- Get Involved
- Understanding CCS
- About the Institute
Schedule related constraints, due to EEPR funding, were already introduced. Other sets of constraints are related to cost, health, safety & environment (‘HSE’) and technology aspects. Each of these sets is described below. It will become clear that most schedule and cost related criteria are related to the funding the project applied for, whereas technology and HSE related criteria are more related to the current state of capture technology.
- Capture plant contract to be signed in 2010 – In the EEPR proposal ROAD committed itself to awarding the engineering, procurement and construction (‘EPC’) for the capture plant in 2010, because stimulating economic recovery was one of the main goals of the EEPR and making early commitments to major contracts was an important selection criterion for the EEPR program.
- Funding available for a maximum of five years – Ideally all project expenditures are to be made within five years, as EEPR funding only covers expenditures made within the first five years of the agreement. As the ROAD project funding commenced on 1 January 2010, costs made until 31 December 2014 are eligible.
- CCS chain to be operational by 2015 – The CCS chain should be operational before the end of 2015 to be eligible for EEPR funding.
- Best value for money - As a funding requirement, ROAD should be able to demonstrate that the selected capture plant supplier will provide ‘best value for money’. This means that clear evidence should exist that the selected supplier offers at least the required quality at the lowest cost available in the market.
- Having an acceptable business case – Investment and operational costs should not be unacceptably high to the partners in Maasvlakte CCS Project C.V. Funding will cover only part of the project cost, all extra costs will be borne by the project initiators.
3.1.3 Health, safety & environment
- Emissions, effluents and waste streams – The supplier should have proven insight in the (levels of) emissions and effluents of substances which might pose a threat to public safety or to the environment. The supplier should furthermore have a convincing approach to guarantee that these emissions and effluents stay within acceptable levels. The supplier should also have good insight in waste streams and an approach that will reduce waste streams to the lowest possible quantities.
- Permitting process requirements – To obtain a permit for the capture plant, not only should the emissions be known and be within acceptable levels, the supplier should also be prepared to share proprietary information with the competent authorities to enable them to verify the supplier’s claims and make a sound permitting decision.
- Comfort on technical performance and operability – As this is a demonstration project, it inherently involves technical risks. However, sufficient comfort on eventual performance of the capture plant (e.g. through guarantees, prior experience, etc.) is a prerequisite for taking the final decision to invest in the project.
- Foreseen inability of suppliers to directly deliver an EPC proposal – Based upon signals from the supplier market, it was foreseen that directly going to the market with a request for binding EPC offers based upon prescribed specifications would not be successful, as it would require the suppliers to conduct expensive prior studies at their own cost. Given the risk of not being selected, suppliers might not want to make those investments and either would not participate in the process or simply offer an EPC contract which would be unacceptably expensive.
- Technological potential – A modest energy penalty is required to keep operating costs low (see 3.1.2). Significant supplier research and development activities provide a chance to reduce the penalty even further later in the process (e.g. through improved solvents).