IN THIS ISSUE |
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PART 2 JAY SAYS |
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Part 2 |
Stage 3: Level 2 Feasibility Analysis  Goal: Optimize CHP system design, including capacity, thermal application, and operation. Determine final CHP system pricing and return on investment.
Timeframe: 1-4 months
Typical Costs: $10,000 - $100,000, depending upon system size, complexity, and procurement approach
Candidate site level of effort required: 16-80 hours, depending upon complexity and procurement approach
Questions to answer: Has the CHP system been designed to meet the goals of the site? Is the Level 2 analysis complete, comprehensive, and sound? Does the project meet the organization's requirements for investment? What is the optimal procurement approach for this project Will you procure this CHP system?
_______________________________________________________
Level 2 CHP Feasibility Studies Overview and Checklist
The tool provides an introduction to the elements of a Level 2 CHP feasibility study. It also includes a checklist that energy users who are considering implementing CHP at their facilities can use to:
• Review the results of a completed Level 2 CHP feasibility study for completeness
• Help develop the scope for the procurement of a Level 2 study
The checklist is a comprehensive listing of the items and issues that are considered in Level 2 studies. Please note, however, that each item in the checklist may not apply to every project.
What Is a Level 2 Feasibility Study?
A Level 2 CHP feasibility study is a detailed analysis of the economic and technical viability of installing a CHP system. Usually, a Level 2 study will consider the return on investment for multiple CHP system sizes, prime movers, and heat applications. The Level 2 study normally follows a Level 1 CHP feasibility analysis and is based on more detailed engineering and operational data from the site.
The purposes of a Level 2 study are to:
• Replace the assumptions used in the Level 1 feasibility analysis with verified data to identify optimal CHP system configuration and sizing, appropriate thermal applications, and economic operating strategies.
• Estimate final CHP system pricing.
• Calculate return on investment.
The outcomes of a Level 2 study are:
• Pricing estimates for construction and operation and maintenance of the CHP system.
• Existing and projected utility rate analysis.
• Final project economics, including simple payback and life-cycle cost analysis of the investment.
The goals of a Level 2 study are to:
• Ensure that the recommended CHP system meets the operational and economic goals of the investor.
• Provide all the information needed to make a final investment decision.
Who Can Conduct a Level 2 Feasibility Study?
Different types of companies, including engineering firms, independent consultants, project developers, and equipment suppliers, can conduct Level 2 studies. Project developers and equipment suppliers may do so for reduced costs if the end user agrees to move forward with them on the project if the results of the feasibility study meet some mutually agreed upon threshold. Alternatively, engineering firms or consultants can provide an independent third-party analysis of the CHP opportunity at an end-user’s site.
Regardless of the type of organization selected for the Level 2 study, end users should look for the following critical qualities and capabilities when selecting the company that will conduct the analysis:
• Previous experience with CHP and with the type of application under study.
Sufficient in-house resources covering a full range of expertise, including engineering, finance, operation, and environmental permitting.
• A proven track record of successfully completed Level 2 studies.
A number of CHP Partners provide both the experience and resources required for a successful Level 2 study.
Suggestions for Ensuring the Success of a Level 2 Feasibility Study
A number of best practices have emerged for conducting successful Level 2 CHP feasibility studies. End users can use the best practices that follow as models as they undertake their own studies.
• Before the Level 2 study begins, it is recommended that the end user work together with the engineer, consultant, project developer, or other entity selected to perform the analysis to develop a mutual understanding of all operational goals for the project, including needs for control, monitoring and maintenance, and whether the system will be designed to run in the event of a utility outage. The potential for future load growth, due either to planned site expansion or new construction, should also be considered.
• Successful Level 2 feasibility studies generally involve multiple site visits and thorough review of existing electrical, mechanical, and structural drawings.
• Accurate system pricing generally involves making upfront determinations about system size and location, prime mover, thermal applications, and preliminary design drawings, including flow diagrams, equipment specifications, monitoring and control specification, piping and wiring, and tie-in to existing building systems.
• Level 2 studies may need to include a detailed thermal and electrical load profile to determine final system sizing and operation. To the extent possible, hard data should be used to develop these profiles, pulled from electric utility interval data, existing controls systems and/or the installation of data-loggers at the site.
CHECKLIST FOR LEVEL 2 FEASIBILITY STUDIES
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Clear delineation of the objective of the feasibility study.
1.2 Brief description of site, energy needs, and recommended CHP equipment selection.
1.3 Overview of project concept and economics. Simple payback, net present value, and/or discounted cash flow for various financial arrangements.
1.4 Recommendations and rationale.
2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE PLAN AND EQUIPMENT
2.1 Description of existing site and major energy consuming equipment; identifysystems/equipment that could be replaced or impacted by the proposed CHP system.
2.2 Plot plan of site and proposed location of CHP system.
2.3 Description and location of existing electric feeds, transformers, and meters including critical parameters such as voltage.
2.4 Description and location of existing gas lines, meters, fuel storage, etc., including critical parameters such as pressure and capacity.
2.5 Identification of any site/location constraints or restrictions (site access, adjacent properties, noise/zoning limitations).
2.6 Site expansion plans, if applicable.
2.7 Emergency/back-up power requirements and existing generating equipment.
2.8 Review of any possible power and thermal energy sales arrangements.
3 SITE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Review of recent gas and electric bills.
3.2 Review of current and projected gas (or other fuel) and electric rates.
3.3 Development of average hourly use patterns for each type of energy (on a seasonal basis if appropriate) with thermal energy uses segregated by type/quality(e.g., temperature, pressure, form [steam, hot water, hot air]).
3.4 Tables and/or graphs showing daily and annual use profiles for each form of energy (e.g., electric/steam/hot water/chilled water).
3.5 Breakdown of energy usage, by type of energy, for equipment that is to be displaced by CHP.
3.6 Review of CHP analysis methodology.
3.6.1 Description of computer modeling methods used.
3.6.2 Displaced thermal loads estimates and methodology
3.6.3 Displaced electrical requirement estimates and methodology.
4 CHP EQUIPMENT SELECTION
4.1 Rationale for equipment selection.
4.1.1 Thermal output
4.1.2 Capacity
4.1.3 Emissions
4.1.4 Site constraints
4.1.5 Other
4.2 Discussion of alternative CHP system configurations
4.3 A quantitative and qualitative comparison of prime movers evaluated, including model, kW capacity, fuel consumption comparison, seasonal performance, electric and thermal energy displaced, sound levels, emissions, maintenance requirements, availability/reliability, net revenue, capital cost, simple pay back, or other “profitability index” used by the client.
5 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED CHP SYSTEM
5.1 System description – prime mover, generator, heat recovery
5.2 Electric and total CHP efficiency, amount of site energy displaced
5.3 Schematic of system – detailed layout
5.4 Single line diagram of thermal system
5.5 Single line diagram of electrical system.
5.6 System tie-ins
5.7 Controls and monitoring
5.8 Necessary site modifications
6 SYSTEM OPERATION
6.1 Operating hours per year.
6.2 Recommended operating profile (e.g., thermally base loaded, electric load following, peaking).
6.3 Stand-alone (islanding) and black start capability needed?
6.3.1 Is load shedding required? If so, how is it implemented? How is crossover accomplished?
7 REGULATORY AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW
7.1 Review and description of emissions requirements for permitting, including source(s) of information.
7.2 Review and description of local siting and zoning requirements.
8 TOTAL CHP SYSTEM COSTS
8.1 Total costs – Summary of all inclusive or turnkey costs.
8.1.1 Capital costs - equipment
8.1.2 Installations costs – engineering, construction, commissioning
8.2 Capital costs - line item breakdown of major equipment/component costs.
8.2.1 Prime mover
8.2.2 Fuel compressor (if needed)
8.2.3 Black start capability (if needed)
8.2.4 Generator
8.2.5 Heat recovery
8.2.6 Cooling tower or other heat dump
8.2.7 Site electric tie-in and grid interconnection (islanding requirements included if needed)
8.2.8 Controls
8.2.9 Site thermal tie-in
8.2.10 Additional thermal utilization equipment (e.g., absorption chillers)
8.2.11 Other equipment/modifications
8.2.11.1 Sound attenuation
8.2.11.2 Stack
8.2.11.3 Inlet air handling
8.2.11.4 Vibration
8.2.12 Emission controls
8.3 Installation costs – line-item breakdown of engineering, permitting, construction,and contingency costs
8.3.1 Site preparation
8.3.2 Buildings (if needed)
8.3.3 Materials
8.3.4 Engineering
8.3.5 Construction
8.3.6 Permitting fees
8.3.7 Contingency
9 Non-fuel O&M costs (fixed and variable) – details on maintenance costs for major system components and site interfaces; information on costs of turnkey versus self-maintenance, and major maintenance/overhaul items and schedule
9.1 Prime mover
9.2 Heat recovery equipment
9.3 Thermal utilization equipment
9.4 Emissions control
10 PROJECT SCHEDULING-BREAKDOWN OF EACH PHASE (should include major subcategories or elements)
10.1 Purchase of equipment.
10.2 Construction
10.3 Permitting
10.4 Commissioning ASSUMPTIONS FOR CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
11 ASSUMPTIONS FOR CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
11.1 Financing options and assumptions
11.1.1 Debt/equity ratio
11.1.2 Discount rate
11.1.3 Interest rate/Cost of debt
11.1.4 Tax rate
11.2 Total installed costs
11.2.1 CHP equipment and installation from Section 8 above
11.2.2 Any capital credit for displaced equipment purchases
11.3 Operation and maintenance
11.3.1 Self maintained
11.3.2 Supplier/vendor maintenance contract
11.4 Fuel and electric rates
11.4.1 Based on detailed tariffs/rates
11.4.1.1 Electric – customer charge, demand charge, commodity charge; peak, off-peak, shoulder
11.4.1.2 Gas – commodity, delivery
11.4.2 Provide fuel/electric escalation rates assumed for outyears.
11.4.3 Review any changes to tariffs due to CHP
11.4.3.1 Supplemental electric tariffs
11.4.3.2 Standby rates/exit fees
11.4.3.3 Gas incentive rates
11.5 Any additional costs or credits
11.5.1 Incentives
11.5.2 Value of reliability
11.5.2.1 Cost of facility outages and value of increased power reliability
11.5.3 Other benefits that can be monetized or assigned value
11.5.3.1 Emission credits
11.5.3.2 Other
11.6 Sensitivity analysis – impact of varying:
11.6.1 Fuel costs
11.6.2 Electric rates
11.6.3 Incentives
11.6.4 CHP system availability (impact of CHP outages)
12 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PREFERRED SYSTEM
13 APPENDICES
13.1 Engineering calculations
13.2 Copies of appropriate regulations
13.3 Vendor’s brochures
13.4 Other pertinent information
_____________________________________________________________
PROCUREMENT GUIDE: SELECTING A CONTRACTOR/PROJECT DEVELOPER Overview
CHP project development and implementation are similar to many central plant construction projects or comprehensive energy conservation measures. However, a critical distinguishing characteristic of CHP system procurement is the multi-disciplinary nature of the project:
CHP project development requires the services of mechanical, electrical, and structural engineers and contractors; equipment suppliers; a project manager; environmental consultants; and financiers. The acquisition of these services may be through a traditional design-bid-build approach, which can require the host site or owner to provide a high level of oversight and project management. An alternate approach is to contract with a turnkey CHP project developer, who will offer a single point of contact for the end-user and provide all of the above through in-house capability or through subcontracting.
The selection of a contractor or project developer is a critical decision. The facility owner often relies on the contractor or developer to manage the process of transforming a feasible concept into a functioning project. Some owners have the expertise, resources, and desire to lead the development effort on their own, but even in this case, choosing the right contractor can greatly improve the likelihood of project success.
This section provides guidance to owners who are attempting to determine (1) the role that they might take in the development process and (2) the right contractor or project developer to get the project successfully developed, financed, and built. A number of CHP Partners provide both the experience and resources required for successful project development and management.
From the owner's perspective, there are three general ways to structure the development of a CHP project:1
1. Develop the project internally
This is the traditional design-bid-build approach to project development. The facility owner or host site hires a consultant, plans and manages the design-construction effort, and maintains ownership control of the project. This approach maximizes economic returns to the owner, but also places most of the project risks on the owner (e.g., construction, equipment performance, financial performance) and requires a high level of oversight and project management from the owner.
1.This section does not refer to build-own-operate (BOO) projects in which a third party builds, owns and operates the CHP plant and sells heat and power to the user at established rates. The contractor selection process in the BOO case would be very different than the selection for an engineering and/or construction contractor as described in this section. While the selection criteria for BOO partners would include many of the experience and capability qualities outlined in this section, they would also include critical financial terms such as delivered cost of power ($/kWh) and/or thermal energy ($/MMBtu). The BOO option is more fully explained in the “Financing” section of the CHP Project Development Process.
2. Purchase a “turnkey” project
The facility owner selects a qualified project development company to design, develop, and build the project on a “turnkey” basis, turning over ownership and operation of the facility to the owner after commissioning. This option shifts some risk to the developer, at a price, sometimes reducing the economic return to the facility owner or limiting the types of technologies or equipment considered.
3. Team with a partner
The facility owner teams with an equipment vendor, engineering/ procurement/construction (EPC) firm, or investor to develop the project and to share the risks and financial returns under various partnership approaches.
With these structures in mind, a facility owner can determine his or her desired role in the project development process by considering two key questions:
Should the owner self-develop, procure through a turnkey project, or
Find a developer or partner, and determine what kind of company best complements the owner and the project?
The facility owner can answer the first question through an examination of his or her own expertise, objectives, and resources. The second question is more complicated because it entails an assessment of the owner's specific needs and a search for the right developer or partner to complement those needs.
The Development Decision
Before deciding whether to develop the project internally, the facility owner must understand the role of the project developer, which is outlined in the box on page 3. Next, an assessment of the owner's objectives, expertise, and resources determines whether or not the owner should undertake project development independently or find a turnkey developer or partner.
A facility owner with the following attributes is a good candidate for developing a project independently:
Willingness and ability to accept project risks (e.g., construction, equipment, permitting, financial performance). Technical expertise with energy equipment and energy projects.
Funds and personnel available to commit to the construction process.
Selecting Contractors and Consultants
Once the decision to develop a project internally is made, the facility owner should review the capabilities of individual contracting firms that meet the owner's general needs. When selecting a contractor, there are several qualities and capabilities that owner should look for, including:
Previous CHP project experience.
A successful project track record.
In-house resources (e.g., engineering, finance, operation), including experience with environmental permitting and siting issues.
Completing an Investment-Grade Feasibility Analysis
The primary purpose of a Level 2 Feasibility Analysis is to replace all of the assumptions used in a Level 1 Feasibility Analysis with verified data and to use this information to optimize the CHP system design. It is imperative that the CHP Champion and/or other parties have already identified all operational goals for the project before this stage begins; these goals should include control, monitoring, and maintenance needs, as well as the need for off-grid capabilities (if the system will be designed to run in the event of an utility outage). The results of the Level 2 Feasibility Analysis should include: construction, operation, and maintenance pricing; calculations of final project economics with a simple payback schedule; and a life-cycle cost analysis of the total investment. At the end of this stage, all information needed to make a decision about whether to proceed with the project should be available.
Final system sizing and operation are determined through the development of thermal and electrical load profiles. To the extent possible, hard data will be used to develop these profiles, pulled from electric utility interval data, existing controls systems, and the installation of measurement equipment at the site. Pending load growth due to planned site expansion or new construction will need to be considered and coordinated with any engineering organizations involved at the site. Although integrating CHP systems with new construction can present a challenge, there can be substantial cost savings to the facility by integrating CHP as part of a general construction project. Offset equipment costs and reduced construction costs dramatically improve the system's return on investment.
Multiple site visits and reviews of existing electrical, mechanical, and structural drawings will be required to complete this stage. The CHP Champion will need to work with decision makers to ensure that important decisions are made at this stage in order to determine accurate system pricing. These might include decisions regarding CHP system specifics (e.g., size and location, prime mover type, heat applications), along with 20 to 30 percent design drawings that include flow diagrams, equipment specifications, monitoring and control specification, piping and wiring, and tie-in to existing building systems. CHP system pricing is heavily affected by the proximity and ease of electrical and thermal tie-in points, as well as the ease of the system's installation at the site. Unless budgetary pricing in the Level 1 Feasibility Analysis was very conservative, these site factors can result in substantial differences between budgetary pricing in the Level 1 and Level 2 Feasibility Analyses. Occasionally, this difference might lead to the project's ultimate cancellation. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine the impacts of the site on project costs without engaging in a fairly comprehensive review of site conditions.
Once a Level 2 Feasibility Analysis has been completed, the CHP Champion will need to ensure that it is thoroughly reviewed by the investor. The report should be comprehensive and sound, taking into consideration each of the following factors:
· Site load profiles
· System operational schedule
· Capital cost
· Heat recovery
· Mechanical system components
· System efficiency
· Sound levels
· Space considerations
· System vibration
· Emissions and permitting
· Utility interconnection
· System availability during utility outage
· Availability of incentives
· Maintenance costs
· Fuel costs
· Economic analysis including life-cycle analysis
In addition, if the Level 2 Feasibility Analysis is accompanied by a proposal for project execution, preliminary project schedule and financing options should be included.
Stage 4: Procurement Goal: Build an operational CHP system according to specifications, on schedule and within budget.
Timeframe: 3-30 months, depending on system size and complexity
Typical Costs: $1,000 - $4,000,/ kilowatt (kW) installed
Candidate site level of effort required: Varies depending on procurement approach, similar to any construction project.
Questions to answer: Is the system fully commissioned and running as designed? Will operations and maintenance be performed by site staff or will it be outsourced? If in-house, have employees been trained to perform these functions? If outsourced, have service contracts been procured for equipment or system maintenance, equipment overhaul or replacement, system availability, or monitoring and control?
________________________________________________________________________________
Procurement is designed to help the CHP Champion navigate the project development and implementation steps of contract negotiation, project engineering and construction, and final commissioning—a process similar to many central plant construction projects.
Contractor Selection
The process of developing and installing a CHP system will require a multidisciplinary team of professionals to successfully complete the project. CHP project development requires the services of mechanical, electrical, and structural engineers and contractors; equipment suppliers; a project manager; environmental consultants; and financiers.
Financing
The decision of whether and how to finance a CHP system is a critical step in the development of any CHP project. CHP systems require an initial investment to cover the cost of equipment, installation, and regulatory/permitting costs; these costs are then recovered through lower energy costs over the life of the equipment. The structure of financing can impact project costs, control, and flexibility, as well as affect a company's long-term return on investment.
Permitting
Obtaining the required utility interconnection, environmental compliance, and construction permits are critical components in the CHP project development process. The number of permits and approvals will vary depending on project characteristics, such as: project size and complexity; geographic location of the selected site; extent of additional infrastructure modifications (e.g., gas pipeline, distribution); and potential environmental impacts of the construction and operational phases of the project. Permit conditions often affect project design and neither construction nor operation may begin until all permits are in the process stage or officially approved. EPA can provide a letter outlining the emission reduction benefits of a Partner's CHP project, which can help inform permitting offices about the benefits of CHP.
Stage 5: Operations & Maintenance
Goal: Maintain a CHP system that provides expected energy savings and reduces emissions by running reliably and efficiently
Timeframe: Ongoing
Typical Costs: $0.005/kilowatt-hour (kWh) - $0.015/kWh for maintenance, depending on type of equipment and operations and maintenance (O&M) procurement approach; possible cost for energy consultant to negotiate fuel purchase, depending on system size and in-house capabilities
Candidate site level of effort required: Varies depending on procurement approach, similar to any construction project.
End-User level of effort required: Varies depending on O&M procurement approach.
______________________________________________________________________________
Congratulations! You are now the proud owner of a combined heat and power (CHP) system, which is saving your organization energy and money while reducing your facility's impact on the environment every hour it runs!
Now that your project is operational, take advantage of the CHP Partnership's public recognition opportunities for organizations and businesses that implement highly efficient CHP systems.
· Estimate the carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission benefits from your CHP system, compared to separate heat and power, with the CHP Emissions Calculator. Apply for an ENERGY STAR CHP Award. Most thermally base-loaded CHP systems qualify for acknowledgement under our program and systems that have one year of operating data may apply for an award.
The CHP Partnership also provides opportunities for Partners to share their knowledge, showcase their CHP projects, and educate others about the benefits of CHP technology. These opportunities might include:
· Presenting at conferences and workshops with EPA's CHP Partnership
· Submitting a short article to the CHP Partnership for inclusion in the CHP Partnership newsletter
· Submitting a short article to the CHP Partnership for inclusion on the Web site
CHP Emissions Calculator
The Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Emissions Calculator compares the anticipated carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from a CHP system to those of a separate heat and power system. The calculator also presents estimated emissions reductions as metric tons of carbon equivalent and emissions from passenger vehicles.
The calculator is designed for users with at least a moderate understanding of CHP technology and its terminology.
The ENERGY STAR CHP Award recognizes highly efficient CHP systems that reduce emissions and use at least 5 percent less fuel than comparable, state-of-the-art, separate heat and power generation.
www.epa.gov/chp/index.html.
Contact jklaus@klausequipment.com for additional information |
EPA Pushes Ahead on GHG Standards
by Roy Bigham
Posted: December 23, 2010 The EPA issued its plan for establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution standards under the Clean Air Act in 2011. The agency looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on GHG standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries – two of the largest industrial sources, representing nearly 40 percent of the GHG pollution in the United States. The schedule issued in the Dec. 23, 2010 agreements provides a clear path forward for these sectors and is part of EPA’s common-sense approach to addressing GHGs from the largest industrial pollution sources.
"We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change," said Administrator Lisa Jackson. "These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home."
Several states, local governments and environmental organizations sued the EPA over the agency’s failure to update the pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries, two of the largest source categories of GHG pollution in the United States. Under today’s agreement, the EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively.
This schedule will allow the agency to host listening sessions with the business community, states and other stakeholders in early 2011, well before the rulemaking process begins, as well as to solicit additional feedback during the routine notice and comment period. Together this feedback will lead to smart, cost-effective and protective standards that reflect the latest and best information.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set industry-specific standards for new sources that emit significant quantities of harmful pollutants. These standards, called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), set the level of pollution new facilities may emit and address air pollution from existing facilities. The Act allows flexible and innovative approaches that take into account cost, health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. The agency also must periodically update these standards to reflect improvements in control technologies.
Earlier this year, the EPA issued a common-sense approach to GHG permitting for the largest industrial sources. This approach, the GHG permitting guidelines issued in November, and these standards will give power plants and refineries a clear and sensible path for addressing GHG pollution.
The EPA will accept public comment on these two agreements for 30 days following publication of notice in the Federal Register. www.pollutionengineering.com JAY SAYS |
Dear reader, A few years ago every geologist involved in Appalachian Basin oil and gas knew about the Devonian black shale called the Marcellus. Its black color made it easy to spot in the field and its slightly radioactive signature made it a very easy pick on a geophysical well log.
However, very few of these geologists were excited about the Marcellus Shale as a major source of natural gas. Wells drilled through it produced some gas but rarely in enormous quantity. Few if any in the natural gas industry suspected that the Marcellus might soon be a major contributor to the natural gas supply of the United States – large enough to be spoken of as a “super giant” gas field. (1.9 trillion cubic feet of gas) http://geology.com/articles/marcellus-shale.shtml
Best regards,
Jay Klaus
JKlaus@KlausEquipment.com
Klaus Equipment Company, Inc.
President |
Klaus Equipment Company
Phone: 724-444-3420
Fax: 724-444-3425
2866 West Bardonner Road,
Gibsonia, PA 15044
|
|
|
