Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal - Amazon S3 · 2016. 8. 18. · Lunch and networking(*) 12.45 ± 13.45 10. Project reporting and finance requirements 13.45 ± 14.00 AG 11

©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1

©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP The information in this document is the property of Energy Technologies Institute LLP and may not be copied or communicated to a third party, or used for any purpose other than that for

which it is supplied without the express written consent of Energy Technologies Institute LLP.

This information is given in good faith based upon the latest information available to Energy Technologies Institute LLP, no warranty or representation is given concerning such information,

which must not be taken as establishing any contractual or other commitment binding upon Energy Technologies Institute LLP or any of its subsidiary or associated companies.

Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal

Nicola Ham Edmonds

Den Gammer

Andrew Green


Agenda

2

1. Arrival and tea/coffee 9.30 – 10.00

2. Introduction, safety and rules for the day 10.00 – 10.05 AG

3. Introduction to the ETI 10.05 – 10.20 AG

4. Project background 10.20 – 10.45 DG

5. Intellectual Property, Third Party Data and Third Party Software Models

10.45 – 11.15 NHE

6. ETI Project Contract – Key Features 11.15 – 11.45 NHE

7. Project detailed technical requirements 11.45 – 12.30 DG

8. Project organisation and key roles 12.30 – 12.45 AG

9. Lunch and networking(*) 12.45 – 13.45

10. Project reporting and finance requirements 13.45 – 14.00 AG

11. Submission, selection and contract negotiating & detailing process

14.00 – 14.15 AG

12. Open Q&A 14.15 – 14.45

13. Tea, networking and depart(*) 14.45 – 15.30


Rules for the day

• Opportunity to learn more about ETI and its requirements for this project – feel free to ask

questions

– Covering not just technical issues, but financial, legal, commercial etc

– Q&A sessions after each agenda item

– Will endeavour to stay to schedule!

• Opportunity to network with potential participants

– ETI is not offering to act as ‘marriage brokers’

– Recognise that different consortia may be at different stages of formation

• Discussions in here today are non confidential

– Q&A’s in the open session will be recorded and made available (without attribution) to all

parties registering an interest in the Project

– Break out room available should any attendees want to hold confidential meetings over lunch

or in final session

3


INTRODUCTION TO THE ETI

4


What is the ETI?

5.

• The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) is a

public-private partnership between global

industries and UK Government

Delivering...

• Targeted development, demonstration and de-

risking of new technologies for affordable and

secure energy

• Shared risk

ETI programme associate

ETI members


What is the ETI?

6.

System level strategic planning

Technology development & demonstration

Delivering knowledge &

innovation


ETI Invests in projects at 3 levels

7

Knowledge Building Projects

typically ....

up to £5m, Up to 2 years

Technology Development projects

typically ....

£5-15m, 2-4 years

TRL 3-5

Technology Demonstration projects

Large projects delivered primarily by large companies, system integration focus

typically ....

£15-30m+, 3-5 years

TRL 5-6+


ETI Invests in projects at 3 levels

8.

9 Technology

Programme areas

Delivering...

New knowledge

Technology development

Technology demonstration

Reduced risk


ETI Projects – what is different

The ETI is an investor in technology, not a grant awarding body

The ETI is unique and its mode of operating reflects this:

− ETI objectives: acceleration of technology

− Need to meet State Aid requirements

− ETI can fund up to 100% of project costs

− ETI member investment

• How does ETI commission projects?

− ETI defines the projects it wishes to commission taking input from experts

− State aid and ETI’s constitution require open and transparent process to allocate funding

− Typically, request for proposals through open call

− Select against selection criteria: mix of technical and delivery capabilities, commercial requirements including ability to manage IP to ensure that results can be made publically available

9


Key requirements/constraints for this Project (1)

• Project Funding

– The ETI is commissioning and delivering this Project on behalf of DECC

– DECC is making available up to £2.5M additional funding to the ETI. This maximum funding

is to cover all external costs defrayed by the ETI

• Project costs

• All data and software licensing fees

• Consultancy support to the ETI to oversee the project (maximum £100k)

– All Project activities (including final reporting) must be completed and costs defrayed within

the Financial Year 2015/16

• ETI will make no commitments to meet any costs incurred before 5th April 2015 or

beyond 4th April 2016.

• Will be a short window after 4th April 2016 to close project, finalise financial claims

– Significant risk that funding will be withdrawn if not on contract by

1st May 2015

10


Key requirements/constraints for this Project (2)

• Commissioning and delivery will be according to ETI governance processes

– DECC funding will be channelled through normal ETI funding processes

• This is a ‘National Asset’ Project – the ETI will makes results publically available

– On licensed terms, probably through a third party

– Critical that the ETI obtains the rights to do this

– Close attention to IP rights – particularly for third party data and software

11


ETI CCS PROGRAMME

12


CCS: Challenges for the UK

CCS System:

•Cost-effective roll out

•Operability

•Incentives to invest

1 – 4 km

Storage = Risk

•How much is there?

•Which sites?

•Monitoring CO2

Capture = Cost

•Reduced Capital Cost

•Reduced Power Penalty

12


Storage Appraisal: £4M

Capture Economics: £0.2M

MMV Landscape: £0.2M

Mineralisation: £1.4M

Biomass with CCS: £0.8M

Hydrogen & Storage: £0.3M

CCS Development Scenarios £0.1M

CCS System Modelling Toolkit: £3M

High Hydrogen: £2M

Turbine & Engine Safety

Thermal Power with CCS: £2M +

Nextgen1: up to £23M

Pre Combustion Coal

Nextgen 2: up to £20M

Post Combustion Gas

Aquifer Appraisal: £2M

Funding of NG Project

MMV: £5M

Marine monitoring

Demonstration

Development

Knowledge

Building

ETI CCS Programme

13


Storage - Appraisal

• ETI has delivered, through a £4m investment

in the UK Storage Appraisal Project:

– Realistic, defensible & fully auditable assessment of

potential CO2 storage capacity in the UK

– Overall estimate of capacity

– Unique & comprehensive GIS storage database

• Capacity

• Security of storage

• Economics

• Underlying data

• Database licensed to The Crown Estate and British Geological

Survey

– Launched in 2013, as CO2Stored

– Available free to academia and by subscription to industry

– Available free to Project Participants for the purpose of the

Project

14


PROJECT BACKGROUND

16

©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1 16

Learnings from previous work from CO2Stored data

• In 2012 ETI carried out a high level techno-economic study of

offshore networks storing c.100Mt/a by 2030 and through to

2050.

• A cost estimation tool for clusters was created for ETI by

Element Energy using CO2Stored data – “CO2Nomica”.

• Outputs used to support CCS Cost Reduction Task Force.

Conclusions

• Scale is essential to keep costs down (new-builds). Punitive

diseconomies of scale below 10MT/a – not many stores can

inject at this rate.

• Clusters or trunks build scale, provide redundancy and can

sustain long term use of infrastructure. Trunks reduce

operational costs for stores with declining injectivity.

• With planning the total investment in offshore transport and

storage is containable - 6 hubs, 20 stores, 200 wells - £16bn

money of today. Easily fits within a clean power offering of

£100/MWh by 2030 (NOAK costs).


Storage appraisal – risk and schedule

18

• The costs, risks and schedule in storage appraisal impede full-chain CCS

project development and investment. Stores have up to 9 years gestation

and appraisal can cost £80M+ for a new aquifer storage play.

• At Final Investment Decision (FID) the store needs to be appraised and

engineered, and provide up to 30 years of storage capacity for a power

station. Example 1GW coal – c.180MT.

• Having appraised storage “visible” to project planners reduces the

complexity, schedule, risk and therefore the cost of CCS. Having multiple

storage options improves perception of operational robustness and

confidence in the decline of future costs as clusters build. (£100/MWh

“promise”).

• Using existing infrastructure reduces upfront investment and its risk

premium.


Target ranges for CCS

19

• No explicit government target for the “mix” of clean power producers, but

– Policy and obligation to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050, from 1990 levels.

– Acceptance of CCC conclusion that power sector decarbonises first (based on cost).

– Gas Generation Strategy decarbonisation of power to 100g CO2/kWh by 2030 needs CCS.

– DECC published CCS projections in the range 1GW – 13GW in scenarios by 2030, 5GW

CCS in most recent case.

– CCC review of 4th carbon budget – 10GW CCS by 2030.

(summary: thanks to Patrick Dixon)

ETI Scenarios Work (2014)

Balancing “lowest cost” pathway solution (which suggests a higher demand for CCS) with a late

start, normal individual project schedules and reasonable risk taking, leads us to focus on

– 10 GW CCS by 2030 (nominally 50 MT/a)


Three main roll-out scenarios based on policy backdrop

CCS growth

• Implement Wood’s recommendations to coordinate UKCS oil

production and increase commercial attractiveness.

• High CO2-EOR policy support (e.g. tax incentives)

• CO2 has a value due to the CO2-EOR projects

“CO2-EOR”

“Balanced” “Concentrated”

• Push “on all fronts” to win

support from diverse

stakeholders.

• A variety of regional

source clusters

• Multiple fuel sources

• Multiple capture

technologies

• There won’t be any

leading technology

• Geographic concentration

around the two

competition projects and

standardisation to reduce

T&S costs and barriers.

• Dominant role for SNS

storage and gas CCS

19


Transport and Storage Group - CRTF

• Two recent publications developing earlier work (available on The Crown Estate website)

“Delivering Storage at the lowest cost in time to meet the UK’s decarbonisation goals”

“Optimising CCS Networks to reduce CCS costs”

• Requirements of new policy – CCS location, size.

• Incentivising pre- FID storage.

• Incentivising “right- sized” investment in new trunk lines for optimal networks.

• Issues with Third Party Access to infrastructure.

• Funding needed to encourage appraisal beyond Phase 1.

• “Stepping out” from early assets is cost effective

21


Phase 1 competition and “10GW CCS / 50 MT/a”

• Phase 1 will leave us well short of a 10GW CCS / 50MT/a ambition

22

Project Store Size

p90/p50 MT

(CO2Stored)

Phase 1

Injection

MT/a

Power

GW

Pipeline

MT/a

Peterhead 37/40 1 0.38 10

White Rose 200/500 2 0.44 gross 17

Note. 1. The White Rose store has an economic injectivity of around 10MT/a in CO2Stored

2. The DECC Competition work will not de-risk all of the White Rose store capacity


This Project – more de-risked storage

23

• Downselect storage for assessment

• Progress de-risking of 5 commercially attractive stores towards readiness for FID in 2020s.

• Provide options relevant to the needs of different regions

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

Cu

mu

lati

ve C

O2

(MtC

O2)

Amount of storage which needs

to be appraised to provide

~30 years storage – c.1500MT


INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, THIRD PARTY DATA &

THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE

24


Key challenges

• Effective management of IP is critical to this Project

• Purpose of Project is to:-

– Create outputs that are made available publically

– Bring together existing IP from many homes and new IP

• All must be done within a very challenging funding window

• Your proposals to manage IP will be a key part of your submission and key part of Selection

Criteria (S3)

• Early discussions with owners of existing IP will be required and early involvement of your legal

support in this area is recommended

25


Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project

– IP requirements

• RfP sets out minimum requirements – please read carefully.

• In order to achieve Project aims, the ETI Project Contract will include detailed provisions to deal

with IP as follows

• Arising IP (i.e. newly created during the Project)

– This will be owned by the ETI

– The enables the ETI to put in place the arrangements for it to be made publically available

– This onward sharing may be through licence or assignment

– ETI’s ability to do must be unfettered**

• Licences to Participants are possible as long as consistent with ETI’s objectives to make

available

– Academic rights

– Commercial rights

– Access to main outputs, e.g. database may be through third party provider

26



– IP requirements

• Background IP (i.e. your own IP, existing already or created separately)

• ETI’s standard approach to Background IP applies

• Ownership of Background IP remains the same

• Licences to be made available by Participants

– For the Project, as necessary between any Participants and Subcontractors in order to

deliver the Project (royalty free basis)

– Post Project, in relation to Background IP incorporated into any outputs/Deliverables in order

for ETI to transfer, licence etc freely the Arising IP.

– In this case, costs, if any, should be included in up front Project Costs

• For your Proposal, identify any such Background IP and how it will be made available (i.e.

compliant with RfP requirements or otherwise)

27



– IP requirements

• Third Party IP (i.e. existing IP owned by a third party)

• Broadly the approach for Third Party IP mimics that for Background IP

• For each constituent Third Party IP, the ETI is flexible as to whether it ultimately enters into a

specific licence directly (and sublicences to Participants) or whether it receives its rights through a

sublicence from a Participant who has the direct licence of Third Party IP

• Risk remains with Participants – you must identify what Third Party IP is necessary in your

Proposal and in the Project and manage it so the ETI is licensed to use anything contained in any

Deliverables

• It is desirable to deal with this as much as possible pre-contract to mitigate risk to delivery of the

Project (including within the funding window)

• The ETI will want to approve the terms of each licence for certainty

• Costs for usage of Third Party IP ought to be included in up front Project Costs – note the

maximum funding available needs to include IP costs

28


Finally

• Effective management of IP could make/break this Project

• Third Party IP existing/standard terms are unlikely to be set up to provide the usage and rights

required by ETI/DECC

• Negotiation time in relation to Third Party IP needs to be built in to proposal planning and started

as early as possible

• Due diligence on Background IP and Third Party IP will be a material task

• ETI is happy to work with Respondents/Project Participants in relation to Third Party IP from

down-selection: collaboration will be key to success

29


PROJECT CONTRACT: OTHER KEY ASPECTS

30


Project Contract – State Aid

• ETI’s funding is public sector, so Project Funding must comply with EU state aid rules

• ETI’s State Aid Clearance

– The Project will fall within ETI’s existing clearance

• Manage State Aid issues through the Technology Contract

– Stipulation of category of participant at outset for State Aid purposes

– Requirement for this categorisation to be updated periodically

– Milestones/project plan will break down work into different categories

• Arising IP rights and Profit – can’t have both

• 100% return of state funding in certain, limited circumstances, for example:

– withdrawal of a participant without consent

– corruption or fraud

– failure to comply with State Aid requirements (EU law requirement)

31


Project Contract – Other Key Issues

• Stage Gate Reviews

– Structured reviews at key points where project progress and business case reviewed

– Option to stop the project

• Exit Provisions

– Suspension

– Termination – breach and for convenience.

– Termination by mutual consent

– Withdrawal of participant – can withdraw if all other participants and ETI agree. Conditions

likely to be imposed.

32


Project Contract – Other Key Issues

• Confidentiality

• Warranties

• Liabilities – ETI funding but exclusions to the cap apply

• Indemnities

– third party indemnity (“misdirected” claims)

– IP indemnity

– Indemnities related to warranties, project by project

33


Related Contracts

• Consortium Agreement:

– Agreement between participants: ETI to approve

– Completed prior to Technology Contract

– Specific arrangements e.g.

• appointment of Project Manager and Chief Technologist

• internal organisation of Research Consortium

• regular project meetings

• use of facilities and equipment

• financial provisions amongst participants

• Subcontractors

– Access to Third Party Data and Software – will require ETI approval

– Other key subcontracts may need approval

• Funding contracts (if relevant)

34


Summary: key issues for review before you bid

• Arising IP – ETI to own

• What Background IP and Third Party IP will you need, have preliminary discussions, set out detail

in bid

• Rest of contract

– State Aid – return of funding (non-negotiable/legal requirement)

– Third Party IP risk – warranties and indemnity

– Liability (especially in consortium and your expected flow down to subs)

– Payment within funding window

– Acceptance process

– Reporting (make sure you price it in)

– Stage Gates

• Make sure you have buy in of each proposed consortium member and any key subcontractors

• All comments in single collated list/mark up

35


PROJECT TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

36


Project Objectives and Outcomes

37

• To sustain a storage development trajectory that services 10GWe - 50Mt/a of storage

operational in 2030.

• To down select a portfolio of 5 stores for detailed de-risking. Build on Phase 1

infrastructure.

• To bring some of the selected capacity to end of Appraisal, providing options that will

support Phase 1 decisions and early Phase 2 options.

• With the balance of the selected capacity ,develop commercial scale, low cost and risk

options towards full appraisal in the 2020-2026 period ( and hence operation 2030).

• Estimate and schedule and resources needed to get down selected stores fully appraised

and then operational.

• Make results available to current and potential future stakeholders.


Work Packages - highlights

38

Package Highlights Comments

WP1 Framework for screening,

selection, appraisal

Tested methods

preferable

WP2 Consortia requirements for

information

Possible rate determining

activity

WP3 Initial Screening Portfolio approach

WP4 Final down -select Some capacity ready for

deep study preferred

WP5 Maturation Sustain 5 targets if casualties

occur.

WP6 Options for UK Storage

Development

Include Phase 1,2 and EIS

etc in an overall spatial plan

WP7 Management and Stakeholders Engage the O&G and

storage community


Project Deliverables

39

• A methodology for store screening, selection and appraisal.

• A database from the project that can be freely “licensed on” to others.

• Models (where necessary) and assessments arising from WP 4 and 5

• A comprehensive report on the Project activities and findings

- the de-risking exercise

- a graded spatial plan with options

- a cost and schedule to complete the down-selected stores (to operation)

• A publishable report of key outcomes – for stakeholders


Resources

40

• CO2Stored

• ETI Scenario work

• CO2Nomica

• Third Party Publications

- DECC No1

- Regional Studies eg Yorkshire etc


PROJECT ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

41


Contractual Structure

Overall• No strong preference on structure – provided Respondents justify their approach as best

way to deliver

• The ETI will only select Respondents who have the required skills, experience and

capability (either themselves or within their Subcontractors/Consortium) to complete all

parts of the Project

Consortium• Each Participant in contract with ETI

• Consortium Agreement covering interactions

within Consortium (requires ETI approval

before main contract is signed)

• ‘Lead Coordinator’ acts as primary interface

with the ETI

42

Prime Contractor• Single entity in contract with the ETI

• Other participants act as subcontractors

• Appointment and use of Subcontractors

requires ETI approval

• ETI has right to view and approve

subcontracts


ETI

Project

Manager

ETI Executive

Project

Project

Manager

Project Team

Advisory Group

ETI Board

ETI PAG

ETI CCS SAG

ETI Programme

Management Office

ETI Finance

ETI Communications

ETI Legal

ETI Typical Project Structure

Project Steering

GroupProject

Chief Technologist

43


Key Roles

Project Manager

– managing and progressing the project team and programme to time and cost

– handling information flows and commercial issues

– ensuring effective team-working and the continued engagement and support of key

stakeholders.

• To make sure that the ETI benefits from a result at the end of the programme of work

that meets the agreed outcomes within time and cost.

Chief Technologist

– responsible for the technical quality and content of the work

– ensuring the competence of key technical staff allocated to individual work packages

– effective review of key outputs and the effectiveness of detailed technical planning to ensure

that the emerging results of work are fed back into the forward plan

• To assure the technical quality of the project and its outcomes

• Strong industrial (rather than academic) focus44


Key Roles

• Identify individuals

• Include CVs

• Identify how much resource

• Realism regarding likely availability for project

45


PROJECT REPORTING AND FINANCE

REQUIREMENTS

46


Reporting Principles

• ETI takes hands on, collaborative approach to management of project

– Regular, informal contact expected (e.g. weekly catch up calls)

– Maximise chance of success by sharing risks and issues

• ETI reports regularly to its members (including DECC)

– Project needs to provide monthly reports

– Proforma reports

• ETI needs monthly finance updates

– Ensure that the ETI meets State Aid regulations

– Ensuring the ETI has the cash to meet its commitments (works on ‘cash call’ from Members)

• Technical quality of deliverables is paramount

– Payments will be contingent on acceptance of deliverables against agreed acceptance

criteria

– Key deliverables will be reviewed by ETI expert advisors

• Make sure you budget enough time to meet requirements!

47


Types of Reports

• Monthly Report

– Project Management

– Finance

• Milestone Report

– Brief report outlining the deliverables and why the Consortium believes the acceptance

criteria have been met

– Identify Arising IP generated under, or in connection with, the production of each

deliverable should also be disclosed

• Milestone Cost Report

– Cost report for each participant in relation to the relevant payment milestone

– Generated from the Finance Monthly Report

– Independent Accountants’ Report for some milestones (see draft contract)

• Deliverable/Technical Report

– Not prescriptive in terms of format and structure

– Some minimum standards

48


Reporting – additional requirements

• Ability of ETI and members (including DECC) to attend meetings

• End of year financial report

• Additional reporting and inspection obligations

– ETI has right to have projects audited by external auditors and experts

• Obligations on project participants to archive materials

– 10 years = State Aid obligation

– 20 years = patent prosecution and protection

49


Project Funding

• The Project Funding is a maximum amount

– Capped Cost

– Fixed Price (exceptional circumstances)

– Require transparency of cashflow & cost breakdown in either case

• Project will be broken down into milestones – payment will be against milestones

• Payment

– Actual costs

– Eligible costs

• 100% FEC for HEIs

• Acceptance Process

– Technical

– Cost

• Detailed spreadsheets required to manage costs

• Stipulated payment mechanism with independent accountant’s report(s) at set stage

50


Payment Milestones, Deliverables and

Acceptance Criteria• Payment Milestones are key points in project where value is delivered to the ETI

• One or more Project Deliverables provided

• Formal review of Deliverables against ‘Acceptance Criteria’

– Agreed acceptance Criteria set out in Project Contract

– ETI uses ‘Project Advisors’ to review deliverables

– ETI can – and often does – initially reject deliverables which do not meet the Acceptance

Criteria

– Details for review procedure set out the Project Contract

• Payment only approved when Deliverables are agreed by the ETI

51


Accountants Reports

• ETI requires Accounts Reports at key milestones, dependent on level and funding and participant

type

• Apart from HEI’s this is not an eligible cost

52

Total Funding for First, Last and Each £500k First, Last First & Last

Each Participant Cumulative Payment** & Anniversary Last Only

>£2m YES

>£500k - £2m YES

>£250k-500k YES

>£50k -£250k YES

HEIs >£100k YES

Milestone Payments*


SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

53


Timetable for Submission

• Deadline for signed NDA/Intention to submit:

– 29th January 2015

• Submission deadline:

– 5th February 2015, 12 noon: Word and PDF

– 3x hard copies within 3 working days

54


Submission Requirements

• Detailed Proposal

• Supporting information

– CVs of key staff

• Risk Register

• Due Diligence

• Statement of Compliance

– Signed by Prime Contractor or each member of Consortium

– Include exceptions on Project Contract – ideally consolidated mark up

– LINE UP YOUR LEGAL/CONTRACT STAFF TO REVIEW

55


Selection Process

• Selection Panel – 19th February 2015

• Selection Panel Members

– Group providing appropriate technical & commercial expertise

– ETI staff

– Experts from ETI Members (public/private sector)

– Third party experts as appropriate

• Process

– Panel members individually consider proposals against Selection Criteria

– Respondents may be invited to provide presentation to the panel

– Meeting to discuss and agree recommendations to ETI Executive

– ETI Executive approves which proposal(s) – if any – should go forward, based on

recommendations of panel

– All Respondents (successful or not) given feedback on strengths and weaknesses of bid

– Successful bidder(s) notified by 3rd March 2015

• May decide to invite more than one consortium through and hold a second selection panel

56


Selection Criteria (1)

S1 Ability of the Participants to deliver the Project, based on evidence provided and presented at the

Selection Panel(s). Ability of the Participants to deliver the Project, based on evidence provided and

presented at the Selection Panel(s).

S1A Technical

– Experience and availability of the proposed Chief Technologist;

– Level of experience and completeness of the technical skills amongst the consortium to

deliver the Project, including experience in CO2 storage appraisal, and more specifically:

• Management of the development and sharing of technical documentation across many

parties;

• Interpretation of geological data to give an overview of reservoir attractiveness –

depositional history, vertical and lateral homogeneity within a boundary, connectivity

with more remote parts of the structure, or other structures, cap rock strength

• Static, dynamic and reservoir simulation modelling on commercial platforms;

• Geomechanics, geochemistry;

• Interpretation of data from seismic, wellbore, etc. data sources;

• Judgement of the need for and value of additional information;

• Assessment of specific risks – integrity of abandoned and accessible wells, faults;

• Offshore Facility conceptual design options;

• Cost estimation of offshore installations;

57



S1A Technical (cont)

– Experience of managing IP, particularly with relation to data and software;

– Availability and stability of deployable resources with the above skills to mobilise sufficiently

rapidly and for sufficient durations;

S1B Delivery

– Experience and availability of the proposed Project Manager;

– Record and ability in quality, timely and on-budget delivery of projects (of the type requested

in this RfP) to the full satisfaction of the main stakeholders;

– Project management systems and expertise appropriate for this sort of project;

– Ability and experience in collaborative working;

– Appropriate health, safety and environmental management systems and experience;

– Effectiveness of the contracting, organisational, governance and control structures and

processes proposed for the participating entities / organisations, including interfacing with

ETI as it requires, etc;

– Project approach and plan, including Gantt chart, suitable Stage Gates & Payment

Milestones;

– Risk Management. Respondents will need to demonstrate clear evidence of a rigorous, risk-

based approach to management of the Project. A register identifying the key risks and how

they will be managed is required.

58



S2 Value for money with respect to Project Funding:

– Contributions from Participants and third parties (including funding, in-kind support and

making their own IP available to the project, e.g. data, models, previous analysis);

– Competitiveness of costs;

– Willingness and capacity to accept the financial risk profile for the Project.

S3 Licensing Strategy for Third Party Data and Background IP:

– Evidence of a robust strategy and management plan for identifying and obtaining licences to

enable the Participants to carry out the Project and the ETI to use and license the Database,

Software Models and other Deliverables from the Project;

– Evidence of initial discussions and buy-in from the owners of any Third Party Data identified

as critical for the Project at proposal stage;

– Evidence of a credible management plan to minimise risk of infringement of third party

Intellectual Property Rights.

59



S4 Risks associated with reaching acceptable agreement with the ETI within the timescales set out

in this RfP:

– Credible evidence that the Project Contract has been fully reviewed within Respondent

organisations;

– Respondents’ willingness to materially comply with the terms and conditions of the proposed

Project Contract, including the ETI’s IP position and the requirements on Third Party IP;

– Availability and commitment of the necessary technical, legal and financial resources to meet

the requirements of ETI’s commissioning process.

60


Detailing and Negotiation• Fixed deadline for responses to requests for clarification – 13th March 2015

• Series of fixed meetings

– Detailing of technical programme, definition of deliverables and acceptance criteria

– Detailing and agreement of Stage Gates (if appropriate)

– Negotiation and agreement of the Project Contract

– Detailed due diligence (Annex A1 Section 2)

– Agreement and approval by the ETI to terms of other key contractual arrangements

• e.g. Sub-contracts (including Third Party Data)

• Consortium Agreement

– Gaining all necessary Respondent and ETI approvals to undertake the Project

– Further information or assessment that may be necessary to meet state aid requirements

• Fixed period of 8 weeks set for this stage

– Very challenging

– Respondents must commit to making all technical, legal and finance resources available

to meet this target

• Significant risk that funding will be withdrawn if not on contract by

1st May 201561


OPEN Q&A

62


For more information

about the ETI visit

www.eti.co.uk

For the latest ETI news

and announcements

email [email protected]

The ETI can also be

followed on Twitter

@the_ETI

Registered Office

Energy Technologies Institute

Holywell Building

Holywell Park

Loughborough

LE11 3UZ

For all general enquiries

telephone the ETI on

01509 202020.

63

Documents

Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal - Amazon S3 · 2016. 8. 18. · Lunch and networking(*) 12.45 ± 13.45 10. Project reporting and finance requirements 13.45 ± 14.00 AG 11