Registered Office: 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 150, 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 exploratory drilling activity on the Outer Continental 

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 IV’s comment on August 31, 2011, and EPA Region IV granted 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 for internal

respect to PM, PM10, PM2.5, NOx, 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 and Tier 2 emissions standards, 40

or 94) or retro fitting existing engines to meet the newer Tier standards.

Response: 

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

(CI) Internal Combustion Engines (ICE), each generating a

Registered Office: 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 150, 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 exploratory drilling activity on the Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico. The exploratory drilling activity is planned 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 letter from Mr. Gregg Worley of EPA Region IV providing 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 granted 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 for 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 and Tier 2 emissions standards, 40

or 94) or retro fitting existing engines to meet the newer Tier standards.

1 is powered by eight (8), CAT Model 3612 diesel-fired, Stationary Compression Ignition 

(CI) Internal Combustion Engines (ICE), each generating around 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 preconstruction and operating permit for conducting exploratory drilling activity on the Outer Continental 

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 providing 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 granted 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 and 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 has 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 meet the emission standards established under 40 

CFR 60.4201. As set forth in 40 CFR 60.4201(d), stationary CI ICE manufacturers must certify nonemergency stationary CI ICE to the emission standards for new marine CI engines in 40 CFR 94.8, 

as applicable, for all pollutants, for the same displacement and maximum engine power. 

 

In accordance with 40 CFR 94.8, exhaust emissions from marine compression-ignition engines shall 

not exceed the applicable EPA Tier 2 exhaust emission standards contained in Table A–1 of 40 CFR 

94.8(a)(2)(i). Based on the specifications of the existing main engines on DD-1, the replacement 

engines would be classified as an EPA Category 2 marine diesel engine (i.e., marine diesel engines 

with per cylinder displacement between 2.5 and 30 liters). Based on a comparison of the emission 

standards under this rule and the stack test data associated 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 below 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% load, our normal operating scenario for DP 

operations is 8.2 g/kW-hr, and on the CAT 3612 engines it is 8.0 g/kW-hr. The tests on all engines 

show that the NOx 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 data 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, the replacement of the main engines on DD-1 

provides no beneficial emissions reduction and is thereby 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 Combustion 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 engines, the main engines on C.R.Luigs currently fall 

under EPA Category 3 marine diesel engine (i.e., marine diesel engines with per cylinder 

displacement at or above 30 liters). The maximum rating 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 engine 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 lieu of one current MAN engine. (The C.R. Luigs 

has two engine rooms, with the second engine room being 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 concludes that the new engines cannot be 

installed on C.R Luigs considering the aforementioned reasoning and space consideration which 

provides that the replacement of the main engines is technically infeasible on C.R. Luigs. 

Additionally, please also see Appendix B2 for Transocean’s discussion regarding technical 

infeasibility of retrofitting the main engines on C.R. Luigs. 

 

b) With respect to NOx, the applicant should consider: derating engines, water-in-fuel emulsions, 

NOx absorber/scrubber technology, camshaft replacement/retooling of engines, lean de-NOx catalyst 

or hydrocarbon selective catalytic reduction, and intake air humidification/cooling. 

Response: The following responses are applicable for 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 NOx formation rates. Derating also reduces the engine's 

operating temperature, which can result in higher CO and HC emissions. The primary concern 

associated with derating the main engines is that 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. An additional safety concern would be that 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 emergency 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 infeasibility 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 NOx 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-roadDieselStudy.pdf states that running 

an engine on fuel-water emulsions makes it theoretically possible to reduce NOx emissions by up to 

50%. The limiting factor for fuel-water emulsions is the maximum capacity of the injection pumps. At 

present, Fuel Emulsion systems have been designed for, and installed on heavy fuel oil burning 

engines only. The test parameters for these systems analyzed engines during steady state 

operations at optimal load. As such, fuel consumption, 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 conducted on fuel emulsions, and further research must 

be performed in order to prove the viability of such systems. Evaluating transient load scenarios, 

determining optimized fuel/water 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. 

Several significant engineering hurdles must 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 loop 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 would require extensive 

analysis, pipe fitting and modification to monitoring systems aboard the 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 
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 pressurized fuel lines subjected 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 

returned to the day tank, there is no means of maintaining the emulsion and separation of the fuel 

and water would occur. Additionally, no means of monitoring 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. Disproportionate quantities of water would easily damage 

high pressure fuel pumps, low pressure transfer pumps, injectors and other critical rig equipment 

resulting in power loss, blackouts and loss of station keeping ability. This is an unacceptable risk to 

company assets and the environment. 

These significant disadvantages, combined with untested operating parameters and unproven 

results in MDF applications, provide a sufficient technical infeasibility argument to reject the 

installation of such systems aboard Transocean vessels until the technical issues addressed above 

can be resolved by the system suppliers. See attached Appendix C2 for a discussion from 

Transocean related to design challenges faced with diesel/water emulsions. 

NOx adsorber/scrubber technology: A NOx adsorber is a catalyst technology used to remove NOx

in lean exhaust for diesel and gasoline fired engines. The technology is currently available for mobile 

gasoline engines, but is still in the research and development phase for diesel engines. NOx

adsorbers consist of ceramic monolith containing parallel channels, coated with precious metal 

catalysts. During lean operation, NOx is stored in the form of nitrates produced by reactions between 

the NOx and catalyst. At regular intervals, a momentary reducing condition is produced inside the 

monolith by injecting reductant, causing the nitrates to decompose to nitrogen. While preliminary 

testing demonstrates promising results, the exhaust scrubbing & emissions reduction technology of 

the CSNOx is still a technology that is in experimental stages of development. There is no existing 

CSNOx installation aboard any vessel that is comparable to the operating conditions and power 

profiles of a dynamically positioned mobile off shore drilling unit (DP MODU). While the CSNOx

system demonstrates very promising results in laboratory and preliminary field testing, it is still very 

much an experimental system and much research and development is required to design a working, 

deployable CSNOx system that is safe to operate aboard a DP MODU. Please see Appendix C3 for 

a discussion from Transocean regarding NOx absorber/scrubber technology. 

Camshaft replacement/retooling of engines: Clean Cam Technology Systems (CCTS) offers 

retrofit cam shaft reengineering kits for some diesel engines. The kits reduce NOx emissions by 

increasing the volume of the residual exhaust gas that 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 can be easily replaced for smaller engines (most 

likely 2-stroke engines). However, it has not yet been 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. However, 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 currently available for large marine engines, they are 

considered technically infeasible options for the engines. 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 Humid 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 scavenging air, which flows to the engine through the inlet 

air manifold. Reductions in NOx emissions to water injection can be expected using this technique 

but the long term effects of using seawater (if used) is not known. Such technology can require 

additional freshwater production and storage for humidification of the intake air. Quite high volumes 

of water need to be evaporated to create enough humid 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 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 

adequately. Therefore, considering the aforementioned 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 Humid Air Motor emission reduction technology. 

c) With respect to PM/PM10/PM2.5/CO and VOC, the applicant should consider high-pressure fuel 

injection with aftercooler. 

Response: 

DD-1: The DD-1 main engines currently use a high pressure fuel injection system, and employ a 

charge air cooler. This will be modified in the BACT analysis accordingly. 

C.R.Luigs: The C.R.Luigs’ main engines currently use a high pressure fuel injection system 

(approximately 360 bar injection pressure), and they 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 accomplished by designing the tank to be loaded from the 

bottom of the tank. Submerged fill piping can be accomplished by extending fill pipe just above the 

bottom of the tank. Both these loading methodologies 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 factor. 

Please see Appendix D1 for cost estimation to redesign the fuel storage tanks on DD-1. The 

annualized cost per ton of VOC emission reduction is 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 tanks are bottom loaded and have baffle plates in the

tanks to minimize any turbulence/sloshing. This will 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 conventional selective catalytic reduction (SCR). If 

the temperatures are too high, then BHPB should consider a high temperature catalyst as 

part of the BACT analysis for NOx: 

Response: 

DD-1: The CAT 3612 engines on DD-1 operate with average 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 exhaust gas temperatures range from 

approximately 360 to 520 degrees Celsius depending on engine load. 

Typically for a high temperature catalyst to perform efficiently, temperature of 550 ̊C and above are 

preferred. Hence, this precludes the consideration of high temperature catalyst as BACT for NOx. 

Comment 4: SCR has been deemed as technically infeasible due to space constraints on the 

Luigs drillship and DD-1 semisubmersible. We understand, however, that other OCS sources 

are requiring SCR on their units. Therefore, we would appreciate a more detailed account of 

the space requirements for SCR as well as the amount of available space on both the Luigs 

drillship and DD-1 semisubmersible: 

Response: 

DD-1: DD-1 is already equipped with a Siemens, SINOx 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 data rates the maximum wet exhaust gas flow at 

26,468 Nm3/h, with a nominal exhaust gas temperature of 375 ̊C. NOx reduction was designed for 

90%, with a NOx rate upstream of the SINOx 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, compatibility 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, large variations in 

demand from the power plant. As a consequence of these rapid changes in demand, the diesel-fired 

engines cannot function in the steady state high‐load environment that is critical for optimal catalyst 

performance. Since the engines will not run under uninterrupted steady loads, Transocean has 

provided that the NOx reduction efficiency of this SCR system may be up to 80 percent less than the 

expected NOx reduction efficiency. The end result comprises alternating periods of diminished NOx

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 unreached 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. 

Transocean is not aware of the existence of an effective modulating control system which can match 

the dynamic performance characteristics of a MODU power plant. There is a difficulty in modulating 

the consumption of urea (and ultimately NOx reduction) real-time. If the exhaust gases from different 

engines at different loads were mixed, it would be difficult to properly control the amount of reducing 

agent to be injected for proper NOx removal. Further, achieving 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, 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 Transocean 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 seen from the appended drawings for the C.R.Luigs 

drillship, the stainless steel urea tank requires more space than a complete engine and will not fit in 

the available space arrangement. The tank would be 14 meters long and 3 meter in diameter. 

Additionally, the storage of urea requires a stainless tank, and none of C.R. Luigs other tanks meet 

this requirement. See Appendix E2 for details on the 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 section. 

This clearly demonstrates that all SCR-related equipment will not fit in the available space. Hence, 

installing a SCR is not a technically feasible option 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 analysis, 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 Table comparing the proposed potential 

emissions with PSD SER’s. 

Comment 6: According to the charts in Attachment 5 of the addendum, the NOx BACT limits 

of 14.5 and 8.2 g/kW-hr for the main engines of Luigs drillship and DD-1 semisubmersible 

respectively were based on the 70th percentile (of said charts). It is unclear what data was 

used to generate the charts and said data seems inconsistent 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 the near future: 

Response: Based on a review of the C.R. Luigs and DD-1 stack test data, BHPB is developing 

revised stack test charts to properly display the results obtained during the stack test. As such, 

BHPB will submit to EPA revised stack test charts associated with NOx and CO emissions from the 

C.R. Luigs and DD-1 main engines. In the initial application, NOx emissions were estimated from 

stack test data based on the conservative assumption that all NOx could be represented by NO2. 

However, during the stack test NOx, NO2, and NO concentrations were measured for each stack test 

run. Since the stack test data reports both NO and NO2 concentrations separately, BHPB has 

completed additional emission calculations to estimate NOx emissions as the sum of the individual 

emissions of NO and NO2 measured during the stack test. BHPB believes this is a more accurate 

representation of NOx emissions from the main engines, as the stack test data shows that over 95 

percent of NOx is NO. 

Note that three test runs were conducted on each engine at two different loads, and EPA Methods 1-

4, 7E, 10 and 25A were followed to estimate emissions. Please see Appendix G1 and G2 for the 

revised stack test emissions from the eight (8), main 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 emission calculations, Part 71 forms, and proposed 

BACT limits for the main engines consistent with the revised stack test calculations provided in this 

submittal. 

APPENDIX A 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
APPENDIX A1: EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR DD1 MAIN ENGINES

BHP Billiton Petroleum, 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 kW

Operating Time at 52% average 

load [2] = 6570 hrs/yr 0.520833333

Number of Engines = 8

Fuel [3] = Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel

Emission Factor

Maximum 

Emissions per 

engine

Maximum 

Emissions per 

engine

Annual 

Emissions per 

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

 NOx + 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 

NOx + THC emission factor obtained from EPA Tier II Standard. Refer 40CFR94.8(a)(i), Table A-1 

Represents maximum power output of the generator 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 proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion engines.

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
APPENDIX A2: TEST BED RESULTS FOR DD1 MAIN ENGINES

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 



APPENDIX B 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
APPENDIX B1: SPACE REQUIREMENTS ON C.R. LUIGS DRILLSHIP TO 

INSTALL NEW ENGINES

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 

APPENDIX B2: RE-ENGINING FACTORS FOR MAIN ENGINE ON C.R. LUIGS 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, 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. 

Re‐engining factors on C.R. Luigs   

A comparison of the MAN 9L32/40 diesel to the 710GC­T2 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 the 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, the 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 the 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.  
APPENDIX C 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
APPENDIX C1: TECHNICAL INFEASIBILITY OF DERATING MAIN ENGINES

BHP Billiton Petroleum, 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 de­rate the

engines.  

Derating Engines: Trinity started the discussion by stating that NOx 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 that 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 additional information is required.

Engine de­rating 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 have 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 capacity 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 rig 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 greater, 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 NOx , it can be presumed that this would occur by derating, but this would need to be verified by

test data which is not available.  
APPENDIX C2: DESIGN CHALLENGES FACED WITH DIESEL/WATER 

EMULSIONS

BHP Billiton Petroleum, 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 engines running medium density 

fuel (MDF - diesel) under low and variable load conditions. 

Technical Challenges of Emulsified Fuel 

At present, Fuel Emulsion systems have been designed for, and installed on heavy fuel 

oil burning engines only. The test parameters for these systems all analyzed engines 

during steady state operations at optimal load. As such, fuel consumption, combustion 

pressure and fuel/water ratios were optimized 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. Alongside the low load operating characteristics of the fleet, 

engines aboard Transocean vessels are subject to highly variable loads imposed by 

drilling equipment, propulsion systems, etc. These load scenarios 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 systems. Evaluating transient load scenarios, 

determining optimized fuel/water 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 such as the C.R. Luigs, station keeping is 

entirely reliant upon the continual performance of the engines onboard. Without power, 

the ship will drift off station, requiring the 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 ocean 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 crew or the surrounding environment. 

Several significant engineering hurdles must 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 loop 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 would require extensive analysis, pipe fitting and 

modification to monitoring systems aboard the 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 increase pressure head that already exists in 

the fuel lines and could lead to excessive fuel pressure to the engines. Over 

pressurized fuel lines subjected 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 returned to the day tank, there is no means of 

maintaining the emulsion and separation of the fuel and water would occur. 

Additionally, no means of monitoring or maintaining the emulsion within the day tank 

has been offered by system vendors. 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. Disproportionate quantities of water would easily damage 

high pressure fuel pumps, low pressure transfer pumps, injectors and other critical rig 

equipment resulting in power loss, 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 substantial engineering design project. 

Conclusions 

The potential for mechanical failure of critical rig systems greatly increases with the 

installation of a diesel/water emulsion systems in their current configuration. These 

significant disadvantages, combined with untested operating parameters and unproven 

results in MDF applications, are enough to reject the installation of such systems aboard 

Transocean vessels until the technical issues addressed above can be resolved by the 

system suppliers. 
APPENDIX C3: FEASIBILITY OF SCRUBBER TECHNOLOGY FOR NOX

REDUCTION ON A DRILLSHIP

BHP Billiton Petroleum, 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. 

NOx Emissions reducing scrubber suitability 

for a DP drillship. 

While preliminary testing demonstrates promising results, the exhaust scrubbing & emissions reduction 

technology of the CSNOx is still a technology that is in experimental stages of development. In fact, there is only 

one CSNOx system installed on any vessel, a tanker, the White Sea. There are significant differences between the 

White Sea and the engines of the Deepwater 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), directly coupled to a fixed pitch propeller. This 600 

mm bore engine utilizes no reduction gearing or reverse gearing. (This engine type has capability of 

directly controlling ship speed and propulsion direction by changing engine rpm and rotation direction.) 

Engines aboard the DWP are three Wartsila Vasa 12V32 and three Wartsila 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 (Bunker C) fuel oil is a much heavier fuel. 

3) While at sea at cruising speed, the speed of a main propulsion engine of a crude oil carrier is at a fairly, 

steady, constant speed. Greater than 90% of the life 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, standard operating procedure is to by-pass systems that 

would prevent safe maneuvering of the vessel. Whereas 90% of the life of a dynamically 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 CSNOx has potential to reduce NOx and CO2

emissions, we are not in a position to make that assumption 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 development 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 CSNOx 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 testing, 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 position 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 develop 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 system and much research and development is required to 

design a working, deployable CSNOx system that is safe to operate aboard a DP MODU. A system that 

is safe for the engines, the MODU, operations, the crew and the environment 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 this 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 these results will be comparable to 

how a system aboard the DWP will perform. The targeted vessel operates in a different operational 

power profile and environment as that of the DWP. We are working with the client of the targeted vessel 

to support this project. 
APPENDIX C4: HUMID AIR MOTOR EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
          4 Greenway Plaza (77046) 

Post Office Box 2765 

Houston, Texas 7725 2-2765

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 injection currently being investigated by some diesel 

engine manufacturers. These motors consist of evaporating water into the relatively hot 

scavenging air, which flows to the engine through the inlet air manifold. Similar reductions in 

NOx emissions to water injection can be expected using this technique but 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 may be retrofitted onto older engines. 

There are issues to be resolved:  

Quite high volumes of water need to be evaporated 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 the 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 adequately. Both these conditions make it technology that 

would not be combatable in offshore drilling operations. 
APPENDIX D 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
APPENDIX D1: COST ESTIMATE TO RE-DESIGN DD1 FUEL STORAGE 

TANKS

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
Project Name:

PA Number:Plan State:Date Range:

Report Run on:Source Type Code

Line Description Account Number Activity Code Cost Basis Quantity Currency Unit Cost Net 

WB04 Inspection 113111 FUEL-TANK-FTANK 

Inspection / 3rd Party - Marine Chemist

EXP 1 USD 10,000 

Inspection equipment, material or rentals

EXP 1 USD 500 

Inspection Preparation - Clean Tanks

EXP 1 USD 45,000 

Inspection Rep's Labor - ABS EXP 1 USD 10,000 

Travel & Expenses - ABS, Tank Cleaners and Marine Chemist

EXP 1 USD 5,000 

WB05 Engineering 113111 FUEL-TANK-FTANK 

Eng. for Design/Drafting - Update Dwgs.

EXP 1 USD 2,000 

Eng. Report After Project EXP 1 USD 2,000 

Engineering Study - REA EXP 1 USD 5,000 

WB11 Scaffolding 113111 FUEL-TANK-FTANK 

Scaffolding Crew & Supervisors EXP 1 USD 30,000 

WB12 Removals 113111 FUEL-TANK-FTANK 

Environmental Disposal - sludge EXP 1 USD 5,000 

WB20 Piping / Valves works 113111 FUEL-TANK-FTANK 

Pipe, Valves, Fittings, Hangers, Etc.

EXP 1 USD 12,500 

Warehouse Issues - PPE, Misc. EXP 1 USD 2,000 

WB21 Assembly & Installation 113111 FUEL-TANK-FTANK 

Contractor - M&M Fitters and Welders

EXP 1 USD 75,000 

Portable Welders and supplies EXP 1 USD 5,000 

Warehouse Issues - PPE EXP 1 USD 1,000 

WB26 Surveys 113111 FUEL-TANK-FTANK 

Surveyor Labor - Work Scope EXP 1 USD 10,000 

Travel & Expenses EXP 1 USD 2,000 

Totals 

09/15/2011 to 09/15/20119/15/2011 8:08:42 AM by HQ\Scott.Cote

GSF Development Driller I (2114)

2114-11-E-Fuel Oil Tnk UpgradDraft
APPENDIX D2: COST ANALYSIS FOR EMISSION REDUCTION ON DD1

DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANK

The cost associated with installing diesel fuel storage tank to submerged fill loading on DD1 is 

shown in Attachment D1. 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 factor. Appendix B of 

EPA’s draft New Source Review Workshop Manual (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 years and the value used for real interest rate is 

10%, in keeping with current EPA guidelines and Office of Management and Budget 

recommendations for regulatory analyses. Using 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 uncontrolled 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% reduction 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 reduction on an annualized basis 

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

 = $ 581,438 / ton emission reduced 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
APPENDIX E 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
APPENDIX E1: APPLICATION OF SCR SYSTEMS FOR MODU DIESEL 

ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS

BHP Billiton Petroleum, 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 (NOx) 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 NOx

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 NOx‐reducing technologies suitable for use on diesel engines, including

selective catalytic reduction (SCR).  In the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) process, anhydrous

ammonia (NH3) 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 NH3 reacts with NOx

to form molecular nitrogen and water.  Depending on system design, NOx removal of 80% to

90% and higher is achievable.  The reaction of NH3 and NOx is favored by the presence of excess

oxygen (fuel‐lean conditions). The primary variable affecting NOx reduction is temperature.

Optimum NOx 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 O2 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 NOx. The ammonia oxidation to NOx 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 NOx 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 185o

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 NOx reduction is substantially reduced.    For example, it is

estimated that NOx 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 NOx 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 NOx 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 NOx

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 NOx 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]
APPENDIX E2: SPACE REQUIREMENTS ON C.R. LUIGS DRILLSHIP TO 

INSTALL UREA TANK

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 

APPENDIX E3: SPACE REQUIREMENTS ON C.R. LUIGS DRILLSHIP TO 

INSTALL SCR REACTOR

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 

APPENDIX F 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

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

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 

APPENDIX F1: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED POTENTIAL EMISSIONS WITH 

PSD SER 
BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. 4-3 Trinity Consultants

Sake Project 

respective Significant Emission Rates (SERs) defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i), PSD review is 

required. 

On May 13, 2010, the U.S. EPA issued the final “Prevention 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 CO2e 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 within 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. 

TABLE 4-1. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED POTENTIAL EMISSIONS WITH PSD SIGNIFICANT 

EMISSION RATES

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 

PM10 41.89 36.28 15 Yes 

PM2.5 40.88 35.25 10 Yes 

NOX 1,698.08 1304.63 40 Yes 

SO2 0.94 0.92 40 No 

H2SO4 0.03 0.03 7 No 

CO 373.09 307.95 100 Yes 

VOC 82.89 76.60 40 Yes 

GHG (CO2e) 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 NOx and CO are greater than the 250 tpy major source 

threshold. Additionally, PSD review is required for PM10, PM2.5, NOx, CO, GHGs, and VOC, 

because emissions of these pollutants exceed their respective PSD SERs. 

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

 4

 CO2 equivalent encompasses a list of six Greenhouse Gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. 
APPENDIX G 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
APPENDIX G1: REVISED STACK TEST EMISSIONS FROM THE MAIN 

ENGINES ON C.R. LUIGS

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.6 12.8 12.6

%CO2 = % 4.00 4.00 3.50

Pbar = in.Hg 30 30 30

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.7502 0.7389 0.8174

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 997 996 997 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.002201 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.58824 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 31.02 30.43 33.72 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 31.72

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.09

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 30.64

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

1 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.7 12.8 12.8

%CO2 = % 3.50 3.50 3.50

Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 1.185 1.1789 1.1647

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 984 984 965 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 49.01 47.74 46.76 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 47.84

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.52

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 46.32

Average E (VOC as propane)lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(std))

Engine Number 

Load Percentage 

Sample Date 

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and 

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 1 (60%)

2 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 13.6 13.6 13.6

%CO2 = % 3.00 2.50 3.00

Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.89 0.9043 0.8963

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1155 988 966 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 45.77 38.56 36.31 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 40.21

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.30

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 38.92

Average E (VOC as propane)lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(std))

Engine Number 

Load Percentage 

Sample Date 

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and 

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 2 (40%)

3 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 13.3 13.5 13.3

%CO2 = % 3.00 3.00 3.00

Pbar = in.Hg 30.2 30.1 30.1

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 1.2028 1.1962 1.1902

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 950 944 930 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 49.47 48.08 47.10 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 48.22

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.63

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 46.58

Average E (VOC as propane)lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(std))

Engine Number 

Load Percentage 

Sample Date 

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and 

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 2 (60%)

4 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.1 12.8 12.6

%CO2 = % 5.50 4.50 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.6985 0.8451 0.8279

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1170 1195 1168 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 32.85 41.07 39.36 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 37.76

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.61

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 36.15

Average E (VOC as propane) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

5 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.4 12.3 12.4

%CO2 = % 3.00 3.00 3.50

Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 1.1398 1.1471 1.136

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1150 1154 1148 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 System 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 System 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 53.96 54.00 52.97 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 53.64

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.89

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 51.76

Average E (VOC as propane)lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(std))

Engine Number 

Load Percentage 

Sample Date 

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and 

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 3 (60%)

6 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.6 12.9 12.5

%CO2 = % 3.50 4.00 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.8 0.7514 0.8471

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1074 1076 1024 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 36.15 33.49 35.52 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 35.06

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.32

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 33.73

Average E (VOC as propane)lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(std))

Engine Number 

Load Percentage 

Sample Date 

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and 

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 4 (40%)

7 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.7 12.9 12.7

%CO2 = % 4.00 4.00 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 30.1 30.1 30.1

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 1.1229 1.3317 1.1438

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1029 992 991 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 System 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 System 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 47.98 55.33 47.56 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 50.29

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.58

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 48.71

Average E (VOC as propane)lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(std))

Engine Number 

Load Percentage 

Sample Date 

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and 

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 4 (60%)

8 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.8 13 13.5

%CO2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 30.26 30.26 30.3

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.8765 0.8625 0.8524

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1213 1224 1211 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 45.14 44.40 42.93 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 44.16

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.81

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 42.34

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.9 13.3 12.8

%CO2 = % 4.00 4.50 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 30.3 30.3 30.3

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 1.1876 1.1679 1.1688

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1155 1138 1145 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 57.79 55.69 56.74 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 56.74

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.51

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 55.23

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

10 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.8 12.8 12.8

%CO2 = % 4.00 4.00 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 30.24 30.24 30.2

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.7381 0.8899 0.8677

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1302 1288 1142 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 40.22 49.63 40.68 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 43.51

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.67

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 41.84

Average E (VOC as propane) lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

11 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.7 12.4 12.4

%CO2 = % 3.50 3.50 3.00

Pbar = in.Hg 30.2 30.2 30.2

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 1.2168 1.2139 1.1694

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1130 1167 1104 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 57.79 58.92 53.81 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 56.84

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 2.20

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 54.64

Average E (VOC as propane)lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(std))

Engine Number 

Load Percentage 

Sample Date 

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and 

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 6 (60%)

12 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 11.8 12.1 12

%CO2 = % 4.00 3.50 3.50

Pbar = in.Hg 30.24 30.24 30.24

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.7721 0.8552 0.7972

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1306 1294 1291 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 42.58 45.99 42.29 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 43.62

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.74

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 41.88

Average E (VOC as propane)lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(std))

Engine Number 

Load Percentage 

Sample Date 

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and 

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 7 (40%)

13 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.2 12.4 11.8

%CO2 = % 4.00 3.50 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 30.2 30.2 30.2

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 1.111 1.1135 1.0875

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1180 1119 1170 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 54.60 52.01 52.21 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 52.94

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 2.04

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 50.90

Average E (VOC as propane)lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(std))

Engine Number 

Load Percentage 

Sample Date 

Volume of 1lbmole @Tstd and 

C.R.Luigs Stack Test Emission Calcs v3.1 - Engine 7 (60%)

14 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.5 12.6 12.4

%CO2 = % 4.50 4.60 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 30.26 30.26 30.3

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.8055 0.7869 0.7963

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1205 1206 1205 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 40.50 38.98 39.30 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 39.60

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.14

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 38.45

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

15 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.7 13.2 12.8

%CO2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 30.3 30.3 30.3

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 1.0414 1.0932 1.1406

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1176 1184 1181 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 53.19 52.05 55.80 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 53.68

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.30

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 52.38

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

16 of 16 9/30/2011
APPENDIX G2: REVISED STACK TEST EMISSIONS FROM THE MAIN 

ENGINES ON DD1 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. Trinity Consultants 

Sake Prospect Drilling Project 
BHP 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

%O2 = % 13.1 13 13.2

%CO2 = % 4.00 4.00 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.5991 0.6189 0.6251

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 569 568 572 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 15.97 16.37 16.51 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 16.28

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.38

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 15.90

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

1 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.7 12.5 12.5

%CO2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.845 0.8349 0.854

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 617 611 613 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 24.16 23.78 24.35 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 24.10

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.68

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 23.42

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

2 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 13 13.1 13.1

%CO2 = % 4.50 5.00 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 29.82 29.82 29.82

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.626 0.6115 0.5552

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 585 594 565 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 17.03 16.83 14.62 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 16.16

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.44

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 15.72

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

3 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.6 12.6 12.6

%CO2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.8984 0.8888 0.8536

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 600 596 600 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 25.55 24.71 23.82 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 24.69

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.80

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 23.89

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

4 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.9 12.8 12.7

%CO2 = % 5.50 4.50 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 29.74 29.74 29.74

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.6265 0.6314 0.6161

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 664 674 678 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 19.20 19.67 19.34 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 19.40

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.57

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 18.84

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

5 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.8 12.7 12.7

%CO2 = % 4.50 4.00 3.50

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.8672 0.9189 0.8183

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 714 707 722 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 28.46 29.93 26.95 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 28.45

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.64

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 27.81

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

6 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.9 13.1 13.1

%CO2 = % 5.00 4.50 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.5919 0.6134 0.6296

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 607 614 615 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 16.30 16.98 17.63 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 16.97

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.31

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 16.66

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

7 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.6 12.7 12.7

%CO2 = % 5.00 4.50 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.8579 0.8894 0.8144

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 667 656 663 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 25.84 26.41 24.38 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 25.54

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.44

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 25.10

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

8 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.6 12.6 12.6

%CO2 = % 5.00 4.50 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.6355 0.6027 0.6017

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1128 1116 1113 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 32.68 30.88 30.80 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 31.45

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.12

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 30.34

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.1 12.1 12.1

%CO2 = % 4.50 4.50 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.8598 0.8514 0.855

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 1169 1201 1171 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 46.91 46.97 45.64 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 46.51

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 1.74

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 44.77

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

10 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.6 12.8 12.6

%CO2 = % 4.00 4.50 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.5201 0.5075 0.5891

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 718 661 700 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 17.39 15.25 18.81 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 17.15

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.26

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 16.88

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

11 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.2 12.2 12.3

%CO2 = % 4.00 4.00 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.8293 0.8273 0.8201

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 825 801 772 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 31.03 30.13 28.83 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 30.00

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.44

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 29.55

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

12 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 13 12.9 13

%CO2 = % 4.00 4.50 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.6064 0.6661 0.5978

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 590 638 593 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 16.52 19.55 16.43 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 17.50

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.19

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 17.31

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

13 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.5 12.6 13.3

%CO2 = % 4.50 4.50 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.9356 0.9678 0.9169

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 695 722 712 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 30.33 32.68 30.63 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 31.21

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.82

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 30.39

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

14 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 13.1 13.3 12.6

%CO2 = % 4.50 4.00 4.00

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.6754 0.6821 0.6973

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 683 708 719 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 21.72 22.48 23.18 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 22.46

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.59

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 21.87

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

15 of 16 9/30/2011
BHP 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

%O2 = % 12.4 12.5 12.4

%CO2 = % 4.00 4.50 4.50

Pbar = in.Hg 29.7 29.7 29.7

Pg = in.H2O 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.H2OΛ1/2 0.9293 0.8375 0.8391

ΔH = in.H2O 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

NOx = ppm 771 752 756 Corrected from at Stack Measurements

NO2 = 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

NO2 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 NO2 = lb/lb-mol 46.006 46.006 46.006

MW NO = lb/lb-mol 30.006 30.006 30.006

MW(CO2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.44 0.44 0.44

MW(O2)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.32 0.32 0.32

MW(N2orCO)/100 = lb/lb-mol 0.28 0.28 0.28

MW H2O= 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)

Λ1/2 85.49 85.49 85.49

ρω = lb/ml 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022

R = in.Hg-ft3

/

.

R-lb-m 21.85 21.85 21.85

Rvol = ft3

/lb-mol 385.588 385.588 385.588

Calculated Variables

%CO+N2 = % 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 Eq 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 = ft2 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 33.26 29.04 29.65 Sum of E(NO) and E(NO2)

E (NO2) = 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 (NOx) = lb/hr 30.65

Average E (NO2) = lb/hr 0.71

Average E (NO) = lb/hr 29.94

Average E (VOC as propane)=lb/hr

[1] Trinity assumes that Vlc estimation includes Difference in Volume of impinger contents as measured (Vf

-Vi) including water collected on silica gel (Wf-Wi)

[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)+Vwsg(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%)

16 of 16 9/30/2011
APPENDIX G3: C.R. LUIGS DRILL SHIP REVISED STACK TEST SUMMARY 

BHP Billiton Petroleum, 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 Petroleum

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 Petroleum

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 

APPENDIX G4: DD1 REVISED STACK TEST SUMMARY 
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