salonen nord stream

8/4/2019 Salonen Nord Stream

1/29

Tiina Salonen, Environmental Manager Finland, Nord Stream AG

Ports and Sustainability Energy and Maritime Environmental ChallengesTallinn 9 June 2011

Nord Stream State-of-the-artTechnology to Safeguard theBaltic Sea


2/29

Agenda >

2

Nord Stream ProjectContributing to a secure energy supply for Europe1

Surveys and Pipeline Construction in the Finnish EEZMinimising environmental impacts

2

Environmental Monitoring of Pipeline Construction in the Finnish EEZMonitoring programme and results

3


3/29

Nord Stream Project >

3

Contributing to a secure energy supply for Europe


4/29

Energy infrastructure for Europe >

4

Nord Stream

> Two parallel offshore pipelines of1,224 km (transport capacity 55 bcmper year)

> A direct and fixed link between Russiasvast proven gas reserves and theEuropean Union

> An additional route complementingexisting network and other plannedpipelines

> Infrastructure project of Europeaninterest within the framework of theEUs TEN-E guidelines

Gas transported by Nord Stream can> Provide 26 million European

households withelectricity and heating fuel

> Make a substantial contribution to EUclimate protection goals

> Reach consumersalready in the last quarter of 2011


5/29

Pipelay of Pipeline 1 completed >

5

KP1195

KP675

KP297

KP7.5

KP350

2010 April

May

June

July

Aug.

Sep.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

2011 Jan.

Feb.

March

April

May

CastoroSei(C6)

Solitaire

Casto

roDieci(C10)

* KP = Kilometre Point

KP451


6/29

Relevant legal framework >

6

UNCLOS (Art. 79 Freedom to laypipelines if compliant with

environmental regulations) Espoo Convention (excl. Russia) Helsinki Convention (Other) treaties

National law(5 countries involved)

European directives, regulations TEN-E guideline

International law(9 countries involved)

Supranational

EIA legislation Legislation on pipeline construction

and operation
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Flag_of_Russia.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Flag_of_Finland.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Flag_of_Sweden.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Flag_of_Russia.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Flag_of_Finland.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Flag_of_Sweden.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svg


7/29

Environmental impact assessment and

permitting in Finland >

Environmental impact assessment in Finland

> Finnish National EIA Report approved in July 2009

> Espoo Report

Permits in Finland

> Water permit for munitions clearance granted in September 2009

> Consent to exploit Finlands exclusive economic zone granted in November 2009

> Water permit for pipeline construction and operation granted in February 2010

> Consent to perform scientific maritime research in Estonia granted in June 2010

7


8/29

Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) >

Com

mitment

register

(a

pprox.

2000)

Project

standards

Legal

register

(approx.

300

env.

laws)

5 national EIAsEspoo Report

Permit Applications

Public HearingsPermits

Environmental

policy

Procedures

18 Construction Management Plans (CMPs)

Munitions CMPOffshore Pipelay CMPSeabed Intervention CMPPollution prevention CMPHazardous materials CMPWaste management CMPVessels and marine transport CMP3rd party health, safety and security CMPEmergency preparedness CMP

German landfall CMPRussian landfall CMPEmployment and training CMPStakeholder engagement CMPFisheries CMPCompliance assuranceCompensation CMPBiodiversity CMPCultural resources CMPPre-commissioning CMP

Definedactions andmonitoring to

ensureimplementation

Various national &internat. standards

(incl. IFC, EP)Regional obligationsChosen NSP-values

Various national lawsEU directives

International laws

ESMSmanual


9/29

Nord Stream environmental management >Principles ofenvironmental management

>Avoid

>Minimise>Mitigate

>Monitor

>Verify

>Compensate


10/29

Surveys and Pipeline Construction

in the Finnish EEZ >

10

Minimising environmental impacts


11/29

Numerous surveys ensure saferouting >

Nord Stream surveys

> Conducted over four years

> Covering 40,000 line kilometres

> Total investment of 100 million euros

> Using state-of-the-art equipment

Multibeam echo sounder and side-scansonar, providing pictures of the seabed

Magnetometers, detecting metal objects

Video cameras for visual inspection ofobjects (over 30,000 targets inspected )

Gradiometers for precise information onthe location of detected objects

11

3D-visualisation of the seabed

ROV with 12-sensor gradiometer array


12/29

Objects identified >

12


13/29

Munitions clearance establishing a safe route with

least environmental impact >> Over 20,000 targets visually inspected

> Potential munitions located and identified

> Findings evaluated by experienced independentnavy experts

> Need for munitions clearance reduced

Dynamically positioned lay barge

Local pipeline rerouting

> Clearance plans agreed and notifications toresponsible authorities

> A total of 49 munitions cleared in 2009 and 2010

> Extensive environmental mitigation

Scheduling

Clearance technique

Observing and deterrence of marinemammals and fish

13
http://www.nord-stream.com/javasc


14/29

Rock placement

ensuring the long-term stability of the pipeline >

14

> Rock placement required to support the pipeline

> Fresh, clean broken rock placed to create stableberms on which the pipeline rests

> Berms installed at discrete locations by fall-pipeprior to pipelay and additional supports afterpipelay

> In the Finnish EEZ:

Dedicated vessels loaded on in Kotka

26 berms prior to pipelay installed

(97,000 m3)

Hyperbaric tie-in berm installed at KP 297(122,000 m3)

Rock placement after pipelay will continuethrough to 2012


15/29

Pipelay by the anchored lay barge Castoro Sei >

15

> Semi-submersible lay barge with twinpontoons

> Positioned by means of 12 anchors that aremanoeuvred by 3 anchor-handling tugs

> In the Finnish EEZ: Pipelines installed by Castoro Sei from

KP 350 to KP 498 (148 km)

Pipeline 1 installed in 2010 andinstallation of pipeline 2 to be completedin August 2011

> Minimising environmental impacts

Avoid Natura 2000 sites

Avoid cultural heritage sites and use ofcontrolled lay procedures

Installation of protective mattresses at

crossings with existing cables


16/29

Pipelay by the dynamically positioned

lay barge Solitaire >

16

> Dynamically positioned lay barge with tenthrusters (integrated propulsion power of50,000 kW)

> Thrusters are steered by a computer

system that constantly monitors theposition of the vessel

> In the Finnish EEZ:

Pipelines installed by Solitaire fromKP 123 to KP 350 (227 km)

Installation of pipeline 1 completed

in February 2011 and installation ofpipeline 2 to be completed inSeptember 2011


17/29

Ensuring maritime safety during construction >

Detailed risk assessments

> Assessment of ship traffic using AIS data

> General construction risk assessment

> Third party collision and grounding assessment

Extensive safety measures

> Planning in conjunction with Finnish TransportAgency

> A safety zone of up to 3 km around theconstruction vessels

> Notices to mariners and Navtex warnings duringconstruction by Finnish Transport Agency

> VHF broadcasts and radar watch by vessels

> Intervention tug to support pipelay within theKalbdagrund and Porkkala TSS

17


18/29

Environmental Monitoring of Pipeline

Construction in the Finnish EEZ >Monitoring programme and results

18(Source: Luode Consulting)


19/29

Objectives of environmental monitoring >

19

> To monitor that the pipeline isconstructed and operated in accordancewith permit conditions

> To observe the actual environmental

impacts of the pipeline construction andoperation

> To verify the findings of environmentalimpact assessments of the permitapplications

> To confirm that the pipeline constructionand operation does not cause impactsthat were not anticipated or are greaterthan anticipated

> To provide a basis for corrective action ifnecessary


20/29

Environmental monitoring programme in Finland >

> Seabed morphology

> Currents

> Water quality

> Sediment quality

> Pressure waves

> Marine mammals, fish and seabirds

> Cultural heritage, barrels and cables

> Benthic communities

> HELCOM benthos stations

> Fishery and social impacts

Monitoring parameters Reporting of monitoring results

> Final monitoring report on munitionsclearance in Finland

> Quarterly reports during construction

Presents monitoring results

Details unexpected events / anomalies

Provides first estimate of impacts

> Annual reports during construction and

operation

Summarises all construction andmonitoring activities

Summarises all monitoring results

Discusses actual impacts and

compares with assessed impacts20> www.nord-stream.com/en/environment/nord-streams-environmental-monitoring-in-the-finnish-eez-eng.html


21/29

Monitoring results of munitions clearance I >

> Currents: Depth average currents < 0.2 m/s and no bottom close currents exceeded0.3 m/s. No continuous strong currents were observed prior to detonations

> Seabed changes: Total amount of sediment released was significantly less, about 9 %(425 m3) of the assessed volume (4,748 m3)

> Water quality: At three sites elevated turbidity values were recorded in the lowermost10-15 m of water column. The highest values were < 10 NTU. Some small turbidityplumes were also detected closer to surface but the turbidity level was < 1 NTU higherthan in surrounding waters. The turbidity values were lower and the distances andareas of turbidity plumes significantly smaller than predicted. Concentrations of metalsand nutrients did not increase after the detonations

> Sediment quality in FIN and EST: Concentrations of metals and dioxins were low. Atfew sites concentrations of TBT were relatively high. No statistically significant changesattributed to munitions clearance were observed

> Benthos in FIN and EST:In FIN and two sites in EST the seabed was almost lifelessbefore and after the clearance. At one site in EST there was a decline in abundanceafter the clearance. No changes attributed to munitions clearance were observed. The

main reason for observed variations is the natural heterogeneity of the seabed21


22/29

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

distance from ammunition [m]

0 NTU

2 NTU

4 NTU

6 NTU

8 NTU

10 NTU

VOM1, Turbidity 11.5.2010 SE-NW transect 2 hours after detonation

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

depth[m]

Turbidity monitoring at F27: 2 hours after the detonation (Source: Luode Consulting)

Crater size monitoring at F27: images of seabed bathymetry before and after clearance (Source: MMT)Grid: 2 x 2 m; same vertical and horizontal scale. Charge 312 kg, soft silt/mud, crater volume 18 m3

Before After

22

Examplary monitoring results

seabed changes and water quality >


23/29

> Pressure waves: Magnitude was in general significantly lower than predicted. Thevalue was higher (1%-32%) than predicted only during four detonations

> Cultural heritage and cables: No impacts on cables or cultural heritage wereobserved as predicted

> Barrels: No displacements of or damage to barrels were observed. The impact wasless than predicted. Two barrels were damaged during the visual inspection by ROV,but no loss of content was observed

Blast pressure wave of a detonation (Bactec)

AfterBefore

Barrel monitoring: Images of before and after clearance(MMT)

23

Monitoring results of munitions clearance II >


24/29

Monitoring results of munitions clearance III >

> Fish: No fish shoals were observed in the areas prior to detonations. Fish killwas observed at varying levels after all detonations and the recovered fish wasmainly Baltic Herring. The munitions clearance caused minor impact on fish

> Marine mammals and seabirds: One seal was observed prior to detonation.

Seabirds (mainly gulls) were observed after the detonations feeding on deadfish. No seabird or marine mammal injuries or fatalities were observed

Dead fish recovered after the clearance on 22 April 2010 (Bactec)Seal observed prior to clearance on 22 April 2010

24

OVERALL CONCLUSION:

Environmental impacts monitored were less than or inline with the impacts assessed.

COST:

Approximately 75 % of the clearance time was allocatedto environmental mitigation and monitoring, which equalsto in excess of 7.5 Mio EUR.


25/29

Environmental monitoring results rock placement I >

> Seabed morphology: The quantity of rock material placed was 34 % greater thandesigned due to the consolidation of very soft soils

> Currents: The median current speed at three stations varied between 3.6 - 5 cm/s.At the tie-in site the measured current speeds were in general larger than modelledfor the impact assessments. At two other sites they were close to the modelled. Atall sites the measured current directions correlated well with the modelled

Distribution of modelledand monitored currentspeeds at the tie-in site(Source: Ramboll)

25


26/29

Environmental monitoring results rock placement II >

> Water quality

Increased turbidity was limited to the lowest 10 m of water column as predicted

The highest turbidity values were measured at the tie-in site (max. 9 - 58 mg/l)

The monitored turbidity peaks were higher than modelled but the duration of

increased turbidity was shorter (max. 1 h - 2.5 days) than assessed The distance of sediment spreading (> 10 mg/l) was less than 1 km as assessed

(Source: Luode Consulting)26


27/29

Environmental monitoring results rock placement III >

> Sediment quality

In FIN:Concentrations of heavy metals and dioxins were generally low andconcentrations of TBT relatively high before and after the rock placement. Theresults showed no statistically significant changes attributed to rock placement

In EST:The concentrations of TBT and dioxins were higher after the rockplacement. As the increase of turbidity in water during rock placement in theFinnish EEZ was low, the changes are most likely related to the natural variationsin the composition of the seabed

> Benthos

In FIN: Due to very low oxygen concentration the abundance was very low beforeand after the rock placement. The rock placement did not cause significant

harmful impact to benthos In EST: At one station the abundance was low before and after the rock

placement. At the other station the seabed was either almost lifeless or theabundance was relatively high before and after the rock placement. Variations inthe observations are caused by the changes in oxygen levels and the naturalheterogeneity of the seabed

27


28/29

Environmental monitoring results pipelay >

> Seabed morphology

Between KP 350 - KP 498the embedment of thepipeline is higher and the freespans after pipelaygenerally shorter than predicted

> Water quality During pipelay by the anchored lay bargeminor

turbidity peaks (1- 2.1 NTU) were observed close tothe installation corridor. Some increase in turbidity(max. 37 NTU) was also measured within 500 mdistance from the pipeline in the lowest 10 m ofwater column. The increase is likely to be caused by

the movement of embedded pipe at the samelocation during a repair onboard the barge.

During pipelay by the dynamically positioned laybargeno increase in turbidity was observed

> Wrecks

Pipelay by the anchored lay barge between

KP 350 - KP 498 did not cause impacts on wrecks28


29/29

Contact >

Head office

> Nord Stream AGGrafenauweg 26304 Zug / SwitzerlandPhone: +41 41 766 91 91

[email protected]

9

Dr. Tiina Salonen

> Environmental Manager Finland

[email protected]

salonen nord stream

Documents