a309 ilfm ad 0001 rev1 pre feasibility study
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
1/51
BERATENDE
INGENIEURE
CONSULTING
E N G I N E E R S
INGE NIE UR S
C O N S E I L S
ILF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Werner-Eckert-Strasse 7, 81829 Munich,GERMANYPhone: ++49-89-25 55 94 - 0Fax: ++49-89-25 55 94 - 144E-mail: [email protected]
A309/ILFM-AD-0001/REV. 1
Brine Pipeline Bucsani - GiurgiuPRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY
31.08.2005
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
2/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page iILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
REVISION
1 31.08.05 Clients comments incorporated T.Grimm L. Bangert T. Grimm
0 26.08.05 First issue T.GrimmM. Rieder
L. BangertT. Grimm
Rev. Date Issue, Modification Prepared Checked Approved
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
3/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page iiILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.1 Routing 1
2.2 System Optimisation 1
2.3 Authority approval procedure, ROW acquisition 2
2.4 Cost Estimate 2
2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations 3
3 PIPELINE ROUTE 4
3.1 General 4
3.2 Route Alternatives 4
3.3 Route Description 5
3.3.1 Route 1 5
3.3.2 Route 2 7
3.4 Construction, Special Engineering Difficulties 7
3.4.1 Construction 7
3.4.2 Traffic Lines 8
3.4.3 Rivers 8
3.4.4 Other crossing techniques 10
3.4.5 Steep slopes 11
4 SYSTEM PRE-OTIMISATION 12
4.1 Basic Data 12
4.2 Selection of Pipe Material 12
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
4/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page iiiILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
4.2.1 Polyethylene (PE) 13
4.2.2 Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) 14
4.2.3 Selected Material and Joining Method 17
4.3 Description of Methodology for Pipeline System Pre-Optimisation 18
4.3.1 General Methodology 18
4.3.2 System Pre-Optimisation 18
THE REYNOLDS NUMBER IS HEREBY DETERMINED FROM THE EQUATION 18
FOR Re< 2320, THE FLOW IS LAMINAR AND THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT IS CALCULATED AS 19
IN THE SO-CALLED TRANSITION RANGE, IS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO COLEBROOK-WHITE AS19
4.4 Results of System Pre-Optimisation 21
4.4.1 Pipeline System DN500 21
4.4.2 Pipeline System DN450 22
4.4.3 Pipeline System DN400 234.4.4 Conclusions 24
4.4.5 Flushing Process 25
4.5 System Description 26
4.5.1 Pipeline 26
4.5.2 Pump Stations 26
4.5.3 Block Valve Stations 27
4.5.4 Pressure Control Valve Station 27
4.5.5 SCADA 27
4.6 Operating and Maintenance Personnel 28
5 AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROCESS, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION 30
6 COST ESTIMATE 31
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
5/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page ivILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
6.1 Basis and Assumptions 31
6.2 Methodology 31
6.3 Individual Cost Elements 32
6.3.1 Line Pipe 32
6.3.2 Transportation Costs 32
6.3.3 Pipeline Cable 33
6.3.4 Construction Costs for Pipeline 33
6.3.5 Construction Costs of parallel pipeline 34
6.3.6 Route Classification 34
6.3.7 Special Construction Structures 34
6.3.8 Stations 34
6.3.9 Communication System / SCADA 36
6.3.10 Engineering 36
6.3.11 Fees, Permits, Insurance 37
6.4 Operational Expenditures 37
6.4.1 Energy Costs 37
6.4.2 Maintenance and Operating Expenses 38
7 REFERENCES 39
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Overview Map 1: 500,000 No. A309-R5-2001
Appendix 2 Topographical Route Map 1: 100,000 No. A309-R5-2002 (two sheets)
Appendix 3 Photo Documentation
Appendix 4 Process Flow Diagram No. A309-F5-2003
Appendix 5 Legal Comment of Clients local Advisor on Authority Approval and
ROW Acquisition
Appendix 6 Cost Estimate A309-ILFM-AD-0002
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
6/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page vILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
7/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 1ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
1 INTRODUCTIONSalinen Austria (in the following referred to as the Client) intends to engange in the priva-
tisation of the Romanian salt industry. In this connexion it is planned to erect a brine pipe-
line from Bucsani (located 30 km west-southwest to Ploiesti) to Giurgiu at the Danube River.
The purpose of this Pre-Feasibility Study assigned to ILF by Client is to provide a route sug-
gestion, a conceptual system optimisation and a cost estimate. The main limiting constraint
given by client was a maximum investment sum (CAPEX) of 15 milion Euro.
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 RoutingThe overall topographic situation in the project area was found not to show any notable
technical constraints for pipeline construction. The landscape is mostly flat, the soil is mostly
sandy as far as superficial inspection during the site visit has proved. No notable steep slopes
or rocky terrain was found. Only few areas might require additional water retention meas-
ures. Only one major river has to be crossed, yet it is not exceptionally deep or fast flowing.
Yet the routing philosophy could not be clarified as it might depend on ROW acquisition
costs: A short, direct route will lead straight over the fields and follow main traffic lines only
where the lead in the general pipeline direction. This is the state-of-the-art routing design,
yet it requires many private ROW acquisitions on the individual land parcels.
A second approach would lead mainly along the roads, including thoughout alll villages, as
the village through roads usually have plenty of space on both sides for laying the pipeline
into the road embankment. The advantage in this route might lie in less ROW acquisition
costs as mainly the road authorities will be the ROW contract partners.
Yet this question could not yet be anwered neither by ILF Romania nor by Clients legal con-
sultant in Romania and needs further investigation. Yet up to now it seems that any route
elongation that will incur by routing along roads will induce more material and construction
costs than can be saved by ROW costs.
2.2 System OptimisationThe optimum system configuration was assessed as a DN 450 pipeline of PE 100 material
with one head pump station and one intermediate pump station. However, the intermedi-
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
8/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 2ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
ate pump station is only necessary to guarantee the design throughput when the pipeline is
cramped by gypsum deposits. It might be erected later if deemed necessary after initial ex-
periences with the head station only.
The general design pressure is PN 10, yet selected sections in valleys need PN 16 line pipe towithstand the local pressure rise there.
2.3 Authority approval procedure, ROW acquisitionThis issue, being added to the initial scope of the study, could not be assessed satisfactorily.
The process of authority approval and ROW acquisition could be simplified by achieving a
declaration of public utility for the pipeline. Yet neither ILF Romania nor Clients legal ad-
visor in Romania could assess in depth the legal process and the associated costs during the
limited preparation time of this study.
2.4 Cost EstimateThe cost estimate is based on budgetary enquiries for the pumps, the line pipe and the con-
struction costs, further on general ILF experience and databases for verification and comple-
tion of all cost factors.
Yet the construction costs could finally not be assessed with satisfying reliability. Although
nine Romanian construction companies were asked for budgetary enquiries, only two ofthem gave any offer at all. These were compared with another reference offer from a Ger-
man company. Yet the reliability of these offers must be ranked as poor, as the German
company obviously calculated by transferring all machinery and manpower to Romania in-
stead of using local resources (and, in addition, is well known to reach its capacity limit with
domestic pipeline construction projects for the next two to three years, therefore has no
need to place cheap offers), and the two offers from Romanian companies are differing by a
factor of ten.
This must generally be ascribed to the strict confidentiality of the project that had to be kept
while placing all enquiries.
The cost estimate can be summarized as follows:
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
9/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 3ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Item Sum in MEURMaterial Costs Line Pipe 7.50
Material Costs FOC System 0.24
Transport Costs 0.57Construction Costs Pipelines 1 3.29 1
Subtotal Capex Pipeline 11.59Block Valve Stations 0.18
Pump and Receiving Station 0.44
Scada 0.50
Subtotal Capex Stations 1.12Engineering 1.24
ROW 0.10
Additional Services 0.77
Fees, Permits, Insurances 0.28
Subtotal Services 2.39TOTAL CAPEX 15.11TOTAL ANNUAL OPEX 0.19NPV Opex for 20 years 1.61
Table 3.3.1-1: Cost Estimate Summary1Low reliability
2.5 Conclusions and RecommendationsConsidering the uncertainties of the cost estimate performed in this pre-feasibility study, it
can not be guaranteed that the cost limit of 15 milion EUR can be kept, although the cost
estimate in this study remains within this limit in principle. Especially the construction costs
bear great uncertainties that can only be eliminated by placing a more explicit tender, par-
ticularly on the Romanian market.
According to ILF experience, budgetary enquiries to construction companies may result in
significant offers and reliable prices, if either the construction company already has a strong
bond by former executed projects to ILF, or the enquiry deals with a concrete project that
seems likely to be realized. If none of these conditions apply, such enquries are often an-
swered careless and unreliable, if ever. Therefore, the tender shall be placed without such
strict confidentiality and in more concrete form than ILF was allowed to do during this
study.
Furthermore, the legal situation of authority approval and ROW acquisition and the relating
costs shall be assessed in depth by a legal advisor specialised in Romanian pipeline legisla-
ture before making a final decision about the project.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
10/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 4ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
3 PIPELINE ROUTE
3.1 GeneralConsidering the limited scope of this study, the pipeline route was preselected on Russian
topographical maps 1:100,000 as a desktop study route only. The route survey on site was
limited to the rough verification of the technical feasibility and the photographic documen-
tation.
The original approach was a pipeline route along major roads to simplify possible right-of-
way (ROW) acqusition. Yet this principle had to be abandoned partly for the main route as
there are simply no major roads in the routing direction and/ or these roads are leading
through numerous small settlements that would have to be avoided with the pipeline and
therefore routed around, which would enlongate the route length considerably.
So the now proposed main route called Route 1 is a mixture of routing parallel to roads and
on the other hand classical pipeline routing more or less in a straight line over the fields.
Yet even in the latter case the directions of farm tracks were followed wherever possible to
keep ROW acquistion simple.
The Russian topographical maps available on the market have been issued between 1976
and 1982, therefore are fairly old. However, their content has been verified in the project
area by satellite images available public domain in the internet /1/, especially to complete
the maps with numerous recently erected storage lakes that would represent major obsta-
cles for a pipeline route.
Yet the main concern about the pipeline route in this study is to assess an exact elevation
profile as this brine pipeline has an extraordinary low pressure level. For this purpose the age
of the topographical maps is dispensable and there was no better source available providing
terrain elevation data in the necessary precision for a reasonable price.
The following brief route description refers to the Topographical Route Map A309-R5-2002,sheets 1 and 2 that can be found in Appendix 2.
The photographic documentation of the major crossing points with traffic infrastructure and
rivers is provided in Appendix 3.
3.2 Route AlternativesThe original Route 1 was selected from a pure pipeline engineering point of view, i.e. to
minimize the route length, to avoid urban areas and villages and to cross major obstacleslike traffic lines, rivers and hills on advantageous locations.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
11/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 5ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
During route inspections it showed up that many (but not all) cross-town links offer wide
spaces along the road embankments for pipeline laying. This offers a route selection along
main roads and through the villages instead of cross-country, here being described as
Route 2. This kind of routing might result in advantages during Right of Way (ROW) acquisi-
tion as the number of land owners can be reduced mainly to public or governmental offices
being responsible for road construction and maintenance.
On the other hand it can show up great disadvantages as these offices might take extraor-
dinary long to find a common decision to allow an easement for the pipeline. The necessary
width of the ROW strip of such a brine pipeline could also not yet be determined, but there
have been indices that they are much wider in Romania than in Central Europe. Such an ex-
traordinary wide ROW strip can easily cause that the available space in the road embank-
ment is not sufficient and that it has again to be extended to private lands, which would be
most unfavourable especially in the villages.
Therefore Route 1 has been used for system optimisation, and Route 2, being considerably
longer, is only described as an optional hydraulic soultion.
3.3 Route Description
3.3.1 Route 1The route starts at the southwest edge of Bucsani village due to the lack of any more precisedefinition of a start point. At km 1 the River Jalomita is crossed, being only about 15-20 m
wide. From km 10 on the route follows the National Road 71 for 25 km, crossing a railway
line at km 28. Another minor watercourse, River Dambowita, is crossed at km 35, being 40
m wide and only half a meter deep.
The next remarkable crossing passes the Highway E81 at km 52, being followed by the larg-
est river crossing of the entire route at km 55. The River Arges is about 160 m wide and
1.5 m deep in the crossing area.
Passing through more plain agricultural land, another railway is crossed at km 64. Finally atkm 71, River Neajlov is reached. Being only 10-20 m wide it is not very remarkable, yet here
the relief of the landscape changes considerably as from Buscani up to here, the route de-
creases remarkably constantly its elevation above sea level, which is quite advantageous for
the hydraulics of the pipeline. In the following, the rivers are cut in up to 25 m into the sur-
rounding plains, which results in more demanding hydraulic conditions of the pipeline.
So the route elevation rises again of 25 m right behind this river, again crossing agricultral
plains and some roads, namely the National Road 6 at km 81, which might be the only no-
table road in this area that might require a closed crossing technique.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
12/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 6ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
At km 91, River Calnistea is crossed, lying in a wide valley that is cut into the surrounding
plains by 35 m. Yet, the slopes of the valley should not present any notable construction dif-
ficulty.
The next 20 km lead through flat land, partly along the National Road 5B for about 8 km. Atkm 112 a steep descent of over 60 m elevation difference leads down into the Danube val-
ley1, making additional measures necessary to manage the pressure rise in the pipeline. See
chapter 4.5 for details.
The last 5 km the route follows a railway line, crossing a side branch of the railway at
km 117, to an industrial area north of Giurgiu, representing the end of the 119 km long
pipeline route.
The total elevation difference between start and end point is 180 m, starting at Bucsani at
approx. 200 m above sea level, rising to the maximum elevation of 210 m at km 6 and end-
ing at Giurgiu at about 20 m above sea level. The Danube at Giurgiu lies approximately at
18 m above sea level. The entire route elevation profile is shown in the following figure.
0
50
100
150
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
route km
ma
bovesealevel
Figure 3.3.1-1: Route Elevation Profile Route 1
1 The Danube River is named in this study by her English name, in spite of the local name Dunrea.
RiverAr
ges
RiverNeajlo
v
RiverCalnistea
Giurgiu
Bucsany
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
13/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 7ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
3.3.2 Route 2Up to km 30, Route 2 is nearly identical to Route 1. Yet the National Road 71 is followed for
additional 15 km, then the route follows side roads , crossing River Dambowita at km 49
and the Highway E81 at km 60.
The largest river of the route, River Arges, is crossed at the same location as Route 1, yet
here at route km 65. Further side roads lead to the National Road 61 that is reached at
route km 74. The rest of the route follows always this National road, only the number of the
road changing at route km 100 from 61 to 5B.
Further major crossings include a railway line on a dam at km 81, the National Road 6 at km
100 and the River Calnistea at km 107, including its wide and comparatively deep valley.
Remarkably enough, the route elevation profile is quite similar to Route 1, yet the length of
the route is notably longer with 135 km:
0
50
100
150
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
route km
ma
bovese
alevel
Figure 3.3.2-1: Route Elevation Profile Route 2
3.4 Construction, Special Engineering Difficulties
3.4.1 ConstructionThe pipeline shall be buried on the whole length with a soil cover of at least 1.0 m to beprotected against mechanical and climatic influences. See chapter 3.4.4 for further details.
Bucsany
Riv
erArges
RiverN
eajlov
RiverCalnis
tea
Giurgiu
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
14/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 8ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
It can be laid into an open trench, embedding it in sand or stone free excavated material, or,
providing suitable, soft and stone free soil conditions, even be ploughed into the soil.
3.4.2 Traffic LinesWhen constructing a pipeline, usually all minor roads are crossed in open technique, that is,
simply continuing the trench through the crossing area and providing provisonal bridges for
the traffic during the construction measures. The only traffic lines that are crossed in closed
technique, usually by thrust boring or pipe pressing, are major roads and railways.
Preliminary assessment of the crossing techniques led to seven closed crossings only, namely
the following, here for to Route 1:
Route km Traffic line26 National Road 71
28 Railway, double track on dam, 4 m high
34 National Road 7
52 Highway E81, 2 x 2 lanes
64 Railway, double track
81 National Road 6
113 Railway, single track
Table 3.4.2-1: Closed crossings of traffic lines
The crossings on Route 2 are the same, varying slightly in kilometration.
3.4.3 Rivers3.4.3.1Open trench
Rivers are crossed by means of siphons using the pulling in or heaving in procedure.
The trench for the siphon (pipe trench) is excavated by means of bucket ladder excavators or
hydraulic excavators operating from pontoons or more likely here due to the shallow rivers
provisional bridges. The longitudinal profile of the trench is adjusted to the elastic radius
of the pipe. The defined height and the width of the pipe trench are continuously moni-
tored and documented by means of echo soundings. The excavated material is stored tem-
porarily in designated and approved places.
The pipeline section for the siphon is constructed on an assembly line, set up for this pur-
pose, and subsequently pulled in using a winch, or heaved in in cases of shorter crossings.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
15/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 9ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
See the picture below for an example of heaving an approx. 40 m long siphon, DN 200,
steel pipe, concrete coated, into a river in Southern Germany.
Figure 3.4.3.1-1: River crossing, open trench, with raising ends
After checking the position of the pipeline, the pipe trench is backfilled and any sheet piles
are removed. Additional measurements serve to further monitor the riverbed.
Pipes with increased wall thickness and a reinforced pipeline coating are used for the
crossings.
Buoyancy control is achieved by means of a reinforced concrete coating, which also serves
to mechanically protect the pipeline during the pulling in process. The concrete coating pro-
vides the required protection against buoyancy.
For the layout of the siphons in the longitudinal section there are in principle two possibili-
ties:
Laying the siphon on both sides of the riverbank in an elastic radius. This type of lay-ing requires relatively deep pipe trenches, above all in the river bank area, as the
elastic radius only allows small changes of curvature. To minimise the excavation in
the riverbank zone, the pipe trench can be supported by sheet pile walls, this re-
duces the excavation width. From a pipe static viewpoint, this laying variant is the
smoothest one for the pipe and is used if possible.
The pipeline is laid on a line with an elastic radius, only the end on the pulling side isprovided with a raising end (factory bend or cold bend and straight pipe section).
Using this variant, the excavation is kept to a minimum on the pulling side, as the
raising end is constructed in such a way that it follows the natural inclination of the
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
16/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 10ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
riverbank. On the opposite side the pipe trench follows the elastic radius so that no
extraordinary stresses occur in the pipe when pulling in the siphon.
3.4.3.2Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)An alternative to open trench crossing is the Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) technique.
A pilot drill is started from the surface of one end of the crossing, being able to be steered
in a slight vertical bow underneath the river bed and returning to the surface again on the
other side of the river. See the figure below for a schematic diagram of a HDD.
Figure 3.4.3.2-1: Schematic diagram of a HDD crossing of a river
The drilling is performed either by rotating the drill head or thrusting it without rotation,
always supported by injecting a bentonit suspension from the drill head into the soil. This
bentonit suspension supports the pilot drill hole while it is widened up in several steps, until
finally the precast siphon, constructed as described above in chapter 3.4.3.1, is pulled in.
The radius of the HDD must not fall below the elastic radius of the duct. Yet this is usually
no problem when using HDPE ducts and only of notable importance when laying steel
ducts.
Provided suitable soil conditions and ducts of sufficient tensile strength, HDD can be per-
formed over lengths of up to 1500 m and up to diameters of up to DN 800 or more.
The outstanding advantage of the HDD technique is that the surface between the start and
end point remains untouched. Especially at river crossings, HDD is usually used to preserve
the sensitive natural areas of alluvial forests and in the river itself. Yet, it also represents avery economic construction technique, if the soil conditions are suitable and the costruction
company can prove sufficient expert knowledge.
3.4.4 Other crossing techniquesEspecially for a relatively small HDPE pipeline like in this particular case it might seem suit-
able to attach the duct to existing bridges or to construct pipe bridges e.g. over rivers.
Usually it can only be dissuaded form these prossibilities. An openly installed, visible duct is
always vulnerable for damages, intended e.g. by shooting (which has happened some years
ago to an oil pipeline bridge in Southern Germany and even to the Trans Alaska Crude Oil
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
17/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 11ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Pipeline /2/) or accidentally by vehicles going off the road. A buried pipeline is well protected
against all mechanical influences and usually not the target of vandalism, excepting only
e.g. terrorstic motivated assaults that seem not imaginable on a brine pipeline but excul-
sively limitated to oil and gas pipelines.
An openly installed duct is also exposed to all kind of climatic conditions like ultraviolet sun
light or severe frost that ages the HDPE duct material considerably faster than usual.
On the other hand, according to ILFs extensive experience, road and bridge maintenance
authorities usually do not approve to the installation of third party installations on the exte-
rior of bridges.
3.4.5 Steep slopesThere are no notable steep slopes along the route that would require special constructionmeasures. Yet, longer steep slopes require additional measures to handle the pressure duf-
ference resulting in the interior of the duct. See chapter 4.5 for details.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
18/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 12ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
4 SYSTEM PRE-OTIMISATION
4.1 Basic DataThe calculations are based on the following basic data provided by client:
Fluid: Brine
Density: 1200 kg/m
Viscosity: < 8 cSt
Design throughput: 250 m/h
Availability: 85%
Flushing time: 3 weeks per year
Max. deposit of gypsum on interior pipeline side: 5 mm
The calculation of the influence of a possible gypsum deposit on the throughput capacity
was demanded by Client. It was assumed an evenly maximum deposit thickness along the
whole pipeline to determine the design throughput. Additionally, it is assumed that the gyp-
sum deposit increases the wall roughness from 0.05 mm to 1 mm.
Already here it has to be mentioned that a pipeline design based on a pipe with maximum
gypsum deposit leads to higher throughput than the design throughput while the pipeline
is clean. Keeping the throughput constant while the cross-sectional area and roughness of
the pipe is varying due to the gypsum deposit, affords complex measures that seem not jus-
tifiable in this case. Therefore this increased and varying throughput has to be taken into
consideration in the next design steps when designing the subsequent processes in the sa-
line in Giurgiu.
4.2 Selection of Pipe MaterialFor the selection of the material for the brine pipeline, Internally Lined Steel, Polyethylene
(PE) and Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) have been taken into consideration.
Steel requires to be coated to withstand the corrosivness of the brine. The lining is expensive
and the installation costs of Internally Lined Steel are significantly higher than those of
lighter materials like PE and GRP. Therefore Internally Lined Steel was not taken into further
consideration on the first stage of this Feasibility Study as a suitable material to meet the
maximum investment costs of 15 MEUR.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
19/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 13ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
PE and GRP are chemically inert against a wide range of chemicals and have a high resis-
tance against salt water. These materials do not crack or corrode by electrochemical reac-
tions with the surrounding terrain and do not encourage the growth of algae, bacteria and
fungi. Following maintenance costs can therefore be kept low.
Additionally PE and GRP have a high strength and low weight and can therefore be easily
transported and installed. This results in considerable costs savings.
4.2.1 Polyethylene (PE)4.2.1.1General
Polyethylene pipes feature high creep and mechanical strength besides high resistance to
crack growth.In this case all manufactureres suggested to use PE 100 quality with a mini-mum required strength (MRS) of 10 N/mm.
Polyethylene is a poor conductor of heat but is flammable. Direct flame must therefore not
be used to defrost pipes or for other operations. Pipes should also be protected if they are
near sources of heat that could raise its surface temperature above 60C.
To prevent polyethylene from ageing by exposure to ultraviolet light (e.g. sunlight), carbon
black shall be added to it. This stabilizer enables the pipes to be stored outdoors for a long
time.
4.2.1.2Joining of PE pipesFor PE 100 pipes jointing two techniques have been taken into consideration: electro-fusion
fittings and butt fusion welding.
Electro-Fusion Fittings
Electro-Fusion Fittings are a method of jointing PE pipes using fittings with integrated heat-
ing elements. An electric current is passed through the heating wire which melts the poly-
mer and fuses the fitting to the pipe.
The pipe and fitting are clamped together to prevent movement.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
20/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 14ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Figure 4.2.1.2-1: Cross-section of an Electro Fusion Fitting
Butt Fusion Welding
By this method the joining areas of the plastic pieces are pressed against an accordingly
heated up element until enough material is melted. The heating element is anti-stick coated
or covered so it can be easily removed before the melted surfaces of the pipes are pressed
together.
The pipes cool down under pressure or affixed together until the melted zone is resolidified.
Figure 4.2.1.2-2: Butt Fusion Welding: Hotplate between the pipes, cooling phase
4.2.2 Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP)4.2.2.1General Qualities
GRP is a composite material system produced from glass fiber reinforcements, thermosettingplastic resins, and additives.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
21/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 15ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
GRP pipes are manufactured by winding resin-impregnated continuous fibrous glass strand
roving or woven glass roving tape on to the outside of a mandrel in a predetermined pat-
tern under controlled tension.
Figure 4.2.2.1-1: Winding of a GRP Pipe
GRP pipes can be fabricated more pressure resistant with lower wall thickness due to its
glass fibre reinforcement, compared to PE pipes. Yet for the same internal diameter, they
are about 30% more expensive.
4.2.2.2Joining of GRP PipesFor buried pipelines the following three tensile resistant joining methods are possible:
Bell and Spigot with Locking Key Joint
This method is easy, applicable for every weather condition, and can also be applied by un-
trained personnel.
After the spigot is pushed into the bell, a locking strip is inserted using a plastic hammer to
make the joint tensile resistant.
Figure 4.2.2.2-1: Bell and Spigot with Locking Key Joint
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
22/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 16ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Adhesive Bonded Joint
Adhesive bonded joints of sufficient and permanent quality can be performed by fully
trained and certified personnel only and also only under specific weather and temperature
conditions. Trainers are usually supplied by the pipe manufacturer. Yet a tight quality con-
trol system during construction has to be established.
This joining method allows to cut pipes to the exact length on site and to bond them after
conditioning of their ends.
In principle it is a bell and spigot joint with an adhesive connecting and sealing the joint.
Figure 4.2.2.2-2: Adhesive Bonded Joint
Lamination Joint
This permanent joint consists of a hardening of impregnated glass, mats and tissues, which
are laminated according to specified width and thickness. around the pipe joint.
The laminated joint is used for diameters larger than 400 mm and to avoid the use of bends
or elbows by frequent direction changes in a pipe section.
As for adhesive bonding, in case it is necessary to shorten the pipe length at a certain point
in the line, re-jointing can be performed by laminating.
Lamination joints also afford trained personnel, certain climatic conditions and a reliable
quality assurance system during construction.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
23/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 17ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Figure 4.2.2.2-3: Lamination Joint
4.2.3 Selected Material and Joining MethodBecause of the equivalent characteristics of PE100 to Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) the pos-
sibility to select GRP for the brine pipeline was generally considered as alternative solution.
Comparing the prices of the two different materials, the wall thickness also has to be taken
into consideration. The varying (and with up to 40.9 mm for e.g. PE 100 DN 450 PN16 very
high) wall thicknesses reduce the cross-sectional area of PE pipes so far that a GRP DN 400
pipe nearly has the same cross sectional area as a PE DN 450. This results in the fact that the
outer diameter remains constant with varying wall thicknesses.
The following table shows average prices derived from budgetary enquiries at two Roma-
nian and four German manufacturers. Interesting enough, the Romanian prices are well in
the average and not significantly below the German prices as one might expect.
all values in EUR/m DN 400 DN 450 DN 500HDPE PN 6 30 35 46HDPE PN 10 46 56 73HDPE PN 16 70 94 120GRP PN 10 (adhesive joint) 90 110GRP PN 10 (key joint) 122 124GRP PN 16 (adhesive joint) 100GRP PN 16 (key joint) 140
Table 4.2.3-1: Material costs for line pipe
The higher temperature resistance of GRP up to 85 C against 60 C of PE 100 as an out-
standing advantageous characteristic of GPR is not required in this project as temperatures
higher than 50 C are not expected.
Therefore PE 100 pipe material has been selected as their handling and joint technique is
easier and not this much susceptible to quality problems as the adhesive joint technique of
GRP pipes.
Butt and fusion welding was selected as cost-effective technique because of the high quan-tity of expensive fittings required by the electro-fusion method. The cost of the required fit-
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
24/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 18ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
tings (one for each joint) would be higher than commissioning a subcontractor specialized
in butt fusion welding.
4.3 Description of Methodology for Pipeline System Pre-Optimisation
4.3.1 General MethodologyGenerally, an optimisation of a pipeline system compares the Capital Expenditures (CAPEX)
for various diameters of the pipeline for a given throughput, including the resulting num-
bers of pumpstations and their Operating Expenditures (OPEX), mainly energy consumption
and operating and maintenance personnel.
In this special case, the selection of the pipe material introduces an additional variable, asthe prices for the two different pipe materials considered here are varying widely.
4.3.2 System Pre-OptimisationInitial hydraulic calculations under various conditions resulted in a suitable diameter range
from DN 400 to DN 500.
The pressure profile determinations for the different pipeline systems have been assessed by
using the following known equations:
2(Re)
2
=w
d
Lp
with
(Re) Friction factor as function of the Reynolds number
L (m) length of pipeline section considered
d (m) pipeline inside diameter
w (m/s) flow velocity
(kg/m) medium density
The Reynolds number is hereby determined from the equation
dw=Re
with
(m/s) kinematic viscosity
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
25/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 19ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
The friction factor is determined depending on the Reynolds number:
For Re< 2320, the flow is laminar and the friction coefficient is calculated as
Re
64=
For Re > 2320, only an iterative determination of is possible:
For a hydraulically smooth pipe (Prandtl/Karman) yields:
=
51,2Relog21
For a completely rough pipe (Nikuradse) yields:
2
715,3log
25,0
=
k
d
In the so-called transition range, is determined according to Colebrook-White as
+=
d
k
71,3Re
51,2log2
1
with
k (m) pipe roughness
For comparison of energy demand and pump station distances for different pipe dimensionson ideal flat terrain, please see the following table:
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
26/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 20ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Table 4.3.2-1: Calculated Pressure Drops in different design pipelines
Considering the rising line pipe material costs for increased system pressure, the first ap-
proach leads to a system of low pressure, large diameter and more pump stations, supple-
mented with some pressure control valve stations along the route.
Yet the elevation profile shown in Figure 3.3.1-1 shows that a PN 6 system with an operat-
ing pressure of 5 bar (correlating to 42 m fluid column) can not be realized along this pro-
file. Therefore, the next design pressure class of PN 10 has been selected.
In the next step the hydraulics for three diameters taken into consideration (DN400, DN450
and DN500) have been calculated and graphically visualized. Additionally, the cases with
Pipe conditionPressure drop
HDPE PN10DN400bar/10 km
HDPE PN10DN450bar/10km
HDPE PN10DN500bar/10 km
Pipe Wall thickness in mm 23.7 26.7 29.7
Cleaned or new pipeline with no de-
posit and wall roughness : 0.05 mm
Product : Water
Throughput : 250 m/h
1.2 0.7 0.4
Cleaned or new pipeline with no de-
posit and wall roughness : 0.05 mm
Product: Brine
Throughput : 250 m/h
2.1 1.2 0.7
Pipeline with deposit of 5 mm
and deposit roughness : 1 mm
Product: Brine
Throughput : 250 m/h
3.0 1.7 1.0
Average distance of pump stations
with max. operation pressure 9 bar on
flat area
30 km 53 km 90 km
Total of pressure drop along the line
with distance of 135 km (worst case)Product: Brine
Throughput : 250 m/h
41 bar 22 bar 12 bar
Total of Power consumption for trans-
port over flat area for worst case407 kW 218 kW 119 kW
Demand of energy for brine transport
of 1,750,000 m/year for the worst
case
2,850
MWh/year
1,529
MWh/year
834
MWh/year
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
27/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 21ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
and without gypsum deposit and the resulting reduced cross-sectional area and increased
roughness have been included. See the figures in the follwing chapter 4.4 for details.
Regarding the elevation profile only, a design pressure over 27 bar would be necessary. If
there were a block valve at the receiving station in Giurgiu and a simple pressure control atthe discharge header pressurizes the pipeline despite the closed valve in Giurgiu, or an emer-
gency block valve induced an additional pressure surge, the design pressure would have to
be lifted even up to PN40.
However, different measures of varying the operating conditions can significantly reduce the
design pressure:
No block valve at the receiving station shall protect the tanks against overflow whilethe pump stations are operating. All block valve stations along the line are closing
depending on upstream pressure. Stopping of the filling of the tanks or the pipeline
transport requires switching off the pump stations.
There might occur problems with cavitations or vacuum zones in case of a quiescentstate of the pipeline regarding drop-out of fluid ingredients or two-phase fluid be-
haviour. Pipelines with PN10 usually can stand the loads of such vacuums. There-
fore, the pipeline can be depressurized to minimum pressure before next start up. In
this case the start-up pressure never exceeds the stationary pressure. Yet the pressur-
izing of the pipeline has to be carried out smooth and carefully. In this study, it is as-
sumed, that no vacuum problems are prevailing.
Therefore, a central control of the overall pipeline system by a SCADA system willl be neces-
sary. See chapter 4.5.5 for details.
4.4 Results of System Pre-Optimisation
4.4.1 Pipeline System DN500The most simple pipeline system has one head pump station in Bucsani, no block valves and
no pressure controls. The selected diameter for this scenario is DN 500. The elevation differ-
ence is sufficient for the design flow due to gravitation. Only the initial hill near Bucsani at
km 8 requires a pump station.
After starting the pumps, the vacuum zones will mostly be closed, but two tear offs of the
fluid will appear without pressure control valves while pumping, one after the hill near to
Buscani, and one at the hillside of the river Danube. Due to the low vapor pressure of brine
water, cavitation damages to the pipeline wall by imploding bubbles must be expected.
So there are two pressure control valves necessary to ensure a fully pressurized pipeline
without cavitation zones under all operating conditions like heavy pressure loss generatedby rough gypsum deposit and rinsing with clear water and low throughput. If the last sec-
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
28/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 22ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
tion at Danube hillside is increased to PN 16, the pressure control on the hillside can be left
out.
Figure 4.4.1-1: Hydraulic overview of DN 500 system
4.4.2 Pipeline System DN450The second system with main diameter DN 450 needs intermediate pump stations only
when the design throughput with a maximum gypsum deposit of 5 mm on the whole
length has to be acheived. At the first stage only the head pump station is needed. Until af-
ter a certain enhancement of the friction loss and the associated loss of throughput, the in-
termediate pump station needs to be started, and the design throughput will be reached or
exceeded. For the flushing of the pipeline, three pressure control valves (or two in the caseof raising the design pressure on the last section) are necessary. The first pressure control
valve is installed at km 30, the second in the intermediate pump station and the third at the
saline in Giurgiu. It should be noted that the delivery station of the saline in Giurgiu is work-
ing on the limit of PN 10, therefore an enhancement of the last section to PN 16 for better
protection of the tank farm is recommended.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
29/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 23ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Figure 4.4.2-1: Hydraulic overview of DN 450 system
4.4.3 Pipeline System DN400A design diameter of DN 400 of the pipeline system will result in one head and three inter-
mediate pump stations due to the increased pressure loss. This implies an increasing of the
amounts of operation conditions, because a lot of constraints have to be considered.
Every pump station usually can only handle operation condition in a narrow range around
the operating point. So the systems needs a quick reaction in the case of drop-outs of pump
stations and a carefully investigation of reaching the steady state after a new start to assure
sufficient minimum and maximum pressures at the entry and the exit of every pump station.
All this is not imaginable without a high automated remote control system and even then isvery delicate to handle.
A pump station can easier be adjusted to varying throughput than to varying suction and/or
discharge pressure. If design throughput with deposit 5 mm and 1 mm pipe wall roughness
for the whole line should be guaranteed, the normal case is a throughput above the design
throughput. The throughput with the same pressure drop is approx. 300m/h for this clean
system without gypsum deposit. The pump station will have its operation point between
these two values. For flushing the intermediate pump station #1 needs to convert to a pres-
sure reduction station. In the case of elongation of the route an additional pump station
might be necessary (average pump station distances are about 30 km). A multi pump sta-
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
30/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 24ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
tion system with low pressure can not be recommended in view to system failures. Also the
energy demand will increase aproximately to 300% of the DN450 system.
Figure 4.4.3-1: Hydraulic overview of DN 400 system
4.4.4 ConclusionsWhile a DN500 system has to be handled with minimum two pressure control valves and is
comparatively costly incapital expenditures due to the large diameter, a DN400 system has
too many failure risks due to too many pump stations. Although the DN 400 system is ap-
proximately 0.9 million EUR cheaper, it must be excluded as the hydraulics of such a system
with four pump stations on such a short distance and a medium with this high density are
not controllable.
Only the DN450 system is well balanced between various operating situations and technical
controllability. With increasing friction loss due to gypsum deposit the pressure of the main
pump station has to rise, and then later on the intermediate pump station has to be started.
If it might be decided to spare the intermediate pump station to reduce investment, one
must accept that the maximum throughput of the system, being completely lined with
5 mm of gypsum, will be reduced to 230 m/h.
A DN450 PN10 system (with certain sections of PN 16) needs no steering of the pressure,but at the end of the line, at the entry to the tank farm a pressure control (PCV) should en-
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
31/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 25ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
sure flow without cavitations. The first block valve (BVS1) has no steering function during
brine transport, but in the case of flushing with low throughput, a pressure drop on this po-
sition is necessary. Without the section of PN 16 at the Danube hillside, two steps of pres-
sure drop are necessary, one for the case of flushing and one for a leakage test with full
pressurized pipeline in the case of standstill.
For the optimum diameter of DN 450 it was also evaluated a second hydraulic profile in case
of following Route 2. In this case the second pump station is obligatory. Therefore the cost
for the second pump station is included.
Figure 4.4.4-1: Hydraulic overview of DN 450 system with longer route
4.4.5 Flushing ProcessThe flushing of the pipeline, assumed to take place with low throughput to save water and
energy, needs three pressure drops along the line. The first has to be realized in PCV1, the
second in the intermediate pump station and the third in the receiving station in Giurgiu.
For this special case the intermediate pump station remains switched off. After preparing
the pipeline system for the flushing, the extra pump in the main pump station will be
started. Then all brine pumps and armatures will be flushed, except the closed block valves
with the orifice bypass.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
32/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 26ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
The flushing of the pipeline needs especially operating conditions. Due to the lower pressure
drop of pure water, three orifices in PCV1, intermediate pump station and in the saline in
Giurgiu have to care for a full pressurized pipeline without cavitations zones.
Before the restart of the pipeline transport, the pipeline has to exhaust to the start pressure.Then the main pump station pressurizes the pipeline again, and after closing all vacuum
zones, the intermediate pump station can restart.
4.5 System DescriptionThis system description refers to the hydraulic diagram above in Figure 3.3.1-1 and the
Process Flow Diagram A309-F5-2003 in Appendix 4.
Summarizing it can be stated, that a design pressure with PN 10 and maximal operating
pressure of 9 bar, needs some safety device and some sections of PN16 for deep valleys, but
the technical conditions and operating conditions seems to be controllable.
Only at the end of the pipeline at the Danube hillside a change to design pressure PN16 for
better protection of the tank farm is recommended.
4.5.1 PipelineThere are three possible sections with a higher design pressure. The first section up to km 30
enables the section before the pressure control and block valve station at km 30 to bear thepressure surge of the running main pump station in the case of operation failures. The sec-
ond is the crossing through the deep valley of River Calnistea. And the last one is the slope
at the hillside of River Danube, because this is the deepest and the most vulnerable point of
the pipeline.
For maintenance and repair on the pipeline system, the pipeline has to vent after exhaust-
ing. Therefore two vent devices, one on the hill of Buscani, and one the hillside of Danube is
supposed.
Pigging devices at least transportable should be included in the planning, but can be re-alized later depending on a technical demand as the main cleaning of the pipeline will be
done by flushing and not by pigging. However, it has to be determined and fixed during the
next design phase if the pipeline shall be piggable or not. Here, the pigging facilities are not
included in the cost estimate.
4.5.2 Pump StationsThe system starts with the main pump station in Bucsani. The head pump station should
have one pump running and one pump on standby. For flushing, a separate, much smaller
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
33/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 27ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
pump will be necessary, assuming that the flushing throughput is much lower than the
brine transport throughput.
Normally the requirements of different pump locations are very individual. Therefore it is not
possible to change standby pumps between main pump station and intermediate pump sta-tion, without high energy loss by simulating similar working conditions by the use of orifice
loops.
Both pump station are working with an orifice loop to ensure minimum flow in the case of
a closed exit of the station. In addition, a pressure control valve between discharge header
and station exit controls the outlet pressure. The discharge header pressure for the main
pump station is about 30 m, for the intermediate pump station about 54 m for a through-
put of approx. 300 m/h. With increasing gypsum deposit the throughput reduces to design
throughput. So at the beginning of brine transport, pipeline operation can be performed
without the intermediate pump station. This is why the intermediate pump station isplanned without a standby pump here to save costs.
Due to the slope in the elevation profile, the distance between main pump station and in-
termediate pump station extends to 80 km. The demand of energy is about 36 kW for the
head pump station and 54 kW for the intermediate pump station. Therfore, the pumps have
to be specially designed for each pump station and will not be interchangeable.
4.5.3 Block Valve StationsAdditional to main pump station and intermediate pump station, one block valve station
with orifice bypass for flushing, a block valve on the hillside of Danube valley with a possible
change to design pressure PN16 and a simple block valve at River Arges should divide the
long pipeline sections into smaller for the case of emergency like pipeline leaks.
The valves are actuated with servo motors, equipped with pressure relief for the case of
overpressures, pressure indicator on upstream and downstream pipe, and a hand wheel for
power failures.
4.5.4 Pressure Control Valve StationThree pressure control valves are included in the systems. Two are located at the outlet of
the pump stations and one at the entry of the receiving station Giurgiu. This pressure con-
trol valve has the important function to ensure minimum pressure in the case of stand stills,
and closing of all cavitations zones under all operation condition.
4.5.5 SCADAThe defined system planned with PE 100 pipes DN450 PN 10 needs special care related to
starting and stopping of the transport and adjustments to different transport conditions.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
34/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 28ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
The volume of the pipeline is about 123 m/km. Without a central control of the pipeline by
a SCADA (System Control and Data Acquisition) system, the leaking volume in the case of
pipeline break is about 7000 m higher than with remote monitoring and controlling. This is
caused by the reaction time combined from manual shut down of the head pump station,
then the manual shut down of the intermediate pump station, and then closing the nearest
block valves to the break.
With a SCADA system the shut down of both pump stations and the closing of all valves
could start immediately, taking sequence and upstream pressure into account. A leaking out
of long pipeline sections can be prevented. The mentioned volume also arrives the tank farm
after power off of the pump stations without closing the line.
Therefore the installation of a SCADA system and the necessary comunication cable along
the route is recommended, although the pipeline is comparatively small and simple and the
transported medium is comparatively harmless. The SCADA system enables the operator tocentrally and remote control and operate the whole pipeline system.
For the telecommunication purposes for the SCADA system, an additional casing pipe HDPE
DN 40 or DN 50 will be laid into the pipeline trench. After backfilling and pressure test a fi-
bre optic cable will be pulled in or blown in with air in sections of 1-2 km.
4.6 Operating and Maintenance Personnel
As wished by Client, there was not included the operation personnel into this study as Clientwishes to include it into the saline in Giurgiu. Only the maintenance personnel and works
are described here.
Frequent routine inspections of the pump stations on site are the main work of the mainte-
nance personnel. In intervals of two weeks the pump functionality and their integrity, cor-
rect work and data transmission of the instrumentation, station heating/ cooling (depending
on the seasonal climatic conditions), mobility of valves and pressure control valves (especially
if the brine tends toward heavy gypsum deposit), power supply, etc. and the station integ-
rity itself from outer influences such as accidents, vandalism, theft, etc. shall be verified.
The same applies respectively for the block valve stations, as far as applicable on their facili-
ties.
The routine inspections shall include the control of the ROW strip from the car to prevent
unauthorised third party construction works above the pipeline that might endanger its in-
tegrity. Regular inspections by helicopter as it is usual for oil and gas pipelines seem not
necessary as the transported medium is not dangerous. Further inspections will include e.g.
the supervision of authorised crossing works of new third party lines.
Maintenance and repair teams from the saline should also do the respective repairs in the
stations. The little quantity of repair works and the innocuous medium does not justify a
special maintenance and repair team on standby.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
35/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 29ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
The workloads are estimated as follows in man-days per year:
Routine inspections, bi-weekly 26 days Third-party supervision 40 days Maintenance and repair 30 days
In addition, the maintenance costs for material part replacement are assessed separately.
See chapter 6.4.2 for details.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
36/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 30ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
5 AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROCESS, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITIONFor evaluation of the authority approval process, the Fine Consulting SRL, Bucarest, was
mandated by Client. Up to the completion of this study, there was only available a first gen-
eral assessment of the respective laws and regulations of Romania, attached here in Appen-
dix 5.
As there was not available neither any evaluation of ROW acquisition costs, nor especially
the difference of ROW acquisition costs for the two proposed routes (see chapter 3.3 for de-
tails), it can not be given any recommendation to one of the proposed routes yet.
Due to the lack of any ROW cost estimations dependant on the different routing conditions
it can only be assumed that Route 1 will be cheaper as it is 18% shorter than Route 2. How-ever, the detailed routing conditions have to be assessed in the next project phase.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
37/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 31ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
6 COST ESTIMATEThe results of the detailed cost estimates for Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) and for Operating
Expenses (OPEX) are presented herein.
6.1 Basis and AssumptionsThe cost estimate assesses the costs for the optimized system configuration described in
chapter 4.4.4. It is based on following provisions and assumptions:
Currency is Euro. The accuracy of this first cost estimation, based on actual market prices is 20%. Price basis is August 2005. The cost estimates are based on current experiences of ILF. It should, however, also be
considered, that the actual price at the time of supply and construction contracts
awarded can be substantially influenced by the prevailing market conditions.
The mobilisation and demobilisation expenses are included as part of the constructionexpenses. Expenses for start-up and commissioning are included as part of the supply
and construction costs.
The prices are net prices and contain no value-added tax. No surcharge for mark-up of EPC contractor is included yet. Financing expenses are not considered in the prices. The possibly necessary investments on the deliverer's or consumer's side beyond the de-
scribed pipeline system are not included. Battery limits are the suction flange of the
head station in Bucsany and the delivery flange of the receiving station in Giurgiu. Nostorage facilities are included.
6.2 MethodologyThe cost estimates and prices provided are based on the extensive ILF experience gained on
previous projects and apply to the Romanian market. Wherever possible, western market
prices were enquired or taken form the ILF database to verify and compare the Romanian
price level.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
38/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 32ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
To ensure the confidentiality of the study, usually amounts of about 100 km HDPE pipeline
in the Bucuresti region were enquired, without specifying the client or the medium to be
transported. It has to be pointed out that the actual prices will finally, apart from other rea-
sons, depend on the quantities ordered, international and local market situation.
The cost estimate method and structure uses the following factors for the calculation:
A) Costs depending on length like e.g. pipe material (only length related costs),B) Costs for construction,C) Construction costs for special construction or crossing structures,D) Costs for stations,E) Costs for engineering services,F) Fees, permits, insurances.
The total investment is the sum of all these factors.
6.3 Individual Cost ElementsThe cost element base contains the unit prices and the main calculation formulas for each
cost element.
An overview of the estimated costs is given in Appendix 6.
6.3.1 Line PipeAs described in chapter 4.2, the line pipe material will be HDPE. Line pipe prices were as-
sessed by budgetary enquiries in Germany and Romania and compared with the line pipe
prices given by Client.
Therefore the price for line pipe was estimated as follows:
unit price line pipe DN 450 PN 10 57 EUR/ m
unit price line pipe DN 450 PN 16 95 EUR/ m
6.3.2 Transportation CostsThe transportations costs to and in the project area are assessed for an average transport
distance for the line pipe of 300 km, which should be on the conservative side as the line
pipe should be ordered in Romania to minimize transportation costs.
Truck load of line pipe DN 450 150 m
Truck costs for 100 km 240 EUR
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
39/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 33ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
6.3.3 Pipeline CableDelivery and installation of the pipeline cable are independent from the pipeline diameter. A
fibre optic cable is the usually installed technology. It can also be used for data transmission
between Bucsany and Giurgiu independent from the pipeline operation.
The unit price for pipeline cable includes material and installation
unit price pipeline cable per m 2 EUR/ m
6.3.4 Construction Costs for PipelineThe construction costs for ideal conditions include:
Clearing and grading Transport of line pipe from storage places to site Trenching and bedding Welding and non-destructive tests Pipe lowering Delivery and laying of cable conduit Backfilling Restoration and clean up Hydrostatic testing Testing and commissioning
The construction costs for ideal conditions have been derived from budgetary enquiries. Al-
though there were issued budgetary enquries to nine Romanian construction companies,
only two of them responded. One gave an extremely low offer, the other an extremely high
offer that even exceeded the reference offer from a German company. Therefore the overall
construction prices can only be estimations at this project stage. Further enquries have to be
made in later project phases, preferably without keeping the project subject confidental.
The following unit price has been selected:
unit price construction 25 EUR/ m
The derived costs have to be multiplied with the route classification factor, which is descri-
bed in the following.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
40/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 34ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
6.3.5 Construction Costs of parallel pipelineAs a rule of thumb, a second pipeline, constructed at the same time, laid into the same
trench, is saving about 30% of the construction costs of two separate pipelines. That means,
the construction costs for the second pipeline is only 70% of the first, to be added to theconstruction costs of the first pipeline. However, there is no such saving on the material
costs.
6.3.6 Route ClassificationThe route classification factor for surcharge determination of the pipeline construction costs
usually is defined with consideration and factorized evaluation of following geological and
topographical criteria that are complicating the construction and raising the costs:
Longitudinal Slope Side Slope General Soil Conditions Site Accessibility Groundwater Conditions
Considering the limited scope of this study, a global route classification factor for the overall
route was estimated from ILF experience.
route classification factor 1.03
6.3.7 Special Construction StructuresThe survey has shown that traffic line and river crossings are necessary. The basis for the es-
timate are the budgetary enquiries for construction costs, verified by a linear meter price for
such crossings usually used in more general ILF cost estimates. The cost estimate includes all
civil, mechanical and installation work, e.g. river bank protection and concrete coating (in
case of open trench river crossing). These prices are a surcharge to the construction costs.
unit price open road crossing 1000 EUR/ piece
unit price open river crossing 2300 EUR/ piece
unit price HDD 250 EUR/ m
6.3.8 Stations
6.3.8.1Pump Stations
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
41/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 35ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
The price includes
earth works, foundations pump house piping, valves, fittings, flanges, also pigging facilities construction works pump units external/internal power supply electrical installation operational metering systems lightning protectionAdministrative buildings or housing compounds are not included as the pump stations are
assumed to be unmanned. In the case at hand the whole pump station will well fit into a
standard container that will be set onto a simple concrete foundation. Additional fencing,
etc. is not required.
The costs have been assessed from budgetary enquiries and standard prices from the ILF da-
tabase for the pumps and main fittings. In this study, the following costs were assumed:
Pump station, 2x 75 kW installed power 160,000 EUR
It shall be noted that this price includes stainless steel for all fittings and piping, considering
the corrosive transported medium. This increases the price considerably, compared to stan-
dard equipment.
6.3.8.2Metering FacilitiesMetering for operation purposes and leak detection is included as part of the pump station
instrumentation. The accuracy of this system has to ensure sufficient leak detection. A sec-
ond metering station therefore has to be located at the receiving station in Giurgiu.
Metering Facilities: 40,000 EUR
6.3.8.3 Pressure Control ValvesPressure control valves are used in the pump stations where they are included in the overall
station price there.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
42/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 36ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
6.3.8.4Block Valve Stations
6.3.9 Communication System / SCADAA communication and SCADA System is installed for remote control and data exchange
purposes in order to operate the pipeline system. Mostly, this system consists of a fibre optic
cable in parallel to the pipeline which connects all parts of a pipeline system. All data are
monitored in the control centre for operation and communication purposes.
In this case the SCADA System will have a very simlpe layout and therefore can be com-
paratevely cheap. The overall costs including station instumentations are assessed to:
SCADA facilities: 500,000 EUR
6.3.10 Engineering6.3.10.1 Engineering of Pipeline
The costs for engineering of pipeline are usually estimated to
price engineering of pipeline 5% of investment costs
6.3.10.2 Engineering of StationsEngineering of stations require much more time in relation to the investment costs, espe-
cially with these comparatively tiny pump stations. The costs for the engineering of stations
can be estimated as
price engineering of stations 10% of investment costs
6.3.10.3 Site SupervisionThe site supervision and quality control for pipeline construction as well as for station con-
struction can be estimated as
price site supervision 5% of investment costs
6.3.10.4 Right Of Way, Right Of Way AcquisitionThe costs for ROW have been estimated considering costs for lawyers, notaries, land regis-
ter, crop remuneration and costs for acquisition of ROW. An approach designed for Central
European standards has been used as a baseline, but considering the conditions in Romania,
the outcome was corrected to fit.
ROW and ROW Acquisition 800 EUR/ km
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
43/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 37ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
6.3.10.5 Additional ServicesAdditional services in this context are an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study, geo-
detic survey and soil investigations.
The EIA Study is relatively independent from width of working strip. The work to be done
depends on the requirements of the client, the authorities and on the nature found and the
route. The price can be calculated as follows
An EIA Study for a brine pipeline shall be much less extensive than for usual piplines. There-
fore the price was selected as
unit price EIA-study 3.00 EUR/ m
The unit prices for geodetic survey and soil investigations have been assessed with
unit price for geodetic survey 3 EUR/ m
unit price for soil investigations 2.5 EUR/ m
6.3.11 Fees, Permits, InsuranceFees, permits and insurance will be estimated from investment cost. From experience follow-
ing rates are applied:
authorities 1.0 %
technical inspections 1.0 %
insurance 0.3 %
in total 2.3 % of investment costs.
6.4 Operational Expenditures
6.4.1 Energy CostsEnergy costs apply for the operation of the pump stations only, pipeline and other energy
consumptions can be neglected due to their little outcome.
Energy costs: 100 EUR/ MWhel
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
44/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 38ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
6.4.2 Maintenance and Operating ExpensesThe maintenance costs consist of the service costs for the pipeline and stations as well as the
pure operating costs, mainly personnel expenditure to the operation of the pipelines. Yet, as
agreed upon with Client, it is assumed that the operation of the pipeline will be fullfilled bysaline personnel in Giurgiu, therefore these personnel costs are not included here. The pump
stations also do not cause personnel costs during normal operation as they are unmanned.
The maintenance rates are assessed from experience as follows and include mainly spare
parts. The personnel costs are calculated separately:
a) Pipeline: 0.8% of the pipeline investment costsb) Stations: 5.0% of the station investment costsDetailed figures for maintenance personnel are given in chapter 4.6 and Appendix 6.
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
45/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 39ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
7 REFERENCES/1/ https://zulu.ssc.nasa.gov/mrsid/mrsid.pl or for a short time also
http://earth.google.com/
/2/ e.g. http://www.solcomhouse.com/pipeline.htm
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
46/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERSILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Appendix 1Overview Map A309-R5-2001
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
47/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERSILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Appendix 2Topographical Route Map A309-R5-2002
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
48/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERSILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Appendix 3Photo Documentation of Pipeline Route
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
49/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERSILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Appendix 4Process Flow Diagram A309-F5-2003
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
50/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERSILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005
Appendix 5Legal Comment of Clients local Advisor onAuthority Approval and ROW Acquisition
-
7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study
51/51
Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005
Appendix 6Cost Estimate A309-ILFM-AD-0002