1 SHV Energy Carbon Count 2013
3 Table of contents 01 Introduction 02 Numbers & Figures 03 Aproach to the SHV Energy s Footprint A steady performance in Key Numbers & Figures Carbon footprint of LPG distribution Comparison of 2013 to Carbon footprint of other operations Introduction and review of relevant guidance Definition of carbon footprint Scope Base year is Calculation method: emission factors SHV Energy s role in the LPG life-cycle 28 References 32 03
4 A steady performance in
5 For the second year in a row, SHV Energy has measured its corporate carbon footprint. This is believed to be the largest footprint-exercise ever conducted within the LPG-distribution industry. Some 1,500 sets of data for 2013 operations were collected from more than 20 business units, then compiled, computed and compared to their 2012 benchmark. The total carbon footprint of SHV Energy s LPGdistribution operations, in 2013, is calculated to be tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). This equates to a unit footprint of 83 kilogrammes of CO 2 per tonne of LPG sold to third parties. On an equivalent-volume basis, the 2013 total footprint is 0.1% lower than that of Our core business is the onshore marketing and distribution of LPG. To improve transparency in our carbon reporting we have redefined our scope in 2013 based on our major function: LPG distribution from terminal to delivered tank. In the SHV Energy 2012 footprint we defined our scope of operations differently, as the supply footprint (transport from remote production locations) was included. To ensure like for like comparison, the 2012 performance has been adjusted accordingly. Now we have separated these two functions. LPG distribution from terminal to delivered tank is a better reflection of the fundamental structure of the LPG business. In addition it is a better fit to the definitions used by carbon-footprint and sustainability analysts. Also, in its 2013 reporting exercise, SHV Energy for the first time collected data on the water consumption of all its business units. This will be used as a benchmark and presented in the 2014 report. The first subsection of this chapter presents the LPGdistribution footprint in detail. The second compares 2013 to 2012, and the final subsection discusses the footprint of other SHV Energy operations. 05
6 Key Numbers & Figures CYLINDER/BULK The CO 2 emissions per tonne of LPG delivered in cylinders are 2.5 times higher than LPG delivered in bulk. THE 2013 TOTAL CARBON FOOTPRINT of SHV Energy s LPG-distribution was t CO 2 06
7 2% 50% 77% Represent the emissions related to rail or barge transport. South America s footprint is roughly equal to that of Asia and Europe combined, because of significantly-greater transport distances and a cylinder-heavy business. Of our emissions come from diesel use. 84% Of our CO 2 emissions are TRANSPORT RELATED On an equivalent-volume basis, THE 2013 TOTAL FOOTPRINT WAS -0.1% THAN THAT OF
8 1.1 CARBON FOOTPRINT OF LPG DISTRIBUTION The 2013 total carbon footprint of SHV Energy s LPGdistribution was t CO 2, which equates to a footprint of 83 kg CO 2 /t of LPG sold to our customers. This LPG-distribution carbon footprint can be divided in five ways: by function, by business type, by energy type, by distribution scope and scale, and by region. 08
9 1.1.1 The LPG Supply Chain LPG SUPPLY CHAIN Primary Distribution Secondary Distribution REFINERY FILLING PLANT /DEPOT MAJOR STORAGE CYLINDERS BULK LARGE WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS SMALL WHOLESALE END CONSUMER END CONSUMER The above logistics model explains the difference between primary and secondary transport. It was estimated, in 2012, that the average footprint per tonne of cylinder LPG is about three times that of a tonne of bulk LPG. However, data reported in 2012 were not sufficiently broken down to provide precise figures for footprints by product type, i.e. bulk, cylinder and wholesale. Additional data collected in 2013 did enable a more precise comparison and this multiple turned out to be slightly lower than estimated. Cylinder LPG turned our to be 2,5 more carbon intensive than bulk LPG. 09
10 1.1.2 Carbon footprint, by function As our main business is the distribution of LPG from terminals to our customers, 84% of our emissions are transport related. The rest is split between filling plants and overheads, with a small part attributable to storage. Figure 1: Corporate carbon footprint by main function LPG-distribution carbon footprint is mainly transport 6% 3% 7% All transport Overheads Filling plants All storage All transport Overheads Filling plants All storage 84% 010
11 The overwhelming majority of transport related emissions are caused by road vehicles. Emissions related to rail or barge transport represents just over 2%. Figure 2: Corporate carbon footprint by transport type Road transport dominates the distribution footprint 2% 0.2% Road transport Rail transport Barge transport Road transport Rail transport Barge transport 98% 11
12 Transporting cylinders generates 53% of emissions. Transport of bulk LPG accounts for one-third of our footprint. Overheads and filling plants 1 each account for just over 5%, with storage (in terminals and depots) accounting for the remaining 3%. Figure 3: Corporate carbon footprint by function (transport / storage) Cylinder transport and bulk transport predominate 6% 2% 1% 7% Cylinder transport Bulk transport Overhead Filling plants Terminals 53% Cylinder transport Bulk transport Overhead Filling plants Terminals 31% Depots Production transport Depots Production transport 12 1 Filling also includes reconditioning and disposal of cylinders, to the extent it is carried out internally. This varies by BU, with some doing it internally, and others outsourcing this function.
13 Figure 4 shows the relative contributions of primary and secondary transport of bulk LPG and cylinders. Figure 4: Corporate carbon footprint by function (complete disaggregation) Cylinder transport more carbon-intensive than bulk transport 6% 2% 1% 1% 7% 14% Cylinder secondary transport Cylinder primary transport Bulk primary transport Bulk secondary transport Overhead 31% Cylinder secondary transport Cylinder primary transport Bulk primary transport Bulk secondary transport Overhead Filling plants Filling plants Terminals Terminals Cylinder depots Cylinder depots Bulk depots Bulk depots 17% 21% 13
14 TABLE 1 - Carbon footprint, per business type, kg CO 2 per tonne LPG Business type Footprint Scope Cylinder 139 From terminal through delivery to retailer. Does not include customer transport, from retailer onward. Bulk 55 From terminal to customer tank. Wholesale 7 Storage and overheads only, assumes no transport i.e. customer picks up loads at the SHV terminal or depot Carbon footprint, by business type Bulk and cylinder sales constitute about 80% of sales volume (about 40% each). However, cylinders represent over two-thirds of the total footprint, while bulk accounts for about one quarter. Wholesale s footprint of about 2% is a statistically insignificant proportion. Figure 5: Contributions to sales and footprint Cylinders contribute disproportionately more footprint than bulk or wholesale 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Bulk Cylinders Wholesale Sales volume Carbon footprint LPG-distribution s administrative footprint is negligible. Our headquarters in Hoofddorp generate 278 tonnes of CO 2, 0.05% of the company s total. The footprint of our offices Hoofddorp and other locations (which are mostly operational) have been allocated to the business types in proportion to LPG sales volumes by business type. 14
15 1.1.3 Carbon footprint, by energy type SHV Energy s carbon footprint is, by definition, an energy footprint. That is, the footprint consists purely of emissions caused by energy consumption 2. Fugitive emissions of LPG are not measured. In any case, they are believed to be negligible, and the components of LPG are not classified as greenhouse gases. Most of the energy use comes from transporting LPG, mainly using heavy-goods vehicles. Therefore, the primary energy type responsible for the footprint is diesel, which is also consumed, to a lesser extent, in terminals, depots and filling plants. The second most important fuel type is gasoline, which powers cars and vans for deliveries, sales and administration. Electricity powers storage filling operations as well as offices. The proportion of LPG, natural gas and heating oil used is very small. Employee air travel by air and train have been classified as energy types, because direct fuel consumption data for these are not available 3 in any case, together they account for less than 1% of the corporate footprint. Figure 6: Corporate carbon footprint by energy type Diesel is the predominant energy used 6% 2% 1% <1% 13% Diesel Gasoline Electricity LPG Natural Gas Train Travel Air Travel Heating oil Diesel (including barge transport) Gasoline Electricity LPG Natural Gas Train Travel Air Travel Heating oil 77% 2 This is common in many industrial sectors. Only a few sectors for example, agriculture, air-conditioning, chemicals, heat pumps and natural gas production have significant non-energy-caused components in their footprints. 3 For air travel the energy will be jet kerosene, for train either diesel or electricity. Distances-travelled have been measured, and these multiplied by representative emission factors. 15
16 1.1.4 Carbon footprint, by region The largest regional footprint comes from South America, followed by Europe, with Asia being responsible for 10% of emissions. Figure 7: Corporate carbon footprint by region South America and Europe dominate the distribution carbon footprint 10% South America Europe Asia South America 40% Europe 50% Asia South America s footprint is roughly equal to that of Asia and Europe 4 combined, because of significantlygreater transport distances and a cylinder-heavy business Footprints for four business units were not reported: Bosnia, Croatia, Malta and Slovenia. Combined, these account for just under 1% of LPG sold. Estimates of their footprints have been included in the corporate footprint these are based on a by-volume-proportioning with their nearest, most-related business unit, Italy.
17 1.2 COMPARISON On an absolute-volume basis, SHV Energy s total LPG-distribution footprint was 2.0% higher in 2013 as compared to This was caused by an increase in cylinder volume and a slight decline in bulk volume. Figure 8: Footprint 2013 vs 2012 by function Comparison of 2013 and 2012 footprints, LPG distribution Millions CO 2 [kg] Terminals Bulk primary transport Bulk depots Bulk secondary transport Filling plants Cylinder primary transport Cylinder depots Cylinder secondary transport Overhead Ocean-ship transport 17
18 As already noted, the unit footprint (i.e. kg CO 2 per t of LPG sold) of cylinders is 2.5 times higher than that of bulk (Table 1). This means that absolute-volume results can be affected by shifts in the business mix between bulk, cylinder and wholesale. These shifts cannot be controlled by SHV Energy. To correct the change caused by increased weight of the cylinder based business, we compared the footprints on an equivalent-volume basis. In other words: what would the 2012 and 2013 footprints have been, had we used the same volume proportions in both years? On this equivalent-volume basis, the 2013 total footprint is 0.1% lower than that of TABLE 2 - Equivalent-volume footprints 2012 and 2013, LPG-distribution (kt CO 2 ) Business type Cylinder Bulk Wholesale 8 7 Sum
19 1.3 CARBON FOOTPRINT OF OTHER OPERATIONS LPG-distribution is SHV Energy s main business. This involves the transport and packaging of LPG, starting at terminals and finishing with the delivery of gas to customers, either wholesale, in bulk (including Autogas) and in cylinders. This activity is common among all our business units and is the primary focus of our footprint reporting at group level. SHV also has a significant business in LPG supply. This involves mainly deep-sea shipping of LPG from export terminals to import terminals (the latter of which then make LPG available for distribution). Additionally, SHV has a small, fast-growing business in the distribution of LNG (liquefied natural gas), which operated for its first year in Only the LPG-distribution footprint has been presented in this report. The LPG-supply footprint has been measured in but it has not been presented in this report as the category emission factors for this activity are currently under review. SHV Energy plans to report the LPG-supply footprint in 2014 (along with 2012 and 2013 figures) as an index utilising the necessary emissions factors when they are established. In 2014 we will also present a footprint for the LNG operations. 19
20 THE CO 2 EMISSIONS PER TONNE OF LPG DELIVERED IN CYLINDERS ARE 2,5 TIMES HIGHER THAN LPG DELIVERED IN BULK.
21 Approach to the SHV Energy s Footprint This chapter documents the approach taken in compiling the footprint, i.e. how it was put together. It covers: a review of relevant guidance; definition of a corporate carbon footprint; principles of footprint estimation; organisational boundaries; currency; scope; base year; and calculation method. 2.1 Introduction, and review of relevant guidance SHV Energy engaged Atlantic Consulting to review SHV Energy estimate of its corporate carbon footprint, to document the results and to establish a baseline for such estimates in coming years. This report is that documentation, covering the calendar year The value to SHV of a corporate carbon footprint is seen most strongly in three respects: Management is measurement carbon accounts allow management to make more intelligent decisions about carbon emissions. Ready response to stakeholders regulators, interest groups, suppliers and customers expect a company of SHV Energy s size and stature to measure and manage its footprint. Many companies of similar size already do. Looked at conversely: failure to do a footprint could seriously detract from SHV Energy s credibility. Boost the visibility and competitiveness of LPG positioning LPG as a lower-carbon, cleaner fuel is critical to its future success. Having a strong evidence base is critical to that positioning. 21
22 2.2 Definition of carbon footprint The SHV Energy carbon footprint is the net amount of global warmers emitted in a given period by SHV Energy. To date, that period has been defined as a calendar year. According to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (WBCSD and WRI, 2004), corporate footprints should be estimated in accordance with five principles. These have been applied in the estimates presented in this document. TABLE 4 - Principles of footprint estimation, according to the WBCSD Principle RELEVANCE COMPLETENESS CONSISTENCY TRANSPARENCY ACCURACY Explanation Ensure the GHG inventory appropriately reflects the GHG emissions of the company and serves the decision-making needs of users both internal and external to the company. Account for and report on all GHG emission sources and activities within the chosen inventory boundary. Disclose and justify any specific exclusions. Use consistent methodologies to allow for meaningful comparisons of emissions over time. Transparently document any changes to the data, inventory boundary, methods, or any other relevant factors in the time series. Address all relevant issues in a factual and coherent manner, based on a clear audit trail. Disclose any relevant assumptions and make appropriate references to the accounting and calculation methodologies and data sources used. Ensure that the quantification of GHG emissions is systematically neither over nor under actual emissions, as far as can be judged, and that uncertainties are reduced as far as practicable. Achieve sufficient accuracy to enable users to make decisions with reasonable assurance as to the integrity of the reported information. 22
23 2.3 Scope In determining how high, wide and deep to measure, we have applied three criteria: Significance 5 (relevance) to the final answers Control, i.e. can SHV Energy steer it? Data availability These were applied to a range of scoping issues, as discussed in the following subsections Definition of life cycle phases Carbon footprints come in two main types: Corporate the footprint of an organisation; and Product the footprint of a certain item. SHV Energy has decided to be ambitious in creating some compatibility between the two. Therefore, the 2013 footprint has been made consistent, with respect to corporate and to product footprints. The footprint presented is for LPG distribution, from terminal to delivered tank, according to three different product types: bulk, cylinder and wholesale Which global warmers? This footprint includes emissions of the most common, most important greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide, CO 2. Other global warmers, whether regulated under the Kyoto Protocol or not, are not included, for reasons of significance and dataavailability. Emissions of LPG itself are not included in the footprint. Although propane and butane were at one point classified as greenhouse gases, Kyoto does not classify them as such, and both have since been excluded by most definitions Other Kyoto greenhouse gases Carbon dioxide is of course regulated under the Kyoto Protocol. So, too, are methane, nitrous oxide and about 15 fluoro- a nd chloro- compounds. However, the latter ones are not included in this footprint, due to a combination of insignificance and data unavailability. The primary sources of emissions at SHV Energy are of combustion: mainly diesel for transport, some natural gas and LPG for heating, plus (indirect) power plant fuels. Using data from the ecoinvent database, their emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and other Kyoto GHGs were benchmarked for significance and data-availability (Table 4). 5 This word is often used by scientists. Auditors frequently use the word materiality. WBCSD calls it relevance. 23
24 TABLE 4 - Non-CO 2 GHGs significance, data availability and reason for exclusion Emissions Process Methane Nitrous oxide Other GHGs Why excluded from footprint Diesel-powered transport 6 2% of footprint 1% of footprint Nil <4% impact. Also, non-co 2 emissions are very dependent on the engine type, i.e. very variable, and specific data are not generally available. Natural gas heating 0.1% 0.05% Nil <1% impact. Pipeline and other transport leaks can add about 5-6% to the footprint, but these are out of SHV Energy s control. Power generation, European average 7 4% 8 Nil Nil <5% impact. Also, non- CO 2 emissions are neither consistently nor widely reported for many countries where SHV operates Non-Kyoto global warmers This footprint does not include global warmers not regulated by the Kyoto Protocol, such as carbon black. As scientific understanding of their impacts and data availability increase, perhaps they might be included in future Sources of emissions: which are in, which are out Included in this footprint are direct emissions from operations, plus indirect emissions from electricity generation and subcontracted transport. Not included are some of what WBCSD calls scope 3 indirect emissions Direct emissions Direct emissions constitute the bulk of SHV Energy s footprint, and all significant ones have been included. The largest contributors are: Mobile combustion for transport of LPG Stationary combustion for heating of facilities, compression of LPG and reconditioning of cylinders and tanks. Some reconditioning is done in-house, some indirectly, that is by subcontractors. Emissions for both have been estimated and included. Vehicle maintenance data was not collected. These emissions are likely to be immaterial and probably indirect 9. Still, it would be sensible to analyse them and perhaps include them in future footprints. At this point, it is unclear how much maintenance is done in-house and how much is done by subcontractors Well to wheel. 7 UCTE average, from ecoinvent. 8 In SHV s UK operations, methane emissions are counted, because they are included in the CO 2 e factor used, which is the one published by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. 9 Presumably, maintenance emissions are mainly scope 3 indirect, incurred in the production of replacement parts, but this is only inferred, not known for sure.
25 Fugitive emissions have not been measured. They are believed to be insignificant, not least because leaking LPG is equivalent to leaking revenues there is a powerful incentive to avoid it. Still, in future years, it would be sensible to do some spot checks to confirm this. The footprint does not include direct emissions from water use and waste disposal. These are believed to be immaterial Electricity (indirect) emissions Power consumption has been measured, and then converted to estimated emissions by use of national electricity emission factors Indirect transport emissions are included Significant amounts of LPG transport are outsourced, which by definition makes the resulting emissions indirect. Because they are significant, and effectively under SHV control, these scope 3 emissions have been included. Emissions, direct and indirect, have also been included from staff transport, by car/van, taxi, train and airplane. These are believed to be modestly significant Other indirect emissions not included, for now Two significant sources of scope 3 indirect emissions have not been included in this footprint, but should be considered for inclusion in future footprints. Production of LPG, from well-to-terminal. Emissions data for this are sketchy at best, and would need some serious development work. A credible well-to-terminal dataset would be useful for SHV s carbon management and for maintaining competitiveness against other fuels. LPG in use. For heating, cooking and automotive the primary uses quality data are available Capital goods and infrastructure Emissions involved in producing capital goods and infrastructure have not been included in the footprint for a variety of reasons Cylinders With limited exceptions, cylinder production is not within SHV s control. Even if it were included, it would make a negligible contribution to the overall footprint, because scrap rates are around only 0.1% (i.e. a cylinder makes 1,000 trips before it is scrapped), and nearly all of that material is recycled. 25
26 Tanks and networks Production of tanks and networks generally is not within SHV s control. Even if it were included, because of their long life (often 30 years or more) and suitability for recycling, emissions would not likely be significant. This was confirmed independently, by footprint work done for Primagas Germany Vehicles According to the ecoinvent database of life cycle assessment, the carbon footprint of a heavy transport vehicle (>32-tonne, Euro 5 emission controls) can be disaggregated into four main subgroups: Operation (fuel combustion) 79% Road construction and maintenance 12% Manufacturing of the vehicle 6% Vehicle maintenance 3% Road construction and vehicle manufacturing are outside of SHV s control, so these capital goods and infrastructure emissions are not included in the footprint Buildings As a rule-of-thumb, building construction emissions are relatively minor in relation to operating emissions. Moreover, buildings emissions are a relatively small portion of SHV s total. So the construction emissions have not been estimated in this footprint. 2.4 Base year is 2012 That year was the first for which most SHV BUs collected data. 2.5 Calculation method: emission factors The emission factor method used to calculate SHV Energy s carbon footprint is the most common method of carbon footprinting. Emissions are calculated by multiplying proxies x emission factors, e.g. consumption of diesel in transport x a carbonemission factor for diesel combustion in transport. 26
27 ASIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 10% OF OUR TOTAL CO 2 EMISSIONS. SHV Energy s Carbon Count 2013
28 SHV Energy s role in the LPG life-cycle For most fuels, carbon footprints are presented as having two phases: pre-combustion and combustion. In transport, these are often referred to as well-to-tank (WTT) and tankto-wheel (TTW) footprints; the entire life-cycle footprint is then referred to as well-to-wheel (WTW). Some, more-detailed footprints break down the pre-combustion phase into production and distribution (or even more) components. SHV Energy s operations are in both of these latter areas: production and distribution. How do these fit into the overall footprint of LPG? The answer is that whether or not the LPG is distributed by bulk on in cylinders (Table 1), distribution as such is a minor contributor to the overall footprint (Figure 9). For average bulk deliveries, it amounts to 1% of the total; for average cylinders, it is 4%. In specific cases, these figures of course vary around the averages 10, but even at high extremes, distribution will be well under 10% of the total Within SHV s business units, bulk distribution footprints vary in the range of roughly kg CO 2 /t LPG, while cylinder ones vary in the range of or so.
29 Figure 9: LPG lifetime footprint, with distribution by bulk and cylinder Whether bulk or cylinder, distribution is a minor part of the LPG lifetime footprint LPG kg CO 2 /t 4000 Combustion 2000 Distribution Production 0 Bulk Cylinder 29
30 Production footprints, however, are an entirely different story. They can vary considerably, ranging from around 3-23% of the total. Figure 10: LPG lifetime footprint by phase, with clean, base case and dirty production Production footprints vary enormously 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Clean Base case Dirty Combustion Distribution Production 30
31 Compared to the base case 11 (Figure 9 and middle column in Figure 10) of 400 kg CO 2 /t LPG, production footprints can be as low as 100 kg CO 2 /t LPG (the clean case in Figure 10) and as high as 900 kg CO 2 /t LPG (the dirty case in Figure 10), according to a peer-reviewed summary of the literature (Johnson, 2012). Particularly due to the political interest in hydraulic fracturing ( fracking ) and tight gas, production footprints are the object of numerous new research projects which are also reporting a wide range of values. SHV Energy might explore this research in more detail, for two reasons: 1) it will be useful in benchmarking S&RM s operations; and 2) it could be useful or necessary to consider production footprints when purchasing LPG. 11 This is a representative global figure, that assumes 50/50 LPG production from refining and as a by-product of oil & gas. 31
32 References... 1 Filling also includes reconditioning and disposal of cylinders, to the extent it is carried out internally. This varies by BU, with some doing it internally, and others outsourcing this function. 5 This word is often used by scientists. Auditors frequently use the word materiality. WBCSD calls it relevance. 6 Well to wheel. 2 This is common in many industrial sectors. Only a few sectors for example, agriculture, air-conditioning, chemicals, heat pumps and natural gas production have significant non-energy-caused components in their footprints. 3 For air travel the energy will be jet kerosene, for train either diesel or electricity. Distances-travelled have been measured, and these multiplied by representative emission factors. 7 UCTE average, from ecoinvent. 8 In SHV s UK operations, methane emissions are counted, because they are included in the CO 2 e factor used, which is the one published by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. 9 Presumably, maintenance emissions are mainly scope 3 indirect, incurred in the production of replacement parts, but this is only inferred, not known for sure. 4 Footprints for four business units were not reported: Bosnia, Croatia, Malta and Slovenia. Combined, these account for just under 1% of LPG sold. Estimates of their footprints have been included in the corporate footprint these are based on a by-volume-proportioning with their nearest, most-related business unit, Italy. 10 Within SHV s business units, bulk distribution footprints vary in the range of roughly kg CO 2 /t LPG, while cylinder ones vary in the range of or so. 11 This is a representative global figure, that assumes 50/50 LPG production from refining and as a byproduct of oil & gas. 32
34 Tables Table 1: Carbon footprint, per business type, kg CO 2 per tonne LPG 14 Table 2: Equivalent-volume footprints 2012 and 2013, LPG-distribution (kt CO 2 ) 19 Table 3: Principles of footprint estimation, according to the WBCSD 24 Table 4: Non-CO 2 GHGs significance, data availability and reason for exclusion 26 Figures Figure 1: LPG-distribution carbon footprint is mainly transport 09 Figure 2: Road transport dominates the distribution footprint 10 Figure 3: Cylinder transport and bulk transport predominate 11 Figure 4: Cylinder transport more carbon-intensive than bulk transport 12 Figure 5: Cylinders contribute disproportionately more footprint than bulk or wholesale 15 Figure 6: Diesel is the predominant energy used 16 Figure 7: South America and Europe dominate the distribution carbon footprint 17 Figure 8: Comparison of 2013 and 2012 footprints, LPG distribution 18 Figure 9: LPG lifetime footprint, with distribution by bulk and cylinder 31 Figure 10: LPG lifetime footprint by phase, with clean, base case and dirty production 32 34
35 Business units of the following countries are included in this footprint Gas Supply & Risk Management
36 SHV Energy N.V Taurusavenue LS Hoofddorp The Netherlands T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E