CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE NETWORK: AN EMERGING STRATEGIC SOLUTION

TO TEESIDE INDUSTRIAL SUSTAINABILITY

BY

RAPHAEL AKAM

(Technical Specialist – Energy Optimisation, SSI UK)

Submitted to the Cleveland Institution of Engineers at the Institution’s Annual Paper Competition

May 2014

ABSTRACT

Over recent history, there has been a global campaign for carbon emission reduction and climate change

control with the most stringent standards being in the European Union (EU). The EUETS policy and UK

carbon tax have proven to be a threat to the growth and sustainability of the industries on Teesside. The

carbon allowance allotment formula puts manufacturing industries and power companies in difficult position

to make capacity-driven profit. Through the successive phases of the EUETS, carbon allowance allocations

are gradually coming to levels that the carbon-intensive industries on Teesside would not comfortably

operate without additional cost of carbon allowance import. This stands as a major impediment to

profitability and a constraint to large-scale investment decision-making by potential investors in on Teesside.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a quick and viable way of capturing carbon from power plants and

heavy industries in order to reduce emission levels. With interest in the technology increasing and as it

becomes more economically robust, the mainly carbon-intensive industries on Teesside will face emission-

driven competition both within and outside the UK. CCS is therefore a key strategy for securing industrial

sustainability on Teesside. However, due to economic uncertainties, limited technological and commercial

demonstration, CCS for Teesside has received weak support which could potentially impact the expected

industrial growth and sustainability benefits from the technology.

In this paper, a review has been made of the key impacts of EUETS and other UK carbon policies on

Teesside industrial growth and sustainability. The paper also further highlights the hidden potential

economic benefits of the CCS network in the area to counter doubts surrounding its economic feasibility.

Keywords: Teesside, carbon-intensive industries, EUETS, carbon allowance, carbon capture and storage,

CCS, industrial sustainability

1. INTRODUCTION

Over recent history, global carbon dioxide reduction and climate change control has become a

pivotal consideration in the environmental and energy policy-making of governments and major businesses

of the world (Lenschow, 2002). This emission reduction campaign has developed through successive

strategies such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to carbon emission trading and carbon taxes

(IPCC 2007; Neuhoff 2008). Ultimately, the European Union Emission Trading System (EUETS) happens to

survive as the only existing significant carbon emission trading system.

Although the EUETS and other carbon taxes have achieved a significant reduction in CO2 emission

(Carbon Trust, 2007), the economic impacts on carbon-intensive industries tend to be increasing over the

successive phases (Brown et al, 2012). As the campaign for carbon emission reduction continues to gain

momentum, and as the cost of CO2 emission allowance increases over the phases of EUETS, there is an

impending threat to the growth and sustainability of the dominantly carbon-intensive industries on Teesside

considering their competitiveness with their regional and global rivals. Figure 1 shows a set of data for the

key activities whose cost would be most affected by paying for the CO2 they emit. These industries are

typical of the industries found on the Teesside industrial area.

Figure 1: Manufacturing activities most cost-sensitive to CO2 pricing (Source: Carbon Trust, 2007)

To secure sustainable future, the industries on Teesside area have a compelling task to seek a

solution to this carbon reduction requirement. CCS has been demonstrated as a successful technology in

many industrial areas of the world (DECC, 2009), but localised economic benefits for defined strategic

industrial areas like Teesside have not been thoroughly evaluated. In light of the aforementioned, this paper

sets out to review impacts of carbon emission levies on the growth and sustainability of Teesside industries,

and the economic benefits of implementing a carbon capture and storage network within the area.

Allocation dependent (direct) CO2 cost/GVA Electricity (indirect) CO2 cost/GVA

2. THE TEESSIDE INDUSTRIAL AREA

2.1 Brief Description and Location

Teesside is a major industrial location of the UK process and chemical industries with enormous

potential. As a key host of the North East Process Industries Cluster (NEPIC), it is known for iron and steel,

refining, petrochemicals, specialty and fine chemicals, plastics, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals (NEPIC,

2013). It also has one of the largest steel industries with the second largest blast furnace by capacity in

Europe. More outstandingly, it is known for having both the largest and the second largest integrated

chemical complexes in the UK and Western Europe respectively (NEPIC, 2013). Figure 2 shows the map

and location of Tees Valley in North East England.

Figure 2: Geographical location map of Tees Valley in the UK (Source: NEPIC, 2013)

2.2 Teesside Industrial Emergence and Presence

The existence of petrochemical industry on Teesside can be traced back to over 170 years with

consistent stream of global leading products and processes (NEPIC, 2014). The region has developed into a

leading location for chemical and process industries. Strategically located by the North Sea, it serves as

access for oil and gas raw materials supply with its port used as import and export route to the European and

the global market at large (NEPIC, 2014). The Teesside’s petrochemical industry covers a geographical area

of approximately 12 miles from east to west of the River Tees. Within this distance are three (3) main

industrial sites including Wilton International, Billingham and Seal Sands/North Tees. The Wilton

International site covers about 2,000 acres of land and is a host of major manufacturing sites such as SABIC

– one of the largest crackers in Europe, Huntsman with a world-scale plant for polyurethanes and pigments,

Lotte Chemical UK, Ensus, Biffa, Invista, Yara, International Power GDF Suez. This site has about 50

companies including maintenance and engineering services with estimated 3,000 people employed (NEPIC,

2014).

The Billingham site is known for chemical production which dates back to the 1920’s. In the early

years, ammonia, fertiliser, and plastics were the main products (NEPIC, 2013). Today, companies focusing

on chemicals, biotechnology and engineering are found within the Billingham industrial park. These include

GrowHow with the largest fertiliser plant in the UK, Johnson Matthey, Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies

and Frutarom.

Seal Sands Industrial Park is another part of the Teesside chemical industry cluster and is located by

the River Tees. Operations here are dated back to the 1960s (NEPIC, 2013). Companies found include: BP

Cats, SABIC, ConocoPhillip, Lote Chemicals UK – a major manufacturer of PET, Vopak, Simon Storage,

Harvest Energy, Vertellus, Greenergy and Air Products. Additionally, there are new investments currently

emerging either as business expansion or as entirely new manufacturing activity.

Coincidentally, most of these industries are carbon-intensive and a majority of their processes were

designed and built before the advent of European Union Emissions Trading System (EUETS) and carbon tax

regime. Table 2.1 presents the key operators in the Teesside area and their verified CO2 emission in 2013.

Table 2.1 Key Industries on Teesside and their verified CO2 emission levels in 2013

Operator 2013 verified Emission

(tCO2/yr.)*

BOC Linde 240,862

BP Cats 31,728

ConocoPhillips 287,847

Ensus UK Ltd 31,430

GrowHow UK Ltd 918,118

Harvest Energy 14,309

Huntsman 5,281

Ineos Nitrile 443,256

Lotte Chemicals 52,143

Lucite International 228,482

Px (TPPG) Ltd 25,541

SABIC (cracker) 1,186,742

SABIC (aromatics) 68,092

Sembcorp Utilities 816,334

Sahaviriya Steel UK Ltd 6,051,963

TATA Steel (beam mill) 50,514

United Buscuits 17,661

*Source: EUROPA – Climate Action (www.ec.europa.eu)

3. EUROPEAN EMISSION TRADING SCHEME AND CARBON ALLOWANCES

3.1 Definition of EUETS

EUETS is a trading strategy set up by the European Union to reduce the emission of greenhouse

gases known to be responsible for global warming and climate change. It was the first large greenhouse gas

emission trading system in the world and still remains the largest today (Bets and Sato, 2006). Coming into

force in 2005, it has through successive phases proven a major cost impact and threat to the survival of most

carbon-intensive industries in Europe and specific industrial regions like the Teesside area. Furthermore, it

has been a key constraint to investment decision making on aspiring businesses and sometimes leads to

withdrawal from major industrial business development that would result in significant economic benefit to

the Teesside area.

3.2 Phases of EUETS

The first phase of EUETS covered the period between 2005 and 2007. During the phase I, 12,000

installations - mainly energy-intensive industries were covered with an estimated EU CO2 emission of 42%.

The second phase covered the period from 2008 to 2012. Under phase II, every member state developed a

national plan based on a cap on total emission, with the cap converted into allowances. 10% of the

allowances were available for auctioning with the UK having the largest of the auctions. Installations were

obliged to surrender sufficient allowances to cover their emissions.

Phase III of the EUETS covers the period between 2013 to 2020. During this phase, there would be

significant changes from the previous phases of the scheme. This has been designed to make carbon emission

reduction even more successful. A central (EU-wide) emission cap is set to cover all the EU countries. It is

proposed that there would be a yearly reduction of at least 1.74% from the previous year with the aim of

ultimately achieving a 21% reduction from 2005 levels in the last year of the third phase. This phase also

extends further to cover the aviation operators and 50% of the total allowances would be designated for

auctioning rather than given out free to installations.

3.3 Carbon Allowances and Dynamics of EUETS

CO2 allowance allocation has been design with the aim of achieving significant emission reduction.

However, the allocation strategy has been a highly challenging policy experiment (Betz and Sato, 2006).

Resultantly, lessons have been learned over the past two successive phases of the scheme. Rogge et al (2006)

reported that the adequacy of allocation under phase 1 was constrained by technical and time constraints. It

has been opined that the allocations of phase 1 may have been far from achieving its purpose. For instance,

Kettner et al., 2007 declared that allocated volume in phase 1 exceeded the verified emission figures by over

100 million units. Allocations in the successive phases have been more technically managed towards

achieving the emission reduction targets, through the National Allocation Plan (NAP). During phase 3, the

EU has adopted an even more ambitious CO2 emission reduction of 20% by with a significant amount of

cutbacks expected from the manufacturing industries (Carbon Trust, 2007). Table 3.1 presents the CO2

allowances available to the key industries on Teesside in 2013 and the average successive yearly reduction

for each industry.

Table 3.1: 2013 CO2 allowances and average successive yearly reduction during phase III

Operator 2013 allocation in

the current EUETS

period*

2013 verified

Emission

(tCO2/yr.)*

Average successive

yearly reduction in

allowance**

BOC Linde 224,248 240,862 4,021

BP Cats 29,725 31,728 1,066 ConocoPhillips 339,162 287,847 6,082 Ensus UK Ltd 102,317 31,430 3,670 GrowHow UK

Ltd 918,711 918,118 16,475 Harvest Energy 12,015 14,309 215 Huntsman 40,024 5,281 718 Ineos Nitrile 355,635 443,256 6,378 Lotte Chemicals 127,651 52,143 2,289 Lucite

International 222,917 228,482 3.3,998 Px (TPPG) Ltd 37,230 25,541 1,230 SABIC (cracker) 910,056 1,186,742 16,320 SABIC

(aromatics) 71,540 68,092 1,283 Sembcorp

Utilities 160,262 816,334 3,456 Sahaviriya Steel

UK Ltd 4,948,517 6,051,963 88,741 TATA Steel

(beam mill) 68,730 50,514 1,233 United Buscuits 17,753 17,661 1,704

** Calculated from EUETS phase III allowances (sourced: DECC)

*Source: EUROPA – Climate Action (www.ec.europa.eu)

3.4 Potential Impacts of EUETS on Industries in the Teesside Area

EUETS has the potential to negatively impact competitiveness of the industries in the EU region

within the global market. The allocation of far less carbon allowance than required by some installations

makes it difficult for some installations to increase production capacity without additional cost on carbon.

Meanwhile, most of these industries depend on their capacity utilisation to make profit and to survive as a

business. Furthermore, while these industries produce for the global market and face global competition,

there exists an imbalance of the carbon emission policy around the world with their competitors favourably

placed to compete with less carbon emission restriction.

As can be seen on Table 3.1, most of the industries on Teesside have far less CO2 allowance than

they emitted in 2013. The companies would have to pay for the CO2 emitted in excess of their approved

allowance. This means a huge financial commitment on the industries. For instance, Sahaviriya Steel

Industries emits over 6 million tCO2 per year while seeking to increase its production output. Meanwhile, the

existing production levels already exits its allocated carbon emission allowance. Other installations (e.g.

SABIC, Ineos, etc) also emit significant amount of CO2 over their allocated CO2 emission allowance figures.

The absence of tough carbon emission standards in the regions where our global competitors are located will

combine with the installation of CCS in areas where similar carbon emission laws apply to force some

businesses in the Teesside area out of operation.

4. CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE: OPPORTUNITIES AND POTENTIAL ECONOMIC

BENEFIT

4.1 Definition and World Outlook

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of capturing carbon dioxide from large point

sources and transporting it through pipelines to deep subsurface formations for safe and permanent storage

(CCSA, 2014). There are three technologies associated with carbon capture and these include oxy-fuel

technology, post-combustion technology and pre-combustion technology. The choice for any of these

depends on temperature, pressure and concentration of the gas stream (Carbon Trust, 2007). CCS has been

technologically proven in a commercial scale in many industrial locations of the world (e.g. Canada and the

USA). In recent years, CCS has been widely promoted in the UK with the UK CCS project committee

currently working to demonstrate cost reduction and profitability and to de-risk transportation and storage for

the technology.

4.2 Teesside Capacity for CCS Network

The most economic capture of CO2 is identified to be the capture from large industrial plants or point

sources that emit at least 0.5 MtCO2 per annum (Rootzen et al, 2010). According to published verified

emission data by European Commission, Teesside emitted well above 10 million tCO2 in 2013 alone. There

is sufficient realistic quantified CO2 storage capacity in UK oil and gas fields to store all UK industrial

emissions of CO2 for between 13 to 38 years. The total potential CO2 storage capacity of the UK oil and gas

field is estimated at about 7500 Mt (Holloway et al, 2006). There are three key offshore fields with proven

economic storage potential. These include the Southern North Sea Basin, the East Irish Sea Basin, and the

Northern and Central North Sea Basin (Holloway et al, 2006). Currently, the opportunity presented by the

UK natural storage capacity is being utilised with two CCS network projects (Peter Head and White Rose)

already approved and at the developmental stage. Teesside is advantageously positioned in terms of

proximity to the prominent Southern North Sea Basin.

4.3 Direct Economic Benefits

This section presents the estimated financial economic benefit of CCS installation for the Teesside

industrial area. The financial values have been estimated with the assumption that the total EUETS

allowances allocated to the selected industrial operators can be captured by CCS, thereby saving the

operators the cost of their CO2 emission at the carbon trade price. It is assumed that the surplus carbon

allowance saved from capture and storage can be traded for the cost which would mean huge financial

benefit to the Teesside industries. In the calculations, EU CO2 price of €6.4/tCO2 has been adopted as an

average unit cost of CO2 during the phase III of EUETS. This was the market price of CO2 as at the time of

this review. Also, an exchange rate of €1.2606 per pound was also adopted as the existing exchange rate.

Table 4.1 shows the financial values of year 2013 CO2 allowance available to each of the industries

considered on Teesside.

Table 4.1: Financial cost for CO2 allowance to Teesside Industries in 2013

Operators Allocation (tCO2)* Cost (£) at today's CO2 price

BOC Linde 224,248 1,138,495.32

BP Cats 29,725 150,912.26

ConocoPhillips 339,162 1,721,907.66

Ensus UK Ltd 102,317 519,458.04

GrowHow UK Ltd 918,711 4,664,247.50

Harvest Energy 12,015 60,999.52

Huntsman 40,024 203,199.75

Ineos Nitrile 355,635 1,805,540.22

Lotte Chemicals 127,651 648,077.42

Lucite International 222,917 1,131,737.90

Px (TPPG) Ltd 37,230 189,014.75

SABIC (cracker) 910,056 4,620,306.52

SABIC (aromatics) 71,540 363,204.82

Sembcorp Utilities 160,262 813,641.76

Sahaviriya Steel UK Ltd 4,948,517 25,123,360.94

TATA Steel (beam mill) 68,730 348,938.60

United Buscuits 17,753 90,131.05

Total 8,586,493 43,593,174.04

*Source: EUROPA – Climate Action (www.ec.europa.eu)

From Table 4.1, in 2013 a total of £43.6 million is estimated as potential financial benefit to the

industries on Teesside if CCS was installed for the capture of their carbon emissions. CCS network in the

Teesside area would mean a tremendous economic benefit to most of the industries. For instance, industries

would save between over £70 thousand to £25 million yearly on carbon captured as they could either sell

their allowances or save from the excess they emit which they have to pay for.

Table 4.2: Cost for CO2 excess emission from approved allowances in 2013 by industries on Teesside

Operator Excess on allocation

(tCO2) in 2013

Cost impact on

operators (£)

BOC Linde -16,614 - 84,348.41

BP Cats -2,003 - 10,169.13 ConocoPhillips 51,315 260,523.56 Ensus UK Ltd 70,887 359,889.58 GrowHow UK Ltd 593 3,010.63 Harvest Energy -2,294 - 11,646.52 Huntsman 34,743 176,388.39 Ineos Nitrile -87,621 - 444,847.22 Lotte Chemicals 75,508 383,350.15 Lucite International -5,565 - 28,253.21 Px (TPPG) Ltd 11,689 59,344.44 SABIC (cracker) -276,686 - 1,404,720.29 SABIC (aromatics) 3,448 17,505.31 Sembcorp Utilities -656,072 - 3,330,843.09 Sahaviriya Steel UK Ltd -1,103,446 - 5,602,137.39 TATA Steel (beam mill) 18,216 92,481.68 United Buscuits 92 467.08

Table 4.2 shows incurred cost on excess emission for which allowance was purchased from the

carbon market. It is estimated that over £9.6 million would have been spent by the industries whose carbon

emission exceeded their allowances in the year 2013. The above estimates cover only year 2013. Similar

financial cost savings could be demonstrated for the remaining years of phase III, but cannot be covered in

this review. Based on these potential savings, CCS clusters promise to turn manufacturing industries in the

Tees area to competitively low cost producers in the global market. It has been proposed that the huge

contribution of CCS to global emission reduction will result in the development of a new industrial sector

potentially worth trillions of dollars annually (CCSA, 2014). The Teesside industrial area stands a better

chance to benefit from this emerging sector due to its proximity to UK offshore storage capacity.

4.4 Indirect Economic Benefits

Besides the direct economic benefit of CCS which can be secured through carbon emission

allowances, there are indirect benefits. Over 100,000 jobs are estimated across the UK by 2030 with a

contribution of £6.5 billion to the UK’s economy. It is also proposed that the CCS industry could be as big as

the North Sea oil industry if UK becomes the first to establish a CCS network with the potential of taking a

significant share of a £5 trillion global CCS business by 2050 (CCSA, 2013). The establishment of CCS in

the Teesside area will not only save thousands of jobs, it will also help to create thousands more through the

industrial development that will result from the CCS project (NEPIC, 2013). For instance, CCS promises to

secure a reliable source of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery in the North Sea, and this is capable of boosting oil

production in the North Sea, thereby attracting more business investments and employment in the region.

4.5 Environmental and Sustainability Benefits

In the transition to low carbon economy, any significant future contribution of the carbon-intensive

industries hinges on CCS as abatement technologies cannot guarantee successful significant contribution. For

instance, though biomass is seen as less carbon-intensive energy sources, there is a perceived dangerous

emission which makes it unattractive in the emerging low carbon mix regime. The key advantage of CCS in

ensuring environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable, secure and affordable energy is its strategic role in

decoupling fossil fuel use from carbon emissions (UK CCS Consortium Project, 2005). CCS is the only

available technology that can significantly reduce industrial carbon emissions. The establishment of CCS

network in the Teesside area will secure an environmentally responsible image for the industrial operations

area.

The CCS project when established will create other opportunities for new business investments and

sustainability in other industrial sectors around the Tees area. An example is resulting associated investment

from Enhanced Oil Recovery in the oil and gas industry (NEPIC, 2013). Also, beyond capturing CO2 for

environmental protection purpose, the captured CO2 can be utilised for other processes in a range of

chemical and manufacturing companies. This presents an opportunity for more jobs creation in the area.

5. CONCLUSION

Operations of the industries found in the Teesside area with respect to their carbon emission and

associated environmental expenditure have been reviewed.

The impacts of EUETS and other carbon tax on Teesside carbon-intensive industries and power

generating companies have been presented

The potential direct and indirect economic benefits of CCS network for the Teesside industrial area

have been evaluated. It was found that the economic and environmental benefit of CCS far outweighs the

investment cost in the long term. CCS is therefore perceived as a rescue for the survival of energy and

manufacturing industries on Teesside area.

REFERENCES

Andrea Lenschow (2002). Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe.

Earthscan Publication Limited, United Kingdom. p3

Betz R., and Sato M., 2006. Emissions Trading: Lessons Learnt from the 1st Phase of EU ETS and Prospects

for the 2nd

[Online]. Available at: http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2014/01/emissionstradinglessonslearned.pdf. Accessed: 23/08/2014.

Brown L. M., Hanafi A., and Petsonk A. (2012). The EU Emissions Trading System: Results and Lessons

Learned (Environmental Defence Fund)[Online] .Available at:

http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/EU_ETS_Lessons_Learned_Report_EDF.pdf. Accessed: 23/08/2014.

BUSINESS GREEN (2014). Carbon Trading [Online]. Available at:

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2318180/eu-carbon-price-expected-to-jump-35-per-cent-

following-backloading-vote. Accessed: August 6, 2014.

CCSA (2014). The Economic Importance of Carbon Capture and Storage [Online]. Available at:

http://www.ccsassociation.org/why-ccs/economic-importance/. Accessed 21/07/2014.

CARBON TRUST (2007). EUETS Impacts on Profitability and Trade: A Sector by Sector Analysis

[Online]. Available at: https://www.carbontrust.com/media/84892/ctc728-euets-impacts-profitability-and-

trade.pdf. Accessed: 28/08/2014.

DECC (2009). Government Response to House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Report:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) (Ninth Report of Session 2007-2008) [Online]. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/238627/7605.pdf. Accessed:

24/08/2014.

Holloway S, Vincent C. J, and Kirk K. L; (2006). Industrial Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Carbon Dioxide

Storage Potential in the UK. DTI Carbon Abatement Technologies Program. Nottingham, United Kingdom

IPCC (2005). IPCC special report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by working group III of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change. Metz, B., Davidson O., de Coninck H. C., Loos M., and

Meyer L. A. (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442

pp. Available in full at www.ipcc.ch.

IPCC (2007). Fourth Assessment Report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Mitigation of

Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

Cambridge, New York.

Karsten Neuhoff (2008). Tackling Carbon: How to Price Carbon for Climate Policy [Online]. Available at:

http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tackling-carbon_final_3009082.pdf

Kettner, C., Koppl A., Schleicher S. P., Therius G., 2007. Stringency and Distribution in the EU Emisions

Trading Scheme – the 2005 Evidence. Climate Policy 7

NEPIC (2013). The Chemical and Process Industry in Tees Valley [Online]. Available at:

http://www.nepic.co.uk/documents/Tees_Valley_Marketing_Brochure.pdf. Accessed: 26/08/2014.

NEPIC (2014). NEPIC Directory 2014-15: A Comprehensive Guide to the Chemistry Using Sectors in North

East England [Online]. Available at:

http://www.nepic.co.uk/directory2014.pdf?cm_submittedform=a4863637-ffb9-e111-9aed-

0050569806cb&cm_vid&cm_sid. Accessed: 26/08/2014.

Rogge, K.; Schleich, J., Betz R., 2006. An Early Assessment of National Allocation Plans for Phase 2 of EU

Emission Trading. Working Paper on Sustainability and Innovation No. S1/2006, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Rootzen J., Kjastard J, Johnson F., (2011). Prospects for CO2 Capture in European Industry. Management of

Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol 22 (1) pp.18-32

APPENDIX A: Key operators in Teesside and planned EUETS carbon allowance in phase III

Operator Quantity to be allocated (tCO2/year)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

BOC Linde 224248 220354 216413 212431 208406 204342 200228 196099 1,682521

BP Cats 59449 58416 57371 56316 55249 54171 53081 51986 446,039

ConocoPhillips 339162 333271 327310 321288 315201 309054 302831 296587 2,544,704

Ensus UK Ltd 204633 201079 197483 193489 190177 186468 182714 178946 1,535,349

GrowHow UK Ltd 918711 902754 886609 870296 853807 837158 820301 803386 6,893,022

Harvest Energy 12015 11807 11596 11382 11167 10949 10728 10507 90,151

Huntsman

Polyurethanes

40024 39239 38625 37915 37196 36471 35737 35000 300,297

Ineos Nitrile 355635 349458 342208 336893 330510 324065 317540 310992 2,668,301

Lotte Chemicals

UK

127651 125433 123190 120924 118633 116319 113977 111627 957,754

Lucite

International

222917 219045 215127 211169 207166 203129 199038 194934 1,672,527

Px (TPPG) Ltd 37230 32161 31586 31005 30418 29825 29224 28621 245,570

SABIC (cracker) 910055 894248 878255 862096 845763 829270 812572 795816 682,075

SABIC

(aromatics)

71540 70298 69040 67770 66486 65189 63877 62560 536760

Sembcorp 160262 156727 153218 149736 146280 142851 139447 136071 1184592

Sahaviriya Steel

UK Ltd

4948517 4862566 4775604 4687736 4598920 4509241 4418445 4327332 37,128,361

TATA Steel (beam

mill)

68730 67536 66328 65108 63874 62629 61368 60102 515,675

United Buscuits 17753 15887 14072 12313 10607 8957 7360 5822 92771

Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)