Registered Office: 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1 50, Houston, Texas 77056

GOMPU-BHPBHSE-EPA-LET-0004REV0 

# September 30, 2011

Mr. Gregg Worley U.S. EPA Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Mail Code: 9T25 Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

RE: BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Sake Prospect Drilling Project PSD/Title V Major Source Permit Application

Dear Mr. Worley:

On October 14, 2010, BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. (BHPB) submitted an application for a pre construction and operating permit for conducting ex ploratory drilling activity on the Outer Continenta l Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico. The exploratory drilling activity is pl

a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) and associated support vessels in BHPB’s lease blocks in the Desoto Canyon region in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, east of the 87.5 degree longitude.

On August 1, 2011, BHPB received a le BHPB comments regarding the BACT analyses completed in support of the PSD/Title V major source permit application. BHPB requested a thirty (30) day extension to appropriately respond to EPA Region I V’s comment on August 31, 2011, and EPA Region IV g ranted BHPB’s request until September 30, 2011. This letter is being submitted in response to those comments, as provided by EPA Region IV.

Comment 1: Additional technology considerations fo r internal respect to PM, PM 10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO x 

# , CO, VOC and GHG’s

a) With respect to all subject pollutants mentioned above the applicant should consider newer cleaner engines (i.e., engines meeting EPA Tier 1 a nd Tier 2 emissions standards, 40 or 94) or retro fitting existing engines to meet th e newer Tier standards. Response:

DD-1: DD- 1 is powered by eight (8), CAT Model 3612 diesel (CI) Internal Combustion Engines (ICE), each genera ting a

Registered Office: 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1 50, Houston, Texas 77056 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Sake Prospect Drilling Project PSD/Title V Major Source Permit Application

2010, BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. (BHPB) submitted an application for a pre construction and operating permit for conducting ex ploratory drilling activity on the Outer Continenta l Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico. The exploratory drilling activity is pl anned to be conducted using mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) and associated support vessels in BHPB’s lease blocks in the Desoto Canyon region in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, east of the 87.5 degree longitude.

On August 1, 2011, BHPB received a le tter from Mr. Gregg Worley of EPA Region IV providi ng to BHPB comments regarding the BACT analyses completed in support of the PSD/Title V major source permit application. BHPB requested a thirty (30) day extension to appropriately respond to

V’s comment on August 31, 2011, and EPA Region IV g ranted BHPB’s request until September 30, 2011. This letter is being submitted in response to those comments, as provided by

Comment 1: Additional technology considerations fo r internal combustion engines with , CO, VOC and GHG’s :

a) With respect to all subject pollutants mentioned above the applicant should consider newer cleaner engines (i.e., engines meeting EPA Tier 1 a nd Tier 2 emissions standards, 40 or 94) or retro fitting existing engines to meet th e newer Tier standards.

1 is powered by eight (8), CAT Model 3612 diesel

- fired, Stationary Compression Ignition (CI) Internal Combustion Engines (ICE), each genera ting a round 3600 kW and having an engine BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc. 1360 Post Oak Boulevard Suite 150 Houston Texas 77056-3020 USA Tel 713 961 8500 Fax 713-499-5994 bhpbilliton.com



# 2010, BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. (BHPB) submitted an application for a pre

construction and operating permit for conducting ex ploratory drilling activity on the Outer Continenta l anned to be conducted using mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) and associated support vessels in BHPB’s lease blocks in the Desoto Canyon region in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, east of the 87.5 degree longitude.

tter from Mr. Gregg Worley of EPA Region IV providi ng to BHPB comments regarding the BACT analyses completed in support of the PSD/Title V major source permit application. BHPB requested a thirty (30) day extension to appropriately respond to

V’s comment on August 31, 2011, and EPA Region IV g ranted BHPB’s request until September 30, 2011. This letter is being submitted in response to those comments, as provided by

combustion engines with

a) With respect to all subject pollutants mentioned above the applicant should consider newer cleaner engines (i.e., engines meeting EPA Tier 1 a nd Tier 2 emissions standards, 40 CFR Part 89

fired, Stationary Compression Ignition round 3600 kW and having an engine

## Mr. Worley - Page 2

September 30, 2011
GOMPU-BHPBHSE-EPA-LET-0004


# displacement of 222 liters. Each DD-1 main engine h as a displacement of 18.5 liter/cylinder. The applicability of the EPA Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission standards for new engines (i.e., replacement engines for DD-1) are initially set forth under 40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII. Under Subpart IIII, 40 CFR 60.4204(b), which requires that owners or operators of 2007 model year or later stationary CI ICE with a displacement less than 30 liters/cylinder me et the emission standards established under 40 CFR 60.4201. As set forth in 40 CFR 60.4201(d), st ationary CI ICE manufacturers must certify nonemergency stationary CI ICE to the emission standar ds for new marine CI engines in 40 CFR 94.8, as applicable, for all pollutants, for the same dis placement and maximum engine power.

In accordance with 40 CFR 94.8, exhaust emissions f rom marine compression-ignition engines shall not exceed the applicable EPA Tier 2 exhaust emissi on standards contained in Table A–1 of 40 CFR 94.8(a)(2)(i). Based on the specifications of the e xisting main engines on DD-1, the replacement engines would be classified as an EPA Category 2 ma rine diesel engine (i.e., marine diesel engines with per cylinder displacement between 2.5 and 30 l iters). Based on a comparison of the emission standards under this rule and the stack test data a ssociated with the existing main engines, there is no reduction in emissions due to an upgrade to EPA Tier 2 compliant engines as emissions calculated from the recent DD-1 stack test are belo w the EPA Tier 2 emission standards. Please refer to Appendix A1 for emission estimations and a comparison to the EPA Tier 2 emission standard.

The test bed results show that the engines run at 6 .5 g/kW-hr, but another manufacturer Electro Motive Diesel (EMD) produces an engine that runs at 5 g/kW-hr. On the test bed specifications for the EMD 710GC-T2, for the emissions level at 50% lo ad, our normal operating scenario for DP operations is 8.2 g/kW-hr, and on the CAT 3612 engi nes it is 8.0 g/kW-hr. The tests on all engines show that the NO x 

# emissions level rises at lower loads and with time . See Appendix A2 for test bed results from No.1 engine on DD-1 and the general da ta published by EMD. From this BHPB concludes that the emissions performance of EMD and the CAT engines at normal operating loads for DD-1 are essentially equivalent. Therefore, th e replacement of the main engines on DD-1 provides no beneficial emissions reduction and is t hereby deemed technically infeasible.

C.R. Luigs: The C.R. Luigs is powered by eight (8), MAN B&W 9L32/40 model diesel-fired, Stationary Compression Ignition (CI) Internal Combu stion Engines (ICE), each generating 4,184 kW and having an engine displacement of 289.35 liters. Each C.R. Luigs main engine has a displacement of 32.15 liter/cylinder. Following the same 40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII regulatory applicability as presented for the DD-1 main engine s, the main engines on C.R.Luigs currently fall under EPA Category 3 marine diesel engine (i.e., ma rine diesel engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters). The maximum ra ting for an available EMD replacement engine meeting the required engine specifications is 3,865 kW. In order to provide the required maximum power of 33,472 kW with the EMD replacement engines , the eight existing engines would need to be replaced with a total of nine, (9) EMD engines. As such, the replacement of the existing engines would require the installation of one additional en gine and based on a review of available space on the C.R. Luigs, there would not be enough physical room on the drillship to install the replacement and one additional engines. As a reference, please refer to the attached drawing in Appendix B1 of one engine room with the EMD engine inserted, in li eu of one current MAN engine. (The C.R. Luigs has two engine rooms, with the second engine room b eing a mirror image of that presented in the

## Mr. Worley - Page 3

September 30, 2011
GOMPU-BHPBHSE-EPA-LET-0004


# drawing in Appendix B1.) From this diagram BHPB con cludes that the new engines cannot be installed on C.R Luigs considering the aforemention ed reasoning and space consideration which provides that the replacement of the main engines i s technically infeasible on C.R. Luigs. Additionally, please also see Appendix B2 for Trans ocean’s discussion regarding technical infeasibility of retrofitting the main engines on C .R. Luigs.

b) With respect to NO x 

# , the applicant should consider: derating engines, water-in-fuel emulsions, NO x 

# absorber/scrubber technology, camshaft replacement /retooling of engines, lean de-NO x 

# catalyst or hydrocarbon selective catalytic reduction, and i ntake air humidification/cooling. Response: The following responses are applicable fo r both C.R Luigs and DD-1 engines.

Derating Engines: As discussed in AP – 42, Section 3.4, an engine can be derated by restricting its operation to lower levels of power than normal for the given application. Derating reduces cylinder pressures and temperatures and can lower NO x 

# formation rates. Derating also reduces the engine' s operating temperature, which can result in higher C O and HC emissions. The primary concern associated with derating the main engines is that d erating engines would reduce available power to the drillship, which is a safety concern, thus impa iring the ability to safely maintain the vessel’s position. An additional safety concern would be tha t the drill ship must have adequate power to handle storms (e.g., winter weather or hurricanes) and loop currents. This includes safety associated with power needed during a potential drilling emerg ency event. Considering the aforementioned issues, derating the engines is not a viable option for either the DD-1 or C.R. Luigs main engines. See Appendix C1 discussion on technical infeasibili ty of derating the main engines from Transocean.

Water-in-fuel emulsions: Diesel and water emulsions were offered as a means by which BHPB could lower the NO x 

# output of its engines. These emulsion systems have been shown to reduce NOx by 15-20% in engines running heavy fuel oil (HFO). The document, “Non-Road Diesel Emission Reduction Study” www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/PDFS/Non-roadDieselStud y.pdf states that running an engine on fuel-water emulsions makes it theoreti cally possible to reduce NO x 

# emissions by up to 50%. The limiting factor for fuel-water emulsions i s the maximum capacity of the injection pumps. At present, Fuel Emulsion systems have been designed f or, and installed on heavy fuel oil burning engines only. The test parameters for these system s analyzed engines during steady state operations at optimal load. As such, fuel consumpt ion, combustion pressure and fuel/water ratios were optimized for the conditions. Highly variable load scenarios, as expected for DD-1 and/or C.R. Luigs, are not accounted for in the studies conduct ed on fuel emulsions, and further research must be performed in order to prove the viability of suc h systems. Evaluating transient load scenarios, determining optimized fuel/water ratios at each loa d point and completing the extensive engineering that must take place to install such a system would likely take several years to complete.

Several significant engineering hurdles must be ove rcome in order to install a diesel/water emulsion system on board any Transocean vessel. Emulsion sy stems require a closed loop system and the C.R. Luigs is an open loop system. The first is the installation of a mixing tank. At this time, no t ank is presently available to be used as such, and the installation of a new tank would require extensive analysis, pipe fitting and modification to monitori ng systems aboard the rig. The tank may also need to be pressurized to maintain the emulsion which wo uld require the installation of booster pumps and the associated piping, power and monitoring systems inherent in such a configuration. The

## Mr. Worley - Page 4

September 30, 2011
GOMPU-BHPBHSE-EPA-LET-0004


# pressurized fuel would increase pressure head that already exists in the fuel lines and could lead to excessive fuel pressure to the engines. Over press urized fuel lines subjected to loads in excess of their design criteria would potentially fail with c atastrophic results such as spilled fuel, engine ro om fires or worse. Such a problem would place the saf ety of the rig, personnel and environment in jeopardy.

Further compounding this problem is the previously discussed low load at which Transocean operates its engines. Running multiple engines at loads commonly below 40% of engine capacity results in large quantities of fuel circulating bac k to the daily service fuel tank. Once the fuel ha s returned to the day tank, there is no means of main taining the emulsion and separation of the fuel and water would occur. Additionally, no means of m onitoring or maintaining the emulsion within the day tank has been offered by system vendors and is an issue of concern. Constant recirculation of emulsified fuel to the day tank over the course of time would result in the emulsion containing excessive percentages of water vs. fuel. Dispropor tionate quantities of water would easily damage high pressure fuel pumps, low pressure transfer pum ps, injectors and other critical rig equipment resulting in power loss, blackouts and loss of stat ion keeping ability. This is an unacceptable risk to company assets and the environment.

These significant disadvantages, combined with unte sted operating parameters and unproven results in MDF applications, provide a sufficient t echnical infeasibility argument to reject the installation of such systems aboard Transocean vess els until the technical issues addressed above can be resolved by the system suppliers. See attach ed Appendix C2 for a discussion from Transocean related to design challenges faced with diesel/water emulsions.

NO x 

# adsorber/scrubber technology: A NO x 

# adsorber is a catalyst technology used to remove N O x 

# in lean exhaust for diesel and gasoline fired engin es. The technology is currently available for mobil e gasoline engines, but is still in the research and development phase for diesel engines. NO x 

# adsorbers consist of ceramic monolith containing pa rallel channels, coated with precious metal catalysts. During lean operation, NO x 

# is stored in the form of nitrates produced by reac tions between the NO x 

# and catalyst. At regular intervals, a momentary re ducing condition is produced inside the monolith by injecting reductant, causing the nitrat es to decompose to nitrogen. While preliminary testing demonstrates promising results, the exhaust scrubbing & emissions reduction technology of the CSNO x 

# is still a technology that is in experimental stag es of development. There is no existing CSNO x 

# installation aboard any vessel that is comparable to the operating conditions and power profiles of a dynamically positioned mobile off sho re drilling unit (DP MODU). While the CSNO x 

# system demonstrates very promising results in labor atory and preliminary field testing, it is still ve ry much an experimental system and much research and d evelopment is required to design a working, deployable CSNO x 

# system that is safe to operate aboard a DP MODU. P lease see Appendix C3 for a discussion from Transocean regarding NO x 

# absorber/scrubber technology.

Camshaft replacement/retooling of engines: Clean Cam Technology Systems (CCTS) offers retrofit cam shaft reengineering kits for some dies el engines. The kits reduce NO x 

# emissions by increasing the volume of the residual exhaust gas t hat remains in the combustion chamber after the power stroke. CCTS cam shaft retrofit (Re-tooling) kits are only available for Detroit Diesel engines. This technology is only suitable for small engines since the cams are integral with the camshaft. The

## Mr. Worley - Page 5

September 30, 2011
GOMPU-BHPBHSE-EPA-LET-0004


# cams are mounted on the camshaft individually and c an be easily replaced for smaller engines (most likely 2-stroke engines). However, it has not yet b een developed for larger engines (e.g., 4-stroke).

LNC/HC-SCR: While the LNC systems have performed well in some retrofit applications, it has been primarily used in on-road diesel applications. Howe ver, commercial availability of LNC and HC SCR technology for large marine engines (500hp or more) is an issue which needs to be looked at in more detail. Since these technologies are not curre ntly available for large marine engines, they are considered technically infeasible options for the e ngines. Similar to SCR’s, LNC systems operate best at consistent high loads, and are not amenable to long periods of engine idle or load shifts.

Intake Air Humidification/Cooling: Intake Air Humidification consists of “fogging” and /or saturation of the intake air with water. Installation of a Hum id Air Motor is an alternative to water injection currently being investigated by some diesel engine manufacturers. These motors consist of evaporating water into the relatively hot scavengin g air, which flows to the engine through the inlet air manifold. Reductions in NO x 

# emissions to water injection can be expected using this technique but the long term effects of using seawater (if use d) is not known. Such technology can require additional freshwater production and storage for hu midification of the intake air. Quite high volumes of water need to be evaporated to create enough hum id air to achieve the reductions sought, and are comparable with the fuel volumes. This requires heat input and the heat input is provided by heat exchange from the hot compressed air after the engi ne turbocharger. This implies that at low load there may not be sufficient heat in which case the HAM system is not used. Under varying loads (when it is most difficult to achieve optimum combu stion) it is also hard to control the humidity adequately. Therefore, considering the aforemention ed reasons, Intake Air Humidification/ Cooling are not technically feasible for the C.R Luigs and DD-1 engines. Please see Appendix C4 for Transocean’s response related to feasibility of Hum id Air Motor emission reduction technology.

c) With respect to PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# /CO and VOC, the applicant should consider high-pre ssure fuel injection with aftercooler.

Response: DD-1: The DD-1 main engines currently use a high pr essure fuel injection system, and employ a charge air cooler. This will be modified in the BAC T analysis accordingly.

C.R.Luigs: The C.R.Luigs’ main engines currently us e a high pressure fuel injection system (approximately 360 bar injection pressure), and the y employ a charge air cooler. This is will be modified in the BACT analysis accordingly.

Comment 2: With respect to Sake project’s storage tanks, BHPB should consider submerged loading as part of BACT analysis for VOC:

Response: Submerged loading can be achieved through two methods: bottom loading and submerged fill piping. Bottom loading is accomplish ed by designing the tank to be loaded from the bottom of the tank. Submerged fill piping can be ac complished by extending fill pipe just above the bottom of the tank. Both these loading methodologie s can reduce VOC emissions by minimizing liquid turbulence during loading.

## Mr. Worley - Page 6

September 30, 2011
GOMPU-BHPBHSE-EPA-LET-0004



# DD-1: Currently DDI’s diesel fuel storage tanks are designed with splash loading fill piping. The only baffling is structural girders along the bottom of the tank. The cost associated with converting the splash fill type piping to bottom fill would be at an estimated cost of $255,300 with a 15% risk facto r. Please see Appendix D1 for cost estimation to redes ign the fuel storage tanks on DD-1. The annualized cost per ton of VOC emission reduction i s approximately $581,438. Please see Appendix D2 for cost analysis on emission reduction on DD-1 diesel fuel storage tank. Based on the economic feasibility analysis presented for retrofitting the DD-1 storage tanks, the modification of these fuel tanks to accommodate bottom fuel or submerged fill is economically infeasible.

C.R.Luigs: C.R.Luigs drillship, the fuel storage ta nks are bottom loaded and have baffle plates in the tanks to minimize any turbulence/sloshing. This wil l be added to the BACT analysis and modified accordingly.

Comment 3: It is unclear whether the temperatures of the exhaust gas from all engines are too low or too high to allow for the use of convent ional selective catalytic reduction (SCR). If the temperatures are too high, then BHPB should con sider a high temperature catalyst as part of the BACT analysis for NO x 

# : Response:

DD-1: The CAT 3612 engines on DD-1 operate with ave rage loads around 50% which have an average exhaust temperature after the turbocharger of 400 ̊C.

C.R. Luigs: For the C.R. Luigs main engines, the ex haust gas temperatures range from approximately 360 to 520 degrees Celsius depending on engine load.

Typically for a high temperature catalyst to perfor m efficiently, temperature of 550 ̊C and above are preferred. Hence, this precludes the consideration of high temperature catalyst as BACT for NO x 

# .
Comment 4: SCR has been deemed as technically infe asible due to space constraints on the Luigs drillship and DD-1 semisubmersible. We unders tand, however, that other OCS sources are requiring SCR on their units. Therefore, we wou ld appreciate a more detailed account of the space requirements for SCR as well as the amoun t of available space on both the Luigs drillship and DD-1 semisubmersible: Response:

DD-1: DD-1 is already equipped with a Siemens, SINO x 

# exhaust gas treatment system that has yet to be fully commissioned. SINOx-system was designed to operate with an aqueous urea solution of 40%, as a reducing agent. The technical nameplate d ata rates the maximum wet exhaust gas flow at 26,468 Nm 3 

# /h, with a nominal exhaust gas temperature of 375 ̊C . NO x 

# reduction was designed for 90%, with a NO x 

# rate upstream of the SINO x 

# at 8.70 g/kW-hr. The maximum urea solution consumption is 45 liters per hour at 100% load.

Even though SCR has been installed on DD-1, compati bility of SCR technology with MODU diesel

‐ electric power plant duty cycles is an issue which prevents the operation of the SCR on the

## Mr. Worley - Page 7

September 30, 2011
GOMPU-BHPBHSE-EPA-LET-0004



# MODU. Drill floor and other MODU

‐ specific operations typically result in frequent, l arge variations in demand from the power plant. As a consequence of th ese rapid changes in demand, the diesel-fired engines cannot function in the steady state high

‐ load environment that is critical for optimal catal yst performance. Since the engines will not run under u ninterrupted steady loads, Transocean has provided that the NO x 

# reduction efficiency of this SCR system may be up to 80 percent less than the expected NO x 

# reduction efficiency. The end result comprises alt ernating periods of diminished NO x 

# reductions, followed by periods of ammonia slip. Du e to the unique operating characteristics of mobile offshore drilling units, the potential for c atalyst fouling, disintegration and failure is high er than for conventional marine vessels. The presence of un reached ammonia in the exhaust stream (ammonia slip) presents a safety hazard to personne l on a stationary installation, where changes in environmental conditions do result in the presence of exhaust fumes in work areas.

Transocean is not aware of the existence of an effe ctive modulating control system which can match the dynamic performance characteristics of a MODU p ower plant. There is a difficulty in modulating the consumption of urea (and ultimately NO x 

# reduction) real-time. If the exhaust gases from di fferent engines at different loads were mixed, it would be difficult to properly control the amount of reducin g agent to be injected for proper NO x 

# removal. Further, achieving lean

‐ burn conditions and minimum exhaust temperatures of 300oC after the turbocharge r requires engine loads in excess of 50%. While it might be possible to maintain a specific engine loading in moored installations where power generation redundancy has a lower criticality, such a continuous loading is highly unusual for dynamically positioned drilling units, where engine loads might be in the range 35% to 45% (sometimes lower). See Appendix E1 for the paper prepared by Transocea n discussing the application of SCR systems for MODU diesel electric power plants.

C.R.Luigs: SCR is currently not employed on the C.R .Luigs drillship due to spatial constraints required for the urea tank and SCR reactors. As see n from the appended drawings for the C.R.Luigs drillship, the stainless steel urea tank requires m ore space than a complete engine and will not fit i n the available space arrangement. The tank would be 14 meters long and 3 meter in diameter. Additionally, the storage of urea requires a stainl ess tank, and none of C.R. Luigs other tanks meet this requirement. See Appendix E2 for details on t he drawings and space requirements for the urea tank.

Each SCR reactor would be 1.8 meter diameter and 3. 5 meters tall. The combined four (4) SCR reactors are not capable of being installed on the deck above the engine room and below the cambered poop deck (exhaust ducting “dog-leg”) due to excessive reactor height. The exhaust ducting “dog-legs” exist to by-pass the main deck, as penetrations through or modifications of the main deck would compromise its structural integrity . The combined 1.8-meter diameter of each of the four reactors is not capable of being installed within the structure of the upper-most deck sectio n. This clearly demonstrates that all SCR-related equi pment will not fit in the available space. Hence, installing a SCR is not a technically feasible opti on on C.R. Luigs drillship. See Appendix E3 for details on the drawings and space requirements for the SCR reactors.

## Mr. Worley - Page 8

September 30, 2011
GOMPU-BHPBHSE-EPA-LET-0004


# Comment 5: Although PM is addressed in the BACT an alysis, it is not mentioned in Section 4 (See Table 4.1) as being subject to PSD review. The applicant should correct this apparent oversight: Response: PM has been included in the BACT analysis , and Section 4, Table 4.1 has been updated accordingly. Refer to Appendix F1 for the updated T able comparing the proposed potential emissions with PSD SER’s.

Comment 6: According to the charts in Attachment 5 of the addendum, the NO x 

# BACT limits of 14.5 and 8.2 g/kW-hr for the main engines of Lui gs drillship and DD-1 semisubmersible respectively were based on the 70 th 

# percentile (of said charts). It is unclear what da ta was used to generate the charts and said data seems inc onsistent with the stack test data that has been submitted. We are currently reviewing the stack test data and related information and will provide you with additional comments in th e near future:

Response: Based on a review of the C.R. Luigs and D D-1 stack test data, BHPB is developing revised stack test charts to properly display the r esults obtained during the stack test. As such, BHPB will submit to EPA revised stack test charts a ssociated with NO x 

# and CO emissions from the C.R. Luigs and DD-1 main engines. In the initial ap plication, NO x 

# emissions were estimated from stack test data based on the conservative assumptio n that all NO x 

# could be represented by NO 2


# . However, during the stack test NO x 

# , NO 2 

# , and NO concentrations were measured for each stac k test run. Since the stack test data reports both NO and NO 2 

# concentrations separately, BHPB has completed additional emission calculations to estim ate NO x 

# emissions as the sum of the individual emissions of NO and NO 2 

# measured during the stack test. BHPB believes this is a more accurate representation of NO x 

# emissions from the main engines, as the stack test data shows that over 95 percent of NO x 

# is NO.

Note that three test runs were conducted on each en gine at two different loads, and EPA Methods 1- 4, 7E, 10 and 25A were followed to estimate emissio ns. Please see Appendix G1 and G2 for the revised stack test emissions from the eight (8), ma in engines on C.R Luigs and DD-1, respectively. Please see Appendix G3 and G4 for the revised stack test summary for C.R Luigs and DD-1, respectively. BHPB will be submitting revised emiss ion calculations, Part 71 forms, and proposed BACT limits for the main engines consistent with th e revised stack test calculations provided in this submittal.

# A PPENDIX 

# A

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# A1: E MISSION 

# C ALCULATIONS 

# F OR 

# DD1 M AIN 

# E NGINES

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# Table 1 Emissions Summary

tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr
PM 48.83 54.32 -5.49
CO 215.09 543.17 -328.08 NOx + HC 1,051.77 1,064.61 -12.84

[1]

[2]

[3] 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. DD1 Main Engines Emissions Summary

Existing Cat 3612 main engine emissions are based on IMO Tier I standards as currently installed. Emission rate accounted for eight main engines. Cat 3612 EPA Tier II

Compliant Engine
Emissions 2 

## (8 engines) Existing Cat 3612 Main Engine Emissions 1 

## (8 engines) Residual
Emissions 3



## Residual Emissions were calculated by subtracting the EPA Tier II Compliant Engine Emissions from the Existing Cat 3612 Main Engine Emissions. Pollutant

EPA Tier II Compliant Engine Emissions are based on, EPA Tier II emission standards. Emission rate accounted for eight main engines.



# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc BHPB DD1 EPA Tier calculation v1.1 ‐ Summary 9/29/2011

## Engine Rating [1] = 3600 k W Operating Time at 52% average load [2] = 6570 hrs/yr 0.520833333 N umber of Engines = 8 Fuel [3] = Ultra Low Sulfur Diese l

Emission Factor Maximum Emissions p er engine Maximum Emissions p er engine Annual Emissions p er engine Total Annual Emissions (g/kW-hr) (g/hr) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) PM [4] 5.00E-01 1800.00 3.97 6.79 54.32 CO [5] 5.00E+00 18000.00 39.68 67.90 543.17 NO x 

## + THC [6] 9.80E+00 35280.00 77.78 133.08 1064.61

[ 1 ] [2]

[ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Emissions Summary

Caterpillar 3416 Replacement (EPA Tier II Compliant Engine)

CO emission factor obtained from EPA Tier II Standard. Refer 40CFR94.8(a)(i), Table A-1 N Ox + THC emission factor obtained from EPA Tier II Standard. Refer 40CFR94.8 ( a )( i ) , Table A-1 Re p resents maximum p ower out p ut of the g enerator in kilowatt electric

. Pollutant

Representing annual average load for 8 main power plant engines calculated based on annual average station-wide electricity need of 15,000kW for station keeping and drilling. Annual average load % = 15,000 kW/(3,600 kW*8 Units) BHPB is p ro p osin g the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion en g ines. PM emission factor obtained from EPA Tier II Standard. Refer 40CFR94.8 ( a )( i ) , Table A-1



## BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc BHPB DD1 EPA Tier calculation v1.1 ‐ Category 2 EPA Tier II Engines 9/29/2011

# A PPENDIX 

# A2: T EST 

# B ED 

# R ESULTS 

# F OR 

# DD1 M AIN 

# E NGINES

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# B

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# B1: S PACE 

# R EQUIREMENTS 

# O N 

# C.R. L UIGS 

# D RILLSHIP 

# T O



# I NSTALL 

# N EW 

# E NGINES

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# B2: R E


# - ENGINING 

# F ACTORS 

# F OR 

# M AIN 

# E NGINE 

# O N 

# C.R. L UIGS

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

### 4 Greenway Plaza (77046)

Post Office Box 2765

uston, Texas 77252-2765 Ho
Douglas Robertson
Lead Investigator, SME Team. 

# Re‐engining factors on C.R. Luigs

A comparison of the MAN 9L32/40 diesel to the 710GC

­ T2 EMD diesel to help decide what is a practical solution to emissions reduction.

The C.R. Luigs is powered by 8 MAN diesel engines, each generating 4,184 kW. It has been observed that
these engines are certified to run at an emissions level of 12.1 g/kW

∙ h, but there is another manufacturer, Electro Motive Diesel (EMD) that produces an engine that runs at 5 g/kW

∙ h, and it has
been asked as to what th e feasibility would be to re

‐ engine to these engines.

The maximum rating for an EMD is 3,865 kW, so to cover the required maximum power of 33,472kW
with EMD’s the eight existing engines would need to be replaced with 8.66 (9 ) EMD’s. The C.R. Luigs is a drill ship and engines must be installed in ships running fore and aft and this means that there would not be enough physical room to install these engines. Additionally, in checking with EMD on the emissions

test bed spec for the EMD 710 GC

‐ T2, th e emissions level at 50% load, our normal operating scenario for
DP operations is 8.2, and the tests of all engines show that the emissions NOx level rises at lower loads
and with time, so we would expect to see results getting closer to what we are achieving with th e MAN engine where we are able to maintain a maximum emissions rating of 12.7 g/kW

∙ h.

Please see attached drawing with one engine room with EMD’s inserted.

# A PPENDIX 

# C

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# C1: T ECHNICAL 

# I NFEASIBILITY 

# O F 

# D ERATING 

# M AIN 

# E NGINES

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

### 4 Greenway Plaza (77046)

Post Office Box 2765

Houston, Texas 77252-2765
Douglas Robertson
Lead Investigator, SME Team. 

# De‐rating main engines to reduce emissions.

One emissions reduction solution put forward as BACT is to de

­ rate the engines. Derating Engines: Trinity started the discussion by stating that NO x 

# emissions are less responsive to derating for turbocharged engines

. Derating also reduces engines operating temperature, which can result in higher CO and HC emissions. Additionally, derating engines would reduce available power
to the drillship which is a safety concern, thus impairing the ability to safely maintain the vessel’s position. Additional safety concern would be tha t the drill ship must have adequate power to handle

storms and loop currents. In conclusion, BHPB and Transocean agreed that these arguments can be
made for a technical infeasibility response to EPA Region IV comments. No additional infeasibility arguments were presented during the discussion and hence no a dditional information is required.


# Engine de

­ rating is accomplished by changing some or all the following components:

 Injector nozzles with smaller holes to atomize the smaller amount of fuel used better.

 Turbocharger nozzle rings to allow a lower exhaust gas flow spin the t/c faster, thus compressing

a greater volume of air for a given volume of gas.

However, if the engine is derated, the fuel racks hav e to be limited to ensure that the engine cannot add
excessive fuel that the injectors would not have the capacity for and that the exhaust flow would not be

so great so as to overspeed the turboblower turbine, both causing mechanical damage to engine components.

De

‐ rating limits the top end capa city of the engine to be able to respond to any eventualities. As an example, if a loop current comes up, the rig thrusters have to run at higher, sometimes much higher,

power to stay on station. If the engines are derated, this capacity that was designed into the ri g would
be reduced. This actually happened on either the DD1 or DD2 where all eight engines were running
around 80% load to stay on station.

Derating should reduce CO as the fuel is atomized to a higher degree and the air supplied for a given
volume of fuel is grea ter, thus increasing combustion efficiency, bringing it closer to Stoichiometric
conditions which has no CO component.

# Raising the load profile that the engine is running at closer to designed optimum 85% has been shown to reduce NO x 

# , it can be presumed that this would occur by derating, but this would need to be verified by

test data which is not available.

# A PPENDIX 

# C2: D ESIGN 

# C HALLENGES 

# F ACED 

# W ITH 

# D IESEL 

# /W ATER



# E MULSIONS

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

### 4 Greenway Plaza (77046)

Post Office Box 2765

Houston, Texas 77252-2765
Stephen McAfee
Design Engineer – Mechanical & Rig Systems



# Design Challenges Faced with Diesel/Water Emulsions
Summary

Diesel and water emulsions were offered as a means by which Transocean could lower the NOx output of its engines. These emulsion systems have been shown to reduce NOx by 15-20% in engines running heavy fuel oil (HFO). Transocean intends to show that diesel water emulsion systems present technical difficulties that outweigh the purported benefits which are, as of yet, unproven for engi nes running medium density fuel (MDF - diesel) under low and variable load conditions.



# Technical Challenges of Emulsified Fuel

At present, Fuel Emulsion systems have been des igned for, and installed on heavy fuel oil burning engines only. T he test parameters for thes e systems all analyzed engines during steady state operations at optimal load. As such, fu el consumption, combustion pressure and fuel/water ratios were optimiz ed for the conditions. Transocean operates its vessels with diesel fuel at low load as a requirement of dynamic positioning rules set forth by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Lloyd’s Register and the like. Alon gside the low load operating c haracteristics of the fleet, engines aboard Transocean vessels are subject to highly variable loads imposed by drilling equipment, propulsion systems, etc. These load sce narios are not accounted for in the studies conducted on fuel emulsions, and further research must be performed in order to prove the viability of such syst ems. Evaluating transient load scenarios, determining optimized fuel/wat er ratios at each load point and completing the extensive engineering that must take place to install such a system would likely take several years to complete. Additionally, any emulsion system would have to obtain class approval prior to installation aboard a Transocean vessel which would further extend procurement timelines.

In the case of dynamically positioned vessels su ch as the C.R. Luigs, station keeping is entirely reliant upon the conti nual performance of the engines onboard. Without power, the ship will drift off station, requiring t he disconnection of the sub sea riser from the blow out preventer, resulting in dramatic environmental impact including, but not limited to, the release of drilling fluid into the oc ean and the potential release of hydraulic and well bore fluids as well. Transocean can not install a system that is completely untested

# for the operating parameters of our vessels. The installation of such a system could compromise the safety of the cr ew or the surrounding environment.

Several significant engineering hurdles mu st be overcome in order to install a diesel/water emulsion system on board any Transocean vessel. Emulsion systems require a closed loop system and the C.R. Luigs is an open l oop system. The first is the installation of a mixing tank. At this time, no tank is presently available to be used as such, and the installation of a new tank woul d require extensive analysis, pipe fitting and modification to monitoring systems aboard t he rig. The tank may also need to be pressurized to maintain the emulsion which would require the installation of booster pumps and the associated piping, power and monitoring systems inherent in such a configuration. The pressurized fuel would in crease pressure head that already exists in the fuel lines and could lead to excessive fuel pressure to the engines. Over pressurized fuel lines subjec ted to loads in excess of their design criteria would potentially fail with catastrophic results such as spilled fuel, engine room fires or worse. Such a problem would place the safety of the rig, personnel and environment in jeopardy.

Further compounding this problem is the previously discussed low load at which Transocean operates its engines . Running multiple engines at loads commonly below 40% of engine capacity results in large quantities of fuel circulating back to the daily service fuel tank. Once the fuel has retu rned to the day tank, t here is no means of maintaining the emulsion and separation of the fuel and water would occur. Additionally, no means of monitoring or main taining the emulsion within the day tank has been offered by system vendors. Constant recirculation of emul sified fuel to the day tank over the course of time would re sult in the emulsion containing excessive percentages of water vs. fuel . Disproportionate quantities of water would easily damage high pressure fuel pumps, low pressure transfer pumps, injectors and other critical rig equipment resulting in power lo ss, blackouts and loss of station keeping ability. This is an unacceptable risk to company assets and the environment.

The C.R. Luigs has one fuel system per engine room, supplying 4 engines each. To install an emulsion system would require a separate system for each engine, vastly increasing the complexity and a subs tantial engineering design project.



# Conclusions

The potential for mechanical failure of crit ical rig systems greatly increases with the installation of a diesel/water emulsion system s in their current co nfiguration. These significant disadvantages, combined with untested operating param eters and unproven results in MDF applications, are enough to reject the installation of such systems aboard Transocean vessels until the technical issu es addressed above can be resolved by the system suppliers.

# A PPENDIX 

# C3: F EASIBILITY OF 

# S CRUBBER 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# F OR 

# NO X 

# R EDUCTION 

# O N 

# A D RILLSHIP

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

### 4 Greenway Plaza (77046)

Post Office Box 2765

Houston, Texas 77252-2765
Douglas Robertson
Lead Investigator, SME Team.


# NO x 

# Emissions reducing scrubber suitability for a DP drillship.

While preliminary testing demonstr ates promising results, the exhaust scrubbing & emissions reduction technology of the CSNOx is still a technolo gy that is in experimental stages of development. In fact, there is only one CSNOx system installed on any vesse l, a tanker, the White Sea. There are significant differences between the White Sea and the engines of the Deep water Pathfinder (DWP) as follows:

1) The engine aboard the White Sea, a crude carrying tanker, is a single 15, 246 HP, B&W 6S60MC, S.A. 6-cyl, two-cycle, slow speed diesel (max. rpm: 120 rpm), dire ctly coupled to a fixed pitch propeller. This 600 mm bore engine utilizes no reduction gearing or reve rse gearing. (This engine type has capability of directly controlling ship sp eed and propulsion directio n by changing engine rpm and rotation direction.) Engines aboard the DWP are three Wartsila Vasa 12V32 and three Wart sila Vasa 18V32, four-cycle, 720 rpm, medium speed diesel powered generators. These 320 mm bore engines are built and tuned to power generators to run at a constant speed with highly variable loads. 2) The 600mm bore, two-cycle, slow speed engine of the White Sea is designed to burn No. 6 fuel oil. The six, 320 mm bore, 4-cycle, 720 rpm, medium speed engines aboard the DWP are built and tuned to burn No. 2 marine gas oil. The No. 6 (Bunke r C) fuel oil is a much heavier fuel. 3) While at sea at cruising speed, the sp eed of a main propulsion engine of a crude oil carrier is at a fairly, steady, constant speed. Greater than 90% of the lif e of an engine of a crude carrier resides in this operational mode. Less than 10% of an engine’s life of a crude carrier is spent in maneuvering mode in port. While the engine is in maneuvering mode, sta ndard operating procedure is to by-pass systems that would prevent safe maneuvering of the vessel. Wherea s 90% of the life of a dy namically positioned (DP) mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU), such as the DWP, is in working operational mode.


# Erroneous assumptions:

1) While early indications are promising, and we believe that CSNO x 

## has potential to reduce NO x 

## and CO 2 

## emissions, we are not in a position to make that assump tion because, other than the White Sea, there is no other operational CSNOx system anywhere outside of a laboratory. Ecospec, the manufacturer and inventor of CSNOx still has the system being engineered to a practical system that can be installed. There is no existing CSNOx installation aboard any vessel that is comparable to the operating conditions and power profiles of a DP MODU. Much developmen t and field testing still needs to be done. 2) It should be noted that Ecospec, the patent holder of the CSNOx technology, is not a manufacturer. In their own words, “ECOSPEC Global Technology Pte Ltd is an enterprising Singapore-based research and development technological company.” They have no manufacturing capability. They operations are purely based on laboratory experiments. 3) A full CSNO x 

## system is not yet fully designed. In fact, only one operational CSNOx system has been built to date and is an experimental, concept design for testin g, by the owner of that vessel (the White Sea). Much work needs to be completed to develop a working CSNOx system for engines that operate in other environments and operational conditions.

## 4) Wartsila is presently not in a positio n to comment on the ability of the CSNOx system to effectively reduce emissions emitted from their engines. Wartsila is only in the beginning phases of researching the CSNOx, working with Ecospec to develo p a working CSNOx system. 5) While the CSNOx system demonstrates very promising results in laboratory and preliminary field testing, it is still very much an experimental syst em and much research and development is required to design a working, deployable CSNOx system th at is safe to operate aboard a DP MODU. A system that is safe for the engines, the MODU , operations, the crew and the envir onment of the Gulf of Mexico. Presently, TOI is working with both Wartsila and Ecospec to design and develop a CSNOx system for experimentation aboard one vessel of the TOI fleet to perform operational field testing (Not in the G of M). Transocean is in the very early stages of th is development and we not yet in a position to plan installation. However, even at this point, there will be no guarantee of the reduction effectiveness. We will not know the effectiveness of the system until the system is commissioned and test results begin to be collected and evaluated. Even then, there is no guarantee that th ese results will be comparable to how a system aboard the DWP will perform. The ta rgeted vessel operates in a different operational power profile and environment as that of the DWP. We are working with the clie nt of the targeted vessel to support this project.

# A PPENDIX 

# C4: H UMID 

# A IR 

# M OTOR 

# E MISSION 

# R EDUCTION 

# T ECHNOLOGY

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

### 4 Greenway Plaza (77046)

Post Office Box 2765

2-2765 Houston, Texas 7725
Douglas Robertson
Lead Investigator, SME Team. 

# Humid Air motor emissions reduction

Humid air has been developed and installed on vessels successfully, including retrofit systems. However, under drilling loads and operations, there are issues.

Humid Air Motor

Humid Air Motor is an alternative to water injec tion currently being inves tigated by some diesel engine manufacturers. These motors consist of evaporating water into the relatively hot scavenging air, which flows to th e engine through the inlet air manifold. Similar reductions in NOx emissions to water injection can be expected using this technique bu t the long term effects of using seawater (if used) is not known. Costs are likely to be in the region of direct water injection however, this technique ma y be retrofitted onto older engines.



# There are issues to be resolved:

Quite high volumes of water need to be evapor ated to create enough humid air to achieve the reductions sought, and are comparable with the fuel volumes. This requires heat input. The heat input is provided by heat exchange from the hot compressed air after th e engine turbocharger. This implies that at low load there may not be sufficient heat in which case the HAM system is not used. Under varying loads (when it is most difficult to achieve optimum combustion) it is also hard to control the humidity adequatel y. Both these conditions make it technology that would not be combatable in offshore drilling operations.

# A PPENDIX 

# D

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# D1: C OST 

# E STIMATE 

# T O 

# R E 

# -D ESIGN 

# DD1 F UEL 

# S TORAGE



# T ANKS

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling ProjectProject Name:PA Number:Plan State:Date Range:Report Run on:Source TypeCodeLine DescriptionAccount NumberActivity CodeCost BasisQuantityCurrencyUnit CostNet TotalRisk FactorRisk AmountTotalWB04Inspection113111FUEL-TANK-FTANK70,50010,57581,075Inspection / 3rd Party - MarineChemistEXP1USD10,00010,00015.%1,500Inspection equipment, materialor rentalsEXP1USD50050015.%75Inspection Preparation - CleanTanksEXP1USD45,00045,00015.%6,750Inspection Rep's Labor - ABSEXP1USD10,00010,00015.%1,500Travel & Expenses - ABS, TankCleaners and Marine ChemistEXP1USD5,0005,00015.%750WB05Engineering113111FUEL-TANK-FTANK9,0001,35010,350Eng. for Design/Drafting -Update Dwgs.EXP1USD2,0002,00015.%300Eng. Report After ProjectEXP1USD2,0002,00015.%300Engineering Study - REAEXP1USD5,0005,00015.%750WB11Scaffolding113111FUEL-TANK-FTANK30,0004,50034,500Scaffolding Crew & SupervisorsEXP1USD30,00030,00015.%4,500WB12Removals113111FUEL-TANK-FTANK5,0007505,750Environmental Disposal - sludgeEXP1USD5,0005,00015.%750WB20Piping/ Valves works113111FUEL-TANK-FTANK14,5002,17516,675Pipe, Valves, Fittings, Hangers,Etc.EXP1USD12,50012,50015.%1,875Warehouse Issues - PPE, Misc.EXP1USD2,0002,00015.%300WB21Assembly& Installation113111FUEL-TANK-FTANK81,00012,15093,150Contractor - M&M Fitters andWeldersEXP1USD75,00075,00015.%11,250Portable Welders and suppliesEXP1USD5,0005,00015.%750Warehouse Issues - PPEEXP1USD1,0001,00015.%150WB26Surveys113111FUEL-TANK-FTANK12,0001,80013,800Surveyor Labor - Work ScopeEXP1USD10,00010,00015.%1,500Travel & ExpensesEXP1USD2,0002,00015.%300Totals222,00033,300255,30009/15/2011 to 09/15/20119/15/2011 8:08:42 AM by HQ\Scott.CoteGSF Development Driller I (2114)2114-11-E-Fuel Oil Tnk UpgradDraft

# A PPENDIX 

# D2: C OST 

# A NALYSIS 

# F OR 

# E MISSION 

# R EDUCTION 

# O N 

# DD1

D IESEL 

# F UEL 

# S TORAGE 

# T ANK

The cost associated with installing diesel fuel st orage tank to submerged fill loading on DD1 is shown in Attachment D1. The cost associated w ith converting the splash fill type piping to bottom fill would be at an estimated cost of $255,300 with a 15% risk factor. Appendix B of EPA’s draft New Source Review Workshop Manua l (October 1990) gives the capital recovery factor to estimate the total annualized cost.

The formula for Capital Recovery factor is,

CRF = i (1+i) n 

# / (1+i) n 

# – 1

Where: CRF = Capital Recovery Factor n = economic life of equipment i = real interest rate

The rig is expected to not operate more than 2 y ears and the value used for real interest rate is 10%, in keeping with current EPA guidelin es and Office of Management and Budget recommendations for regulatory analyses. Usi ng this case we obtain a CRF of 57.62%.

Hence the annualized cost for a 2 year operation is = $ 255,300 * 57.62% = $ 147,104 per year

There are no emission reduction factors available to estimate emission reduction from splash to submerged loading scenarios. In the absence of emission reduction factors associated with a change in diesel fuel loading type, Table 5.5-5 of Chapter 5, Section 5.2 from AP 42 was used to provide the total uncontrolled organic emission factors for petroleum liquid rail tank cars and tank trucks. For a Distillate Oil No. 2 category uncontr olled emission factors for splash loading and submerged loading at dedicated normal service are 4 mg/l transferred and 1.7 mg/l transferred, respectively. This data provides a 57.5% reduc tion in emissions from splash loading to submerged loading.

Current VOC emissions from tanks = 0.44 tons/yr Emission reduction in VOC obtained after change to submerged loading = 0.44 tons/yr * 0.575 = 0.253 tons/year

Cost associated with VOC emission re duction on an annualized basis

= $ 147,104 per year / 0.253 tons per year VOC emission reduced

= $ 581,438 / ton emission reduced

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# E

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# E1: A PPLICATION 

# O F 

# SCR S YSTEMS 

# F OR 

# MODU D IESEL



# E LECTRIC 

# P OWER 

# P LANTS

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# Page | 1 

# The Application of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Systems for Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Diesel

‐ Electric Power Plants September 2011

INTRODUCTION

In January, 2007 the Norwegian Parliament introduced a new excise duty on emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NO x 

# ) from energy production, affecting the shipping and offshore industries operating in the Norwegian waters. With an initial rate of 15 NOK per kilogram emitted, and the likelihood of significant, additional increases, this excise duty represented extensive
exposure for commercial interests and created a significant fiscal incentive to reduce NO x 

# emissions. The Marine Transportation Industry responded by driving the adaptation of selective catalytic reduction technology from large industrial boiler applications to marine diesel propulsion plants.

There are a number of issues which must be resolved before an informed decision can be made
to implement SCR technology into MODU operations, including:

 Operational impacts

 Cost impacts

 Emission reduction potential

 Safety implications

 Logistics, including transport, variable load, handling and storage

 Compatibility of SCR’s with MODU diesel

‐ electric power plant duty cycles.

SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION PROCESS

There are several NO x 

# ‐ reducing technologies suitable for use on diesel engines, including selective catalytic reduction (SCR). In the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) process, anhydrous ammonia (NH 3 

# ) gas, usually diluted with air or steam, is injected through a grid system into the exhaust gas stream upstream of a catalyst bed. On the catalyst surface, the NH 3 

# reacts with NO x 

# to form molecular nitrogen and water. Depending on system design, NOx removal of 80% to 90% and higher is achievable. The reaction of NH 3 

# and NO x 

# is favored by the presence of excess oxygen (fuel

‐ lean conditions). The primary variable affecting NO x 

# reduction is temperature. Optimum NO x 

# reduction occurs at catalyst bed temperatures between 315 and 400 °C for conventional (vanadium or titanium

‐ based) catalyst types, and 250 to 265 °C for platinum catalysts. Performance for a given catalyst depends largely on the temperature of the exhaust
gas being treated. A given catalyst exhibits optimum performance between a temperature
range of approximately +/ ‐ 10 °C for applications where flue gas O 2 

# concentrations are greater than 1%. Below this optimum temperature range, the catalyst activity is greatly reduced, allowing unreacted ammonia to slip through into the exhaust stream. Above 450 °C, ammonia begins to be oxidized to form additional NO x 

# . The ammonia oxidation to NO x 

# increases with increasing temperature. Depending on the catalyst substrate material, the catalyst may be quickly damaged due to thermal stress at temperatures in excess of 450 °C. It is important, therefore, to have stable operations and uniform flue gas temperatures for this process to achieve optimum NO x 

# control.

# Page | 2 

# While the cleaning efficiency of an SCR unit can be as high as 99%, several factors typically reduce actual SCR efficiency. For example, MODU diesel exhaust gas temperatures (based on typical engine loading conditions) of 165 to 185 o 

# C are very close to the lower threshold value for effective SCR operation. The result is a reduced maintenance interval, and as much as 40% down

‐ time is estimated based on the operational characteristics for the engines evaluated. Additionally, the low temperature resulting from low overall plant loading combined with rapid engine load variations causes clogging of the catalyst bed and extensive ammonia slip.

SUMMARY

An IADC member has undertaken a study to investigate the application of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology aboard mobile offshore drilling units and has determined that SCR technology, in its current state of development is not the best available control technology (BACT) for application in MODU diesel electric power plants. The following statements summarize the findings of the study.

1. In nearly all routine operating conditions, the prime movers are not sufficiently loaded
to achieve exhaust temperatures necessary for optimal performance of the catalyst. Consequently, actual NO x 

# reduction is substantially reduced. For example, it is estimated that NO x 

# reduction may be up to 80% less than expected where exhaust temperatures are below 300oC. Further, in order to achieve lean

‐ burn conditions and minimum exhaust temperatures of 300oC after the turbocharger requires engine loads in excess of 50%. While it might be possible to maintain a specific engine loading in moored installations where power generation redundancy has a lower criticality, but such a continuous loading is highly unusual for dynamically positioned drilling units, where engine loads might be in the range 35% to 45% (sometimes lower).

2. Drill floor and other MODU

‐ specific operations typically result in frequent, large variations in demand from the power plant. As a consequence of these rapid changes in demand, the diesels cannot function in the steady state high

‐ load environment that is critical for optimal catalyst performance. The end result comprises alternating periods of diminished NO x 

# reductions, followed by periods of ammonia slip. Due to the unique operating characteristics of mobile offshore drilling units, the potential for catalyst fouling, disintegration and failure is higher than for conventional marine vessels. The
presence of unreacted ammonia in the exhaust stream (ammonia slip) presents a safety hazard to personnel on a stationary installation, where changes in environmental conditions do result in the presence of exhaust fumes in work areas.

3. The urea injection rate must be calibrated to match the exhaust gas flow. Routine cyclic demand on the power plant results in the need for an elaborate control system to modulate the injection rate based on the flow of exhaust gases. We are not aware of the existence of an effective modulating control system which can match the dynamic performance characteristics of a MODU power plant. Examination of time

‐ trace plots included on the following page show engine load versus time for a Baltic Ferry (steady

‐ state engine load) and a typical MODU (cyclic engine loading), demonstrating the distinct performance differences in the two power plants. Figure 1 illustrates the

# Page | 3 

# difficulty in modulating the consumption of urea (and ultimately NO x 

# reduction) real

‐ time. A kW transient occurs in the recording prior to 20:52.48. During the transient,

urea consumption drops radically, resulting in a corresponding increase in NO x 

# emissions over a period of approximately 8

‐ 10 minutes. It can be seen in figure 2 for the MODU power plant that these transients occur much more frequently and with higher amplitude during routine operations, compounding the difficulty in modulating urea consumption and controlling NO x 

# emissions.

Figure 1: Conventional Marine Propulsion Plant; the yellow range indicates the engine load as a function of time. Variation is typically less than 10kw

Figure 2: MODU Power Plant; Demand fluctuates frequently in the megawatt range during heavy hoisting operations (left) and less while drilling ahead



# .

# Page | 4 

# 4. The volume of urea required for optimal SCR performance is substantial, approximately
7 liters/hr. urea per 100 liters/hr. fuel (Ref: H+H Umwelt und Industrietechnik GmbH.).
For typical mobile offshore units consuming (on average) marine diesel oil at 27 tonnes/day, the requirement would be about 2 tonnes/day of urea. For a bunkering interval of 2.5

‐ weeks, the storage requirement would be for approximately eighteen (18) 2

‐ cu

‐ meter tote tanks onboard. Given the available space on

‐ deck for critical drilling equipment, tubulars and consumables, the handling and storage of urea onboard presents difficult operational challenges. Additionally, a complete assessment
must include the emissions associated with the delivery of urea to the port, loading and offloading of workboats (in

‐ port and offshore), transportation to the rig, and return of empty containers to the point of origin.

5. While the accommodation of SCRs is less difficult in the design stage of a newbuild mobile offshore unit, application in existing hulls is expected to be a difficult hurdle. Installation will require significant structural changes to support the SCR chambers, equipment and urea storage tanks. Such changes are expected to require significant
space reassignment and will impact deck load capacity and stability (higher center of gravity) of the vessels.

6. If SCR’s function ineffectively after installation, there is a high likelihood of damage to the catalyst and increased emission of unburned hydrocarbons through excessive backpressure from blocked catalyst units. Subsequently, the potential arises for damage
to the engines as a result of poor combustion, generating higher thermal and mechanical load in the cylinders and on the turbocharger.

7. Dynamically positioned vessels present unique challenges in addition to those outlined above. Modern DP drilling vessels are generally characterized by fewer, but significantly larger prime movers. Existing regulatory guidelines (IMO MSC

‐ 645) stipulate active redundancy, resulting in multiple engines online at low loads nearly all the time. Operating large diesel engines at low load levels is inefficient and typically does not achieve the gas temperature for exhaust gas scrubbers to work efficiently. Asymmetric thruster loading or thruster bias can be used to increase load levels, but at higher fuel consumption rates. It is a challenge to reconcile a scheme that requires burning more fuel with an environmentally conscious policy.
[End of Text]

# A PPENDIX 

# E2: S PACE 

# R EQUIREMENTS 

# O N 

# C.R. L UIGS 

# D RILLSHIP 

# T O



# I NSTALL 

# U REA 

# T ANK

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# E3: S PACE 

# R EQUIREMENTS 

# O N 

# C.R. L UIGS 

# D RILLSHIP 

# T O



# I NSTALL 

# SCR R EACTOR

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# F

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project 

# A PPENDIX 

# F1: C OMPARISON 

# O F 

# P ROPOSED 

# P OTENTIAL 

# E MISSIONS WITH


# PSD SER

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. 4-3 Trinity Consultants Sake Project respective Significant Emission Rates (SERs) define d in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i), PSD review is required.

On May 13, 2010, the U.S. EPA issued the final “P revention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” specifying that as of January 2, 2011, all new industrial sources that are major sources for any new source review (NSR) regulated pollutants other than GHGs, and will emit or have the potential to emit 75,000 tons per year or more of total GHGs, on a CO 2 

# e basis will need to determine the Best Available Control Technology for their GHG emissions. 4



# To determine the applicability of PSD permitting requirements and the pollutants to which these requirements would apply, the emissions estimates from the proposed Sake Project were compared to the respective PSD major source threshold and SER. As required by 40 CFR 55.13, the source-wide potential emissions were calculated by including the emissions from sources associated with the proposed exploratory drilling operations along with the associated support vessels while at the source, and while enroute to or from the source when w ithin 25 miles of the source. Table 4-1 below compares the source-wide potential emission rates of each regulated air pollutant for both the operating scenarios of either using the C.R. Luigs drillship or the DD1 semisubmersible against the respective PSD SER.



# T ABLE 

# 4-1. C OMPARISON OF 

# P ROPOSED 

# P OTENTIAL 

# E MISSIONS WITH 

# PSD S IGNIFICANT 

# E MISSION 

# R ATES



# Pollutant C.R. Luigs Total Emissions DD1 Total Emissions PSD Significant Emission Rate Subject to PSD Review (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (Yes/No)
PM 67.41 61.96 25 Yes
PM 10 

# 41.89 36.28 15 Yes
PM 2.5 

# 40.88 35.25 10 Yes NO X 

# 1,698.08 1304.63 40 Yes SO 2 

# 0.94 0.92 40 No
H 2 

# SO 4 

# 0.03 0.03 7 No

CO 373.09 307.95 100 Yes VOC 82.89 76.60 40 Yes GHG (CO 2 

# e) 104,077.34 101,748.93 75,000 Yes Lead 0.02 0.02 0.60 No

As shown in Table 4-1, the proposed OCS source qualifies as a major source under the PSD program because potential annual emissions of NO x 

# and CO are greater than the 250 tpy major source threshold. Additionally, PSD review is required for PM 10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO x 

# , CO, GHGs, and VOC, because emissions of these pollutants ex ceed their respective PSD SERs.

In accordance with 40 CFR 52.21(i)(3), the require ments under 40 CFR 52.21(k), (m), and (o) do not

4 

## CO 2 

## equivalent encompasses a list of six Greenhouse Gases, including car bon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocar bons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

# A PPENDIX 

# G

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

# A PPENDIX 

# G1: R EVISED 

# S TACK 

# T EST 

# E MISSIONS 

# F ROM 

# T HE 

# M AIN



# E NGINES 

# O N 

# C.R. L UIGS

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling ProjectBHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/2/2010 Engine 1 40%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.6 12.8 12.6
%CO 2 = % 4.00 4.00 3.50 Pbar = in.Hg 30 30 30 Pg = in.H 2 O 0.77 0.95 0.59 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 562 564 566
Ts =
. R 1189 1189 1196 Vm = dcf 22.235 22.340 22.157 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.7502 0.7389 0.8174
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 33.3 35.3 32.9 CO = ppm 152 151 173 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 997 996 997 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 22.41 22.49 22.76 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 975.30 974.29 974.03 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 22.1 22.1 22.7 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.3 79.3 78.7 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.7 78.1 81.1 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.0 78.7 79.9 Cgas = ppm 22.41 22.49 22.76 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 974 973 975 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3007 3003 3015 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3005 3009 3011 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3006.0 3006.0 3013.0 Cgas = ppm 975.30 974.29 974.03 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.002201 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.58824 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.4 83.2 83.9 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.14 29.15 29.06 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.37 28.33 28.29 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.570 1.664 1.551 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 20.90 20.92 20.67 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.06 30.07 30.04 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0699 0.0737 0.0698 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 63.62 62.69 69.63 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 15860 15627 17357 Qsd = dscf/hr 394834 387619 429446 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 6581 6460 7157 E (CO) = lb/hr 4.36 4.25 5.40 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 31.02 30.43 33.72 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.06 1.04 1.17 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 29.97 29.39 32.55 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 4.67 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 31.72 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.09 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 30.64 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 1 (40%) 9/30/2011 1 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/3/2010 Engine 1 60%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.7 12.8 12.8
%CO 2 = % 3.50 3.50 3.50 Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.3 1.4 1.3 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 554 560 564
Ts =
. R 1189 1195 1192 Vm = dcf 22.192 22.147 22.396 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 1.185 1.1789 1.1647
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 28.1 37.8 31.8 CO = ppm 140 145 156 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 984 984 965 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 23.35 19.49 18.59 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 960.80 965.24 946.73 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 23.2 19.1 18.5 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 80.9 78.3 80.1 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.3 78.7 79.3 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.6 78.5 79.7 Cgas = ppm 23.35 19.49 18.59 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 960 967 945 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3009 3014 3005 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3006 3017 3004 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3007.5 3015.5 3004.5 Cgas = ppm 960.80 965.24 946.73 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.8 83.7 83.7 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.07 29.07 29.07 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.42 28.20 28.34 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.325 1.782 1.499 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.23 20.96 21.04 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.20 30.20 30.20 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0587 0.0784 0.0665 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 100.17 100.27 98.72 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 24971 24996 24610 Qsd = dscf/hr 632011 616494 616176 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 10534 10275 10270 E (CO) = lb/hr 6.43 6.49 6.98 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 49.01 47.74 46.76 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.76 1.43 1.37 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 47.25 46.31 45.40 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 6.63 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 47.84 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.52 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 46.32 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 1 (60%) 9/30/2011 2 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/2/2010 Engine 2 40%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 13.6 13.6 13.6
%CO 2 = % 3.00 2.50 3.00 Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.2 1.1 1.1 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 570 577 580
Ts =
. R 1026 1115 1163 Vm = dcf 22.143 22.301 22.398 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.89 0.9043 0.8963
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 36 30.9 34.6 CO = ppm 153 154 150 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1155 988 966 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 23.37 21.90 20.89 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1132.32 966.12 945.59 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 22.9 21.6 20.6 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 78.7 79.3 78.9 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.3 78.7 79.1 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 78.5 79.0 79.0 Cgas = ppm 23.37 21.90 20.89 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1131 965 947 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3008 3007 3013 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3005 3006 3016 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3006.5 3006.5 3014.5 Cgas = ppm 1132.32 966.12 945.59 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.4 83.9 83.4 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.02 28.94 29.02 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.18 28.22 28.21 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.697 1.457 1.631 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 20.59 20.48 20.46 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.19 30.18 30.18 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0762 0.0664 0.0738 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 70.18 74.31 75.23 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 17496 18523 18753 Qsd = dscf/hr 503544 495627 477234 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 8392 8260 7954 E (CO) = lb/hr 5.60 5.54 5.20 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 45.77 38.56 36.31 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.40 1.30 1.19 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 44.37 37.26 35.12 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 5.45 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 40.21 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.30 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 38.92 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 2 (40%) 9/30/2011 3 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/2/2010 Engine 2 60%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 13.3 13.5 13.3
%CO 2 = % 3.00 3.00 3.00 Pbar = in.Hg 30.2 30.1 30.1 Pg = in.H 2 O 2.5 2.3 2.4 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 578 581 582
Ts =
. R 1118 1141 1131 Vm = dcf 22.413 22.132 22.121 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 1.2028 1.1962 1.1902
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 30.1 31.6 35 CO = ppm 110 89 104 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 950 944 930 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 22.03 20.05 21.10 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 928.08 924.31 909.34 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 22 20.1 20.8 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 81.1 81.3 78.8 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.9 79.3 79.1 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 80.0 80.3 79.0 Cgas = ppm 22.03 20.05 21.10 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 929 926 911 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3011 3014 3015 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3015 3017 3016 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3013.0 3015.5 3015.5 Cgas = ppm 928.08 924.31 909.34 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.7 83.5 83.7 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.01 29.02 29.01 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.30 28.26 28.18 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.419 1.490 1.650 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 20.62 20.19 20.14 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.38 30.27 30.28 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0644 0.0687 0.0757 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 98.49 99.21 98.41 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 24551 24730 24532 Qsd = dscf/hr 660971 646909 642688 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 11016 10782 10711 E (CO) = lb/hr 5.28 4.18 4.86 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 49.47 48.08 47.10 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.74 1.55 1.62 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 47.74 46.53 45.48 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 4.77 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 48.22 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.63 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 46.58 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 2 (60%) 9/30/2011 4 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/2/2010 Engine 3 40%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.1 12.8 12.6
%CO 2 = % 5.50 4.50 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1 Pg = in.H 2 O 0.88 0.95 0.95 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 558 564 571
Ts =
. R 1241 1234 1237 Vm = dcf 20.100 21.832 22.382 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.6985 0.8451 0.8279
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.5 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 33 32
Vlc [1] = ml 36.4 34.9 35 CO = ppm 269 236 284 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1170 1195 1168 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 34.17 33.31 32.66 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1135.89 1161.74 1135.68 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 33.7 33.5 32.5 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.7 81.3 80.1 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.3 79.8 79.3 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.0 80.6 79.7 Cgas = ppm 34.17 33.31 32.66 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1134 1160 1137 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3005 3005 3012 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3005 3006 3015 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3005.0 3005.5 3013.5 Cgas = ppm 1135.89 1161.74 1135.68 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.4 82.7 83.4 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.36 29.23 29.14 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.43 28.40 28.32 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.716 1.645 1.650 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 19.09 20.51 20.77 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.16 30.17 30.17 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0825 0.0743 0.0736 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 60.34 72.83 71.53 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 15043 18156 17832 Qsd = dscf/hr 355216 435108 426597 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 5920 7252 7110 E (CO) = lb/hr 6.94 7.46 8.80 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 32.85 41.07 39.36 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.45 1.73 1.66 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 31.40 39.34 37.70 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 7.73 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 37.76 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.61 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 36.15 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 3 (40%) 9/30/2011 5 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/2/2010 Engine 3 60%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.4 12.3 12.4
%CO 2 = % 3.00 3.00 3.50 Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1 Pg = in.H 2 O 2.2 2.1 2 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 556 573 572
Ts =
. R 1220 1242 1235 Vm = dcf 22.262 22.148 22.210 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 1.1398 1.1471 1.136
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 34.9 32.9 35.8 CO = ppm 233 256 231 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1150 1154 1148 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 28.59 26.67 24.96 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1121.88 1127.31 1122.80 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 28.2 26.3 25.1 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.3 78.9 79.8 Initial S y stem Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.7 79.1 81.3 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.0 79.0 80.6 Cgas = ppm 28.59 26.67 24.96 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1123 1126 1120 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3015 3007 3005 Initial S y stem Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3011 3006 3000 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3013.0 3006.5 3002.5 Cgas = ppm 1121.88 1127.31 1122.80 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 84.6 84.7 84.1 Md = lb/lb-mol 28.98 28.97 29.06 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.19 28.20 28.22 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.645 1.551 1.688 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.22 20.48 20.58 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.26 30.25 30.25 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0720 0.0704 0.0758 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 97.89 99.39 98.13 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 24403 24776 24462 Qsd = dscf/hr 594778 594052 586271 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 9913 9901 9771 E (CO) = lb/hr 10.07 11.05 9.84 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 53.96 54.00 52.97 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 2.03 1.89 1.75 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 51.93 52.11 51.23 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 10.32 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 53.64 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.89 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 51.76 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 3 (60%) 9/30/2011 6 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/3/2010 Engine 4 40%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.6 12.9 12.5
%CO 2 = % 3.50 4.00 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1 Pg = in.H 2 O 0.55 0.34 0.42 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 562 565 565
Ts =
. R 1162 1202 1206 Vm = dcf 22.142 22.114 22.210 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.8 0.7514 0.8471
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 34.2 31.8 37.3 CO = ppm 246 221 203 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1074 1076 1024 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 27.48 29.04 22.93 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1047.35 1046.35 1002.00 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 27 29.4 22.5 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 78.3 81.3 78.9 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.1 80.9 78.3 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 78.7 81.1 78.6 Cgas = ppm 27.48 29.04 22.93 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1047 1046 1003 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3005 3005 3015 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3013 3013 3011 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3009.0 3009.0 3013.0 Cgas = ppm 1047.35 1046.35 1002.00 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.9 83.1 83.5 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.06 29.16 29.14 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.27 28.40 28.27 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.612 1.499 1.759 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 20.88 20.74 20.83 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.14 30.13 30.13 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0717 0.0674 0.0779 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 67.09 63.95 72.38 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 16724 15943 18043 Qsd = dscf/hr 426380 394544 440147 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 7106 6576 7336 E (CO) = lb/hr 7.62 6.33 6.49 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 36.15 33.49 35.52 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.40 1.37 1.20 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 34.75 32.13 34.32 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 6.81 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 35.06 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.32 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 33.73 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 4 (40%) 9/30/2011 7 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/3/2010 Engine 4 60%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.7 12.9 12.7
%CO 2 = % 4.00 4.00 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.5 1.6 1.2 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 560 565 567
Ts =
. R 1188 1184 1180 Vm = dcf 22.135 22.031 22.240 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 1.1229 1.3317 1.1438
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 34.1 28.9 29 CO = ppm 148 138 136 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1029 992 991 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 22.62 20.46 19.49 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1006.84 971.45 972.19 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 22.2 20.1 19.2 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.3 78.3 78.9 Initial S y stem Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 77.9 79.1 78.9 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 78.6 78.7 78.9 Cgas = ppm 22.62 20.46 19.49 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1005 970 973 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3005 3004 3014 Initial S y stem Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3004 3007 3011 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3004.5 3005.5 3012.5 Cgas = ppm 1006.84 971.45 972.19 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.3 83.1 83.3 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.15 29.16 29.15 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.35 28.47 28.46 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.608 1.363 1.367 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 20.95 20.66 20.78 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.21 30.22 30.19 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0713 0.0619 0.0617 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 94.97 112.20 96.26 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 23673 27969 23996 Qsd = dscf/hr 591977 709054 609898 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 9866 11818 10165 E (CO) = lb/hr 6.36 7.11 6.03 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 47.98 55.33 47.56 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.60 1.73 1.42 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 46.38 53.60 46.14 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 6.50 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 50.29 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.58 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 48.71 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 4 (60%) 9/30/2011 8 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

3/31/2010 Engine 5 40%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.8 13 13.5
%CO 2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 30.26 30.26 30.3 Pg = in.H 2 O 0.75 0.9 0.8 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 553 559 562
Ts =
. R 1188 1193 1196 Vm = dcf 22.130 22.392 22.058 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.8765 0.8625 0.8524
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.5 1.5 1.5 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 24.5 30.2 30.7 CO = ppm 174 178 177 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1213 1224 1211 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 38.41 39.95 20.46 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1174.39 1184.61 1190.78 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 38.6 39.3 20.2 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.8 79.3 79.5 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 81.2 78.3 78.7 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 80.5 78.8 79.1 Cgas = ppm 38.41 39.95 20.46 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1174 1185 1189 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3011 3009 3007 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3007 3013 3004 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3009.0 3011.0 3005.5 Cgas = ppm 1174.39 1184.61 1190.78 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.7 83.0 82.5 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.23 29.16 29.18 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.65 28.46 28.46 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.155 1.424 1.447 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.32 21.34 20.94 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.32 30.33 30.36 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0514 0.0626 0.0647 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 73.61 72.82 72.02 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 18349 18152 17954 Qsd = dscf/hr 470299 458013 451344 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 7838 7634 7522 E (CO) = lb/hr 5.94 5.92 5.80 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 45.14 44.40 42.93 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 2.16 2.18 1.10 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 42.98 42.22 41.82 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 5.89 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 44.16 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.81 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 42.34 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 5 (40%) 9/30/2011 9 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

3/31/2010 Engine 5 60%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.9 13.3 12.8
%CO 2 = % 4.00 4.50 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 30.3 30.3 30.3 Pg = in.H 2 O 2 1.2 2.1 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 563 565 566
Ts =
. R 1173 1171 1154 Vm = dcf 22.502 22.612 22.534 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 1.1876 1.1679 1.1688
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.5 1.5 1.5 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 30.1 34.1 31.2 CO = ppm 166 168 169 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1155 1138 1145 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 17.91 24.05 18.39 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1137.62 1114.44 1126.81 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 17.8 23.9 18 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.2 79.4 78.9 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 80 79.8 77.9 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.6 79.6 78.4 Cgas = ppm 17.91 24.05 18.39 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1138 1115 1127 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3013 3010 3013 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3009 3013 3008 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3011.0 3011.5 3010.5 Cgas = ppm 1137.62 1114.44 1126.81 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.1 82.2 83.2 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.16 29.25 29.15 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.46 28.46 28.43 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.419 1.608 1.471 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.32 21.35 21.24 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.45 30.39 30.45 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0624 0.0700 0.0648 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 99.23 97.58 96.90 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 24736 24326 24156 Qsd = dscf/hr 637391 621603 631257 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 10623 10360 10521 E (CO) = lb/hr 7.69 7.59 7.75 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 57.79 55.69 56.74 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.36 1.78 1.39 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 56.43 53.91 55.35 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 7.67 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 56.74 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.51 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 55.23 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 5 (60%) 9/30/2011 10 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/1/2010 Engine 6 40%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.8 12.8 12.8
%CO 2 = % 4.00 4.00 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 30.24 30.24 30.2 Pg = in.H 2 O 0.52 0.52 0.51 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 557 561 568
Ts =
. R 1186 1146 1186 Vm = dcf 22.974 23.340 22.334 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.7381 0.8899 0.8677
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.5 1.5 1.5 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 32.4 22.3 43.9 CO = ppm 235 233 210 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1302 1288 1142 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 31.03 29.01 34.63 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1271.00 1259.49 1107.66 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 30.6 28.7 34 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 78.7 79.3 78.2 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.3 79.2 79.1 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.0 79.3 78.7 Cgas = ppm 31.03 29.01 34.63 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1271 1262 1106 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3006 3015 3005 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3014 3017 3006 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3010.0 3016.0 3005.5 Cgas = ppm 1271.00 1259.49 1107.66 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.2 83.2 83.2 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.15 29.15 29.15 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.43 28.65 28.15 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.528 1.051 2.070 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.96 22.15 20.91 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.28 30.28 30.24 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0650 0.0453 0.0901 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 62.22 73.46 73.56 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 15510 18311 18336 Qsd = dscf/hr 391996 489047 450396 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 6533 8151 7507 E (CO) = lb/hr 6.69 8.28 6.87 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 40.22 49.63 40.68 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.45 1.69 1.86 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 38.77 47.93 38.82 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 7.28 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 43.51 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.67 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 41.84 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 6 (40%) 9/30/2011 11 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/1/2010 Engine 6 60%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.7 12.4 12.4
%CO 2 = % 3.50 3.50 3.00 Pbar = in.Hg 30.2 30.2 30.2 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.2 1.4 1.3 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 573 571 571
Ts =
. R 1182 1186 1179 Vm = dcf 21.882 22.524 22.664 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 1.2168 1.2139 1.1694
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.5 1.5 1.5 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 31.1 36.6 36.5 CO = ppm 142 166 155 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1130 1167 1104 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 32.93 30.28 23.73 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1097.36 1137.06 1080.36 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 32.4 29.9 23.6 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.3 79.3 81 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.3 78.9 78.3 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 78.8 79.1 79.7 Cgas = ppm 32.93 30.28 23.73 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1099 1138 1080 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3014 3018 3011 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3015 3007 3007 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3014.5 3012.5 3009.0 Cgas = ppm 1097.36 1137.06 1080.36 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.8 84.1 84.6 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.07 29.06 28.98 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.32 28.22 28.15 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.466 1.726 1.721 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 20.30 20.97 21.10 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.29 30.30 30.30 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0674 0.0760 0.0754 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 102.57 102.67 98.74 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 25569 25594 24615 Qsd = dscf/hr 647012 639756 619209 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 10784 10663 10320 E (CO) = lb/hr 6.67 7.71 6.97 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 57.79 58.92 53.81 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 2.54 2.31 1.75 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 55.25 56.61 52.06 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 7.12 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 56.84 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 2.20 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 54.64 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 6 (60%) 9/30/2011 12 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/1/2010 Engine 7 40%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 11.8 12.1 12
%CO 2 = % 4.00 3.50 3.50 Pbar = in.Hg 30.24 30.24 30.24 Pg = in.H 2 O 0.45 0.49 0.52 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 556 561 562
Ts =
. R 1197 1194 1227 Vm = dcf 22.290 22.518 22.275 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.7721 0.8552 0.7972
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.5 1.5 1.5 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 25 35.8 33.8 CO = ppm 268 285 295 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1306 1294 1291 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 34.29 34.64 33.62 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1272.46 1259.58 1257.63 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 34.1 34.7 33.7 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 78.3 81.3 81.3 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 81 79.2 79.3 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.7 80.3 80.3 Cgas = ppm 34.29 34.64 33.62 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1275 1260 1257 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3019 3005 3010 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3013 3017 3007 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3016.0 3011.0 3008.5 Cgas = ppm 1272.46 1259.58 1257.63 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 84.2 84.4 84.5 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.11 29.04 29.04 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.53 28.24 28.26 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.179 1.688 1.594 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.34 21.37 21.10 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.27 30.28 30.28 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0523 0.0732 0.0702 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 65.27 72.58 68.55 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 16272 18093 17088 Qsd = dscf/hr 412923 450209 415128 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 6882 7503 6919 E (CO) = lb/hr 8.04 9.32 8.90 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 42.58 45.99 42.29 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.69 1.86 1.67 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 40.89 44.13 40.63 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 8.75 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 43.62 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.74 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 41.88 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 7 (40%) 9/30/2011 13 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/1/2010 Engine 7 60%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.2 12.4 11.8
%CO 2 = % 4.00 3.50 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 30.2 30.2 30.2 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.1 1.1 0.9 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 571 570 569
Ts =
. R 1181 1192 1213 Vm = dcf 22.315 22.324 21.689 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 1.111 1.1135 1.0875
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.5 1.5 1.5 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 35.3 31.7 35.7 CO = ppm 202 186 235 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1180 1119 1170 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 28.94 26.95 32.65 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1151.19 1091.82 1137.87 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 29.1 26.9 32 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 81.3 78.9 78.7 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.8 81 78.3 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 80.6 80.0 78.5 Cgas = ppm 28.94 26.95 32.65 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1151 1092 1139 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3005 3014 3017 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3014 3007 3009 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3009.5 3010.5 3013.0 Cgas = ppm 1151.19 1091.82 1137.87 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.8 84.1 83.7 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.13 29.06 29.19 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.30 28.32 28.33 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.664 1.495 1.683 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 20.78 20.82 20.27 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.28 30.28 30.27 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0742 0.0670 0.0767 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 93.66 94.28 92.88 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 23347 23503 23154 Qsd = dscf/hr 586826 589839 564794 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 9780 9831 9413 E (CO) = lb/hr 8.61 7.97 9.64 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 54.60 52.01 52.21 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 2.03 1.90 2.20 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 52.57 50.12 50.01 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 8.74 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 52.94 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 2.04 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 50.90 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane ) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 7 (60%) 9/30/2011 14 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

3/31/2010 Engine 8 40%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.5 12.6 12.4
%CO 2 = % 4.50 4.60 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 30.26 30.26 30.3 Pg = in.H 2 O 0.72 0.8 0.75 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 550 557 560
Ts =
. R 1208 1237 1236 Vm = dcf 21.256 22.978 22.021 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.8055 0.7869 0.7963
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.5 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 30 30 30
Vlc [1] = ml 25.1 29.3 29.7 CO = ppm 259 307 250 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1205 1206 1205 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 22.70 24.61 21.49 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1182.36 1181.18 1183.34 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 22.3 24.3 21.5 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.1 79.9 81 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.3 78.3 79.3 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 78.7 79.1 80.2 Cgas = ppm 22.70 24.61 21.49 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1180 1180 1180 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3007 3011 3003 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3001 3003 3000 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3004.0 3007.0 3001.5 Cgas = ppm 1182.36 1181.18 1183.34 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.0 82.8 83.1 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.22 29.24 29.22 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.61 28.58 28.51 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.183 1.381 1.400 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 20.59 21.98 20.98 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.31 30.32 30.36 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0544 0.0591 0.0626 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 68.27 67.52 68.33 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 17018 16832 17035 Qsd = dscf/hr 427591 410993 415243 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 7127 6850 6921 E (CO) = lb/hr 8.05 9.17 7.54 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 40.50 38.98 39.30 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.16 1.21 1.06 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 39.34 37.78 38.24 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 8.25 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 39.60 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.14 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 38.45 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 8 (40%) 9/30/2011 15 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

3/31/2010 Engine 8 60%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.7 13.2 12.8
%CO 2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 30.3 30.3 30.3 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.9 1.5 1.7 Ds = in. 27.6 27.6 27.6
Tm =
. R 559 562 563
Ts =
. R 1157 1197 1193 Vm = dcf 22.193 22.247 22.197 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 1.0414 1.0932 1.1406
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 30 30 30
Vlc [1] = ml 14.9 51.1 33.8 CO = ppm 160 176 151 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1176 1184 1181 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 17.34 19.71 19.50 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1158.54 1164.19 1161.54 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propane)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 17.1 19.7 19.5 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.5 81 79.3 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.5 79.1 80.9 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.0 80.1 80.1 Cgas = ppm 17.34 19.71 19.50 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1157 1164 1160 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 3010 3010 3010 Cmi = ppm 3008 3012 3007 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 3004 3007 3005 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 3006.0 3009.5 3006.0 Cgas = ppm 1158.54 1164.19 1161.54 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9976 0.9976 0.9976 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.8 82.8 82.7 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.23 29.17 29.23 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.87 28.02 28.44 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 0.703 2.409 1.594 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.18 21.12 21.03 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 30.44 30.41 30.43 As = ft 2 4.15 4.15 4.15 Bws = pro by vol 0.0321 0.1024 0.0704 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 85.81 93.04 96.17 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 21392 23193 23975 Qsd = dscf/hr 576778 559999 601798 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 9613 9333 10030 E (CO) = lb/hr 6.70 7.16 6.60 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 53.19 52.05 55.80 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.19 1.32 1.40 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 52.00 50.73 54.40 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 6.82 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 53.68 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.30 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 52.38 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 8 (60%) 9/30/2011 16 of 16

# A PPENDIX 

# G2: R EVISED 

# S TACK 

# T EST 

# E MISSIONS 

# F ROM 

# T HE 

# M AIN



# E NGINES 

# O N 

# DD1

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling ProjectBHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/23/2010 Engine 1 41%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 13.1 13 13.2
%CO 2 = % 4.00 4.00 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.1 1.1 1.2 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 546 551 555
Ts =
. R 1179 1184 1191 Vm = dcf 23.110 23.023 23.025 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.5991 0.6189 0.6251
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 34.8 36.8 40 CO = ppm 103 92 94 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 569 568 572 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 9.39 8.41 8.72 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 559.44 560.00 563.43 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 9.3 8.4 8.6 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 80.4 81.3 79.3 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.3 78.7 78.7 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.4 80.0 79.0 Cgas = ppm 9.39 8.41 8.72 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 560 560 564 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 495 499 499 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 498 493 494 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 496.5 496.0 496.5 Cgas = ppm 559.44 560.00 563.43 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.9 83.0 82.8 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.16 29.16 29.17 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.39 28.34 28.27 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.641 1.735 1.886 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 22.02 21.74 21.59 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.78 29.78 29.79 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0693 0.0739 0.0804 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 50.80 52.65 53.38 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 14371 14891 15100 Qsd = dscf/hr 357694 367278 367757 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 5962 6121 6129 E (CO) = lb/hr 2.68 2.45 2.51 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 15.97 16.37 16.51 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.40066 0.36856 0.38261 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 15.57 16.01 16.12 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 2.55 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 16.28 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.38 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 15.90 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 1 (41.1%) 9/30/2011 1 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/23/2010 Engine 1 61%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.7 12.5 12.5
%CO 2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 2.4 2.3 2.3 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 555 554 555 Ts =
. R 1187 1192 1192 Vm = dcf 23.136 22.740 23.216 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.845 0.8349 0.854
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 39.2 36.4 37.5 CO = ppm 105 107 105 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 617 611 613 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 10.56 12.50 11.06 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 606.00 598.79 602.00 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 10.5 12.3 11 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 80 78.9 79.3 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.3 78.7 80 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.7 78.8 79.7 Cgas = ppm 10.56 12.50 11.06 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 606 600 602 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 499 499 497 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 493 495 495 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 496.0 497.0 496.0 Cgas = ppm 606.00 598.79 602.00 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.8 83.5 83.5 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.23 29.14 29.14 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.35 28.31 28.30 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.848 1.716 1.768 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.69 21.36 21.76 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.88 29.87 29.87 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0785 0.0744 0.0751 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 71.84 71.18 72.82 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 20321 20135 20599 Qsd = dscf/hr 499027 494481 505458 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 8317 8241 8424 E (CO) = lb/hr 3.81 3.84 3.86 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 24.16 23.78 24.35 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.62871 0.73765 0.66714 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 23.53 23.04 23.68 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 3.84 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 24.10 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.68 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 23.42 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 1 (61.4%) 9/30/2011 2 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/22/2010 Engine 2 41%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 13 13.1 13.1
%CO 2 = % 4.50 5.00 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 29.82 29.82 29.82 Pg = in.H 2 O 0.85 1.6 1.7 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 542 544 544
Ts =
. R 1181 1186 1176 Vm = dcf 22.684 22.953 23.048 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.626 0.6115 0.5552
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 39.5 40.7 40.3 CO = ppm 101 94 104 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 585 594 565 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 9.81 11.08 10.41 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 575.58 582.76 554.32 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 9.8 11 10.4 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 80.8 79.5 79.5 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.3 79.6 80.6 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 80.1 79.6 80.1 Cgas = ppm 9.81 11.08 10.41 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 575 581 556 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 496 495 497 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 495 494 498 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 495.5 494.5 497.5 Cgas = ppm 575.58 582.76 554.32 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.5 81.9 82.4 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.24 29.32 29.24 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.36 28.42 28.36 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.862 1.919 1.900 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.86 22.04 22.13 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.88 29.94 29.95 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0785 0.0801 0.0791 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 53.07 51.85 46.92 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 15011 14666 13272 Qsd = dscf/hr 370605 360588 329545 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 6177 6010 5492 E (CO) = lb/hr 2.72 2.46 2.49 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 17.03 16.83 14.62 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.43361 0.47653 0.40918 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 16.60 16.35 14.22 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 2.56 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 16.16 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.44 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 15.72 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 2 (41.4%) 9/30/2011 3 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/23/2010 Engine 2 65%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.6 12.6 12.6
%CO 2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 3 2.8 3 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 553 552 555
Ts =
. R 1148 1175 1178 Vm = dcf 23.126 22.907 23.075 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.8984 0.8888 0.8536
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 38.3 40.9 42.3 CO = ppm 94 92 89 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 600 596 600 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 13.88 12.57 12.00 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 585.77 583.24 588.41 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 13.8 12.4 12 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 80 79.1 80.3 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.3 78.9 79.9 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.7 79.0 80.1 Cgas = ppm 13.88 12.57 12.00 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 584 585 589 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 496 497 496 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 493 498 497 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 494.5 497.5 496.5 Cgas = ppm 585.77 583.24 588.41 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.9 83.4 83.4 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.22 29.14 29.14 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.36 28.23 28.20 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.806 1.928 1.994 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.76 21.59 21.63 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.92 29.91 29.92 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0766 0.0820 0.0844 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 75.04 75.30 72.42 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 21225 21299 20486 Qsd = dscf/hr 540838 526920 504438 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 9014 8782 8407 E (CO) = lb/hr 3.69 3.52 3.26 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 25.55 24.71 23.82 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.89554 0.79043 0.72224 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 24.65 23.92 23.10 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 3.49 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 24.69 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.80 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 23.89 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 2 (65.1%) 9/30/2011 4 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/23/2010 Engine 3 42%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.9 12.8 12.7
%CO 2 = % 5.50 4.50 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 29.74 29.74 29.74 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.1 1.1 1.2 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 541 543 546
Ts =
. R 1192 1195 1197 Vm = dcf 23.033 22.957 23.190 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.6265 0.6314 0.6161
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 40.1 40 38.6 CO = ppm 185 181 179 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 664 674 678 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 12.66 13.19 13.12 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 651.40 660.67 664.99 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 12.5 13.1 13.1 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.3 79.8 79.6 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.9 79.3 80.3 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.1 79.6 80.0 Cgas = ppm 12.66 13.19 13.12 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 656 664 667 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 500 498 497 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 499 499 498 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 499.5 498.5 497.5 Cgas = ppm 651.40 660.67 664.99 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 81.6 82.7 82.8 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.40 29.23 29.23 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.50 28.35 28.37 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.891 1.886 1.820 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 22.18 22.03 22.13 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.82 29.82 29.83 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0785 0.0789 0.0760 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 53.28 53.91 52.62 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 15071 15249 14883 Qsd = dscf/hr 367858 371148 362842 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 6131 6186 6047 E (CO) = lb/hr 4.94 4.88 4.72 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 19.20 19.67 19.34 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.55557 0.58412 0.56819 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 18.65 19.08 18.78 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 4.85 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 19.40 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.57 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 18.84 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 3 (42.2%) 9/30/2011 5 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/24/2010 Engine 3 62%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.8 12.7 12.7
%CO 2 = % 4.50 4.00 3.50 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 2.7 2.5 2.3 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 548 555 559
Ts =
. R 1209 1206 1210 Vm = dcf 23.287 22.811 22.881 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.8672 0.9189 0.8183
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 39.1 38 43 CO = ppm 214 206 212 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 714 707 722 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 11.08 10.89 9.69 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 702.54 695.81 712.44 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 11.4 11.1 9.8 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 83.6 82.1 81 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 81.2 81.2 81 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 82.4 81.7 81.0 Cgas = ppm 11.08 10.89 9.69 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 699 693 711 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 493 494 495 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 494 494 495 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 493.5 494.0 495.0 Cgas = ppm 702.54 695.81 712.44 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.7 83.3 83.8 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.23 29.15 29.07 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.37 28.29 28.11 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.844 1.792 2.027 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 22.11 21.38 21.30 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.90 29.88 29.87 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0770 0.0773 0.0869 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 74.35 78.82 70.55 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 21031 22295 19955 Qsd = dscf/hr 508312 539728 476246 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 8472 8995 7937 E (CO) = lb/hr 7.90 8.08 7.33 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 28.46 29.93 26.95 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.6721 0.70124 0.55068 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 27.79 29.22 26.40 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 7.77 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 28.45 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.64 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 27.81 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 3 (61.6%) 9/30/2011 6 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/24/2010 Engine 4 41%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.9 13.1 13.1
%CO 2 = % 5.00 4.50 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.1 1.1 1.2 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 549 551 551
Ts =
. R 1208 1211 1210 Vm = dcf 22.506 22.496 23.060 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.5919 0.6134 0.6296
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 43.9 46.2 42.2 CO = ppm 169 169 172 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 607 614 615 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 8.47 6.74 6.96 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 598.55 607.00 607.61 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 8.7 6.8 7 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 86.4 79.2 82.5 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 78.1 82.5 78.6 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 82.3 80.9 80.6 Cgas = ppm 8.47 6.74 6.96 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 607 607 607 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 507 494 499 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 499 498 492 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 503.0 496.0 495.5 Cgas = ppm 598.55 607.00 607.61 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.1 82.4 82.9 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.32 29.24 29.16 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.32 28.20 28.23 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 2.070 2.178 1.990 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.33 21.24 21.77 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.78 29.78 29.79 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0885 0.0930 0.0837 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 50.87 52.90 54.23 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 14390 14962 15341 Qsd = dscf/hr 342408 353366 366405 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 5707 5889 6107 E (CO) = lb/hr 4.20 4.34 4.58 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 16.30 16.98 17.63 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.34614 0.28404 0.30431 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 15.95 16.69 17.32 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 4.37 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 16.97 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.31 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 16.66 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 4 (41.3%) 9/30/2011 7 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/24/2010 Engine 4 65%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.6 12.7 12.7
%CO 2 = % 5.00 4.50 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 2.3 2.5 2.2 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 552 560 562
Ts =
. R 1213 1209 1206 Vm = dcf 22.692 23.194 22.750 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.8579 0.8894 0.8144
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 46.3 46.6 47.2 CO = ppm 156 146 149 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 667 656 663 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 8.28 7.32 6.94 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 659.01 648.92 656.29 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 8.3 7.3 7 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 81.3 79 81.7 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.2 80.7 79.8 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 80.3 79.9 80.8 Cgas = ppm 8.28 7.32 6.94 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 663 645 651 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 502 494 490 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 496 492 494 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 499.0 493.0 492.0 Cgas = ppm 659.01 648.92 656.29 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.4 82.8 82.8 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.30 29.23 29.23 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.26 28.19 28.15 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 2.183 2.197 2.225 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.39 21.55 21.06 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.87 29.88 29.86 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0926 0.0925 0.0956 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 73.86 76.51 70.04 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 20891 21643 19813 Qsd = dscf/hr 494241 514029 469800 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 8237 8567 7830 E (CO) = lb/hr 5.60 5.45 5.09 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 25.84 26.41 24.38 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.48853 0.44912 0.38922 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 25.35 25.96 23.99 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 5.38 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 25.54 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.44 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 25.10 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 4 (64.7%) 9/30/2011 8 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/24/2010 Engine 5 45%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.6 12.6 12.6
%CO 2 = % 5.00 4.50 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.2 1.2 1.3 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 548 551 553
Ts =
. R 1194 1208 1212 Vm = dcf 22.705 23.121 23.034 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.6355 0.6027 0.6017
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 47.5 41.8 39.1 CO = ppm 252 229 212 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1128 1116 1113 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 27.08 27.05 24.54 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1099.63 1089.00 1089.20 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 27.5 27.4 24.2 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 83.5 80.6 78.2 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.2 81.7 79.8 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 81.4 81.2 79.0 Cgas = ppm 27.08 27.05 24.54 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1083 1089 1087 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 482 492 493 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 495 500 497 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 488.5 496.0 495.0 Cgas = ppm 1099.63 1089.00 1089.20 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.4 82.9 82.9 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.30 29.22 29.22 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.24 28.29 28.34 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 2.240 1.971 1.844 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.56 21.83 21.67 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.79 29.79 29.80 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0941 0.0828 0.0784 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 54.37 51.81 51.76 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 15379 14656 14642 Qsd = dscf/hr 368017 350990 351244 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 6134 5850 5854 E (CO) = lb/hr 6.74 5.84 5.41 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 32.68 30.88 30.80 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.18896 1.13261 1.0283 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 31.49 29.74 29.77 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 6.00 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 31.45 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.12 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 30.34 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 5 (44.6%) 9/30/2011 9 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/25/2010 Engine 5 65%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.1 12.1 12.1
%CO 2 = % 4.50 4.50 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.8 2.7 2.2 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 549 553 557
Ts =
. R 1177 1211 1219 Vm = dcf 23.043 22.576 23.405 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.8598 0.8514 0.855
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 41.4 41.3 42 CO = ppm 181 176 176 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 1169 1201 1171 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 33.98 32.89 20.69 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 1134.15 1167.18 1150.04 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 34.6 33.3 20.7 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 82.2 81.2 78.6 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 80.9 81 81.7 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 81.6 81.1 80.2 Cgas = ppm 33.98 32.89 20.69 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 1125 1166 1157 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 487 492 499 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 497 499 499 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 492.0 495.5 499.0 Cgas = ppm 1134.15 1167.18 1150.04 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.4 83.4 83.4 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.20 29.20 29.20 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.28 28.26 28.27 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.952 1.947 1.980 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.84 21.24 21.86 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.83 29.90 29.86 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0820 0.0840 0.0831 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 72.92 73.19 73.78 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 20627 20703 20868 Qsd = dscf/hr 508145 495764 496327 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 8469 8263 8272 E (CO) = lb/hr 6.68 6.34 6.35 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 46.91 46.97 45.64 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 2.06046 1.94546 1.22506 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 44.85 45.03 44.42 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 6.46 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 46.51 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 1.74 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 44.77 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 5 (65.1%) 9/30/2011 10 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/25/2010 Engine 6 42%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.6 12.8 12.6
%CO 2 = % 4.00 4.50 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 1 1.1 1.2 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 557 559 557
Ts =
. R 1170 1214 1220 Vm = dcf 23.154 23.659 23.488 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.5201 0.5075 0.5891
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 39.9 41.8 39.4 CO = ppm 286 270 274 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 718 661 700 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 8.20 6.08 6.73 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 710.88 655.27 693.68 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 7.5 5.8 6.6 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 71.9 74.7 78.2 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 74.7 78.2 78.9 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 73.3 76.5 78.6 Cgas = ppm 8.20 6.08 6.73 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 703 648 672 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 487 494 487 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 494 487 474 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 490.5 490.5 480.5 Cgas = ppm 710.88 655.27 693.68 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.4 82.7 83.4 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.14 29.23 29.14 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.25 28.31 28.27 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.881 1.971 1.858 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.63 22.02 21.94 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.77 29.78 29.79 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0800 0.0821 0.0781 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 44.05 43.73 50.92 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 12460 12370 14402 Qsd = dscf/hr 308853 294914 343266 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 5148 4915 5721 E (CO) = lb/hr 6.42 5.78 6.83 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 17.39 15.25 18.81 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.30202 0.21383 0.27565 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 17.09 15.04 18.53 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 6.34 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 17.15 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.26 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 16.88 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 6 (41.7%) 9/30/2011 11 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/25/2010 Engine 6 61%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.2 12.2 12.3
%CO 2 = % 4.00 4.00 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 2.5 2.3 2.6 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 562 559 555
Ts =
. R 1238 1238 1238 Vm = dcf 23.731 23.301 24.102 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.8293 0.8273 0.8201
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 39.7 37 37 CO = ppm 134 131 130 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 825 801 772 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 8.92 7.23 7.13 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 816.22 794.20 765.12 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 8.8 7.1 7 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 78.9 79.2 78.2 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.2 78.2 79.1 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.1 78.7 78.7 Cgas = ppm 8.92 7.23 7.13 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 794 799 779 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 474 491 507 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 491 507 503 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 482.5 499.0 505.0 Cgas = ppm 816.22 794.20 765.12 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.8 83.8 83.2 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.13 29.13 29.21 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.25 28.30 28.41 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.872 1.745 1.745 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.97 21.69 22.59 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.88 29.87 29.89 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0785 0.0744 0.0717 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 72.11 71.90 71.11 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 20398 20337 20114 Qsd = dscf/hr 480407 480857 477361 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 8007 8014 7956 E (CO) = lb/hr 4.68 4.58 4.51 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 31.03 30.13 28.83 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.51111 0.41459 0.40604 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 30.51 29.72 28.42 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 4.59 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 30.00 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.44 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 29.55 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 6 (61.1%) 9/30/2011 12 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/25/2010 Engine 7 41%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 13 12.9 13
%CO 2 = % 4.00 4.50 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 1 1.4 1.2 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 549 554 553
Ts =
. R 1195 1193 1191 Vm = dcf 23.456 23.781 24.181 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.6064 0.6661 0.5978
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 36.6 39.1 37.9 CO = ppm 146 145 142 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 590 638 593 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 3.83 3.87 5.19 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 585.72 634.00 588.19 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 3.8 3.9 5.2 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 79.3 79.8 81.7 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.8 81.7 78.9 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.6 80.8 80.3 Cgas = ppm 3.83 3.87 5.19 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 581 634 587 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 491 493 499 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 493 499 491 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 492.0 496.0 495.0 Cgas = ppm 585.72 634.00 588.19 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.0 82.6 83.0 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.16 29.24 29.16 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.36 28.38 28.35 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.726 1.844 1.787 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 22.23 22.33 22.75 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.77 29.80 29.79 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0720 0.0762 0.0728 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 51.81 56.81 50.98 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 14655 16069 14421 Qsd = dscf/hr 358748 392640 354095 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 5979 6544 5902 E (CO) = lb/hr 3.80 4.14 3.65 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 16.52 19.55 16.43 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.16378 0.18123 0.21914 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 16.35 19.37 16.21 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 3.86 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 17.50 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.19 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 17.31 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 7 (40.5%) 9/30/2011 13 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/26/2010 Engine 7 65%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.5 12.6 13.3
%CO 2 = % 4.50 4.50 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 2.7 2.6 2.5 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 544 550 550
Ts =
. R 1186 1187 1188 Vm = dcf 23.829 23.336 22.852 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.9356 0.9678 0.9169
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 38.3 35.1 32.2 CO = ppm 100 98 101 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 695 722 712 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 11.99 12.94 11.99 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 683.11 709.00 699.94 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 12.3 12.9 11.8 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 82.8 81.6 78.1 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 81.6 78.1 79.6 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 82.2 79.9 78.9 Cgas = ppm 11.99 12.94 11.99 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 690 709 695 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 504 498 494 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 498 494 491 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 501.0 496.0 492.5 Cgas = ppm 683.11 709.00 699.94 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.0 82.9 82.7 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.22 29.22 29.17 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.40 28.44 28.44 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.806 1.655 1.518 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 22.79 22.08 21.62 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.90 29.89 29.88 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0734 0.0697 0.0656 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 79.41 82.12 77.85 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 22462 23229 22020 Qsd = dscf/hr 555544 576175 548013 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 9259 9603 9134 E (CO) = lb/hr 4.04 4.10 4.02 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 30.33 32.68 30.63 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.79446 0.88959 0.78378 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 29.53 31.79 29.85 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 4.05 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 31.21 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.82 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 30.39 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 7 (65.0%) 9/30/2011 14 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/26/2010 Engine 8 43%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 13.1 13.3 12.6
%CO 2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.00 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.3 1.4 1.5 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 546 547 545
Ts =
. R 1165 1188 1198 Vm = dcf 22.636 22.725 22.270 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.6754 0.6821 0.6973
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 35.3 35.3 38.2 CO = ppm 131 126 118 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 683 708 719 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 13.02 10.69 13.01 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 670.30 696.81 706.30 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 13 10.7 12.8 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 80.9 79.1 78.7 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.1 81.2 78.9 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 80.0 80.2 78.8 Cgas = ppm 13.02 10.69 13.01 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 673 694 712 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 498 498 498 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 498 490 502 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 498.0 494.0 500.0 Cgas = ppm 670.30 696.81 706.30 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 82.4 82.7 83.4 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.24 29.17 29.14 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.44 28.37 28.27 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.664 1.664 1.801 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 21.57 21.62 21.26 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.80 29.80 29.81 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0716 0.0715 0.0781 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 56.87 58.06 59.70 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 16087 16423 16887 Qsd = dscf/hr 404419 405034 410166 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 6740 6751 6836 E (CO) = lb/hr 3.85 3.71 3.52 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 21.72 22.48 23.18 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.62807 0.51677 0.63675 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 21.10 21.96 22.54 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 3.69 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 22.46 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.59 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 21.87 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 8 (43.4%) 9/30/2011 15 of 16BHP Billiton, Inc

SOURCE TEST CALCULATION SHEET (COMM) EPA METHODS 1-4,7E,10, and 25A

4/26/2010 Engine 8 61%

Units Run1 Run2 Run3 Reference Parameters

%O 2 = % 12.4 12.5 12.4
%CO 2 = % 4.00 4.50 4.50 Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7 Pg = in.H 2 O 1.8 2.5 2.4 Ds = in. 29.4 29.4 29.4
Tm =
. R 545 546 546
Ts =
. R 1197 1197 1196 Vm = dcf 23.137 22.790 22.794 ГΔρ = in.H 2 O Λ 1/2 0.9293 0.8375 0.8391
Δ H = in.H 2 O 1.6 1.6 1.6 Θ = min 32 32 32
Vlc [1] = ml 37.2 39.4 31 CO = ppm 101 108 99 Corrected from at Stack Measurements NO x

= ppm 771 752 756 Corrected from at Stack Measurements
NO 2 = ppm 13.07 11.08 10.24 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E NO = ppm 757.89 740.76 745.50 Corrected from at Stack Measurements Eq 7E-5b Method 7E VOC (as propone)= ppm 0 0 0 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO 2 corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 12.9 11 10.3 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 80.1 80.1 80.1 Cmi = ppm 78.9 79.2 79.8 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 79.2 79.8 81.4 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 79.1 79.5 80.6 Cgas = ppm 13.07 11.08 10.24 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

NO corrected concentration from calibration

Cavg = ppm 764 743 744 Co = ppm 0 0 0 Cma = ppm 496 496 496 Cmi = ppm 502 498 497 Initial System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cmf = ppm 498 497 493 Final System Calibration Bias from Stack test data Cm = ppm 500.0 497.5 495.0 Cgas = ppm 757.89 740.76 745.50 Eq 7E-5b Method 7E

Constants

MW CO = lb/lb-mol 28.011 28.011 28.011 MW NO 2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006 MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006 MW(CO 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44 MW(O 2 )/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32 MW(N 2 orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28
MW H 2 O= lb/lb-mol 18 18 18 Specific Gravity Hg = 13.6 13.6 13.6
Tstd =
. R 528 528 528 Pstd = in.Hg 29.92 29.92 29.92 Y = 0.9927 0.9927 0.9927 Cp = 0.84 0.84 0.84 Kp = ft/sec ( X ) Λ 1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49
ρ ω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
R = in.H g -ft 3 /

. R-lb- m 21.85 21.85 21.85 Rvol = ft 3 /lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N 2 = % 83.6 83.0 83.1 Md = lb/lb-mol 29.14 29.22 29.22 Eq 3.1 Method 3 Ms = lb/lb-mol 28.32 28.34 28.51 Eq 2.6 Method 2
Vw ( std ) [2] = scf 1.754 1.858 1.462 E q 4.5 Method 4 Vm(std) = dscf 22.09 21.72 21.72 Eq 4.3 Method 4 Ps = in.Hg 29.83 29.88 29.88 As = ft 2 4.71 4.71 4.71 Bws = pro by vol 0.0736 0.0788 0.0630 Eq 4.7 Method 4 Vs = ft/sec 79.44 71.51 71.40 Eq 2.7 Method 2 Q = acf/min 22470 20226 20197 Qsd = dscf/hr 549335 492531 500532 Eq 2.8 Method 2 Qsd = dscf/min 9156 8209 8342 E (CO) = lb/hr 4.03 3.86 3.60 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO x ) = lb/hr 33.26 29.04 29.65 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO 2 ) E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.85674 0.6513 0.6113 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (NO) = lb/hr 32.40 28.39 29.04 Std conversion from ppm to lb/hr E (VOC as propane)= lb/hr

Average E (CO) = lb/hr 3.83 Average E (NO x ) = lb/hr 30.65 Average E (NO 2 ) = lb/hr 0.71 Average E (NO) = lb/hr 29.94 Avera g e E ( VOC as p ro p ane )= lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (V f -V i ) including water collected on silica gel (W f -W i ) [2] Trinity assumes that Vw(std) estimation includes sum of the volume of water vapor condensed and water vapor collected on silica gel (V wc(std) +V wsg(std) ) Engine Number Load Percentage Sample Date

Volume of 1lb-mole @Tstd and Pstd

DD1 Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 8 (61.0%) 9/30/2011 16 of 16

# A PPENDIX 

# G3: C.R. L UIGS 

# D RILL 

# S HIP 

# R EVISED 

# S TACK 

# T EST 

# S UMMARY

BHP Billiton Petroleu m, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project

## Section 1. C.R. Luigs Drill Ship Stack Testing Summary Table 1: Stack Testing Summary Company: BHP Biliton Petroleu m Max Load (kW): 4184

Engine

No. Test Run Load Percent Load (kW) Diesel (gal/hr) CO (ppmv) CO (g/kW-hr) CO (lb/hr) NOx (ppmv) NOx (g/kW-hr) NOx (lb/hr)

1 1 38.7% 1620 104.4 152 1.22 4.36 997 8.69 31.02

1 2 38.2% 1600 101.5 151 1.20 4.25 996 8.63 30.43

1 3 38.7% 1620 100.1 173 1.51 5.40 997 9.44 33.72 Avg 38.5% 1613.3 102.0 159 1.31 4.67 997 8.92 31.72

1 1 57.4% 2400 158.0 140 1.22 6.43 984 9.26 49.01
1 2 62.1% 2600 155.2 145 1.13 6.49 984 8.33 47.74
1 3 57.4% 2400 139.5 156 1.32 6.98 965 8.84 46.76 Avg 59.0% 2466.7 150.9 147 1.22 6.63 978 8.81 47.84

2 1 40.6% 1700 120.9 153 1.49 5.60 1155 12.21 45.77
2 2 39.4% 1650 121.0 154 1.52 5.54 988 10.60 38.56
2 3 38.2% 1600 119.0 150 1.47 5.20 966 10.29 36.31 Avg 39.4% 1650.0 120.3 152 1.49 5.45 1036 11.03 40.21

2 1 57.4% 2400 167.3 110 1.00 5.28 950 9.35 49.47
2 2 56.2% 2350 165.5 89 0.81 4.18 944 9.28 48.08
2 3 56.2% 2350 167.7 104 0.94 4.86 930 9.09 47.10 Avg 56.6% 2366.7 166.8 101 0.92 4.77 941 9.24 48.22

3 1 40.6% 1700 116.2 269 1.85 6.94 1170 8.76 32.85
3 2 41.8% 1750 132.5 236 1.93 7.46 1195 10.65 41.07 3 3 41.8% 1750 132.9 284 2.28 8.80 1168 10.20 39.36 Avg 41.4% 1733.3 127.2 263 2.02 7.73 1178 9.87 37.76

3 1 59.8% 2500 187.2 233 1.83 10.07 1150 9.79 53.96
3 2 59.8% 2500 186.7 256 2.00 11.05 1154 9.80 54.00
3 3 59.8% 2500 184.4 231 1.79 9.84 1148 9.61 52.97 Avg 59.8% 2500.0 186.1 240 1.87 10.32 1151 9.73 53.64

4 1 40.6% 1700 116.9 246 2.03 7.62 1074 9.65 36.15
4 2 35.9% 1500 103.5 221 1.91 6.33 1076 10.13 33.49 4 3 40.6% 1700 117.5 203 1.73 6.49 1024 9.48 35.52 Avg 39.0% 1633.3 112.6 223 1.89 6.81 1058 9.75 35.05

4 1 60.9% 2550 156.8 148 1.13 6.36 1029 8.53 47.98
4 2 65.7% 2750 175.5 138 1.17 7.11 992 9.13 55.33
4 3 60.9% 2550 165.9 136 1.07 6.03 991 8.46 47.56 Avg 62.5% 2616.7 166.1 141 1.12 6.50 1004 8.71 50.29

Page 1 of 2 BHPB Sake - CR Luigs Stack Test - Revised Table 1 v2.01 - Stack Test Data - CRL 9/30/2011

## Section 1. C.R. Luigs Drill Ship Stack Testing Summary Table 1: Stack Testing Summary Company: BHP Biliton Petroleu m Max Load (kW): 4184

Engine

No. Test Run Load Percent Load (kW) Diesel (gal/hr) CO (ppmv) CO (g/kW-hr) CO (lb/hr) NOx (ppmv) NOx (g/kW-hr) NOx (lb/hr)
5 1 39.4% 1650 137.8 174 1.63 5.94 1213 12.41 45.14
5 2 39.4% 1650 141.3 178 1.63 5.92 1224 12.21 44.40
5 3 39.4% 1650 142.4 177 1.59 5.80 1211 11.80 42.93 Avg 39.4% 1650.0 140.5 176 1.62 5.89 1216 12.14 44.16

5 1 56.2% 2350 193.5 166 1.48 7.69 1155 11.15 57.79

5 2 56.2% 2350 192.3 168 1.46 7.59 1138 10.75 55.69
5 3 56.2% 2350 193.7 169 1.50 7.75 1145 10.95 56.74 Avg 56.2% 2350.0 193.2 168 1.48 7.68 1146 10.95 56.74

6 1 38.2% 1600 151.0 235 1.90 6.69 1302 11.40 40.22

6 2 43.0% 1800 158.0 233 2.09 8.28 1288 12.51 49.63
6 3 43.0% 1800 135.8 210 1.73 6.87 1142 10.25 40.68 Avg 41.4% 1733.3 148.3 226 1.91 7.28 1244 11.39 43.51

6 1 66.0% 2760 189.8 142 1.10 6.67 1130 9.50 57.79

6 2 65.7% 2750 188.6 166 1.27 7.71 1167 9.72 58.92
6 3 64.5% 2700 191.9 155 1.17 6.97 1104 9.04 53.81 Avg 65.4% 2736.7 190.1 154 1.18 7.12 1134 9.42 56.84

7 1 39.4% 1650 129.7 268 2.21 8.04 1306 11.71 42.58

7 2 42.5% 1780 134.4 285 2.37 9.32 1294 11.72 45.99
7 3 41.1% 1720 131.1 295 2.35 8.90 1291 11.15 42.29 Avg 41.0% 1716.7 131.7 283 2.31 8.75 1297 11.53 43.62

7 1 62.1% 2600 181.4 202 1.50 8.61 1180 9.53 54.60
7 2 59.8% 2500 173.6 186 1.45 7.97 1119 9.44 52.01 7 3 52.6% 2200 153.1 235 1.99 9.64 1170 10.76 52.21 Avg 58.2% 2433.3 169.4 208 1.65 8.74 1156 9.91 52.94

8 1 37.0% 1550 232.4 259 2.36 8.05 1205 11.85 40.50
8 2 37.0% 1550 236.2 307 2.68 9.17 1206 11.41 38.98 8 3 37.0% 1550 236.7 250 2.21 7.54 1205 11.50 39.30 Avg 37.0% 1550.0 235.1 272 2.42 8.25 1205 11.59 39.59

8 1 55.0% 2300 274.7 160 1.32 6.70 1176 10.49 53.19
8 2 55.0% 2300 278.7 176 1.41 7.16 1184 10.26 52.05 8 3 55.0% 2300 276.0 151 1.30 6.60 1181 11.00 55.80 Avg 55.0% 2300.0 276.5 162 1.34 6.82 1180 10.58 53.68

Page 2 of 2 BHPB Sake - CR Luigs Stack Test - Revised Table 1 v2.01 - Stack Test Data - CRL 9/30/2011

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants Sake Prospect Drilling Project 

# A PPENDIX 

# G4: DD1 R EVISED 

# S TACK 

# T EST 

# S UMMARY

# Section 1. DD I Semi-sub Stack Testing Summary Table 1: Stack Testing Summary Company: BHP Biliton Petroleum Max Load (kW): 3500

Engine

No. Test Run Load Percent Load (kW) Diesel (gal/hr) CO (ppmv) CO (g/kW-hr) CO (lb/hr) NOx (ppmv) NOx (g/kW-hr) NOx (lb/hr)
1 1 41.2% 1443 104.4 103 0.84 2.68 569 5.02 15.97 1 2 41.2% 1441 104.5 92 0.77 2.45 568 5.15 16.37 1 3 40.8% 1428 104.9 94 0.80 2.51 572 5.24 16.51 Avg 41.1% 1437.3 104.6 96 0.80 2.55 570 5.14 16.28

1 1 61.7% 2160 143.9 105 0.80 3.81 617 5.07 24.16 1 2 60.6% 2120 143.7 107 0.82 3.84 611 5.09 23.78 1 3 61.9% 2168 144.5 105 0.81 3.86 613 5.09 24.35 Avg 61.4% 2149.3 144.0 106 0.81 3.84 614 5.08 24.10

2 1 41.6% 1456 105.2 101 0.85 2.72 585 5.31 17.03 2 2 41.1% 1440 110.4 94 0.77 2.46 594 5.30 16.83 2 3 41.4% 1448 99.1 104 0.78 2.49 565 4.58 14.62 Avg 41.4% 1448 104.9 100 0.80 2.56 581 5.06 16.16

2 1 65.1% 2280 142.8 94 0.73 3.69 600 5.08 25.55 2 2 65.6% 2296 141.8 92 0.70 3.52 596 4.88 24.71 2 3 64.7% 2265 141.4 89 0.65 3.26 600 4.77 23.82 Avg 65.1% 2280.3 142.0 92 0.69 3.49 599 4.91 24.69

3 1 42.5% 1488 118.2 185 1.51 4.94 664 5.85 19.20 3 2 41.0% 1435 116.9 181 1.54 4.88 674 6.22 19.67 3 3 43.0% 1506 118.9 179 1.42 4.72 678 5.82 19.34 Avg 42.2% 1476.3 118.0 182 1.49 4.85 672 5.96 19.40

3 1 63.6% 2226 146.6 214 1.61 7.90 714 5.80 28.46 3 2 60.3% 2111 148.7 206 1.74 8.08 707 6.43 29.93 3 3 61.0% 2134 149.3 212 1.56 7.33 722 5.73 26.95 Avg 61.6% 2157 148.2 211 1.64 7.77 714 5.99 28.45

4 1 42.3% 1480 106.0 169 1.29 4.20 607 5.00 16.30 4 2 41.3% 1446 105.8 169 1.36 4.34 614 5.33 16.98 4 3 40.4% 1414 101.1 172 1.47 4.58 615 5.66 17.63 Avg 41.3% 1446.7 104.3 170 1.37 4.37 612 5.33 16.97

4 1 64.1% 2243 134.7 156 1.13 5.60 667 5.23 25.84 4 2 63.4% 2219 135.2 146 1.11 5.45 656 5.40 26.41 4 3 66.5% 2329 134.8 149 0.99 5.09 663 4.75 24.38 Avg 64.7% 2263.7 134.9 150 1.08 5.38 662 5.13 25.54

Page 1 of 2 BHPB Sake - DD1 Stack Test - Revised Table 1 v2.21 - Stack Test Data - DD1 9/30/2011

# Section 1. DD I Semi-sub Stack Testing Summary Table 1: Stack Testing Summary Company: BHP Biliton Petroleum Max Load (kW): 3500

Engine

No. Test Run Load Percent Load (kW) Diesel (gal/hr) CO (ppmv) CO (g/kW-hr) CO (lb/hr) NOx (ppmv) NOx (g/kW-hr) NOx (lb/hr)
5 1 42.4% 1485 95.4 252 2.06 6.74 1128 9.98 32.68 5 2 46.9% 1643 99.0 229 1.61 5.84 1116 8.53 30.88 5 3 44.6% 1561 104.7 212 1.57 5.41 1113 8.95 30.80 Avg 44.6% 1563 99.7 231 1.75 6.00 1119 9.15 31.45

5 1 65.5% 2291 154.1 181 1.32 6.68 1169 9.29 46.91 5 2 65.0% 2274 154.9 176 1.26 6.34 1201 9.37 46.97 5 3 64.7% 2263 145.8 176 1.27 6.35 1171 9.15 45.64 Avg 65.1% 2276 151.6 178 1.28 6.46 1180 9.27 46.51

6 1 42.3% 1481 107.3 286 1.97 6.42 718 5.33 17.39 6 2 41.7% 1458 109.7 270 1.80 5.78 661 4.74 15.25 6 3 41.0% 1434 107.3 274 2.16 6.83 700 5.95 18.81 Avg 41.7% 1457.7 108.1 277 1.98 6.34 693 5.34 17.15

6 1 61.3% 2147 139.9 134 0.99 4.68 825 6.56 31.03 6 2 61.1% 2139 138.8 131 0.97 4.58 801 6.39 30.13 6 3 60.9% 2131 139.1 130 0.96 4.51 772 6.14 28.83 Avg 61.1% 2139 139.3 132 0.97 4.59 799 6.36 30.00

7 1 40.3% 1409 100.1 146 1.22 3.80 590 5.32 16.52 7 2 40.5% 1417 99.3 145 1.33 4.14 638 6.26 19.55 7 3 40.7% 1424 100.1 142 1.16 3.65 593 5.23 16.43 Avg 40.5% 1416.7 99.8 144 1.24 3.86 607 5.60 17.50

7 1 65.7% 2300 144.2 100 0.80 4.04 695 5.98 30.33 7 2 64.2% 2248 145.6 98 0.83 4.10 722 6.59 32.68 7 3 65.0% 2275 144.3 101 0.80 4.02 712 6.11 30.63 Avg 65.0% 2274.3 144.7 100 0.81 4.05 710 6.23 31.21

8 1 41.0% 1435 96.1 131 1.22 3.85 683 6.87 21.72 8 2 43.5% 1522 96.9 126 1.11 3.71 708 6.70 22.48 8 3 45.8% 1603 100.2 118 1.00 3.52 719 6.56 23.18 Avg 43.4% 1520 97.7 125 1.11 3.69 703 6.71 22.46

8 1 62.6% 2191 144.2 101 0.83 4.03 771 6.89 33.26 8 2 59.9% 2097 140.7 108 0.83 3.86 752 6.28 29.04 8 3 60.5% 2116 140.7 99 0.77 3.60 756 6.36 29.65 Avg 61.0% 2134.7 141.9 103 0.81 3.83 760 6.51 30.65

Page 2 of 2 BHPB Sake - DD1 Stack Test - Revised Table 1 v2.21 - Stack Test Data - DD1 9/30/2011