Overview of waste management  ACG Project – Azerbaijan Business Unit  Bill Boulton (BP), Annette Watlow (BP), Steve Bell (...
AIOC – operated by BP <ul><li>Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) PSA signed September 1994 </li></ul><ul><li>February 1995 Azerba...
ACG Project – Scope & Scale <ul><li>Capex: $9bn total /  $6m / day </li></ul><ul><li>90,000 te topsides </li></ul><ul><li>...
Vision AzBU in 2004 AzBU In the Future <ul><li>Assets: EOP + Projects </li></ul><ul><li>People: 2000 BP staff + 1400 agenc...
Project Schedules 2001    2002  2003  1H  2H  1Q  2Q  3Q  4Q  1H  2H  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  BTC ACG  Phase 1 ACG  ...
ACG Project E&S management <ul><li>EBRD and IFC provided financial support to a number of AIOC PSA partners for Phase 1 of...
Waste Overview – 2004 waste data
Waste Overview - 2004 <ul><li>Non – hazardous construction waste is disposed of to existing municipal facilities  </li></u...
ACG Project waste infrastructure
ACG Project waste infrastructure
ACG Project waste infrastructure
ACG Project waste infrastructure
ACG Project waste infrastructure
Problem Wastes
Compacting Waste saves travel
A Problem Waste!
A Problem Waste!
Storage of Paint Waste
Planning improvements to disposal of non-hazardous waste <ul><li>Two existing municipal landfills close to Baku </li></ul>...
Planning improvements to disposal of non-hazardous waste <ul><li>Existing municipal landfills close to Baku </li></ul><ul>...
Waste characterisation <ul><li>Assessment of general waste skip composition completed in August 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Fin...
Options for Non Hazardous Waste <ul><li>Zero waste: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>At-source segregation not practical for recyclab...
Options for Non Hazardous Waste <ul><li>Disposal - Incinerate everything:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Operational reliability q...
Options for Non Hazardous Waste <ul><li>Disposal - Treat food waste in sewage treatment plant:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ACG ...
Options for Non Hazardous Waste <ul><li>Key constraints:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government priority has been hazardous was...
Options Selected <ul><li>Interim improvements to existing municipal landfill  – particularly on control and monitoring </l...
Interim Improvements at existing municipal landfill <ul><li>Site investigation completed of 3 new tipping areas within sit...
Construction site based improvements <ul><li>Improved tracking in what goes into the general skip: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>W...
New landfill <ul><li>Tender development; August September 2004; key issues : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical requirements ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

64. Overview of waste management ACG Project â€" Azerbaijan ...

1,311 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

64. Overview of waste management ACG Project â€" Azerbaijan ...

  1. 1. Overview of waste management ACG Project – Azerbaijan Business Unit Bill Boulton (BP), Annette Watlow (BP), Steve Bell (Enviros Consulting)
  2. 2. AIOC – operated by BP <ul><li>Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) PSA signed September 1994 </li></ul><ul><li>February 1995 Azerbaijan International Operating Company established </li></ul><ul><li>AIOC consortium of 11 international oil companies </li></ul><ul><li>October 1995 ACG early oil project sanctioned </li></ul><ul><li>November 1997 First oil produced from Chirag </li></ul><ul><li>August 2001 Phase 1 of the full field development sanctioned </li></ul><ul><li>February 2005 first oil from Phase 1 Central Azeri </li></ul>AIOC consortium of 11 international oil companies 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%
  3. 3. ACG Project – Scope & Scale <ul><li>Capex: $9bn total / $6m / day </li></ul><ul><li>90,000 te topsides </li></ul><ul><li>90,000 te jackets </li></ul><ul><li>1000 km offshore pipelines </li></ul><ul><li>80% of man-hours in Azerbaijan </li></ul><ul><li>20% across another 10 countries </li></ul><ul><li>New Workforce - 8000 Azeris </li></ul><ul><li>One of world’s largest terminals </li></ul><ul><li>7 years to execute </li></ul><ul><li>74 million man-hours total so far </li></ul><ul><li>Over 3 million man-hours/month </li></ul>
  4. 4. Vision AzBU in 2004 AzBU In the Future <ul><li>Assets: EOP + Projects </li></ul><ul><li>People: 2000 BP staff + 1400 agency </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2 export pipelines </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sangachal EOP Terminal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Gross Production: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1 3 2 mbd </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>8+ operating platforms + Projects </li></ul><ul><li>>2200 BP staff </li></ul><ul><li>4 export pipelines </li></ul><ul><li>One of the biggest terminals in the world </li></ul><ul><li>1mmbd in 2009 </li></ul>GROWTH Capital Spend 2004: $12m/ day Sangachal Sangachal Chirag l Chirag East Azeri 2007 Central Azeri 2005 West Azeri 2006 Shah Deniz Stage 1 2006 Shah Deniz Stage 2 ACG Phase 3 2008 Inam Alov <ul><li>7bcma in 2009 </li></ul>
  5. 5. 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 Operation Define 1 st Oil Execute Select 1 st Oil Define Appraise Execute Define Execute Select Select Define 1 st Oil West Azeri Execute 1 st Oil East Azeri
  6. 6. ACG Project E&S management <ul><li>EBRD and IFC provided financial support to a number of AIOC PSA partners for Phase 1 of the ACG Project </li></ul><ul><li>To ensure commitments in the ESIA’s are implemented, an environmental and social management system developed </li></ul><ul><li>4 level system developed </li></ul><ul><li>To date 3 audits completed by the Lender Group’s Independent Environmental Auditors </li></ul>                                          POLICY ACG Phase 1 Environmental and Social Management System Con tractor 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
  7. 7. Waste Overview – 2004 waste data
  8. 8. Waste Overview - 2004 <ul><li>Non – hazardous construction waste is disposed of to existing municipal facilities </li></ul><ul><li>Nearly ¼ of non-hazardous waste is recycled – includes steel, paper, ferrous and non ferrous metal, wood, paper </li></ul><ul><li>19 percent of hazardous waste stored at Serenga – BP hazardous waste facility </li></ul>
  9. 9. ACG Project waste infrastructure
  10. 10. ACG Project waste infrastructure
  11. 11. ACG Project waste infrastructure
  12. 12. ACG Project waste infrastructure
  13. 13. ACG Project waste infrastructure
  14. 14. Problem Wastes
  15. 15. Compacting Waste saves travel
  16. 16. A Problem Waste!
  17. 17. A Problem Waste!
  18. 18. Storage of Paint Waste
  19. 19. Planning improvements to disposal of non-hazardous waste <ul><li>Two existing municipal landfills close to Baku </li></ul><ul><li>SUMQAYIT and BALAKHANY </li></ul><ul><li>Standards at both poor: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No engineered containment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Poor environmental nuisance control – fire, scavenging & litter control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Waste acceptance criteria not followed by all users </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Planning improvements to disposal of non-hazardous waste <ul><li>Existing municipal landfills close to Baku </li></ul><ul><li>Fast track improvement required </li></ul><ul><li>ACG Project initiated series of studies to evaluate environmentally preferable option for disposal of non-hazardous waste </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparative audit of both existing municipal landfill sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Waste characterisation of waste sent to landfill </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Treatment & disposal options assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Review of recycling market </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Waste characterisation <ul><li>Assessment of general waste skip composition completed in August 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Findings: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nearly 70% of the contents of the general waste skips considered as non recoverable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Remaining 30% represented recoverable wood offcuts, paper and card packaging and metal </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Options for Non Hazardous Waste <ul><li>Zero waste: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>At-source segregation not practical for recyclable materials – a material reclamation facility (MRF) is required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At present, local markets for reclaimed materials are either very limited or non-existent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant investment for MRF and seeding recycling facilities required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not considered sustainable at present </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interim storage : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommended by lender auditors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not acceptable for putrescible waste, unless frozen will become a health hazard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High CAPEX and OPEX costs do not justify this ‘short term fix’ </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Options for Non Hazardous Waste <ul><li>Disposal - Incinerate everything: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Operational reliability questionable & constant challenge – lessons learnt from BTC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Down time storage/solutions required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Permitting issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Process residues still require disposal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative stand-by option required for downtime </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High CAPEX and OPEX </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disposal – Construct New Landfill to meet EU Landfill Directive requirements: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing landfill sites expressed interest in developing new improved facilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New landfill could provide a reliable long term solution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher landfill disposal prices will provide greater financial incentive to reduce volumes of waste sent to landfill </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Options for Non Hazardous Waste <ul><li>Disposal - Treat food waste in sewage treatment plant: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ACG Project workforce 10,000+ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All sites operate canteens </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing treatment plants do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional load </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial review of food waste volumes indicate capex costs high </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Treatment temperature not inline with EU animal by-products regulation requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recycling - Composting: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compliance with EU animal by products regulations requires technically advanced plant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compostable canteen waste only represents 20% by volume of the waste currently sent to landfill – partial fix </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Options for Non Hazardous Waste <ul><li>Key constraints: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government priority has been hazardous waste – World Bank funded Hazardous waste landfill </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensuring sustainability & minimising reliance on external support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of established in-country recycling facilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contrast in HSE standards – AIOC vs developing recycling industry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-metallic waste has little value – no landfill tax </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Punitive and complicated legislative system - waste legislation still evolving </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Plus the following generic constraints : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Economic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Options Selected <ul><li>Interim improvements to existing municipal landfill – particularly on control and monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>Continue to explore recycling/reuse options </li></ul><ul><li>Construct New Landfill compliant with best practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Detailed ITT developed for turnkey design, construct and operate contract to best practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Approach presented to Azerbaijan Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR), who expressed strong support for the initiative </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Interim Improvements at existing municipal landfill <ul><li>Site investigation completed of 3 new tipping areas within site boundary </li></ul><ul><li>An unused area adjacent to the previously used tipping face selected </li></ul><ul><li>Scope of improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Secure and upgrade site (basic civil engineering work) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Landscape improvement – grading and covering existing waste, improve access to tipping area </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improve fencing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Segregation of site into clearly identifiable working areas </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quarantine area established – mobile bunded skid mounted trays </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Day to Day operations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New offices and facilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Plant – bulldozer, back up generator </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Labour – Security 24hr, Supervisor, HSE office and labour </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ground water monitoring </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. Construction site based improvements <ul><li>Improved tracking in what goes into the general skip: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Waste acceptance criteria developed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Notification reporting improved, tracked and widely reported </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Name and shame’ contractors with poor segregation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional labelling of skips – do’s and don’ts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Site waste lists & waste register reported and verified on regular basis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Construction contractors created site waste teams to routinely check all skips </li></ul><ul><li>Construction site skip tracking, utilisation and placement tracked </li></ul><ul><li>Posters and awareness leaflets </li></ul><ul><li>Waste minimisation review completed and initiatives currently being developed </li></ul><ul><li>Waste awareness course provided to site teams – BP & construction contractors </li></ul>
  29. 29. New landfill <ul><li>Tender development; August September 2004; key issues : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical requirements for landfill design, construction and operation explicitly stated in ITT documentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bridging gap between </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Well developed and proven UK and EU legislation & planning process and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>National legislation & planning process whilst being sensitive to ITT audience </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Waste forecasting for the whole of the Azerbaijan Business Unit – multiple PSA’s and activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensuring cross Azerbaijan Business Unit buy-in and support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Competitive Tender was issued Mid October 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>A technically viable tender selected for design, construction and operation of landfill to EU standards and interim agreement issued end of February 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Construction and commissioning should be completed in 2 nd and 3 rd quarters operations starting in fourth quarter 2005 </li></ul>

×