DOCSLIB.ORG

171 Ferc ¶ 61,134 United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
171 Ferc ¶ 61,134 United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 171 FERC ¶ 61,134 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Neil Chatterjee, Chairman; Richard Glick, Bernard L. McNamee, and James P. Danly. Alaska Gasline Development Corporation Docket No. CP17-178-000 ORDER GRANTING AUTHORIZATION UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT (Issued May 21, 2020) On April 17, 2017, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) filed an application under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)1 and Part 153 of the Commission’s regulations2 for authorization to site, construct, and operate facilities in the State of Alaska for the liquefaction and export of natural gas produced in the North Slope of the State of Alaska (Alaska LNG Project). For the reasons discussed in this order, we will authorize AGDC’s proposed project, subject to the conditions discussed and attached herein. I. Background and Proposal AGDC is an independent, public corporation of the State of Alaska structured within the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. The Alaska State Legislature provided AGDC with the authority and primary responsibility for developing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project on the State’s behalf.3 1 15 U.S.C. § 717b (2018). 2 18 C.F.R. pt. 153 (2019). 3 ALASKA STAT. § 31.25.005. Docket No. CP17-178-000 - 2 - The Alaska LNG Project consists of: a gas treatment plant located in the Prudhoe Bay Unit of Alaska’s North Slope, and two natural gas pipelines connecting production units to the gas treatment plant; an approximately 806.9-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter pipeline (Mainline Pipeline) capable of transporting up to 3.9 billion cubic feet of gas per day (Bcf/day) from the gas treatment plant to the liquefaction facilities; 344,000 horsepower (hp) of compression located at eight compressor stations along the Mainline Pipeline; and liquefaction facilities on the Kenai Peninsula designed to produce up to 20 million metric tons per annum (MMTPA) of LNG (Liquefaction Facilities) for export.4 AGDC estimates that the cost of the facilities will be between $40 and $45 billion. Specifically, AGDC proposes to construct the following facilities: • a gas treatment plant in Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope consisting of three parallel treatment trains for the removal of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from the feed gas, each sized to process up to 1.3 Bcf/day of gas (Prudhoe Bay Treatment Plant); • 1.0 miles of 60-inch-diameter pipeline on the North Slope, which will extend from the Prudhoe Bay Unit gas production facility to the Prudhoe Bay Treatment Plant (Prudhoe Bay Unit Gas Transmission Line); • 62.5 miles of 32-inch-diameter pipeline on the North Slope, which will extend from the Point Thomson Unit gas production facility to the Prudhoe Bay Treatment Plant (Point Thomson Unit Gas Transmission Line); • 806.9 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline, which will extend from the Prudhoe Bay Treatment Plant and terminate at the Liquefaction Facilities on the Kenai Peninsula (Mainline Pipeline);5 • a compressor station with three gas-fired turbine compressor units, totaling 68,000 hp, located at Mainline Milepost (MP) 76.0 in the North Slope Borough (Sagwon Compressor Station); 4 The supply of natural gas for the Alaska LNG Project is located at the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson production units on the North Slope. 5 The Mainline Pipeline will cross the North Slope, Fairbanks North Star, Denali, Matanuska-Susitna, and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs and the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area. AGDC states that along the mainline there will be at least five gas interconnection points to allow for future in-state deliveries of natural gas. Docket No. CP17-178-000 - 3 - • a compressor station with one 42,000 hp gas-fired turbine compressor unit, located at Mainline MP 148.5 in the North Slope Borough (Galbraith Lake Compressor Station); • a compressor station with one 42,000 hp gas-fired turbine compressor unit, located at Mainline MP 240.1 in the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area (Coldfoot Compressor Station); • a compressor station with one 42,000 hp gas-fired turbine compressor unit, located at Mainline MP 332.6 in the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area (Ray River Compressor Station); • a compressor station with one 42,000 hp gas-fired turbine compressor unit, located at Mainline MP 421.6 in the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area (Minto Compressor Station); • a compressor station with one 42,000 hp gas-fired turbine compressor unit, located at Mainline MP 517.6 in the Denali Borough (Healy Compressor Station); • a compressor station with one 33,000 hp gas-fired turbine compressor unit, located at Mainline MP 597.4 in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Honolulu Creek Compressor Station); • a compressor station with one 33,000 hp gas-fired turbine compressor unit, located at Mainline MP 675.2 in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Rabideux Creek Compressor Station); • a stand-alone gas heater station, located at Mainline MP 749.1 in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Theodore River Heater Station); • liquefaction facilities capable of producing up to 20 MMTPA for export, located on the eastern shore of Cook Inlet in the Nikiski area of the Kenai Peninsula, consisting of feed gas mercury and water removal facilities, fractionation facilities, three liquefaction trains, two 240,000 cubic meter tanks, and marine facilities capable of accommodating two LNG carriers simultaneously (Liquefaction Facilities); and • various appurtenances. Docket No. CP17-178-000 - 4 - On November 21, 2014, the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy (DOE/FE) authorized Alaska LNG Project, LLC6 to export, on a long-term, multi- contract basis, 20 MMTPA, or 2.55 Bcf/day, of LNG to nations with which the United States has a Free Trade Agreement (FTA).7 On May 28, 2015, DOE/FE granted conditional authorization for the exportation of 20 MMTPA8 of natural gas to nations that do not have an FTA.9 AGDC states that it is in negotiations with producer members of Alaska LNG Project, LLC to obtain an option to purchase the LLC, which, as noted above, holds the DOE/FE export license and also owns the land for the Liquefaction Facilities site. AGDC states that it will make the required filings at DOE/FE to authorize a change in control over ownership of the export license to AGDC. II. Procedural Issues A. Notice, Interventions, Protests, and Comments Notice of AGDC’s application was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2017, with motions to intervene due by May 22, 2017.10 Timely, unopposed motions to intervene were filed by: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. and BP Alaska LNG LLC, jointly; Center for Biological Diversity; Chickaloon Native Village Traditional Council; City of Valdez, Alaska; Conoco Phillips Company, ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG Company, and ConocoPhillips Alaska Natural Gas Corporation, jointly; ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC; ExxonMobil Alaska Production 6 The Alaska LNG Project, LLC’s September 2014 Letter requesting prefiling for the Alaska LNG Project identified five partners: ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC, ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG Company, BP Alaska LNG LLC, TransCanada Alaska Midstream LP, and the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. 7 See Alaska LNG Project, LLC, FE Docket No. 14-96-LNG, Order No. 3554 (Nov. 21, 2014) (authorizing exports for a 30-year term, beginning on the earlier of the date of first exportation or 12 years from the date of DOE/FE’s authorization) (DOE/FE Order No. 3554). 8 This quantity is not additive to the volume approved to be exported to free trade nations set forth in DOE/FE Order No. 3554. 9 See Alaska LNG Project, LLC, FE Docket No. 14-96-LNG, Order No. 3643 (May 28, 2015) (authorizing exports for a 30-year term, beginning on the earlier of the date of first exportation or 12 years from the date of DOE/FE’s authorization) (DOE/FE Order No. 3643). 10 82 Fed. Reg. 21,223. Docket No. CP17-178-000 - 5 - Inc.; Northern Alaska Environmental Center; Sierra Club; and National Parks Conservation Association.11 On January 9, 2018, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough filed a motion to intervene out of time and comments. This late intervention was granted on February 27, 2018. On August 10, 2018, the Kenai Peninsula Borough filed a motion to intervene out of time, which was granted on September 11, 2018. Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity protested AGDC’s application, arguing that the environmental impacts of the proposed project outweigh any benefits, and therefore, the project is not consistent with the public interest. Additionally, we received a number of comments in support of the project. On June 6, 2017, AGDC filed an answer to the comments by the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club. Although the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure do not permit answers to protests,12 we will accept the answers herein because they clarify the concerns raised and provide information that has assisted in our decision making. These concerns are addressed in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Alaska LNG Project and below. B. Request for Evidentiary Hearing In its motion to intervene, the Center for Biological Diversity requested a formal hearing on AGDC’s application, “including the environmental impacts of and public need for the project.”13 Although our regulations provide for a hearing, neither the NGA nor our regulations require that such hearings be formal (i.e., trial-type) hearings. When the written record provides a sufficient basis for resolving the relevant issues, it is the Commission’s practice to provide for a “paper hearing.”14 That is the case here. The 11 Timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deformation Monitoring and Geohazards in Nigeria: a Critical Review
    International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume VI, Issue XI, November 2019 | ISSN 2321–2705 Deformation Monitoring and Geohazards in Nigeria: A Critical Review K. O. Ishola, P.A. Jegede Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics, Federal Polytechnic, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria Abstract:- Geohazards are geological and environmental due to plate tectonics. As noted by Chen et al (2017), different conditions that involve long-term or short-term geological types of geological hazards occur through different processes. It occur when artificial structures, such as buildings mechanisms. Even when the same types of hazard occur in and natural structures, such as slopes are deformed in various different internal geological structures, the causes and ways. To achieve the aim of this study which is to is to facilitate characteristics of the environmental external terrain conditions comprehensive technical understanding and knowledge of the processes of monitoring geological hazards and to better of the hazard can differ. MARI (2017) therefore asserted that appraise their impacts on engineering structures and the geohazards include: earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, environment with a view to providing mitigation strategy, in ground motion, tsunamis, floods, droughts, meteorite impacts order to achieve the stated objective, secondary data sourced and health hazards of geologic materials. Spatial scales can from dailies, reports internet and other relevant research works range from local events such as a rock slide or coastal erosion were used. Having studied the state of geohazard and to events that pose threats to humankind such as a great deformation monitoring control Nigeria as well as mitigation volcano or meteorite impact.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Oregon Seismic Hazard Database: Purpose and Methods
    State of Oregon Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Brad Avy, State Geologist DIGITAL DATA SERIES 2021 OREGON SEISMIC HAZARD DATABASE: PURPOSE AND METHODS By Ian P. Madin1, Jon J. Francyzk1, John M. Bauer2, and Carlie J.M. Azzopardi1 2021 1Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 965, Portland, OR 97232 2Principal, Bauer GIS Solutions, Portland, OR 97229 2021 Oregon Seismic Hazard Database: Purpose and Methods DISCLAIMER This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. This publication cannot substitute for site-specific investigations by qualified practitioners. Site-specific data may give results that differ from the results shown in the publication. WHAT’S IN THIS PUBLICATION? The Oregon Seismic Hazard Database, release 1 (OSHD-1.0), is the first comprehensive collection of seismic hazard data for Oregon. This publication consists of a geodatabase containing coseismic geohazard maps and quantitative ground shaking and ground deformation maps; a report describing the methods used to prepare the geodatabase, and map plates showing 1) the highest level of shaking (peak ground velocity) expected to occur with a 2% chance in the next 50 years, equivalent to the most severe shaking likely to occur once in 2,475 years; 2) median shaking levels expected from a suite of 30 magnitude 9 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake simulations; and 3) the probability of experiencing shaking of Modified Mercalli Intensity VII, which is the nominal threshold for structural damage to buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • Geohazards Name
    Geohazards Name: ______________________________________________________________________ Period: ____________________ Date: _______________ Essential Question: Where are the common locations of geohazards and how do they occur? Geohazards can be defined as events related to the geological state and processes that may cause loss of lives as well as material and environmental damages. These geohazards arise from global geological processes inside the Earth, driving deformation and displacement of its crust. Underneath the thin crust the Earth consists of a sticky fluid of melted rock we call the mantle that undergoes convection that turns and twists like boiling water, causing the crust to move. The earth’s crust is divided in different plates called tectonic plates. When these plates interact the resulting crustal movement can cause earthquakes, allow volcanoes to erupt and set off landslides. All of these three; earthquakes, volcanic eruption and landslides can trigger tsunamis if they happen in or close to the ocean. Earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, tsunami, and sinkhole are all classified as geohazards. Earthquakes: Earthquakes occur in plate boundaries or fractures on Earth’s crust that can either be convergent, divergent, or transform. Earthquakes are caused by the sudden release of accumulated strain along these faults, releasing energy in the form seismic waves. A major earthquake is usually followed by aftershocks. Earthquakes may cause liquefaction, landslides, and tsunamis. Most earthquakes happen along the “Pacific Ring of Fire”, convergent boundaries around the Pacific Ocean. Volcanoes: A volcano is an opening in the Earth's crust from which lava, ash, and hot gases flow or are ejected during an eruption. Volcanic hazards vary from one volcano to another and from one eruption to the next.
    [Show full text]
  • Landslide Hazard Evaluation and Temporary Slope Stabilization Plan
    Landslide Hazard Evaluation and Temporary Slope Stabilization Plan Revolution Pipeline Butler, Beaver, Allegheny, and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania for ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC February 23, 2019 Landslide Hazard Evaluation and Temporary Slope Stabilization Plan Revolution Pipeline Butler, Beaver, Allegheny, and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania for ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC February 23, 2019 3050 South Delaware Avenue Springfield, Missouri 65804 417.831.9700 Landslide Hazard Evaluation and Temporary Slope Stabilization Plan Revolution Pipeline Butler, Beaver, Allegheny, and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania File No. 18782-026-01 February 23, 2019 Prepared for: ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC 1300 Main Street, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77002 Attention: Laura A. Sutton, Senior Counsel Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 3050 South Delaware Avenue Springfield, Missouri 65804 417.831.9700 Trevor N. Hoyles, PE Principal Jonathan L. Robison, PE Principal TNH:JLR:kjb Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guidebook for Assessing Risk Exposure to Natural Hazards in Central America - El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua
    The Guidebook for Assessing Risk Exposure to Natural Hazards in Central America - El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua - was produced under the aegis of the Project of Technical Cooperation Mitigation of Georisks in Central America between the Servicio Nacional de Estudios Territoriales (SNET), El Salvador Instituto Nacional de Sismología, Vulcanología, Meteorología e Hidrología (INSIVUMEH), Guatemala Comisión Permanente de Contingencias (COPECO), Honduras Instituto Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales (INETER), Nicaragua and Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), Germany Key word list for indexing CARA-GIS, Central America, Disaster Risk Management, El Salvador, Georisk, Guatemala, Guidebook, Hazard Map, Honduras, Inundation, Landslide, Potential Loss Assessment, Nicaragua, Technical Cooperation, Risk Exposure Map, Seismic Hazard, Socio-Economic Vulnerability, Spatial Planning, Susceptibility, Volcanic Hazard Recommended citation of this document BALZER, D.; JÄGER, S. & D. KUHN (2010): Guidebook for Assessing Risk Exposure to Natural Hazards in Central America - El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. – Project of Technical Cooperation ‘Mitigation of Georisks in Central America’: 121 pages; 26 figures; 44 tables; 35 maps; San Salvador, Guatemala-City, Tegucigalpa, Managua, Hannover. This book is also available in Spanish (ISBN 978-3-9813373-8-9). Project of Technical Cooperation - Mitigation of Georisks in Central America Foreword Central America with its project relevant countries of El Salvador (SV), Guatemala (GT), Honduras (HN), and Nicaragua (NI) covers an area of about 371.500 km² with approximately 34 Mio inhabitants. This central part of the Central America isthmus is situated between longitude 92° 14’ W and 83° 9’ W and latitude 17° 50’ N and 10° 40’ S. It is located at the interaction between the sea floor tectonic plates, namely Cocos and Nazca to the west and the Caribbean plate to the east.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Geo-Hazards Caused by Climate Changes
    Landslides and Engineered Slopes – Chen et al. (eds) © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-41196-7 Analysis of geo-hazards caused by climate changes L.M. Zhang Department of Civil Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China ABSTRACT: This paper analyzes the effect of climate on the generation of possible geohazards. The rainfall and evaporation changes in Hong Kong in the past four decades are first reviewed based on records from the Hong Kong Observatory. Then the effect of climates on the generation of emerging geohazrzds is analyzed through a series of transient infiltration analyses taking the climate conditions as initial conditions. Three climate conditions; namely, extreme drought condition, extreme wet condition, and steady-state condition, are studied. Extreme yearly weather variations are shown to be the key to the generation of interchanging extreme hazards such as landslides and floods. The analysis results demonstrate that, in a prior extreme drought condition, an intermediate rainfall process can result in large surface runoff and thus surprising floods. In addition, dissipation of suction only occurs in the shallow soils. Hence, storm water infiltration into a dry ground is likely to cause shallow-seated landslides or debris flows under the combined effect of shallow perched ground water and surface erosion from increased runoff. On the other hand, in extremely wet conditions, the ground water table can rise substantially and failure of some slopes that have been stable for a long time can be triggered even by a moderate rainfall event. 1 INTRODUCTION value between 1964 and 2002 being 1405 mm (Figure 1a).
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Tsunami-Related Geohazard Assessment for Hersek Peninsula and Gulf of İzmit Coasts Cem Gazioğlu
    ISSN:2148-9173 IJEGEO Vol: 4(2) May 2017 International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics (IJEGEO) is an international, multidisciplinary, peer reviewed, open access journal. Assessment of Tsunami-related Geohazard Assessment for Hersek Peninsula and Gulf of İzmit Coasts Cem Gazioğlu Editors Prof. Dr. Cem Gazioğlu, Prof. Dr. Dursun Zafer Şeker, Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Tanık, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şinasi Kaya Scientific Committee Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hasan Abdullah (BL), Assist. Prof. Dr. Alias Abdulrahman (MAL), Assist. Prof. Dr. Abdullah Aksu, (TR); Prof. Dr. Hasan Atar (TR), Prof. Dr. Lale Balas (TR), Prof. Dr. Levent Bat (TR), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Füsun Balık Şanlı (TR), Prof. Dr. Nuray Balkıs Çağlar (TR), Prof. Dr. Bülent Bayram (TR), Prof. Dr. Şükrü T. Beşiktepe (TR), Dr. Luminita Buga (RO); Prof. Dr. Z. Selmin Burak (TR), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gürcan Büyüksalih (TR), Dr. Jadunandan Dash (UK), Assist. Prof. Dr. Volkan Demir (TR), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hande Demirel (TR), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nazlı Demirel (TR), Dr. Arta Dilo (NL), Prof. Dr. A. Evren Erginal (TR), Dr. Alessandra Giorgetti (IT); Assoc. Prof. Dr. Murat Gündüz (TR), Prof. Dr. Abdulaziz Güneroğlu (TR); Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kensuke Kawamura (JAPAN), Dr. Manik H. Kalubarme (INDIA); Prof. Dr. Fatmagül Kılıç (TR), Prof. Dr. Ufuk Kocabaş (TR), Prof. Dr. Hakan Kutoğlu (TR), Prof. Dr. Nebiye Musaoğlu (TR), Prof. Dr. Erhan Mutlu (TR), Assist. Prof. Dr. Hakan Öniz (TR), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hasan Özdemir (TR), Prof. Dr. Haluk Özener (TR); Assoc. Prof. Dr. Barış Salihoğlu (TR), Prof. Dr. Elif Sertel (TR), Prof. Dr. Murat Sezgin (TR), Prof. Dr. Nüket Sivri (TR), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Uğur Şanlı (TR), Assoc.
    [Show full text]
  • Human-Triggered Earthquakes and Their Impacts on Human Security
    COPY: Achieving Environmental Security: Ecosystem Services and Human Welfare. Human-Triggered Earthquakes and Their Impacts on Human Security Christian D. KLOSE a 1 a Columbia University, New York NY, USA Abstract. A comprehensive understanding of earthquake risks in urbanized regions requires an accurate assessment of both urban vulnerabilities and earthquake hazards. Socioeconomic risks associated with human-triggered earthquakes are often misconstrued and receive little scientific, legal, and public attention. However, more than 200 damaging earthquakes, associated with industrialization and urbanization, were documented since the 20th century. This type of geohazard has impacts on human security on a regional and national level. For example, the 1989 Newcastle earthquake caused 13 deaths and US$3.5 billion damage (in 1989). The monetary loss was equivalent to 3.4 percent of Australia’s national income (GDI) or 80 percent of Australia’s GDI per capita growth of the same year. This article provides an overview of global statistics of human- triggered earthquakes. It describes how geomechanical pollution due to large-scale geoengineering activities can advance the clock of earthquakes or trigger new seismic events. Lastly, defense-oriented strategies and tactics are described, including risk mitigation measures such as urban planning adaptations and seismic hazard mapping. Keywords. Human-triggered, earthquakes, hazard, vulnerability, risk, human security, mitigation, strategies, tactics, social science, Clausewitz Introduction Nature Precedings : hdl:10101/npre.2010.4745.1 Posted 9 Aug 2010 Every earthquake that ruptures somewhere on Earth is triggered by some stress perturbation in the Earth’s crust. Earthquakes occur under natural conditions when tectonic stress states change (e.g., at plate boundaries, rift systems, or volcanoes).
    [Show full text]
  • Geohazard Assessment for Onshore Pipelines in Areas with Moderate Or High Seismicity
    Geohazard assessment for onshore pipelines in areas with moderate or high seismicity P. N. Psarropoulos Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Hellenic Air-Force Academy, Athens, Greece P. D. Karvelis Korros Engineering (www.korros-e.com) A. A. Antoniou School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece SUMMARY: Geohazard assessment is one of the most important issues of the engineering design of onshore pipelines. Nevertheless, the geohazard assessment in areas characterized by moderate or high seismicity is more demanding, since many issues are related to the potential earthquakes. The current paper aims to illustrate the main topics of geotechnical earthquake engineering that have to be coped with. After a extensive review of the impact of local site conditions on seismic wave propagation, and consequently on ground surface motion, the paper deals with the quantitative estimation of permanent ground deformations that are regarded as more severe types of pipeline loading than seismic wave propagation. The main seismic norm provisions that are related to onshore pipelines are briefly described, while characteristic case studies in seismic-prone areas are presented to demonstrate the importance of the aforementioned issues. Keywords: earthquake, geohazard, seismic design, pipeline 1. INTRODUCTION Undoubtedly the geohazard assessment comprises one of the most important issues of the engineering design of onshore pipelines, including the interrelated structures, such as compressor stations, tanks, operation and maintenance buildings, etc. Geologists and engineers use the term “geohazard” to describe the hazards to the pipeline that may derive from any potential gravity-related geological / geotechnical problem or failure, such as slope instabilities, landslides, ground settlements, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges with Use of Risk Matrices for Geohazard Risk Management for Resource Development Projects
    Mining Geomechanical Risk 2019 – J Wesseloo (ed.) © 2019 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, ISBN 978-0-9876389-1-5 doi:10.36487/ACG_rep/1905_01_Porter Challenges with use of risk matrices for geohazard risk management for resource development projects M Porter BGC Engineering Inc., Canada M Lato BGC Engineering Inc., Canada P Quinn BGC Engineering Inc., Belgium J Whittall BGC Engineering Inc., Canada Abstract Geohazards comprise a subgroup of natural hazards associated with geotechnical, hydrotechnical, tectonic, snow and ice, and geochemical processes that can pose a threat to worker and public safety, asset integrity, and asset management lifecycle cost. Like for most types of threats, the risks from geohazards can be assessed qualitatively or quantitatively and used to inform a geohazard management program. Most mining companies use risk matrices to aid in the assessment, prioritisation, communication and management of corporate risks. These matrices use standardised descriptions of likelihood and consequence to help users assess risks of negative outcomes to health, safety, the environment, assets, and reputation, and are tailored to each organisation’s types of risk exposure and level of risk tolerance. Geohazards and related geotechnical failures can represent low‐probability, high‐consequence events that plot in the highest risk zones of most corporate risk matrices. Variability in spatial and temporal probabilities for people and infrastructure exposed to geohazards can have a large influence on risk exposure, and this can be challenging to assess and communicate effectively with some risk matrices. Risk is scale‐dependent: the business risk due to rockfall from a single slope along a mine access road is vastly different than the total risk due to rockfalls from all slopes along that road, yet guidance is often missing on how the risks from these scenarios should be plotted on a risk matrix.
    [Show full text]
  • Geohazards in Geothermal Resource Exploitation
    Presented at SDG Short Course III on Exploration and Development of Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP and KenGen, at Lake Bogoria and Lake Naivasha, Kenya, Nov. 7-27, 2018. GEOHAZARDS IN GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE EXPLOITATION Victor Otieno Kenya Electricity Generating Company PLC (KenGen) Naivasha KENYA [email protected] ABSTRACT Geohazards need to be taken into account in exploitation of geothermal resources. Geohazards give rise to ground movements and may cause economic and social damage that affect human activities and other infrastructural installations. The hazards regarded in this case include volcanic activities, active fault movements, earthquake activities, landslides, gas fluxes and possibility of flash floods. Each geohazard has its own characteristic way of potential impact and hence classifying vulnerability of different regions and creating awareness on potential impact is essential. Geohazards mapping is necessary for geothermal fields in order to gather a data base, which is instrumental in deriving appropriate mitigation measures. 1. INTRODUCTION A geohazard is a geological state that represents or has the potential to develop further into a situation leading to damage or uncontrolled risk. Geohazards are widespread phenomena and are primarily related to geological and environmental conditions. The events can be sudden (catastrophic) or gradual and capable of causing damage or loss of life and property. Geohazards can be caused by natural process or anthropogenic activities. Geohazards in geothermal environments have significant and sometimes profound consequences on surrounding landscapes and ecosystems, as well as, health of local population (Arya et al., 2005). The effects of geohazards on the landscape can range from complete burial of surface vegetation and pre-existing topography to subtle, short-term perturbations of geomorphic and ecological systems.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2018–June 2023
    G.38 STATEMENT OF CORPORATE INTENT JULY 2018–JUNE 2023 Mai i te rangi, ki te nuku o te whenua, ka puta te ira tangata i te po, i te whaiao, ki te ao mārama. Ko Te Pū Ao mātou. From the sky and the land, came people from the night, from the old world, to the world of light. We are GNS Science. UPCOMING MILESTONES AUCKLAND’S CARBON EMISSIONS GEONET ENHANCEMENTS We are leading a project to determine Auckland’s first full The GeoNet system is undergoing major enhancements, carbon budget. The project uses atmospheric measurements including the establishment of a dedicated 24/7 operations to determine not only Auckland’s fossil fuel carbon emissions centre by December 2018. It will mean increased capability but also account for Auckland’s ‘land carbon sink’—the to provide fast and accurate information on earthquakes, exchange of carbon with the urban biosphere. We believe volcanic unrest, tsunamis, and landslides. The upgrades that Auckland’s land carbon sink could remove a substantial will provide new decision support tools and visualisation amount of carbon from the atmosphere. Our study will collect software that will enable duty officers to make faster and the first city-scale evidence as to whether this is occurring, more accurate assessments of geological hazards. Faster and if so, how much carbon is being removed. Findings detection of threats and more specific advice will ultimately will inform Auckland Council’s carbon emission mitigation lead to reduced risk to life and property. strategy and will be incorporated into New Zealand’s Paris Climate Agreement commitments.
    [Show full text]