A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study

7/29/2019 A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study

1/51

BERATENDE

INGENIEURE

CONSULTING

E N G I N E E R S

INGE NIE UR S

C O N S E I L S

ILF CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Werner-Eckert-Strasse 7, 81829 Munich,GERMANYPhone: ++49-89-25 55 94 - 0Fax: ++49-89-25 55 94 - 144E-mail: [email protected]

A309/ILFM-AD-0001/REV. 1

Brine Pipeline Bucsani - GiurgiuPRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY

31.08.2005


2/51

Br in e P i p e l i n e Bu csan i - G iu rg iu A309/ ILFM-A D-0001/Rev. 1PRE-Feas ib i l i t y Study 31 . 08 . 2005

I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page iILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005

REVISION

1 31.08.05 Clients comments incorporated T.Grimm L. Bangert T. Grimm

0 26.08.05 First issue T.GrimmM. Rieder

L. BangertT. Grimm

Rev. Date Issue, Modification Prepared Checked Approved


3/51


I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page iiILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2.1 Routing 1

2.2 System Optimisation 1

2.3 Authority approval procedure, ROW acquisition 2

2.4 Cost Estimate 2

2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations 3

3 PIPELINE ROUTE 4

3.1 General 4

3.2 Route Alternatives 4

3.3 Route Description 5

3.3.1 Route 1 5

3.3.2 Route 2 7

3.4 Construction, Special Engineering Difficulties 7

3.4.1 Construction 7

3.4.2 Traffic Lines 8

3.4.3 Rivers 8

3.4.4 Other crossing techniques 10

3.4.5 Steep slopes 11

4 SYSTEM PRE-OTIMISATION 12

4.1 Basic Data 12

4.2 Selection of Pipe Material 12


4/51


I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page iiiILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005

4.2.1 Polyethylene (PE) 13

4.2.2 Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) 14

4.2.3 Selected Material and Joining Method 17

4.3 Description of Methodology for Pipeline System Pre-Optimisation 18

4.3.1 General Methodology 18

4.3.2 System Pre-Optimisation 18

THE REYNOLDS NUMBER IS HEREBY DETERMINED FROM THE EQUATION 18

FOR Re< 2320, THE FLOW IS LAMINAR AND THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT IS CALCULATED AS 19

IN THE SO-CALLED TRANSITION RANGE, IS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO COLEBROOK-WHITE AS19

4.4 Results of System Pre-Optimisation 21

4.4.1 Pipeline System DN500 21

4.4.2 Pipeline System DN450 22

4.4.3 Pipeline System DN400 234.4.4 Conclusions 24

4.4.5 Flushing Process 25

4.5 System Description 26

4.5.1 Pipeline 26

4.5.2 Pump Stations 26

4.5.3 Block Valve Stations 27

4.5.4 Pressure Control Valve Station 27

4.5.5 SCADA 27

4.6 Operating and Maintenance Personnel 28

5 AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROCESS, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION 30

6 COST ESTIMATE 31


5/51


I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page ivILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005

6.1 Basis and Assumptions 31

6.2 Methodology 31

6.3 Individual Cost Elements 32

6.3.1 Line Pipe 32

6.3.2 Transportation Costs 32

6.3.3 Pipeline Cable 33

6.3.4 Construction Costs for Pipeline 33

6.3.5 Construction Costs of parallel pipeline 34

6.3.6 Route Classification 34

6.3.7 Special Construction Structures 34

6.3.8 Stations 34

6.3.9 Communication System / SCADA 36

6.3.10 Engineering 36

6.3.11 Fees, Permits, Insurance 37

6.4 Operational Expenditures 37

6.4.1 Energy Costs 37

6.4.2 Maintenance and Operating Expenses 38

7 REFERENCES 39

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Overview Map 1: 500,000 No. A309-R5-2001

Appendix 2 Topographical Route Map 1: 100,000 No. A309-R5-2002 (two sheets)

Appendix 3 Photo Documentation

Appendix 4 Process Flow Diagram No. A309-F5-2003

Appendix 5 Legal Comment of Clients local Advisor on Authority Approval and

ROW Acquisition

Appendix 6 Cost Estimate A309-ILFM-AD-0002


6/51


I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page vILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005


7/51


I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 1ILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005

1 INTRODUCTIONSalinen Austria (in the following referred to as the Client) intends to engange in the priva-

tisation of the Romanian salt industry. In this connexion it is planned to erect a brine pipe-

line from Bucsani (located 30 km west-southwest to Ploiesti) to Giurgiu at the Danube River.

The purpose of this Pre-Feasibility Study assigned to ILF by Client is to provide a route sug-

gestion, a conceptual system optimisation and a cost estimate. The main limiting constraint

given by client was a maximum investment sum (CAPEX) of 15 milion Euro.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 RoutingThe overall topographic situation in the project area was found not to show any notable

technical constraints for pipeline construction. The landscape is mostly flat, the soil is mostly

sandy as far as superficial inspection during the site visit has proved. No notable steep slopes

or rocky terrain was found. Only few areas might require additional water retention meas-

ures. Only one major river has to be crossed, yet it is not exceptionally deep or fast flowing.

Yet the routing philosophy could not be clarified as it might depend on ROW acquisition

costs: A short, direct route will lead straight over the fields and follow main traffic lines only

where the lead in the general pipeline direction. This is the state-of-the-art routing design,

yet it requires many private ROW acquisitions on the individual land parcels.

A second approach would lead mainly along the roads, including thoughout alll villages, as

the village through roads usually have plenty of space on both sides for laying the pipeline

into the road embankment. The advantage in this route might lie in less ROW acquisition

costs as mainly the road authorities will be the ROW contract partners.

Yet this question could not yet be anwered neither by ILF Romania nor by Clients legal con-

sultant in Romania and needs further investigation. Yet up to now it seems that any route

elongation that will incur by routing along roads will induce more material and construction

costs than can be saved by ROW costs.

2.2 System OptimisationThe optimum system configuration was assessed as a DN 450 pipeline of PE 100 material

with one head pump station and one intermediate pump station. However, the intermedi-


8/51



ate pump station is only necessary to guarantee the design throughput when the pipeline is

cramped by gypsum deposits. It might be erected later if deemed necessary after initial ex-

periences with the head station only.

The general design pressure is PN 10, yet selected sections in valleys need PN 16 line pipe towithstand the local pressure rise there.

2.3 Authority approval procedure, ROW acquisitionThis issue, being added to the initial scope of the study, could not be assessed satisfactorily.

The process of authority approval and ROW acquisition could be simplified by achieving a

declaration of public utility for the pipeline. Yet neither ILF Romania nor Clients legal ad-

visor in Romania could assess in depth the legal process and the associated costs during the

limited preparation time of this study.

2.4 Cost EstimateThe cost estimate is based on budgetary enquiries for the pumps, the line pipe and the con-

struction costs, further on general ILF experience and databases for verification and comple-

tion of all cost factors.

Yet the construction costs could finally not be assessed with satisfying reliability. Although

nine Romanian construction companies were asked for budgetary enquiries, only two ofthem gave any offer at all. These were compared with another reference offer from a Ger-

man company. Yet the reliability of these offers must be ranked as poor, as the German

company obviously calculated by transferring all machinery and manpower to Romania in-

stead of using local resources (and, in addition, is well known to reach its capacity limit with

domestic pipeline construction projects for the next two to three years, therefore has no

need to place cheap offers), and the two offers from Romanian companies are differing by a

factor of ten.

This must generally be ascribed to the strict confidentiality of the project that had to be kept

while placing all enquiries.

The cost estimate can be summarized as follows:


9/51



Item Sum in MEURMaterial Costs Line Pipe 7.50

Material Costs FOC System 0.24

Transport Costs 0.57Construction Costs Pipelines 1 3.29 1

Subtotal Capex Pipeline 11.59Block Valve Stations 0.18

Pump and Receiving Station 0.44

Scada 0.50

Subtotal Capex Stations 1.12Engineering 1.24

ROW 0.10

Additional Services 0.77

Fees, Permits, Insurances 0.28

Subtotal Services 2.39TOTAL CAPEX 15.11TOTAL ANNUAL OPEX 0.19NPV Opex for 20 years 1.61

Table 3.3.1-1: Cost Estimate Summary1Low reliability

2.5 Conclusions and RecommendationsConsidering the uncertainties of the cost estimate performed in this pre-feasibility study, it

can not be guaranteed that the cost limit of 15 milion EUR can be kept, although the cost

estimate in this study remains within this limit in principle. Especially the construction costs

bear great uncertainties that can only be eliminated by placing a more explicit tender, par-

ticularly on the Romanian market.

According to ILF experience, budgetary enquiries to construction companies may result in

significant offers and reliable prices, if either the construction company already has a strong

bond by former executed projects to ILF, or the enquiry deals with a concrete project that

seems likely to be realized. If none of these conditions apply, such enquries are often an-

swered careless and unreliable, if ever. Therefore, the tender shall be placed without such

strict confidentiality and in more concrete form than ILF was allowed to do during this

study.

Furthermore, the legal situation of authority approval and ROW acquisition and the relating

costs shall be assessed in depth by a legal advisor specialised in Romanian pipeline legisla-

ture before making a final decision about the project.


10/51



3 PIPELINE ROUTE

3.1 GeneralConsidering the limited scope of this study, the pipeline route was preselected on Russian

topographical maps 1:100,000 as a desktop study route only. The route survey on site was

limited to the rough verification of the technical feasibility and the photographic documen-

tation.

The original approach was a pipeline route along major roads to simplify possible right-of-

way (ROW) acqusition. Yet this principle had to be abandoned partly for the main route as

there are simply no major roads in the routing direction and/ or these roads are leading

through numerous small settlements that would have to be avoided with the pipeline and

therefore routed around, which would enlongate the route length considerably.

So the now proposed main route called Route 1 is a mixture of routing parallel to roads and

on the other hand classical pipeline routing more or less in a straight line over the fields.

Yet even in the latter case the directions of farm tracks were followed wherever possible to

keep ROW acquistion simple.

The Russian topographical maps available on the market have been issued between 1976

and 1982, therefore are fairly old. However, their content has been verified in the project

area by satellite images available public domain in the internet /1/, especially to complete

the maps with numerous recently erected storage lakes that would represent major obsta-

cles for a pipeline route.

Yet the main concern about the pipeline route in this study is to assess an exact elevation

profile as this brine pipeline has an extraordinary low pressure level. For this purpose the age

of the topographical maps is dispensable and there was no better source available providing

terrain elevation data in the necessary precision for a reasonable price.

The following brief route description refers to the Topographical Route Map A309-R5-2002,sheets 1 and 2 that can be found in Appendix 2.

The photographic documentation of the major crossing points with traffic infrastructure and

rivers is provided in Appendix 3.

3.2 Route AlternativesThe original Route 1 was selected from a pure pipeline engineering point of view, i.e. to

minimize the route length, to avoid urban areas and villages and to cross major obstacleslike traffic lines, rivers and hills on advantageous locations.


11/51



During route inspections it showed up that many (but not all) cross-town links offer wide

spaces along the road embankments for pipeline laying. This offers a route selection along

main roads and through the villages instead of cross-country, here being described as

Route 2. This kind of routing might result in advantages during Right of Way (ROW) acquisi-

tion as the number of land owners can be reduced mainly to public or governmental offices

being responsible for road construction and maintenance.

On the other hand it can show up great disadvantages as these offices might take extraor-

dinary long to find a common decision to allow an easement for the pipeline. The necessary

width of the ROW strip of such a brine pipeline could also not yet be determined, but there

have been indices that they are much wider in Romania than in Central Europe. Such an ex-

traordinary wide ROW strip can easily cause that the available space in the road embank-

ment is not sufficient and that it has again to be extended to private lands, which would be

most unfavourable especially in the villages.

Therefore Route 1 has been used for system optimisation, and Route 2, being considerably

longer, is only described as an optional hydraulic soultion.

3.3 Route Description

3.3.1 Route 1The route starts at the southwest edge of Bucsani village due to the lack of any more precisedefinition of a start point. At km 1 the River Jalomita is crossed, being only about 15-20 m

wide. From km 10 on the route follows the National Road 71 for 25 km, crossing a railway

line at km 28. Another minor watercourse, River Dambowita, is crossed at km 35, being 40

m wide and only half a meter deep.

The next remarkable crossing passes the Highway E81 at km 52, being followed by the larg-

est river crossing of the entire route at km 55. The River Arges is about 160 m wide and

1.5 m deep in the crossing area.

Passing through more plain agricultural land, another railway is crossed at km 64. Finally atkm 71, River Neajlov is reached. Being only 10-20 m wide it is not very remarkable, yet here

the relief of the landscape changes considerably as from Buscani up to here, the route de-

creases remarkably constantly its elevation above sea level, which is quite advantageous for

the hydraulics of the pipeline. In the following, the rivers are cut in up to 25 m into the sur-

rounding plains, which results in more demanding hydraulic conditions of the pipeline.

So the route elevation rises again of 25 m right behind this river, again crossing agricultral

plains and some roads, namely the National Road 6 at km 81, which might be the only no-

table road in this area that might require a closed crossing technique.


12/51



At km 91, River Calnistea is crossed, lying in a wide valley that is cut into the surrounding

plains by 35 m. Yet, the slopes of the valley should not present any notable construction dif-

ficulty.

The next 20 km lead through flat land, partly along the National Road 5B for about 8 km. Atkm 112 a steep descent of over 60 m elevation difference leads down into the Danube val-

ley1, making additional measures necessary to manage the pressure rise in the pipeline. See

chapter 4.5 for details.

The last 5 km the route follows a railway line, crossing a side branch of the railway at

km 117, to an industrial area north of Giurgiu, representing the end of the 119 km long

pipeline route.

The total elevation difference between start and end point is 180 m, starting at Bucsani at

approx. 200 m above sea level, rising to the maximum elevation of 210 m at km 6 and end-

ing at Giurgiu at about 20 m above sea level. The Danube at Giurgiu lies approximately at

18 m above sea level. The entire route elevation profile is shown in the following figure.

0

50

100

150

200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

route km

ma

bovesealevel

Figure 3.3.1-1: Route Elevation Profile Route 1

1 The Danube River is named in this study by her English name, in spite of the local name Dunrea.

RiverAr

ges

RiverNeajlo

v

RiverCalnistea

Giurgiu

Bucsany


13/51



3.3.2 Route 2Up to km 30, Route 2 is nearly identical to Route 1. Yet the National Road 71 is followed for

additional 15 km, then the route follows side roads , crossing River Dambowita at km 49

and the Highway E81 at km 60.

The largest river of the route, River Arges, is crossed at the same location as Route 1, yet

here at route km 65. Further side roads lead to the National Road 61 that is reached at

route km 74. The rest of the route follows always this National road, only the number of the

road changing at route km 100 from 61 to 5B.

Further major crossings include a railway line on a dam at km 81, the National Road 6 at km

100 and the River Calnistea at km 107, including its wide and comparatively deep valley.

Remarkably enough, the route elevation profile is quite similar to Route 1, yet the length of

the route is notably longer with 135 km:

0

50

100

150

200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

route km

ma

bovese

alevel

Figure 3.3.2-1: Route Elevation Profile Route 2

3.4 Construction, Special Engineering Difficulties

3.4.1 ConstructionThe pipeline shall be buried on the whole length with a soil cover of at least 1.0 m to beprotected against mechanical and climatic influences. See chapter 3.4.4 for further details.

Bucsany

Riv

erArges

RiverN

eajlov

RiverCalnis

tea

Giurgiu


14/51



It can be laid into an open trench, embedding it in sand or stone free excavated material, or,

providing suitable, soft and stone free soil conditions, even be ploughed into the soil.

3.4.2 Traffic LinesWhen constructing a pipeline, usually all minor roads are crossed in open technique, that is,

simply continuing the trench through the crossing area and providing provisonal bridges for

the traffic during the construction measures. The only traffic lines that are crossed in closed

technique, usually by thrust boring or pipe pressing, are major roads and railways.

Preliminary assessment of the crossing techniques led to seven closed crossings only, namely

the following, here for to Route 1:

Route km Traffic line26 National Road 71

28 Railway, double track on dam, 4 m high

34 National Road 7

52 Highway E81, 2 x 2 lanes

64 Railway, double track

81 National Road 6

113 Railway, single track

Table 3.4.2-1: Closed crossings of traffic lines

The crossings on Route 2 are the same, varying slightly in kilometration.

3.4.3 Rivers3.4.3.1Open trench

Rivers are crossed by means of siphons using the pulling in or heaving in procedure.

The trench for the siphon (pipe trench) is excavated by means of bucket ladder excavators or

hydraulic excavators operating from pontoons or more likely here due to the shallow rivers

provisional bridges. The longitudinal profile of the trench is adjusted to the elastic radius

of the pipe. The defined height and the width of the pipe trench are continuously moni-

tored and documented by means of echo soundings. The excavated material is stored tem-

porarily in designated and approved places.

The pipeline section for the siphon is constructed on an assembly line, set up for this pur-

pose, and subsequently pulled in using a winch, or heaved in in cases of shorter crossings.


15/51



See the picture below for an example of heaving an approx. 40 m long siphon, DN 200,

steel pipe, concrete coated, into a river in Southern Germany.

Figure 3.4.3.1-1: River crossing, open trench, with raising ends

After checking the position of the pipeline, the pipe trench is backfilled and any sheet piles

are removed. Additional measurements serve to further monitor the riverbed.

Pipes with increased wall thickness and a reinforced pipeline coating are used for the

crossings.

Buoyancy control is achieved by means of a reinforced concrete coating, which also serves

to mechanically protect the pipeline during the pulling in process. The concrete coating pro-

vides the required protection against buoyancy.

For the layout of the siphons in the longitudinal section there are in principle two possibili-

ties:

Laying the siphon on both sides of the riverbank in an elastic radius. This type of lay-ing requires relatively deep pipe trenches, above all in the river bank area, as the

elastic radius only allows small changes of curvature. To minimise the excavation in

the riverbank zone, the pipe trench can be supported by sheet pile walls, this re-

duces the excavation width. From a pipe static viewpoint, this laying variant is the

smoothest one for the pipe and is used if possible.

The pipeline is laid on a line with an elastic radius, only the end on the pulling side isprovided with a raising end (factory bend or cold bend and straight pipe section).

Using this variant, the excavation is kept to a minimum on the pulling side, as the

raising end is constructed in such a way that it follows the natural inclination of the


16/51



riverbank. On the opposite side the pipe trench follows the elastic radius so that no

extraordinary stresses occur in the pipe when pulling in the siphon.

3.4.3.2Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)An alternative to open trench crossing is the Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) technique.

A pilot drill is started from the surface of one end of the crossing, being able to be steered

in a slight vertical bow underneath the river bed and returning to the surface again on the

other side of the river. See the figure below for a schematic diagram of a HDD.

Figure 3.4.3.2-1: Schematic diagram of a HDD crossing of a river

The drilling is performed either by rotating the drill head or thrusting it without rotation,

always supported by injecting a bentonit suspension from the drill head into the soil. This

bentonit suspension supports the pilot drill hole while it is widened up in several steps, until

finally the precast siphon, constructed as described above in chapter 3.4.3.1, is pulled in.

The radius of the HDD must not fall below the elastic radius of the duct. Yet this is usually

no problem when using HDPE ducts and only of notable importance when laying steel

ducts.

Provided suitable soil conditions and ducts of sufficient tensile strength, HDD can be per-

formed over lengths of up to 1500 m and up to diameters of up to DN 800 or more.

The outstanding advantage of the HDD technique is that the surface between the start and

end point remains untouched. Especially at river crossings, HDD is usually used to preserve

the sensitive natural areas of alluvial forests and in the river itself. Yet, it also represents avery economic construction technique, if the soil conditions are suitable and the costruction

company can prove sufficient expert knowledge.

3.4.4 Other crossing techniquesEspecially for a relatively small HDPE pipeline like in this particular case it might seem suit-

able to attach the duct to existing bridges or to construct pipe bridges e.g. over rivers.

Usually it can only be dissuaded form these prossibilities. An openly installed, visible duct is

always vulnerable for damages, intended e.g. by shooting (which has happened some years

ago to an oil pipeline bridge in Southern Germany and even to the Trans Alaska Crude Oil


17/51



Pipeline /2/) or accidentally by vehicles going off the road. A buried pipeline is well protected

against all mechanical influences and usually not the target of vandalism, excepting only

e.g. terrorstic motivated assaults that seem not imaginable on a brine pipeline but excul-

sively limitated to oil and gas pipelines.

An openly installed duct is also exposed to all kind of climatic conditions like ultraviolet sun

light or severe frost that ages the HDPE duct material considerably faster than usual.

On the other hand, according to ILFs extensive experience, road and bridge maintenance

authorities usually do not approve to the installation of third party installations on the exte-

rior of bridges.

3.4.5 Steep slopesThere are no notable steep slopes along the route that would require special constructionmeasures. Yet, longer steep slopes require additional measures to handle the pressure duf-

ference resulting in the interior of the duct. See chapter 4.5 for details.


18/51



4 SYSTEM PRE-OTIMISATION

4.1 Basic DataThe calculations are based on the following basic data provided by client:

Fluid: Brine

Density: 1200 kg/m

Viscosity: < 8 cSt

Design throughput: 250 m/h

Availability: 85%

Flushing time: 3 weeks per year

Max. deposit of gypsum on interior pipeline side: 5 mm

The calculation of the influence of a possible gypsum deposit on the throughput capacity

was demanded by Client. It was assumed an evenly maximum deposit thickness along the

whole pipeline to determine the design throughput. Additionally, it is assumed that the gyp-

sum deposit increases the wall roughness from 0.05 mm to 1 mm.

Already here it has to be mentioned that a pipeline design based on a pipe with maximum

gypsum deposit leads to higher throughput than the design throughput while the pipeline

is clean. Keeping the throughput constant while the cross-sectional area and roughness of

the pipe is varying due to the gypsum deposit, affords complex measures that seem not jus-

tifiable in this case. Therefore this increased and varying throughput has to be taken into

consideration in the next design steps when designing the subsequent processes in the sa-

line in Giurgiu.

4.2 Selection of Pipe MaterialFor the selection of the material for the brine pipeline, Internally Lined Steel, Polyethylene

(PE) and Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) have been taken into consideration.

Steel requires to be coated to withstand the corrosivness of the brine. The lining is expensive

and the installation costs of Internally Lined Steel are significantly higher than those of

lighter materials like PE and GRP. Therefore Internally Lined Steel was not taken into further

consideration on the first stage of this Feasibility Study as a suitable material to meet the

maximum investment costs of 15 MEUR.


19/51



PE and GRP are chemically inert against a wide range of chemicals and have a high resis-

tance against salt water. These materials do not crack or corrode by electrochemical reac-

tions with the surrounding terrain and do not encourage the growth of algae, bacteria and

fungi. Following maintenance costs can therefore be kept low.

Additionally PE and GRP have a high strength and low weight and can therefore be easily

transported and installed. This results in considerable costs savings.

4.2.1 Polyethylene (PE)4.2.1.1General

Polyethylene pipes feature high creep and mechanical strength besides high resistance to

crack growth.In this case all manufactureres suggested to use PE 100 quality with a mini-mum required strength (MRS) of 10 N/mm.

Polyethylene is a poor conductor of heat but is flammable. Direct flame must therefore not

be used to defrost pipes or for other operations. Pipes should also be protected if they are

near sources of heat that could raise its surface temperature above 60C.

To prevent polyethylene from ageing by exposure to ultraviolet light (e.g. sunlight), carbon

black shall be added to it. This stabilizer enables the pipes to be stored outdoors for a long

time.

4.2.1.2Joining of PE pipesFor PE 100 pipes jointing two techniques have been taken into consideration: electro-fusion

fittings and butt fusion welding.

Electro-Fusion Fittings

Electro-Fusion Fittings are a method of jointing PE pipes using fittings with integrated heat-

ing elements. An electric current is passed through the heating wire which melts the poly-

mer and fuses the fitting to the pipe.

The pipe and fitting are clamped together to prevent movement.


20/51



Figure 4.2.1.2-1: Cross-section of an Electro Fusion Fitting

Butt Fusion Welding

By this method the joining areas of the plastic pieces are pressed against an accordingly

heated up element until enough material is melted. The heating element is anti-stick coated

or covered so it can be easily removed before the melted surfaces of the pipes are pressed

together.

The pipes cool down under pressure or affixed together until the melted zone is resolidified.

Figure 4.2.1.2-2: Butt Fusion Welding: Hotplate between the pipes, cooling phase

4.2.2 Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP)4.2.2.1General Qualities

GRP is a composite material system produced from glass fiber reinforcements, thermosettingplastic resins, and additives.


21/51



GRP pipes are manufactured by winding resin-impregnated continuous fibrous glass strand

roving or woven glass roving tape on to the outside of a mandrel in a predetermined pat-

tern under controlled tension.

Figure 4.2.2.1-1: Winding of a GRP Pipe

GRP pipes can be fabricated more pressure resistant with lower wall thickness due to its

glass fibre reinforcement, compared to PE pipes. Yet for the same internal diameter, they

are about 30% more expensive.

4.2.2.2Joining of GRP PipesFor buried pipelines the following three tensile resistant joining methods are possible:

Bell and Spigot with Locking Key Joint

This method is easy, applicable for every weather condition, and can also be applied by un-

trained personnel.

After the spigot is pushed into the bell, a locking strip is inserted using a plastic hammer to

make the joint tensile resistant.

Figure 4.2.2.2-1: Bell and Spigot with Locking Key Joint


22/51



Adhesive Bonded Joint

Adhesive bonded joints of sufficient and permanent quality can be performed by fully

trained and certified personnel only and also only under specific weather and temperature

conditions. Trainers are usually supplied by the pipe manufacturer. Yet a tight quality con-

trol system during construction has to be established.

This joining method allows to cut pipes to the exact length on site and to bond them after

conditioning of their ends.

In principle it is a bell and spigot joint with an adhesive connecting and sealing the joint.

Figure 4.2.2.2-2: Adhesive Bonded Joint

Lamination Joint

This permanent joint consists of a hardening of impregnated glass, mats and tissues, which

are laminated according to specified width and thickness. around the pipe joint.

The laminated joint is used for diameters larger than 400 mm and to avoid the use of bends

or elbows by frequent direction changes in a pipe section.

As for adhesive bonding, in case it is necessary to shorten the pipe length at a certain point

in the line, re-jointing can be performed by laminating.

Lamination joints also afford trained personnel, certain climatic conditions and a reliable

quality assurance system during construction.


23/51



Figure 4.2.2.2-3: Lamination Joint

4.2.3 Selected Material and Joining MethodBecause of the equivalent characteristics of PE100 to Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) the pos-

sibility to select GRP for the brine pipeline was generally considered as alternative solution.

Comparing the prices of the two different materials, the wall thickness also has to be taken

into consideration. The varying (and with up to 40.9 mm for e.g. PE 100 DN 450 PN16 very

high) wall thicknesses reduce the cross-sectional area of PE pipes so far that a GRP DN 400

pipe nearly has the same cross sectional area as a PE DN 450. This results in the fact that the

outer diameter remains constant with varying wall thicknesses.

The following table shows average prices derived from budgetary enquiries at two Roma-

nian and four German manufacturers. Interesting enough, the Romanian prices are well in

the average and not significantly below the German prices as one might expect.

all values in EUR/m DN 400 DN 450 DN 500HDPE PN 6 30 35 46HDPE PN 10 46 56 73HDPE PN 16 70 94 120GRP PN 10 (adhesive joint) 90 110GRP PN 10 (key joint) 122 124GRP PN 16 (adhesive joint) 100GRP PN 16 (key joint) 140

Table 4.2.3-1: Material costs for line pipe

The higher temperature resistance of GRP up to 85 C against 60 C of PE 100 as an out-

standing advantageous characteristic of GPR is not required in this project as temperatures

higher than 50 C are not expected.

Therefore PE 100 pipe material has been selected as their handling and joint technique is

easier and not this much susceptible to quality problems as the adhesive joint technique of

GRP pipes.

Butt and fusion welding was selected as cost-effective technique because of the high quan-tity of expensive fittings required by the electro-fusion method. The cost of the required fit-


24/51



tings (one for each joint) would be higher than commissioning a subcontractor specialized

in butt fusion welding.

4.3 Description of Methodology for Pipeline System Pre-Optimisation

4.3.1 General MethodologyGenerally, an optimisation of a pipeline system compares the Capital Expenditures (CAPEX)

for various diameters of the pipeline for a given throughput, including the resulting num-

bers of pumpstations and their Operating Expenditures (OPEX), mainly energy consumption

and operating and maintenance personnel.

In this special case, the selection of the pipe material introduces an additional variable, asthe prices for the two different pipe materials considered here are varying widely.

4.3.2 System Pre-OptimisationInitial hydraulic calculations under various conditions resulted in a suitable diameter range

from DN 400 to DN 500.

The pressure profile determinations for the different pipeline systems have been assessed by

using the following known equations:

2(Re)

2

=w

d

Lp

with

(Re) Friction factor as function of the Reynolds number

L (m) length of pipeline section considered

d (m) pipeline inside diameter

w (m/s) flow velocity

(kg/m) medium density

The Reynolds number is hereby determined from the equation

dw=Re

with

(m/s) kinematic viscosity


25/51



The friction factor is determined depending on the Reynolds number:

For Re< 2320, the flow is laminar and the friction coefficient is calculated as

Re

64=

For Re > 2320, only an iterative determination of is possible:

For a hydraulically smooth pipe (Prandtl/Karman) yields:

=

51,2Relog21

For a completely rough pipe (Nikuradse) yields:

2

715,3log

25,0

=

k

d

In the so-called transition range, is determined according to Colebrook-White as

+=

d

k

71,3Re

51,2log2

1

with

k (m) pipe roughness

For comparison of energy demand and pump station distances for different pipe dimensionson ideal flat terrain, please see the following table:


26/51



Table 4.3.2-1: Calculated Pressure Drops in different design pipelines

Considering the rising line pipe material costs for increased system pressure, the first ap-

proach leads to a system of low pressure, large diameter and more pump stations, supple-

mented with some pressure control valve stations along the route.

Yet the elevation profile shown in Figure 3.3.1-1 shows that a PN 6 system with an operat-

ing pressure of 5 bar (correlating to 42 m fluid column) can not be realized along this pro-

file. Therefore, the next design pressure class of PN 10 has been selected.

In the next step the hydraulics for three diameters taken into consideration (DN400, DN450

and DN500) have been calculated and graphically visualized. Additionally, the cases with

Pipe conditionPressure drop

HDPE PN10DN400bar/10 km

HDPE PN10DN450bar/10km

HDPE PN10DN500bar/10 km

Pipe Wall thickness in mm 23.7 26.7 29.7

Cleaned or new pipeline with no de-

posit and wall roughness : 0.05 mm

Product : Water

Throughput : 250 m/h

1.2 0.7 0.4

Cleaned or new pipeline with no de-

posit and wall roughness : 0.05 mm

Product: Brine


2.1 1.2 0.7

Pipeline with deposit of 5 mm

and deposit roughness : 1 mm

Product: Brine


3.0 1.7 1.0

Average distance of pump stations

with max. operation pressure 9 bar on

flat area

30 km 53 km 90 km

Total of pressure drop along the line

with distance of 135 km (worst case)Product: Brine


41 bar 22 bar 12 bar

Total of Power consumption for trans-

port over flat area for worst case407 kW 218 kW 119 kW

Demand of energy for brine transport

of 1,750,000 m/year for the worst

case

2,850

MWh/year

1,529

MWh/year

834

MWh/year


27/51



and without gypsum deposit and the resulting reduced cross-sectional area and increased

roughness have been included. See the figures in the follwing chapter 4.4 for details.

Regarding the elevation profile only, a design pressure over 27 bar would be necessary. If

there were a block valve at the receiving station in Giurgiu and a simple pressure control atthe discharge header pressurizes the pipeline despite the closed valve in Giurgiu, or an emer-

gency block valve induced an additional pressure surge, the design pressure would have to

be lifted even up to PN40.

However, different measures of varying the operating conditions can significantly reduce the

design pressure:

No block valve at the receiving station shall protect the tanks against overflow whilethe pump stations are operating. All block valve stations along the line are closing

depending on upstream pressure. Stopping of the filling of the tanks or the pipeline

transport requires switching off the pump stations.

There might occur problems with cavitations or vacuum zones in case of a quiescentstate of the pipeline regarding drop-out of fluid ingredients or two-phase fluid be-

haviour. Pipelines with PN10 usually can stand the loads of such vacuums. There-

fore, the pipeline can be depressurized to minimum pressure before next start up. In

this case the start-up pressure never exceeds the stationary pressure. Yet the pressur-

izing of the pipeline has to be carried out smooth and carefully. In this study, it is as-

sumed, that no vacuum problems are prevailing.

Therefore, a central control of the overall pipeline system by a SCADA system willl be neces-

sary. See chapter 4.5.5 for details.

4.4 Results of System Pre-Optimisation

4.4.1 Pipeline System DN500The most simple pipeline system has one head pump station in Bucsani, no block valves and

no pressure controls. The selected diameter for this scenario is DN 500. The elevation differ-

ence is sufficient for the design flow due to gravitation. Only the initial hill near Bucsani at

km 8 requires a pump station.

After starting the pumps, the vacuum zones will mostly be closed, but two tear offs of the

fluid will appear without pressure control valves while pumping, one after the hill near to

Buscani, and one at the hillside of the river Danube. Due to the low vapor pressure of brine

water, cavitation damages to the pipeline wall by imploding bubbles must be expected.

So there are two pressure control valves necessary to ensure a fully pressurized pipeline

without cavitation zones under all operating conditions like heavy pressure loss generatedby rough gypsum deposit and rinsing with clear water and low throughput. If the last sec-


28/51



tion at Danube hillside is increased to PN 16, the pressure control on the hillside can be left

out.

Figure 4.4.1-1: Hydraulic overview of DN 500 system

4.4.2 Pipeline System DN450The second system with main diameter DN 450 needs intermediate pump stations only

when the design throughput with a maximum gypsum deposit of 5 mm on the whole

length has to be acheived. At the first stage only the head pump station is needed. Until af-

ter a certain enhancement of the friction loss and the associated loss of throughput, the in-

termediate pump station needs to be started, and the design throughput will be reached or

exceeded. For the flushing of the pipeline, three pressure control valves (or two in the caseof raising the design pressure on the last section) are necessary. The first pressure control

valve is installed at km 30, the second in the intermediate pump station and the third at the

saline in Giurgiu. It should be noted that the delivery station of the saline in Giurgiu is work-

ing on the limit of PN 10, therefore an enhancement of the last section to PN 16 for better

protection of the tank farm is recommended.


29/51




4.4.3 Pipeline System DN400A design diameter of DN 400 of the pipeline system will result in one head and three inter-

mediate pump stations due to the increased pressure loss. This implies an increasing of the

amounts of operation conditions, because a lot of constraints have to be considered.

Every pump station usually can only handle operation condition in a narrow range around

the operating point. So the systems needs a quick reaction in the case of drop-outs of pump

stations and a carefully investigation of reaching the steady state after a new start to assure

sufficient minimum and maximum pressures at the entry and the exit of every pump station.

All this is not imaginable without a high automated remote control system and even then isvery delicate to handle.

A pump station can easier be adjusted to varying throughput than to varying suction and/or

discharge pressure. If design throughput with deposit 5 mm and 1 mm pipe wall roughness

for the whole line should be guaranteed, the normal case is a throughput above the design

throughput. The throughput with the same pressure drop is approx. 300m/h for this clean

system without gypsum deposit. The pump station will have its operation point between

these two values. For flushing the intermediate pump station #1 needs to convert to a pres-

sure reduction station. In the case of elongation of the route an additional pump station

might be necessary (average pump station distances are about 30 km). A multi pump sta-


30/51



tion system with low pressure can not be recommended in view to system failures. Also the

energy demand will increase aproximately to 300% of the DN450 system.


4.4.4 ConclusionsWhile a DN500 system has to be handled with minimum two pressure control valves and is

comparatively costly incapital expenditures due to the large diameter, a DN400 system has

too many failure risks due to too many pump stations. Although the DN 400 system is ap-

proximately 0.9 million EUR cheaper, it must be excluded as the hydraulics of such a system

with four pump stations on such a short distance and a medium with this high density are

not controllable.

Only the DN450 system is well balanced between various operating situations and technical

controllability. With increasing friction loss due to gypsum deposit the pressure of the main

pump station has to rise, and then later on the intermediate pump station has to be started.

If it might be decided to spare the intermediate pump station to reduce investment, one

must accept that the maximum throughput of the system, being completely lined with

5 mm of gypsum, will be reduced to 230 m/h.

A DN450 PN10 system (with certain sections of PN 16) needs no steering of the pressure,but at the end of the line, at the entry to the tank farm a pressure control (PCV) should en-


31/51



sure flow without cavitations. The first block valve (BVS1) has no steering function during

brine transport, but in the case of flushing with low throughput, a pressure drop on this po-

sition is necessary. Without the section of PN 16 at the Danube hillside, two steps of pres-

sure drop are necessary, one for the case of flushing and one for a leakage test with full

pressurized pipeline in the case of standstill.

For the optimum diameter of DN 450 it was also evaluated a second hydraulic profile in case

of following Route 2. In this case the second pump station is obligatory. Therefore the cost

for the second pump station is included.

Figure 4.4.4-1: Hydraulic overview of DN 450 system with longer route

4.4.5 Flushing ProcessThe flushing of the pipeline, assumed to take place with low throughput to save water and

energy, needs three pressure drops along the line. The first has to be realized in PCV1, the

second in the intermediate pump station and the third in the receiving station in Giurgiu.

For this special case the intermediate pump station remains switched off. After preparing

the pipeline system for the flushing, the extra pump in the main pump station will be

started. Then all brine pumps and armatures will be flushed, except the closed block valves

with the orifice bypass.


32/51



The flushing of the pipeline needs especially operating conditions. Due to the lower pressure

drop of pure water, three orifices in PCV1, intermediate pump station and in the saline in

Giurgiu have to care for a full pressurized pipeline without cavitations zones.

Before the restart of the pipeline transport, the pipeline has to exhaust to the start pressure.Then the main pump station pressurizes the pipeline again, and after closing all vacuum

zones, the intermediate pump station can restart.

4.5 System DescriptionThis system description refers to the hydraulic diagram above in Figure 3.3.1-1 and the

Process Flow Diagram A309-F5-2003 in Appendix 4.

Summarizing it can be stated, that a design pressure with PN 10 and maximal operating

pressure of 9 bar, needs some safety device and some sections of PN16 for deep valleys, but

the technical conditions and operating conditions seems to be controllable.

Only at the end of the pipeline at the Danube hillside a change to design pressure PN16 for

better protection of the tank farm is recommended.

4.5.1 PipelineThere are three possible sections with a higher design pressure. The first section up to km 30

enables the section before the pressure control and block valve station at km 30 to bear thepressure surge of the running main pump station in the case of operation failures. The sec-

ond is the crossing through the deep valley of River Calnistea. And the last one is the slope

at the hillside of River Danube, because this is the deepest and the most vulnerable point of

the pipeline.

For maintenance and repair on the pipeline system, the pipeline has to vent after exhaust-

ing. Therefore two vent devices, one on the hill of Buscani, and one the hillside of Danube is

supposed.

Pigging devices at least transportable should be included in the planning, but can be re-alized later depending on a technical demand as the main cleaning of the pipeline will be

done by flushing and not by pigging. However, it has to be determined and fixed during the

next design phase if the pipeline shall be piggable or not. Here, the pigging facilities are not

included in the cost estimate.

4.5.2 Pump StationsThe system starts with the main pump station in Bucsani. The head pump station should

have one pump running and one pump on standby. For flushing, a separate, much smaller


33/51



pump will be necessary, assuming that the flushing throughput is much lower than the

brine transport throughput.

Normally the requirements of different pump locations are very individual. Therefore it is not

possible to change standby pumps between main pump station and intermediate pump sta-tion, without high energy loss by simulating similar working conditions by the use of orifice

loops.

Both pump station are working with an orifice loop to ensure minimum flow in the case of

a closed exit of the station. In addition, a pressure control valve between discharge header

and station exit controls the outlet pressure. The discharge header pressure for the main

pump station is about 30 m, for the intermediate pump station about 54 m for a through-

put of approx. 300 m/h. With increasing gypsum deposit the throughput reduces to design

throughput. So at the beginning of brine transport, pipeline operation can be performed

without the intermediate pump station. This is why the intermediate pump station isplanned without a standby pump here to save costs.

Due to the slope in the elevation profile, the distance between main pump station and in-

termediate pump station extends to 80 km. The demand of energy is about 36 kW for the

head pump station and 54 kW for the intermediate pump station. Therfore, the pumps have

to be specially designed for each pump station and will not be interchangeable.

4.5.3 Block Valve StationsAdditional to main pump station and intermediate pump station, one block valve station

with orifice bypass for flushing, a block valve on the hillside of Danube valley with a possible

change to design pressure PN16 and a simple block valve at River Arges should divide the

long pipeline sections into smaller for the case of emergency like pipeline leaks.

The valves are actuated with servo motors, equipped with pressure relief for the case of

overpressures, pressure indicator on upstream and downstream pipe, and a hand wheel for

power failures.

4.5.4 Pressure Control Valve StationThree pressure control valves are included in the systems. Two are located at the outlet of

the pump stations and one at the entry of the receiving station Giurgiu. This pressure con-

trol valve has the important function to ensure minimum pressure in the case of stand stills,

and closing of all cavitations zones under all operation condition.

4.5.5 SCADAThe defined system planned with PE 100 pipes DN450 PN 10 needs special care related to

starting and stopping of the transport and adjustments to different transport conditions.


34/51



The volume of the pipeline is about 123 m/km. Without a central control of the pipeline by

a SCADA (System Control and Data Acquisition) system, the leaking volume in the case of

pipeline break is about 7000 m higher than with remote monitoring and controlling. This is

caused by the reaction time combined from manual shut down of the head pump station,

then the manual shut down of the intermediate pump station, and then closing the nearest

block valves to the break.

With a SCADA system the shut down of both pump stations and the closing of all valves

could start immediately, taking sequence and upstream pressure into account. A leaking out

of long pipeline sections can be prevented. The mentioned volume also arrives the tank farm

after power off of the pump stations without closing the line.

Therefore the installation of a SCADA system and the necessary comunication cable along

the route is recommended, although the pipeline is comparatively small and simple and the

transported medium is comparatively harmless. The SCADA system enables the operator tocentrally and remote control and operate the whole pipeline system.

For the telecommunication purposes for the SCADA system, an additional casing pipe HDPE

DN 40 or DN 50 will be laid into the pipeline trench. After backfilling and pressure test a fi-

bre optic cable will be pulled in or blown in with air in sections of 1-2 km.

4.6 Operating and Maintenance Personnel

As wished by Client, there was not included the operation personnel into this study as Clientwishes to include it into the saline in Giurgiu. Only the maintenance personnel and works

are described here.

Frequent routine inspections of the pump stations on site are the main work of the mainte-

nance personnel. In intervals of two weeks the pump functionality and their integrity, cor-

rect work and data transmission of the instrumentation, station heating/ cooling (depending

on the seasonal climatic conditions), mobility of valves and pressure control valves (especially

if the brine tends toward heavy gypsum deposit), power supply, etc. and the station integ-

rity itself from outer influences such as accidents, vandalism, theft, etc. shall be verified.

The same applies respectively for the block valve stations, as far as applicable on their facili-

ties.

The routine inspections shall include the control of the ROW strip from the car to prevent

unauthorised third party construction works above the pipeline that might endanger its in-

tegrity. Regular inspections by helicopter as it is usual for oil and gas pipelines seem not

necessary as the transported medium is not dangerous. Further inspections will include e.g.

the supervision of authorised crossing works of new third party lines.

Maintenance and repair teams from the saline should also do the respective repairs in the

stations. The little quantity of repair works and the innocuous medium does not justify a

special maintenance and repair team on standby.


35/51



The workloads are estimated as follows in man-days per year:

Routine inspections, bi-weekly 26 days Third-party supervision 40 days Maintenance and repair 30 days

In addition, the maintenance costs for material part replacement are assessed separately.

See chapter 6.4.2 for details.


36/51



5 AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROCESS, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITIONFor evaluation of the authority approval process, the Fine Consulting SRL, Bucarest, was

mandated by Client. Up to the completion of this study, there was only available a first gen-

eral assessment of the respective laws and regulations of Romania, attached here in Appen-

dix 5.

As there was not available neither any evaluation of ROW acquisition costs, nor especially

the difference of ROW acquisition costs for the two proposed routes (see chapter 3.3 for de-

tails), it can not be given any recommendation to one of the proposed routes yet.

Due to the lack of any ROW cost estimations dependant on the different routing conditions

it can only be assumed that Route 1 will be cheaper as it is 18% shorter than Route 2. How-ever, the detailed routing conditions have to be assessed in the next project phase.


37/51



6 COST ESTIMATEThe results of the detailed cost estimates for Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) and for Operating

Expenses (OPEX) are presented herein.

6.1 Basis and AssumptionsThe cost estimate assesses the costs for the optimized system configuration described in

chapter 4.4.4. It is based on following provisions and assumptions:

Currency is Euro. The accuracy of this first cost estimation, based on actual market prices is 20%. Price basis is August 2005. The cost estimates are based on current experiences of ILF. It should, however, also be

considered, that the actual price at the time of supply and construction contracts

awarded can be substantially influenced by the prevailing market conditions.

The mobilisation and demobilisation expenses are included as part of the constructionexpenses. Expenses for start-up and commissioning are included as part of the supply

and construction costs.

The prices are net prices and contain no value-added tax. No surcharge for mark-up of EPC contractor is included yet. Financing expenses are not considered in the prices. The possibly necessary investments on the deliverer's or consumer's side beyond the de-

scribed pipeline system are not included. Battery limits are the suction flange of the

head station in Bucsany and the delivery flange of the receiving station in Giurgiu. Nostorage facilities are included.

6.2 MethodologyThe cost estimates and prices provided are based on the extensive ILF experience gained on

previous projects and apply to the Romanian market. Wherever possible, western market

prices were enquired or taken form the ILF database to verify and compare the Romanian

price level.


38/51



To ensure the confidentiality of the study, usually amounts of about 100 km HDPE pipeline

in the Bucuresti region were enquired, without specifying the client or the medium to be

transported. It has to be pointed out that the actual prices will finally, apart from other rea-

sons, depend on the quantities ordered, international and local market situation.

The cost estimate method and structure uses the following factors for the calculation:

A) Costs depending on length like e.g. pipe material (only length related costs),B) Costs for construction,C) Construction costs for special construction or crossing structures,D) Costs for stations,E) Costs for engineering services,F) Fees, permits, insurances.

The total investment is the sum of all these factors.

6.3 Individual Cost ElementsThe cost element base contains the unit prices and the main calculation formulas for each

cost element.

An overview of the estimated costs is given in Appendix 6.

6.3.1 Line PipeAs described in chapter 4.2, the line pipe material will be HDPE. Line pipe prices were as-

sessed by budgetary enquiries in Germany and Romania and compared with the line pipe

prices given by Client.

Therefore the price for line pipe was estimated as follows:

unit price line pipe DN 450 PN 10 57 EUR/ m

unit price line pipe DN 450 PN 16 95 EUR/ m

6.3.2 Transportation CostsThe transportations costs to and in the project area are assessed for an average transport

distance for the line pipe of 300 km, which should be on the conservative side as the line

pipe should be ordered in Romania to minimize transportation costs.

Truck load of line pipe DN 450 150 m

Truck costs for 100 km 240 EUR


39/51



6.3.3 Pipeline CableDelivery and installation of the pipeline cable are independent from the pipeline diameter. A

fibre optic cable is the usually installed technology. It can also be used for data transmission

between Bucsany and Giurgiu independent from the pipeline operation.

The unit price for pipeline cable includes material and installation

unit price pipeline cable per m 2 EUR/ m

6.3.4 Construction Costs for PipelineThe construction costs for ideal conditions include:

Clearing and grading Transport of line pipe from storage places to site Trenching and bedding Welding and non-destructive tests Pipe lowering Delivery and laying of cable conduit Backfilling Restoration and clean up Hydrostatic testing Testing and commissioning

The construction costs for ideal conditions have been derived from budgetary enquiries. Al-

though there were issued budgetary enquries to nine Romanian construction companies,

only two of them responded. One gave an extremely low offer, the other an extremely high

offer that even exceeded the reference offer from a German company. Therefore the overall

construction prices can only be estimations at this project stage. Further enquries have to be

made in later project phases, preferably without keeping the project subject confidental.

The following unit price has been selected:

unit price construction 25 EUR/ m

The derived costs have to be multiplied with the route classification factor, which is descri-

bed in the following.


40/51



6.3.5 Construction Costs of parallel pipelineAs a rule of thumb, a second pipeline, constructed at the same time, laid into the same

trench, is saving about 30% of the construction costs of two separate pipelines. That means,

the construction costs for the second pipeline is only 70% of the first, to be added to theconstruction costs of the first pipeline. However, there is no such saving on the material

costs.

6.3.6 Route ClassificationThe route classification factor for surcharge determination of the pipeline construction costs

usually is defined with consideration and factorized evaluation of following geological and

topographical criteria that are complicating the construction and raising the costs:

Longitudinal Slope Side Slope General Soil Conditions Site Accessibility Groundwater Conditions

Considering the limited scope of this study, a global route classification factor for the overall

route was estimated from ILF experience.

route classification factor 1.03

6.3.7 Special Construction StructuresThe survey has shown that traffic line and river crossings are necessary. The basis for the es-

timate are the budgetary enquiries for construction costs, verified by a linear meter price for

such crossings usually used in more general ILF cost estimates. The cost estimate includes all

civil, mechanical and installation work, e.g. river bank protection and concrete coating (in

case of open trench river crossing). These prices are a surcharge to the construction costs.

unit price open road crossing 1000 EUR/ piece

unit price open river crossing 2300 EUR/ piece

unit price HDD 250 EUR/ m

6.3.8 Stations

6.3.8.1Pump Stations


41/51



The price includes

earth works, foundations pump house piping, valves, fittings, flanges, also pigging facilities construction works pump units external/internal power supply electrical installation operational metering systems lightning protectionAdministrative buildings or housing compounds are not included as the pump stations are

assumed to be unmanned. In the case at hand the whole pump station will well fit into a

standard container that will be set onto a simple concrete foundation. Additional fencing,

etc. is not required.

The costs have been assessed from budgetary enquiries and standard prices from the ILF da-

tabase for the pumps and main fittings. In this study, the following costs were assumed:

Pump station, 2x 75 kW installed power 160,000 EUR

It shall be noted that this price includes stainless steel for all fittings and piping, considering

the corrosive transported medium. This increases the price considerably, compared to stan-

dard equipment.

6.3.8.2Metering FacilitiesMetering for operation purposes and leak detection is included as part of the pump station

instrumentation. The accuracy of this system has to ensure sufficient leak detection. A sec-

ond metering station therefore has to be located at the receiving station in Giurgiu.

Metering Facilities: 40,000 EUR

6.3.8.3 Pressure Control ValvesPressure control valves are used in the pump stations where they are included in the overall

station price there.


42/51



6.3.8.4Block Valve Stations

6.3.9 Communication System / SCADAA communication and SCADA System is installed for remote control and data exchange

purposes in order to operate the pipeline system. Mostly, this system consists of a fibre optic

cable in parallel to the pipeline which connects all parts of a pipeline system. All data are

monitored in the control centre for operation and communication purposes.

In this case the SCADA System will have a very simlpe layout and therefore can be com-

paratevely cheap. The overall costs including station instumentations are assessed to:

SCADA facilities: 500,000 EUR

6.3.10 Engineering6.3.10.1 Engineering of Pipeline

The costs for engineering of pipeline are usually estimated to

price engineering of pipeline 5% of investment costs

6.3.10.2 Engineering of StationsEngineering of stations require much more time in relation to the investment costs, espe-

cially with these comparatively tiny pump stations. The costs for the engineering of stations

can be estimated as

price engineering of stations 10% of investment costs

6.3.10.3 Site SupervisionThe site supervision and quality control for pipeline construction as well as for station con-

struction can be estimated as

price site supervision 5% of investment costs

6.3.10.4 Right Of Way, Right Of Way AcquisitionThe costs for ROW have been estimated considering costs for lawyers, notaries, land regis-

ter, crop remuneration and costs for acquisition of ROW. An approach designed for Central

European standards has been used as a baseline, but considering the conditions in Romania,

the outcome was corrected to fit.

ROW and ROW Acquisition 800 EUR/ km


43/51



6.3.10.5 Additional ServicesAdditional services in this context are an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study, geo-

detic survey and soil investigations.

The EIA Study is relatively independent from width of working strip. The work to be done

depends on the requirements of the client, the authorities and on the nature found and the

route. The price can be calculated as follows

An EIA Study for a brine pipeline shall be much less extensive than for usual piplines. There-

fore the price was selected as

unit price EIA-study 3.00 EUR/ m

The unit prices for geodetic survey and soil investigations have been assessed with

unit price for geodetic survey 3 EUR/ m

unit price for soil investigations 2.5 EUR/ m

6.3.11 Fees, Permits, InsuranceFees, permits and insurance will be estimated from investment cost. From experience follow-

ing rates are applied:

authorities 1.0 %

technical inspections 1.0 %

insurance 0.3 %

in total 2.3 % of investment costs.

6.4 Operational Expenditures

6.4.1 Energy CostsEnergy costs apply for the operation of the pump stations only, pipeline and other energy

consumptions can be neglected due to their little outcome.

Energy costs: 100 EUR/ MWhel


44/51



6.4.2 Maintenance and Operating ExpensesThe maintenance costs consist of the service costs for the pipeline and stations as well as the

pure operating costs, mainly personnel expenditure to the operation of the pipelines. Yet, as

agreed upon with Client, it is assumed that the operation of the pipeline will be fullfilled bysaline personnel in Giurgiu, therefore these personnel costs are not included here. The pump

stations also do not cause personnel costs during normal operation as they are unmanned.

The maintenance rates are assessed from experience as follows and include mainly spare

parts. The personnel costs are calculated separately:

a) Pipeline: 0.8% of the pipeline investment costsb) Stations: 5.0% of the station investment costsDetailed figures for maintenance personnel are given in chapter 4.6 and Appendix 6.


45/51



7 REFERENCES/1/ https://zulu.ssc.nasa.gov/mrsid/mrsid.pl or for a short time also

http://earth.google.com/

/2/ e.g. http://www.solcomhouse.com/pipeline.htm


46/51


I LF CONSULTING ENGINEERSILF/M K:\A309\sv&doc\ILFM_AD\AD-0001-Pre-Feasibility Study\A309-ILFM-AD-0001-Rev1-Pre-Feasibility Study.doc ILF 2005

Appendix 1Overview Map A309-R5-2001


47/51



Appendix 2Topographical Route Map A309-R5-2002


48/51



Appendix 3Photo Documentation of Pipeline Route


49/51



Appendix 4Process Flow Diagram A309-F5-2003


50/51



Appendix 5Legal Comment of Clients local Advisor onAuthority Approval and ROW Acquisition


51/51


Appendix 6Cost Estimate A309-ILFM-AD-0002

Documents

A309 ILFM AD 0001 Rev1 Pre Feasibility Study