ccs/ccs-projects/current-projects/

CO2DeepStore, 2012. Captain Clean Energy Project. http://co2deepstore.com/co2-storage-for-caledonia-clean-energy-project

DECC, 2013. CCS commercialisation programme. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/ccs/ukccscomm_prog/commercialise/commercialise.aspx

ODIS, 2011. Offshore Development Information Statement: Appendices. Published by National Grid in September 2011.

Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage ( SCCS), 2009. Opportunities for CO2 storage around Scotland: An integrated strategic research study. Report for the Scottish Government. April, 2009.

Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage ( SCCS), 2011. Progressing Scotland's CO2 storage opportunities. Report for the Scottish Government. March, 2011.

SCCS, 2012. http://www.sccs.org.uk/map.html

SCCS and Scottish Government, 2009. Opportunities for CO2 Storage around Scotland - an integrated strategic research study. April 2009.

SCCS and Scottish Government, 2011. Progressing Scotland's CO2 storage opportunities. March 2011.

Scottish Enterprise, 2011. Carbon Capture and Storage CO2 Transport Options for Scotland. http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/~/media/SE/Resources/Documents/ABC/CO2-Transport-Options-for-Scotland.ashx

Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise, 2010. Carbon Capture and Storage - A Roadmap for Scotland. March 2010.

WWF-Scotland, 2012. Peterhead and Grangemouth make short list for UK's CCS competition. http://scotland.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/?6284/Peterhead-and-Grangemouth-make-short-list-for-UKs-CCS-competition


Contact