Valeur_subbed.qxp 27/3/09 04:52 Page 94
Two Gas Pipelines Through the Baltic Sea to Meet the Future Gas Needs of the European Union
740 tonnes of nitrogen (N) and 130 tonnes of phosphorus (P). treated with caustic soda (NaOH) and the oxygen scavenger sodium
Compared with the overall yearly input to the Baltic Sea in 2000 of bisulphite (NaHSO
3
). Numerical modelling of the environmental
approximately 1 million tonnes of N and 34,500 tonnes of P,
13
the impact when discharging the pressure test water has shown that the
input from the pipeline project will have an insignificant impact on effect of oxygen depletion and increased pH will be local (within a
eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Calculations of the mobilisation of maximum range of 20–50m around the point of discharge).
heavy metals have likewise shown that the amounts are insignificant
compared with the overall input to the Baltic Sea. The pipelines extending through the Baltic Sea can be considered as
two artificial reefs on which hard-bottom benthic life can potentially
The construction works generate noise from the various vessels involved migrate. However, this migration cannot take place over long
and from sheet piling at the landfalls. Special precautions will be taken distances, as the pipeline extends through areas suffering from
close to shore at the landfall sites. Analysis has shown that fish avoidance oxygen depletion in the deeper parts of the Baltic Sea. Therefore, the
reactions will occur in the area where the lay barge is operating, but the pipelines are not considered a medium for exchanging non-
fish population will return as the lay barge moves on, at a speed of indigenous species between different parts of the Baltic Sea.
approximately 3km per day. The harbour porpoise is probably the marine
mammal in the Baltic Sea that is most sensitive to underwater noise. Piling, Conclusion
which may take place at the two landfall sites, will result in noise levels The environmental aspects and impact of the planned Nord Stream
that may cause adverse effects to the harbour porpoise. The zone of pipelines from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea have been
adverse impact (injury) for the harbour porpoise can be estimated to analysed. A comprehensive description of the baseline conditions has
extend between 0.6 and 10km from the piling location. Precautions will been used, together with experience from other major marine
be taken by using deterrents (pingers) and slowly ramping up the energy construction projects, in order to assess the environmental impact.
of the piling hammer to avoid impact on marine mammals. The interaction between the designer of the link and various
stakeholders and experts has ensured that the pipelines can be
Air emissions as a result of construction and maintenance of the constructed with only local and temporary adverse impacts. A
pipelines will have a local/regional impact on the environment (by significant step that reduces the risk of an environmental accident has
contributing to acid rain and eutrophication, etc.) and a global impact been to remove an intermediate service platform that was originally
by emitting greenhouse gases. The greenhouse gases emitted during planned as part of the project. The environmental analyses show that
the construction works is mainly made up of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) the pipelines can be constructed, operated and decommissioned with
from construction of the pipeline. The risk of a gas leak from the no long-term impact on the marine life and socioeconomic activities
pipeline (i.e. in the unlikely event of a ship sinking and hitting one of that depend on the unique environment of the Baltic Sea. ■
the pipelines while in use, which is both a safety hazard and an
environmental hazard because of the potential for emission of the Postscript
potent greenhouse gas methane [CH
4
]) has been analysed, as has the Ramboll Oil & Gas presented the comprehensive environmental
risk of an oil spill caused by a possible collision between, for example, studies for the Nord Stream pipeline project at the Abu Dhabi
the lay barge and other vessels in the Baltic Sea. International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference (ADIPEC) 2008.
14
It is hoped that the experience from these studies can be used in
Geophysical surveys have been carried out along the entire route in other pipeline projects for ensuring environmentally optimal design,
order to identify possible munitions and old mines and ensure that construction and operation. This has proved to be for the benefit of
they do not pose any risks to the personnel working on the project, both the owners of the projects (by strengthening their reputation as
the environment or the integrity of the pipelines. After installation of responsible companies, facilitating a positive stakeholder dialogue
the pipelines is complete, pre-commissioning activities will prepare the and permitting process and minimising unnecessary use of energy
pipelines for commercial operation. The pre-commissioning activities and resources) and the surrounding environment.
include flooding, cleaning and gauging of the pipeline interior
followed by hydro-testing, dewatering and drying of the pipeline. Acknowledgements
Water intake and discharge will take place near the Russian landfall. We are grateful to Nord Stream AG for allowing us to publish all
The seawater in the pipelines will be filtrated and is planned to be relevant results from the environmental study.
1. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and 6. Carstensen J, Henriksen P, Heiskanen A-S, Summer algal deep water of a pipeline crossing the flow route in the
Transport, 2007. European Energy and Transport. Trends to blooms in shallow estuaries: Definition, mechanisms, and link Arkona and Bornholm Basins, Swedish Meteorological and
2030 – Update 2007. to eutrophication, Limnol Oceanogr, 2007;52(1):370–84. Hydrological Institute, SMHI Report No. 61, 2007.
2. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 7. Valeur JR, Sediment investigations in connection with the 12. Lewis LJ, Davenport J, Kelly TC, A study of the impact of a
Environmental Status of the European Seas, 2003. Øresund Fixed Link, Danish Journal of Geography, 2004;104(2): pipeline construction on estuarine benthic invertebrate
3. Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), Climate Change in the Baltic 1–12. communities – Part 2. Recolonization by benthic invertebrates
Sea Area – HELCOM Thematic Assessment in 2007, Helsinki 8. United Nations, United Nations Convention on the Law of the after one year and response of estuarine birds, Estuar Coast
Commission, Baltic Marine Environmental Protection Sea (UNCLOS), 182. Shelf Sci, 2003;57:201–8.
Commission, 2007. 9. Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), Convention on the 13. Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), Nutrient Pollution to the
4. Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), Environment of the Baltic Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Baltic Sea in 2000, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings,
Sea area 1994–1998, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings, Area, 1992. 2004;100.
2001;82A. 10. United Nations, Convention on Environmental Impact 14. Valeur JR, Larsen JB, Strøbæk N, Environmental study for two
5. Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), Final Report of the ad hoc Assessment in a Transboundary Context (The Espoo gas pipelines through the Baltic Sea, Proceedings, SPE
Working Group on Dumped Munition (HELCOM CHEMU), Convention), 1991. International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu
1995. 11. Borenaes K, Stigebrandt A, Possible effects upon inflowing Dhabi, UAE, 3–6 November 2008, SPE-117587.
94
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION – VOLUME 7 ISSUE 1
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156