Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Route Optimization Using Suitability Grid Analysis Methodology Erik Potter, M3 Midstream LLC
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Route Optimization Using Suitability Grid Analysis Methodology Erik Potter, M3 Midstream LLC

155
views

Published on

M3 Midstream and Photo Science recently selected and optimized a 25-mile NGL pipeline route in the Utica using the suitability grid analysis methodology. The routing methodology analyzes and combines …

M3 Midstream and Photo Science recently selected and optimized a 25-mile NGL pipeline route in the Utica using the suitability grid analysis methodology. The routing methodology analyzes and combines multiple grids from three major perspectives: the natural environment, built environment, and engineered environment. It uses Esri ArcGIS technology to map all geographic features, assign stakeholder-generated suitability values, generate corridor alternatives using computer algorithms and create reports summarizing criteria used and values assigned. The Methodology has proved to be objective, consistent and defensible.
This presentation will give an overview of this routing methodology. This presentation will discuss the need for a standardized methodology, give an overview of the methodology, and discuss lessons learned from over 71 utility project implementations in 8 states. The audience will come away with a better understanding of this innovative approach that can help them improve their new infrastructure development processes.

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
155
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Assets 130 miles of large diameter Liquids pipe in Ohio and 130 miles of 24” Natural Gas pipes in WV and PA
  • We analyzed 16 categorical areas and 76 layers of impedance factors – Most company look at less than 10 layers
  • Transcript

    • 1. RouteOptimization UsingSuitability GridAnalysisAn Overview byErik Potter &Jesse Glasgow
    • 2. M3 MIDSTREAM[MOMENTUM]Introduction
    • 3. Momentum’s Appalachian Assets
    • 4. Industry Need
    • 5. Industry Changes / ChallengesWhy do we need smarter routing?• Better Public Safety• Cost Control• Defensible• Increased Regulation• Price Collaboration• Social Media• Time and Speed to Market• Traditional Corporate Methodologies are Antiquated
    • 6. …And Organized
    • 7. …And Direct
    • 8. Public Scrutiny
    • 9. Common Internal Challenges
    • 10. Routing MethodologyWe realized in practice…• Tradition is sometimes the policy• Ultimately procedure is policy• Even “No” procedure is a policyWhat is your corporate policy on routing?
    • 11. PHOTOSCIENCEIntroduction
    • 12. Photo Science 200 Employees Photogrammetrists Engineers Surveyors Geographers & Computer Scientists Siting GIS/Software Development GSaaS (Geospatial Software as aService) Remote Sensing Aerial Photography Photogrammetry /LiDAR Survey Full Service Geospatial SolutionsWho we are:What we do:
    • 13. Photo Science Office Locations
    • 14. Research & Development
    • 15. What is the Methodology?OBJECTIVECONSISTENTDEFENSIBLE GUIDELINESTANDARDIZED
    • 16. ImplementationsGas PipelineOhio = 1 ProjectElectric TransmissionGeorgia = 166 projectsKentucky = 22 projectsMaryland = 9 projectsTexas = 2 projectsIndiana = 1 projectOhio = 1 ProjectSouth Korea = 1 projectManitoba = 1 projectGreenwaysGeorgia = 3 projectsVirginia = 1 projectPower PlantsGeorgia = 3South Korea = 1Water Transmission PipelineKentucky = 1*211 total projects $2.0 Billion infrastructure
    • 17. Unique Characteristics• Standardizes alternative perspectives• Uses external stakeholder input on aprogrammatic basis• Uses computer algorithms to help identifyalternative corridors
    • 18. Corridor Analysis Funnel
    • 19. • External Stakeholders–Governmental Interest–Environmental Interest–Community Interest–Cultural Resource Interest• Internal Stakeholders–Engineers–Environmental Specialist–Land Acquisition Specialist–Business Development–Executive Management teamInfusing Stakeholder Input
    • 20. ThreeEnvironmentsRoutingFactorsNaturalEngineeringBuilt
    • 21. Homework Layers andFeaturesNATURAL Analyzed 5 Major Layersand 25 FeaturesBUILT Analyzed 6 Major Layersand 28 FeaturesENGINEERING Analyzed 5 Major Layersand 23 Features16 Layers and 76 Features
    • 22. Natural PerspectiveNatural EnvironmentFloodplain 5.0% Soils 16.0%No Floodplain 1 Other Soils 1100-year FEMA Floodplain 9 Hydric Soils 9Streams/Wetlands 30.0%Threatened & Endangered Species(T&E) 10.0%Uplands 1 No Habitat 1Ephemeral(Smaller) Streams + Regulatory Buffer 6 T&E Species Habitat 8Perennial Streams + Regulatory Buffer 7 Known Indiana Bat Hibernaculum 9Boreable Ponds and Lakes (3000) 8 Land Cover 19.0%NWI Wetlands 9 Agriculture 1Wild & Scenic River (1320 Buffer of Edge ofWater) 9 Open Land 1Protected Areas 20.0% Developed Land 7Not Protected 1 Forested Areas 9Watershed Protection Areas 6 AVOIDANCE AREASWell Head Protection Areas (5 Year) 7 Non-Bore-able Lakes and PondsWell Head Protection Areas (1 Year) 8 Conservation EasementsUS Forest Service Lands 8 USFS Wilderness AreaConservation Land 9 Wildlife RefugeNational & State Parks
    • 23. Built PerspectiveBuilt EnvironmentProximity to Structures 20.0% NRHP Eligible Historic Sites 5.0%> 685 1 No Eligible Historic Site 1100 - 685 7 Eligible Historic Site 90 - 100 9 Parcel Size 10.0%Structure Density 30.0% > 20 Acres 1< 1 Building / 20 Acres 1 10 Acres - 20 Acres 21 Building / 20 Acres - 1 Building / 5Acres 2 8 Acres - 10 Acres 31 Building / 5 Acres - 1 Building / Acre 7 6 Acres - 8 Acres 41 Building / Acre - 1 Building / 0.25 Acre 8 4 Acres - 6 Acres 5> 1 Building / 0.25 Acre 9 2 Acres - 4 Acres 6Land Use 20.0% 1 Acre - 2 Acres 7Undeveloped 1 0.5 Acres - 1 Acre 8Forest 5 < 0.5 Acres 9Developed 9 AVOIDANCE AREASProposed Development 5.0% City and County ParksNo Proposed Developments 1 Areas of Ritual ImportanceProposed Development 9 Listed Archaeology SitesSubdivisions 10.0% Listed NRHP Districts and BuildingsNo Subdivision 1 Military FacilitiesSubdivisions 9 Buildings + 100 BufferUnderground Storage Tanks + 100 bufferDay Care ParcelsSchool Parcels (K-12)Church ParcelsHospitalsCemeteries
    • 24. Engineering PerspectiveEngineeringMining 25.0% Transportation 30.0%No Mining Operation 1 No Transportation Feature 1Underground - Inactive 6 Gravel Public Roads ROW 7Land Owned By Mining Companies 8 Trails / Greenways 7Open Pit 8 Paved Public Roads ROW 8Underground - Active 9 Railroad ROW 8Slope 30.0% Interstates ROW 9Slope < 10% 1 Linear Facilities 10.0%Slope 10-20% 5 Parallel Gas Pipelines (Partners ROW) 1Slope 20-30% 9 No Facility 3Well Sites 5.0% Pipelines ROW 9No Well Site 1 Electric Transmission ROW 9O & G Wells (50 Buffer) 9 AVOIDANCE AREASWater Wells (50 Buffer) 9 Slope > 40%Public Well System (50 Buffer) 9 EPA Superfund Sites (CERCLA)BrownfieldsSinkholes*(during route identification)QuarriesLandfills (Active, Permitted & Abandoned)
    • 25. 1 1 5.1 5.1 1 1 1 11 1 1 5.1 5.1 1 1 11 1 1 1 5.1 5.1 1 17.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 1 5.1 5.1 17.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 11 9 9 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.41 9 9 9 9 1 7.4 7.41 1 9 9 9 1 1 7.4Suitability Analysis
    • 26. BuiltNaturalEngineeringSimpleRouting Across Preference Surface
    • 27. BuiltNaturalEngineeringSimpleAllTheAlternativeCorridorsare derivedbyconsideringthe top 3%percentof the bestrouteswithin theproject area.Alternative Corridors
    • 28. Traditional RouteSuitability RouteAlternate Routes
    • 29. Datacollection isfocusedwithin theAlternatecorridors.Additional Data for Alternative RouteDelineation
    • 30. WindshieldSurveysAnd SiteVisits
    • 31. A Route Networkis based onsegments derivedfrom the optimalroutes within eachof the AlternativeCorridors androutes drawn inmanually by theproject team.Alternate Route Network
    • 32. ROUTE A ROUTE BRESIDENTIAL12% INSTITUTIONAL5%INDUSTRIAL10%FARMLAND30%RESIDENTIAL29%COMMERCIAL26%FARMLAND54%COMMERCIAL23%INDUSTRIAL6%FORESTS21%Alternative Route Analysis
    • 33. Alternate RouteEvaluationData
    • 34. Alternate RouteEvaluationResults
    • 35. Preferred Route SelectionPreferred Route is aproduct of the sitingmethodology—The best set ofpotential routesegments consideringBuilt, Engineering andNatural factors.
    • 36. Corridor Analysis Funnel
    • 37. • Produces Routing Decisions that are Quantifiable,Consistent, and Defensible.• Improves productivity and analytical capabilities.• Reduces Risks by public, political, regulatory andlegal scrutiny.Siting Methodology
    • 38. Tools UsedSoftware• Esri ArcGIS Standard 10.1• Esri Spatial Analyst• MS ExcelCOTS Spatial Data• CoreLogic - parcel data• Hart Rextag – pipeline data• PennWell MapSearch – electric data
    • 39. What We Learned…Lessons• Forced us to do our homework• Traditional “Pipeliner” routing methods missinformation resulting in more reroutes, moretime, and more cost• Reduction predictable reroutes• Helped promote a greater understanding ofGIS enterprise wide
    • 40. Conclusion• There is a need for an objective, transparent,inclusive, and consistent methodology.• Photo Science and Momentum have developed adefendable methodology to meet this need.• Suitability modeling is used for linear and non-linearfacilities
    • 41. Questions?staycurious
    • 42. Thank You for ListeningErik Pottere.potter@m3midstream.com970.382.4661Jesse Glasgowjglasgow@photoscience.com770.270.7769