Representation by Phillips 66 Limited (Phillips 66 Limited)
- Date submitted
- 15 January 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
PHILLIPS 66 LIMITED PROPOSED VIKING CCS CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER RELEVANT REPRESENTATION Introduction 1.1 This is a relevant representation (“RR”) for and on behalf of Phillips 66 Limited (“P66”) 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”) to 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”). 1.2 The Application for the Proposed Order was submitted and is being promoted by the Applicant and has been allocated Planning Inspectorate reference EN070008. Summary 2.1 P66 supports the objectives and principle of the Scheme. 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. 2.2 However, P66 objects to and has a number of concerns in respect of the details of the Proposed Order in its current form. 2.3 P66 owns and operates the Humber Refinery (“the HR”) which sits on a 480-acre site at South Killingholme on the Humber estuary. Its operations are highly complex, heavily regulated, and extremely sensitive to disruption and interference. P66 is a major employer in the area and is key to the local industry and economy. 2.4 P66’s operations and landholdings 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 P66’s landholdings, some of which are not necessary for the purposes of the Scheme and will adversely impact upon P66’s operations; and 2.4.2 The Proposed Order does not provide appropriate safeguards, protective provisions, and mitigation measures in relation to P66’s landholdings 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 P66 and consequently, on the industry and local economy of the Humber region. Such an impact assessment is required, in particular, if Option 2 for section 1 of the proposed new pipeline from Rosper Road, Immingham to A180 through the HR is taken forward by the Applicant (“Pipeline Route Option 2”). As set out in further detail below, Pipeline Route Option 2 would be highly detrimental to P66’s operations. 2.6 Accordingly, P66 considers 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; 2.6.2 The permanent and temporary land take proposed in respect of P66’s landholdings 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; and (ii) To limit the proposed permanent and temporary land take in respect of P66’s landholdings to that what is proportionate and reasonably necessary and required for the purposes of carrying out the Scheme. 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 P66’s operations and that of its employees and customers. P66 and the HR 3.1 P66 is a limited company (number 00529086) whose registered office address is at 7th Floor, 200-202 Aldersgate Street, London, EC1A 4HD. 3.2 P66 owns and operates the HR which sits on a 480-acre site at South Killingholme on the Humber estuary. 3.3 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. 3.4 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. 3.5 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. 3.6 Since 2012 to 2023 to date, P66, with the HR as its economic engine, has paid over £547 million in corporation tax to the HM’s Treasury. 3.7 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. 3.8 The importance of the HR 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: 3.8.1 The Greater Lincolnshire LEP – Strategic Economic Plan: 2014-2030 (at page 27); 3.8.2 The North Lincolnshire Core Strategy (at 9.39); and 3.8.3 The North East Lincolnshire Council – Local Plan 2013 to 2032 (at 6.9) 3.9 HR is an upper tier site under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (the “COMAH Regulations”). As such, any use of HR operational land or nearby land for the Scheme needs to be subject to detailed review and assessment of any impact on the COMAH risk scenarios, mitigation measures and emergency response measures. The Proposed Order 4.1 The Land Plans, Work Plans, and the Book of Reference for the Scheme identify numerous plots within the Proposed Order limits which relate to P66’s landholdings. Specifically, this includes: 4.1.1 Plots 1/7, 1/9, 1/32, 1/57, 159, which are subject to proposed powers of permanent acquisition for the purposes of Works 01, 01a, 01b, 01c, and 02 of the Scheme comprising, in summary, works related to the permanent AGI, construction works, electrical connection, carbon dioxide pipeline, permanent AGI construction works, and temporary working area, temporary and permanent access (“Proposed Permanent Acquisition Land”); 4.1.2 Plots 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/10, 1/12, 1/13, 1/15, 1/16, 1/17, 1/18, 1/19, 1/20, 1/21, 1/22, 1/23, 1/24, 1/26, 1/31, 1/33, 1/36, 1/37, 1/38, 1/40, 1/41, 1/44, 1/46, 1/50, 1/53, 1/54, 1/58, 1/60, 1/68, 1/69, 1/70, 2/6, 2/7, 2/8, 2/9, 2/10, 2/11, 2/12, 2/13, which are subject to proposed powers of permanent acquisition of the subsurface for the purposes of Works 02, 03, and 04 of the Scheme comprising, in summary, carbon dioxide pipeline related works (“Proposed Permanent Acquisition Subsurface Land”); 4.1.3 Plots 1/43, 1/62, 1/63, which are subject to the proposed creation of permanent rights and powers of temporary use for the purposes of Works 01b and 01c of the Scheme comprising, in summary, works/usage relating to temporary and permanent access and electrical connection (“Proposed Permanent Rights and Temporary Use Land”); and 4.1.4 Plots 1/25, 1/27, 1/29, 1/30, and 1/34, which are subject to proposed powers of temporary possession and use for the purposes of Works 02a, and 02b of the Scheme comprising, in summary, works/usage related to temporary access and laydown location (“Proposed Temporary Possession and Use Land”) 4.2 Broadly, it appears from the Application document that powers are sought over P66’s landholdings: 4.2.1 For the construction of above ground infrastructure known as the Immingham Facility (“Immingham Facility”); 4.2.2 For section 1 of the pipeline route (“Pipeline Route”) from the Immingham Facility to A180 in relation to which two options are included in the Proposed Order comprising: (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”). (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”). 4.3 Specifically, as to the Immingham Facility proposals: 4.3.1 paragraph 6.1.3 of the Statement of Reasons states that “it would be located in a currently unused section of land to the south of the VPI Immingham site. This facility would require a relatively small area, consisting of approximately 2.47 acres (10,000 m2). The existing land comprises a grassed field to the west of Rosper Road, which was formerly used for construction laydown for the Immingham power station”. 4.3.2 while the land referred to and held freehold by P66, comprising the Proposed Permanent Acquisition Land, is currently unused, as the Applicant is aware through ongoing discussions with P66 (see further below), it is highly likely that this land will be required for other significant proposed projects including a post-combustion carbon capture facility project to remove compress; and to transport carbon dioxide from the flue gases generated by an adjoining combined heat and power generating facility. 4.3.3 it is therefore essential that the location of the Immingham Facility is compatible with the future development and use of the currently unused land and does not prejudice these other proposed projects from being brought forward. 4.3.4 in addition, P66 consider that the Proposed Order limits should not include more land than is required by the Applicant for the purposes of the Scheme. 4.3.5 In discussions with the Applicant, P66 understand that the actual land take requirement of the Applicant for the purposes of the Immingham Facility elements of the Scheme to be a maximum of 2.47 acres (10,000 m2) but compulsory acquisition powers are currently sought in relation to the whole of the Immingham Facility which comprises 11.03 acres (44,647 m2). 4.4 As to the Pipeline Route Option 2 proposals: 4.4.1 The provision of the pipeline through the HR would require very complex feasibility and safety assessments and a prior comprehensive agreement to be in place between P66 and the Applicant regulating its use and operation; 4.4.2 While there have been some discussions as to the technical and commercial feasibility of Pipeline Route Option 2, no such detailed assessments have been carried out and no such agreements have been entered into with the Applicant and it is unlikely given the highly technical nature of such workstreams that any agreement could be finalised by the end of the examination of the Application for the Proposed Order. 4.4.3 Accordingly, P66’s firm position is that Pipeline Route Option 2 should not be further pursued by the Applicant and the Proposed Order amended accordingly. Furthermore, and for the same reasons, P66’s stance is that all and any operational land of the HR should be removed from the Proposed Order Limits. Other Matters 5.1 While P66 hereby reserves the right to raise other matters in its Written Representations (“WR”) should an early agreement with the Applicant to address its concerns with the details of the Proposed Order not be reached, at this juncture, P66 would also raise the following concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed by the Applicant during the Examination of the Application: 5.1.1 Firstly, the Scheme will have both construction impacts and operational impacts in the local area and on the HR. It is essential that these impacts are robustly assessed and any resulting risks adequately mitigated to ensure no adverse impacts on the HR. 5.1.2 Secondly, the cumulative impacts of the Project need to be robustly considered in conjunction with the existing operation of the HR, as well as other existing or approved projects that are under development in the area and could be constructed and operated in a similar timeframe to the Scheme. 5.1.3 Thirdly, where the Scheme results in a loss of biodiversity on P66s land, whether temporary or permanent, it should be the Applicant’s responsibility to deliver an equivalent increase in biodiversity, as well as any net gain needed, on alternative land and P66 should not be obligated to deliver any of the Applicant’s biodiversity related requirements, whether that land was used specifically for the Scheme or otherwise. 5.1.4 Fourthly, given HR’s status as an upper tier site under the COMAH Regulations, any use of HR’s operational land or nearby land for any development related to the Scheme needs to be subject to detailed review and assessment of any impact on the COMAH risk scenarios, mitigation measures and emergency response measures. Depending on the nature and extent of such proposed works to be carried out pursuant to the Scheme, an update of the HR’s COMAH report for review by the COMAH Competent Authority may be required. Grounds of objection 6.1 While P66 intends to set out its grounds of objection in more detail (if required) in its WRs, in summary, P66 objects to the making of the Proposed Order (as is) for the following reasons: 6.1.1 the Application fails to properly assess and address the adverse effects on P66 arising from the proposed permanent and temporary acquisition and use of land, and the construction and operation of the Scheme. 6.1.2 the proposed temporary and permanent land take and effects of the Scheme would have a serious adverse effect on P66’s business and, in turn, the business of the wider industry and economy of the Humber region; 6.1.3 The proposed temporary and permanent land take exceeds that which is reasonably and proportionately required to carry out the Scheme; 6.1.4 As a result of this, and generally, the Applicant has not incorporated in the Proposed Order or otherwise provided for proper mitigation of the Scheme’s impacts on P66 nor sufficiently safeguarded P66’s important interests, among other things, through the inclusion of suitably worded Protective Provisions (see further below). Impact of Proposed Order on P66’s business 7.1 As explained in section 3 above, P66 operates a complex and highly regulated HR. The safe and successful operation of a HR on a scale of operation carried on at HR requires, among other things, reliable and unencumbered transportation routes and sufficient useable operational and laydown space to deliver the HR’s operations in a safe and viable way. This is achieved through P66’s current arrangements at HR. The Applicant has failed to properly understand and assess the nature of P66’s operations at the HR. 7.2 Without adequate mitigation, safeguards, and Protective Provisions built into the Proposed Order, the Scheme would (in summary) have the potential for the following adverse impacts on P66’s business, namely: 7.2.1 Excessive Land take- see paragraph 4.35 above: 7.2.2 During the construction phase of the Scheme, ensuring the maintenance of sufficient: (i) road access; and (ii) security arrangements for P66 facilities: 7.2.3 Timing and uncertainty arising from the Proposed Order: (i) Given the nature of the operations and facilities described above, any proposed temporary or permanent land take or operational impediment (such as road closures) cannot take place at short notice to P66 without significant disruption. (ii) P66 is an exceptional case and requires a far longer lead-in time. (iii) Protective provisions are therefore required in the Proposed Order to control the Applicant’s activity so as to avoid disruption to P66 and its operations. (iv) In addition, P66 is concerned that the adverse effects and uncertainty caused by the Proposed Order are a potential disincentive to future investment in the HR, and give rise to the potential for unsettling key customers, suppliers and the wider supply chain. 7.3 P66 further queries the adequacy of the suite of assessments carried out by the Applicant as part of the application for the Proposed Order in relation to the construction and operational impacts of the Scheme on P66’s operations and landholdings. 7.4 For the reasons summarised above, P66 considers that the Proposed Order (as is) would have the potential for significant adverse impacts on its operations and the local economy, and the Applicant has failed to properly assess or mitigate this in the Application. Protective Provisions 8.1 P66 notes that no Protective Provisions for the benefit of P66 are proposed by the Applicant in the Proposed Order. 8.2 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 P66 and its operations. 8.3 P66 would propose that such Protective Provisions should include the following measures: 8.3.1 Plans and sections of the proposed works to cross P66’s operational land must be submitted to P66; 8.3.2 No works which may have an impact on the operation, maintenance or abandonment of P66’s 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) P66 may impose such reasonable requirements on the Applicant as may be required for the continuing safety and operational viability of the pipelines and P66’s requirement to have uninterrupted access to them at all times. 8.3.3 An ability for P66 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; 8.3.4 Provisions for the resolution of any differences between the Applicant and P66 by reference to an expert; 8.3.5 A minimum period of 28 days’ notice of the commencement of works to be provided to P66 so that an engineer can observe the relevant works being carried out; 8.3.6 Minimum clearance required between the existing pipelines and the Scheme; 8.3.7 Monitoring of P66’s pipelines during the carrying out of works in their vicinity; 8.3.8 Provisions for the immediate cessation of works and evacuation of personnel in the event P66’s pipeline asset is damaged; 8.3.9 In carrying out any works the Applicant is to comply with relevant regulations concerning health and safety; 8.3.10 Restrictions on the exercise of the powers in the Proposed Order so as to minimise impacts on the operation of P66’s existing pipeline; 8.3.11 A requirement for the Applicant to obtain appropriate insurance (and provide P66 with evidence of such) before carrying out works which may affect P66’s pipeline; 8.3.12 The payment of P66’s reasonable costs incurred in relation to the supervision or other engagement with the Applicant in respect of any crossing works; 8.3.13 The provision of an indemnity to P66 in respect of all damages, expenses, consequential loss and damages arising from crossing works; and 8.3.14 A series of further measures requiring notice in the event of certain circumstances under the operation of the remainder of the Proposed Order. 8.4 These Protective Provisions are standard practice in Proposed Orders where works to a high value oil refinery asset are proposed. They are necessary to adequately protect P66’s operations and interests. Negotiations with the Applicant 9.1 P66 has engaged with the Applicant in relation to the Scheme over approximately the last three (3) years. 9.2 Through those constructive discussions with the Applicant, P66 have identified a series of safeguards, mitigation measures, and protective provisions necessary to resolve P66’s concerns with regards to the proposed permanent and temporary land take and details of the Proposed Order. 9.3 In this regard: 9.3.1 draft Heads of Terms are in circulation for a lease of the Immingham Facility; 9.3.2 a draft deed of easement for the Pipeline Route Option 1 is proposed; 9.3.3 the Applicant has orally agreed to amend its Application for the Proposed Order to exclude Pipeline Route Option 2; and 9.3.4 There have been some outline discussions around the need for and scope of proposed Protective Provisions. 9.4 However, as at the date of the submission of these RR’s it is the case that: 9.4.1 no legal agreement has been entered into with the Applicant to secure the measures summarised in paragraph 9.3 above; and 9.4.2 no amendment to the Proposed Order has been brought forward by the Applicant. 9.5 It is the intention of P66 to continue to work closely and proactively 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 P66’s land interests and operations. 9.6 In order to ensure P66’s operational integrity, such protective works and safeguards must be completed in advance of the implementation of the Scheme. Conclusion 10.1 For the reasons above, P66 considers that in respect of the Proposed Order (as is): 10.1.1 That the Applicant has not currently sufficiently demonstrated there is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition and temporary powers in particular in relation to all of the proposed Proposed Permanent Acquisition Land being unnecessary for the purposes of the Scheme; and 10.1.2 That the Proposed Order should therefore not be made, and development consent should not be granted for the Scheme, unless and until P66’s interests have been fully protected. 10.2 P66 reserves the right to expand on the arguments 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. 10.3 P66 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 Phillips 66 Limited 15 January 2024