attachment 1_decommissioning study for the pinnacle wind power project

8/7/2019 Attachment 1_Decommissioning Study for the Pinnacle Wind Power Project

1/32

GL Garrad Hassan

DECOMMISSIONING STUDY FOR THEPINNACLE WIND POWER PROJECT

ClientContactDocument NoIssueStatusClassi ficationDate

Author

Checked bv

Approved hy

Pinnacle Wind Force. LLCDavid K. Friend

70032S'AWO IF

FinalClient's Discretion

19 Januarv 20] ]

R. Hewson. T. Giustino

J. de Montgros

P. Dutton

GdfraJ Hassan .-\I11L'ric


2/32

LIMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Acceptance of this document by the Client i'i on the b a ~ i s that Garrad Ha-san America. Inc. i-, not in any\\


3/32

KEY TO DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION

For disclosure only to named individuals within theStrictly Confidential Clients organizationfo r disclosure only to individuals directly concernedwith the subject matter of the Report within thePrivate and Confidential Client's organizationNot to be disclosed outside the Client's organizationCommercial in Confidence

Not to he disclosed to lWI1-GLGH staffULGH onlyDistribution for information only at the discretion ofthe Client (subject to the above lmportant Notice andClient's Discretion Disclaimer)Availahle for information only to the general publicPublished (subject to the above lmportant Notice and Disclaimer)

20 II Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd


4/32

Dccommis-aomnp Study for the Pinnacle W111U PO\\\.'l 1 ~ ~ U L : : r Fma:Project

REVISION HISTORY

Issue Issue date Summary1\BCDEF

14 December 20 1003 January 20 J I05 January 20 II07 January 201 J17 January 201 I19 January 2011

Initial issue for reviewUpdated dratt issue following Client's commentsUpdated with minor revisionsMinor updates, including appendix of assumptions;conversion from metric to US customary units of measureUpdated to reflect foundation rubble to be buried on siteIssued l-inal

( " / fF (U! Hif \ \ ' ( I1 l .- I I I I l ' I /cU.!1/{ Gl Garrad Hassan


5/32

Document No.: 7()032N AR 01 Decommissioning Study for the Pinnacle \\ nul Power lssuc: r FlilaIProtect

CONTENTSINTRODlCTION1.I Background1.2 Scope

2 DECOMISSIONNING COSTS2.1 Preliminaries

2.1.\ Permits and Studies2.1.2 StatT2.1.3 Site Pacililies2.1A Conclusion2.2 Grid Interface2.2.1 Disassembly2.2.2 RC\11oyn12.2.3 Conclusion

2.3 Turbines2.3.1 Disassembly2.3.2 Removal2.3.3 Conclusion

2.4 Met Mast2.4.1 Disassembly2.4.2 Removal2.4.3 Conclusion

2.5 Foundations2.5.1 Disassembly2.5.2 Removal2.5.3 Conclusion

2.6 Site Electrics2.6.1 DIsassembly2.6.2 Removal2.6.3 Conclusion

2.7 Site Roads and Crane Pads2.7. i Decommissioning2.7.2 Removal2.7.3 Conclusion

2. .': Decommissioning Cost Summary3 SALVAGE A\lD DISPOSAL COSTS

3.1 Salvage Opportunities.".2 Grid Interface Materials3.3 Turbine Materials3A Met Mast Materials3.5 foundation Materials

3:;34445556667RRR9q9910101010J I11I I 12121313

141415161717

Garratt H{/\\


6/32

Document Nil.: 70lU2X AR 01 Deconunissiomng Study for till' Pinnacle Wtnd Power Issue: F FinalPn-rcct

]73.6 Site Hcctrics Materials3.7 Site Roads and Crane Pads IS3.R Salvage Cost Summary 19

4 ESCROW PROPOSAL 21APPE:"IDIX A G E N E R ~ L ASSllMPTlOJ\S 23

LIST OF TABLES'Iable 2-1: Estimated cost of permits and studies 3Table 2-2: Estimated cost of site staff 4Table 2-3: Estimated cost of site facilities 4fable 2-4: Estimated cost of grid interface disassembly 5Table 2-5: Estimated cost of grid interface removal 6Table 2-6: Esrunatcd cost ofturbine disassembly 7

gTable 2-7: Estimate of cost of turbine removalTable 2-X: Estimated cost ofmet mast disassembly gTable 2-9: Estimated cost of met mast removal 9Table 2-10: Estimated cost of foundation disassembly 10Table 2-11: Estimated cost of site elcctrics disassembly 11Table 2-12: Est imated cost of site clectrics removal 1]Table 2-1:-: Estimated cost or site roads disassembly 12Table 2-14: Estimated cost 01'site roads removal 13Table 2-15: Summary of non-destructive decommissioning costs 13Table 3-1: Estimated value-cost of disposal of grid interface material 15Table ~ - 2 : Estimated valuccosr of disposal of turbine material InTable 3-3: Estimated value cost of disposal ofmet mast material 17Table 3-4: Estimated value-cost of disposal of electrical material ] gTable 3-5: Estimated value-cost of dispos ..l1 of road material jgTable :--6: Sal\'agcidisposal summary 20Table 4-1: Summary' of decommissioning and salvage costs 2\

111 Gl Garrad Hassan


7/32

Document )'\(1.: 7()OJ2X AR 01 Dccommiss ionmg Study for the Pumaclc \\' 111


8/32

Document ~ ( ) . . 70U32X AR O! Dcconuuissiouing Study for rue Pmnaclc \Vind Power Issue: hnalPrlljl':L'!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAt the request or Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC (the "Client"), Garrad Hassan America ("GH") hasperformed all analysis of the decommissioning cost (net of salvage) of the generating equipment andassociated infrastructure at the Pinnacle Wind Farm (the "Project"). The study includes costs associatedwith the dismantling. removal, and salvage or disposal of the equipment, and it is assumed that this wi 11take place 20 years after the start of commercial operations, although the costs in this study arc given in2010 dollars. The Project is located ill Mineral County, West Virginia and when built. \\ il l consist of 23MWT 95/2.4 turbine, with a 2h21i hub height.GH assumes that there are strong parallels bctv ...een wind farm construction and decommissioningprograms and consequently' bases the estimates for decommissioning costs on its broad experience of windfarm construction programs and the associated costs of labor. plant and materials. The decommissioningcost is calculated as the sum of the cost or disassembly plus the cost of transport (removal). It is noted thatcrane hire is the most dominant cost item.Assessments of salvage opportunities are based on the bill of quantities identified in this report. the


9/32

Documcnt tvo.: 7()032X AR 0) Dccommi-sioning Study for the Pinnac le \\' id PO\\cr Issue: FmalProject

Fhis summary docs 1101 consider the time value or money; the results should therefore be adjusted torepresent the inflated costs at the time or decommissioning (e.g. annual escalation), It should also be notedthat commodity values are volatile and difficult to predict oyer a 20-)'car horizon.The following factors could influence the magnitude of the escrow bond bur have not been consideredunder the conservative approach or Ih18 report. In general, these scenarios \HJUld only increase the residualvalue of the Project and diminish further the need for an escrow bond.

i) It is expected that the total cost could be reduced significantly if the Client were to carry OUIdestructive decommissioning. thus avoiding the need for crane hire, and to leave the site rv1Vcollection system buried. There would in this case however he additional considerations suchas environmental hazards and reduction in salv age costs. Therefore. a cost-benefit analysiswould need to be performed if this option were considered further.

ii) It may be possible to sell whole turbines rather than parts at the end of the Project's ::Wyearlife. Based on 20]0 turbine prices this could equate to a secondhand resale value of$ ~ , ~ 3 2 , O O O fo r the Project.

iii) Alternatively. the Project could be left in place and continue to operate as a going-concern.While maintenance costs would rise and productiv ity may fall after Year 20. the Project couldstill generate enough profit to cover the cost of future decommissioning.

It is stressed that this report is based on broad assumptions regarding the Project. the approach to thedecommissioning. the market conditions for contracting costs. scrap value and resale options. It isrecommended that the net costs of decommissioning be reviewed closer to the end of the operating period(i.e. at 1S years of operation), Th e costs of decommissioning after 20 years of operation could berev iewed at this ti me as well as the costs of decommissioning at 25 years of operation. taking intoconsideration potential extended operational revenue. It would also he prudent to take into considerationa ore-powering" scenario, in which case the existing turbines would be removed in the interest ofconstructing: a more valuable project with larger. more efficient turbines.

Garrod Hav.an America. tnc " t!IDGL Garrad Hassan


10/32

Document \n , 700J2K AR 01 Dcco mnussion ing Study for the l'um aclc Wind Pow cr Issue: F111


11/32

Document No.: 700J2R AI{ OJ Dccommissionmg Study for the Pinnacle \\"111U 1\\\\ cr Issue: FProject

It is understood that the Client only requires analysis of a removal scenario at the end of the Project'sfunctional life. GH has not, therefore, considered scenarios involving repowering or other life-extendingoptions for the Project. This Decommissioning Study does not consider the assessed scenarios from legal.regulatory or commercial perspectives: this \,.,-i11 need to he assessed by the Client.

2 C!mIGL Garrad Hassan


12/32

OO-:UI11('l1! '\)0,: 70031:-: ,'\R OJ Dccomnu-sioning Study for the Pumaclc Wuid Power Issue: F FmalPmlL'L'(

2 DECOMISSIONNING COSTSStrong parallels between wind farm construction and decommissioning programs are assumed;consequently. the following estimates are based on GH's broad experience with wind farm constructionprograms and the associated costs of labor. plant and materials,All costs quoted arc based on 2010 dollars and it should he noted that no specific quotes were obtained inrelation 10 this study. Assumptions used in the analys is arc indicated where appropr iate. A table ofgeneral assumptions is included in this report [IS Appendix A.

2.1 PreliminariesBefore executing any decommissioning works, it is necessary to plan the work carefully. secure theappropriate permits and insurances and manage the program of work and associated health and safety riskcontrol methods in order to ensure a ...uccessful project.It is assumed that the decommissioning program would be ]0 weeks. This lime line is essentially based onthe assumption that the deconstruction of the wind turbines takes approximately seven (7 ) weeks. This isassumed to be the critical path activity with a rate of one (I ) turbine every l \H) (2) days over a si-c (6)-dayweek. In addition. one week is allowed for site mobilization at the beginning of the project. an extra weekis allowed for after the last turbine has been dismantled to account for any' required reinstatement ofremaining roads and crane pads. and a final week is added to demobilize the site. GI J has assumed thatstandard vehicle weight limits would he abided by. thereby minimizing the cost ( if an)') of reinstatementof existing roads. It should be noted that a delay budget 01" a half day per turbine is factored into thiscalculation.

2.1.1 Permits an d StudiesThe Project will likely be required to procure some form of environmental and jurisdictionaladministrative studies In support the responsible decommissioning of the Project. The cost ofany requiredroad permits is included in this amount. Also included is an estimate for the cost associated withestablishing the appropriate environmental protection plans and contracts to be incorporated for theduration of the work. It is assumed that the cost of the actual environmental protection is included in eachphase of the v ork to he performed.

Cost ItemEnvironmental Stud)

I Quantity1

Uniteach

L'nit Price ($)]0,000

I Total ($)-10,000 II

Jurisdiction StudyI EnvironmentalProtection Plan

TotalL

]

1eacheach

1(1.00075.000

II

-] 0.000-75.000-95,000

l'able 2-1: Estimated cost of permits an d studies

t!8IlIGL Garrad Hassan


13/32

--

Document 1\0.: 7(1032X AR OJ Dcconuuisxioning Study fix the Pinnacle Wind Power Issue: F FinalProject

2.1.2 StaffIt is assumed that the Project will require a site team to be formed to manage the delivery of the Projectprogram on time. on budget and in a safe manner. Over the fO-week program the site team is likely toconsist of a full-time site manager as well as a part-time assistant. project manager. health and safetyofficer. procurement officer and welfare contractors. All other construction staff is accounted for insubsequent sections.

Cost ItemSite Manager

---Assistant

LSafety oftieerI \Ve1fare contractorsI Total

10]0

2.1.3 Site FacilitiesIt is assumed that a typical construction site compound will be installed prior to commencement of work,This will consist of secure, transportable office trailers, which will be powered and heated by a dieselgenerator or service from Allegheny Power.

I Cost Item Quantity Total ($) IUnit Price ($)]0Office trailers (3) wks - t5.000I I.5IJOPower \\'ks ]0010 -1.000wks 100 -1.00IJ~ ~ 1 l 1 1 l 1 u n ~ ( ) -4,000-Site (dejmobilisation ' 2 wks 2.000

]0 -30 ,000Insurance wks 3.000Total -51,000

I ...fable 2-3: Estimated cost of SIte facitities2.1.4 ConclusionGH concludes that the total preliminary costs incurred prior to and during the execution of the workswould be in the order of $206.000.

( ; a r rw l HO\\(/JI A/I1{'!"J(iI, IIIL [!!]!,IGL Garrad Hassan


14/32

D ( l - : L J I 1 l ~ n t No.: 70032X,AR'OI Dcconumssronmg Study fur the Pinnacle \V'11ld Power Issue: f FinalProtect

2.2 Grid InterfaceOne of the first tranches of work is likely (0 be the decommissioning of the grid interface. This typicallyentails the removal of all overhead IIV transmission cabling from the grid connection switchyard to thewind farm collection substation and associated structures, removal of the HV switchgear and associatedequipment, and dismantling of the wind farm control building and substation compound.2.2.1 DisassemblyIn the case of the Project it is assumed that a control building is to be removed and a substat ion and itsequipment arc to be dcconstrucrcd and reclaimed, including the main transformer, breakers, switchgearand related transmission structures.It is assumed that the scope of the disassembly works includes the cost of labor and machinery required toperform the tasks and the loading of the dismantled material onto transport vehic les for removal from site.Sponsor has confirmed the length of the transmission line to be f),75 miles in length (at 13X kV}. Thefigures for removal in this report are based on general estimates to include line removal, pole removal andfoundation removal.

I Cost ItemPreparationRemove equipmentRemove control buildingDeconstruct substation and rCl110\'e equipmentRemove transmission lineReclaim areasTotal

Quantity ,2J5HI

0.752

UnitDJ}'sDaysDaysDaysml

acres

Unit Price ($) T o t a l ~ 400 -XOOgOO

I-2AOO

1.500 -7,5004.0001 -40.000

n.a ~ 2 . 0 0 0 I2.000 I A.OOO J~ 3 6 . 7 0 0 fable 2-4: Estimated cost of grid interface disassembly

2.2.2 RemovalIt is assumed that the scope of the removal works includes the cost of labor and vehicles required totransport the dismantled material to an appropriate disposal, salvage or rework facility or to another sitefor direct reuse. It is also assumed {hat unloading of the material will be at the cost of the recipient and assuch is 110t accounted for in this section.It is assumed the transport distances for building rubble, poles and general waste would be within a radiusof SO miles. whereas the more complex and valuable material is assumed to be transported within a radiusor 500 miles. A transport cost of either $IS/mile or $Ji'mile is assumed for the \ arying load sizes.

5 Gl Gar,ad Hassan


15/32

--- ----

I

Dccommis-uuung Study' for the Pmnaclc Wmd Power issue: FinalPW1


16/32

DUl:U1l1Cnt 'vo.: 70()J2X :\R OJ D...-commissroningStud) for the Pinnacle Wuul Power lssuc: FProject- - - - - - - - - - - ~

removal from site. The cranes would only be required on site for approxunately 7 weeks during the turbinedismantlement activities. Th e small crane ma y be required for slightly longer in order to assist with themet mast recovery and other transport loading activities.It is also assumed that aside 11\Jl11 the possible removal of the drive train to aid lifting, the nacelle and itscontents will remain fully intact for purposes of resale. All cooling. heating and lubrication fluids will bedrained. stored and appropriately disposed of before the nacelle is removed.

llnitCost Item 5 t i t ~ . t::achDismantle hub, I'WTG eachDismantle blades. 3IWTG

l) ismantle drive train. 1i\V'I'lJ eachDismantle nacelle. 1i\V-/"G J' eachJ_ 0----------+-----+----+--------!-----,

)'Dismantle tower internals _ 0 e3chDismantle 1ov.'er. 4,'\VTG

- - c - - - I .Large crane 11re. x ISmall crane hire, x 1

h each J .000 ----1---6,000Crane DeiMobilisation

Pc'rOll" pad testing & repair ( 2 ~ " ' " need attention)2 each 10,000 T -20,000

Special tool hire 10 wksTotal

Tobie 2-6: Estimated cost of turbine disassembly

2.3.2 RemovalIt is assumed that the scope of the removal works includes the cost of labor and \ chicles required totransport the dismantled material to an appropriate disposal. salvage or rework facility or to another sitefor direct reuse. 11 is assumed thai unloading of the material will be at the cost of the recipient and as suchis not accounted for in this section.It is assumed that the transport distances for general waste would he within a radius of 50 miles whereasthe more complex and valuable material is assumed to be transported within a radius of 500 miles. }\transport cost of either $1.5/mile. SJmile or $4.50'mile is assumed for the varying load sizes.

) m!:lIGL Garrad Hassan


17/32

D(H';UlrlL'!H No.: 70032g .AR.' Ol Dcconum-ooning Study for the Pinnacle W111d Power lssuc: F FinalProject

Cost Item ---Quantity enit Unit Price ($) [To ta l ($)I trips 2.250Transport hubs (2 tnp)Transport blades (2!trip) 35

1 2 ~ S 1,500Transport driv e trams (2 I tnp) \2 tnps 1,5001 ransport nacelle (1 'trip} trtps 1,500man,port rower internals 6 trips 750 S00Transport tower sections (1 'trip) 92 trips 2.250 -207.0008

-n.750-I R,OOO-1 R.OOO-34.S00

Transport general waste trips 7S=r-7S0=CO II -361,500I Total ---r -----"------1 able 2-7: Estimate of cost of turbine removal

2.3.3 ConclusionGl-i concludes that the total costs incurred during the decommissioning of the turbines would be in theorder of 'i> I,049,SOO,

2,4 Met MastIt is assumed that the met mast will be disassembled at an appropriate time during the lOsweek program soas not to interfere with other ongoing work. This typically involves the use or a s111a\1 crane to dismantlethe mast, section by section. down to the foundation surface. The instrumentation and booms would beremoved before the associated sections are laid dow 11.

2,4.1 Disassembly

In the case of the Project a 262ft free standing lattice tower type met mast is used.It is assumed that the scope of the disassembly works includes the cost of labor, machinery and toolsrequired to perform the tasks and the loading of the dismantled material onto transport vehicles forremoval from site. It is also assumed that a crane mobilized for turbine removal would be used (thereforeno additional crane cost is included).

I Cost Item _ ~ u a n t i t y Unit 1 llnit ~ r i e e ($) Total ($) IlDIsmantle tower -+_ I )00 -500 ,DIsmantle equipment__________j - l =1 d ~ ' - - t - - soo l - ; ~ ~ ~ o J I Total

(;w"I"{ulllalmll-/Ii/{ ' I"IUI. IJ /( . x CBlIGL Garrad Hassan


18/32

D()(UJ11CIH Ko.: 700J2X AR 0] Dcconumssiouing Stud) for the Pinnacle Wmd Power Issue: F FlIdProject

2.4.2 RemovalII is assumed that the scope of the removal works includes the cost of labor and vchiclets) required totransport the dismantled material to an appropriate disposal, salvage or rework facility or to another sitefor direct reuse. It is assumed that unloading of the material will be at the cost of the recipient and as suchis not accounted for in this section.It is assumed that the transport distances for general waste \\ ould be within a radius of 50 miles. whereasthe more complex and valuable material is assumed to be transported within a radius of :;00 miles. Atransport cost of (S3/11111c) is assumed.

I Cost Item.,ransport towt:>rI'otalL _ Table 2-9: Estimated cost of met mast removal

2.4.3 ConclusionGH concludes that the total cost incurred during the decommissioning of the met mast would be in theorder of $2.50(J.

2.5 FoundationsIt is assumed that all foundations including those for the turbines, the control building and met mast willbe cut back to a depth of 3 feet (approximately' meter) and the original ground level reinstated.It is also assumed that due to the robust nature or reinforced concrete. decommissioning could not beachieved without the destruction of the material. and as such it is unlikely that any of the reclaimedmaterial would have any residual market value i1S scrap or otherwise.

2.5.1 DisassemblyTh e concrete and steel would be removed through the use of hydraulic jackhammers and shears, The lISCof a crusher is not deemed appropriate due to the mixed nature of the reclaimed material. In the case of theProject there arc no externally located transformers or switchgear and hence 110 supplementary foundationsto consider.It is assumed that 100 o/!> of the removed volume of concretre and steel would be buried in excavated areasnext to the original foundations and such areas backfilled with spoils removed during the course of thework.

1Ini t Price ($ ) Total ($ )1500 -\ .500

-1.500

.,(iUi"I"


19/32

Document No.: 70032X AR,()] Dcconunissiouing Study for the Pinnacle \Vnul r\l\\ cr Issue: FProject

-- - - - - - - - ,lInit Price ($)Quantity! Lnit[cost Item ===1 Tot; 1 9 ~ $ : I-17L


20/32

I

2.7

Dcconumssioning Study for lhc' Pinnacle \Vinu Power ls-uc: F FllmlProject

It is assumed that the scope of the disassembly works includes the cost of labor and the loading of thedismantled material onto transport vehicles for removal from site. It is assumed that the disconnectionwork at the terminals would be performed as part of turbine removal or substation removal.

Total ($)'Cost Item I Quantity Unit l Cnit Price ($)I1---. 100each23Disconnect turbines -2,300 -I

Excavate trench -137.5003.41 R milesExtract and re-reel MV cabling. 40233.6Backfill the trench and reinstate the ground

[Total ~ 3 9 , 8 0 0 jL---.--."I able 2-11: Estimated cost of site elcctrics disassembly2.6.2 RemovalIt is assumed that the scope of the removal works includes the cost of labor and vehiclet s) required totransport the dismantled material to an appropriate salvage facility. Unloading: of the material will be at thecost of the recipient and as such is not accounted for i11 this section. It is assumed the material is w betransported within a radius of 500 miles. 1\ transport cost of ($1.50imile) is assumed with 3x 1n40ft reclcapacity trucks.

I 1Ini t Price ($ )t i t ~ ' I Unittrips 750

IITable 2-12: Estimated cust of site eleetries removal

Transport cable reclsTotal _-f"?--------=--:-;c---:c

I Cost Item

Total-3,0-3,0

2.6.3 ConclusionGH concludes that the costs incurred during the decommissioning of the site electrics would be in theregion of S142,SOO.

Site Roads and Crane PadsDecommissioning of the site access ways will typically include stripping back the surfaces of the siteentrance, project roads connecting the turbines, the crane pads, and the site compound area to a depth of 1to 1.5 feet and replacing them with topsoil in keeping with the surrounding environment.The project roads south of Green Mountain Road are assumed to be 5.5 yards wide and 1f'26 yards long,the crane pads arc approximately 21.2 yards wide by 43.7 yards long and the lay down areas areapproximately 43.7 yards wide by 43.7 yards long.

II tHlIGl Garrad Hassan


21/32

Document No.: 7011


22/32

Document tvo.: 70(}J2X AR 01 Dcconuui-siouing Study tor t11L: Pinnacle Wind Power !"SUC: FinalProjl.'l.'(

C;;;i Item ~ t i l ) ' Unit I l 'nit Price Total ($)Transport excavated aggregate9R2_ 150 - 1 4 7 ~ 3 i J ( ) T""nsport topsoil l) site 1.000 trips I 150 -150.000-+ - -1Total I - 2 9 7 , 3 0 ~ Table 2-14: ; : E " - s - c t i ; - m - a t e - d ~ c o i s c - t o-or si te roads removal

2.7.3 ConclusionGH concludes that the costs incurred during the decommissioning of the site roads and crane pads wouldbe in the order or $447,490.2.8 Decommissioning Cost SummaryThe total cost of non-destructive decommissioning (dismantlement and removal or material) is estimatedto he in the order of $2.(44)WO. as outlined in Table 2-15 below.

Decommissioning ItemPre! iminar ies

-175.2R4-142.ROO-447,4%

-2,806,744Table 2-15: Summary of non-destructive decommissioning costs

It expected that the total cost could be reduced significantly if the Client were 10 carry oUI destructivedecommissioning. thus a\ oiding the need for crane hire. and to IC(1\,e the site MV collection system buried.There would in this case bowcv er be additional considerations such as an y cnv iromucntal concerns andreduction in salvage costs. Therefore a cost-benefit analysis would need to be performed i f this optionwere considered further.

( /O / " lU( / Ifr/I' .'Oil America tnc, t!IElIGl Garrad Hassan


23/32


24/32

3.2

Document Nl': 7 ( ) ( ) J ~ : - < AR 01 D C " " ( ) 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 S s i ( 1 I \ 1 I l ~ Study 111r the Pinnacle \\ ind Power lssu ...: F finalPrl'io.:d

It shou ld be noted thai the commodity price of metals is volatile and 20-year values are impossible topredict w ith any degree of certainty'.

The following landfill costs are assumed: Class 2 Industrial waste: S 3 4 . 4 0 ' ' ' y d ~ ; and Class:' General waste: $ \ ] .Su.yd':

It should be noted that landfill costs are likely' to increase over 20 years as space becomes more of apremium: this report should therefore be updated over the Project operating period.For consistency all material quantities and rates arc considered in units of volume . yd '.

Grid Interface MaterialsThere should be opportunity to reclaim scrap value from electrical equipment (cabinets. yard equipmentand transformer) and rubble from the civil works reinstatement All other materials would be sent tolandfi ll at cost. It is assumed that the overhead collector will be made of 3 single core stranded aluminiumconductors of approximate size 500 kcmil and length 0.75 miles. The value of the poles is not known:therefore a conservative allocation of S1.000 per pole has been assigned.

yd ' ()4.6

Scrap

7.525o()()

l

4 " " "() () () ()2.50(}unit "

0,7

()

(hI/TOr! H:"'lI/1 4mcnca. Inc 15 [B', IGl Garrad Hassan


25/32

Document "In.: 70032SAR (j 1 Dccommrssiomng Study for the Pmnaclc Wind PowerProject Issue:r Fuul

GH estimates that the net$7,500 in resale plus 544,334 valuein scra reclaimable from the gridp value for a total of $5 J ,R34, materials would be on the order of

3.3 Turbine MaterialsThere should he considerable opportunity to reclaim scrap value from the turbines as copper in the LVcabling, transformer and generator: steel from the tower, hub. gearbox and bedplaie: and aluminum fromthe tower internals. The blades and nacelle housing are made from glass reinforced plastic and would haveto go to landfill if not resold as spares.It is also assumed that turbine parts sold for reuse after a lO-year period may be valued at 25'% of theiroriginal purchase price. GH also assumes that 10P/I of blades, generators. gearboxes and transformerswould be viable for resale on the basis that these components are likely to have been refurbished orreplaced over the Project life, thus maintaining some valuable residual operating life. The remaining 90 j;oof blades. generators. gearboxes and transformers plus 100% of towers. bedplatcs. bearings. shafts andhubs would be scrapped.

ResaleTotnlc o p p < ~

Snap Totals (90% Items}Steel Aluminum ('las!> 2 Landfill

""er0::.I

..,5OJ.,; ;;

(S27,J09/)d')

- "

.. , ,5 0;

(S1,643/)d' )

." .."-, ,_. ;;5 ;

(S.'.J27Iyd')

."- .=-,5 0,(S34.40/) d')

- f ."-. .s-,5 0, e ._Of . - .r: ,; : ; ~ /. 'I

I

B!dJe,> (6.61 GRPlHut, (9.9t st.GRrl1.... accllc (5.51 CiRPlBcdplutc (441 steel)

I. l t6\ )

232123

~ ( ) 9 . ! 2 0 "()

"

(J

" I(J

""(J"()

n39.2

()

J50A

(J

64. .5()O()

2--1- 511

()

""()o(J()()

2X(l217

X C 1 , . ~

()

-5X5-2.970"

-4.(,]963.915-2.970

247.2='11I

Shaft ( 12.11 steel}G btl \ . (22t sted)

"_.'23

()26--1-.391

(J

()""

--1-1.9

75 36iUWO12:'.:-:..fO

()()

()

"()

n r()II

hK.XO()123'\


26/32

Documcnt '\P.: 7(Hl32K AR O[ Dccommissioning Study fur the Pinnacle \Vl1Kl Power Issue: r FInalProjeci

GH estimates that the net value reclaimable from the turbine materials would be on the order ofS715J 35 in component resale plus S2.014.863 in scrap value for a total of $2)29.998.

3.4 vtet Mast MaterialsThere is some opportunity to reclaim scrap value from the steel in the mast. The instrumentation and otherelectronics would probably go to landfill rather than be refurbished. It is assumed that all the met mastcomponents will have come to the limit oftheir fatigue life after 20 years.I

E:::"er",-r."

Tu\\ ...1 (I 2 ) . ' d ~ xX 7 . : - - ; y d . ~ 1 1 1 5 " o density )instrument ...

~ t a l

I

, .5

I 15.7

I. J 10,65

Table 3-3: Estimated value/cost of disposal of met mast matenal

ScrapResale c o p p { ' r ~ Steel AluminumTotal Class 2 Landfill

($27.3091) d' ) 'I ($IMJI)d ' ) ($J3271)d') ($J4.401) d' )I

III II'L.. "=1." , ; ; - '.F, -" , s: 7 -::.. I" " ,. " " Q. -0 .. .. - = .. -:::::/:.- ; I 5 ' . - --"f'" 5- " 5 ; - v:"v:, t-"~ , d ; () 25,NOO (I () (I (I 25.XOOI

"

+" I

,

vd \ ()

0 I' ll.7() u () I 1

yd ' (I f) I 1.07S " " II 1.075 Ioj0 16.875 1 -45 26.8JOGH estimates that the net value reclaimable from the met mast materials ,..-ould he in the order of S26.R30.

3.5 Foundation MateriatsIt is assumed that 811 loundation rubble would be buried 011 site in excavated areas next to the originalfoundations . Such cost or disposal is included in the estimates for decommissioning in Section 2.5 herein.

3.6 Site Electrics Mater ialsIt is considered that there is some opportunity to reclaim scrap value from the metals in the collectionsystem cabling; the insulation would go to landfill. The electrical cabling: is not deemed to be fit for salefor re-use. It is assumed that [he underground collector will be made of 3 single core stranded aluminiumconductors of approximate size 200 kcmil and length 6014 yards. It is 110t known what type of earthingsystem will be installed. so zero value is assumed as a conserv alive assumption.

17 GL Garrad Hassan


27/32

3.7

I

Document ' \ ( 1 . 70032S AR III DCI.:UII1I1lissllH11ng Study for the f'11111


28/32

.1.8

IDcconuuissromng Study for the I'mnaclc Wind PU\\ cr Issue:PI'(lI...:..:t

Salvage Cost SummaryThe total net cost of salvage of the decommissioned material is estimated to be in the order of $2,R45.442assuming a combination of scrap sale value (ncr of landfill costs) and spare part sale value. A break-downis presented in Tahle 3-6 below.

(/0(/"1/11 Hassan ,--l/JIC/"/(O, IIIC 10 rimJGl Garrad Hassan


29/32

Document No.: 70032X AR 0 I D;:;:1I111l111:"I\lning Study tor the Pinnacle \\ inti Pov er Issue: F FitlalProject

Salvage Cost Item Total ResaleValue

($)Total Net

Scrap Value($)

1\et SalvageValue

($)Grid interface material recovery 7,500 -1-1334 51,S34Turbine material recovery 715,135 2.0I-l,S63 2,729,99RMet mast material recovery 0 26.R30 26,S30Foundation material recovery 0 0 0Site elcctrics material recovery o 21,760 21.760Sill' roads & crane pad material recovery 15,020 0 15,020Total 737,655 2,107,787 2,845,442-Table 3-6: Salvage/disposal summary

It is noted that it maybe possible to sell whole turbines rather than parts at the end of the Project's 20 yearlife. Although it is difficult to accurately assess turbine value and demand on this horizon. it is estimatedthat turbine's might be worth up to IOI;'n of their original value in Year 20. Rased on 2010 turbine pricesthis could equate to 0 resole rate of approximately $160/kW. $3R4,OOO per turbine, or SR,R32.000 for theProject. This scenario would substantially reduce the magnitude of any decommi ssioning bond required,

20 (ij]!3Gl Garrad Hassan


30/32

4

Documcru Xo.: 71HU2,s AR 01 Dcconumssrouing Study for the Pinnacle Wind Power lssuc: FProject

ESCROW PROPOSALThe total net salvage value of the Project components. and materials is estimated to be on the order of$3K,AQR (or $1.h)';3 ' \VTG) higher than the cost of decommissioning. A break-down summary is shownbelow (costs


31/32

l J ( ) ~ U 1 l 1 ~ ] ] 1 No.: 7()OJ2X AR 01 Dcconuurssiouing Study fix the Ptnnnclc Wind Power Issue: F FinalPW]L"d

Alternatively. the Project could be left in place and continue to operate as a going-concern. Whilemaintenance costs would rise and productivity may fall after Year 20. the Project could still generateenough profit to cover the cost of future decommissioning.It is stressed that this report is based on broad assumptions regarding the Project, the approach to thedecommissioning, the market conditions for contracting costs, scrap value and resale options. It isrecommended that the net costs of decommissioning be reviewed closer 10 the end of the operating period(i.e. at \ 5 years of operation). The costs or decommissioning after 20 years of operation could bereviewed at this time as \\'e11 as the costs of decommissioning at 25 years of operation, taking intoconsideration potential extended operational revenue. It would be prudent also to take into considerationa 're-powering" scenario, in which case the existing turbines would be removed in tile interest ofconstructing a more valuable project with larger, more efficient turbines.

(/al"/w( H ( / . \ W I I I ~ / } 1 L ' r I ( ' ( J , II/c GL Garrad Hassan


32/32

Document No." 7{JOl2:-: AR O! Dccommiv-tomog Study tor the Pinnacle Wind Power Issue: F FlIlalProject

APPE;\D1X A - GE"IERAL ASSl'l\1PTJOl'lSUnskilled Labor

----,'j;}S/hrSkilled Labor' $7S/hrProject Staff:

Site Manager-L $SOO/day-

Assistant 'j;300!dayProject Manager $oOO/dayProcurement S400/daySafety Onic MOO/day

-

Welfare Corm-actors $IOO,day-

Debris Removal Truck Size 20 cubic yardsMajor Turbine Component Inn el Distance 500 milesGeneral Waste Dump Distance SO milesMet Mast Scrap Travel Distance 500 miles

-Road Permits accounted for in Jurisdiction Study

(;aITad H{/\I(/II An/('/[((/, tnc 2y r!I!lI

attachment 1_decommissioning study for the pinnacle wind power project

Documents