94 / 124
94 |
South-North Corridor GRIP 2017
Table 7.6:
Boundary conditions for case study 3c and 3d
Figure 7.13:
Case study 3c flow patterns
Figure 7.14:
Case study 3d flow patterns
ITs
IT
ITe
CH
DEn
FRn
AT
2020 LOW Disruption Norpipe
NO min
ITs
IT
ITe
CH
DEn
FRn
AT
2030 PCI Disruption Norpipe
NO min
7.3.6 CASE STUDY 3C/3D
CASE DESCRIPTION
Year
c) 2020
d) 2030
Climatic conditions
Peak Demand: Northern EU
Average Winter: Rest of EU
Supply disruptions
Norwegian flows (Norpipe to DE)
Infrastructure level
c) Low
d) PCI
Supply prices
Norwegian most expensive
Capacity
CH>FRn bundled firm
To ease the comparability of results, also for this last case study the same approach
has been followed adopting different climatic conditions across Europe and fully
(bundled) firm capacity at Oltingue IP from Switzerland to France, while keeping
constant the other variables and exploring both years 2020 and 2030.
Compared to the previous case studies 1 and 2 (variants c and d), all related to more
or less intense Russian disruptions, in cases 3c and 3d the possibility to get to a full
reverse flow configuration is not displayed by the model results. The disruption of
Norpipe and the simultaneous availability of Russian flows activate a partial reverse
flow configuration, this time directed from Italy - which can benefit from gas from
Austria coming likely from Ukraine – towards Switzerland and then to Germany and
France. To be noted that the flows towards Northern Europe via Switzerland result
more relevant compared to the ones obtained in the cases of a complete reverse flow
configuration to reflect the competing nature of reverse-flow capacities at the ITe node.
Finally, the comparison of results between the years 2020 and 2030 gives additional
hints towards the importance of a reinforcement of the Italian network (“Adriatica
Line” and “TAP interconnection”), if relevant volumes from North Africa and the
Southern Corridor have to be made available at the benefits of overall European
diversification and security of supply.