105 / 120
BEMIP Gas Regional Investment Plan 2017 |
105
6.1 Denmark and Sweden
Remaining Flexibility
Denmark is Sweden’s supplier of gas. Until 2022, Denmark will only be indirectly
connected to the other BEMIP GRIP countries (via Germany). In 2022, Baltic Pipe
between Denmark and Poland is planned to be commissioned. Baltic Pipe is one of
the PCI projects in the third infrastructure scenario (Low+PCI projects in the BEMIP
GRIP countries). The impact of Baltic Pipe can be seen in the simulation results for
both Denmark and Sweden for 2025:
Blue Transition scenario:
\\
For Denmark the remaining flexibility increases from 7% to 16% in “Design
Case” and from 18% to 28% in demand case “2W” (constant high demand in
two weeks). For Sweden the remaining flexibility increases from 6% to 33% in
“Design Case” and from 12% to 42% in demand case “2W”.
Green scenario:
\\
For Denmerk the remaining flexibility increases from 31% to 43% in “Design
Case” and from 43% to 58% in demand case “2W”. For Sweden the remain-
ing flexibility increases from 21% to 48% in “Design Case” and from 21% to
51% in demand case “2W”.
Disruption rate
The disruption rate is zero for Denmark and Sweden in all cases. This follows from
the fact that the remaining flexibility in all simulation cases is positive.
6.2 Estonia
Remaining Flexibility
New infrastructure greatly improves the gas supply security in different gas disrup-
tion scenarios. This is illustrated by the increase in remaining flexibility in scenarios
with more of the PCI list projects implemented. The analysis of disruption scenarios
emphasises the value of infrastructure in extreme supply situations.
In most cases of supply disruption between Belarus and Lithuania, the remaining
flexibility for Estonia remains in the range of 55% to 100%. For this disruption case,
the only instances where the remaining flexibility is lower in the range of 0% to 38%,
is for the Low+GIPL scenario in 2025. This is because the model assumes that the
Klaipėda LNG terminal will stop operating in 2024 since the current lease contract
for the floating terminal will elapse in this year. This implies that GIPL alone cannot
provide enough flexibility for Estonia as an alternative supply source during high-gas
demand periods. To increase flexibility for Estonia, interconnectors like
Balticconnector and potentially LNG terminals are needed in addition to GIPL.