64. overview of waste management acg project â€" azerbaijan

Overview of waste management ACG Project – Azerbaijan Business Unit Bill Boulton (BP), Annette Watlow (BP), Steve Bell (Enviros Consulting)

AIOC – operated by BP

• Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) PSA signed September 1994

• February 1995 Azerbaijan International Operating Company established

• AIOC consortium of 11 international oil companies

• October 1995 ACG early oil project sanctioned

• November 1997 First oil produced from Chirag

• August 2001 Phase 1 of the full field development sanctioned

• February 2005 first oil from Phase 1 Central Azeri

SOCAR

10.00%Amoco Caspian

Sea Petroleum

Limited

17.01%

BP Exploration

(Caspian Sea)

Limited

17.13%

Amerada Hess

2.72%

Devon Energy

Caspian

Corporation*

5.63%

Turkiye Petrolleri

A.O.

6.75%

Unocal Khazar,

Ltd.

10.28%

Statoil Apsheron

a.s.

8.56%

Exxon Azerbaijan

Limited

8.00%

ITOCHU Oil

Exploration

(Azerbaijan) Inc.

3.92%

Inpex Southwest

Caspian Sea, Ltd

10.00%

AIOC consortium of 11 international oil

companies

ACG Project – Scope & Scale

• Capex: $9bn total / $6m / day• 90,000 te topsides• 90,000 te jackets• 1000 km offshore pipelines

• 80% of man-hours in Azerbaijan• 20% across another 10 countries• New Workforce - 8000 Azeris

• One of world’s largest terminals• 7 years to execute• 74 million man-hours total so far• Over 3 million man-hours/month

Vision

AzBU in 2004 AzBU In the Future

Assets: EOP + Projects People: 2000 BP staff + 1400 agency

Infrastructure: •2 export pipelines•Sangachal EOP Terminal

Gross Production: •132 mbd

8+ operating platforms + Projects >2200 BP staff

• 4 export pipelines• One of the biggest terminals in the

world

• 1mmbd in 2009

GROWTH Capital Spend 2004: $12m/

day

GROWTH Capital Spend 2004: $12m/

day

SangachalSangachal

Chirag l

ChiragEast Azeri

2007Central Azeri

2005

West Azeri2006

Shah Deniz Stage 12006

Shah Deniz Stage 2

ACG Phase 32008

InamAlov

• 7bcma in 2009

Project Schedules

2001 2002 2003

1H 2H 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1H 2H 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

BTC

ACG Phase 1

ACG Phase 2

ACG Phase 3

DefineDefineDefineDefine

1st Oil

ExecuteExecuteExecuteExecute

SelectSelect SelectSelect1st Oil

DefineDefineDefineDefineAppraiseAppraiseAppraiseAppraise ExecuteExecuteExecuteExecute

Operation

DefineDefineDefineDefine ExecuteExecuteExecuteExecuteSelect Select Select Select

Select Select Select Select DefineDefineDefineDefine

1st Oil

West Azeri

ExecuteExecuteExecuteExecute

1st Oil

East Azeri

ACG Project E&S management

EBRD and IFC provided financial support to a number of AIOC PSA partners for Phase 1 of the ACG Project

To ensure commitments in the ESIA’s are implemented, an environmental and social management system developed

4 level system developed

To date 3 audits completed by the Lender Group’s Independent Environmental Auditors

POLICY

ACG Phase 1 Environmental and Social Management

System

Contractor Control Plans

Contractor Implementation Plans

& Procedures

LEVEL I: BP / AIOC

LEVEL II: PROJECT

LEVEL III: DELIVERY UNITS

LEVEL IV: CONTRACTOR

COMMITMENTS REGISTER

COUNTRY

Source Documents

Waste Overview – 2004 waste data

ACG Project Monthly Non-Hazardous Waste Volumes, m3

2004

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Sep Oct

No

v

Dec

ACG Project Monthly Hazardous Waste Volumes, m3

2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Sep Oct

No

v

Dec

Key waste typesVolume

m3 Key waste typeVolume

m3 Key waste typesVolume

m3 Key waste typeVolume

m3DomesticWastes

29,743.0Paper& Card

777.2Bilge/Oily

water1,747.7 Diesel/contaminated 159.1

Wood/waste timber

8,281.6 Drums 161.8PaintCans

930.8 Foam buoys 72.0

Canteenwaste

7,888.2Electrical

Cables124.6

Hydraulic Oil/Lubricants/

Used oil261.6

Paintssludges & thinners

84.71

Metal Ferrous 4,364.6 Plastic 112.2Oilyrags

137.8 Oily soils 43.5

Blasting grit 1,327.5Stainless

Steel82.6 Drums 118.7

Soilcontam.

with paint26.9

Waste destinations 2004

Total Stored

1.5%

Total Recycled /

Re-used

23.7%

Total Treated &

Disposed

3.0%

Total Landfilled

71.9%

Waste Overview - 2004

Non – hazardous construction waste is disposed of to existing municipal facilities

Nearly ¼ of non-hazardous waste is recycled – includes steel, paper, ferrous and non ferrous metal, wood, paper

19 percent of hazardous waste stored at Serenga – BP hazardous waste facility

ACG Project waste infrastructure

Location User Activities Waste infrastructure

MCCI Topsides Construction of the drilling quarters (DQ) topsides

Bos-Shelf (Star Gulf)

Construction of the jackets for topsides facilities

Saipem

Upgrade of the heavy lift barge (DBA vessel) and transportation and installation of the drilling template and topsides

MCCI Subsea Upgrade of the pipelay barge and installation of the nearshore ACG Phase 1 pipelines

SPS

ACG Operations Offshore drilling and production

Waste transfer station Number of skips: 231 Average number of skips processed per day: 30 Number of people working on site: 55 Total volume of waste handled in 2004: 33,785 m3

Bibiheybat oilfield

Amec-Azfen-Tekfen (ATA)

Fabrication of topsides

Waste transfer station Number of skips: 20

Average number of skips processed per day: 7 Number of people working on site: 6 Total volume of waste handled in 2004: 7,285 m3

Tekfen-Azfen (TKaz)

Site preparation and construction for the expansion of the Sangachal Terminal Sangachal

Terminal Expansion

Project (STEP) Entrepose Tank construction for the STEP

Waste transfer station Number of skips: 128 Average number of skips processed per day: 16

Number of people working on site: 18 Total volume of waste handled in 2004: 18,816m3

ACG Project waste infrastructure

Problem Wastes

Compacting Waste saves travel

A Problem Waste!

Storage of Paint Waste

Planning improvements to disposal of non-hazardous waste

Two existing municipal landfills close to Baku

SUMQAYIT and BALAKHANY

Standards at both poor: No engineered containment

Poor environmental nuisance control – fire, scavenging & litter control

Waste acceptance criteria not followed by all users

Planning improvements to disposal of non-hazardous waste

Existing municipal landfills close to Baku

Fast track improvement required

ACG Project initiated series of studies to evaluate environmentally preferable option for disposal of non-hazardous waste Comparative audit of both existing municipal landfill sites

Waste characterisation of waste sent to landfill

Treatment & disposal options assessment

Review of recycling market

Waste characterisation

Assessment of general waste skip composition completed in August 2004

Findings:

– Nearly 70% of the contents of the general waste skips considered as non recoverable

– Remaining 30% represented recoverable wood offcuts, paper and card packaging and metal

Proportions of Recyclable and Non-recyclable Non-Hazardous Waste in General Waste Skips

Wood15%

Metals6%

Paper/Card6%

Residues55%

Miscellaneous items9%

Office Waste4% Used PPE

2%

Plastics3%

Options for Non Hazardous Waste

Zero waste: At-source segregation not practical for recyclable materials – a material

reclamation facility (MRF) is required

At present, local markets for reclaimed materials are either very limited or non-existent

Significant investment for MRF and seeding recycling facilities required

Not considered sustainable at present

Interim storage: Recommended by lender auditors

Not acceptable for putrescible waste, unless frozen will become a health hazard

High CAPEX and OPEX costs do not justify this ‘short term fix’


Disposal - Incinerate everything: Operational reliability questionable & constant challenge – lessons

learnt from BTC Down time storage/solutions required Permitting issues Process residues still require disposal Alternative stand-by option required for downtime

High CAPEX and OPEX

Disposal – Construct New Landfill to meet EU Landfill Directive requirements: Existing landfill sites expressed interest in developing new

improved facilities New landfill could provide a reliable long term solution Higher landfill disposal prices will provide greater financial incentive

to reduce volumes of waste sent to landfill


Disposal - Treat food waste in sewage treatment plant: ACG Project workforce 10,000+

All sites operate canteens

Existing treatment plants do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional load

Initial review of food waste volumes indicate capex costs high

Treatment temperature not inline with EU animal by-products regulation requirements

Recycling - Composting: Compliance with EU animal by products regulations requires

technically advanced plant

Compostable canteen waste only represents 20% by volume of the waste currently sent to landfill – partial fix


Key constraints: Government priority has been hazardous waste – World Bank funded

Hazardous waste landfill

Ensuring sustainability & minimising reliance on external support

Lack of established in-country recycling facilities

Contrast in HSE standards – AIOC vs developing recycling industry

Non-metallic waste has little value – no landfill tax

Punitive and complicated legislative system - waste legislation still evolving

Plus the following generic constraints: Technical

Financial

Social

Economic

Institutional

Options Selected

Interim improvements to existing municipal landfill – particularly on control and monitoring

Continue to explore recycling/reuse options

Construct New Landfill compliant with best practice

Detailed ITT developed for turnkey design, construct and operate contract to best practice

Approach presented to Azerbaijan Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR), who expressed strong support for the initiative

Interim Improvements at existing municipal landfill

Site investigation completed of 3 new tipping areas within site boundary

An unused area adjacent to the previously used tipping face selected

Scope of improvements

Secure and upgrade site (basic civil engineering work)

• Landscape improvement – grading and covering existing waste, improve access to tipping area

• Improve fencing

• Segregation of site into clearly identifiable working areas

• Quarantine area established – mobile bunded skid mounted trays

Day to Day operations

– New offices and facilities

• Plant – bulldozer, back up generator

• Labour – Security 24hr, Supervisor, HSE office and labour

Ground water monitoring

Construction site based improvements

Improved tracking in what goes into the general skip:

Waste acceptance criteria developed

Notification reporting improved, tracked and widely reported

‘Name and shame’ contractors with poor segregation

Additional labelling of skips – do’s and don’ts

Site waste lists & waste register reported and verified on regular basis

Construction contractors created site waste teams to routinely check all skips

Construction site skip tracking, utilisation and placement tracked

Posters and awareness leaflets

Waste minimisation review completed and initiatives currently being developed

Waste awareness course provided to site teams – BP & construction contractors

New landfill

Tender development; August September 2004; key issues:

Technical requirements for landfill design, construction and operation explicitly stated in ITT documentation

Bridging gap between

• Well developed and proven UK and EU legislation & planning process and

• National legislation & planning process whilst being sensitive to ITT audience

Waste forecasting for the whole of the Azerbaijan Business Unit – multiple PSA’s and activities

Ensuring cross Azerbaijan Business Unit buy-in and support

Competitive Tender was issued Mid October 2004

A technically viable tender selected for design, construction and operation of landfill to EU standards and interim agreement issued end of February 2005

Construction and commissioning should be completed in 2nd and 3rd quarters operations starting in fourth quarter 2005