Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Pipeline Route Selection Method by wea23943

VIEWS: 648 PAGES: 48

									Annex K




Pipeline Route Selection
Method
                           ANGOLA LNG PROJECT
                         PIPELINE NETWORK TEAM


        ONSHORE PIPELINES ROUTE RECOMMENDATION
              DOCUMENT NO: LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009




                 Engineering Services By KBR Technical Services, Inc.

                                       JOB NO: EB-0096


0A     CWL    Re-issued for Design        01/25/06    MSS       CWL         IG

 0     CWL     Issued for Design          11/04/05    CWL       DAS         IG

 C     CWL      Issued to Blocks          10/28/05    MSS       DAS         IG

 B     CWL      Issued to Client          10/14/05   TES/SS     DAS

 A     CCS   Issued for Office Check      9/30/05     CWL        ---        ----       ---

Rev.   By          Description              Date     Checked   Approved   Approved   Approved
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                                           LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                                              Revision 0A

                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 4

2.0       INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 5
2.1       Purpose ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2       Basis and Scope of Work.................................................................................. 5
          2.2.1 Basis and Assumptions .......................................................................... 5
          2.2.2 Scope of Work........................................................................................ 7
2.3       Background....................................................................................................... 8
          2.3.1 References............................................................................................. 8
          2.3.2 Historical Context ................................................................................... 8
2.4       Project Execution .............................................................................................. 9
          2.4.1 Step 1................................................................................................... 10
          2.4.2 Step 2................................................................................................... 11

3.0       ROUTE OPTION IDENTIFICATION ............................................................... 12

4.0       COARSE SCREENING .................................................................................. 15
4.1       Significant Flaw Descriptions .......................................................................... 15
4.2       Flaw Assessment............................................................................................ 17
4.3       Short List Alternatives Description .................................................................. 20
          4.3.1 Alternative 1 – North of Pululu Channel ............................................... 21
          4.3.2 Alternative 2 – Pre-Dredged Pululu Channel Route ............................. 22
          4.3.3 Alternative 3 – South of Pululu Channel Route .................................... 24
4.4       Risk Identification............................................................................................ 26

5.0       FINE SCREENING ......................................................................................... 26
5.1       Alternatives Assessment................................................................................. 26
          5.1.1 Assessment Criteria ............................................................................. 27
          5.1.2 Criteria Weight and Ranking ................................................................ 31
          5.1.3 Pipeline Onshore Route Selection Matrix............................................. 32

6.0       ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 33

APPENDIX A – RISK IDENTIFICATION ...................................................................... 36

APPENDIX B – ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT MATRIX......................................... 43

                                                                                                                   Page 2 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                                  LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                                     Revision 0A

APPENDIX C – PIPELINE HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION ..................................... 46

                                      TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 – Angola LNG Pipeline Network..................................................................... 6

Figure 2-2 – General Route Corridors ........................................................................... 10

Figure 3-1 – Route Permutation Location Key .............................................................. 13



                                       TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 – Route Flaw Assessment................................................................................ 17

Table 2 – Criteria Weight in Percent from Paired Comparison Analysis........................ 31

Table 3 – Route Selection Matrix Results ..................................................................... 33

Table 4 -- Summary of Category Rankings ................................................................... 34

Table 5 -- Summary of Key Ranking Considerations..................................................... 35




                                                                                                       Page 3 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                 LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                    Revision 0A


1.0   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

      This report describes the Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team’s recommendation
      for routing the onshore pipelines to the LNG plant using an alignment south of
      the Pululu Channel. It includes discussion of:
         •   selection of the range of route corridors examined;
         •   identification of a comprehensive list of 29 routes through brainstorming;
         •   coarse ranking of the routes; and,
         •   fine screening of the routes.

      Note that “route” or “route corridor”, as used in this document, refers to a general
      alignment for the pipelines. Considerable optimization of the actual alignment
      will be required during the design to arrive at a precise route.

      The proposed route is in the area south of the Pululu Channel but over six
      kilometers north of the existing Total Quinfuquena landfall. This area allows
      reasonably direct access to all the offshore blocks. The offshore approach is
      relatively favorable based on what is known of the bathymetry, although a cliff
      may need to be crossed at the shore. The route crosses farm plots and shrub
      land, and associated estuaries of the Pululu channel. It has a relatively minimal
      impact on mangrove areas. The route provides flexibility to avoid most known
      population concentrations and cultural sites.

      The recommended route compares favorably to other alternative routes. It
      approaches the plant at the agreed interface point. It is not unduly detrimental to
      the environment. It should minimize socio-economic disruption, although socio-
      economic issues will need careful consideration with respect to safety and
      security. The recommended route appears consistent with potential future
      development. It is expected to be reasonable in cost.

      The work was carried out per previously issued planning documents as
      referenced in Section 2.0. However, during the execution of the work, Angola
      LNG requested that the recommendation of a route be accelerated. In order to do
      this, the coarse ranking was used to produce the recommended route. During the
      coarse ranking, it became apparent that the route thus produced had high
      potential. This potential was confirmed in subsequent steps.

      Results of the coarse ranking were presented to a wider audience to obtain
      feedback. Challenges were received as part of this process. The challenges
      resulted in retaining three short listed alternatives that were addressed by means
      of the fine screening and further assessment as well as solicitation of additional
      integrated team input.

      The route has not been optimized at the time of this report and several South of
      Pululu alternatives are being considered. The general vicinity selected for the
      route is more amenable to adjustment than the other options. This will allow
      flexibility to adjust the final location to reflect local consultation or other input.
                                                                                  Page 4 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                   Revision 0A

2.0   INTRODUCTION

2.1   Purpose

      This report is to document:

         •   The identification of routing options for the nearshore/onshore pipeline
             route to the onshore LNG Plant
         •   The coarse and fine screening of the proposed options; and
         •   The naming of the most favorable route selected for detailed study.

      This work has been conducted by the Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team to
      select and recommend a shore approach and onshore route that can
      accommodate up to five pipelines transporting gas to the plant.

      The work and processes described herein follow the project’s objectives for the
      pipeline route selection, which include avoiding sensitive environmental and
      cultural areas; reducing disturbance to the local communities, landscape and
      natural habitats; satisfying engineering and construction requirements; and
      reducing cost.

      This document is the last piece of an adopted project document hierarchy, which
      is preceded by a project framing document, an overall execution plan and a
      detailed methodology document as referenced in Section 2.3.1.

2.2   Basis and Scope of Work

2.2.1 Basis and Assumptions

      As part of the Nearshore/Onshore Angola LNG project scope of work, the Angola
      LNG Pipelines Network Team has been assigned the task to coordinate,
      engineer, construct, and install portions of the pipelines that will transport the
      high pressure gas from offshore shallow water (at a point in approximately 10 to
      15 meters water depth) to the onshore LNG plant.

      The Angola LNG project requires that natural gas from offshore Angola oil and
      gas fields be transported to the onshore LNG plant via five pipelines, three for the
      transportation of Associated Gas (AG) and two future lines for the transportation
      of Non-Associated Gas (NAG). The configuration is shown in Figure 2-1.




                                                                                 Page 5 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                           LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                              Revision 0A

                       Figure 2-1 – Angola LNG Pipeline Network



                       Blocks 0 & 14                    Congo River                Area of
                                                                                   Focus
   Kizomba A           Mondo                                   42 km 20”
                                   70 km
                                    16”
   Block 15
                                                               93 km 18”
                                 27 km 16”
                                                                                       LNG
   Kizomba B
                                                                                       Plant
                            Batuque/Saxi                      104 km 24”

   Girassol
                                                                                   Shoreline
                                30 km 16”
   Block 17                                                                    Future 30” NAG
                                            38 km 16”                          (Sour & Sweet)
                                                                       6 km
       Dalia                                                            12”        Blocks 1-2
                                16 km 12”
                                                     41 km 24”
                     UM Pole
                                         73 km 12”                               Lombo
   Greater
   Plutonio
                                                                                PHASE 1
                                                            BLOCK
                                         PLEM
                                                           IN-FIELD
                 Block 18              LOCATIONS                                 PHASE 2
                                                             LINES



     The AG pipelines will originate in Blocks 0, 14, 15, 17, and 18. The future
     development of NAG pipelines will start in Blocks 1 and 2. All will cross the coast
     at a point near Soyo in northwestern Angola, and from that point be routed to the
     onshore LNG plant located further inland on Kwanda Island near the northern
     part of Soyo town.

     The offshore pipeline from Block 15 will be an 18” that will be designed for a
     shut-in pressure of 330 bar. The offshore pipeline from Blocks 17 and 18 will be a
     24” and will have a 340 bar shut-in pressure. The pipeline from Blocks 0 and 14
     will be a 20” with a shut-in pressure of 207 bar. The pipelines from Blocks 15, 17
     and 18 will be operated in dense phase due to the high output pressure of the
     Block’s compression systems. The resulting high-pressure pipeline network will
     be unprecedented.

     The work is predicated on several additional assumptions:

         •     All the pipelines are contained in one corridor as they cross the shore and
               land – to minimize impact on the environment, population; and to minimize
               CAPEX;


                                                                                           Page 6 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                   Revision 0A

        •   The Angola LNG project will construct all the nearshore / onshore lines up
            to the plant;
        •   Blocks will construct the offshore pipelines up to a nearshore interface
            point;
        •   Angola LNG will use one set of Contractors to design and build all the
            nearshore / onshore lines;
        •   In addition to the three AG lines and two NAG lines, potential exists for a
            gas supply line from the plant to future industrial sites and other envisaged
            infrastructure needs such as utilities or access roads; and
        •   Future infrastructure may utilize portions of the Pululu channel, which may
            require dredging to approximately 14 m water depth to allow vessel
            access.

2.2.2 Scope of Work

     The scope of work addressed by this document includes a desktop study to
     define route parameters and the type of design and construction techniques that
     would be required to use the routes for the pipelines described above. The
     results of this work will form the basis for choosing a recommended route.

     The work used existing marine charts, aerial photographs, local information,
     existing soils data and previous construction experience. The scope included
     consideration of the following for each route:

        •   Comparative risks;
        •   Hydrodynamic nearshore environmental conditions;
        •   Appropriate construction facilities;
        •   Construction methods for each section of the onshore route (nearshore,
            shore crossing, land section, plant entry), sufficient for route selection
            including:
                   Offshore dredging
                   Landfall techniques
                   Fully pre-dredged channel
                   Lay in channel and post trench
                   Horizontal Directional Drilling;
        •   Assessment of:
                   Population densities
                   Length of the pipeline
                   Construction difficulties imposed by route
                   Temporary works, excavation and landfill

                                                                                Page 7 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                 LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                    Revision 0A

                    Obstacles, other pipelines, unexploded ordnance, etc.
                    Rupture impact
                    Environmental impact
                    Social and political issues
                    Cost
                    Schedule.
      Following the study work, the options were ranked based on a separately
      developed methodology. The original scope included a “fatal flaw” analysis. This
      terminology proved unclear during the work; it has been dropped in this
      document. Further explanation of the “flaw” analysis appears in Section 2.4 on
      execution. The work culminated in this report.

2.3   Background

2.3.1 References

      1. Environmental and Socio-Economic Considerations for the Siting of the
         Angola LNG – May 2004, ERM

      2. Minutes of the Angola LNG Preliminary Onshore Pipelines Routing
         Brainstorm Meeting – 13th June, 2005 - Houston

      3. Decision Support Package for Onshore Pipeline Routing - Phase 2 - March
         2005

      4. Offshore Pipelines Shore Crossing/Route Selection Process DRB Charter

      5. LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0007 – Onshore Pipelines Route Selection Plan

      6. LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0008 – Onshore Pipelines Route Selection Method Report

      7. LNG-KBR-PL-CAL-0008 – Onshore Pipelines Options Ranking Matrix

      8. Angola LNG Offshore Team Lessons Learned Register

      9. Risk Input to Ranking Methodology 16 June 2005

2.3.2 Historical Context

      From 2002 to 2004, the Angola LNG project performed a similar selection
      exercise to determine the best site for the onshore LNG plant (See Reference 1).
      The result of that work is that the plant will be located on the north side of Soyo
      town, adjacent to an existing logistical support base, Kwanda Limitada.

      In early 2005, the Pipeline Network team began to develop a plan to select a
      pipeline route that would allow for the effective and reliable delivery of the gas to
      the plant, in a safe manner and with minimal negative impact to the community

                                                                                  Page 8 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                 LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                    Revision 0A

      and environment. The process involved framing the strategy to be adopted and
      setting the goals and project objectives for this study as outlined in the Decision
      Support Package (DSP) for Onshore Pipeline Routing [2] for Phase 1. This
      document establishes the framework for the execution of the project, identifies
      preliminarily risks and opportunities, and outlines the overall roadmap leading to
      the implementation of a single pipeline route. It includes a project opportunity
      statement, defines the value drivers, critical success factors and metrics, and
      establishes the boundary conditions and scope of work associated with this
      project. In addition, the main expected deliverables and overall benefits are
      outlined by the document. Finally, it briefly describes the short list of alternatives
      that were considered for the assessment exercise.

      Another document associated with the DSP is the Offshore Pipelines Shore
      Crossing/Route Selection Process Decision Review Board (DRB) Charter [3]. The
      Charter defines the mission, roles and responsibilities of the DRB, and some of
      the guidelines that would govern the DRB.

      Ultimately, the purpose of these two documents is to set the overall picture and
      tie-in the work of the Pipeline Network Team with the remainder of the Angola
      LNG project and obtain alignment with the different teams within the project on
      the proposed execution objectives.

      The next step was to develop a plan that described how the overall selection,
      ranking and evaluation would be implemented. This plan is described in the
      Onshore Pipelines Route Selection Plan [4]. An Onshore Pipelines Route
      Selection Method Report [5] and Onshore Pipeline Options Ranking Matrix [6] were
      developed in parallel with the plan. These documents described in detail which
      methods would be applied for the various stages of the selection process, how
      the criteria would be ranked, how much weight each criterion would carry and
      how the final scores would be obtained.

      This report documents the work carried out per the referenced plans to arrive at
      the recommended route.

2.4   Project Execution

      This document presents the work performed by the Angola LNG Pipeline
      Network Team from approximately May 2005 to October 2005 to select the
      onshore pipeline route.

      The selection process and the results have been reviewed by several disciplines
      within the project team, and have been discussed with subject matter experts
      (SMEs) within the stakeholders’ organizations.

      The evaluated pipelines routes included all water and land based routes that
      might potentially be feasible. Routes avoided highly populated areas and major
      natural obstacles such as Soyo and the upper reaches of the Congo Canyon and
      associated side canyons. All routes terminated at the border of the current
      Angola LNG onshore plant, which is adjacent to the Kwanda Limitada logistics
                                                                                  Page 9 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                    LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                       Revision 0A

      base in Soyo in the northwestern part of Angola. The routes fall within seven
      general corridors, which are shown in Figure 2-2 below:

                                 Figure 2-2 – General Route Corridors

                                 Pipelines   - Initial Onshore Route Options
         Congo River Route
                                                                    Ponta do Padrao
         Da Moita Seca Route
                                                                    LNG Plant
        Land Pululu Route




         Pululu Channel
             Route
                                                                           Santo Antonio Route
                                                                             Optional routes
                                                                              around Soyo
       South of Pululu Channel
               Route



                                                                            Santo Antonio Route

                Quinfuquena Route


                                                                        Quinfuquena Terminal


      The route selection involved a two-part process. Step 1 involved the Angola
      LNG Pipeline Network Team identifying and coarse ranking 29 potential
      nearshore/onshore pipeline routing options. Step 2 entailed fine screening the
      remaining routes to determine a recommended route.

2.4.1 Step 1

      The 29 routes are illustrated in Figure 3-1 – Route Permutation Location Key and
      discussed in Section 3.0 below. The options were defined as combinations of
      routes and corresponding installation methods.

      The options were derived though brainstorming. The objective of the
      brainstorming exercise was to capture a comprehensive and representative set
      of route options and descriptions, but not to rank them. The team then put the
      options through a coarse screening to eliminate those with flaws that would
      significantly compromise the option’s desirability. Such flaws were not
      necessarily fatal but were defined as:

          •    obvious and easily agreed to be significant drawbacks; and
          •    not shared in the same degree by all routes, i.e. avoidable.

                                                                                        Page 10 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                               LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                  Revision 0A

      Flaws meeting this description were submarine erosion and slumping, severe
      environmental degradation, exceptionally risky or expensive installation methods,
      severe constraints on offshore line hydraulics, no suitable installation technique,
      perceived severe constraints on future development, and use of multiple
      corridors.

      The process and results were presented and explained to representatives of the
      blocks in an internal Angola LNG meeting on August 24, 2005 to gauge the
      acceptability of the route with the least perceived drawbacks. This coarse
      screening process and results are described in Section 4.0.

      The proposed South of Pululu Route, based on the course screening, was
      agreed by participants to be one with high potential. The route crosses the shrub
      land and bare ground south of the Pululu channel and estuaries. It has minimal
      impact on mangrove areas compared to competing options. The offshore
      approach is relatively favorable based on what is known of the bathymetry,
      although what is believed to be a 25-35 m cliff may need to be crossed at the
      shore. The route clears most known population concentrations and cultural sites.
      Access to potential future infrastructure also appears favorable.

      In most cases, a consensus existed that the discarded routes had no promise but
      two routes were tagged for further examination. One was a route using the
      Pululu Channel and the other was a route north of the Pululu Channel.

2.4.2 Step 2

      Step 2 of the process further evaluated these three short listed options, using the
      criteria and fine screening methodology described in Section 5.0. The results of
      this step will allow the Angola LNG Pipelines Network Team to make a
      recommendation for a single pipeline route to project stakeholders.

      Trade-offs between the short listed routes for Step 2 are more complex than for
      the coarse pre-screening exercise. The fine screening evaluated the short listed
      options on a more detailed basis. The screening criteria were grouped into the
      following categories:

         •     Socio-economic
         •     Environmental
         •     Health & Safety
         •     CAPEX
         •     Operability
         •     Reliability
         •     Schedule
         •     Security
         •     Economic Growth
                                                                               Page 11 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                               LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                  Revision 0A

         •   Constructability

      Each category has one or more criteria. The ten categories and their criteria
      were evaluated, using the paired comparison method as described in Section
      5.1.2, to weight each criterion for use in evaluating the shortlisted options.

      Each route was graded against the alternative routes for each weighted criterion
      and a cumulative score obtained to compare one route to another. This was
      done in a selection matrix showing all the routes and criteria.


3.0   ROUTE OPTION IDENTIFICATION

      At the start of the selection process, seven potential route corridors were
      recognized for laying the pipelines. They included the:

         •   Congo River Route
         •   Da Moita Seca Route
         •   Land Pululu Route
         •   Pululu Channel Route
         •   South of Pululu Channel Route
         •   Quinfuquena Terminal Route
         •   Santo António Channel Route

      Figure 2-2 illustrates these routes with respect to major landmarks and sites near
      Soyo and the proposed LNG plant. The routes shown are typical, rather than
      precise, alignments of the pipelines. This reflects the intention to pick a general
      route and then optimize it to reflect local constraints during later stages of the
      project.

      From these seven routes, 29 possible permutations were identified by a
      multidisciplinary team. These permutations captured not only the routes but also
      varying design and construction methods. The information needed to generate
      the permutations was obtained through previous site visits; review of admiralty
      charts, maps, and photos; and some geotechnical work.

      The 29 routes shown in Figure 3-1, identified as permutations of the seven
      general areas, were based on limited desktop studies and the data available to
      the team at the time that the study was initiated. The Team assumed these
      alternative routes could be laid in a marine environment, through inshore fresh
      water channels, overland or underground.

      The routes considered for early portions of the work had somewhat different
      shore approach locations and plant entry points. Figure 3-1 illustrates the
      options at the beginning of the coarse screening process with options grouped by


                                                                               Page 12 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                                                   LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                                                      Revision 0A

     shore approach location. It was recognized that adjustments and optimizations
     could be performed on any of the routes.

                         Figure 3-1 – Route Permutation Location Key



                      Option 1




                                  Option 2



          Options 3, 4
                                                                                      LNG Plant

          Options 5, 6


       Options 7, 8, 9, 10, 11




           Options 12, 13, 14, 15, 16


                Options 17, 18
                                    Option 19
                                                         Options 21, 22, 23, 24, 26

                                         Options 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29AG

                  Option 20


                                                                                                  Option 25

                                                                                      Option 26


                                                                                         Option 27



                                                                                                     Option 28
                                                                     2 km



                                                       0.5 km
                                                                                                      Options 27, 28, 29NAG




     The routes were given the following designations for the coarse screening
     process. Particular associated construction methods are shown in parenthesis.

             1.          Congo River
             2.          North of Da Moita Seca Channel (Trenched)
             3.          Da Moita Seca Channel (Trenched Shore Crossing)


                                                                                                                          Page 13 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                          LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                             Revision 0A

           4.    Da Moita Seca Channel (Horizontal Directional Drilled [HDD] Shore
                 Crossing)
           5.    South of Da Moita Seca Channel (HDD or Trenched)
           6.    South of Da Moita Seca Channel (Two Micro Tunnels)
           7.    HDD North of Pululu Channel (HDD shore crossing)
           8.    HDD North of Pululu Channel (Trenched shore crossing)
           9.    North of Pululu Channel (Two Micro Tunnels)
           10.   HIPPS + HDD North of Pululu Channel (HDD shore crossing)
           11.   HIPPS + HDD North of Pululu Channel (Trenched shore crossing)
           12.   Overland North of Pululu Channel (Trenched entire route)
           13.   Overland North of Pululu Channel (HDD shore approach, trench
                 remainder)
           14.   Overland North of Pululu Channel (Trenched or HDD shore
                 approach, above ground land crossing, trenched channel)
           15.   Overland North of Pululu Channel (HDD or trench shore approach,
                 trench to channel, HDD in channel)
           16.   HIPPS Overland North of Pululu Channel (HDD or trench shore
                 approach, trench to channel, HDD channel)
           17.   Marsh North of Pululu Channel (Trenched shore crossing, HDD
                 Channel)
           18.   HIPPS Marsh North of Pululu Channel (Trenched shore crossing,
                 HDD Channel)
           19.   Pululu Channel (Trenched or HDD shore approach, trenched
                 channel)
           20.   Between Pululu Channel and South of Pululu Channel
           21.   South of Pululu Channel (Trenched or HDD shore approach, above
                 ground land crossing, HDD channel)
           22.   HIPPS South of Pululu Channel (Trenched or HDD shore
                 approach, trenched land crossing, HDD in channel)
           23.   South of Pululu Channel (Trenched or HDD shore approach, above
                 ground land crossing)
           24.   South of Pululu Channel (Trenched or HDD shore approach,
                 trenched land crossing)
           25.   South of Pululu Channel via Santo Anonio Estuary to Plant
                 (Trenched or HDD shore approach, trenched land crossing)
           26.   Between South of Pululu Channel to Quinfuquena Terminal
                 (Trenched or HDD shore approach, trenched land crossing)


                                                                            Page 14 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                               LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                  Revision 0A

            27.    Quinfuquena Terminal (HDD shore approach, trenched land
                   crossing)
            28.    Quinfuquena Terminal via Santo Anonio Estuary to Plant (HDD
                   shore approach, trenched land crossing)
            29.    Land Pululu Route for AG & South of Pululu Channel Route for
                   NAG


            Note: HIPPS – High Integrity Pressure Protection System
                   HDD – Horizontal Directional Drilling

4.0   COARSE SCREENING

      The options identified in Section 3.0 were then subjected to a coarse pre-
      screening conducted during meetings held June 13 [1], 2005, and August 24,
      2005.

      During the meetings, the routes were individually addressed to identify significant
      flaws and determine which if any routes appeared to exhibit the fewest
      drawbacks. At this stage, the process was not finely detailed. Once a significant
      flaw or flaws were identified, the group moved on to the next route.

4.1   Significant Flaw Descriptions

      Flaws were identified by a team made up of Angola LNG personnel, KBR
      Pipeline Team members, and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from stakeholders.
      They reviewed the routes and recorded significant drawbacks. In order of
      appearance, the following flaws were noted:

      Congo River Erosion and Slumping: The Congo River Submarine Canyon
      extends upriver past the LNG Plant. The canyon is an active feature. Sediment
      brought down stream by the river deposits on the river bed at the head of the
      canyon. Eventually the sediment becomes unstable and begins to slough off,
      forming a dense mixture of soil and water which flows downstream. These
      turbidity currents scour the canyon bottom and have regularly broken submarine
      cables laid across the canyon. Side canyons also extend from the main canyon
      back toward the Ponta do Padrao. Long shore sediment transport along the
      coast, driven by the prevailing waves, provides sediment to these canyons which
      are thus also subject to turbidity currents. The head of the canyons are
      evidenced by scallops in the shoreline along the point, evidence that any
      underwater route in this vicinity is subject to currents, scour and erosion. It is
      difficult to design a pipeline against such natural long term forces.

      Decimation of Old Growth Mangroves: Prevalent along the coast, bays and inlets
      are mangrove stands. These are a fundamental part of the natural environment
      in the area and provide habitat to portions of the marine food chain. While all
      mangroves areas are of concern, decimation of the tall old growth mangroves,

                                                                               Page 15 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                               LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                  Revision 0A

     which provide a park like environment and cultural resource, is a major concern.
     The mangroves are subject to direct damage by construction and to the
     detrimental effects of construction on the water quality.

     Construction Constraints: Certain construction techniques can be employed to
     avoid sensitive environmental areas by installing the pipelines fairly deeply under
     the areas. Such techniques also lend themselves to avoiding other natural and
     man made obstacles. Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is one of these
     techniques.

     Limits exist on where HDD can be employed. For example the maximum length
     of HDDs drilled to date has been less than three kilometers. The length of pipe
     that can be installed by this method is also affected by the weight of the pipe.
     Pulling pipe through the drilled hole requires excessive force if the weight related
     friction is too high. The high design pressures for the pipelines lead to
     unprecedented wall thicknesses and weights, making these lines challenging to
     install by drilling over long distances. In addition the HDD technique requires
     pulling a complete section of pipe through the hole in a continuous operation. A
     cleared marine or onshore staging area of this length is required, roughly in-line
     with the hole, to allow such an installation.

     Another construction technique is micro tunnelling. In this method, a machine
     excavates a small tunnel capable of holding two or three lines starting at one or
     more vertical access shafts. The tunnel is cased with structures inserted behind
     the tunnelling machines. Pipe is then inserted though the completed tunnel. The
     method is employed for short problem areas such as shore crossings across
     cliffs. While capable of longer distances, it is extremely expensive.

     Future Development Limitations: Once the pipelines are installed along a route
     future activities in the vicinity are subject to constraints to maintain a safely
     operating system. For example if a pipeline is installed in a channel, future
     dredging to increase the depth of the channel can not be performed. If dual use
     is envisioned it must be defined, designed, paid for and accomplished before
     installing the pipelines. The design of the pipelines has to be made compatible
     with any dual usage of the right of way. If the proper provisions are not made the
     pipelines may need to be shut down and re-installed to accommodate future
     development.

     Security Risks: In some areas, consideration was given to installing the pipelines
     above ground to minimize environmental impact. An above ground pipeline is
     more subject to intentional and unintentional damage than a buried line. In
     today’s risky international climate an above ground pipeline, especially one
     operating at high pressure, is an unnecessarily exposed target.

     Hydraulic Limitations: Throughput of gas in the incoming lines may be
     constrained if the line length is too long. An onshore landfall should be selected
     that does not restrict throughput from specified offshore developments by unduly
     increasing line lengths.

                                                                               Page 16 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                 LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                    Revision 0A

       Offshore and Channel Installation Constraints: Installation methods for
       underwater pipelines generally constrain routes to straight lines and broad
       sweeping changes of direction. Installing pipelines along meandering channels
       is not easily done.

       Corridor Usage: Governing assumptions for the work at the time of this
       recommendation mandated a single corridor for all lines to minimize the extent of
       environmental and socio-economic impact and manage costs. In addition, future
       industrial development is expected to become viable with the availability of gas.
       While the exact location of such development is not yet defined, fairly obvious
       candidate areas exist. The project prefers a route which allows the gas supply
       either as a fuel or feedstock to be accessible to such areas and in addition
       potentially accommodate other utility use. Other such utilities might be power
       lines or roads located parallel to the route as long as they do not adversely affect
       pipeline design, use or safety.

4.2    Flaw Assessment

       Table 1 summarizes the most significant flaws for each route, grouped by shore
       approach. The intention was not to identify all drawbacks that might pertain to a
       given route. If the route did not appear promising, the group moved on to
       another route. Further definition and discussion of drawbacks appears after the
       table.

                          Table 1 – Route Flaw Assessment


 No.    Route Name (Description)             Flaw
 1      Congo River                          Submarine erosion and slumping
 2      North of Da Moita Seca Channel       Submarine erosion and slumping
 3      Da Moita Seca Channel                Decimation of old growth mangroves
        (Trench Shore Crossing)
 4      Da Moita Seca Channel                Decimation of old growth mangroves
        (HDD Shore Crossing)                 HDD not viable due to space constraints
 5      South of Da Moita Seca Channel       Decimation of old growth mangroves
        (HDD or Trench)
 6      South of Da Moita Seca Channel       Prohibitively expensive if other options
        (Two Micro Tunnels)                  exist.
 7      HDD North of Pululu Channel          HDD to plant not viable due to high risk of
        (HDD Shore Crossing)                 installation failure caused by length &
                                             weight of line
                                             Consequence of failure is significant
                                             schedule and CAPEX impact.

                                                                                 Page 17 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                              LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                 Revision 0A


No.   Route Name (Description)           Flaw
8     HDD North of Pululu Channel        HDD to plant not viable due to high risk of
      (Trench Shore Crossing)            installation failure caused by length
9     North of Pululu Channel            Prohibitively expensive if other options
      (Two Micro Tunnels)                exist.
10    HIPPS + HDD North of Pululu        This would be an industry first with no
      Channel (HDD Shore Crossing)       time to confirm feasibility
                                         High risk of failure of HDD due to long
                                         length and soft soil conditions
11    HIPPS + HDD North of Pululu        This would be an industry first with no
      Channel (Trench Shore Crossing)    time to confirm feasibility
                                         High risk of failure of HDD due to long
                                         length and soft soil conditions
12    Overland North of Pululu Channel   Damages transitional mangroves
      (Trench entire route)              Limits future channel dredging
13    Overland North of Pululu Channel   Damages transitional mangroves
      (HDD shore approach, trench        Limits future channel dredging
      remainder)
14    Overland North of Pululu Channel   Damages transitional mangroves
      (Above ground, trench channel)     Limits future channel dredging
                                         Security Risk
15    Overland North of Pululu Channel   Damages transitional mangroves
      (HDD or trench shore approach,     HDD to plant not viable due to length,
      trench to channel, HDD channel)    weight
16    HIPPS Overland North of Pululu     Damages transitional mangroves
      Channel (HDD or trench shore       This would be an industry first with no
      approach, trench to channel,       time to confirm feasibility
      HDD channel)
17    Marsh North of Pululu Channel      Damages transitional mangroves
      (HDD Channel)                      HDD to plant not viable due to length,
                                         weight
18    HIPPS Marsh North of Pululu        Damages transitional mangroves
      Channel (HDD Channel)              This would be an industry first with no
                                         time to confirm feasibility
19    Pululu Channel                     Limits future channel dredging
20    Between Pululu Channel and         Potential Option *
      South of Pululu Channel

                                                                            Page 18 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                               LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                  Revision 0A


 No.    Route Name (Description)            Flaw
 21     South of Pululu Channel             Security Risk
        (Above ground, HDD channel)
 22     HIPPS South of Pululu Channel       Potential Option
        (HDD channel)
 23     South of Pululu Channel             Security Risk
        ( Above ground, Trench Channel)
 24     South of Pululu Channel             Potential Option
        (Trench Channel)
 25     South of Pululu Channel via         Estuary lay not possible
        Santo Anonio Estuary to Plant
 26     Between South of Pululu Channel     Potential Option
        to Quinfuquena Terminal
 27     Quinfuquena Terminal                Offshore length adversely constrains
                                            Block 0 & 14 designs
 28     Quinfuquena Terminal via Santo      Offshore length adversely constrains
        Anonio Estuary to Plant             Block 0 & 14 designs
                                            Estuary lay not possible
 29     One of Above Routes for AG &        Requires multiple right of ways,
        Quinfuquena Terminal Routes for     contravening Plan
        NAG
* Shaded rows indicate Potential Route Options
       The five potential options identified by the above process are variations on a
       single theme. All approach the shoreline within a region extending approximately
       5 kilometers south from the Pululu channel. They are 6 kilometers or more north
       of the Quinfuquena Terminal. They all cross shallow portions of the Cadal
       Channel before entering the southwest corner of the LNG plant at a location
       consistent with the plant design. In between they use various design and
       construction techniques, and follow routes selected to minimize socio-economic
       and environmental disruption. After route selection, further conceptual design
       and optimization will be undertaken to define these aspects for whatever general
       route is chosen.

       For purposes of subsequent consideration, these options have been grouped as
       the general South of Pululu Route. At the August 24th meeting, this route was
       agreed to be one with high potential.

       In most cases, a consensus existed at the meeting that the discarded routes had
       no promise but two routes were tagged for further examination. One was a route
       using the Pululu Channel and the other was a route north of the Pululu Channel.


                                                                               Page 19 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                   Revision 0A

      The Pululu Channel is an obvious route from the shore crossing to the LNG
      Plant. It has minimal socio-economic impact and is very secure from intentional
      damage. However, the key assumption that this route limited future development
      was challenged at the meeting. Little actual definition of future development is
      available to the project team and the project team’s fundamental focus should be
      on the pipelines. If development does not take place major drawbacks to
      pipeline installation and operation along the Pululu Channel are removed.

      However, at the September PRC and IWT meetings the project assumption of
      future development was re-iterated with no disagreement by these groups. On
      this basis and for this assessment, the Pululu Route was defined as pre-dredged
      prior to any pipe lay to allow access by ocean going vessels. Included in the
      assessment definition was the requirement for a rock armor layer or other means
      of protection over the pipelines after they are installed and trenched.

      The North of Pululu Channel Route was of interest as potentially providing a
      shorter hydraulic path for pipelines from Blocks 0 and 14 north of the Congo
      Canyon. However, the project has assumed to date that the pipelines from Block
      0 and 14 will parallel the route from Block 15. As such:

         •   the total route lengths, using any of three onshore options, are very
             similar; and
         •   no inadequacy has been demonstrated for the hydraulic performance
             other than for routes to the Quinfuquena Terminal much further south.

      This assumption is consistent with the offshore routes currently being surveyed.
      Should other routes from Blocks 0 and 14 be considered, the interface point with
      the Angola LNG Onshore/Nearshore project needs to be examined.

      In summary, the three options carried forward into fine screening were:

         •   A variation of the Land Pululu Route using at least two directionally drilled
             sections to avoid mangroves and cross the deep shipping channel to the
             plant. This was designated the North of Pululu Channel Route.
         •   The Pululu Channel Route using pipelines towed into position on the
             channel bottom after dredging of the channel, then conventionally
             trenched into place and armored.
         •   The South of Pululu Channel Route using conventional land pipeline
             construction techniques.

4.3   Short List Alternatives Description

      After the pre-screening, three route options remained for further consideration.
      The following sections define the three shortlisted routes, along with their
      associated construction and design assumptions. These descriptions were
      developed to facilitate further ranking the alternative routes. The descriptions
      were based on selecting an embodiment for each route that was believed to be

                                                                                Page 20 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                               LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                  Revision 0A

      realistic and most competitive with the other alternatives. For each route, the
      risks and salient characteristics are given after the description and construction
      techniques. These are not intended to be exhaustive but to capture significant
      considerations in ranking the routes.

4.3.1 Alternative 1 – North of Pululu Channel

      Description:

         •   Route approaches shore from 15 m contour through shallow water to the
             high tide line at a point approximately 4 km north of the Pululu Channel
             tow route beach crossing;
         •   Route traverses generally low lying terrain;
         •   Route crosses transitional and low mangroves at coast with isolated tall
             mangroves to a slightly elevated bare or grassy area behind the coastal
             mangroves (~1 km in diameter);
         •   Route continues east across shallow channels with tall, transitional and
             low mangroves (~1.5 km in length) to a slightly elevated (6 m maximum)
             bare or grassy region adjacent to Pululu Channel (~2 km in length);
         •   Route angles slightly north across tall, transitional and low mangroves at
             mouth of Pululu Channel (~0.5 km in length) and continues to water
             crossing at intersection of Pululu and Cadal Channels (~1 km in length, 12
             m deep);
         •   Route continues east across marsh, channel, shallow pool, and bare
             terrain on edge of Kwanda base and a built up area to the north. Route
             encounters some transitional and low mangroves with isolated tall
             mangroves (<~2 km); and
         •   Route bends north to enter plant at southeast corner through designated
             access corridor (~8+ km from beach).
      Design and Construction:

         •   To use this route responsibly, the construction method needs to minimize
             damage to mangroves and transit a deep channel subject to dredging. A
             minimum of two HDD segments per line are assumed to meet these
             requirements. HDD would be used for the shallow channel crossing and
             the mangrove/deep channel crossing;
         •   The option exists to trench the pipeline across the first of these segments,
             the shallow channel and mangrove areas between elevated areas. This
             would directly affect ~1.5 km of mangroves. The associated collateral
             effect would extend over a wide area of mangrove forest including areas
             of tall mangroves. Such an assumption introduces a significant flaw in this
             route;
         •   Directional drilling would make use of the Pululu channel to store complete
             strings of pipe to be pulled through the directionally drilled holes. Since
                                                                               Page 21 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                    LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                       Revision 0A

               straight line access is not provided by the channels, some guide piling is
               envisioned to allow the pipe to be fed to the hole during the pull;
         •     Drilling or conventional dredged and sheetpiled construction could be
               used for shore approach. A conventional crossing will probably disturb a
               few hundred meters of mangroves behind the beach. While a HDD could
               go under these mangroves, providing mud and water for the drilling would
               require access to the site from the channel, also disturbing mangrove
               areas;
         •     Bare/grassy elevated areas use conventional cut and cover;
         •     A HIPPS is assumed, subject to further engineering, as necessary to keep
               the pipe light enough for long pulls (Pulls up to ~2 -2.5 km are required.
               These are at the limit of current experience especially for heavy pipe);
         •     From breakout point of the final directional drill to the plant, conventional
               marsh construction would be used; and
         •     Construction access to shore approach site is difficult due to remoteness
               from roads.
      Risks:

         •     Directional drilling lengths are at limits of technology due to weight and
               stiffness of pipe;
         •     Significant construction risks from directional drilling failure, which would
               mean loss of pipe and restart;
         •     Difficult operational access to HIPPS location and to route; and
         •     Turtles may use this particular stretch of beach to nest, which would limit
               the construction activities for the crossing.
         •     Pipeline installation would affect fishing activities in the channel.
         •     While remote from human interference, route is hard to secure.
      Other Characteristics:

         •     Very few habitations;
         •     Relatively inaccessible to future infrastructure;
         •     Difficult construction and operational access; and
         •     Little local content due to specialized nature of construction

4.3.2 Alternative 2 – Pre-Dredged Pululu Channel Route

      Description:

         •     Route is predominantly underwater following existing tow route from
               Kwanda base along the Pululu Channel;
         •     Crossing from the sea into the Pululu Channel is at low lying beach;
                                                                                       Page 22 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                               LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                  Revision 0A

        •   Route follows Pululu Channel which varies in depth from 3 to 10 m;
        •   Depth at the deep end of the range occurs at the intersection of the Pululu
            and Cadal Channels but this would be dredged to 14 meters before
            pipeline installation;
        •   Route crosses intersection of Pululu and Cadal Channels in gentle curve
            as close as possible to, but not cutting through, mangroves on shore to
            south and, upon landfall, joins the North of Pululu route into plant;
        •   Route continues east across marsh, channel, shallow pool, and bare
            terrain on edge of Kwanda base and a built up area to the north. Route
            encounters some transitional and low mangroves with isolated tall
            mangroves (<~2 km); and
        •   Route enters plant at southeast corner through designated access corridor
            (~7+ km from beach).
     Construction:

        •   Line would be designed to marine code until the final segment (~2+ km)
            into plant site. Above water, the line would be heavier wall pipe due to
            proximity to existing infrastructure and population;
        •   Construction of shore approach would be by cut and cover with sheet
            piling immediately offshore as no room exists to set up directional drilling;
        •   Crossing between Pululu Channel and sea would use cofferdams and
            segmented construction across barrier to prevent salt-water ingress to
            channel. Barrier crossing would be buried deeply and pipeline suitably
            protected to allow ongoing and future tow operations to safely take place;
        •   At a minimum, pipelines would be trenched after laying to provide one
            meter of cover. This would result in a trench approximately 2 m below
            pre-dredged channel bottom. Trench would be backfilled after pipeline
            installation to allow continued use of the channel for towing offshore
            pipelines. An engineered cover (grout bags, rock rip rap, concrete
            mattresses), or perhaps deeper burial, would be required to ensure future
            shipping can use channel simultaneously with operation of the pipelines;
        •   Crossing of Pululu/Cadal intersection would need to be deeply buried, and
            backfilled to allow any maintenance dredging currently required in this
            area to continue. However, guide piles to deflect the lines into alignment
            with the Cadal channel landfall could be used to keep the lines as far as
            possible from dredged areas. The piles might be left in place to prevent
            future encroachment. Design would be governed by provisions, as yet
            unevaluated, required to ensure safe operations;
        •   Construction of pipelines along channel would be by tow from Kwanda
            Base similar to the method used to fabricate offshore lines for towing; and
        •   Pipelines could be bundled into one or more bundles or could be laid in
            five individual trenches. Room appears to exist for individual trenches.
            Bundle(s) would be large and cumbersome given the size of the proposed
                                                                               Page 23 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                   LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                      Revision 0A

               lines (much larger than the lines that have been bundled at Kwanda Base
               to date.) Post trenching would be more difficult. Thus, individual lines are
               assumed for the current evaluation.
      Risks:

         •     Pre-dredging will likely require removal of soil from the submarine
               environment. Such soils may turn acidic when exposed to air and
               disposal will adversely affect the environment and significantly degrade
               fishing activities;
         •     Pre-dredging to the required depth will significantly affect the mangroves
               along the entire length of the route on both sides of the Pululu channel
               and connected tidal estuaries;
         •     If the pipelines are bundled into one or more bundles, a failure of one line
               would affect the others; and,
         •     Trenching is expected to be completed without removing soil from the
               submarine environment to avoid adverse affects from dredged soils
               turning acidic when exposed to air. The trenching will temporarily degrade
               the water quality and fishing and may have some effect on the mangrove
               environment along the entire length (~5 km) and both sides of the channel
               and associated estuaries. The effect will be relatively negligible compared
               to the effect of pre-dredging.
      Other Characteristics:

         •     This approach offers the least line length exposed to terrorist activity or
               other intentional human interference and eases surveillance of the route;
         •     Route is relatively inaccessible to future infrastructure; and
         •     Significant dredging cost on the order of tens of millions of dollars would
               be required. Even if this is born by others, as not being a requirement for
               the pipelines, the protective measures required over the pipelines will also
               be very expensive.

4.3.3 Alternative 3 – South of Pululu Channel Route

      Description:

         •     Route approaches shore at eroding cliff approximately 4 km south of the
               Pululu Channel towed pipeline and riser beach crossing;
         •     Route proceeds east north east over sparsely vegetated and undulating
               terrain (~7.5 km);
         •     Route encounters some farming and associated sporadic habitations as
               well as bypassing some Total well sites and potentially crossing a flowline
               and a road;
         •     After approximately 4 km, route angles to north encountering some forest
               remnants and bypassing some cultural sites along route;
                                                                                 Page 24 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                   Revision 0A

        •     After approximately 3 km, route approaches Cadal Channel and angles
              slightly to the east encountering marshes and shallow estuaries with
              transitional and low mangroves and isolated patches of tall mangroves.
              (~1 km);
        •     Route crosses shallow Cadal Channel (<~0.5 km);
        •     Route crosses marsh and channel region on edge of built up area. Route
              encounters transitional and low mangroves with isolated tall mangroves
              (~0.5 km); and
        •     Route enters plant at southeast corner through designated access corridor
              after a further section (<~1 km) of bare land, scrub vegetation and isolated
              low mangroves (<~10 km from beach).
     Construction:

        •     Shore crossing envisioned to employ tunnel(s) from behind cliff to
              cofferdam at beach with sheet piling immediately offshore.             The
              alternative, cutting through the beach cliff, has been done at Quinfuquena
              shore approach to the south;
        •     Conventional trenched onshore construction and marsh construction with
              sheet piling, would be employed where necessary to limit mangrove
              damage; and
        •     Cadal Channel crossing and approaches with densest mangroves could
              potentially be directionally drilled allowing construction flexibility.
     Risks:

        •     Some risk of acidic soil at Cadal and other channel crossings, but route
              has minimum channel work;
        •     Cutting the beach cliff would require measures to prevent the type of
              erosion that has occurred at the Quinfuquena shore approach;
        •     Even through micro-planning of the exact route will occur, some villages
              and/or dwellings may be affected by the closeness of the pipelines, and
              the resettlement action program (RAP) may have to be used;
        •     Trees could be destroyed that are of cultural significance or local food
              sources;
        •     The right to use the land for the pipeline route has to be obtained,
              opposition by local land owners could occur that would delay the land
              acquisition process and project;
        •     If the pipe has to be unloaded at Kwanda Base and trucked to route sites,
              this could increase the occurrence of road accidents; and,
        •     Subsistence agriculture that is presently done along the route will be
              disrupted during construction. This could cause local resentment if not
              properly mitigated.

                                                                                Page 25 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                   Revision 0A

      Other Characteristics:

         •   Pipelines will be buried to a depth that will aid in minimizing terrorist
             activity or other intentional or unintentional human interference;
         •   Substantial flexibility exists to adjust routes to meet constraints due to
             topography, future infrastructure, existing population, wells, environmental
             and cultural sites;
         •   Representative of this flexibility is an alternative making landfall
             approximately 3 km to the north and trending directly from shore to the
             plant. The alternative has similar characteristics and would be shorter,
             however it is on average expected to be further from additional
             development, cross an additional channel and have slightly more
             population as well as being closer to important cultural sites. It was thus
             not the basis of the comparison; and
         •   A wide (~440 m) exclusion zone is envisioned along right-of-way to
             maintain acceptable design factor and wall thickness. Access to this zone
             is envisioned as acceptable for subsistence farming but not habitation.
             Further restrictions would apply to a narrower 40 – 70 meter
             inspection/maintenance zone in the center of the wider corridor. No
             access or farming would be allowed in this area. A security review will
             need to be completed to determine if one or both zones may need to be
             fenced with crossings periodically provided across the zones.

4.4   Risk Identification

      In June 2005, when the 29 routes were originally identified, an exercise was
      undertaken to provide direction on the level of risk that might apply to each route.
      In order to expedite the process, this was conducted using proprietary input
      rather than an approved project methodology. As such the results were
      considered indicative of issues rather than prescriptive. For reference, these
      results are given in Appendix A – Risk Identification.


5.0   FINE SCREENING

5.1   Alternatives Assessment

      Three route options remained after the course screening was completed. To
      narrow the options to one route that would be carried into front end engineering
      and design (FEED); a fine screening was done ranking the remaining options
      based on a number of criteria. The fine screening used a paired comparison
      method to determine criteria weights and the Pipeline Onshore Route Selection
      Matrix to assess the three options against the weighted criteria from the paired
      comparison work.




                                                                                Page 26 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                             LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                Revision 0A

5.1.1 Assessment Criteria

      The proposed route selection method was based on a set of pre-determined
      categories that would establish a rationale for the selection of the route:

         •   Socio-Economic;
         •   Environmental;
         •   Health and Safety;
         •   CAPEX;
         •   Operability;
         •   Reliability;
         •   Schedule;
         •   Security;
         •   Economic Growth; and
         •   Constructability.

      The categories have one or more associated criteria. The definitions below
      explain what is meant by each category and criterion. This information was
      considered in performing the fine screening. In Section 5.1.2 the weights
      generated from the paired comparison screening, are given for each category
      and criterion relative to the others

      Socio-Economic - this category addresses the impact, primarily on individuals
      and their current activities, of a pipeline corridor. The following criteria are
      collected under it:

      a) Minimize Impact of Resettlement /Relocation - How many people will be
         displaced by the route?
      b) Minimize Impact to Cultural Sites - Will cultural sites be isolated, moved,
         destroyed or changed?
      c) Minimize Impact to Long Term Agricultural Activities - Will agriculture be
         prohibited, made more difficult or less accessible in the long term?
      d) Minimize Impact to Long Term Fishing Activities - Will fishing be prohibited,
         fishing grounds destroyed or made inaccessible, or fish populations reduced
         in the long term?
      e) Ease Land Acquisition, Right-of-Way - How easy will it be to obtain ROW and
         ancillary land?
      f) Likelihood of Intervention by Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) - Will
         NGOs complain, protest, and generate negative publicity or impact
         construction or operation?
      g) Enhancement of Infrastructure - Will the route entail improvement or
         development of infrastructure usable by the general population?
                                                                            Page 27 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                              LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                 Revision 0A

     h) Susceptibility to Future Encroachment on Right of Way - Is the ROW
        susceptible to future encroachment by incompatible human activity?
     i) Negative Impact on Current Industrial Activities - Does the route restrict
        current industrial activities in the vicinity?
     j) Ease of Decommissioning - Is the route easy to decommission without
        adverse affects on the community?

     Environmental - this category captures the impact a pipeline corridor would
     have on environmentally sensitive areas and significant natural features such as
     mangrove swamps, wildlife refuges, and water crossings.

     a) Mangrove Damage - Will use of the route damage mangroves, especially tall
        mangroves or large areas of mangroves either by direct damage or collateral
        damage to changes in the environment such as siltation or salt water
        intrusion?
     b) Long Term Disturbance of Natural Habitats & Wildlife - Will use of the route
        disturb the natural habitat and wildlife over the long term?
     c) Adverse Consequences of Construction Footprint and Site Access - Will
        construction access requirements, affected areas, and activities adversely
        affect the environment?
     d) Adverse Consequences of Operation - Will operation of the pipeline along the
        route adversely affect the environment?
     e) Adverse Consequences of Hydrocarbon Release on the Environment - Will
        potential hydrocarbon releases adversely affect the environment?
     f)   Potential to Promote Adverse Development of Pristine Areas - Will use and
          development of the route encourage or promote the development of areas that
          should remain pristine?

     Health & Safety - this category assesses the effects on the health and safety of
     the local community and project personnel during both the construction and
     operation of the pipelines.

     a) Negative Impact of Hydrocarbon Release on Health - What is the effect of a
        release of hydrocarbons from the standpoint of causing sickness, shortening
        lifespan, causing disabilities, or producing chronic deterioration in the health
        and well-being of people?
     b) Negative Impact of Hydrocarbon Release on Safety - What is the effect of a
        release of hydrocarbons on causing relatively immediate injuries or death to
        people?
     c) Risks to People from Construction Activities - What are the risks (primarily
        safety, but also health, if any) to people due to construction activities?
     d) Risks to People Due to Operation of the Pipeline System - What are the
        safety and health risks to people due to operation of the pipeline?


                                                                              Page 28 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                 LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                    Revision 0A

     CAPEX - the overall capital cost of using the route and the degree of difference
     from other routes due to major factors such as length, terrain, design
     requirements, construction techniques and ROW acquisition:

     a) Cost of Facilities - What are the costs of design, materials, equipment,
        fabrication, installation and commissioning relative to other route options?

     Operability - an appraisal of whether existing roads, including unimproved
     roads, and other infrastructure are adequate for operations and maintenance as
     well as proximity of site to existing infrastructure. In addition, inherent features of
     the route that might facilitate or hinder operation and maintenance are covered.

     a) Site Accessibility - Is there easy access to the site for maintenance, security
        and repair?
     b) Use of Existing Infrastructure to Support Operations – Does the route
        capitalize on existing infrastructure such as roads, power supplies and
        communications, to support operations?
     c) Ease of Pipeline Operations - Is the system, as designed and installed on the
        route, easy to operate?
     d) Ease of Pipeline Maintenance - Is the system, as designed and installed on
        the route, easy to maintain?

     Reliability - this category addresses the inherent reliability of a pipeline using the
     route option.

     a) Minimize the Risk of Downtime - How often do component failures interrupt
        production and for how long?
     b) Susceptibility to Accidental Damage - How often does damage to the pipeline
        interrupt production and for how long?

     Schedule - this category evaluates both the duration of the schedule required to
     construct pipelines on a route and the risk that inherent features of the route and
     associated construction methods would lead to a wide uncertainty in that
     schedule.

     a) Minimize the Overall Schedule of the Project - How long will it take to put a
        system into production for a given route?
     b) Risk of Schedule Delays - What are the risks of delays to the schedule due to
        design, procurement, and fabrication issues?

     Security - this category assesses the vulnerability to potential acts of vandalism,
     terrorism or other means of tampering to which a pipeline on the route could be
     subjected.

     a) Susceptibility to Terrorism or Insurrection - How easy would it be for a terrorist
        to damage the pipeline considering, ease of providing security, natural
        barriers to access, and design factors?
                                                                                 Page 29 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                             LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                Revision 0A

     b) Susceptibility to Vandalism - How susceptible is the pipeline to vandalism
        based on accessibility, ease of security and proximity to population?
     c) Susceptibility to Illegal Off Takes - How susceptible is the pipeline to
        attempted illegal off takes based on accessibility, ease of security and
        proximity to demand?

     Economic Growth - this category addresses whether the route facilitates
     economic growth other than that due to its specified use.

     a) Ease of Gas Supply to Other Industry Using ROW - Can the ROW be used to
        supply gas to other industry and how conveniently?
     b) Ease of Adding Future Gas Supply to Plant Within ROW - Would the ROW
        facilitate supply of unanticipated gas to the LNG plant should such gas
        become available in the future?
     c) Constraint on Future Activities Caused by ROW - Would the route constrain
        future economic growth if developed based on current activities and delivery
        of gas to LNG plant?

     Constructability - the risks, feasibility and ease of construction using a given
     route with its associated physical and environmental constraints are covered
     under this category.

     a) Risks Due to Failure During Construction - How likely are difficulties and
        failures during construction and how significant are the consequences of such
        failures?
     b) Negative Community Impacts Due to Construction - What negative
        community impacts such as traffic, noise and pollution are associated with the
        route and method of construction?
     c) Logistic Constraints - How difficult is it to bring in necessary materials and
        equipment to the construction sites in a reasonable timeframe?
     d) Technology Constraints - Do the necessary technologies exist to design and
        construct the pipelines along the proposed route and how well understood
        and proven are they?
     e) Ease of Design and Construction - Is the design and construction of pipelines
        using the route straightforward?
     f) Maximizes Potential for Local Content - How much local employment and
        local economic activity will be generated by a given route and its associated
        construction techniques?
     g) Availability of Specialized Equipment and Personnel - Are the equipment and
        personnel needed for the proposed route and construction techniques readily
        available and how easy is it to mobilize them to the local?




                                                                            Page 30 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                    LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                       Revision 0A

5.1.2 Criteria Weight and Ranking

      The table below gives the results of the paired comparison exercise. The relative
      importance of the major categories are given in bold. The criteria for each
      category fall under their respective major categories. These criteria have been
      normalized to set the total weights of all criteria to 100% for ease of comparison.

         Table 2 – Criteria Weight in Percent from Paired Comparison Analysis

       Criteria                                                               Weight (%)
       Socio-Economic                                                           11.76
       Minimize Impact of Resettlement /Relocation                                4.6
       Minimize Impact to Cultural Sites                                          4.6
       Minimize Impact to Long Term Agricultural Activities                       3.6
       Minimize Impact to Long Term Fishing Activities                            3.6
       Ease Land Acquisition, Right-of-Way                                        2.7
       Likelihood of Intervention by NGOs                                         0.3
       Enhancement of Infrastructure                                              1.2
       Susceptibility to Future Encroachment on Right of Way                      2.4
       Negative Impact on Current Industrial Activities                           1.5
       Ease of Decommissioning                                                    0.9
       Environmental                                                            14.12
       Mangrove Damage                                                            2.4
       Long Term Disturbance of Natural Habitats & Wildlife                       3.7
       Adverse Consequences of Construction Footprint and Site Access             2.4
       Adverse Consequences of Operation                                          2.4
       Adverse Consequences of Hydrocarbon Release on the Environment             6.7
       Potential to Promote Adverse Development of Pristine Areas                 0.6
       Health & Safety                                                          23.53
       Negative Impact of Hydrocarbon Release on Health                           5.1
       Negative Impact of Hydrocarbon Release on Safety                          10.2
       Risks to People from Construction Activities                               1.7
       Risks to People Due to Operation of the Pipeline System                    3.4
       CAPEX                                                                     1.18
       Cost of Facilities                                                         0.3


                                                                                Page 31 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                              LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                 Revision 0A

       Criteria                                                          Weight (%)
       Operability                                                          5.88
       Site Accessibility                                                    1.6
       Use of Existing Infrastructure to Support Operations                  0.4
       Ease of Pipeline Operations                                           1.6
       Ease of Pipeline Maintenance                                          1.6
       Reliability                                                          11.76
       Minimize the Risk of Downtime                                         3.4
       Susceptibility to Accidental Damage                                   1.7
       Schedule                                                             2.35
       Minimize the Overall Schedule of the Project                          0.7
       Risk of Schedule Delays                                               0.3
       Security                                                             18.82
       Susceptibility to Terrorism or Insurrection                           7.7
       Susceptibility to Vandalism                                           3.1
       Susceptibility to Illegal Off Takes                                   1.5
       Economic Growth                                                      4.71
       Ease of Gas Supply to Other Industry Using ROW                        0.4
       Ease of Adding Future Gas Supply to Plant Within ROW                  1.5
       Constraint on Future Activities Caused by ROW                         1.1
       Constructability                                                     5.88
       Risks Due to Failure During Construction                              2.5
       Negative Community Impacts Due to Construction                        1.7
       Logistic Constraints                                                  1.0
       Technology Constraints                                                1.5
       Ease of Design and Construction                                       0.2
       Maximizes Potential for Local Content                                 1.2
       Availability of Specialized Equipment and Personnel                   0.7


5.1.3 Pipeline Onshore Route Selection Matrix

      The Pipeline Onshore Route Selection Matrix was used to provide a logical and
      transparent approach in selecting a preferred pipeline route from the three
      options. The complete matrix is in Appendix B – Alternatives Assessment Matrix.
                                                                           Page 32 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                               LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                  Revision 0A

      Overall results are summarized in Table 3 with a higher score corresponding to a
      higher rank. It should be noted that the scores are close. This is usual for a
      paired comparison done following a coarse ranking exercise since all the short
      listed routes were considered to have some merit.

                     Table 3 – Route Selection Matrix Results

       Route                                            Total Comparative Ranking

       North of Pululu (No. 2 Rank)                                 33.33

       Pre-Dredged Pululu Channel (No. 3 Rank)                      32.73

       South of Pululu (No. 1 Rank)                                 35.01

      After the route selection, ERM examined one optimized, but still preliminary,
      South of Pululu Route to characterize environmental habitats along the route.
      While this is in preparation for subsequent work, they also supplied similar
      information for the North of Pululu and Pululu Channel routes. This information is
      in APPENDIX C – Pipeline Habitat Characterization for reference.

6.0   ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

      The objective of this work is to select a single route to carry into FEED using the
      data that is currently available to the team. This goal has been achieved through
      a series of screening and selection exercises using the Paired Comparison
      Method and Ranking Matrix. These exercises gave results in keeping with the
      coarse ranking and thus served as a check on the prior results.

      During the route selection study, several options have been shown to be viable;
      however, each had potential risks (technical, financial, socio-economic, and
      environmental, etc.) which led to their elimination.

      The recommended route, the South of Pululu route, also presents some risks
      and uncertainties. These are generally of a lesser nature than the alternatives.
      The team has recommended this option on the premise that it will be investigated
      in more detail during FEED through further data gathering, any necessary
      additional engineering studies, and risk quantification exercises. The route is
      recommended for not only detailed study during FEED but for presentation to
      community groups and other stakeholders.

      Table 4 below summarizes the results by category from the ranking matrix. The
      table indicates that the recommended South of Pululu route was ranked first in 7
      out of 10 categories, further supporting the recommendation.




                                                                               Page 33 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                   Revision 0A

                     Table 4 -- Summary of Category Rankings

                               Route 1             Route 2               Route 3
        Category                                 Pre-Dredged
                           North of Pululu                           South of Pululu
                                                Pululu Channel


  Socio-Economic                  1                     2                    3


  Environmental                   2                     2                    1


  Health & Safety                 1                     3                    2


  CAPEX                           2                     2                    1


  Operability                     3                     2                    1


  Reliability                     2                     3                    1


  Schedule                        3                     2                    1


  Security                        2                     1                    3


  Economic Growth                 2                     3                    1


  Constructability                3                     2                    1


   Number of Categories
    Route Ranked 1st              2                     1                    7




 Table 5 gives further details of key considerations corresponding to the above
 scores. The areas in which a route received a first place ranking are shown with a
 double border. This table is useful, not only to assist in understanding the results, but
 also to facilitate identification of lower ranking areas where design effort should be
 concentrated to mitigate concerns.
                                                                                 Page 34 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                                 LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                                    Revision 0A

                 Table 5 -- Summary of Key Ranking Considerations

      Category                 Route 1                    Route 2                          Route 3
                                                        Pre-Dredged
                         North of Pululu                                              South of Pululu
                                                       Pululu Channel

                                                     No relocation, no impact
                        Least likely to impact                                      May require relocation.
                                                        to cultural sites or
Socio-Economic         cultural sites and disrupt
                                                          agriculture, no
                                                                                     Impact on agriculture,
                              agriculture.                                          least impact on fishing.
                                                     encroachment of ROW.
                       Most mature mangroves,        Large amount of spoil.
                                                                                   Least mangrove damage,
                        most likely to promote          Likely to promote
Environmental          development of pristine       development of pristine
                                                                                   least impact to fauna due
                                                                                        to construction.
                                 area.                        areas.
                                                                                     Longer route, closer to
                       Least risk to health and      Marginally higher risk to
                                                                                     population centers and
Health & Safety         safety due to distance       health and safety, esp.
                                                                                        labor intensive
                           from population.               construction.
                                                                                         construction.

                                                                                       Low-tech, low cost
                        Most expensive route         Very expensive dredging
CAPEX                   due to HDD required.              and protection
                                                                                     construction but longer
                                                                                             route.

                        HIPPS required due to                                         Easiest access, no
                                                      No HIPPS, extremely
                       HDD, remoteness make                                         HIPPS, easiest to reach
Operability               it most difficult to
                                                      difficult to inspect and
                                                                                       for inspection and
                                                              maintain.
                               operate.                                                  maintenance.
                        HIPPS involves more
                                                     Susceptible to accidental         No moving parts.
                         moving parts. Least
Reliability            susceptible to accidental
                                                     damage from significant        Somewhat susceptible to
                                                           ship traffic.              accidental damage.
                              damage.

                        Sequential use of HDD           Fairly conventional          Most readily available
Schedule               equipment. Highest risk       equipment. Some risk of        equipment. Most flexible
                         of schedule delays.             schedule delays.            construction program.

                          HIPPS increases                                           Proximity to population
                       exposure. Remoteness           Most difficult to reach       makes it more subject to
Security                   reduces risk of                 and target.               vandalism and illegal
                       vandalism and offtakes.                                             offtakes.

                       Route neither constrains      Route neither constrains         Best route for future
Economic Growth          nor facilitates future        nor facilitates future       industrial development,
                       industrial development.       industrial development.           LNG plant growth.

                        Specialized equipment
                         and personnel, least         More local content,            Highest local content,
Constructability       local content, high risk of   moderate risk of failure.       lowest risk of failure.
                                failure.




                                                                                                   Page 35 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                       LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                          Revision 0A


APPENDIX A – RISK IDENTIFICATION

                      Risk Input to Ranking Methodology 16 June 2005
   Purpose to establish risk input to ranking methodology for comparing onshore options.

Risk Category/   Risk Description      Consequence           Risk    Impact to Ranking Options
     Risk                                                    Rank
 Description

  Health &
   Safety
                 Minor failure of      Gas Leak               2     Neutral     Neutral means all
                 pipeline integrity                                             options are similar
                 Major failure of      Pipe burst, fire,      4      High
                 pipeline integrity    explosion
                 Purposeful            Gas Leak, burst,       4      High
                 Damage to             fire, expl, death,
                 pipeline by local     injury
                 people
                 Accidental            Gas Leak, burst,       4      High
                 damage (Impact        fire, expl, death,
                 by heavy              injury
                 equipment)
                 UXO contact           Injury/Death           4      Low         Assumes UXO
                                                                                clearance prior to
                                                                                        work.
                 Diseases              Malaria, Marburg,      3     Neutral     1) Neutral means
                                       food poisoning,                            all options are
                                       etc. death                                      similar
                                                                                   2) Assumes
                                                                                      medical
                                                                                  intervention is
                                                                                      possible.
                 Earth cave in         Trapping               3     Medium
                 (trench, tunnel)      personnel, injury,
                                       death
                 Drowning              Death                  3     Neutral     Neutral means all
                                                                                options are similar
                 Construction          Sinking, collision,    3     Neutral     Neutral means all
                 vessels mishap        injury, death,                           options are similar
                                       delay, impact on
                                       pipeline by fishing
                                       vessels
                 Pipe handling         Injury/Death           4     Neutral     Neutral means all
                 mishap                                                         options are similar
                 Construction          Burns, injury,         3     Neutral
                 mishap                death
                 Wild animals and      Injury/Death           3     Neutral
                 reptiles bites
                 Pirates / terrorist   Damage, leak,          3     Medium
                 attack                burst, fire,
                                       kidnapping, injury,
                                       fatality
                 Operational           Injury/Death           3     Medium
                 mishap
                                                                                         Page 36 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                      LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                         Revision 0A

                      Risk Input to Ranking Methodology 16 June 2005
   Purpose to establish risk input to ranking methodology for comparing onshore options.

Risk Category/   Risk Description     Consequence          Risk     Impact to Ranking Options
     Risk                                                  Rank
 Description

                 Damage to            Oil leak, fire,       3     Medium
                 existing operating   explosion, injury,
                 flowlines            fatality
                 Increased            Injury/Death          3     Medium
                 vehicular traffic
                 through urban
                 areas

Environmental
                 Tall Mangroves       Reputation,           5         Failure of route option
                 areas are            permitability, NGO
                 destroyed            impact
                 Transitional and     Reputation,           4      High
                 low mangroves        permitability, NGO
                 areas are            impact
                 destroyed
                 Sea Turtle           Reputation,           4      High
                 nesting disturbed    permitability, NGO
                                      impact
                 Beach erosion        Reputation,           4      High
                                      permitability, NGO
                                      impact
                 Air emissions        Reputation,           2     Neutral
                                      permitability, NGO
                                      impact
                 Hydrocarbon spill    Reputation,           4      High
                 from existing        permitability, NGO
                 flowline             impact, economic,
                                      legal actions,
                                      schedule
                 Refined              Reputation, NGO       2     Neutral
                 hydrocarbon spill    impact, economic,
                                      legal actions,
                                      schedule
                 HDD drilling fluid   Reputation, NGO       3     Medium
                 leaks                impact,
                                      permitability,
                                      economic, legal
                                      actions, schedule
                 Improper             Reputation, NGO       2      Low       The difference is
                 disposal of          impact,                                between HDD and
                 hydrotest water      permitability,                         other options
                                      economic, legal
                                      actions, schedule
                 Endangered           Reputation,           3     Medium
                 species (flora &     permitability, NGO
                 fauna) habitat       impact
                 impacted


                                                                                         Page 37 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                         LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                            Revision 0A

                      Risk Input to Ranking Methodology 16 June 2005
   Purpose to establish risk input to ranking methodology for comparing onshore options.

Risk Category/   Risk Description      Consequence            Risk     Impact to Ranking Options
     Risk                                                     Rank
 Description

                 Fugitive              Small amount of         2      Low
                 emissions             gas leaked to the
                                       environment
                 Salt water            Flora damage,           4      High
                 intrusion             mangrove
                                       damage, wildlife
                                       kill off, reputation
                 Deforestation         Reputation, NGO         3     Medium
                                       impact,
                                       permitability,
                                       economic, legal
                                       actions, schedule
                 Anaerobic gas         Fauna and flora         3     Medium
                 liberation/ water     kill, fishing impact
                 pH change             and mangrove
                                       impact
                 Improper              Reputation,             2      Low
                 disposal of           permitability, NGO
                 wastes                impact
                 Improper              Reputation, NGO         2     Neutral
                 dumping of            impact,
                 ballast water         permitability,
                                       economic, legal
                                       actions, schedule
                 Trenching/dredgi      Reputation, NGO         3      High
                 ng spoils impact      impact,
                                       permitability,
                                       economic, legal
                                       actions, schedule

Reputation /
Community /
  Social
                 Selected pipeline     Riots, lawsuits,        3     Medium
                 routing will cause    schedule impact,
                 economic impact       economic impact
                 or physical
                 displacement of
                 people
                 Discovery of          Schedule and            4      High
                 archeological         economic impact
                 artifacts
                 (historical
                 treasures, etc.) in
                 proposed pipeline
                 path
                 Community             Schedule and            3     Medium
                 disturbance /         economic impact,
                 unrest during         security,
                                                                                          Page 38 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                    LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                       Revision 0A

                      Risk Input to Ranking Methodology 16 June 2005
   Purpose to establish risk input to ranking methodology for comparing onshore options.

Risk Category/   Risk Description     Consequence        Risk     Impact to Ranking Options
     Risk                                                Rank
 Description

                 land crossing        reputation
                 phase

                 Significant local    Riots, lawsuits,    3     Medium
                 fishing impact       schedule impact,
                                      economic impact
                 Loss of              Economic impact     2      Low
                 agricultural crop
                 Construction         Riots, lawsuits,    2     Neutral
                 crew lawlessness     schedule impact,
                                      economic impact,
                                      reputation

                 Local content        Riots, lawsuits,    2      Low
                 minimized            schedule impact,
                 (people & goods)     economic impact,
                                      reputation, NGO
                                      impact
                 Pipeline route       Economic impact,    4      High     Operational impact:
                 encroaches on        operational                         Move the pipeline for
                 future               impacts,                            a new development.
                 development
                 acreage
                 Relationships        Schedule impact,    3     Medium
                 with Chiefs/ local   economic impact,
                 elders not           reputation
                 established
                 Resettlement         Schedule impact,    4     Medium
                 Action Plan not      economic impact,
                 completed            reputation
                 satisfactorily
                 Local language       Economic and        2     Neutral
                 barriers             schedule impacts
                 Too much noise       Riots, lawsuits,    2     Medium
                                      schedule impact,
                                      economic impact,
                                      reputation
                 Persons living or    Economic impact     2      Low
                 farming on the
                 right of way after
                 startup


    Cost
                 Price for steel      Economic impact,    4      High
                 escalates at rate    schedule impact
                 that exceeds
                 forecast.

                                                                                     Page 39 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                     LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                        Revision 0A

                      Risk Input to Ranking Methodology 16 June 2005
   Purpose to establish risk input to ranking methodology for comparing onshore options.

Risk Category/   Risk Description      Consequence        Risk     Impact to Ranking Options
     Risk                                                 Rank
 Description

                 CAPEX inflation       Economic impact     3     Neutral
                 due to the
                 continuing
                 weakness of the
                 US $. Although
                 the Contracts are
                 awarded in US $
                 much of the raw
                 materials are
                 bought in various
                 currencies.
                 Governmental          Economic and        3     Neutral
                 changes               schedule impacts
                 Contractor            Economic and        3     Medium
                 competition not       schedule impacts
                 available for
                 defined route
                 installation
                 methodology
                 ROW costs             Economic impact     3     Medium

  Schedule
                 Delay in finding      Economic and        4      High
                 an acceptable         schedule impacts
                 overland or thru
                 mangrove
                 pipeline route to
                 the selected plant
                 site
                 Hold up of            Schedule impact     4     Neutral
                 materials in
                 customs
                 The existence of      Economic and        3     Medium
                 other mega            schedule impacts
                 projects results in
                 shortages of
                 qualified
                 contractors,
                 personnel and
                 equipment
                 Work delays due       Economic and        3     Medium
                 to marine vessel      schedule impacts
                 traffic in the
                 channel.
                 Shortage of mill      Economic impact,    4      High
                 space World wide      schedule impact
                 when fabrication
                 is due to
                 commence

                                                                                      Page 40 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                      LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                         Revision 0A

                      Risk Input to Ranking Methodology 16 June 2005
   Purpose to establish risk input to ranking methodology for comparing onshore options.

Risk Category/   Risk Description      Consequence         Risk     Impact to Ranking Options
     Risk                                                  Rank
 Description

                 Failure of            Economic and         4      High
                 selected              schedule impacts
                 construction
                 technique
                 Impact of extra       Economic and         4      High
                 heavy wall line       schedule impacts
                 pipe (Heating
                 treating, welding,
                 coating
                 equipment,
                 handling)
                 Fracture              Economic and         4      High
                 mechanic studies      schedule impacts
                 indicate
                 unacceptable
                 pipe failure
                 River flooding        Economic and         2      Low
                                       schedule impacts

  Technical
                 Materials & weld      Economic and         4      High
                 specs too             schedule impacts
                 onerous to
                 achieve. The
                 repair rates are
                 not low enough
                 and are causing
                 "Down Time" and
                 delay to schedule
                 HDD Length is         Economic and         3      Low
                 too long              schedule impacts,
                                       pipe could
                                       become stuck
                 Lack of pull string   Economic and         2      Low
                 area for the HDD      schedule impacts
                 Uncharacteristic      Economic and         3     Medium
                 heavy wall pipe       schedule impacts
                 for HDD
                 application
                 Premature             Economic and         4      High
                 backfill of           schedule impacts
                 dredged shore
                 approach
                 Construction          Economic and         3     Medium
                 uncertainties of      schedule impacts
                 the soil
                 conditions



                                                                                       Page 41 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                        LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                           Revision 0A

                       Risk Input to Ranking Methodology 16 June 2005
    Purpose to establish risk input to ranking methodology for comparing onshore options.

Risk Category/     Risk Description     Consequence         Risk      Impact to Ranking Options
     Risk                                                   Rank
 Description

                   Possible             Possibly prevent     3     Medium
                   difference           the use of HDD
                   between the          methodology for
                   supply demands       onshore
                   and the off take     applications
                   demands with
                   reference to
                   pressure
                   reduction station.

 Operations /
 Maintenance
                   External             Possible pipe        3       Low
                   corrosion            failure, economic
                                        impact
                   Need for utilities   Economic impact      2       Low
                   at Hub
                   Valve / valve        Economic impact,     3     Medium
                   operator failure     possible pipe
                                        failure
                   Blowdown             Operating            3     Medium
                   system not           schedule impact,
                   available            causing economic
                                        impact
                   Staffing             Economic and         2       Low
                                        schedule impacts
                   Sparing              Economic, safety,    3     Medium
                                        and schedule
                                        impacts
                   Training             Economic, safety,    3     Medium
                                        and schedule
                                        impacts
                   Logistics            Economic and         2     Medium
                                        schedule impacts

Notes:
1) Ranking from Angola LNG Risk Ranking Matrix (1 = least impact and 5 = highest impact.)

2) Risk ranking of 5 is a Pass/Fail = Fail category.




                                                                                            Page 42 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                                                                                                                                                              LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                                                                                                                                                                 Revision 0A


APPENDIX B – ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT MATRIX

            Category ===>                                                                                                                                              Socio-Economic                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Environmental




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Hydrocarbon Release on Environment
                                                                                                                                Minimize Impact to Long Term Fishing




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Susceptibility of Future Encroachment



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Negative Impact on Current Industrial




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Adverse Consequences of Operation
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Likelihood of Intervention by NGOs
                                                                                                                                                                        Ease of Land Acquisition / Right of




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Long Term Disturbance of Natural
                                                             Minimize Impact to Cultural Sites




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Construction Footprint and Site




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Development of Pristine Areas
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Enhancement of Infrastructure
                                                                                                 Minimize Impact to Long Term




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Potential to Promote Adverse
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Adverse Consequences of




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Adverse Consequences of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ease of Decommissioning
                                  Resettlement/Relocation
Criteria ==>




                                                                                                 Agricultural Activities




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Habitat and Wildlife
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Mangrove Damage
                                  Minimize Impact of




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    on Right of Way
                                                                                                                                Activities




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Activities




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Access
                                                                                                                                                                        Way
Category Weight (%)                                                                                                                                                                                11.76                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 14.12
Criteria Weight in Ctgry. (%)     17.86                     17.86                                14.29                          14.29                                   10.71                                  1.19                                 4.76                                9.52                                    5.95                                3.57                      13.33              20.00                                   13.33                        13.33                                36.67                                   3.33
Criteria Weight Normalized        0.50                       0.50                                 0.40                           0.40                                    0.30                                  0.03                                 0.13                                0.27                                    0.17                                0.10                       0.27               0.40                                   0.27                         0.27                                  0.74                                   0.07
Criteria Weight (%)                4.6                        4.6                                 3.6                            3.6                                     2.7                                   0.3                                   1.2                                 2.4                                    1.5                                 0.9                        2.4                3.7                                     2.4                          2.4                                  6.7                                    0.6
Route Designation
               Route 1                     4                          5                                     5                                 2                                       3                                  3                                  2                                     4                                       4                               3                        2                         3                                   2                              3                                       2                                  1
            North of Pululu       2.0008                    2.501                                2.0008 0.80032 0.90036 0.10004 0.26677 1.06709 0.66693 0.30012 0.53782 1.21008 0.53782 0.80672 1.47899 0.06723

               Route 2                     5                          5                                     5                                 1                                       3                                  2                                  2                                     3                                       2                               3                        1                         1                                   2                              4                                       3                                  2
     Pre-dredged Pululu Channel   2.501                     2.501                                2.0008 0.40016 0.90036 0.06669 0.26677 0.80032 0.33347 0.30012 0.26891 0.40336 0.53782 1.07563 2.21849 0.13445
               Route 3                     2                          3                                     2                                 5                                       2                                  2                                  4                                     2                                       4                               4                        4                         4                                   4                              3                                       3                                  3

            South of Pululu       1.0004                    1.5006 0.80032 2.0008 0.60024 0.06669 0.53355 0.53355 0.66693 0.40016 1.07563 1.61345 1.07563 0.80672 2.21849 0.20168




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Page 43 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                                                                                                                                                           LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                                                                                                                                                              Revision 0A

           Category ===>                                            Health & Safety                                                                                             CAPEX                                                  Operability                                                                                           Reliability                                                           Schedule                                                                                              Security




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Susceptibility to Terrorism or Insurrectio
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Minimize the Overall Schedule of the
                                                                                                                                          Risks to People Due to Operation of




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Susceptibility to Accidental Damage
                                                                                                      Risks to People from Construction
                                   Negative Impact of Hydrocarbon



                                                                     Negative Impact of Hydrocarbon




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Susceptibility to Illegal Off takes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Use of Existing Infrastructure to




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Ease of Pipeline Maintenance



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Minimize Risk of Mechanical
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Ease of Pipeline Operations




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Susceptibility to Vandalism
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Risk of Schedule Delays
Criteria ==>




                                                                                                                                          the Pipeline System




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Support Operations
                                   Release on Health



                                                                     Release on Safety




                                                                                                                                                                                                            Site Accessibility
                                                                                                                                                                                      Cost of Facilities




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Downtime
                                                                                                      Activities




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Project
Category Weight (%)                                                                         23.53                                                                                1.18                                                                          5.88                                                                                      11.76                                                                            2.35                                                                            18.82
Criteria Weight in Ctgry. (%)      25.00                             50.00                               8.33                             16.67                                 100.00                     30.77                    7.69                             30.77                          30.77                           66.67                         33.33                                  66.67                                  33.33                      62.50                                          25.00                          12.50
Criteria Weight Normalized         0.56                               1.12                               0.19                              0.37                                  0.03                       0.17                    0.04                              0.17                           0.17                            0.37                          0.19                                   0.07                                   0.04                      0.84                                            0.34                           0.17
Criteria Weight (%)                 5.1                               10.2                                1.7                               3.4                                   0.3                        1.6                    0.4                                1.6                           1.6                              3.4                          1.7                                     0.7                                    0.3                       7.7                                             3.1                           1.5
Route Designation
               Route 1                         4                                 4                                 4                                    4                         2                              2                            1                               1                              1                                2                              4                                         2                               1                                2                                          4                                4
            North of Pululu       2.2409 4.48179 0.74697 1.49393 0.056022 0.34475 0.04309 0.17238 0.17238 0.746965 0.74697 0.14939 0.03735 1.68067 1.34454 0.67227
               Route 2                         3                                 2                                 2                                    3                         2                              4                            3                               3                              2                                3                              1                                         2                               3                                4                                          5                                5
     Pre-dredged Pululu Channel   1.68067 2.2409 0.37348 1.12045 0.056022 0.68951 0.12928 0.51713 0.34475 1.120448 0.18674 0.14939 0.11204 3.36134 1.68067 0.84034

               Route 3                         2                                 3                                 3                                    3                         3                              5                            3                               4                              4                                4                              3                                         4                               4                                3                                          2                                2

            South of Pululu       1.12045 3.36134 0.56022 1.12045 0.084034 0.86188 0.12928 0.68951 0.68951 1.493931 0.56022 0.29879 0.14939 2.52101 0.67227 0.33613




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 44 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                                                                                                          LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                                                                                                             Revision 0A

           Category ===>                                        Economic Growth                                                                                                                                                             Constructability                                                                                                                                              Sums




                                                                                                                 Constraint on Future Activities Caused




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Maximizes Potential for Local Content
                                    Ease of Gas Supply to Other Industry




                                                                           Ease of Adding Future Gas Supply to




                                                                                                                                                                                         Negative Community Impacts Due to




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Availability of Specialized Equipment
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Ease of Design & Construction
                                                                                                                                                           Risks Due to Failure During




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Technology Constraints
Criteria ==>




                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Logistic Constraints
                                                                           Plant Within ROW
                                    Using the ROW




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         and Personnel
                                                                                                                                                           Construction



                                                                                                                                                                                         Construction
                                                                                                                 by the ROW
Category Weight (%)                                                        4.71                                                                                                                                                                       5.88                                                                                                                                                100.00
Criteria Weight in Ctgry. (%)       12.50                                  50.00                                 37.50                                     27.78                         19.44                               11.11                    16.67                     2.78                            13.89                                       8.33
Criteria Weight Normalized          0.04                                   0.17                                   0.13                                      0.27                         0.19                                0.11                     0.16                      0.03                            0.14                                        0.08                                           10.98
Criteria Weight (%)                  0.4                                    1.5                                    1.1                                       2.5                          1.7                                 1.0                      1.5                       0.2                             1.2                                         0.7                                          100.00
Route Designation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                TOTAL RANK
               Route 1                            1                                      2                                      4                                    1                                4                             2                        2                          2                                   2                                          2

            North of Pululu       0.0420168 0.3361345 0.5042017 0.27233 0.76253 0.21786 0.3268 0.05447 0.27233 0.1634                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             33.33    2

               Route 2                            2                                      2                                      3                                    2                                2                             3                        4                          2                                   3                                          3

     Pre-dredged Pululu Channel   0.0840336 0.3361345 0.3781513 0.54466 0.38126 0.3268 0.65359 0.05447 0.4085                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            0.2451                                   32.73    3

               Route 3                            5                                      5                                      3                                    4                                2                             4                        5                          4                                   5                                          4

            South of Pululu       0.210084 0.8403361 0.3781513 1.08932 0.38126 0.43573 0.81699 0.10893 0.68083 0.3268                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             35.01    1




                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Page 45 of 46
Angola LNG Pipeline Network Team                                     LNG-KBR-PL-RPT-0009
Onshore Pipelines Route Recommendation                                        Revision 0A


APPENDIX C – PIPELINE HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION

     C.1          SUMMARY

                            Summary of Habitat Types along Route Options

       Habitat Type             Northern Route       Channel Route         Southern Route
                               ha       % of land    ha      % of land    ha        % of land
       bare earth              0.6       0.28%      11.9       9%         51.6        14%
       bare sand               14        6.42%      13.9       10%        51.9        14%
       forest                   0        0.00%       0         0%         0.1          0%
       grassland               30.8      14.12%      1.5       1%          0           0%
       littoral                1.7       0.78%       0.6       0%         0.2          0%
       palm savannah            7        3.21%       4.5       3%         18           5%
       thicket                  0        0.00%       0         0%         11           3%
       mangrove:
           low                 50.6      23.20%     17.4       13%        26.4         7%
           transitional        92.8      42.55%     67.5       49%        89.8        24%
           tall                10.2      4.68%       4.2       3%          2           1%
       mud bank                 4        1.83%       6.6       5%         2.7          1%
       wetlands                 0        0.00%       0.7       1%         1.6          0%
       inland water (i.e.       0                    0                    1.1
       pools etc)
       open water              60.8                 209.8                 44.1
       other vegetation        0.2       0.09%       7.9       6%        111.5        30%
       built                   6.2       2.84%       0.7       1%         1.5          0%


       total land area        218.1                 137.4                368.3
       area of sensitive
                              153.6      70.43%     89.1       65%       118.3        32%
       habitat




                                                                                   Page 46 of 46
                                                       INTERFACE IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING


INTERFACE NUMBER                0007                                                                                      IDENTIFIED
                                                                                                                            UPDATED
INTERFACE DESCRIPTION           ESHIA APPENDIX




                                                                                Angola    Angola        Angola
                                                                                 LNG       LNG           LNG
                                Block 0/14 Block 15       Block 17   Block 18   Near/On    Plant         Plant            Third Parties
ACTION BY
(PARTIES DIRECTLY INVOLVED)

DISTRIBUTION FOR INFORMATION
(PARTIES INDIRECTLY AFFECTED)
RELEVANT PROJECT PHASE(S)       Pre-FEED       FEED              E      P         C       Pre-COM       COM      S/U & Test     Ops         Maint

REFERENCES                      Doc No.                  Title
                                APPENDIX LNG-KBR-PL-
                                RPT-0009                 ONSHORE PIPELINES ROUTE RECOMMENDATION REV B




DISTRIBUTION FOR INFORMATION    Description                                                                      Resp         Date        Status
Steve Warburton                 Issued for Information                                                                        22-Nov-05   Info
Ian Gardiner                    Issued for Information                                                                        22-Nov-05   Info
Jennifer Bell                   Issued for Information                                                                        22-Nov-05   Info
Michael Sandella                Issued for Information                                                                        22-Nov-05   Info

Kay Beasley                     Interface Document                                                                            22-Nov-05 Info




   Annex K TRANS-0007.xls                                                                                                                      PAGE 1 OF1

								
To top