This document discusses AMEC's use of route and site selection tools to support dynamic infrastructure projects. It describes AMEC's spatial analysis approach which involves using tools like cost distance analysis, path distance analysis, and map algebra to evaluate linear and point features based on weighted constraints. Typical data layers used include environmental, social, and infrastructure data. The document notes limitations of standard spatial analysis and calls for an integrated decision support tool driven by expert knowledge to provide scenario options rather than a single result. This would help manage risk and align decisions with project objectives.

1. AMEC’s application of route and site selection
tools within an expert knowledge driven
system supporting dynamic projects with
large footprints
Jeremy Hayden

2. AMEC
AMEC is a focused supplier of consultancy,
engineering and project management services
to its customers in the world's oil and gas,
minerals and metals, clean energy, environment
and infrastructure markets. With annual
revenues of some $5 billion, AMEC designs,
delivers and maintains strategic and complex
assets and employs over 27,000 people in
around 40 countries worldwide.

3. Route Selection –
Interesting Parallels?
Path finding in the gaming industry

4. Route Selection –
Spatial Analysis Approach
• Linear infrastructure
– Pipeline, Powerline, Road,
Rail
• Point A to Point B
(known)
• Constraints matrix
• Weightings and rankings
• Vector to raster
conversion
• Map algebra
• Cost distance/Path
distance tools
• 3 Dimensional
• No-go considerations
• Preferential locations
• Qualitative
considerations
• Site selection the same
but simpler

5. Route Selection –
Typical Data
• DCDB
• Stockroutes
• Tenements
• Existing infrastructure
• Social*
• Environmental
• Native Title boundaries
• Cultural Heritage sites**
• Geotechnical
• Elevation, Slope
• Towns, Cities, Places
• Homesteads, Schools,
Cemeteries, Sport Grounds
etc
• Roads, Rail, Powerlines
• Existing easements
• Regional Ecosystems or
equivalent
• Soils, Geology
• Land Use
*Very poor representation of true values

7. 3D World

8. Corridor Analysis

9. Cadastral Analysis

10. Go and No-go
• Handling highly preferential
• Handling no-go
• Analysis mask versus scoring it out of
contention
•

11. Final ‘Cost’ Surface

12. Summary Statistics
• 2D length
• 3D length
• Length overhead
• Area of corridor (100m)
• Number of bends
• Angles at bends
• River crossings
• Road crossings
• RE calcs based on 100m
corridor
• Number of active
parcels
• Tenure breakdown
• Visual Tools:
• Elevation profile
• 3D rendering

13. Route Revisioning

14. Real-life example – Rev A to Rev P
Spanning over 12 months
Route selection not static
Could a better initial route
analysis avoid some of this
revisioning?

15. Analysis Limitations
• Standard spatial analysis tools provide one result
• To assess result options one would first have to tackle
the ‘significant difference’ question
• Relativity of outputs – no quantification of the ‘cost’
value of an output
• Data voids – process falls prey to garbage in = garbage
out
• ‘Black box’ phenomenon and lack of confidence by
non-spatial users
• No-go areas as a processing mask – to be tested further
• Fine tuning within route analysis is difficult – generally
requiring post-analysis refinement and clean-up

16. Comments and
Client Feedback
• Cost distance and path distance tools are not new
• But if not as informed as possible by ‘expert knowledge’…
• Garbage in = garbage out
• Striving for a complete project-wide solution rather than
an isolated single output
• Clients like result options rather than one fixed result
• Respecting a ‘traditional’ approach
• Revisioning process – temporal dynamics
• Outcome should be in the form of a number of options
• It would be highly desirable if this could be interactive

17. Our Approach –
Integrated Decision Support Tool
 The best starting point (route or
site) possible
 Important to present options
 Customisable through varying
inputs, weightings and rankings
 Expert knowledge driven
 Ability to be interactive
 Summary statistics to be built
upon in future route revisioning
 Scalable
 Helps manage risk
 Aligns decisions with project
and corporate objectives
 Transparent and defensible
process for evaluating options
and informing decisions
 Protect proponents through
consultation process
 Improves on limitations of other
models

18. EVALUATION
PHYSICAL CRITERIA
Examples may include natural features such as rivers or inundation areas, existing infrastructure such as roads and railways.
PROPONENT CRITERIA
Examples may include proponent-owned property, preferred corridors, siting’s or go-no-go zones or corporate social responsibility
commitments.
STAKEHOLDER CRITERIA
Examples may include government regulatory boundaries, community values, special interest group values or other business values.
RISK ASSESSMENT
RATINGS & WEIGHTINGS
WORKSHOP
SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1
Purely cost considerations –
default design response
SCENARIO 3
Potential for large number
of scenarios
SCENARIO 2
Proposed design changes to prevent
high impact consequence risks

19. Closing Remarks
• Integrate into a decision support tool
• Build on expert knowledge
• Offer scenarios rather than a result