Representation by Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham) Limited ("APT") and Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Limited ("HOTT") (Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham) Limited ("APT") and Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Limited ("HOTT"))
- Date submitted
- 15 January 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM TERMINALS (IMMINGHAM) LIMITED AND HUMBER OIL TERMINALS TRUSTEE LIMITED PROPOSED VIKING CCS CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER RELEVANT REPRESENTATION 1 Introduction 1.1 This is a relevant representation (“RR”) for and on behalf of Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham) Limited (“APT”) and Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Limited (“HOTT”) (collectively referred to in the RR as “the IOT Operators”) in respect of the application (“the Application ”) made by Chrysaor Production (UK) Limited (“the Applicant”) for the Viking CCC Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Development Consent Order (“the Proposed Order”). 1.2 If granted, the Proposed Order would authorise the construction, operation and decommissioning of a pipeline that will transport captured carbon dioxide from Immingham to the Theddlethorpe Facility, together with associated development (“the Scheme”). 1.3 The Application for the Proposed Order was submitted and is being promoted by the Applicant and has been allocated Planning Inspectorate reference EN070008. 2 Summary 2.1 The IOT Operators support the objectives and principle of the Scheme. 2.2 The Humber is the highest emitting region within the UK and stands to benefit from the deployment of technologies such as carbon capture and storage and lower carbon hydrogen to be facilitated, among other things, by the Scheme. 2.3 However, the IOT Operators object to and have a number of concerns in respect of the details of the Proposed Order in its current form. 2.4 The IOT Operators interests and operations will be adversely affected by the Proposed Order in its current form. In summary: 2.4.1 The Applicant is seeking compulsory acquisition and/or temporary possession powers in the Proposed Order over excessive amounts of land which the IOT Operators have an operational interest in, some of which is not necessary for the purposes of the Scheme and will adversely impact upon its interests and operations; and 2.4.2 The Proposed Order does not provide appropriate safeguards, protective provisions, and mitigation measures in relation to the IOT Operators interests and operations. 2.5 In addition, the Application also fails to properly assess the adverse impacts of the Proposed Order (in its current form) on the IOT Operators. Such an impact assessment is required, in particular, if the second option for section one of the proposed new pipeline from Rosper Road, Immingham to A180 through the Humber Refinery (“HR”) is taken forward by the Applicant (“Pipeline Route Option 2”). 2.6 Accordingly, the IOT Operators consider that the Proposed Order should not be made by the Secretary of State unless and until (in summary): 2.6.1 The Application is amended so that Pipeline Route Option 2 is removed from the Proposed Order and any operational land of the HR is excluded from the Proposed Order limits; and 2.6.2 The permanent and temporary land take proposed in respect of the IOT Operators interests for the purposes of the Scheme (particularly in relation to the above ground elements) are reduced so as: (i) To remove all and any Order Plots associated with Pipeline Route Option 2 and/or HR operational land; (ii) To limit the proposed permanent and temporary land take in respect of the IOT Operators interests to that which is proportionate and reasonably necessary and required for the purposes of carrying out the Scheme; and 2.6.3 Appropriate safeguards, protective provisions, and mitigation measures are fully incorporated and built into the terms of the Proposed Order in order to safeguard the IOT Operators interests and operations. 3 APT AND HOTT 3.1 APT is a limited company (company number 00564394) whose registered office is Queens Road, Immingham, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire, DN40 2PN. 3.2 HOTT is a limited company (company number 008794993) whose registered office is Queens Road, Immingham, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire, DN40 2PN. 3.3 HOTT is the licensee from Associated British Ports (“ABP”) of the Immingham Oil Terminal Jetty (“IOT”) and lessee (from ABP) of the associated oil terminal and tank farm (“Oil Depot”). 3.4 APT operates IOT and the Oil Depot on behalf of HOTT. HOTT and APT are referred to together in this RR as “the IOT Operators”. 3.5 The IOT Operators are joint venture companies owned equally by Phillips 66 Limited (“P66”) and Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery Limited (“Prax”). 3.6 P66 is the owner of the HR and Prax is the owner of the Lindsey Oil Refinery (“LOR”). 3.7 The primary activity of the IOT Operators is the operation of marine terminals on behalf of P66 and Prax. They are also responsible for the operation of much of the pipeline system in the pipeline corridor between the IOT, the Oil Depot, and the HR and the LOR (collectively referred to as “the Refineries”). The pipeline systems run through the Common Pumping station (“CPS”) that is used to route imports and exports between the IOT, Oil Depot, and the Refineries and to boost transfer rates of hydrocarbon products from the Refineries to ships via the IOT for exports. 3.8 The IOT, Oil Depot and CPS (including the pipelines on the pipeline corridor) were opened in 1969 and built to serve the oil refineries that had been built near west of the Immingham Dock site, namely the Continental Oil Refinery (now the HR) and the LOR. 3.9 The IOT, Oil Depot, CPS and the pipeline corridor all continue to be a critical aspect of the operation of the Refineries. 3.10 The activity of the IOT Operators is almost entirely in response to the requirements of P66 and Prax for marine movements of feedstock and products to and from the Refineries. 3.11 The principle aim of the IOT Operators is to maximise the efficiency with which its facilities (including CPS and the pipeline corridor) are used whilst having proper regard for safety and the environment. 4 Humber Refinery (HR) 4.1 The HR is at the heart of the Humber region’s economy providing highly skilled and high value roles for 770 employees and 395 contractors, this rises to around 600 during turnarounds. 4.2 The HR is one of the most complex and sophisticated refineries in Europe. It has an expansive range of upgrading units that differentiate it from its peers. For example, the HR is the only at-scale producer of Sustainable Aviation (SAF) within the UK, with supply contracts which include British Airways. 4.3 The HR is a nationally significant piece of infrastructure, providing around 15% of UK road fuel demand. The HR is also Europe’s only producer of specialty petroleum coke. This high-value product has traditionally been used as the anode with electric arc furnaces to recycle steel and this remains a growing market. However, specialty petroleum coke also represents a precursor material for synthetic graphite, which is classified by the EU as a Critical Mineral given its usage within electric vehicle (EV) and consumer electronic (CE) batteries. The HR is an industrial-scale supplier into the rapidly expanding global EV and CE markets. 4.4 The HR is a critical component of the country’s economy. Any material adverse effects to HR’s ongoing operations arising from the implementation of Proposed Order would be contrary to the public interest. 5 Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) 5.1 The LOR is owned by Prax. The LOR extends to over 500 acres and incorporates some of the most advanced refining and conversion processes in Europe and has the capacity to process up to 113,000 barrels of oil a day. The LOR is highly valuable to the region’s economy and employs approximately 400 staff and another 400 contractors. 5.2 The greater part of the LOR’s output is petrol and diesel for road vehicles, with the remaining proportion being speciality products such as fuel oil, bitumen, kerosene and aviation fuel. 6 The Refineries 6.1 The importance of the Refineries to the region and wider country’s economy is expressly acknowledged in a wide range of economic and development plan policy documents, including for example: 6.1.1 The Greater Lincolnshire LEP – Strategic Economic Plan: 2014-2030 (at page 27); 6.1.2 The North Lincolnshire Core Strategy (at 9.39); and 6.1.3 The North East Lincolnshire Council – Local Plan 2013 to 2032 (at 6.9) 7 IOT 7.1 The IOT is essential to the operations of the HOR and the LOR, as crude oil arrives by tanker at the IOT before being transferred to the refineries by pipeline. 7.2 Furthermore, approximately 40% of the HOR’s production and 33% of the LOR’s production is exported and the IOT is essential to that export capabilities of the refineries. Products from the refinery are transported via pipeline to the IOT and can then be transported onwards via tanker. 8 CPS and the Pipeline Corridor 8.1 The CPS is located just southeast of the P66 South Tank Farm area of the HOR and is accessed off Humber Road (A160) close to the junction with Manby Road. 8.2 The CPS facility has two main functions. 8.3 The first main function is provision of routing pipelines in the pipeline corridor from the IOT to the Refineries or from the Refineries to IOT or the Oil Depot. There is also provision to transfer product to the Exolum terminal on the Eastern side of Immingham Dock. There are 7 HOTT pipelines (within the pipeline corridor) varying from 18” to 36” that join CPS to the IOT with various take offs into the Oil Depot. These allow for crude imports from IOT to the Refineries and a number of distillate, motor spirit and fuels imports or exports between the Refineries, IOT and/ or the Oil Depot 8.4 The second main function of CPS is to provide pumps for boosting product transfer rates between the Refineries and IOT. There are 4 booster pumps located within CPS for motor spirit, distillate, and fuel oil use. 8.5 CPS and the pipeline corridor are critical to the operation of IOT, the Oil Depot and the Refineries. 8.6 The CPS facility allows for the refineries import of feedstocks and export of products and fuels for both the UK market and markets abroad. 9 The Proposed Order 9.1 The Land Plans, Work Plans and the Book of Reference for the Scheme identify numerous plots within the Proposed Order limits which relate to the IOT Operators operational interest including, in summary, Plots 1/22, 1/24, 1/33, 1/68, 1/69, 1/70 and 1/74: 9.2 Broadly, it appears from the Application that powers are sought over land relating to the IOT Operators interests and operations: 9.2.1 For the construction of above ground infrastructure known as the Immingham Facility (“Immingham Facility”); and 9.2.2 For section 1 of the pipeline route (“Pipeline Route”) from the Immingham Facility to A180 in relation to which two separate options are included in the Proposed Order comprising (in summary): (i) Option 1: The pipeline leaves the tie-in at the Immingham Facility, crosses Humber Road (twice) and the railway line, and then runs parallel to Manby Road before crossing it south of the Immingham Calor Cylinder Distribution site, heading in a south westerly direction north of Immingham towards the former Immingham Golf Club. The pipeline would then continue to travel westwards before changing direction southwards towards Mill Lane which it then crosses, before crossing Harborough Road between the Old School House and Luxmore Farm before continuing southwards and crossing the A180 (“Pipeline Route Option 1”); and (ii) Option 2: the pipeline would go through the HR site, exiting between Houlton’s Covert and Children’s Avenue towards the south east. The route would then continue until it reached the alignment of the route as detailed in paragraph 4.2.2(i) above (“Pipeline Route Option 2”). 9.2.3 The proposed Pipeline Route Option 2 for the Pipeline Route is adjacent to the CPS and its pipeline corridor. 9.2.4 The proposed Pipeline Route Option 1 for the Pipeline Route is adjacent to the pipeline corridor which are critical for feedstock and product movements to and from the IOT and the Oil Depot which are critical to the operation of the Refineries. 10 Grounds of Objection 10.1 While the IOT Operators intend to set out their grounds of objection in more detail (if required) in its Written Representations (“WR”), in summary, the IOT Operators object to the making of the Proposed Order (as is) for the following main reasons: 10.1.1 First, the Application fails to properly assess and address the adverse effects on the IOT Operators interests and operations arising from the proposed permanent and temporary acquisition and use of land, and the construction and operation of the Scheme. 10.1.2 Second, during the construction phase of the Scheme, the IOT Operators need to ensure that there is permanent vehicular access (for purposes including operational and emergency vehicles) to its wayleave that runs along the pipeline corridor. 10.1.3 Third, and depending on the ultimate routing and precise location of the Pipleline Route and how close in proximity they will be to its pipelines, robust arrangements will need to be put in place to continue to allow for and enable the full operation and use of the IOT Operators pipelines . 10.1.4 Fourth, the proposed temporary and permanent land take in the Proposed Order (for example in relation to the proposed Pipeline Route) exceeds that which is reasonably and proportionately required to carry out the Scheme; 10.1.5 Fifth, the Applicant has not incorporated into the Proposed Order and/or otherwise provided for proper mitigation of the Scheme’s impacts on the IOT Operators nor sufficiently safeguarded the IOT Operators critically important interests and operations, among other things, through the inclusion of suitably worded Protective Provisions in the Proposed Order (see further below). 11 Protective Provisions 11.1 The IOT Operators note that no Protective Provisions for the benefit of the IOT Operators are proposed by the Applicant in the Proposed Order. 11.2 For the reasons set out above, it is imperative that suitable Protective Provisions are included in the Proposed Order to effectively regulate the Applicant’s activity so as to avoid undue disruption to the IOT Operators interests and operations. 11.3 In summary, the IOT Operators would propose that such Protective Provisions should include the following key measures, to ensure, among other things (a) that during the construction phase of the Scheme that its constructions methods and activities will not adversely impact upon its pipelines and (b) that during the construction and operational phases of the Scheme there is no interference with or impediments to the IOT Operators wayleave, namely provisions requiring- in terms : 11.3.1 Plans and sections of the proposed works to cross its operational land must be submitted to the IOT Operators; 11.3.2 No works which may have an impact on the operation, maintenance or abandonment of IOT Operators pipelines or access to them may commence until those plans and sections are approved; provided that (i) No approval may be unreasonably withheld or delayed; and (ii) The IOT Operators may impose such reasonable requirements on the Applicant as may be required for the continuing safety and operational viability of the pipelines and the IOT’s requirement to have uninterrupted access to them at all times. 11.3.3 An ability for the IOT Operators to withhold its authorisation for any crossing works where it can reasonably demonstrate that the Scheme would significantly adversely affect the safety of its pipeline; 11.3.4 Provisions for the resolution of any differences between the Applicant and the IOT Operators by reference to an expert; 11.3.5 A minimum period of 28 days’ notice of the commencement of works to be provided to the IOT Operators so that an engineer can observe the relevant works being carried out; 11.3.6 Minimum clearance required between the existing pipelines and the Scheme; 11.3.7 Monitoring of the IOT Operators pipelines during the carrying out of works in their vicinity; 11.3.8 Provisions for the immediate cessation of works and evacuation of personnel in the event of any of the IOT Operators pipeline assets being damaged; 11.3.9 In carrying out any works the Applicant is to comply with relevant regulations concerning health and safety; 11.3.10 Restrictions on the exercise of the powers in the Proposed Order so as to minimise impacts on the operation of the IOT Operators existing pipeline corridor; 11.3.11 A requirement for the Applicant to obtain appropriate insurance (and provide the IOT Operators with evidence of such) before carrying out works which may affect its pipeline assets; 11.3.12 The payment of the IOT Operators’ reasonable costs incurred in relation to the supervision or other engagement with the Applicant in respect of any crossing works; 11.3.13 The provision of an indemnity to the IOT Operators in respect of all damages, expenses, consequential loss and damages arising from crossing works; and 11.3.14 A series of further measures requiring notice in the event of certain circumstances under the operation of the remainder of the Proposed Order. 12 Negotiations with the Applicant 12.1 The IOT Operators have engaged with the Applicant in relation to the Scheme during the pre Application consultation exercise. 12.2 It is the intention of the IOT Operators to continue to work closely with the Applicant during the examination period to seek to address the issues it identifies in this RR including seeking mutually to agree the necessary safeguards, measures, and protective provisions to mitigate the Scheme’s impacts on the IOT Operators interests and operations. 13 Conclusion 13.1 For the reasons above, the IOT Operators consider that the Proposed Order should not be made, and development consent should not be granted for the Scheme, unless and until the IOT Operators interests have been fully protected. 13.2 The IOT Operators hereby reserve the right to expand on the points outlined in this RR (among other things through its WR) in response to how the Applicant’s case is promoted through the DCO examination, and in response to any questions from the Examining Authority. 13.3 The IOT Operators further seeks its costs of engaging in the Proposed Order process, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s Guidance ‘Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders’, which provides that (page 13, Part D, paragraph 2): “ Where the objections to a compulsory acquisition request have neither been disregarded by the Examining Authority nor withdrawn before the decision of the Secretary of State on a development consent application and the objectors have been successful in objecting to the compulsory acquisition request, an award of costs will normally be made against the applicant for development consent and in favour of the objectors...” Town Legal LLP On behalf of the IOT Operators 15 January 2024