WP3 Combination 28603 TVU BOC HPU CCS Study Report Rev O2 PDF

28603 8111 RP 001
BOC HPU CCS PAGE 2 OF 49

STUDY REPORT REV O2
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Capture Options ............................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Technical Highlights – Post Combustion Capture ............................................................. 4
1.4 Plot Considerations........................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Total Installed Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................. 6
1.6 Estimate of Operating Costs ............................................................................................. 7
1.7 Projected Overall Project Schedule .................................................................................. 7
1.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 8
2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Carbon Capture Options ................................................................................................. 10
3. POST COMBUSTION CAPTURE PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT ...................................... 12
3.1 Hydrogen Plant Operating Mode ..................................................................................... 12
3.2 Carbon Capture Plant Process Description ..................................................................... 12
3.3 Technical Performance ................................................................................................... 17
3.4 Plot Plan & Plant Layout ................................................................................................. 18
3.5 Total Installed Cost (TIC) ................................................................................................ 20
3.6 Estimate of Operating Costs ........................................................................................... 24
3.7 Projected Execution Strategy .......................................................................................... 27
4. ASSESSMENT OF CAPTURE AND TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS............................................ 30
5. STUDY CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 36
5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 36
5.2 Recommendations for Further Consideration.................................................................. 37
5.3 Heat Integration .............................................................................................................. 37
6. STUDY DESIGN BASIS ........................................................................................................ 38
6.1 Basic Design Data (existing HPU) .................................................................................. 38
6.2 Design Basis New CO2 Capture Plant ............................................................................ 39
ATTACHMENTS
1. Process Flow Diagrams & Material Balances
2. Equipment List
3. Utilities Summary
4. Plot Plan
5. Preliminary Single Line Diagram
6. Cost Estimate
7. Project Schedule
DISCLAIMER
The information contained herein is provided by Foster Wheeler Energy Limited (FWEL) to Stockton Borough Council on behalf of Tees
Valley Unlimited (TVU), solely to assist TVU in its study into the potential application of CCS in Teesside UK.
FWEL has not made any independent verification of data and information contained herein that has been supplied by TVU or other third
parties. This report is intended for the sole use of TVU and FWEL makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, and assumes
no obligation or liability, whatsoever, to any third party with respect to the veracity, adequacy, completeness, accuracy or use of any
information contained herein.
The information provided is not, and should not be construed as, a recommendation by FWEL that any recipient provide finance to any
particular technology provider or project. Each recipient of this document should make its own independent evaluation of any such
technology provider or project and of the relevance and accuracy of the information contained herein, and should make such other
investigations as it deems necessary to determine whether to extend credit to that technology provider or project.
Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Scope
In 2013 Tees Valley Unlimited (TVU) secured a City Deal to progress the development
of an industrial carbon capture and storage (ICCS) scheme. This has initiated the
development of a carbon capture scheme involving four of the more significant CO2
emitters in the Teesside area; Sahaviriha Steel Industries (SSI), Growhow, BOC and
Lotte. TVU have engaged Pale Blue Dot to co ordinate the overall ICCS scheme.
As the technology licensor for the BOC Hydrogen Plant, Foster Wheeler were engaged
to provide a feasibility level design for a CO2 Capture Plant which would recover CO2
and deliver it to the plant battery limit where it would be collected by others for
sequestration.
This study includes an assessment of the technical performance, cost and economic
performance of post combustion capture from the reformer flue gas stream using an
aqueous Mono ethanolamine (MEA) solvent.
BOC Hydrogen Plant, North Tees
The study also includes a high level assessment of the potential carbon capture
technology options available for implementation at the BOC Hydrogen Plant, together
with recommendations for next steps.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
1.2 Capture Options

There are three main options for carbon capture from the BOC Hydrogen plant;
1. Post combustion carbon capture from the Reformer flue gas;

Expected to achieve an overall capture rate of 90% using an MEA unit.
2. Carbon capture from the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit tail gas;
Expected to achieve an overall capture rate of 49% using MEA unit based on
90% CO2 capture. This option reduces the amount of CO2 produced overall for
the same hydrogen production.
3. Carbon capture from the synthesis gas feed to the PSA unit;
Expected to achieve an overall capture rate of 49 54%. This is the essentially
the same as above as only reforming product CO2 is captures. Just removed
upstream of the PSA unit rather than downstream. This would use technologies
that are more suited to higher operating pressure. This option also reduces the
amount of CO2 produced overall for the same hydrogen production.
1.3 Technical Highlights – Post1Combustion Capture

A simple block diagram of the post combustion process scheme is shown below. The
flue gas from the Reformer Induced Draft Fan is diverted from the flue stack direct to
the new CO2 Capture Plant. Although export steam is shown on the diagram, the
operating conditions of the Hydrogen Plant have been adjusted to target zero steam
export. All of the steam generated in the Hydrogen Plant is consumed within the CO2
Capture Plant. Recovered Heat in the CO2 Capture Plant is used to preheat the vent
gas (non CO2 part) and this is returned to the existing Reformer flue stack where it is
vented at high level.
New CO2
Capture Plant CCP
Utilities
Vent Gas
Compression
CO2 CO2
& Export
Flue Capture Dehydration
Gas
Existing Steam
Hydrogen Export
Plant
Natural Hydrogen
Gas SMR Shift PSA Export
Feed
Tail Gas
HMU
Utilities
Block Flow Diagram of Hydrogen Plant with Post1Combustion CO2 Capture Plant

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
In the Hydrogen Plant, CO2 is produced in two places. Firstly, as a by product of the
steam reforming reactions this CO2 forms part of the Tail Gas stream; secondly, in the
combustion side of the steam reformer furnace, where the Tail Gas, along with
supplementary fuel is burnt. The Flue Gas from the Reformer contains both the
reaction CO2 and the combustion CO2.
The plant performance for the base case post combustion capture at 100% load is
summarised below:
HPU
Natural Gas feed (incl. fuel) t/h 14.81
Hydrogen export t/h 3.72
Note 1
HP Steam (co produced) t/h 52.0
Flue gas production t/h 149.6
CO2 Capture Plant
Flue gas feed t/h 149.6
Vent Gas to Atmosphere t/h 103.4
CO2 capture efficiency % 90
Net CO2 captured t/h 35.5
Overall Availability % 98
Annual CO2 captured kte/year 304.5
Utilities
Import Power MW 5.9
Note 1
HP Steam feed t/h 55.0
(condensate all returned)
Cooling Water circulation t/h 4217.0
(internal)
Import Water t/h 118.1
Waste Water t/h 35.7
Carbon Balance
Total carbon in Natural Gas t/h 10.8
Total carbon in CO2 export t/h 9.7
Carbon in CO2 emitted t/h 1.1
Notes: 1. Difference is steam production / consumption to be

resolved by design development and integration.
Our preliminary design is based on a standard CO2 capture efficiency of 90% which
gives hourly CO2 capture rate of 35.5 te/h. However, the overall annual capture rate
depends on overall plant availability i.e. the proportion of time that the CO2 Capture
Plant is on line whilst the HPU is running. A preliminary availability of 98% has been
assumed which gives an annual CO2 capture rate of 304,460 te/year.
Note that power generated offsite and imported into the facility will create its own
carbon footprint. The impact of that carbon footprint has not been considered in this
study, but may have an effect on the emissions mitigation credits that the scheme can
receive.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Two other options have been considered at a high level owing to the time constraints
on this initial study. These options are;
Option 1 CO2 recovery from the Tail Gas stream (shown above).This a low pressure
reject stream from the Pressure Swing Absorber (PSA) Unit. This stream is
rich in CO2; it only contains the CO2 produced in the Reforming process
and does not capture the combustion CO2.
Option 2 CO2 recovery from the feed stream to the PSA Unit. This stream similarly
contains only the process CO2 and does not capture the combustion CO2.
The difference is that this is a high pressure stream and the CO2 partial
pressure is considerably higher.
1.4 Plot Considerations

The total plot area needed for the CO2 Capture Plant is larger than the area initially
suggested by BOC and a number of auxiliary items have been located on an area of
ground alongside the existing but now redundant Cumene Plant control room.
Parts of the plot identified for the CO2 Capture Plant are not currently owned by BOC.
Land acquisition has not been addressed in this study, and costs associated with
acquiring and initial preparation of land have been excluded from our estimate.
1.5 Total Installed Cost (TIC)

The estimated total installed cost of the base case post combustion CO2 Capture Plant
is £ 43.5 million.
This can be broken down by process area as follows;
Description Material & Construction Cost, Total Project Cost,

GBP GBP
Unit 200 21,923,700 27,577,560
Unit 300 7,413,200 7,812,940
Unit 400 2,846,700 3,444,800
Unit 500 3,728,000 4,673,000
Total 35,911,600 43,508,300
For the Hydrogen Plant itself (Unit 100) no significant modifications are required. The
cost of the tie ins to the Reformer flue gas is included in Unit 500.
A more detailed breakdown of the estimate and the basis of the estimate is provided in
Attachment 6.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
1.6 Estimate of Operating Costs

The operating costs of the CO2 Capture Plant (fixed & variable) are summarised below;
Fixed Costs £3.95 m/year

(Direct Labour, Admin/General Overhead
Maintenance & Insurance)
Variable Costs £4.43 m/year

(Import Power, Fresh Water, Waste Water)
At over £3.7m/year, the cost of importing power is by far the largest element,
accounting for 85% of the total variable operating costs.
1.7 Projected Overall Project Schedule

Our projected overall schedule for this CO2 Capture Plant, and the necessary
modifications to the Hydrogen Plant is based on implementing the carbon capture
project through the following project phases;
Site specific Pre FEED / Study 5 months

Licensor and FEED contractor 4 months ITB issue to award
selection
Licensor PDP 5 months Licensor kick off to final PDP
FEED 9 months Award to issue of FEED package,
EPC ITB package, and TIC cost
estimate
EPC Contractor selection 7 months Issue of ITB to award of lump sum
EPC contract
EPC 31 months From award to mechanical
completion
Detailed design 18 months
Procurement 18 months longest equipment manufacturing
lead time
Construction 21 months commence civil construction to MC
Turnover 5 months First to last system process & utility
hand over
Pre Commissioning 5 months 2 months lag from MC to RFSU
OVERALL SPAN 58 months
MC – Mechanical Completion
RFSU – Ready for Start up
Key elements of the projected schedule are the delivery times for the major plant items.
The delivery time for the CO2 Compressor is likely to be 15 – 18 months.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
1.8 Conclusions
Base Case Post Combustion CO2 Capture
The base case, post combustion CO2 capture is the conventional approach and
provides the highest CO2 capture efficiency. Based on 90% capture, and an overall
availability of 98%, 304 ktpa of CO2 is captured and exported to the collection network.
The base case scheme has been shown to be feasible with an estimated total installed
cost of £43.5 million, an operating cost of £7.2 million per year, and a total project
schedule of 58 months.
The next step would be to carry out a full pre FEED and licensor selection as outlined
in our suggested execution strategy described in section 3.7.
CO2 Capture Options 1 & 2
Options 1 & 2 capture only the CO2 produced by the reforming process as a result of
the chemical reactions. The CO2 captured is 19,380 kg/hr, giving an overall capture
efficiency of 49%.
In option 1 the CO2 Capture Plant would use a post combustion capture solvent (such
as MEA) as in the base case and would be around half of the base case capacity, pro
rated directly from the amount of CO2 removed.
The TIC for the CO2 Capture Plant in option 1 has been crudely estimated at £28
million. Some economy of scale is lost but if there is limited capital available, this option
may be attractive.
In option 2, as the feed gas is at high pressure it is likely that a physical absorption
process would be more appropriate to take advantage of the very much higher CO2
partial pressure. The CO2 removal technology would therefore not be that typically
employed in post combustion capture, but more aligned to process gas sweetening. By
removing the CO2 from the feed stream to the PSA unit, the PSA unit would be
significantly de bottlenecked which would provide opportunity to de bottleneck the
HPU.
This study has not looked at the potential costs of these technologies; however it is
clear that if they can deliver the same amount of CO2 capture for lower cost than option
1, then these would be preferred.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Base Case Post Combustion CO2 Capture
Future work should look at:
• Reducing the TIC of CO2 Compression & Drying Unit by optimising the CO2
export pressure to the network.
• Controllability and potential for combination of the HPU ID Fan and CCP Flue
Gas Blower
• Optimisation of heat recovery between combustion air preheater and gas gas
exchanger, which could reduce DCC capex and cooling load
• Resolution of minor steam imbalance through targeted production of steam at

LP level.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
2. INTRODUCTION
In 2013 Tees Valley Unlimited (TVU) secured a City Deal to progress the development
of an industrial carbon capture and storage (ICCS) scheme. This has initiated the
development of a carbon capture scheme involving four of the more significant CO2
emitters in the Teesside area; Sahaviriha Steel Industries (SSI), Growhow, BOC and
Lotte. TVU have engaged Pale Blue Dot to co ordinate the overall ICCS scheme.
Foster Wheeler is the technology licensor for the BOC Hydrogen plant which is based
on the patented Terrace Wall® steam methane reformer design. The BOC plant which
commenced operation in 2001 was designed and constructed by Foster Wheeler.
Foster Wheeler also has considerable experience in the design of carbon capture
plants for both power and industrial applications.
Foster Wheeler were engaged to provide a pre feasibility level design and assessment
of the technical performance, cost and economic performance of post combustion
capture from the reformer flue gas stream using an aqueous Mono ethanolamine
(MEA) solvent.
This study also includes a high level assessment of the potential carbon capture
technology options available for implementation at the BOC Hydrogen Plant, together
with recommendations for next steps.
2.1 Carbon Capture Options

There are three main options for carbon capture from the BOC Hydrogen plant;
1. Post combustion carbon capture from the main reformer flue gas;
2. Carbon capture from the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit tail gas;
3. Carbon capture from the synthesis gas upstream of the PSA unit.
In this study, option 1 has been assumed as the base case for design assessment,
using MEA as a solvent, which is an established technology often referenced as a
capture benchmark, and allows for a largely independent capture scheme with a high
overall capture rate.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
2.1.1 Post Combustion Carbon Capture
On overall block diagram is shown below;
New CO2
Capture Plant CCP
Utilities
Vent Gas
Compression
CO2 CO2
& Export
Flue Capture Dehydration
Gas
Existing Steam
Hydrogen Export
Plant
Natural Hydrogen
Gas SMR Shift PSA Export
Feed
Tail Gas
HMU
Utilities
Figure 211 –Block Flow Diagram of Hydrogen Plant with Post1Combustion Capture
The Hydrogen Production Unit (HPU) actually produces CO2 by two separate
mechanisms, by the reforming process itself and by combustion of the fuel gas and
process waste gas streams. CO2 is produced in the reforming process as a product of
the steam methane reforming reaction and the CO Shift reaction
Steam methane reforming CH4 + 2H2O = 4H2 + CO2
CO Shift CO + H2O = H2 + CO2
The CO2 produced in the Reforming process is around 21.5 te/h and accounts for
54.7% of the total CO2 produced by the HPU. The product stream from the Reformer /
HT Shift Reactor is cooled and fed to the Pressure Swing Absorber (PSA) unit where
impurities such as CO2, CO and CH4 are removed to produce high purity hydrogen
product. These impurities, together with some of the hydrogen, are rejected in a low
pressure waste stream known as the PSA tail gas. This PSA tail gas is returned to the
reformer fuel gas system where it contributes more than half of the fuel energy demand
of the Reformer.
The steam methane reforming reaction is highly endothermic and a substantial amount
of heat is required to support the reactions in the radiant section of the Reformer. This
heat is supplied by burning the tail gas along with natural gas as supplementary fuel.
The combustion of the tail gas and the supplementary fuel produces a further 17.8 te/h
CO2, bringing the total CO2 produced to 39.3 te/h.
The energy within the hot flue gas leaving the radiant section is recovered in the
convection section of the reformer by feed preheat and by raising superheated high
pressure steam. Some of this steam is used within the HPU as the reaction steam to
support the reactions described above. The surplus steam is known as the co
produced steam and is exported. In the base case the co produced steam is 52.0 te/h.
The BOC HPU however, incorporates additional burners at the outlet of the radiant
section to allow additional HP steam to be produced, and with 100% auxiliary fuel firing

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
the steam export can be increased to 96 te/h. This allows for additional HP steam to be
exported to external customers.
For the purpose of this study, additional export steam will not be produced and
auxiliary fuel firing will be zero. All of the co produced steam will be fed to the Carbon
Capture Plant (CCP) to provide process heating for reboilers etc.
The HPU is tied into the CCP by diverting the flue gas from the delivery side of the
Induced Draft Blower B 101 to the CCP rather than being sent to flue stack.
At this point the flue gas is at near atmospheric pressure and the CO2 concentration is
17.4 mol% (wet basis). Capturing CO2 at this point will allow for capture of both the
carbon from the reforming process and from the combustion of the tail gas and fuel
gas. Typically 90% of this total CO2 (35.4 te/h) would be captured.
This option is the most straight forward of the options, and achieves the highest rate of
overall capture. As such, this is the option that has been studied in detail in this report.
3. POST1COMBUSTION CAPTURE PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT
3.1 Hydrogen Plant Operating Mode

A marked up PFD showing the main tie ins to the Reformer flue stack for the base case
is included in Attachment 1.
An important operating mode of the Reformer is the ability to operate in natural draft
mode during certain trip scenarios, such as failure of the ID Fan. In such circumstances
the Reformer trips to what is known as “minimum fire” mode. The firing rate is reduced,
the stack damper is opened and Reformer operates in natural draft mode. This
operating mode must be retained as it forms part of the Reformer protection system
and contributes significantly to the Hydrogen Plant reliability.
3.2 Carbon Capture Plant Process Description

The Carbon Capture Plant is made up of the following:
• CO2 Capture Unit – CO2 removal scheme developed using in house information
on the basis of a 30% MEA based process;
• CO2 Compression and Drying Unit – dehydration and multi stage compression
to export conditions of 100 barg and 35°C;
• Associated utility systems – new substation, cooling towers and cooling water
systems, waste water buffer tank, etc.
The carbon capture scheme is configured with a single train of MEA absorption, steam
stripping and CO2 compression and drying. None of these units is approaching the
maximum capacity of train size.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Attachment 1 includes Process Flow Diagrams and a material balance for the CO2
Capture Unit and the CO2 Compression and Dehydration Unit.
Attachment 2 includes a list of the new equipment required, the sizes of which have
been developed to reflect the expected flows and process conditions.
Attachment 3 includes a summary of the utilities required by each of the new units for
the capture facility.
CO2 Capture
A blower boosts the flue gas pressure sufficiently to overcome the pressure drop in the
direct contact cooler (DCC), gas/gas exchanger and absorption column. In the DCC
much of the water present in the flue gas stream condenses as the gas is cooled to
50°C. The condensate is then recirculated through a cooler and returned to the
contact tower. A small quantity of sodium hydroxide may be added to the recirculating
water in order to ensure that any remaining SO2 in the flue gas is removed to meet the
<10 ppm specification to prevent excessive solvent losses. Precipitates and excess
water are removed from the system to waste water treatment.
In the lower portion of the absorption column the flue gas is contacted with semi lean
and then lean amine which absorbs approximately 90% of the CO2 content of the flue
gas. This section also incorporates an extraction and cooling loop in order to ensure
the cooler conditions which are more favourable to CO2 absorption. In the top of the
absorption column the flue gas is washed with water to prevent solvent losses to the
atmosphere. The flue gas is routed back to the gas / gas exchanger, to cool the
incoming flue gas and ensure the absorber vent gas temperature is sufficient for
dispersion (assumed as 125°C), then is released to atmosphere via the stack.
The CO2 rich solvent stream exits the bottom of the absorber column and is pumped to
approximately 5 bara. The stream is then split, with approximately 25% of the flow
passing through 2 stages of heating against warmer solvent streams before being
flashed at a pressure of 1.3 bara. The semi lean solvent from the flash drum is then
cooled against rich solvent and returned to the absorption column with the cooled
extracted solvent. The remaining rich solvent is heated against lean solvent in the
cross over exchanger and introduced to the regenerator column.
In the regenerator column the CO2 desorbs from the rich solvent as it is heated
producing a stream of hot lean solvent from the bottom of the regenerator. This lean
solvent is cooled against rich solvent and returned to the absorption column. The
regenerator overheads are cooled to 30°C, condensing a significant quantity of water,
some of which is returned to the regenerator as reflux with the rest being sent to
treatment or recovery.
CO2 Compression and Drying
The acid gas resulting from the semi lean amine flash is compressed in the first of 7
compression stages, after which it is cooled and passed through a knock out drum.
After the first compression stage the main CO2 stream from the regenerator column is
added to the flashed acid gas stream for all the subsequent compression steps.
Between each of the next 4 steps is a cooler and knock out drum, and the CO2 is
compressed up to a pressure of 26 bara.
The CO2 is then dried by molecular sieve adsorption to reach the specification of <50
ppmv moisture. Two dehydration vessels are required since one bed will be in use
whilst the second bed will be in regeneration. The regeneration cycle uses a slipstream
28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
of dried gas exiting the operating molecular sieve bed. The gas is heated using the
returning regeneration gas exiting the molecular sieve bed in regeneration. It is further
heated under temperature control in an electric heater before entering the bed in a
counter flow direction. The wet gas leaving the bed is cooled against incoming gas, any
condensed water is separated in a knock out drum before it is passed through a fines
filter and returned upstream of the 3rd stage compressor. The absorbent regeneration
process takes several hours. When complete the heater is bypassed and the bed is
cooled down over several hours before return to operation.
The final 2 compression stages include intercoolers and an after cooler and result in a
final CO2 product at specification of 100 barg and 35°C.
CO2 Export Oxygen Specification
The product CO2 stream has an oxygen concentration of 9.8 ppm, which meets the
proposed pipeline specification. At <10 ppm O2, the CO2 is acceptable for storage in a
saline aquifer such as National Grid’s 5/42 or other new build underground CO2
storage facility.
However, if an existing oil/gas field is proposed for CO2 storage, such as Shell’s
Goldeneye facility, a much tighter oxygen specification as low as 1 ppm may be
required to reduce well piping corrosion. Reducing the allowable O2 in the CO2
specification will require an additional process, which will add to the cost and
complexity of the overall scheme. A cryogenic CO2 purification unit or a catalytic
purification process would be required in order to produce a CO2 product gas with an
O2 content of below 10ppmv. The O2 polishing process will add to the parasitic load,
require additional plot space and increase the cost of capture per tonne of CO2.
Assuming that the product CO2 from the plant boundary will be sent into the Tees
Valley ICCS network before being transported offshore for storage, it is expected that it
would be more efficient and cost effective to have a centralised O2 polishing system,
for example at a booster station, before being sent to the offshore pipeline.
Utility Systems
The key utility requirements for this scheme include:
Electrical Supply
The estimated power consumption of the new plant is approximately 5.8 MW.
This is over five times the total power consumption of the existing HPU and this
additional power will need to be met by a new 11kV power supply from a third
party. This could be either SABIC Aromatics 2 (11kV substation) or alternatively
from the new Air Products Tees Valley Energy from Waste Plant.
It will require a new package substation to include (1 off) 11kV 1200 amp
switchboard, (2 off) 11/0.433 kV, 1 MVA transformers and (1 off) 415V
switchboard. The package substation would be delivered pre wired. A
preliminary Single Line Diagram is included in Attachment 5 to show the degree
of modifications required to the electrical infrastructure.
The largest single contributor to the power demand is the CO2 Compressor, due
in part to the specified export pressure of 100 barg. Export pressures from
individual producers are a key area for optimisation from an ICCS scheme.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
It is also worth considering that the additional power generated offsite and
imported into the facility will create its own carbon footprint. The impact of that
carbon footprint has not been considered in this study, but may have an effect
on the emissions mitigation credits that the scheme can receive.
Steam
For the base case design, BOC’s preference is that export HP steam from the
HPU should be kept to a minimum. Actually, after completing the preliminary
design of the CO2 Capture Plant the co produced steam from the HPU (52te/h)
falls slightly short of that required by the regenerator in the CO2 Capture Unit
(55te/h).
The net effect is that there would be no HP steam export and the overall steam
balance is slightly in deficit. Unfortunately utilising auxiliary fuel firing to increase
the export steam to the CCP would also increase the amount of flue gas
produced and the CO2 produced.
This issue will be resolved by development of a more detailed and rigorously

integrated design based on proprietary data from the selected licensor for the
CO2 capture unit.
Since all of the co produced steam is utilised by the CO2 Capture Plant, the
condensate treatment system in the HPU will need to be uprated to be able to
treat the steam condensate returned by the CO2 Capture Plant. However, since
all of this condensate is returned, and no steam is exported, the make up
demand will also be much reduced. The net effect on the BFW treatment
system has not been considered in detail at this stage.
Cooling Water
A very large flow of cooling water is required to supply the Carbon Capture
plant. Where this cannot be supplied using heat integration within or between
the process units, cooling water is required.
The estimated cooling water demand of the new plant is approximately 48.9
MW, which corresponds to 4,127 te/h of cooling water. This is almost 10 times
the capacity of the existing cooling tower package at the existing HPU. This
cooling water is supplied as fresh cooling water from a new twin cell
evaporative cooling tower, cooling water pumps and a side stream filter
package.
The new cooling tower is expected to require a blowdown of 16 te/h, and a

make up of 112 te/h of fresh water to account for drift and evaporative losses.
MEA Storage
Facilities are also required for storage and make up of the MEA based solvent
to the Carbon Capture Unit. Reuse and treatment of the numerous, mainly
small, water streams produced from the cooling of water saturated gas streams
are integrated with the units where possible.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Waste Water Tank
Cooling tower blowdown, process condensates and purge streams containing

contaminants such as MEA are routed to third party waste water treatment via a
buffer tank to allow for monitoring.
Make1up Water
Additional make up water is required to compensate for blowdown and drift

losses from the new Cooling Water system. This is estimated at around 118 te/h
and would require a 6”NB supply. As the existing Gately water supply is only
2”NB, a new feed line will be required from the Gately water supply header. For
the purpose of the estimate a 250m supply line has been allowed.
3.2.1 General Considerations
For a given flue gas composition and operating parameters, as the plant capacity is
increased, the consumption of utilities and chemicals increases approximately linearly
with the mass of CO2 captured.
Generally speaking there are specific economies of scale to be gained from deploying
larger scale plant, such as capital cost savings and plot area reduction. Typically
capital cost is a function of the total CO2 captured, and indeed other studies have
shown that the cost per tonne of capturing CO2 decreases with increasing CO2 capture
rate, but this is far from being the only factor which affects the CAPEX.
The total capital cost of the post combustion CO2 Capture Plant also varies with the
concentration of CO2 in the flue gas feed. A low concentration of CO2 in the flue gas
results in the need for a larger quench, blower and absorber, all of which are significant
items in the capital cost.
CO2 Compression
Also, while economies of scale can be realised by using a single machine to compress
all of the CO2 from the capture unit, in some circumstances opting for 2 x 50%
machines arrangement might be preferable, such as where high turndown is a frequent
occurrence. Inter stage cooling on the CO2 compressor should take place at as low a
temperature as possible to minimise power consumption and to minimise the cost of
the machine.
Flue Gas Duct Pressure
Pressure control in the flue gas duct needs careful consideration to ensure no fresh air
is drawn into the flue gas duct via the existing stack. Also, pressure control of the
Reformer fire box is particularly important. High high pressure in the fire box initiates a
whole plant emergency shutdown (typically a SIL2 trip).
Tie in to the Hydrogen Plant, the flue gas duct in particular, needs to be aligned with
major plant turnarounds to reduce any impact on existing operations and supply
contracts.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Water Treatment
It has been assumed that waste water from the CO2 Capture Plant can be routed to the
Bran Sands ETP along with the waste water stream from the Hydrogen Plant and an
allowance for this has been included in our economic assessment.
Relief & Blowdown
The Hydrogen Plant does not require and does not have a flare system. All vent points
and relief valves discharge to a dedicated high level vent pipe which runs alongside the
high level flue stack. The CO2 Capture Plant similarly does not require access to a flare
system. Relief valves on the HP steam let down system would discharge to
atmosphere at a safe location. The CO2 Capture Plant operates at very low pressure
and the pressures systems can be designed to avoid non routine discharges to
atmosphere.
3.3 Technical Performance

The plant performance for this case was assessed at 100% load, as summarised in the
table below:
Table 311 Performance Figures for BOC HPU with 90% CO2 Capture
HPU
Natural Gas feed (incl. fuel) t/h 14.81
Hydrogen export t/h 3.72
Note 1
HP Steam (co produced) t/h 52.0
Flue gas production t/h 149.6
CO2 Capture Plant
Flue gas feed t/h 149.6
Vent Gas to Atmosphere t/h 103.4
CO2 capture efficiency % 90
Net CO2 captured t/h 35.5
Overall Availability % 98
Annual CO2 captured kte/year 304.5
Utilities
Import Power MW 5.9
Note 1
HP Steam feed t/h 55.0
(condensate all returned)
Cooling Water circulation t/h 4217.0
(internal)
Import Water t/h 118.1
Waste Water t/h 35.7
Carbon Balance
Total carbon in Natural Gas t/h 10.8
Total carbon in CO2 export t/h 9.7
Net CO2 emitted t/h 1.1
Notes: 1. Difference is steam production / consumption to be

resolved by design development and integration.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Our preliminary design is based on a standard CO2 capture efficiency of 90% which
gives hourly CO2 capture rate of 35.5 te/h. However, the overall annual capture rate
depends on overall plant availability i.e. the proportion of time that the CO2 Capture
Plant is on line whilst the HPU is running. A preliminary availability of 98% has been
assumed which gives an annual CO2 capture rate of 304,460 te/year.
Note that power generated offsite and imported into the facility will create its own
carbon footprint. The impact of that carbon footprint has not been considered in this
study, but may have an effect on the emissions mitigation credits that the scheme can
receive.
3.4 Plot Plan & Plant Layout

3.4.1 Plot Plan
Attachment 4 includes a preliminary plot plan showing the extent and arrangement of
the new facilities for the CO2 Capture Plant, and the modifications to the Hydrogen
Plant and associated services and utilities.
The original plot identified by BOC as the location of the CO2 Capture Plant was the
open area of ground enclosed by the existing access road. Unfortunately this area
been found to be too small to accommodate everything required. Although the main
CO2 Capture Plant can be accommodated here, additional land is required.
A number of auxiliary items such as the new Cooling Tower Package, the MEA Storage
Tank, Waste Water Buffer Tank and a new substation have needed to be located on
separate areas to the west of the HPU, adjacent to the redundant Cumene plant
control room. As a consequence a pipe bridge across the existing service road is also
required.
One of the main considerations in developing the plot plan is the flammability or toxicity
of the process fluids contained with the process. In the CO2 Capture plant the only
hydrocarbon that is present in significant quantities is the MEA. Pure MEA has a
flashpoint of 96°C. The highest risk is in the Regenerator Reboiler where the
temperature is 115°C. But even here the MEA is a 30 wt% solution in water and is
therefore not considered flammable. To provide inherent safety the MEA Regenerator
Column and Reboilers are located furthest away from the existing control room and
transformers.
Pure MEA has a freezing point of +10°C and will therefore most likely be delivered as
Low Freezing Grade (LFG) which is an 85 wt% MEA solution in water having a freezing
point of 13°C. Stored at ambient temperature, MEA would not be considered to be
flammable and electrical equipment would be classified accordingly.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
3.4.2 Plant Layout Considerations
The CO2 Capture Plant itself consists of the CO2 Capture Unit, Compression and
Dehydration plant. Within the CO2 Capture Plant the main layout considerations are as
follows:
Flue Gas Blower
The break in to the large duct on the discharge side of the existing Induced Draft Fan
(B 101) will require structural steel and the Flue Gas Blower (BL 201) has therefore
been located as close as possible to this break in.
Actually, there are two possible positions for flue gas blower; before or after the Direct
Contactor Cooler (C 201). In our proposed scheme the Flue Gas Blower (BL 201) is
upstream of C 201 and would be essentially a carbon steel machine, sized to
accommodate the high volume of the high temperature flue gas from the HPU. The
control of BL 201 and the existing Induced Draft Fan (B 101) would require careful
consideration. At present BL 201 is specified as a fixed speed machine but it may be
necessary to use a variable speed drive to provide adequate control. This requires
further review. As the absorbed power of BL 201 is around 1.1MW a variable speed
drive on BL 201 would require significant changes and would add significant cost to the
new electrical supply infrastructure.
Alternatively, the Flue Gas Blower could be installed downstream of the DCC. At this
location although the actual volume flow would be reduced but as the suction side
would be at water dewpoint the materials of construction would need to be significantly
upgraded which would increase cost. The same considerations with regard to control
would still apply. Further review is required to determine the optimum blower
arrangement.
Direct Contact Cooler and CO2 Absorber
The Direct Contactor Cooler (C 201) and the Absorber (C 202) have been positioned in
close proximity to reduce duct length and the requirement for structural steel between
these columns. This configuration minimises initial capital cost in this area associated
with stainless steel ducting and structural work.
Regenerator Column
The Regenerator Reboilers E 209A&B are conventionally located alongside the

Regenerator Column (C203). The reboilers are supplied with steam direct from the
HPU. The co produced superheated HP steam is supplied to the Carbon Capture Plant
from the main pipe rack and is let down to LP level within the CCP.
CO2 Compressor & Regenerator
The inlet suction volume flow and power requirement of the CO2 compressor is
particularly sensitive to the inlet pressure of the first and second stage. K 201 has been
located close to the Regenerator Column to minimise power consumption.
CO2 Dehydration Unit
Owing to the interconnecting streams between these units the CO2 Dehydration
Package is located close to CO2 compressor in order to minimise pressure drop and
hence the overall compression power.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
3.5 Total Installed Cost (TIC)

3.5.1 Estimating Methodology
A capital cost estimate has been developed at a pre feasibility level of accuracy
(typically +/ 30% on total installed cost). Equipment costs have been estimated based
on sized equipment lists, using Foster Wheeler’s in house indexed version of
AspenTech Capital Cost Estimator (ACCE) software, which is benchmarked against
the latest market information available.
Equipment costs have then been developed from the sized Equipment List (Attachment
2) using a combination of factors and in house knowledge gained on similar projects to
provide Total Installed Costs.
The estimates represent the base cost for the engineering, procurement and
construction of the work. The estimates exclude any land acquisition costs, initial site
remediation, demolition or development. It has been assumed that the site is clear and
level and hence all necessary earthworks are excluded from the estimate scope.
Estimate Scope
The estimate has been based on instantaneous cost levels for 4Q2014 and
summarised in GBP. The estimate, together with the exclusions stated, represents
Foster Wheeler’s view of the installed cost of the project based upon the scope of
works outlined within this report.
Work Breakdown Structure
The following Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) has been used:
• Unit 100 – Existing HPU
• Unit 200 CO2 Capture Unit
• Unit 300 – CO2 Compression & Dehydration
• Unit 400 – Cooling Water
• Unit 500 – Other Utilities & Tie ins
Estimate Breakdown Structure
The estimate has been broken down into the following Estimate Breakdown Structure
(EBS):
• Direct Materials
• Material and Labour Contracts
• Labour Only Contracts
• Construction Indirects
• EPC Services

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
The estimate summary shows the entire project cost split by EBS & WBS. No
Contingency or Forward Escalation has been applied within the estimate.
General Methodology
Equipment costs were estimated using the Aspentech Capital Cost Estimator (ACCE)
Version 8.4 estimating software, indexed to reflect Foster Wheeler’s view on current
cost levels.
Bulk material costs and construction costs have been estimated using factors based on
previous CCS studies and recent projects in Teesside. Statistics from similar projects
were used as benchmarks to check and adjust the output from the ACCE models.
Benchmarks have been set for cost and quantities, allowing the factors held within the
ACCE models to be adjusted to suit the most likely expected out turn cost for the
project.
Other utilities & tie ins preliminary quantification of the electrical equipment,
interconnecting pipe lines/tie ins and site infrastructure has been included under this
heading.
Construction
This includes the cost of the related labour associated with equipment placement, and
the installation of bulk materials of piping, electrical and instrumentation. The
construction element of the estimate is assumed to be a traditional “stick built” facility.
It also includes the construction of work elements normally procured on a design and
supply basis such as tankage, civils, steelwork, buildings and protective cover.
The construction and location labour costs were based on all inclusive local
construction rates as follows.
• Labour Rate used: GB £60.0/manhr
The local construction rate includes all direct and indirect costs including profit. These
all inclusive rates were derived from Foster Wheeler current knowledge of the region.
Indirect Costs
EPC Engineering
This cost element includes the various engineering and support activities needed to
design and procure the project that would normally be incurred by the Engineering,
Procurement & Construction (EPC) contractor.
The estimates allow for EPC project management, detailed engineering, procurement,
interfacing with licensors and package vendors, and home office construction
management, and are based on typical factors based on in house experience.
EPC Construction Management
The EPC contractor’s construction management team has been based on a statistical
average for this type of project. Is has been assumed that most of Field Supervision
personnel would be local.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Temporary Facilities
An allowance has been made for EPC Contractor’s Temporary Facilities based on in
house experience.
Other
Factored allowances have also been made for vendors engineers and heavy lifts
based on in house experience.
Licensor Proprietary Costs
Without any enhancements MEA units are considered to be open art and for the
purpose of this study Amec Foster Wheeler have prepared the preliminary design.
However, it is likely that the MEA unit would ultimately be provided by a licensor
specialising in these units. Although such units will have enhanced performance they
will attract a license fee. At this stage all the license fees have been excluded from the
estimate. Licensor selection typically forms part of the pre FEED work.
Accuracy
The anticipated overall accuracy of the estimate is ± 30% accuracy.
Exclusions
• Owner’s Costs
• Land Costs
• Financing
• Pre sanction Costs
• VAT
• Taxes & Duties
• Process Development
• Disinvestment of existing facilities (if applicable)
• Removal or Dealing with Contaminated Soil / Asbestos
• ‘Wayleave’ charges (if applicable)
• Commissioning
• Obstructions and Archaeological Investigations
• Changes to existing waste water system
• Future Escalation
• Contingency
• Licensor Costs
• Insurances
• Infrastructure upgrade outside of the battery limits.
• Statutory authority and utility company costs

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
3.5.2 Capital Cost Estimate
Table 3 4 below summarises the capital costs for the CO2 capture plant, which are
broken down further in Attachment 6.
Table 312: CAPEX Summary for CO2 Capture Plant
Description Material & Construction Cost, Total Project Cost,

GBP GBP
Unit 200 21,923,700 27,577,560
Unit 300 7,413,200 7,812,940
Unit 400 2,846,700 3,444,800
Unit 500 3,728,000 4,673,000
Total 35,911,600 43,508,300
Attachment 5 includes a summary of the capital cost estimate by WBS for the new CO2
Capture Plant.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
3.6 Estimate of Operating Costs

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs are generally allocated as either fixed or
variable costs. This section summarises the basis used and assumptions made in our
estimate of O&M costs.
3.6.1 Fixed costs
The fixed costs mainly include the following:
• Direct labour
• Administrative and general overheads
• Maintenance
Direct Labour
The yearly cost of the direct labour has been estimated based on local knowledge. The
staff required for the CO2 capture, compression and dehydration unit have been
estimated as below.
Table 313: Staff required for CO2 Capture, Compression & Dehydration Unit
Operation Total Notes

Head of CO2 Capture Plant 1 day position
Shift Supervisor, assume existing and to cover HPU 0 3 shifts per day
and CCS
Control Room DCS Operator 4 3 shifts per day
Field Operator 4 3 shifts per day
Subtotal 9
Maintenance
Plant Engineer to coordinate maintenance, 1 day position
inspection, process, env support from the same
BOC technical team that supports HPU O&M
Subtotal 1
Laboratory
Analyst to coordinate analysis requirement 1 day position
integration with the HPU lab services
Total 11
It is assumed that certain support functions could be acquired from BOC’s engineering
team which covers other installations, at Teesport for example.
Administrative and General Overheads
These costs include all other Company services not directly involved in the operation of
the Complex, such as:
• Management
• Personnel services
• Technical services
• Clerical staff
28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
These services vary widely from company to company and are also dependent on the
type and complexity of the operation.
An amount equal to 30% of the direct labour cost has been used to account for
administrative and general overhead costs. This is typical for a new build on a
greenfield site and could possibly be reduced to account for support services already in
place to cover the HPU and other BOC assets in the region.
Maintenance
The annual maintenance cost of the carbon capture plant is typically 3% of the CAPEX,
depending on site specific factors.
3.6.2 Variable costs
The variable costs include the consumption of feedstocks and fuels, catalysts,
chemicals and solvents. These costs are annual, based on the expected equivalent
availability of the plant. The variable costs mainly include the following:
• Flue gas feedstock assumed to be zero cost,

• Fuel
• Electricity,
• Water,
• Waste water disposal
• Solvent, chemicals and adsorbents.
Fuel
The CO2 Capture Plant does not require fuel gas. All the process heating is provided
by the HP steam exported by the Hydrogen Plant.
Steam
In the preliminary design the steam demand of the CO2 Capture is entirely met by the
co produced steam from the Hydrogen Plant. Since there is no requirement to use
auxiliary fuel firing to increase steam production, the HP steam export to the CO2
Capture Plant has been assumed to be zero cost.
Electricity
It is assumed that import power will be supplied to the carbon capture unit from over
the fence. The cost assumed for power supply over the fence in 2014 is £75/MWh.
Make up Water
It is assumed that Gately water, supplied by Northumbrian Water will be supplied to the
CO2 Capture Plant to meet all requirements.
The cost assumed for water supply over the fence in 2014 is taken as £0.2/te.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Waste Water
It is assumed that waste water will be discharged from the CO2 Capture Plant will be
routed along with the waste water from the Hydrogen Plant to Bran Sands.
The cost assumed for waste water discharge in 2014 is taken as £1.5/te.
Solvent, Chemicals and Adsorbents
There will be some operating costs associated with replacement and disposal of
solvent used in the capture plant, chemicals and filter media required for capture plant
and cooling tower operation, and co2 dryer package adsorbent. As these depend on
the selected licensors and equipment suppliers, these have not been quantified at this
stage.
3.6.3 Operating Cost Estimate
Table 3 4 below summarises the operating and maintenance costs for the CO2 capture
plant.
Table 314: OPEX Summary for CO2 Capture Plant
£M/yr
Fixed Costs
Direct Labour 1.03
Administration / General Overheads 0.31
Maintenance 1.56
Insurance 1.05
SUB TOTAL 1 FIXED 3.95
Variable Costs
Steam 0
Electrical Import Power 3.77
Fresh Water 0.2
Waste Water 0.46
Solvents, Chemicals & Adsorbents Excl
SUB TOTAL 1 VARIABLE 4.43
TOTAL OPEX 8.38
The cost of importing power is by far the largest element, accounting for 85% of the
total variable operating costs.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
3.7 Projected Execution Strategy

3.7.1 Project Schedule
A projected level 1 schedule for the Carbon Capture Plant is included in Attachment 7.
This summarises whole project execution from appointment of Pre FEED (Front End
Engineering Design) contractor through to RFSU (Ready for Start Up). The schedule
commences at month 1 with the appointment of Pre FEED contractor.
The schedule only considers the CO2 Capture Plant within the ICCS scheme. The CO2
collection network and booster compression systems are excluded.
Project Phases
The schedule is based on implementing the carbon capture project through the
following project phases;
Table 315: Project Phases
Pre FEED / Study 5 months

Licensor and FEED contractor 4 months ITB issue to award
selection
Licensor PDP 5 months Licensor kick off to final PDP
FEED 9 months Award to issue of FEED package,
EPC ITB package, and TIC cost
estimate
EPC Contractor selection 7 months Issue of ITB to award of lump sum
EPC contract
EPC 31 months From award to mechanical
completion
Detailed design 18 months
Procurement 18 months longest equipment manufacturing
lead time
Construction 21 months commence civil construction to MC
Turnover 5 months First to last system process & utility
hand over
Pre Commissioning 5 months 2 months lag from MC to RFSU
OVERALL SPAN 58 months
Key Activities
• Pre$FEED Phase
We propose a pre FEED during which the basis of design and scope of work
will be fully developed to confirm economic feasibility. During the Pre FEED
period a licensor Request for Quotation (RFQ) will be prepared and a
preliminary licensor short list will be drawn up. The main FEED contractors will
also be pre qualified during this phase. The TIC estimate (±30%) will be
updated as the basis for owner to sanction FEED phase.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
• Appointment of Licensor and FEED Contractor
The schedule assumes that the licensor has not been pre selected, and that the
licensor and FEED contractor are independent of one another. A four month
period is indicated from the issue of licensor enquiry, for licensors to prepare
responses, be evaluated, to then conclude negotiation of the licensor
agreement.
The ITB package for the appointment of a FEED contractor is issued in parallel
with the licensor enquiry. A four month period is assumed from issue of ITB to
award of FEED. This allows approximately 6 to 8 weeks for bid preparation, 4 to
6 weeks evaluation, and 4 weeks for final commercial evaluation and approval.
The schedule reflects a reimbursable FEED contract. The FEED may be let on
a lump sum basis, in which case the bid preparation period would need to be
extended.
• Licensor PDP (Process Design Package), and FEED Package Preparation
Kick off with the licensor is held until the FEED contract is awarded, so that the
FEED contractor can participate in the licensor kick off meeting. Preparation of
the licensor PDP and overall FEED package then progress in parallel with
intermediate release of licensor design deliverables to the FEED contractor. A
five month period is assumed for preparation of the licensor PDP, and a nine
month period is allowed for the FEED. This allows a four month lag to finalise
the engineering package and cost estimate after issue of the final PDP. At the
end of FEED a technical design specification, EPC ITB package and TIC cost
estimate (target accuracy+/ 10%) are issued.
During the FEED phase consideration should be given to the procurement of

the Long Lead Items (LLIs) such as the CO2 Compressor, which may
jeopardise the project schedule. The Contractor should conduct market
surveys in order to determine a list of LLIs and propose possible solutions to the
Client for their acceptance.
• EPC Contract
One month lag is allowed between the issue of the FEED package release of
the EPC ITB package. This period allows for owner’s review of the FEED
package.
It is assumed that the scope is let as a single lump sum EPC package. A seven
month period is allowed for EPC contracting from ITB issue to EPC contract
award. This allows approximately 14 to 16 weeks lump sum bid preparation, 8
weeks bid evaluation, and 6 weeks final negotiation and owner approvals.
The bid preparation time allowed assumes that the EPC contractors are
provided with a comprehensive FEED package providing a sound basis for
developing lump sum pricing.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
• Project Sanction
It is assumed that the project is sanctioned in three phases:
o Initial budget release to conduct pre FEED, engage the licensor and
appoint the FEED contractor;
o Sanctioning to prepare a FEED and progress EPC contract
o Full sanction of the EPC project execution.
Time is allowed within the respective contracting spans for owner approvals of
the award recommendations for the FEED and EPC contracts. It is assumed
that budget is allocated to the project in advance of this, based on the Pre
FEED and FEED TIC cost estimates. Therefore project finance and sanctioning
is in place so as not to impact the overall schedule critical path.
• EPC Contract Execution
An indicative EPC span from contract award to MC (mechanical completion) in

the range of thirty one months is indicated. The EPC execution includes
detailed design, procurement, subcontracting, fabrication, construction, and
systems turnover.
The EPC span is determined by the lead time for the CO2 compressor package,
which is assumed to be purchased by the EPC contractor within one month of
award of the EPC contract. Our current knowledge is that the delivery period for
the CO2 Compressor is in the region of 16 – 20 months.
The EPC contractor will develop the equipment purchase order as part of their
lump sum bid preparation, and will revalidate the purchase order upon award of
the EPC contract. A manufacturing lead time of 18 months is shown, based on
budget enquiry responses from relevant vendors. A six week period is allowed
for shipping equipment to site.
Lead times for other equipment items (e.g. tower, drums, exchangers, tanks,
pumps, dehydration package) are typically in the region of 12 to 14 months and
these are purchased progressively such that equipment arrives on site at the
same time or before the compressors. A construction installation sequence
would be developed to allow equipment installation to progress prior to the
compressor arriving on site.
During the EPC phase the owner project team is assumed to be fully resourced,
empowered, and resident in the EPC contractors’ office during detailed design
to ensure that; engineering deliverables are reviewed expediently as the design
develops.
• Commissioning and Start Up:
An indicative two month span is scheduled between MC and RFSU for finishing
commissioning activities, based on a phased handover of systems.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Schedule Summary and Recommendations
An overall span of 58 months is indicated, from commencing pre FEED to achieving

RFSU. Based on a high level assessment, this overall schedule span is considered to
represent a realistic and achievable schedule, considering logical development of a
specific project through sequential project phases, albeit a preliminary view based on
feasibility study project definition.
4. ASSESSMENT OF CAPTURE AND TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

In the Hydrogen Production Unit (HPU) approximately 55% of the total CO2 produced is
contained in the Reformer syngas (and then in the PSA tail gas), while the remaining
45% is the product of the combustion of the additional natural gas required by the
steam reformer. Eventually, all the CO2 ends up in the flue gas of the reformer heater.
As outlined in Section 2.1, the CO2 could be captured from any of following three
streams:
1. Steam reformer flue gas
2. PSA tail gas
3. PSA feed syngas
Removal efficiency of about 90% can be achieved from reformer flue gas and from
PSA tails gas, and more than 99% can be achieved from raw H2 at higher pressure. It
is also possible, in principle, to combine CO2 removal option 3, with 1 (from flue gas),
and obtain an overall removal efficiency of about 94 and 96% respectively.
There are several and different available technologies for CO2 removal, at different
stage of development and commercialisation.
4.1.1 Carbon Capture from Steam Reformer Flue Gas
The CO2 present in the steam reformer flue gas has a very low partial pressure (about
0.2 bara) and the flue gas actual volumetric flow is approximately 60 times more than
the PSA feed syngas volumetric flow (m3/h). These two factors and the presence in the
flue gas of components like oxygen, sulphur, NOx, makes the CO2 removal from this
stream generally more complicated and expensive. Nevertheless the amount of CO2 in
this steam is highest.
For this study, CO2 capture from reformer flue gas has been considered as the base
case with 90% capture efficiency achieved using an amine solvent.
There are several technology providers using different chemical solvents available
which are suitable for post combustion CO2 capture. Listed below are the main
technologies for post combustion capture:
• Amines (MEA, MDEA, “hindered” amines);
• Chilled ammonia;
• Amino acid;

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Carbon capture from the flue gas has an advantage compared to capturing from the tail
gas or PSA feed gas as no pre investment is needed in case of retrofit of a traditional
plant. However additional ducting and ID fan addition/replacement shall be considered
when the capture unit is added to the HPU.
There are several licensors active in the post combustion carbon capture technologies,
including MHI, Fluor, Shell, Aker and Alstom. The most common post combustion
carbon capture solvents are amines, amino acid salts and ammonia based solvents.
The most common equipment configuration for post combustion carbon capture is CO2
absorption in an absorption column, followed by solvent regeneration in a regeneration
column. The majority of the technologies discussed adopt this configuration; however
solvents and process conditions employed vary between technology suppliers.
Within this section, an overview of a range of post combustion carbon capture

technologies is provided.
4.1.1.1 Amine Based Solvents

Amine based solvents are the most common solvents used in post combustion CO2
capture. Details of the main commercially available proprietary amine technology
providers are given in the following sections.
MHI KS11TM Hindered Amine Process
The MHI flue gas CO2 capture process, “KM CDR Process®” (Kansai Mitsubishi
Carbon Dioxide Recovery Process) has been co developed by MHI and Kansai Electric
Power Company (KEPCO) since 1990. The process utilizes the proprietary KS 1
trademark solvent which is based on advanced hindered amine technologies. MHI’s
carbon capture process consists of three main sections; flue gas cooling, CO2
absorption and solvent regeneration.
MHI’s technology is well established with many commercial plants using this
technology, capturing CO2 from both power generation and other sources. Based on
the numerous commercial plant experiences capturing CO2 from natural gas flue gas
streams, MHI now offers large scale commercial single train CO2 recovery plants. In
addition MHI are currently developing even higher efficiency solvents such as KS 2TM
and KS 3TM which claim to have lower regeneration energies and lower levels of
solvent degradation. MHI are also developing new and improved processes which are
to be applied to future plants.
Fluor Econamine FG Plus Process
Econamine FG Plus is an amine based post combustion CO2 capture technology. The
proprietary solvent is primarily composed of 30 35 wt% MEA solution, with the addition
of an activator and a corrosion inhibitor. The traditional absorber/ stripper configuration
is employed with some key alterations intended to reduce the energy requirement of
the process. For example, Fluor uses a split configuration in which two parallel solvent
regeneration schemes are utilised: flash regeneration and steam stripping.
Fluor has more than 20 years of experience capturing CO2 from flue gas, mainly for
use in the food industry. The Fluor process has been demonstrated on flue gas from a
combined cycle power plant on a large scale since 1991 and on a pilot plant scale on
28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
flue gas from a coal fired power station since 1997. Several new large scale
demonstration plants are currently in the design and construction phase and due for
start up over the next few years.
BASF, Linde & RWE aMDEA
BASF, Linde and RWE have formed an alliance to develop CO2 scrubbing technology
using a proprietary solvent, aMDEA, which claims to use 20% less energy than other
chemical solvents and features better stability in the presence of oxygen.
The aMDEA solvent developed by BASF is employed in the carbon capture technology
developed and optimized by Linde. The use of the jointly developed CO2 scrubbing
technology will allow power plants to capture 90% of CO2 of the flue gas.
Shell Cansolv Process
Cansolv, now owned by Shell Global Solutions, has developed both a CO2 capture unit
and an integrated CO2 capture and SOx removal unit. The benefit of the integrated
plant is a reduction in plot space requirement and a net reduction in energy
requirement as waste heat from the SOx removal section can be utilised in the CO2
capture section.
Cansolv Absorbent DC 101, a patented amine solvent, is employed for the Cansolv
CO2 Capture System which is a traditional CO2 absorption/regeneration process.
The Boundary Dam project, the world's first commercial scale carbon capture and
storage process on a coal fired power plant, uses Shell’s Consolv technology for 90%
CO2 capture. The project began operation in October 2014.
Aker Clean Carbon “Just Catch”
Aker Kvearner and Aker Clean Carbon have been developing carbon capture
technology for more than 15 years. The “Just Catch” scheme aims to test improved
solvents and process innovations, although the exact solvent and process
configuration is not clear.
4.1.1.2 Ammonia Based Solvents

Two developing ammonia based CO2 capture processes are described in this section.
These are provided by Alstom Power and Powerspan.
Alstom Chilled Ammonia Process (CAP)
The Chilled Ammonia Process (CAP) is a proprietary technology developed by Alstom

which uses Ammonia, a globally available low cost commodity chemical, as solvent.
CAP technology is a chemical absorption process. The flue gas is contacted with
chilled ammonia which reacts with the CO2. Raising the temperature reverses the
above reaction releasing CO2 and allowing the solvent to be recycled.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
Alstom carried field validation tests which have successfully demonstrated > 99.9%
pure CO2 product quality at 90% capture rates. The CAP technology is an
environmentally benign process in terms of emissions and generates Ammonium
Sulphate as by product that could be sold as fertilizer. The carbon capture facility built
by Alstom at the Technology Center Mongstad (TCM) is based on Alstom’s Chilled
Ammonia Process (CAP) with a CO2 capture capacity 82,000 metric tons per year.
Powerspan ECO2 Process
Powerspan offer a similar proprietary ammonia based CO2 capture process known as
ECO2. This is of the same configuration as the Alstom chilled ammonia process,
however, it does not include the initial cooling stage.
The ECO2 process is designed to follow flue gas desulphurisation (FGD). Flue gas
from FGD is fed to the ECO2 absorption column at 52°C where around 90% CO2 is
absorbed into the ammonia based solvent. The solvent is stripped of CO2 in the
regenerator. Lean solvent leaving the bottom of the regenerator is returned to the
absorber for re use and concentrated CO2 leaving the top of the regenerator is dried
and compressed for sequestration.
Powerspan tested its ECO2 process at its one megawatt pilot facility near Shadyside,
Ohio from December 2008 through to 2010. The pilot testing demonstrated the
advantages of the ECO2 technology result in lower costs, less waste, and a simpler
system to operate and maintain.
4.1.1.3 Amino Acid Based Solvents

Siemens PostCap Amino Acid Salt Process
The Siemens PostCapTM process employs an amino acid salt solution to capture CO2
from flue gas in an absorption and regeneration configuration.
The benefits of the amino acid salt include its relatively low cost, stability, low
environmental impact, low solvent degradation and low regeneration energy
(approximately 35% lower than MEA). The Siemens PostCapTM process is currently
only suitable for use with flue gas from coal fired power stations; however, Siemens are
currently working with Norwegian utility company Statkraft to develop the solvent for
use in combined cycle gas plants. The Siemens PostCapTM process has been
demonstrated on a pilot plant scale. Siemens executed several engineering studies
and FEED based on the experience from pilot plant operation and its knowledge in
chemical and power plant engineering.
4.1.2 Carbon Capture from PSA Tail Gas
The PSA tail gas is at low pressure (typically 0.35 barg) but has a higher CO2
concentration of 44.9 mol% CO2 (wet basis). The partial pressure of CO2 is about 0.6
bara. With low overall pressure and low CO2 partial pressure, chemical solvent
technology using an amine solvent is typically used as carbon capture process.
The CO2 in this stream is only that produced by the reforming reactions (21.5 te/h).
Therefore for 90% capture (achievable using amine solvent), only 19.4 te/h would be
28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
recovered and the overall capture rate would therefore fall to 49%. However, the
reduction in the amount of CO2 captured and the higher concentration of CO2 in the
feed gas would reduce the size of the CCP equipment and associated utilities,
reducing the overall cost and scale of the system. Overall this may prove a more
attractive economic option.
Removing the bulk of the CO2 from the tail gas also reduces the mass flow of flue gas
in the Reformer radiant and convective sections. This reduces the amount of waste
heat that can be recovered in the convective section. In this option there is similarly no
auxiliary fuel firing and the effect of the reduced heat recovery is that the co produced
steam will fall from 52 te/h to 40te/h. However, the steam required by the MEA unit
could be expected to fall approximately in proportion to the quantity of CO2 captured so
the net effect would be perhaps 10 te/h of HP steam available for export.
Also when a traditional plant is to be retrofitted like this, the steam reformer burners
would have to be checked for the new tail gas composition which, being poorer in CO2,
would have a higher tendency for NOx formation, with the consequence that low NOx
burners and/or space for a future installation of a de NOx catalytic system in the
convection section of the heater, may need to be considered.
4.1.3 Carbon Capture from PSA Feed Syngas
This option is similar to the one above in that it would only capture the CO2 produced
by the reforming reactions. It is in effect the same CO2, just upstream of the PSA rather
than downstream. However, the feed gas to the PSA unit is at high pressure, typically
21.6 barg, and although it contains only 16.6 mol% (wet), the partial pressure of CO2 is
3.75 bara.
There are several technologies available to remove CO2 from syngas at relatively high
total pressure (20 30 barg) and CO2 partial pressure (3 4 bara).
The CO2 in this stream is only that produced by the reforming reactions (21.5 te/h).
Therefore for a range of capture rates between 90 99%, 19.4 21.5 te/h would be
recovered and the overall capture rate would therefore fall to 49 55%.
Main technologies include:
• Amines (MEA, MDEA, aMDEA);
• Hot potassium carbonate;
• Physical solvents (PEGE, Methanol);
• Membranes.
The first three categories use liquid solvents in an absorption/regeneration sequence.

Amines and hot potassium carbonate are chemical solvent processes which rely on
chemical reactions to remove CO2 from gas stream. The regeneration of chemical
solvents is achieved by the application of heat whereas physical solvents can often be
stripped of impurities by reducing the pressure without the application of heat.
Physical solvents tend to be favoured over chemical solvents when the concentration
and partial pressure of acid gases is very high. Unlike chemical solvents, physical
solvents are non corrosive, requiring only carbon steel construction.
28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
In general, the economics of CO2 recovery is strongly influenced by the partial pressure
of CO2 in the feed gas. At low partial pressures, physical solvents are impractical
because the compression of the gas for physical absorption is expensive. However, if
the gas is available at high pressure, physical solvents might be a better choice than
chemical solvents.
Membranes performances are expected to be lower in terms of removal efficiency and

purity.
With this retrofit option, the PSA will have some capacity margin due to the reduced
inlet flow rate after CO2 removal upstream. As discussed in Section 4.1.2, due to
possibility of high NOx concentration in the tail gas after bulk CO2 removal from
syngas, Nox production in the burners would need to be checked.
Reduced mass flow to the Reformer also reduces the amount of waste heat that can
be recovered in the convective section. This will decrease steam production rate.
However, the steam required by the chemical solvent based capture unit could be
expected to be less in proportion to the quantity of CO2 captured. If physical solvent
based capture technology is employed, the amount of exportable HP steam could be
significantly higher.
Licensors active in these technologies include:
• BASF, Linde & RWE: aMDEA chemical solvent technology (See Section
4.1.1.1)
• Giammarco Vetrocoke: Activated Hot Potassium Carbonate solvent used for

chemical absorption process
• Lurgi and Linde : Rectisol physical solvent technology
• UOP: Selexol physical solvent technology

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
5. STUDY CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
5.1.1 Base Case Post Combustion CO2 Capture
The base case, post combustion CO2 capture is the conventional approach and
provides the highest CO2 capture efficiency. Based on 90% capture, 35,450 kg/h of
CO2 is captured and exported to the collection network. However, the overall annual
capture rate depends on overall plant availability i.e. the proportion of time that the CO2
Capture Plant is on line whilst the HPU is running. A preliminary availability of 98% has
been assumed which gives an annual CO2 capture rate of 304,460 te/year.
The base case scheme has been shown to be feasible with an estimated total installed
cost of £43.5 million, an operating cost of £8.38 million per year, and a total project
schedule of 58 months.
The next step would be to carry out a full pre FEED and licensor selection as outlined
in our suggested execution strategy described in section 3.7. This should include
confirming the optimum export CO2 pressure as this has a significant impact on
compression unit cost and import power load / cost.
5.1.2 CO2 Capture Option 1
Options 1 & 2 capture only the CO2 produced by the reforming process as a result of
the chemical reactions. The CO2 captured is 19,380 te/year, giving an overall capture
efficiency of 49%.
In option 1 the CO2 Capture Plant would use a post combustion capture solvent (such
as MEA) as in the base case and would be around half of the base case capacity, pro
rated directly from the amount of CO2 removed.
The TIC for the CO2 Capture Plant in option 1 has been crudely estimated at £28
million. Some economy of scale is lost but if there is limited capital available, this option
may provide an intermediate solution.
5.1.3 CO2 Capture Option 2
As the feed gas is at high pressure it is likely that a physical absorption process would
be more appropriate to take advantage of the very much higher CO2 partial pressure.
The CO2 removal technology would not be that typically employed in post combustion
capture, but more aligned to process gas sweetening.
Option 2 similarly only recovers the CO2 produced by the reforming chemistry,
providing an overall CO2 capture efficiency of 49 55%. This study has not looked at the
potential costs of these technologies, however it is clear that if they can deliver the
same amount of CO2 capture for lower cost than option 1, then these would be
preferred.
By removing the CO2 from the feed stream to the PSA unit, the PSA unit would be
significantly de bottlenecked. This has the added benefit of helping to de bottleneck the
HPU if this is a future objective.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
5.2 Recommendations for Further Consideration

5.2.1 CO2 Export Pressure
The CO2 export pressure from the BOC Hydrogen Plant to the CO2 network has been
set at 100 barg. From the standpoint of the Hydrogen Plant this significantly increases
the total power consumption of the CO2 Capture Plant and substantially increases the
cost of the CO2 Compressor.
Within the Hydrogen Plant CO2 Capture Plant the minimum CO2 pressure is set by the
Dehydration Unit. To achieve the export CO2 specification, the minimum CO2 export
pressure is 27 barg.
The CO2 network and booster station are being developed by others and we appreciate
that there is an economic trade off between the cost of compression at the distributed
CO2 producing sites, the pressure rating of the inter connecting pipeline and the cost
of the booster station.
It is important that the economic optimum export pressure is used to keep the system
cost low, and ensure there is not a barrier to future producers wishing to join the
network.
5.2.2 Flue Gas Blower
There are a number of areas would require further development in the pre FEED
phase. On such area is the control of the existing Reformer ID Fan (B 101) and the
proposed Flue Gas Blower (BL 201). It is possible for example that B 101 could be
totally replaced by BL 201, which would avoid potential controllability issues between
the two machines. The new flue gas duct valves shown on the Reformer PFD mark up
will need to be position proved open, midpoint and closed, and would require a safety
interlock scheme to be developed.
5.3 Heat Integration

Further work needs to be done to ascertain the optimum balance of energy integration
between the gas gas exchanger and the combustion air preheater. If additional heat
can be recovered from the flue gas in this way, this will reduce the size of the direct
contact cooler tower and the DCC cooler, which in turn will reduce the cooling water
system demand.
There is also a minor steam imbalance which needs to be resolved. If production of HP

steam for export is no longer required, there is potential to target steam production at
specifically at the LP user level.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
6. STUDY DESIGN BASIS
6.1 Basic Design Data (existing HPU)

The basic design data used for study has been extracted from the original design data
for the Hydrogen plant (7920 8110 PS0018 Rev A1).
6.1.1 Feedstocks
Natural gas is used as both feedstock and as supplementary fuel. The composition has
not changed significantly from the original design.
Natural Gas
Component mol%
CH4 85.37
C2H6 8.31
C3H8 2.43
iC4 0.22
nC4 0.38
C5+ 0.16
N2 1.07
CO2 2.06
From routine analysis, the level of H2S and mercaptan is actually lower than the
original design case. The levels from the original design have been retained.
H2S 5.3 ppm (wt) max.

Ethyl Mercaptan 0.25 ppm (wt) max.
Total Sulphur (as S) 5.1 ppm (wt) max.
The natural gas is free from traces of chlorides and organometallic compounds and is
free of liquid hydrocarbons and water.
Temperature 10 ºC (assumed)
Pressure: >32.0 barg (at plant B/L)
Molecular Wt 18.94
LHV 39.03 MJ/Nm3
6.1.2 Products
There are no expected changes to the hydrogen product flow rate or purity as a result
of adding the CO2 Capture Plant.
The BOC HPU incorporates auxiliary fuel firing to raise additional HP steam over and
above the co produced export arising from the production of hydrogen. It was agreed
with BOC at the study kick off meeting that auxiliary fuel firing to produce additional
export steam will not be used. The steam export will be entirely used to supply the CO2
Capture Plant with high grade heat for the regenerator reboiler.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
6.1.3 Effluent Flue Gas
The design stack gas temperature at the outlet of the ID Fan B 101 is 135 °C.
The reformer is fitted with low NOx burners and it has been assumed that the
guaranteed NOx emission is not exceeded.
6.1.4 Utilities
There are no expected changes to the utilities at the existing BOC HPU.
6.2 Design Basis New CO2 Capture Plant

6.2.1 Feedstocks
Flue Gas
The new CO2 Capture Plant will take the flue gas from the existing reformer as a
feedstock. The flue gas conditions assumed below are those expected for the
“minimum steam” case, i.e. without any firing of the auxiliary burners.
Component mol%
N2 62.31
CO2 17.43
H2O 18.00
O2 1.52
Ar 0.74
Emissions at max and normal heat release (not turndown):
Expected Guaranteed
NOx mg/Nm3 111 150
CO mg/Nm3 33 205
UHC mg/Nm3 17 21
Temperature: 135ºC (assumed)

Pressure: 0.025 barg (at plant B/L)
Flow: 5131 kmol/hr
149600 kg/hr
The sulphur content in the natural gas feed is very low. Based on the design
H2S/Mercaptan levels the SO2/3 content in the flue gas is 0.19 ppmwt (dry basis).
Should additional firing through the auxiliary burners be required, this will both increase
the flow and change the composition of the flue gas. This case has not been
considered in the design at this stage.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
6.2.2 Products
The addition of the capture plant will have no net effect on hydrogen export capacity of
the HPU.
Carbon Dioxide
The new capture plant will produce CO2 for export at the plant battery limit, in
accordance with the following export specification.
Component Recommended Specification, mol%

CO2 >95 mol%
Hydrogen Sulphide (Safety) <200 ppmv
Carbon Monoxide <2000 ppmv
NOx <100 ppmv
SOx <100 ppmv
Oxygen <10 ppmv
Nitrogen <1 mol %
Hydrogen <1 mol %
Argon <1 mol %
Methane <1 mol %
Non condensable <4 mol %
Water <50 ppmv
Hydrocarbons <2 mol %
Particulates 1 mg/Nm³
Particle size (micron) ≤10 Zm
Mercury Regulation
B/L Export Pressure: 100 barg

B/L Export Temperature: 35°C
6.2.3 Utilities
Power
Power will be provided from an external source to meet the high power demand of the
CO2 Capture Plant.
Steam
For the original “minimum steam” design case, the total (co produced) steam is 52 te/h
(at 265°C / 42.8 barg). This export steam will be used to supply the CO2 Capture Plant.
Steam condensate will be returned to the HPU. The existing condensate treatment
package / polisher may need to be upgraded to cope with the increased condensate
load.
Process Water
The CO2 Capture Plant will use Gately water as make up to its cooling water system
and as make up to the Absorber Pump around.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
The Gately water conditions are as follows:
Pressure: 2 barg (minimum)

Temperature: 10ºC (ambient)
The quality of Gately Water is assumed to be as follows;
Hardness : 60 ppm (as CaCO3)

pH : 7.5 – 8
Dissolved solids : 120 – 150 ppm
Nitrogen and Instrument Nitrogen
Nitrogen and instrument nitrogen for the CO2 Capture Plant will be imported at the
battery limit. It is assumed that sufficient N2 can be made available.
Purity: 99.5% N2 (min)

Pressure: 3.0 barg (min)
Temperature: ambient ºC
Instrument Nitrogen will be provided by BOC.
Instrument Nitrogen pressure 7.0 barg

Instrument Nitrogen dew point 40 ºC
Plant Cooling
An evaporative cooling water system will be included to independently meet the

requirements of the CO2 Capture Plant. The design basis will be the same as the
existing cooling tower package;
Cooling water inlet temperature: 35°C

Cooling water outlet temperature: 25°C
Design wet bulb temperature: 17.5°C
Rated capacity: 120% of normal capacity
Concentration cycles: 3
Type: Induced draft
2 x 50% Cells required (for availability/on line maintenance)
The cooling water pumps have a discharge pressure of 4 barg.
Effluent Water
There is a single connection to the water sewer (closed header) with a pH limit of 6 8
and a temperature limit of 30ºC. The existing cooling water system blowdown and the
steam system blowdown discharge to the sewer. Effluent from the cation polishing unit
regeneration is also routed to the sewer after pH adjustment.
The combined effluents from the CO2 Capture Plant are assumed to be routed offsite
for third party treatment.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
6.2.4 Design Aspects
The following assumptions have been made relating to the CO2 Capture Plant design
aspects:
Ambient Conditions
The ambient conditions are assumed to be:
Annual Average Dry/Wet Bulb Temperature 10 / 8 ºC

Design Dry/Wet Bulb Temperature 23 / 17.5 ºC
Max/Min Temperature 34 / 12 ºC
Barometric Pressure 1.013 bara
Noise
The noise limit for the plant is 85 dBA at 1 metre from the equipment during normal
plant operation.
Vents and Flares
The HPU was designed so as to not require any discharges to flare.
The CCP will be similarly designed.
Effluent Flue Gas
The net effect of capturing the CO2 from the reformer flue gas will be to increase the
concentration of NOx in the residual flue gas, which may be subject to a discharge
limitation.
As there is no increase in the mass emission rate, no additional flue gas treatment has
been considered at this stage to reduce the NOx content of the flue gas emitted to
atmosphere.
Site Conditions
The site conditions are assumed to be the same as those for the existing BOC HPU.

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
ATTACHMENT 1: PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS & MATERIAL BALANCES

29 LP CO2
E?211
Reflux
Condenser
V?201
CW Stripper OH
Separator
P?207
22 Reflux
Pump
E?202 27
Absorber Pumparound
Cooler
Make?up 23
E?204
water Lean Solvent
CW Cooler C?203
28 Regenerator
P?206 C?202
Absorber CW
Absorber
Pumparound Pump
E?203
E?209
Crossover
26 Stripper
Exchanger
19 Reboiler
LP Steam
CW Condensate
E?205 Return
Extraction P?205 31
E?213 20 Extraction Pump LLP CO2
Cooler
gas / gas
exchanger C?201 V?203
P?203
Direct 24 Lean CW Flashed
17 18 Contact P?202 Solvent Pump E?208 Gas KO
Flue Gas 16 Cooler Rich Semi Lean Flash Drum
E?201 V?202
from HPU CW DCC Solvent Pump Cooler
BL?201 P?201 25 Semi
Cooler Lean
Flue Gas DCC Pump To water
Blower E?206 E?207 Solvent 30
Treatment
Flue Gas First Flash Second Flash Flash
15 Preheater Drum
to HPU Preheater
Stack
21
Waste
water
CW E?212
P?204
Waste Water
Semi?Lean
Cooler
Solvent Pump
Flows shown below are for the full facility capacity
Stream 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 O2 26/11/14 Study Report Issue RR TA TA

Pressure (kPa) 102 104 125 115 110 415 475 103 110 110 130 348 453 140 138 110 110 O1 05/11/14 FIRST ISSUE RR TA TA
Temperature (°C) 125 135 159 104 50 30 40 41 10 45 102 30 93 30 30 33 35 REV DATE TITLE BY CHK APP
Mass rate (kg/h) 103373 149592 149592 149592 142329 190800 7262 103373 6120 611608 183483 550041 428126 396000 30783 12386 5189 REVISIONS
Mole % H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mole % CO 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BOC HPU CCS
Mole % CO2 3.80 17.43 17.43 17.43 18.91 0.00 0.00 3.80 0.00 5.76 5.76 5.03 5.76 2.25 96.89 0.06 94.84 CASE:
Mole % Oxygen 2.10 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.64 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO2 Capture 90% CO2 Capture from
Mole % Nitrogen 86.39 62.29 62.29 62.29 67.61 0.00 0.00 86.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.04
Hydrogen Production Plant
Mole % Argon 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
DWG. NO.: REV:
Mole % MEA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.94 10.94 11.19 10.94 11.53 0.00 0.51 0.00
Mole % H2O 7.69 18.00 18.00 18.00 11.01 100.00 100.00 7.69 100.00 83.30 83.30 83.78 83.30 86.22 3.09 99.43 5.12 FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY 28603?8111?20?0001 O2
Molar rate (kmol/hr) 3700 5132 5132 5132 4729 10590 403 3700 340 25248 7574 22783 17674 16805 712 679 122
PK?301
CO2 Drier
Package
38
LP CO2 29
CO2 Drying
33 34 35 36 37
LLP CO2 31 39 40
CW CW CO2 Product
CW CW CW
Export
K?301?1 K?301?2 K?301?3 K?301?4 K?301?5 K?301?6 K?301?7

CO2 Compresor CO2 Compresor CO2 Compresor CO2 Compresor CO2 Compresor CO2 Compresor CO2 Compresor
1st Stage 2nd Stage 3rd Stage 4th Stage 5th Stage 6th Stage 7th Stage
32
CO2 Compression
To Water Treatment
Flows shown below are for the full facility capacity

O2 26/11/14 Study Report Issue RR TA TA
Stream Name 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 O1 05/11/14 FIRST ISSUE RR TA TA
Pressure (kPa) 138 138 270 530 1140 2600 2500 4000 10100 REV DATE TITLE BY CHK APP
Temperature (°C) 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 REVISIONS
Mass rate (kg/h) 512 5166 35780 35628 39494 39451 39400 35460 35460
Mole % H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BOC HPU CCS
Mole % CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CASE:
Mole % CO2 0.28 95.86 97.84 98.85 99.40 99.66 99.98 99.98 99.98
CO2 Compression & Dehydration 90% CO2 Capture from
Mole % Oxygen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hydrogen Production Plant
Mole % Nitrogen 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
DWG. NO.: REV:
Mole % MEA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mole % H2O 99.72 4.10 2.13 1.13 0.58 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY
28603?8111?20?0002 O2
Molar rate (kmol/hr) 28 120 823 815 901 898 895 806 806
Absorber Off Gas
From E-213
Reformer Logic
Reformer Flue Gas

To E-213
28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
ATTACHMENT 2: EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE

PAGE 1 OF 8
FOSTER WHEELER
ENERGY LTD
READING
EQUIPMENT LIST BOC HPU with 90% CCS
REV BY APPROVED DATE
UNIT NAME: MEA Unit / CO2 Compression / Utilities ORIG RR 10/11/2014

01 RR 26/11/2014
UNIT No.: 200 / 300 / 400 02
03
CLIENT: Tees Valley Unlimited
PROJECT: BOC HPU CCS
CONTRACT 28603
DOCUMENT No.: 28603.8111.EL.0001
CASE SUMMARY Hydrogen Plant with 90% Post Combustion CO2 Capture
NOTES
PROJECT No.: 1.17.12716

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR COMPRESSORS Rev. ORIG REV 01 REV 02
FOSTER WHEELER Client: Tees Valley Unlimited Contract No: 28603 Ch'd RR RR SHEET 2 of 8
ENERGY LTD. Description: BOC HPU CCS App. TA TA
Unit No: 200 MEA Unit & 300 CO2 Compression Date 10/11/2014 26/11/14
COMPRESSOR No.off DRIVE ACTUAL Cp/Cv DIFF. PRESSURE TURB.DRIVE COMPRESSIBILITY POWER MATERIAL MOLECULAR
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION TYPE(1)/ x DUTY TYPE CAPACITY INLET/ PRESS. INLET/OUTLET STEAM PRESS. INLET/OUTLET EST/RATED CASING WEIGHT REMARKS
REMARKS REV
NUMBER SUB TYPE % OP./SPARE OUTLET
3
m /hr bar bara bara barg kW
1.345
BL 201 Flue Gas Blower Blower 1 x 100% electric 167,740 / 0.21 1.04 / 1.25 n/a 0.999 / 0.999 1087 304 SS 29.15
1.342
1.287
CO2 Compressor
K 301 1 Centrifugal 1 x 100% electric 2,811 / 0.38 1.10 / 1.48 n/a 0.994 / 0.994 32 304 SS 42.67
Stage 1
1.278
1.286
CO2 Compressor
Stage 2
1.272
1.292
CO2 Compressor
Stage 3
1.279
1.307
CO2 Compressor
K 301 4 Centrifugal 1 x 100% electric 3,831 / 6.2 5.3 / 11.5 n/a 0.973 / 0.970 582 CS 43.71
Stage 4
1.297
1.348
CO2 Compressor
K 301 5 Centrifugal 1 x 100% electric 1,904 / 15 11.4 / 26.1 n/a 0.942 / 0.936 670 CS 43.86
Stage 5
1.348
1.473
CO2 Compressor
K 301 6 Centrifugal 1 x 100% electric 717 / 15 25.0 / 40.1 n/a 0.868 / 0.865 302 CS 44.01
Stage 6
1.484
1.711
CO2 Compressor
K 301 7 Centrifugal 1 x 100% electric 401 / 61 40.0 / 101.1 n/a 0.778 / 0.802 572 CS 44.01
Stage 7
1.695
Notes: 1. AC Air Compressor GC Gas Compressor FN Fan

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR VESSELS Rev. ORIG REV 01 REV 02
VESSEL No.off DIMENSIONS TOTAL V/H DESIGN CONDITIONS INTERNALS MATERIALS OF CONST'N
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION TYPE(1)/ x DUTY ID HEIGHT VOLUME (2) TEMP PRESS VACUUM TYPE/No.OFF SHELL INTERNALS REMARKS REV
NUMBER SUB TYPE % T/T FVPRESS PACKED VOL. m3 / MAT./LINING/ MAT./LINING/
3 O
m m m C barg bara PACKED HGT mm CA CA
Random Packing
CS with 3mm min CS with 3mm min
C 201 Direct contact cooler TW 1 x 100% 4.72 9.45 193.2 V 129 3.5 1.013 88 Packing: 5m Mellapak 250X
304L cladding 304L cladding
5000
Random Packing
CS with 3mm min CS with 3mm min Packing: 8m Mellapak 250X /
C 202 Absorption Column TW 1 x 100% 5.03 17.86 388.1 V 75 3.5 1.013 160 / 40
304L cladding 304L cladding 2m Mellapak 250Y
8000 / 2000
CS with 3mm min CS with 3mm min

C 203 Stripper Column TW 1 x 100% 3.51 14.57 151.9 V 143 3.5 1.013 Trays / 20
304L cladding 304L cladding
Wire Mesh Pad

Stripper OH CS with 3mm min CS with 3mm min
V 201 VT 1 x 100% 1.62 3.24 7.8 V 55 3.5 1.013 0.21
Separator 304L cladding 304L cladding
100
Wire Mesh Pad
Semi.Lean Solvent CS with 3mm min CS with 3mm min
V 202 VT 1 x 100% 1.22 2.45 3.4 V 127 3.5 1.013 0.12
Flash Drum 304L cladding 304L cladding
100
Wire Mesh Pad
Flashed Gas KO CS with 3mm min CS with 3mm min
V 203 VT 1 x 100% 0.72 2.16 1.0 V 60 3.5 1.013 0.04
Drum 304L cladding 304L cladding
100
Wire Mesh Pad
CO2 Compressor CS with 3mm min CS with 3mm min
V 301 VT 1 x 100% 0.68 2.04 0.8 V 60 3.5 1.013 0.04
Stage 1 KO Pot 304L cladding 304L cladding
100
Wire Mesh Pad
V 302 VT 1 x 100% 1.50 3.00 6.2 V 60 3.5 1.013 0.18
100
Wire Mesh Pad
V 303 VT 1 x 100% 1.30 2.60 4.0 V 60 4.7 1.013 0.13
100
Wire Mesh Pad
V 304 VT 1 x 100% 1.10 2.20 2.4 V 60 11.4 1.013 0.10
100
Notes: 1. TW Single Diameter Tower DDT Double Diameter Tower HT Horizontal Tank AT Agitated Tank VT Vertical Tank
2. V Vertical H Horizontal
EQUIPMENT LIST FOR VESSELS Rev. ORIG REV 01 REV 02
VESSEL No.off DIMENSIONS TOTAL V/H DESIGN CONDITIONS INTERNALS MATERIALS OF CONST'N
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION TYPE(1)/ x DUTY ID HEIGHT VOLUME (2) TEMP PRESS VACUUM TYPE/No.OFF SHELL INTERNALS REMARKS REV
NUMBER SUB TYPE % T/T FVPRESS PACKED VOL. m3 / MAT./LINING/ MAT./LINING/
3 O
m m m C barg bara PACKED HGT mm CA CA
Wire Mesh Pad
V 305 VT 1 x 100% 0.90 1.80 1.3 V 60 27.5 1.013 0.06
100
Molecular Sieve
Dehydration Bed #1
V 306 A/B VT 2 x 50% / By Drier Package Vendor
&2
/
Conical Roof Epoxy internal

T 201 MEA Solvent Tank 1 x 100% 11.00 7.30 694 70 0.05 .0.005 CS shell
Tank lining
Conical Roof Epoxy internal

T 202 Waste Water Tank 1 x 100% 2.70 1.90 11 65 0.05 .0.005 CS shell
Tank lining
Notes: 1. TW Single Diameter Tower DDT Double Diameter Tower HT Horizontal Tank AT Agitated Tank VT Vertical Tank
2. V Vertical H Horizontal
EQUIPMENT LIST FOR HEAT EXCHANGERS Rev. ORIG REV 01 REV 02
EXCHANGER No.off No.OF TEMA HEAT DESIGN CONDITIONS MATERIAL No.OF FAN TOTAL
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION TYPE(1)/ x DUTY SHELLS TYPE(ST)/ T'FER COLDSIDE(4) HOTSIDE PLATE/ TUBE(ST/AC) BAYS/FANS TYPES FAN REMARKS REV
NUMBER SUB TYPE % (ST) HEADER RATE(3) DUTY AREA(6) TEMP/PRESS TEMP/PRESS SHELL HEAD(AC) (AC) (5) POWER
CONST(AC)
(2) kg/hr MW m2 o
C / barg
o
C /barg kW
CS with 3mm
E.201 DCC Cooler HE 1 x 100% 2 n/a 605336 7.2 700 60 / 4.7 86.6 / 3.5 min 304L 316L n/a n/a
(tubeside) cladding
Absorber Pump
E.202 HE 1 x 100% 1 n/a 9066 0.2 14 49 / 4.7 68.1 / 3.5 CS CS n/a n/a
Around Cooler
(tubeside)
E.203 Crossover Exchanger HE 1 x 100% 1 n/a 428111 20.8 9427 118 / 5.3 121.6 / 6.5 316L 316L n/a n/a Plate & Frame
E.204 Lean Solvent Cooler HE 1 x 100% 1 n/a 567047 6.8 5492 60 / 4.7 71.9 / 5.5 316L 316L n/a n/a Plate & Frame
E.205 Extraction Cooler HE 1 x 100% 1 n/a 1171546 14.0 8144 60 / 4.7 80.8 / 4.2 316L 316L n/a n/a Plate & Frame
28603.
E.206 First Flash Preheater HE 8111.EL. 4 n/a 183476 7.0 2238 108 / 4.2 127.1 / 5.3 316L 316L n/a n/a
0001 (tubeside)
Second Flash
E.207 HE 1 x 100% 4 n/a 183476 9.5 1666 127 / 3.5 143.2 / 5.2 316L 316L n/a n/a
Preheater
(tubeside)
Semi Lean Flash

E.208 HE 1 x 100% 4 n/a 370829 4.4 182 60 / 4.7 127.0 / 3.5 316L 316L n/a n/a
Cooler
(tubeside)
E.209 A/B Stripper Reboiler RB 2 x 50% 2 n/a 225277 17.9 433 143 / 3.5 238.7 / 4.7 316L 316L n/a n/a
(tubeside)
CS with 3mm
E.210 Solvent Reclaimer RB 1 x 100% 1 n/a 11737 6.3 49 174 / 3.5 172.9 / 6.2 min 304L 316L n/a n/a intermittent duty
(tubeside) cladding
CS with 3mm
E.211 Reflux Condenser HE 1 x 100% 2 n/a 1006083 12.0 548 60.0 / 4.7 120.0 / 3.5 min 304L 316L n/a n/a
(tubeside) cladding
Notes: 1. C Condenser HE Heat Exchanger RB Reboiler STB Steam Boiler 2. For Air Coolers CP Cover Plate PT Plug Type MT Manifold Type BT Billet Type
3. Rate = Total Fluid Entering Coldside And Applies To Condensers, Boilers And Heaters. 4. Coldside Design Temp Equals Design Air Temp. For Air Coolers 5. I Induced F Forced
6. For Air Coolers, this is Bare Tube Area
EQUIPMENT LIST FOR HEAT EXCHANGERS Rev. ORIG REV 01 REV 02
EXCHANGER No.off No.OF TEMA HEAT DESIGN CONDITIONS MATERIAL No.OF FAN TOTAL
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION TYPE(1)/ x DUTY SHELLS TYPE(ST)/ T'FER COLDSIDE(4) HOTSIDE PLATE/ TUBE(ST/AC) BAYS/FANS TYPE FAN REMARKS REV
NUMBER SUB TYPE % (ST) HEADER RATE(3) DUTY AREA(6) TEMP/PRESS TEMP/PRESS SHELL HEAD(AC) (AC) (5) POWER
CONST(AC)
(2) kg/hr MW m2 o
C / barg
o
C /barg kW
CS with 3mm
Waste Water
E.212 HE 1 x 100% 1 n/a 15768 0.2 13 60.0 / 4.7 86.6 / 3.5 min 304L 316L n/a n/a n/a
Condenser
(tubeside) cladding
E.213 Gas / Gas Exchanger HE 1 x 100% 1 n/a 149592 2.6 5482 150 / 4.7 183.8 / 3.5 316L 316L n/a n/a n/a Plate Exchanger o1
CS with 3mm
CO2 Compressor
Stage 1 Cooler
(tubeside) cladding
CS with 3mm
CO2 Compressor
Stage 2 Cooler
(tubeside) cladding
CS with 3mm
CO2 Compressor
Stage 3 Cooler
(tubeside) cladding
28603. CS with 3mm
CO2 Compressor
E.304 HE 8111.EL. 1 n/a 65331 0.8 127 60.0 / 4.7 128.0 / 12.2 min 304L 316L n/a n/a n/a
Stage 4 Cooler
0001 (tubeside) cladding
CO2 Compressor CS with 6mm

E.305 HE 1 x 100% 1 n/a 72290 0.9 131 60.0 / 4.7 134.3 / 26.5 316L n/a n/a n/a
Stage 5 Cooler CA
(tubeside)

E.306 HE 1 x 100% 1 n/a 39959 0.5 105 60.0 / 4.7 102.1 / 59 316L n/a n/a n/a
Stage 6 Cooler CA
(tubeside)

E.307 HE 1 x 100% 1 n/a 191993 2.3 310 60.0 / 4.7 147.4 / 105 316L n/a n/a n/a
Stage 7 Cooler CA
(tubeside)
Regen. Gas Electric By Drier Package

E.309 HE 1 x 100%
Heater Vendor
Regen. Gas Feed / By Drier Package

E.310 HE 1 x 100%
Product Exchanger Vendor
Notes: 1. C Condenser HE Heat Exchanger RB Reboiler STB Steam Boiler 2. For Air Coolers CP Cover Plate PT Plug Type MT Manifold Type BT Billet Type
3. Rate = Total Fluid Entering Coldside And Applies To Condensers, Boilers And Heaters. 4. Coldside Design Temp Equals Design Air Temp. For Air Coolers 5. I Induced F Forced
6. For Air Coolers, this is Bare Tube Area
EQUIPMENT LIST FOR PUMPS Rev. ORIG REV 01 REV 02
PUMP No.off DRIVE DESIGN PUMP DIFF TURB. DRIVE OPERATING CONDS DESIGN CONDITIONS POWER MATERIAL
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION TYPE(1)/ x DUTY TYPE (2) CAPACITY EFFIC'Y PRESSURE STEAM P TEMP / SG / VISC'Y TEMP/PRESS EST/RATED CASING/ROTOR REMARKS REV
NUMBER SUB TYPE % OP./SPARE m3/hr % bar barg o
C cP o
C barg kW
P.201 A/B DCC Cooler Pump Centrifugal 2 x 100% electric 222 2.61 62 0.979 0.452 87 3.8 31 316L SS / 316L SS number of items tbc
P.202 A/B/C/D Rich Solvent Pump Centrifugal 4 x 33% electric 212 3.26 45 1.057 1.322 70 4.7 28 CS / CS number of items tbc
P.203 A/B/C/D Lean Solvent Pump Centrifugal 4 x 33% electric 144 3.29 96 0.994 0.463 121 5.4 22 316L SS / 316L SS number of items tbc
Semi.Lean Solvent
P.204 A/B Centrifugal 2 x 100% electric 186 1.79 102 1.016 0.444 127 3.0 15 CS / CS number of items tbc
Pump
P.205 A/B/C/D Extraction Pump Centrifugal 4 x 33% electric 193 2.06 56 1.047 1.024 81 3.0 18 CS / CS number of items tbc
Absorber Pumparound
P.206 A/B Centrifugal 2 x 100% electric 10 1.26 43 0.992 0.652 68 2.0 0.04 316L SS / 316L SS number of items tbc
Pump
P.207 A/B Stripper Reflux Pump Centrifugal 2 x 100% electric 17 1.47 30 1.052 0.843 55 2.7 0.6 316L SS / 316L SS number of items tbc
P.208 MEA Solvent Pump Centrifugal 1 x 100% electric 82 2.84 30 1.027 1.964 55 4.0 12.1 CS / CS number of items tbc
P.401 A/B/C Cooling Water Pumps Centrifugal 3 x 50% electric 2100 4 25 1 0.452 60 6.5 250
Notes: 1. Differential pressure to be confirmed after column design

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR PACKAGE EQUIPMENT Rev. ORIG REV 01 REV 02
EQUIPMENT No.off DRIVE DIMENSIONS PRESS DESIGN CONDS. POWER MATERIAL COOL.TOWER
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION TYPE(1)/ x DUTY TYPE (2) DIAM./HGT/ AREA CAPACITY FLOW OPER./DIFF. TEMP/PRESS EST/RATED BODY/CA WBT oC / REMARKS REV
NUMBER SUB TYPE % OP./SPARE LENGTH barg / APP oC /
mm mm2 m3 kg/hr bar o
C / barg kW CWT oC (3)
DCC Circulation Water Shell: 304L SS Packing = Activated

F.201 F 1 x 100% 20 198060 3.85 / 0.7
Filter Internals: 304 SS Carbon
Absorber Wash Water Shell: 304L SS Packing = Activated

F.202 F 1 x 100% 9.1 9065.7 0.122 / 0.1
Filter Internals: 304 SS Carbon
Shell: 304L SS Packing = Activated

F.203 Lean Solvent Filter F 1 x 100% 24 23473 0.387 / 0.1
Internals: 304 SS Carbon
By Drier Package
F.301 Dehydration Fines Filter F 1 x 100%
Vendor
Regeneration Fines By Drier Package

F.302 F 1 x 100%
Filter Vendor
Soda Ash Injection

PK.201 1 x 100%
Package
39420 kg/h
Product spec <50
PK.301 CO2 Drier Package Mol Sieve 1 x 100% 762.1 m3/h 0.13 wt% 24.9 / 0.9
ppmv water
water
Cooling Tower 2 x 50%

PK.401 CTW 2100 m3/h 17.5 /10 /35 Induced Draft
Package Cell
Cooling Tower
PK.402 Sidestream Filter F 1 x 100% 75 m3/h
Package
Notes: 1. AD Air Dryer CRY Crystallizer CTW Cooling Tower D Dryer DC Dust Collector DD Drum Dryer E Evaporator EG Electrical Generator EJ Ejector F Filter
FLR Flare Stack HU Heating Unit RD Rotary Dryer RU Refrigeration Unit STK Stack TDS Tray Drying System WFE Wiped Film Evaporator WTS Water Treatment System
2. VFD Variable Frequency Motor Driver
3. WBT Wet Bulb Temperature APP Approach Temperature CWT Cooling Water Inlet Temperature
28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
ATTACHMENT 3: UTILITIES SUMMARY

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY LIMITED BOC HPU with 90% CO2 Capture
UTILITIES BALANCE SUMMARY
CLIENT: BOC
CONTRACT: 28603 REV O1 SHEET
NAME: BOC HPU CCS DATE 12/11/2014 1 OF 1
ORIG. BY RR
APP. BY TA
Fresh
HP Steam Process
UNIT No. DESCRIPTION Electrical Power Condensate Cooling BFW Fresh Water REMARKS REV
42.8 barg Effluents
water
MW T/h T/h T/h T/h T/h T/h
Process Units
Acid Gas Removal Unit (MEA) 31.39 355.0 55.0 33736 36.1 19.6 Note 1
CO2 Compression & Drying 33.41 3481 0.5
Process Units Total 34.80 355.0 55.0 34217 0 36 20
Offsites & Utilities
Fresh Cooling Water System 31.06 4217 3112 16 Note 2
Offistes & Utilities Total 31.06 0 0 4217 0 3112 16
Overall Import / Export 05.9 055 55 0 0 0118 36
NOTES 1. 10 tph intermittent steam required during solvent reclaimation mode.

2. Difference between process water blowdown and fresh water make3up is evaporative loss.
28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
ATTACHMENT 4: PLOT PLAN

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
ATTACHMENT 5: PRELIMINARY SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM

11kV SUBSTATION (SEE NOTE 6)
PSCC = SEE NOTE 4
11kV, 3PH, 3W 11kV, 3PH, 3W
BOC CO2 EXPORT PLANT PACKAGE SUBSTATION
11V, 3PH, 3W, 50Hz, 1200A, 50kA/3s BOC CO2 EXPORT PLANT 11kV SW.BRD
NOTE 6
BOC CO2 EXPORT PLANT BOC CO2 EXPORT PLANT
M M
1.9MW 3.3MW
BL-201 K-301
FLUE GAS BLOWER CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR
M M
500kW 500kW
P-401A P-401B
COOLING WATER COOLING WATER
PUMP 'A' PUMP 'B'
BOC CO2 EXPORT PLANT 415V SW.BRD 415V, 3PH, 4W, 50Hz, 2500A, 85kA/1s
SUPPLY TO STREET LIGHTING
DIST. BOARD B'

SUPPLY TO PLANT LIGHTING
POWER DIST. BOARD
DIST. BOARD
DIST. BOARD A'
SUPPLY TO PACKAGE SUB
SUPPLY TO INSTRUMENTS
POWER DIST. BOARD B'
SUPPLY TO PACKAGE SUB
SUPPLY TO PLANT SMALL

SUPPLY TO INSTRUMENTS
SUPPLY TO PLANT SMALL

POWER DIST. BOARD A'
HVAC SYSTEM
DIST. BRD
TRACE HEATING PANEL
BOC CO2 EXPORT PLANT

BOC CO2 EXPORT PLANT
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
90kW 15kW 1kW 0.05kW 18kW 18kW 15kW 22kW 22kW 30kW 30kW 30kW 90kW 1.1kW 0.05kW 18kW 18kW 15kW 22kW 22kW 30kW 30kW 30kW
PK-401A P-208 P-207A P-206A P-205A P-205C P-204A P-203A P-203C P-202A P-202C P-201A PK-401B P-207B P-206B P-205B P-205D P-204B P-203B P-203D P-202B P-202D P-201D
COOLER TOWER MEA SOLVENT STRIPPER REFLUX ABSORBER EXTRACTION EXTRACTION SEMI-LEAN LEAN LEAN RICH SOLVENT RICH SOLVENT DCC COOLER COOLER TOWER STRIPPER REFLUX ABSORBER EXTRACTION EXTRACTION SEMI-LEAN LEAN LEAN RICH SOLVENT RICH SOLVENT DCC COOLER
FAN 'A' PUMP PUMP 'A' PUMPAROUND PUMP 'A' PUMP 'C' SOLVENT SOLVENT SOLVENT PUMP 'A' PUMP 'C' PUMP 'A' FAN 'B' PUMP 'B' PUMPAROUND PUMP 'B' PUMP 'D' SOLVENT SOLVENT SOLVENT PUMP 'B' PUMP 'D' PUMP 'B'
PUMP 'A' PUMP 'A' PUMP 'A' PUMP 'C' PUMP 'A' PUMP 'B' PUMP 'B' PUMP 'D'
28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
ATTACHMENT 6: COST ESTIMATE

Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd
Project No : 28603 Rev : '0'
Client : BOC Date : 26th Nov. 2014
Project : HPU CCS By : KDN
Location : UK Printed: 26-Nov-14
HPU - CCS Summary
200 300 400 500

CO2
Other Utilities TOTAL
FW COA DESCRIPTION CO2 Capture Compression & Cooling Water
& Tie-ins
Dehydration
GBP GBP GBP GBP GBP
1000 DIRECT MATERIALS :-
MAJOR EQUIPMENT 7,792,000 4,090,000 1,129,000 13,011,000
BULK MATERIALS 3,559,300 530,500 465,000 1,557,000 6,111,800
OTHER DIRECT MATERIAL COSTS 773,600 323,100 105,800 71,000 1,273,500
SUB TOTAL DIRECT MATERIALS 12,124,900 4,943,600 1,699,800 1,628,000 20,396,300
2-4000 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
MATERIAL & LABOUR CONTRACTS 2,004,500 760,400 226,400 1,045,000 4,036,300
LABOUR ONLY CONTRACTS 6,703,000 1,251,100 772,500 942,000 9,668,600
CONSTRUCTION INDIRECTS 1,091,300 458,100 148,000 113,000 1,810,400
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS 9,798,800 2,469,600 1,146,900 2,100,000 15,515,300

TOTAL MATERIALS & CONSTRUCTION 21,923,700 7,413,200 2,846,700 3,728,000 35,911,600
6/8000 EPC SERVICES 5,653,860 399,740 598,100 945,000 7,596,700
TOTAL PROJECT COST 27,577,560 7,812,940 3,444,800 4,673,000 £43,508,300

28603 8111 RP 001
STUDY REPORT REV O2
ATTACHMENT 7: LEVEL 1 SCHEDULE

CLIENT: Tees Valley Unlimited
PROJECT: BOC HPU CCS Study
Page 1 of 1 Preliminary Level 1 Project Implementation Schedule LOCATION: Teesside, UK
Rev. O1 - 20-Nov-14 PROJECT No: 1-17-28603
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5
Ref Quarter Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Month 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Appoint
Pre-FEED report
1 PRE-FEED / STUDY TIC Cost estmate
iry
qu
le e s
2 LICENSOR ACTIVITIES
Se ns
En
po
ct
e
su
es
Is
R
3 Licensor selection Appoint licensor
Phased PDP deliverable release
4 Licensor PDP Kick off
5 FEED
n
tio
da
en
6 Pre-qualify FEED contractors
m
co
ds
ec
B
IT
Bi
R
7 FEED Contracting Award FEED
8 Develop FEED FEED Package, EPC ITB package, Cost estimate, Schedule
9 EPC
n
tio
da
en
om
ec
10 Pre-qualify EPC contractors
R
d
ar
ds
B
Aw
IT
Bi
11 EPC Contractor selection Award EPC
6 12 18 24 30
12 Detailed engineering
13 Procurement
ks
te
or
d
si
ar
-w
Aw
n
Ex
O
14 Long lead items (compressors)
15 Construction
16 Site set-up / enabling / prep / piling
17 Civils
18 Major equipment installation
19 Mechanical hook up / hydrotesting
20 E&I hook up / loop checking
21 Systems turnover to MC MC
22 COMMISSIONING
23 Precommissioning to RFSU RFSU
Printed on: 12:12:46; 20/11/14 V:\2Projects\28603 Tees Valley Unlimited BOC Carbon Capture Study\28603 TVU BOC CCS Project Implementation Schedule (RevO1) 2014-11-20.mlb

WP3 Combination 28603 TVU BOC HPU CCS Study Report Rev O2 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

WP3 Combination 28603 TVU BOC HPU CCS Study Report Rev O2 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

28603 8111 RP 001

BOC HPU CCS PAGE 2 OF 49

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 3

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

BOC Hydrogen Plant, North Tees

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

1.2 Capture Options

1. Post combustion carbon capture from the Reformer flue gas;

1.3 Technical Highlights – Post1Combustion Capture

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

Notes: 1. Difference is steam production / consumption to be

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

1.4 Plot Considerations

1.5 Total Installed Cost (TIC)

This can be broken down by process area as follows;

Description Material & Construction Cost, Total Project Cost,

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

1.6 Estimate of Operating Costs

Fixed Costs £3.95 m/year

Variable Costs £4.43 m/year

1.7 Projected Overall Project Schedule

Site specific Pre FEED / Study 5 months

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

Base Case Post Combustion CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture Options 1 & 2

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

Base Case Post Combustion CO2 Capture

Future work should look at:

• Resolution of minor steam imbalance through targeted production of steam at

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

2.1 Carbon Capture Options

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

2.1.1 Post Combustion Carbon Capture

On overall block diagram is shown below;

Steam methane reforming CH4 + 2H2O = 4H2 + CO2

CO Shift CO + H2O = H2 + CO2

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

3. POST1COMBUSTION CAPTURE PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT

3.1 Hydrogen Plant Operating Mode

3.2 Carbon Capture Plant Process Description

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

CO2 Compression and Drying

CO2 Export Oxygen Specification

The key utility requirements for this scheme include:

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

This issue will be resolved by development of a more detailed and rigorously

The new cooling tower is expected to require a blowdown of 16 te/h, and a

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

Waste Water Tank

Cooling tower blowdown, process condensates and purge streams containing

Additional make up water is required to compensate for blowdown and drift

3.2.1 General Considerations

Flue Gas Duct Pressure

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

Relief & Blowdown

3.3 Technical Performance

Notes: 1. Difference is steam production / consumption to be

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

3.4 Plot Plan & Plant Layout

Revision: O2 Date: Nov 2014

3.4.2 Plant Layout Considerations

Flue Gas Blower

Direct Contact Cooler and CO2 Absorber