Transcript Concluding presentation for SJWS#7 and TYNDP WS

TYNDP 2013-2022 concept
SJWS #7 – conclusion on TYNDP concept
TYNDP 2013-2022 Stakeholder Joint Working Session – 29 May 2012
TYNDP concept
Assessment of the European gas infrastructure system
> Being a network development plan, TYNDP focuses on infrastructures
> Supply adequacy outlook has to be checked at aggregated European level and at
>
>
>
local one (balancing zone) as demand and supply levels and locations have a direct
influence on the need of infrastructures
Considered scenarios/cases have to be stressful but still realistic
Top-down layer enabling the identification of trends and impacts that cannot be
identified at national level because of a very meshed European network
Results consist in:
• Indicators assessing SoS, Market Integration…
• Identification of investment gaps hampering demand cover
ENTSOG TYNDP is not
> A forecast
> An assessment of the good implementation of market rules
> A strategic study of producing/transit countries
2
Process timeline
ENTSOG TYNDP 2013-2022
2011
2012
TYNDP Concept
S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Launch of TYNDP 2013-2022 process
TYNDP Workshop
Internal preparation
ENTSOG TYNDP 2013-2022
Report edition
Modelling
Simulation
Concept approval
Macro-analysis
Country profiles
Infrastructure projects
INV WG opinion
Supply-demand balance
Board approval
Concept presentation
Report editing
Layout and structure definition
S&D, SoS, Mkt Int, Infra & Model
TYNDP Workshop
Data collection process
Data checking
Existing infrastructure and demand
Data collection process
Data checking
Supply
Data investigation
Scenario and case generation
Scenario and case generation
2013
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J
Result analysis
SJWS
Data collection process
Infrastructure projects
2012
Report consistence monitoring
S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Release process and consultation J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J
Release process
INV WG opinion
Board approval & GA approval
Public release
Public consultation
Public consultation
TYNDP follow-up workshop
Responses analysis
Board approval
Formal submission to ACER
From concept to reality
> Concept derived from previous TYNDP consultation, ACER’s opinion and SJWSs
> It will be presented and explained during June WS to facilitate future understanding
> Data collection and report drafting can then start based on a mature concept
3
Report structure
Aggregated supply adequacy outlook
> Demand scenarios
> Supply scenarios
European gas infrastructure
> Overview of current system
> Infrastructure scenarios translated into mixed network-market topology
Infrastructure assessment
> Definition of cases and methodologies
> Investment gap identification
> Indicators assessing level of SoS and Market Integration
Annexes
> Detailed country and project profiles
> Input and output data from the assessment
4
European gas infrastructure
5
Overview of current situation
Basis for better understanding of future investment use/need
> Ease the comparison for the feeling of missing infrastructure under current
>
market conditions and under an optimized use of infrastructures
Provide background to infrastructure projects
Similar information than the ones provided by Syst. Dev. map
> Reference 2009, 2010 & 2011
> Information at aggregated cross-border level
> Information provided on seasonal or yearly basis:
• Average flow
• Maximum flow
6
Network-market topology
FIx
NO
UGS, LNG & NP nodes, control
nodes and arcs to all E/E systems
EEx
SEx
IEx
UKx
NLx
LVx
KL
DKx
LTx
UGS
RU
PLy
BEx
BY
PLg
LUx
LNG
FRn
DEg
CZx
FRs
NP
DEn
CHx
SKx
UA
ATx
HUx
ROt
ROx
FRt
SIx
ITx
HRx
RSx
PTx
ESx
BGx
FYx
AL
LY
Actual topology depends on the
year and infrastructure scenario
TK
GRx
UGS and LNG terminal modelling
LNG dual role
> LNG terminal send-out should consider the dual role of the facilities:
• The imports
• The storage
> LNG tank management (including stock level prior to the event) has to be defined for
>
the 2-week case
These elements are to be discussed with GLE
UGS curve
> Last Summer and Winter Supply Outlooks use a single and conservative deliverability
>
curve (linked to stock level) for every country
Potential improvement has to be considered with GSE
8
Scenarios & Cases
9
Scenario vs. Case
Demand
2017 cases
Scenario
comparison
2012
2022
Peaks
2-week peak
2050
Average
2 kind of scenarios
> Follow the evolution of one variable
>
>
during the time
Pathways: e.g. Roadmaps
Forecast: e.g. best estimate
Cases are derived from scenario
> Average day
> 2-week peak
> Daily peaks
10
Considered scenarios and cases
Considered scenarios
> Demand scenarios: TSO, Primes, Eurogas
> Supply scenarios: Minimum, medium and maximum
> Infrastructure scenarios: Existing infra. + FID & Existing infra. + FID + non-FID
Different parameter setting when defining cases
Demand
Supply
Events
Design Case
Reference
BY disruption
Simultaneous peak
Predominant
UA disruption
2-week simultaneous peak
Minimum
NO disruption (specific infra. to be defined)
Yearly average
AL1 (through Tunisia)
AL2 (through Morocco)
LNG (update of GLE study)
11
Supply potential
>
>
Definition of a maximum, medium and minimum supply potential by source
based on publicly available data from governmental and other sources.
These levels are defined at yearly level. For the analysis they have been
Upper limit: Test of Market Integration
translated in the daily averages.
GWh/d
6,000
GWh/d
6,000
1.60
5,000
5,000
1.50
4,000
1.40
3,000
3,000
1.30
2,000
2,000
1.20
1,000
1,000
1.10
4,000
Upper limit flexibility
0
0
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
1.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
FID+ non FID Capacity
FID Capacity
FID Daily peak
FID Capacity
FID+ non FID Capacity
FID + non FID Daily peak
FID Peak ratio
FID + non FID Peak ratio
Medium potentia supply scenario
Yearly average volume - reference case
12
Matrix of cases - Reference
Reference Case
Scenario
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2013
2017
2022
2013
2017
2022
2013
2017
2022
2013
2017
2022
2017
2022
2017
2022
2017
2022
2017
2022
Infra. Cluster
Demand Case
Duration
Occurrence
Event
Supply source mix
Disruption UGS deliverability
Design Case
1 day
Not limited
Simultaneous
Case
FID
2 Weeks
Year
Average
None
Minimum
Reference
Design Case
1 day
non-FID
2 Weeks
Year
Simultaneous
Case
Average
Not limited
Minimum
13
Matrix of cases - SoS
Scenario Year Infra. Cluster
SoS
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
2013
FID
FID
2017
non-FID
Demand Case
Duration
Occurrence
Event
Supply source mix
Disruption UGS deliverability
NO
BY
UA
Not limited
Design Case
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
None
Minimum
1 day
NO
BY
UA
Not limited
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
Simultaneous Case
None
Minimum
NO
BY
UA
2 weeks
Minimum
AL
LY
LNG
NO
BY
UA
Not limited
Design Case
AL 1
AL 2
Crisis supply
LNG
None
Minimum
1 day
NO
BY
UA
Not limited
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
Simultaneous Case
None
Minimum
NO
BY
UA
2 weeks
Minimum
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
NO
BY
UA
Not limited
Design Case
AL 1
AL 2
1 day
LNG
None
Minimum
NO
Simultaneous Case
Not limited
BY
UA
Scenario Year Infra. Cluster
SoS
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
2017
non-FID
FID
2022
non-FID
Demand Case
Duration
Occurrence
Event
Supply source mix
Disruption UGS deliverability
AL 1
Not limited
AL 2
1 day
LNG
None
Minimum
NO
Simultaneous Case
BY
UA
2 weeks
Minimum
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
NO
BY
UA
Not limited
Design Case
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
None
Minimum
1 day
NO
BY
UA
Not limited
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
Simultaneous Case
None
Minimum
NO
Crisis supply
BY
UA
2 weeks
Minimum
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
NO
BY
UA
Not limited
Design Case
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
None
Minimum
1 day
NO
BY
UA
Not limited
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
Simultaneous Case
None
Minimum
NO
BY
UA
2 weeks
Minimum
AL 1
AL 2
LNG
14
Matrix of cases – Market Integration
Scenario Year Infra. Cluster
Market
Integration
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
2013
Demand Case
Duration Occurrence
FID
Year
FID
2017
non-FID
Average
Event
Supply source mix
Disruption UGS deliverability
max NO even
max NO max
max RU even
max RU max
max AL even
max AL max
max LY even
max LY max
max LNG even
max LNG max
min NO
min RU
min AL
min LY
min LNG
max NO even
max NO max
max RU even
max RU max
None
Not used
max AL even
max AL max
max LY even
max LY max
max LNG even
max LNG max
min NO
min RU
min AL
min LY
min LNG
max NO even
max NO max
max RU even
max RU max
max AL even
max AL max
max LY even
max LY max
max LNG even
Scenario Year Infra. Cluster
Market
Integration
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
2017
Demand Case
Duration Occurrence
non-FID
FID
Year
Average
2022
non-FID
198 cases to compare to the 67 of TYNDP 2011-2020
Event
Supply source mix
Disruption UGS deliverability
max LNG max
min NO
min RU
min AL
min LY
min LNG
max NO even
max NO max
max RU even
max RU max
max AL even
max AL max
max LY even
max LY max
max LNG even
max LNG max
min NO
min RU
min AL
None
Not used
min LY
min LNG
max NO even
max NO max
max RU even
max RU max
max AL even
max AL max
max LY even
max LY max
max LNG even
max LNG max
max CA even
max CA max
min NO
min RU
min AL
min LY
min LNG
min CA
15
Infrastructure assessment
16
Applied methodologies per case
Reference and disruption cases
> Calculation of Remaining Flexibility per entry/exit zone
> Investment gap and remedy identification
Minimum UGS deliverability cases
> Calculation of Remaining Flexibility per entry/exit zone
> Identification of systems where withdraw rates should be higher
> Calculation of required withdraw rates (stock levels) to face the event
Market integration
> Supply maximization: even reach and multiple maximum reach
• Identification of infrastructure preventing to reach a given supply share in every
>
>
country (if any limitation)
Supply minimization: even reduction
• Identification of infrastructure preventing (if any limitation) to reach the lower limit
Supply/Route diversification index defined by country for both maximum and even
reach
17
Remaining flexibility & investment gaps
Remaining flexibility indicator
> It is defined at 2 levels:
• Infrastructure:
•
>
Dependence to flow
pattern
High
System level:
Results are provided as ranges: <1% / 1-5% / 5-20% / >20%
Medium
Gap identification criteria
> Under Reference Case (no disruption), gaps are identified
>
>
>
when a system has a Rem. Flex below 5%
In case of disruption, the criteria is decreased to 1% as part
of the Rem. Flex will have been used to face the event
Then congested infrastructure (or supply) are identified
based on their Rem. Flex
Potential remedies will be identified using the non-FID
projects provided by project promoters (without priority)
18
Gap and remedy identification
FID case
Country Rem.
Flex
Non-FID Case
Congestion
Remedy
1-5%
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
5-10%
<1%
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
<1%
CC3
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
1-5%
CC4
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
Tra.:
UGS:
LNG:
CC1
CC2
CC5
<1%
Curtailed
demand
20 GWh/d
50 GWh/d
Rem.
Flex
Curtailed
demand
<1%
Remedies will be identified if within the list of submitted infrastructure projects.
Specific reference will be made to the project to ease the reading
10 GWh/d
50 GWh/d
19
Indicators
(still to be discussed with stakeholders)
20
Supply diversification
Impacting supply share
> The share of a given supply source able to induce a significant impact on prices
> Should it be calculated in comparison with the total supply or the total imports ?
> TYNDP 2011-2020 used mostly 5% (identifying also systems with more than 20%)
> On map, supply shares should be represented with figures or ranges?
Supply diversification from a market
perspective
> Could be based on the uniform or maximum
>
>
>
spreads
Which is the minimum share of a given source
to be considered?
How to deal with LNG embedded
diversification (e.g. highlighting the presence of
LNG)?
Is a benchmark (e.g. 3 sources required)?
21
Route diversification
ENtry Capacity Concentration index
> Based on the same logic than HHI but calculated on the share of an entry capacity
in the total entry
> A supply diversification index may be defined the same way using the flows
coming from supply sources but index will then depend on flow pattern (which
could be mitigated through a sensitivity study)
30%
ENCC=
100%
40%
ENCC=
40²+30²+20²+
20%
100²= 10 000
10²= 3000
10%
EXit Capacity Concentration index
> Similar indicators may defined based on exit capacity in order to measure how a
>
system may support supply/route diversification
Result should be compared to the idealistic situation taking into account the number
of cross-borders
As for all indicators, analysis is more robust when comparing
situation of one country between 2 cases
22
Range of infrastructure use in the cases
Synthetic indicator can be derived from all simulations
> Indicator can be defined for every system:
• At cross-border level
• UGS aggregate
• LNG aggregate
> Range would be defined base on the highest and lowest load factor of the 198
simulations (not considering Reference Cases)
>
>
100%
Actual use may be outside these
ranges
Robustness could be improved
with a sensitivity study around
each simulation modifying
slightly the supply shares
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
X-border
C1/C2
X-border
C1/C3
UGS C1
UGS C2
LNG C1
23
Supply
Definition of the reference case
24
New approach: a more realistic reference cases
Definition of Potential levels of Supply
Daily average
>
Supply shares by source:
> Average 2009-2010-2011 on the ENTSOG historical data base.
> Supply shares by route:
> The import flows by route are proportional to the historical utilization of
the routes – average 2009-2010-2011.
Peak Day
> A certain share of LNG is treated as pipeline gas -> Daily minimum LNG import.
The remaining LNG import capacity, as well as the UGS are used as last
resource sources, with common load factors.
> The pipeline imports are defined by the historical daily maximums by source
(or by route).
25
Definition of the reference case
AVERAGE DAY
26
Average daily supply share – Reference Case
Iteration 0
Iteration 1
GWh/d
2011
2015
2020
2020
Demand
1000
1200
1400
1400
Potential
300
250
200
200
Actual share
300
250
200
200
700
950
1200
1200
Potential
600
700
800
800
Actual share
400 (57%)
543 (57%) 687 (57%) 700 (58%)
Potential
400
450
Actual share
300 (43%)
407 (43%) 513 (43%) 500 (42%)
0
0
National Production
Net Demand
Supply A
Supply B
Supply balance
500
0
500
0
27
New approach: a more realistic reference cases
Definition of Potential levels of Supply
Daily average
>
Supply shares by source:
> Average 2009-2010-2011 on the ENTSOG historical data base.
> Supply shares by route:
> The import flows by route are proportional to the historical utilization of
the routes – average 2009-2010-2011.
Peak Day
> A certain share of LNG is treated as pipeline gas -> Daily minimum LNG import.
The remaining LNG import capacity, as well as the UGS are used as last
resource sources, with common load factors.
> The pipeline imports are defined by the historical daily maximums by source
(or by route).
28
Daily Average: Supply shares by Source
>
>
Starting point: Average 2009-2010-2011
> Libyan exception: Avoid the effect of Libyan disruption, it’s contribution to
the supply share measured by the average 2009-2010
Small changes in the supply shares by source:
•
Lower share:
•
•
Norway
Algeria
100%
90%
80%
•
Higher share:
•
LNG
Libya 2.6%
Libya 2.8%
Algeria 11.0%
Algeria 9.5%
LNG 18.0%
LNG 21.9%
Russia 38.1%
Russia 38.2%
Norway 30.1%
Norway 27.8%
Average 2008-2009
Average 2009-2010-2011
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
29
Daily Average: Supply shares by Source
>
Supply potential level by source: Medium supply potential
14,000
12,000
10,000
Libya
Algeria
8,000
LNG
6,000
Russia
4,000
Norway
2,000
0
2011
2013
2014
2015
Dark colours: Average shares 2008-2009
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Light colours: Average shares 2009-2010-2011
30
Supply shares by route
Source 1
R1
R2
R3
TYNDP 2011-2020 – Common route share
Source 1 – Balance: 600 Units
Route 1 – Technical capacity: 300 Units
Route 2 – Technical capacity: 300 Units
Route 3 – Technical capacity: 400 Units
Total technical capacity: 1000 Units: Load-factor: 60%
Route 1 – 180 Units
Route 2 – 180 Units
Route 3 - 240 Units
Historical load-factor of the routes (last 3 years)
Route 1 – 50% - 150 Units
Route 2 – 70% - 210 Units
Route 3 – 40% - 160 Units
Total: 520 Units
Different route share according to the historical data:
Route 1 = 600 * (150/520) = 173 Units
Route 2 = 600 * (210/520) = 242 Units
Route 3 = 600 * (160/520) = 184 Units
31
Supply shares by route. Results’ test
Russian Routes
>
>
The big differences between the historical load factors of the different routes
lead to a significant change in the import shares by route when substituting
the average load factor by a historical-based route shares.
Due to the lack of historical data, an average load factor is used for
Nordstream.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Free (daily average)
40%
Used (daily average)
30%
20%
10%
0%
RU>EE RU>FI RU>LV BY>LT BY>PL YA>DE UA>PL UA>RO UA>SK UA>HU TOTAL
32
Different approaches: Results test
GWh/d
UA>SK
GWh/d
3,500
1,400
3,000
1,200
2,500
1,000
2,000
800
1,500
600
1,000
500
Homogeneous load factor
Capacity
>
Homogeneous load factor
Historical load factor
Historical load factor
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
>
400
BY>PL (incl YA)
200
Capacity
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
The average historical load factor of the Ukraine to Slovakia route (62%) is
significantly over the Russian average (50%), therefore the utilization of this
route would be significantly lower when considering an homogeneous value.
The same is happening for the Belarus to Poland route (including Yamal),
where the average historical load factor is 67%.
33
Different approaches: Results test
GWh/d
1,200
UA>RO
GWh/d
700
1,000
600
500
800
UA>HU
Homogeneous load factor
Historical load factor
Capacity
400
600
300
400
200
Homogeneous load factor
Historical load factor
Capacity
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
>
>
200
100
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Due to the low average historical load factor of the route from Ukraine to
Romania (7%) the utilization of an homogeneous load factor values would lead
to too high import flows through this route .
Something similar is found for the route from Ukraine to Hungary where the
average historical load factor is 33%.
34
Definition of the reference case
PEAK DAY
35
High daily supply share – Reference Case
GWh/d
Max 2008/2009
Average daily share
High Daily Ratio
Supply A
500
400
1.25
Supply B
400
300
1.33
GWh/d
2011
2015
2020
Demand
1400
1700
2000
Potential
350
300
250
Actual share
350
300
250
1050
1400
1750
Average Daily
400
543
700
High Daily share
500
679
875
Average Daily
300
407
500
High Daily share
400
541
665
150
180
210
National
Production
Net Demand
Supply A
Supply B
To be covered by UGS and LNG at same
load factor
36
Proposed changes/improvements
Source 1
R1
Maximum Historical supply from Source1: 13,000 Units – specific date
Route 1: 7,500 Units
Route 2: 5,500 Units
R2
Maximum non-simultaneous supply from Source 1: 14,000 Units
Route 1: 8,000 Units
Route 2: 6,000 Units
Historical yearly supply from Source 1: 3,650,000 Units – Average 10,000 units
Peak supply from source 1:
TYNDP 2011-2020
- Maximum non-simultaneous supply
- Peak factor: Maximum/Average
14,000/10,000 ~ 1,4
- Apply the historical peak factor to
the “estimated” volumes in the
future
- This approach has been said to be to
optimistic as the maximum flexibility
may have been reached.
ALTERNATIVES
- Maximum historical daily values without yearly volumes
considerations:
- Maximum simultaneous supply (13,000)
- Maximum non-simultaneous supply (14,000)
- Volume consideration - Peak factors:
- From the maximum simultaneous supply ~ 1,3
- From the maximum non simultaneous supply ~ 1,4 (*)
(*) Follow the TYNDP 2011-2020 methodology
37
New approach: a more realistic reference cases
Definition of Potential levels of Supply
Daily average
>
Supply shares by source:
> Average 2009-2010-2011 on the ENTSOG historical data base.
> Supply shares by route:
> The import flows by route are proportional to the historical utilization of
the routes – average 2009-2010-2011.
Peak Day
> A certain share of LNG is treated as pipeline gas -> Daily minimum LNG import.
The remaining LNG import capacity, as well as the UGS are used as last
resource sources, with common load factors.
> The pipeline imports are defined by the historical daily maximums by source
(or by route).
38
Different approaches: Results test
Daily peak
- Maximum historical daily values without yearly volumes considerations:
- Maximum simultaneous supply -> OPTION A
- Maximum non-simultaneous supply -> OPTION B
- Volume consideration - Peak factors:
- From the maximum simultaneous supply -> OPTION C
- From the maximum non simultaneous supply -> OPTION D (TYNDP 2011-2020)
Daily historical maximum
Russia
Norway
Algeria
Libya
OPTION A
OPTION B
5,467
3,893
1,466
322
6,250
4,253
1,546
322
Peak Rate
OPTION C OPTION D
1.39
1.39
1.51
1.18
1.58
1.51
1.60
1.18
39
Different approaches: Results test
Russia
GWh/d
9,000
8,000
4,500
7,000
4,000
6,000
3,500
5,000
3,000
Option A - Simultaneous maximum - more conservative option
Option B - Non-Simultaneous maximum
Option C - Peak rate - simultaneous
Option D - Peak rate - Non- simultaneous
FID technical capacities
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Algeria
GWh/d
1,750
Norway
GWh/d
5,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Libya
GWh/d
360
1,700
350
1,650
1,600
340
1,550
330
1,500
320
1,450
1,400
310
1,350
300
1,300
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
40
2020
Different approaches: Results test
UGS
GWh/d
25,000
20,000
15,000
Option A - Simultaneous maximum - more conservative option
10,000
Option B - Non-Simultaneous maximum
Option C - Peak rate - simultaneous
5,000
Option D - Peak rate - Non- simultaneous
technical capacities
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
LNG
GWh/d
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
41
Thank You for Your Attention
Olivier Lebois & Carmen Rodriguez, Advisers, System Development
ENTSOG -- European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas
Avenue de Cortenbergh 100, B-1000 Brussels
EML:
T:
WWW:
[email protected]
[email protected]
+ 32 2 894 5105 / 5125
www.entsog.eu
42