Risk-Based Pipeline Route Optimization for the Persian Gulf Region

Scott ByronExxonMobil Corporation

GEOG 596A Peer ReviewOctober 1, 2009

Ras Laffan Industrial City,Qatar

Installation of offshore pipeline – IranCourtesy Iranian Offshore Engineering and Consulting Co.

Sand dunes in the UAECourt.: ExposedPlanet.com

Presentation Overview

• Overview & Background

• Workflow diagrams

• Analysis factor identification methodology

• Data collection & preparation

• Proposed Analysis

Courtesy: NASA

Project Overview

Project Objectives

• Identify three alternative pipeline alignments using common weighting techniques

• Identify & weigh analysis factors using risk management approach

Qatar – Abu Dhabi – Oman PipelineCourtesy: Oil & Gas Journal

Business Drivers

• Increasing demand on Persian Gulf’s hydrocarbon reserves

• Pipelines are most economic means of transport

• Growing awareness of the benefits of using GIS during project planning

Project Constraints

• Must comply with company data restrictions

• Must incorporate ExxonMobil’s policies on safety and risk management

Insights from Literature Review

• Many examples of terrestrial route optimization

• Documented cost and time savings

• Variable number of analysis factors

• Factors often determined through group consensus

• Variety of weighting techniques

• Risks consideration implied, only one example is risked based

Regional Overview

• Population growth, oil wealth increasing regional hydrocarbon consumption

• Pipelines needed to bring new reserves to market

• Nearly 80 year development history

Regional Overview

Oil FieldsPipelines

2000 Oil Consumption(barrels/1,000 people)

Key Map

0.14 – 0.3333.01 - 65.8765.88 - 98.7398.74 - 131.60

• Extreme desert environments

• Variable land uses

• Variable surface conditions & slope stability

• Limited agricultural area supports regional population

Regional Overview

Semi Desert

2000 Regional Land Use Key Map

ForestShrub/GrassesCropsDesert

Rock OutcropUrbanRivers

• Shallow water depths, high temperatures & salinity

• Variable seabed conditions

• Major commercial route, constrained by Strait of Hormuz

• Growing awareness of environmental issues

-1,788m -90m 2,863mMax depth

of Persian Gulf

0m

Persian Gulf RegionTopography & Bathymetry

Key Map

Hillshade courtesy Carla Wilson

Regional Overview

Methodology

Study Area Selection

• Centered on Persian Gulf markets

• Disk space use is a consideration

• Encompasses a variety of geographic zones

Hillshade courtesy Carla Wilson

-1,788m -90m 2,863mMax depth

of Persian Gulf

0m

Persian Gulf RegionTopography & Bathymetry

Key Map

Projection System Considerations

• Analysis requires consistent projection

• Distance measurements are a priority

• Latitude suggests use of conic projection system

• Chose equidistant projection, optimized for study area to minimize distortion Optimized equidistant conic

projection

Workflow: Factor Identification

Identify Potential Risk Factors

Teamdiscussion

Literaturereview

Expertopinion

Potential risk factors

Formal risk analysis

High priority risk

factorsselected for

analysis

Select High PriorityRisk Factors

Completed In Progress

• 40+ risk factors identified

• Lack of expert input

• Expect 10 – 20 high priority risk factors

• Data availability a problem

Damage from shipping trafficDamage to benthic community

Damage to footings by wave actionCrosses habitat of endangered species

Release of toxic sedimentsDamage to coral reefs

Degredation of landscapeInterference with fisheriesCrosses protected areas

Crosses WetlandsDamage from landslides

Crosses active faultsRoute too close to seafloor obstructions

Seismic zonesCorrosive soils

Mechanically weak soils

Partial list of factors

Results of process:

Factor Identification

Gather Data

Internet search

Global or regional vector, raster, tif

& tabular dataw/ citations

Transformed & aligned

raster layer for each high priority risk

factor

Prepare Data

Tent. Completed In Progress

Workflow: Data Collection & Preparation

Is data useful?

Yes

NoProcessing steps• Conversion• Merge• Registration• Resampling• Set extent• Transform

T A U R U S M N T S .

ZA

GR

OS

MO

UN

TA

I NS

2000 population density data

Data Collection & Preparation

Data collection considerations:

1) Is the resolution sufficient?

2) Is the data outdated?

Too coarse?

1 km

Too old?

Data Collection & Preparation

3) Can the data be accurately registered & digitized?

4) Is the data complete?

Unregistered seismic hazard map

Good registration control points?

1 km

No marine data

Data collection considerations (cont’d):

Data Collection & Preparation

Data collection considerations (cont’d):

5) Is the data type suitable?

Point or polygon?

Coral Reefs Coral Reefs

6) Are value units known?

Calculations & reclassification

Shipping Traffic

Data Collection & Preparation

Data preparation considerations:

1) Raster resampling?

Which resolution?

1 km cells

300m cells

2) Combining marine & terrestrial datasets

+

=

Edge effects

Data Collection & Preparation

Data preparation considerations (cont’d):

3) How will the coastline be handled?

Northeast Bahrain Is.

Coastlines need to be aligned

Potential for data loss and gaps

Pending

Workflows: Weighting

Gather Opinions Determine Weights

In Progress

Two sets of factor

weights

Pair based comparisons

Literature review

Team discussion

Survey

Selection Frequency &

Degree of Importance

data for each high priority risk factor

Formal risk analysis

Simple indexing

One set of factor

weights

Literature described different weighting methods. Want to compare results.

Weighting

1) Simple Weighed Index

• High priority risk factors ordered by increasing risk

• Index values reflect Probability of Occurrence & Potential Impact scores In

cre

as

ing

ris

k

Index Factor

4 A

3 B

2 C

1 D

2) Pair Based Comparison

• All factors compared, one pair at a time

• Evaluating Brown & Peterson method (B&P), Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Factor C

Factor B

Factor C

Factor A

Factor A

Factor B

=

<

>

Weighting

Literature described different weighting methods. Want to compare results.

2) Pair Based Comparison (Cont’d)

• B&P relies on Selection Frequency, has no factor categories

• AHP relies on Degree of Importance, can use factor categories

Factor C

Factor C

Factor C

Factor A

Factor A

Factor B

=

<

>

Weighting

Literature described different weighting methods. Want to compare results.

Map algebra and reclassification

Pending

Workflow: Analysis Methodology

Generate Analysis Surfaces

Risk factor layers

Identify Pipeline Alignments

Three weight

sets

Three risk weighted analysis surfaces(SWI, B&P, AHP)

Three alternative pipeline alignments

(SWI Optimized, B&P Optimized, AHP Optimized)

Least-cost path analysis between

provided start and end points

Questions?

References

Analysis Methodology

Berry, J. K. (2009, August 6). Applying AHP in Weighting GIS Model Criteria. Retrieved from http://www.innovativegis.com/basis/Supplements/BM_Sep_03/T39_3_AHPsupplement.htm

Dey P.K. (2001). Integrated approach to project feasibility analysis: A case study. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 19(3), 235-245.

Dey P.K. and Gupta S.S. (2000). Decision-support system yields better pipeline route. Oil and Gas Journal. 98(22), 68-73.

Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F., MaGuire, D. J. & Rhind, D. W. (2005). Geographic Information Systems and Science, 2nd Ed.. London: John Wiley& Sons, Ltd..

References

Analysis Methodology (Cont’d)

Montemurro D., Barnett S., & Gale T. (1998). GIS-based process helps TransCanada select best route for expansion line. Oil and Gas Journal. 96(25), 63-71.

Saaty T.L., Vargas L.G., and Dellmann K. 2003. The allocation of intangible resources: The analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 37 (3):169-184.

Pipelines

Braestrup, Mikael W. Design and Installation of Marine Pipelines.. Blackwell Publishing. Online version available at:http://knovel.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/web/portal/browse/display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid=1384&VerticalID=0

References

Pipelines (Cont’d)

Guo, Boyun; Song, Shanhong; Chacko, Jacob; Ghalambor, Ali Offshore Pipelines. Elsevier. Online version available at:http://knovel.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/web/portal/browse/display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid=1258&VerticalID=0

Data

Global Seismic Hazard Program. (2009 August 27). Middle East Hazard Map. Retrieved from: http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP/

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. (2009, August 2). Commercial Activity (Shipping) Dataset. Retrieved from: http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/GlobalMarine/impacts

References

Data (Cont’d)

NationMaster.com. (2009, September 22). Oil Consumption (per Capita) (Most Recent) by Country. Retrieved from: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita

Tupper, M., Tewfik, A., Tan, M.K., Tan, S.L., The, L.H., Radius, N.J., & Abdullah, S. (2009, September 2) ReefBase: A Global Information System on Coral Reefs [Online]. Retrieved from: http://www.reefbase.org

United Nations Environmental Program. (2009, August 18). Global Environment Outlook (GEO) Data Portal. Retrieved from: http://geodata.grid.unep.ch/

United States Geological Survey. (2009, September 2). Earthquake Hazards Program: Epicenters Database. Retrieved from: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_rect.html

World Database on Protected Areas. (2009, August 5). Annual Release 2009 Dataset. Retrieved from: http://www.wdpa.org/Default.aspx

References

Data (Cont’d)

World Wildlife Fund. (2009, August 21). Global Lakes and Wetlands Database. Retrieved from: http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/data/item1877.html