TAR NC Implementation Document – Second Edition September 2017 |
191
Table A: Distances between Entries and Exits
1)
TABLE A: DISTANCES BETWEEN ENTRIES AND EXITS
Distance (km)
Exit
IP 1
IP 2
IP Exit 5
IP 3
Consumption
Entry
LNG
650
820
840
420
460
IP 1
0
350
520
360
200
IP Entry 4
150
480
660
430
270
IP 2
350
0
230
430
270
IP 3
360
430
440
0
170
Table 29:
Distances between entries and exits
The first Table shows the distance from each exit point to each entry point of the sys-
tem. This is exactly the same matrix as for the previous capacity example for CAA
2)
.
Table B: Average Distance to a specific Exit (or Entry)
TABLE B: AVERAGE DISTANCE TO A SPECIFIC EXIT (OR ENTRY)
Average distance (km) for each exit point to the group of entry points
IP 1
IP 2
IP Exit 5
IP 3
Consumption
345
509
543
408
282
Average distance (km) for each entry point
to intra exits
to cross exits
LNG
460
739
IP 1
200
457
IP Entry 4
270
516
IP 2
270
291
IP 3
170
423
Table 30:
Average distance to a specific exit (or entry)
Taking into account the flows and the distance of every entry of the system to one
specific exit, a commodity weighted average distance can be calculated for this exit.
Flows are shown in the following Table C. This average distance of one exit is deter-
mined by the sum of each entry flow, times the distance to this respective entry from
the considered exit, divided by the sum of all entry flows. An average distance for a
specific exit would be calculated as in the following equation.
1) Consumption refers to ‘intra-system network use’, as per the comment at the start of Part II. It corresponds to the
amount of gas flows, as per Article 5 provisions. One assumes here that this amount of gas flows is the forecast used for
the RPM application (another assumption could have been to use past actual values).
2) For this commodity-based CAA, similarly to the capacity-based case, only entry and exit points connected via a flow
scenario are considered here. The flow scenario assumption is not mandatory in Article 5 though.