Chapter 4 Project Development and Evaluation of …...Final 4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF...

Chapter 4 Project Development and Evaluation of Alternatives

SCP Expansion Project, Azerbaijan

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum Final

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES .......... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Development Concept Alternatives ........................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Export Methods............................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Project Concept .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2.3 Concept Selected for SCPX Project ................................................................ 4-5

4.3 48” Routing Alternatives ............................................................................ 4-6 4.3.1 Routing Options through the Mud Volcano Ridge Area (SCPX KP0-7) ........... 4-6 4.3.2 Pipeline Canal and Foreign Service Corridor Crossing Alternatives ................ 4-7 4.3.3 Foreign Service Crossing at SCPX KP24........................................................ 4-7

4.4 Pipeline and Road Crossing Alternatives .................................................. 4-9 4.4.1 Road Crossings .............................................................................................. 4-9 4.4.2 Pigging Station Location ................................................................................. 4-9

4.5 Access Road Alternatives ......................................................................... 4-9 4.5.1 Permanent Access Road to Pigging Station .................................................... 4-9 4.5.2 Temporary Construction Access Roads ........................................................ 4-10

4.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 4-10 Tables Table 4-1: Comparison of Potential Environmental and Social Impacts of SCPX 56”-,

48”- and 42”-Diameter Pipeline Options ........................................................... 4-4 Table 4-2: Comparison of Potential Impacts of SCPX 56”- and 48”-Diameter Pipeline

Options ............................................................................................................. 4-5 Figures Figure 4-1: Schematic Showing a Comparison of the 56”, 48” and 42” Pipelines ... 4-2 Figure 4-2: Selected 48” Option (SCP KPs are shown)........................................... 4-5 Figure 4-3: SCPX Pipeline Routing in Gobustan ..................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-4: Pirsaat Canalised River Crossing ......................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-5: Foreign Service Crossing at SCPX KP24 ............................................. 4-8 Figure 4-6: Pigging Station and Access Road Corridor ......................................... 4-10

Project Development and Evaluation Of Alternatives i



4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the elements of the proposed updated design of the SCPX Project subject to this ESIA Addendum, for which alternatives were assessed, and explains the reasons why particular options presented in Chapter 5 were adopted. The alternatives are:

• The development concept and the diameter of the pipeline • The pipeline route • The type of river, foreign service and road crossings • The location of the facilities.

Alternative options are generally evaluated with consideration given to environmental and social (E&S) and health and safety (H&S) potential impacts, technical feasibility and commercial implications. Where kilometre points (KPs) are mentioned to describe the location of certain features, these denote the nearest kilometre point on the 48” pipeline loop. Where reference is made to a location where there is no new SCPX pipeline, the KP denotes the nearest kilometre point on the SCP pipeline.

4.2 Development Concept Alternatives

4.2.1 Export Methods The SCPX Final ESIA discussed alternative methods for exporting gas from the Shah Deniz field. Its conclusion, that gas export by pipeline is the most efficient and economic option for transport, is still valid.

4.2.2 Project Concept The existing 42”-diameter SCP pipeline has been transporting gas from the Sangachal Terminal in Azerbaijan for 690km to the border of Georgia and Turkey since 2006, with a system design capacity of 7.41 bcma (billion cubic metres annually). Further development of the SD reservoir is planned, with the additional gas produced significantly exceeding the current capacity of the SCP. A number of different concepts combining variations of pipeline diameter, pipeline loop length and compression power can achieve the required flow rate. Increasing the diameter of the pipeline reduces the rate at which the gas pressure in the pipeline diminishes, so less compression power is needed as the pipeline diameter increases. Various options to expand the existing SCP system, to incorporate the additional gas from the SD FFD, were evaluated. The evaluation process was carried out by a multidisciplinary team that took account of the relative importance of H&S, E&S, technical and commercial considerations. The SCPX Final ESIA, which received consent in 2013, was based on a 56”-diameter pipeline concept; this involved a partial pipeline loop for some distance in Azerbaijan and Georgia and two compressor stations in Georgia. A subsequent review of the pipeline design undertaken after the SCPX Final ESIA received consent has identified a 48”-diameter pipeline as a further option, which is the focus of this chapter. This refinement in the Project design (described in Chapter 5 Project Description of this ESIA Addendum) has been evaluated from H&S, E&S, technical and commercial perspectives.

Project Development and Evaluation Of Alternatives 4-1



4.2.2.1 Comparison of 42”-, 48”- and 56”-diameter options

This section assesses the 48” diameter pipeline against the 56” option and the 42” option as described in the SCPX Final ESIA. In order to keep the current compression power requirements at the compressor stations, the reduction in diameter from 56” to 48” needs to be offset by an additional 34km extension to the pipeline in Azerbaijan from SCP KP23 (SCPX 0) to SCP KP57 (SCPX 34). The 48” pipeline does not require any more compression power at each compressor station (66MW at each station) when compared with the 56” option. As such, the compressor station design requires only some minor adjustments i.e. the use of 48” valves instead of 56” valves. The 42” pipeline required significantly more compression power (80MW at the first compressor station and 70MW at the second). Technically, the 56” concept is the most challenging to construct as the pipe needs careful handling and lifting during construction and involves the most complex trenchless crossing techniques (e.g. micro-tunnelling). Commercially, the 48” pipeline has a lower capital cost than the 56” pipeline, and represents the optimum approach for meeting the immediate gas transport requirements i.e. an additional 16 bcma whilst retaining the capability for future expansion. Figure 4-1 illustrates a schematic comparing the three pipeline diameters.

Figure 4-1: Schematic Showing a Comparison of the 56”, 48” and 42” Pipelines




Box 1: Pressure Comparison between Three Pipeline Options

1. Compressed gas enters the pipeline at Sangachal terminal at 90 barg when operating at the design flow rate (i.e. +16bcma).

2. For the 48” and 56” systems, all the gas flows initially through a single 42”-diameter pipeline, whereas the 42” system has two pipelines. Therefore, the initial frictional losses are higher in the 48” and 56” systems and the rate of pressure drop is faster.

3. The 48” loop commences at a crossover from the 42”, and the gas redistributes into the two pipelines.

4. The 56” loop commences at a crossover from the 42”, and the gas redistributes into the two pipelines.

5. The twin 42” frictional losses are higher than the 48” & 42” or 56” and 42” systems and the rate of pressure drop is fastest (shown as the steepest gradient on the graph).

Technically the 56” is the most challenging to construct, as the pipe needs careful handling and lifting during construction and involves the most complex trenchless crossing techniques (e.g. micro-tunnelling). Commercially, the 48”-diameter pipeline has a lower capital cost than the 56”-diameter pipeline and represents the optimum balance between meeting the immediate gas transport requirements, i.e. an additional 16 bcma, while retaining the capability for future expansion. From a health and safety perspective, the 48” pipe uses less complex handling operations than the 56” option, and combined with the decrease in traffic movements, owing to an increase in the number of pipe sections that can be transported on one truck, this decreases the overall potential construction health and safety impacts compared with the 56” option. The 42” pipeline involves similar construction challenges to the 48” and a further reduction in traffic movements due to the shorter pipeline loop lengths.




As described in Chapter 3, the screening exercise undertaken for the 42” and 56” options was undertaken for the 48” option. The environmental and social topics where during screening there was a variation between the options across Azerbaijan and Georgia are shown in Table 4-1. It should be noted that the results are relative and should be interpreted independently for each discipline, with a value of 3 representing the highest potential impact and 1 the lowest.

Table 4-1: Comparison of Potential Environmental and Social Impacts of SCPX 56”-, 48”- and 42”-Diameter Pipeline Options Topic 56” Option 48" Option 42" Option Comment

Protected areas 1 1 2 The 42” concept involved routing adjacent to the Gobustan Cultural Reserve and Buffer Zone. The shorter pipeline loops on the 56” and 48” option avoid this area.

Protected or endangered species

1 2 3

The highest density of Iris actuiloba (Azerbaijan Red Data Book) is found with the eastern section of the pipeline. The progressively longer loop lengths in this area from 56” to 48" to 42” increase the potentially affected area of Iris actuiloba habitat.

Environmentally sensitive areas 1 2 3

The progressively longer loop lengths at the eastern end of the pipeline for the 48” and 42” extend further into the semi-desert Gobustan area and several areas known as the Badlands, both of which contain fragile topsoil where reinstatement is more difficult. In addition, the 48”and 42” pipeline crosses the mud volcano area and the 42” pipeline crosses a further major river crossing with steep-sided banks.

Greenhouse gas and air emissions 2 2 3

Greenhouse gas and air emissions are highest with the 42”option due to the highest compression requirements and lower for both the 56” and 48” which have the same lower requirements

Community safety 3 1 2

The potential risks to community health and safety during the construction phase are decreased with the 48”-diameter pipeline due to the ability to carry more pipes per truck than the 56” concept and the associated reduced number of trucks required. The 42” pipeline has a longer length of pipeline and can carry three standard pipes per truck and greater numbers of truck movements over a larger distance; therefore, it has an intermediate potential risk.

Community disturbance 1 1 2

The potential impact from community disturbance at the compressor stations is lower with the 56” and 48” options due to the reduction in the numbers of compressors required.

Total 9 9 15 Other areas assessed for which there was determined to be no significant difference between the three options included freshwater resources, wastewater discharges, waste, cultural heritage, community health, economic resettlement and infrastructure quality. Table 4-2 presents the overall comparative assessment of the 48”, 56” and 42” pipeline configurations.




Table 4-2: Comparison of Potential Impacts of SCPX 56”- and 48”-Diameter Pipeline Options

Option Description Technical Commercial Health and Safety

Environmental and Social

48” Two compressor stations, minimum looping

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate


Higher Higher Higher Moderate


Lower Lower Lower Higher

4.2.3 Concept Selected for SCPX Project As described in the SCPX Final ESIA, a new intermediate pigging station will be constructed in Azerbaijan at the beginning of the pipeline loop and five new block valves (BVRs) are to be constructed in Azerbaijan and collocated with the existing SCP block valves. This will achieve the flow rate of +16bcma in the SCPX pipeline and a combined capacity of +23 bcma by maximising the use of the existing SCP pipeline. The selected option (Figure 4-2) is a 48” loop pipeline from a start point in Azerbaijan, some 23km from the Sangachal Terminal (at SCP KP23, Azerbaijan), to a point on the SCP pipeline approximately 63km inside the border with Georgia. In addition, a 2km pipeline loop will be added running from the PRMS to the Georgian/Turkish border, to connect to the Trans Anatolian Gas Pipeline (TANAP) and facilitate the export of gas to Europe.

Figure 4-2: Selected 48” Option (SCP KPs are shown) In order to redesign the SCP expansion from a 56” looped line to a 48” looped line without affecting the current design of the compressors, the 48” loop in Azerbaijan will be required to start at SCP KP23, compared to SCP KP57, which was discussed in the SCPX Final ESIA. This loop extension results in routing alternatives for the additional section of pipeline and alternatives regarding the location of the intermediate pigging facility at the beginning of the loop. These alternatives are discussed below. Routing of the Azerbaijan section of the pipeline loop form KP57 to the border with Georgia remains unaffected and is discussed in SCPX Final ESIA, Section 4.4.




4.3 48” Routing Alternatives

The required extension of pipeline by 34km eastwards towards the Sangachal terminal results in routing alternatives for the additional section of pipeline (SCP KP23-57). The consideration of route corridor options followed the same process as described in the SCPX Final ESIA, with the Project’s preferred option being to route the additional sections of pipeline adjacent to the existing BTC/SCP pipeline right of way (ROW) where possible, taking account of known constraints. The BTC and SCP routes were identified following extensive engineering, environmental and social surveys and took into account an optimal secure border crossing from Azerbaijan in to Georgia. This has considerable environmental and social advantages over the establishment of a new corridor including:

• Partial overlap with a previously disturbed corridor reduces new land take and habitat disturbance

• Relationships have been established with the local communities • Some established access routes can be used together with previously used

construction camps and pipe storage areas, reducing the need for new ones • Operational inspections can be confined to the same pipeline corridor.

Routing studies focused initially on the minimum safe separation distance of the SCPX ROW from the existing SCP/BTC or any other pipelines. Modelling studies (see Chapter 12 of the SCPX Final ESIA) determined that the minimum separation distance between the 56” SCPX pipeline and the BTC and SCP pipelines should generally be 20m. This separation distance has been maintained for the 48” pipeline (see Chapter 12). Following the definition of a proposed route, specialists and sub-consultants were consulted and studies undertaken to identify the key constraints and identify and discuss various potential re-route corridor options where key constraints such as protected areas or cultural heritage was known.

4.3.1 Routing Options through the Mud Volcano Ridge Area (SCPX KP0-7) The original BTC/SCP pipelines were installed at reduced centreline separation along the top of a narrow ridge from SCP KP26.5 to KP27.7. When reviewed by engineering and construction teams in the field, it was clear that the existing ridge could not accommodate a third pipeline and that a new route would have to be found. A number of ridges and routes examined in the area were close to SCP KP25-27. One potential route to the north that was examined paralleled a water pipeline and road. However, the width of the ridge and proximity to the road presented a high risk to the pipeline in both construction and operation. The final chosen ridge starts approximately 300m from SCP at KP26.5 (SCPX KP3.5) and terminates approximately 100m from SCP at KP27.7 (SCPX KP4.7). This was one of the shortest buildable routes found in this area. The route map is showing the final proposed option, and its location in relation to SCP pipeline is presented on Figure 4-3.




Figure 4-3: SCPX Pipeline Routing in Gobustan

4.3.2 Pipeline Canal and Foreign Service Corridor Crossing Alternatives

4.3.2.1 Pirsaat River Crossing at SCPX KP18.5 The additional section of pipeline crosses the Pirsaat canalised river at approximately SCPX KP18.5 (see Figure 4-4). The additional pipeline route parallels SCP for much of the route, so the crossing at the Pirsaat river is parallel to the current SCP pipeline. The current location of the crossing is approximately 500m south of the main town of Ranjbar, easily accessed and on fairly flat land and has fewer constraints than alternative locations closer to the town. Crossing techniques are discussed in Chapter 5, Project Description in the Final ESIA.

4.3.3 Foreign Service Crossing at SCPX KP24 At SCPX KP24 several existing gas pipes cross the preliminary route of the proposed additional section of pipeline, at an oblique angle. In order to facilitate construction across these pipes, a short re-route has therefore been made to enable the existing pipes to be crossed at an angle of 90 degrees.




Figure 4-4: Pirsaat Canalised River Crossing

Figure 4-5: Foreign Service Crossing at SCPX KP24




4.4 Pipeline and Road Crossing Alternatives

4.4.1 Road Crossings Minor road crossings are likely to be accomplished by open trenching of one-half of the road at a time, with steel plates used to maintain one lane of through traffic at all times. Smaller rural roads may be closed to through traffic, following consultation with local officials and residents. Further typical drawings are presented in Section 5.6. Major roads and railways will be crossed using a trenchless technique, either pipe jack or thrust/auger bored. The proposed additional section of pipeline crosses a number of roads that will be crossed using one of the following techniques:

• Open cut - The trench is excavated across the road surface which is reinstated upon installation of the pipe

• Direct-burial pipe jack (carrier pipe). A carrier pipe is installed behind a protective shield using a combination of mining techniques and hydraulic jacks to drive the pipe forward. The excavated material is removed through the exposed end of the pipe. As each pipe progresses forward, another is welded on until the crossing is finished

• Micro-tunnelling. Sections of concrete carrier pipe are driven into the hole opened by a TBM by hydraulic jacks. Excavated material is removed via the exposed end of the carrier pipe. As each section of the concrete pipe progresses forward, another is connected behind it, until the hole reaches the far side of the crossing. After completion of the carrier pipe, the pipeline is installed.

4.4.2 Pigging Station Location The proposed additional section of the SCPX pipeline requires the intermediate pigging station (MX53) to be moved to the new staring point of the SCPX pipeline from the original position of SCP KP57 as discussed in the Final SCPX ESIA. There is a requirement for the integrity of the pipeline to be monitored periodically using a pipeline integrity gauge (pig). The pig launching facility will be positioned at the beginning of the 48” pipeline loop. Hydraulically, starting the 48” loop at SCP KP24.4 and ending at SCP KP501.1 is sufficient (see Box 1). However, as the terrain at SCP KP24.5 is unsuitable for a pigging station, the start of the loop has been required to move to SCP KP23.5 where a plateau and road access exists. Thus, in Azerbaijan, the pigging station will be constructed at the start of the pipeline loop at SCPX KP0. Pigs will travel the full length of the pipeline loop in Azerbaijan to a new pig-receiving station constructed at compressor station CSG1 in Georgia. A second pig launcher at CSG1 will permit the pigging of the Georgian pipeline loop. There are no pre-existing SCP or BTC aboveground installations in the vicinity of SCPX KP0. Field surveys have identified that the surrounding area is relatively homogenous, with no ecological, social or cultural heritage factors constraining the location of the pig launching facility. Therefore, the exact location has been determined by pipeline hydraulics and verified by multidisciplinary site surveys, to be a suitable site for the pigging station.

4.5 Access Road Alternatives

4.5.1 Permanent Access Road to Pigging Station The location of the new permanent access road to the pigging station has yet to be fully defined, although a survey corridor has been identified in which the road will be located (Figure 4-6). Where possible, existing tracks will be used when the Project is siting the new




road to the pigging station. There are a number of existing tracks linking the main public access road with the proposed pigging station that could potentially be used by the Project. For the purpose of allowing the assessment of Project impacts, one of the existing access roads (see Figure 4-6 below and also Section 5.5.4) has been assessed as part of this addendum. If the route changes, the access road will be subject to a baseline environmental and social survey, an ESIA and any additional requirements in order to comply with the formal Azerbaijan approvals process.

Figure 4-6: Pigging Station and Access Road

4.5.2 Temporary Construction Access Roads Temporary access is required to the construction ROW for the additional section of pipeline. The Project will aim to prioritise use of existing access roads, in particular those that were used for BTC and SCP construction. The proposed access routes are described in Chapter 5 of the SCPX Final ESIA.

4.6 Conclusion This section has summarised some of the key alternatives that have been reviewed as part of the proposed updates to the Project. The selected updates have been described in detail in Chapter 5. The selection of preferred solutions affects the overall environmental and social impacts of the SCPX Project that are assessed in Chapter 10 and Chapter 12.


Chapter 4 Project Development and Evaluation of …...Final 4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 4 Project Development and Evaluation of …...Final 4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF...