Page 1 of 116. Nord Stream Re-Issue for Client comments C. Zuliani A. Massoni D. Pettinelli. Document title

Transcription

1 Page 1 of Nord Stream 2 Oct 10, Re-Issue for Client comments C. Zuliani A. Massoni D. Pettinelli Rev. No. Date Description Prepared Checked Approved Date Approved Saipem Nord Stream 2 Document title OFFSHORE PIPELINE FREQUENCY OF INTERACTION - FINLAND Document Yes No Document Number W EN HSE POF REP EN 04 Pipeline Discipline Sub- (Department) Discipline Work Location Doc. Type Originator Id. Unifier Rev. No.

2 Sh. 2 of CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE Introduction Scope of this Document 5 2 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS Definitions Abbreviations 7 3 REFERENCES Codes & Standards Company Documents Contractor Documents Other Documents 8 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary and Conclusions Recommendations 12 5 METHODOLOGY General Sensitive sections with high ship traffic intensity Interaction frequency Geometric interaction probability Frequency of dragged anchors Frequency of dropped anchors Frequency of sinking Frequency of dropped objects Grounding interaction frequency Acceptance criteria 22 6 INPUT DATA Pipeline route and design data Environmental data Ship characteristics and anchor dragging lengths AIS ship traffic data 28

3 Sh. 3 of 6.6 Site specific incident data Critical areas for navigation 37 7 RESULTS Sections with high intensity ship traffic (>250 ship/km/year) Sinking scenario and dragged anchors scenario objects scenario Grounding scenario Total interaction frequency Comparison of route Alternatives (KP107 KP145) 53 8 REMARKS Base case Alternative KP107-KP TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX A SHIP TRAFFIC INPUT DATA APPENDIX B - SENSITIVE SECTIONS INTERACTION FREQUENCIES Base case Route Alternative KP107-KP REVISION RECORD 115

4 1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE 1.1 Introduction Sh. 4 of The Nord Stream 2 AG pipeline system (NSP2) comprises of two (2) 48 diameter subsea pipelines including onshore facilities. The lines shall extend from the Russian southern coast of the Gulf of Finland to the German coast in Greifswald area, through the Baltic Sea, with no spur lines or intermediate landfalls. The pipeline route will cover a distance of approximately 1200 to 1300 km, depending on final route selection. While routing through the Baltic Sea the pipelines are generally independent from the existing Nord Stream AG pipeline system (NSP1), but they do run in parallel to NSP1 lines for a substantial length. The pipeline route crosses the Territorial Waters (TW) of Russia, Denmark and Germany and runs within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. Figure 1.1 below gives an overview of the routing considered. Figure 1.1: Nord Stream 2 AG pipeline system overview The base case scenario is to install two pipelines, each with a target capacity of 27.5 GSm³/y at reference conditions of 20 C and 1 atm. Nominal capacity of the Nord Stream 2 AG pipeline system is dependent on final route definition and will be defined upon route selection.

5 1.2 Scope of this Document Sh. 5 of The engineering activities within the contract between Nord Stream 2 AG and SPF are split into two phases: Basic Design Detail Design This document is relevant to the Basic Design phase. Scope of this document is to evaluate the interaction frequency between the offshore pipeline and ship traffic related threats in the Finnish EEZ. The route analysed in this study, and referred to in the report as Base case, is: Line4_Z35-Z34_Base Case TSS approx. 374km. In UTM Z35 (from KP 107 to KP 147) the alternative route section identified as Line4_Z35_ALT-1_TSS is analysed. The route coordinates considered for the ship traffic data collection have been defined considering the centreline of the chosen base case and alternative 1 in UTM Z35 1.5km wide survey corridor. No ship traffic data has been collected for alternative 2 in UTM Z34 as based on the ship traffic densitiy (see Figure 10-9) in that section no major difference with respect to the base case is expected. The pipeline route has been meanwhile defined and corresponds to: BASE Case: Fin_Z35 Line A_27 and Fin_Z34 Line A_27 for Line A and similarly for Line B (ref. /C5/). Alternative in UTM Z35: Fin_Z35_Line A_27_ALT-1 Alternative in UTM Z34: Fin_Z34_Line A_27_ALT-2. Some differences can be observed between the route where ship traffic data have been collected and the consolidated route. These differences are deemed not critical in Z34, thus the ship traffic data collected along the Base case route are considered valid for the evaluation on the current route, thus no separate assessment has been performed. In Z35 such differences are expected to affect the results; therefore it is advisable to collect AIS data along the consolidated route and revise the analysis for the section from KP107 to KP145. The length of the pipeline section in the Finnish EEZ is approximately 374km. The battery limits of the Finnish EEZ are: At Russian side KP 0 At Swedish side KP approx Note: It is noted that KP0 corresponds to a progressive distance of approx. 114km from the pipeline at Russian shoreline. The following hazardous scenarios are investigated: objects from commercial vessels; anchors; Dragged anchors; Sinking ships;

6 Sh. 6 of Grounding ships. The possible interactions with fishing activities are outside the scope of this document and will be investigated in a dedicated document (ref. /C1/). The Interaction Scenario Frequency Assessment (ISFA) is performed in order to identify the most sensitive sections (i.e. areas with high ship traffic frequency crossing the pipeline) and evaluate the frequencies of the interaction scenarios to be used in the Pipeline Damage Assessment (PDA) (ref. /C3/) In the PDA the failure frequency of the sensitive sections will be evaluated and compared with the Risk Acceptance criteria. The quantitative risk analysis (QRA) (ref. /C4/) will be carried out to quantify the residual risks associated to the operational phase of NSP2 and verify if risk reducing measures are required based on Company risk tolerability criteria.

7 2 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2.1 Definitions Company: Nord Stream 2 AG Contractor: Saipem S.p.A. Sh. 7 of Nord Stream AG The Company operating NSP1 NSP1 Nord Stream 1 Pipeline system Nord Stream 2 AG The Company building NSP2 NSP2 Nord Stream 2 Pipeline system NSP2 A Nord Stream 2 Pipeline A NSP2 B Nord Stream 2 Pipeline B 2.2 Abbreviations AIS DNV GL DW EEZ GSm³/y ISFA KP MMSI NTC PDA P/L QRA SOW SPF TOP TSS TW UKC UTM WD Automatic identification system Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd Deep water Exclusive Economic Zone Gross registered tonnage Billion Standard Cubic Metres per Year Interaction scenario frequency assessment Kilometre Point Maritime mobile service identity Not in class Pipeline damage assessment Pipeline Quantitative risk assessment Scope of Work Saipem Fano Top of pipe Traffic separation scheme Territorial Waters Under keel clearance Universal transverse mercator Water Depth

8 Sh. 8 of 3 REFERENCES The reference documentation has been subdivided as follows: 1. Codes & Standards; 2. Company Documents; 3. Contractor Documents 4. Other Documents In case of conflict between the documents listed in this section, priority is given as per the above order. 3.1 Codes & Standards /A1/ /A2/ DNV OS-F , Submarine Pipeline Systems DNV RP-F , Risk assessment of pipeline protection 3.2 Company Documents /B1/ /B2/ /B3/ W-PE-HSE-PFI-DAS FIEN-01, Statistics for KPI and gates on ship traffic in Finland 2014 W-PE-HSE-PFI-DAS FIEN-02, Statistics for KPI and gates on ship traffic in Finland - Forecast W-PE-EIA-POF-REP EN-04, Ship traffic background report 3.3 Contractor Documents /C1/ W-EN-OFP-POF-REP EN, Pipe/Trawl Gear Interaction Study /C2/ W-EN-HSE-GEN-REP EN, Pipeline safety philosophy /C3/ W-EN-OFP-POF-REP EN, Offshore pipeline damage assessment Finland /C4/ W-EN-HSE-POF-REP EN, Offshore pipeline risk assessment Finland /C5/ W-EN-OFP-POF-DWG EN-03, Route maps Finland 3.4 Other Documents /D1/ COST 301 Final Report: Shore-Based Marine Navigation Aid Systems, June 1987, published by the Commission of the European Communities /D2/ All Serious Casualty Incidents Reported in , Report No. S506, Lloyd s Register /D3/ MARIS Database ( /D4/ G-OP-RSK-REP EN-A, Ramboll Ship traffic data 2014, /D5/ G-PE-PER-REP EN-A, Shipping Accidents Data 2012 and 2013, /D6/ G-GE-PIE-REP , Frequency of interaction report for Finnish area (Kalbadagrund reroute) /D7/ N-EN-PIE-REP-704-FSRISK02, Preliminary risk assessment of NEXT route /D8/ N-PE-EIA-DWG-705-GOFG00101, Combined routing contraints for CTR 3.4

9 Sh. 9 of /D9/ L. Vitali, F. Candiracci, C. Crea, R. Bruschi, W. Rott, Nord Stream Project - Pipeline Safety Against Ship Traffic Related Threats: Quantitative Risk Assessment Approach, ISOPE - The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, 2012 /D10/ HELCOM Map and Data Service, /D11/ N-PE-PER-DWG-705-MAP0SH01-00, NEXT Ship traffic density in the Baltic sea 2009

10 Sh. 10 of 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Summary and Conclusions In the present document ship traffic data collected by Ramboll (ref. /B1/) in the period from January to December 2014 along the pipeline route (base case) and the alternative section (KP107 KP145, UTM Z35) in the Finnish EEZ have been analysed. No ship traffic data has been collected for alternative 2 in UTM Z34 as based on the ship traffic densitiy (see Figure 10-9) in that section no major difference with respect to the base case is expected. Within the report the base case route along which ship traffic data have been collected (Line4_Z35-Z34_Base Case TSS) is referred as base case. This is however different from the base case route of the route maps (ref. /C5/). Based on these data the external interaction frequencies between the subsea pipeline and the commercial ship traffic have been evaluated. The study has been performed in order to identify the most sensitive sections (i.e. areas with high ship traffic intensity) and evaluate the frequencies of the interaction scenarios to be used in the Pipeline Damage Assessment (PDA) (ref. /C3/). The following hazardous scenarios have been investigated: sinking vessels; dragged anchors; dropped anchors; dropped objects from commercial vessels; grounding vessels. To take into account the ship traffic development in the next 10 years the interaction frequency analysis has been performed also considering the future ship traffic, in particular the number of ship crossings expected in The analysis has been performed based on the forecasted data processed and provided by Ramboll (ref. /B2/) Base case route (Line4_Z35-Z34_Base Case TSS) The main results for the base case route are hereafter summarized: the highest number of crossing per KP is 4727 ship/km/year at KP 24 (Table 11-3 red cell); nine sections with high intensity ship traffic are identified, namely: o S1 KP20 - KP34 o S2 KP46 - KP71 o S3 KP89 - KP98 o S4 KP110 - KP121 o S5 KP133 KP142 o S6 KP152 KP161 o S7 KP175 KP184 o S8 KP210 KP219 o S9 KP236 KP259; There are 5 sections, namely S3, S5, S6, S7, S8, where the total interaction frequency is Not negligible ( occ/section/year); thus pipeline damage assessment is required to evaluate the pipeline failure frequency. In particular:

11 Sh. 11 of o in sections 3 the main contribution is given by the dragged anchor scenario; o in section 5 to 8 the main contribution is given by the dropped object scenario; there are 4 sections, namely S1, S2, S4, S9, where the total interaction frequency is high (>10-4 occ/section/year); thus pipeline damage assessment is required to evaluate the pipeline failure frequency. In all these sections the main contribution is due to the dropped object scenario; at several KPs the overall interaction scenario frequency exceeds 1.0E-5 occ/km/year (see Table 7-9). The main results considering the future ship traffic along the base case route are hereafter summarized: the highest number of crossing per KP is 6672 ship/km/year at KP 24 (Table 11-3 red cell); another sensitive section is identified (KP190-KP199) in addition to the nine identified with the 2014 ship traffic data; for this new section the total interaction frequency is negligible (<10-5 occ/section/year); Section 3 to 5 and section 8 extend slightly more than what identified on the basis of 2014 data; the interaction frequency of section 3 becomes high ; the highest contributing factor is represented by the dropped objects scenario in all sections, including the new section, other than in section 3 where it is due to the dragged anchor scenario Alternative KP107 KP145 (Line4_Z35_ALT-1_TSS) The main results for the alternative section in UTM Z35 KP107-KP145 are hereafter summerized: Two sensitive sections are identified within the alternative section running from KP107 to KP145, namely: o S4 KP107 KP o S5 KP123 KP135; The total interaction frequency for S4 is not negligible, while for section 5 is high ; therefore pipeline damage assessment is required to evaluate the pipeline failure frequency; at some additional KPs the overall interaction scenario frequency exceeds 1.0E-5 occ/km/year (see Table 7-10). The main results considering the future ship traffic along the alternative route are hereafter summarized: section 4 and section 5 merge to form a longer sensitive section; the overall interaction frequency of S4 + S5 is high ; thus pipeline damage assessment is required to evaluate the pipeline failure frequency and identify protective measure, if required Comparison of base case and route alternative (KP107-KP145) The main results of the comparison of the base case and route alternative in the P/L segment from KP107 to KP145 are the following: 2014 data - for both base case route and alternative there are two sensitive sections where the overall interaction frequency is either not negligible or high,

12 Sh. 12 of thus PDA is required for both alternatives; overall the sensitive sections of the alternative route present a higher total interaction frequency; 2025 forecasted data - for the base case route the two sensitive sections get a bit longer and the overall interacation frequency of section 4 becomes high ; for the alternative route the two section merge to form a longer sensitive section with a total interaction frequency >10-4 occ/section/year. Based on the results of the interaction frequency assessment the base case route is slightly more favourable than the alternative in the analysed P/L segment. 4.2 Recommendations Pipeline damage assessment (PDA) (ref. /C3/) shall be performed to evaluate the pipeline failure probability for all sensitive sections identified. With regards to the section from KP 107 to KP 145, where the P/L crosses a primary sailing route for international traffic in the Baltic sea (route A), it is recommended to collect the ship traffic data on the currently selected base route and open alternatives and update the frequency of interaction analysis. As it can be observed from Figure 10-3 there are some differences between the route where ship traffic data have been collected and the consolidated route. Due to the very high ship traffic density in this region and the different crossing angle, results may be affected. The results obtained in this analysis (two sensitive sections with a high interaction frequency have been identified in this segment) confirm that this segment is critical. Results on the overall route shall be reviewed and revised, if necessary, at a later stage of the project on the basis of: Ship traffic data - once the pipeline route will be selected considerations shall be made to evaluate any major difference with respect to the pipeline corridor where ship traffic data have been collected. Even though the interaction frequency has been evaluated also considering the future ship traffic trend, it is recommended to: Update the analysis based on updated ship traffic data and accident trends during the detail design phase; Monitor the real trend of the ship traffic during the operational phase and perform detailed analysis in case of significant ship traffic increase; Monitor accident trends within the area during the operational phase and update accident frequencies, if required.

13 Sh. 13 of 5 METHODOLOGY 5.1 General The interaction frequency assessment evaluates the external interaction frequencies between the offshore pipelines and the hazardous scenarios due to ship traffic during the operational phase of the pipeline, in accordance with the guidance presented in DNV RP-F107 (ref. /A2/). The main hazards on the pipelines associated with marine ship traffic are: Anchoring (dropped and dragged); Sinking; Grounding; objects. The relevant considerations, which represent the basis of the assessment, are summarised below: hazardous scenarios deriving from anchoring operations are intended to represent emergency situations on board possibly inducing the vessel crew to drop the anchor in unplanned areas. These emergency situations are assumed to originate from a failure of propulsion machinery or a ship collision; reference objects (i.e. containers) lost from commercial vessels crossing the pipeline route can represent a contribution to the risk of pipeline damage. Lost containers scenario is applicable when pipeline sections are crossed by cargo vessels; sinking vessels scenario refers to the possibility of a ship sinking while crossing above the pipeline and is applicable to all pipeline sections; grounding vessels interaction will be investigated to cover two possible scenarios: o Traffic of ships crossing pipeline route with a draught comparable to the water depth. This scenario addresses the potential interference occurrence due to limited/marginal under keel clearance typical of the pipeline section crossing a shipping lane/channel. Actually, at these locations, the exposed pipeline could be an obstacle for the ship traffic. o Traffic of ships running parallel or across the pipeline route, within a certain hazardous distance, whose keel could interfere with the exposed pipeline due to uncontrolled ship drifting in case of ship steering failure. This scenario considers all the ships sailing in proximity of the pipeline route. The potential risk is associated to the event of these ships unintentionally brought to cross and interfere with the pipeline. The frequency of interaction of these loads with the pipeline depends on the intensity of the ship traffic across the pipeline whereas the damage depends on the interaction scenario. The methodology adopted to determine the interaction scenario frequency due to ship traffic related loads is based on the following steps: 1. Identification of pipeline sections with intense ship traffic;

14 Sh. 14 of 2. Interaction scenario frequency assessment (ISFA) for the identified sensitive sections. The workflow is indicated in Figure The basic frequency of an hazardous scenario (i.e. the interaction scenario frequency quantification) is assessed by means of site specific ship accident and incident data (ref. /D5/) and compared with incident literature data (ref. /D1/,/D2/), engineering judgment and experience on previous projects, (ref. /D6/). Forecasts on ship traffic intensity variations up to 2025 are also considered. Subsequently, the interaction frequency per pipeline kilometre is evaluated for each individual scenario (i.e. dropped and dragged anchors; dropped objects; sinking vessels; grounding ships) by means of an interaction model that takes into account the basic frequency of hazardous scenario and the geometric interaction probability (ref. /D9/). Finally, the total interaction scenario frequency for each sensitive section (event/section/year) is calculated and compared with the acceptance criteria reported in Table 5-1 of section The total interaction scenario frequency per km (event/km/year) is checked against the acceptance criteria reported in Table 5-2 of section Where the total interaction scenario frequency is larger than the acceptance criteria, Pipeline Damage Assessment (PDA) is strictly required at the identified pipeline section(s). The quantitative risk analysis (QRA) (ref. /C4/) will be carried out to quantify the residual risks associated to the operational phase of NSP2 and verify if risk reducing measures are required based on Company risk tolerability criteria. 5.2 Sensitive sections with high ship traffic intensity Sensitive sections are pipeline sections crossed by intense ship traffic. The identification of the location and length of the sensitive pipeline sections interested by intense ship traffic along the pipeline route is based on the following criteria: 1. A value of 250 ships/km/year,, is defined as a characteristic value. This value corresponds roughly to less than 1 ship/km/day and is considered as a target to distinguish between pipeline sections characterised by intense ship traffic and the other ones; 2. The number and associated length of pipeline sections are determined, where the ship traffic per km and per year exceeds the value all along the pipeline route. A preliminary section length is defined and is named L 0 ; 3. If the section L 0 has a length less than 10 km, this length is extended upstream and downstream along the section identified at Step 2 along the pipeline route, to reach the minimum length of 10 km. The critical section becomes L1. Sections larger than 10 km are kept; 4. Different sections which are adjacent or close (i.e. the distance between two sections is less than 5 km) have been merged. The sensitive section is named L section ; 5. For each sensitive section identified above, L section, the total interaction scenario frequency (event/section/year) due to dropped objects, dropped anchors,

15 Sh. 15 of dragged anchors, sinking ships and grounding ships is calculated and compared to the acceptance criteria reported in Table 5-1 of section 5.10; 6. For each sensitive section identified above, L section, where the total interaction scenario frequency exceeds the acceptance criteria, in the PDA (ref. /C3/) the total pipeline failure probability (failure/section/year) due to the overall interaction mechanisms is calculated, by integration of the total pipeline failure probability (failure/km/year) along the sensitive section length; 7. In the PDA (ref. /C3/) for each critical section, the total pipeline failure probability is compared to the target failure rate, taken equal to 10-4 failure/section/year for Safety Class Normal, in accordance to DNV OS-F101 (ref. /A1/) and to project specifications (ref. /C2/); 8. In the QRA (ref. /C4/) for each critical section identified above, L section, the total release frequencies due to overall potential failure causes and the risk for human safety are calculated and compared to the risk tolerability criteria reported in /C2/. 5.3 Interaction frequency The interaction frequency per KP for each individual scenario (i.e. dropped and dragged anchors; dropped objects; sinking vessels) is evaluated by means of the following formula: occ F km* yr n j 1 (1 (1 P N j sc, j * P2, j) ) Eq. (1) where: j n P sc,j : P 2,j : N j : is the j-th ship class/object type. is the ship classes/object type number: n is equal to 6 for all scenarios, except for the dropped objects scenario, where n is equal 2. is the probability that the ship casualty can cause an interaction with the pipeline. In particular, the P sc,j is obtained multiplying the Scenario Frequency (F sc,j ) calculated for every j-th ship class/object type (see sections 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8) for the Shipping Lane Length (L Lane ). is the probability that a ship/object is in the critical area (geometric interaction probability). The P2,j is a function of the ship/object dimensions, which have been defined for every j-th ship class/object type (see section 5.4) is the number of ship/object crossing per KP and per j-th ship class/object type. The above formula is applicable for P sc,j << Geometric interaction probability The geometric interaction probability will be evaluated by means of the ratio between two areas, the interaction area and the total area.

16 Sh. 16 of It should be noted that, for the evaluation the interaction area and the total area, two different interaction models (defined as crossing and parallel model) may be applied on the basis of interaction angle ( ) between the object/ship and pipeline. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the critical angle ( model. The crit ) in order to apply the correct depends on the ratio between object/ship width and length. These dimensions are defined for each ship/object type; therefore crit class/object type, as reported in the following formula: crit has to be referred to each j-th ship crit S, j arctan S W, j L, j Eq. (2) If the interaction angle ( ) per KP is higher than the the crossing model will be crit, j used, otherwise the parallel model will be applied Interaction models The parameters used for the crossing and parallel model are the following: L L Lane D S L,J S W,J Length of pipe section to be considered; Length of the shipping lane (assumed equal to 50 km) Pipe diameter Length of object/ship defined for each ship class Width of object/ship defined for each ship class It should be remarked that the interaction area (A) and the total area (T) will be calculated for each ship class/object type. The interaction area or critical corridor is the area where, in case of accident, interaction with the pipeline may occur. It is defined equal to pipeline diameter plus two times the object dimension Crossing model Referring to the Figure 5-1 the total area T and the interaction area A are calculated respectively by Eq. 3 and Eq. 4. T j L* L *sin( ) Lane Eq. (3) A 2 * S, *sin( ) D L j L j * Eq. (4)

17 Sh. 17 of D θ L Lane Total area L Figure 5-1: Crossing model Interaction area Therefore the geometric interaction probability for each ship class is given by Eq. 5. P 2, j A T j j Eq. (5) Parallel model Referring to the Figure 5-2 the total area T and the interaction area A are given respectively by Eq. 5 and Eq. 6. T j L 2* S Lane * W, j D L *sin( ) cos( ) Eq. (6) A j L cos( ) * 2* S * W, j D cos( ) Eq. (7)

18 Sh. 18 of L Lane D θ L Total area Interaction area Figure 5-2: Parallel model Therefore the geometric interaction probability for each ship class is given by Eq. 8. P 2, j A T j j Eq. (8) 5.5 Frequency of dragged anchors The frequency of dragged anchors has been evaluated by means of the following equation taking into account emergency anchoring only: Fcoll * P Fmf Fsf Fother * P P anchcoll anchother drag anchoring Fdrag occ sh* nm * Eq. (9) Where: F drag F coll F mf F sf F other P anch/coll P anch/other P drag/anchoring is the frequency of dragged anchors (occ/sh/nm). is the frequency of collision (occ/sh/nm). is the frequency of machinery failure (occ/sh/nm). is the frequency of steering failures (occ/sh/nm). is the frequency of other emergencies such as storm or ice damage, fire etc (occ/sh/nm). is the anchoring probability given collision. is the anchoring probability given an emergency situation different from collision. is the probability of having a dragged anchor scenario with significant dragging length in case of emergency anchoring.

19 Sh. 19 of The contribution of accidentally dragged anchors has been considered negligible in respect to the emergency anchoring one (1-2% indicatively). For dragged anchors scenarios, only the ships which cross the pipeline an angle larger than 30 have been considered since the hooking scenario is very unlikely for the ship which cross the pipeline with an angle lower than 30. The frequencies of F coll, F other and F mf are given in Table 6-12 of section 6.6. The value of F sf has been assumed equal to F mf. In the absence of specific literature data, engineering judgement has been applied to define realistic figures for P anch/coll (i.e. 0.1) and P drag/anchoring (i.e. 0.5). The P anch/other (anchoring probability given an emergency situation different from collision) has been evaluated by means of the following fault trees, considering the hereafter events/actions : The weather will influence captain actions and ships sail (both aberrant or not); The captain attempt to come to an anchoring zone; If the anchoring zone is reached, no interaction between anchoring scenario and NSP2 pipeline will occur since pipeline route avoids anchoring zones ; If it is not possible to come to an anchoring zone, the captain can attempt to repair the failure without anchoring if no ship or obstacles are encountered on course; If obstacles or ship are encountered, captain will put in place other emergency actions before doing an emergency anchoring. In particular P anch/other has been evaluated considering: The presence of critical areas for navigation (where the other emergency measures carried out before anchoring are less likely to be effective). The presence of rocky seabed/outcrops. The identification of the pipeline KPs, which fall into critical areas for navigation, and the associated seabed characterization are reported in section 6.7. In the absence of specific literature data, the same values used in the Nord Stream 1 project (NSP1), based on Contractor s experience, have been used to define fault trees figures.

20 Sh. 20 of OPEN AREA good weather successfull Ships or other emergency come to obstacles on action successfull anchoring zone collision course (steering) 0.6 / MACHINERY OR STEERING FAILURE (Fmf or Fsf) / Panch / / 0.4 / Panch / Panch/other Figure 5-3: Emergency anchoring due to machinery or steering failure - Open area RESTRICTED AREA - ROCKY SEABED good weather successfull Ships or other emergency come to obstacles on action successfull anchoring zone collision course (steering) 0.5 / MACHINERY OR STEERING FAILURE (Fmf or Fsf) / Panch / / / Panch Figure 5-4: Emergency anchoring due to machinery or steering failure Restricted area with rocky seabed / Panch/other

21 Sh. 21 of RESTRICTED AREA - NON ROCKY SEABED good weather successfull Ships or other emergency come to obstacles on action successfull anchoring zone collision course (steering) 0.5 / MACHINERY OR STEERING FAILURE (Fmf or Fsf) / Panch / / 0.1 / Panch / Panch/other Figure 5-5: Emergency anchoring due to machinery failure or steering failure Restricted area with non-rocky seabed Therefore, the calculated values of P anch/other are: For Open area, For Restricted area with rocky seabed, For Restricted area with non-rocky seabed. The dragged anchors scenario is considered only for interaction angle (Θ) > 30, thus only the crossing interaction model will be applied. Referring to Figure 5-1 the geometric interaction probability will be evaluated by means of the ratio between the interaction area and the total area, where in the interaction area the term S L,J is substituted by DL j - Dragging length defined for each ship class (see Table 6-4). 5.6 Frequency of dropped anchors The frequency of dropped anchors scenario (F drop ) has been evaluated taking into account emergency anchoring only. Therefore, this value is two times the value of dragged anchors frequencies (F drrag ), obtained assuming that 50% of emergency anchoring scenario results in a dragged anchor scenario. 5.7 Frequency of sinking The sinking frequency, considering the pipeline routing and nearby bathymetry, has been evaluated based on the following equation: occ sh* nm F sin k Fsin k / coll * Psink / coll Fsink / other * Psink / other Eq. (10)

22 Sh. 22 of Where: F sink F sink/coll F sink/other P sink/coll P sink/other is the frequency of ship sinking (occ/sh/nm) is the overall sinking frequency due to collision (occ/sh/nm) is the overall sinking frequency due to a situation different from collision (occ/sh/nm) is the sinking probability above/near the ship lane given a collision is the sinking probability above/near the ship lane given a situation different from collision. The values of F sink/coll and F sink/other have been taken identical to the ones used in the Nord Stream Project. F sink/coll = 35% of the sinking rates of Table 6-12 F sink/other = 65% of the sinking rates of Table 6-12 Similarly, the P sink/coll and P sink/other have been taken identical to the ones used in the Nord Stream Project. P sink/coll = 0.3 P sink/other = 0.1 Figures for sinking rates in open waters (i.e. where NSP2 pipelines run) are reported in Table Frequency of dropped objects Statistical data relevant to dropped object (i.e. containers) events in the Baltic Sea has been derived from available data relevant to the Danish sector. The expected incident frequency, applied by Contractor during NSP1 project and NEXT feasibility phase (ref. /D6/) used also in this study is 1.45E-06 occ/ship/nm. In this assessment it has been conservatively assumed that all cargo vessels crossing pipeline transport 40ft containers. This is the maximum container size. 5.9 Grounding interaction frequency In the Finnish EEZ the water depth is always >42m (see Figure 10-2). Therefore no grounding interaction is deemed possible Acceptance criteria In this analysis, the interaction scenario frequency for each individual scenario is evaluated and reported as follow:

23 Sh. 23 of Interaction Frequency for Objects as a function of KP, Frequency of n object Dro Obj dropped objects per year and per km, i 1 Interaction Frequency for Anchors as a function of KP, Frequency of F i ( KP) n anchor Dro Anc dropped anchors per year and per km, Interaction Frequency for Dragged Anchors as a function of KP, Frequency of j 1 F j ( KP) n anchor Dra Anc dragged anchors per year and per km, Interaction Frequency for Sinking Ships as a function of KP, Frequency of sinking j ships per year and per km, j 1 n ship Sin Shi F j ( KP 1 ) F j ( KP) Overall Interaction Frequencies as a function of KP, F Overall, Overall Interaction Frequencies per section Section F Overall, KP) km( n object n anchor Dro Obj Dro Anc Dra Anc F Overall, km( KP) Fj ( KP) Fi ( KP) Fi ( KP) L j 1 n-ship Sink Shi F i i 1 Sectio n ( KP) FOverall, Section FOverall,km( KP) d( KP) 0 i 1 n-anchor i 1 Eq. (11) Eq. (12) where: F Overall, km( KP) is the Overall Interaction Scenario Frequency as a function of KP. The Total Interaction Scenario Frequency is given in occurrence per year and per km; F is the Overall Interaction Scenario Frequency at the Overall,Section considered section. The Total Interaction Scenario Frequency is given in occurrence per section and per year; L Section is the length of the analysed pipeline section, taken tentatively equal to 10 km i.e. the typical width of the shipping lanes crossed the pipeline route. The methodology used to calculate the pipeline section length along the pipeline route is reported in section 5.2; n-object is the number for dropped objects type, assumed conservatively equal to, i.e. 40ft containers;

24 Sh. 24 of n-anchor n-ship is the number for dropped and dragged anchors type, assumed equal to 6 i.e. six different types of anchors, one of each ship class; is the number of ship classes, assumed equal to 6 i.e. six different ship classes; The overall interaction frequencies have been calculated at sections characterized by intense ship traffic (i.e. 250 ships/km/year). The interaction scenarios frequencies will be used in order to evaluate the pipelines failure frequency due to 3 rd party interaction (evaluated in the PDA, ref. /C3/). This failure frequency shall be compared with the DNV target values. According to DNV OS-F101 (ref. /A1/) the acceptance criteria for the failure probability is calculated per pipeline and also per km of pipeline. As agreed for NSP1, in case of a very long pipeline the annual target probability of failure suggested in DNV-OS-F101 (ref. /A1/) for accidental loads per pipeline can be interpreted as per pipeline section where intense ship traffic is present. On this matter a concession (no. 5) was granted by DNV and the same approach is followed. As detailed in ref. /C2/, the acceptance criteria per sensitive section and per km reported in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 respectively are proposed. Depending on the safety class the interaction frequency can be: Negligible: no further action is required; t negligible: alternatives to reduce risk will be investigated on the basis of engineering judgment or pipeline damage assessment; High: PDA is required for the section and alternatives to reduce risk shall be identified. Safety class Overall interaction scenario frequency (event/section/year) NEGLIGIBLE NOT NEGLIGIBLE HIGH Medium < >10-4 High < >10-5 Very high < >10-6 Table 5-1: Acceptance criteria for interaction scenario frequency per section Safety class Overall interaction frequency (event/km/year) HIGH Medium >10-5 High >10-6 Very high >10-7 Table 5-2: Acceptance criteria for interaction scenario frequency per km The failure frequency is always equal or less than the interaction frequency, therefore if the interaction frequency is lower than the target value, no protection measures are required. Instead if the interaction frequency is higher than the target failure frequency the Pipeline Damage Assessment shall be performed in order to evaluate the pipeline failure frequency. In any case, the quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is carried out to evaluate whether the overall risk can be accepted based on selected risk acceptance criteria.

25 Sh. 25 of 6 INPUT DATA 6.1 Pipeline route and design data The base case route and the alternative 1 investigated for the purpose of this analysis in the Finnish sector are: BASE CASE: Line4_Z35-34_Base Case_TSS approx. 374km ALT-1: Line4_Z35_ALT-1_TSS from KP 107 to KP 145. The East and North coordinates of the route considered for the ship traffic data collection are represented in Figure 6-1. No ship traffic data has been collected for alternative 2 in UTM Z34 as based on the ship traffic densitiy (see Figure 10-9) in that section no major difference with respect to the base case is expected. Meanwhile the pipeline route has been consolidated and corresponds to: BASE Case: Fin_Z35 Line A_27 and Fin_Z34 Line A_27 for Line A and similarly for Line B (ref. /C5/) Alt-1 in UTM Z35: Fin_Z35_Line A_27_ALT-1 (ref. /C5/) Alt-2 in UTM Z34: Fin_Z34_Lina A_27_ALT-2 (ref. /C5/). The East and North coordinates of the above mentioned routes in comparison with the coordinates used for the data collection are represented in Figure 10-3 for UTM zone Z35 and in Figure 10-4 for UTM zone Z34. As it can be observed in UTM Z34 differences between the ALT-2 and the route where ship traffic data have been collected are minimal. Differences with respect to the consolidated route (Fin_Z34_Line A_27) are more evident, however in this region the ship traffic is not intense (see Figure 10-9), thus the ship traffic data collected along the preliminary base case route are considered sufficient for this evaluation. On the other hand, in UTM Z35 there are differences between the coordinates where ship traffic data have been collected and the consolidated route are more significant, in particular between KP107 and KP145. In correspondence of this section, the P/L crosses route A which is the primary sailing route for international traffic through the Baltic sea (see Figure 10-8); thus it is advisable to collect the ship traffic data on the consolidated route, once available, and update the frequency of interaction analysis.

26 Sh. 26 of North Pipeline route - Finland Figure 6-1: Base case, ALT-1 and GATE in Finnish EEZ For the purpose of this study, KP 0 indicates the of the Finnish section at the Russian border. 6.2 Environmental data Base Case GATE ALT Bathymetry The seabed profile considered for the assessment is the one reported in Figure Ship characteristics and anchor dragging lengths The relevant ship characteristics and anchors dragging lengths used in this study are reported in the following tables. Ship class Ship Avg. Length Avg. Width Avg. Speed Draft (m) class (m) (m) (knots) , ,600 10, ,000 60, , , >100, Table 6-1: Reference vessel parameters. East

27 Sh. 27 of Ship class Ship class Mass (kg) Length (m) Width (m) Height (m) , ,600 10, ,000 60, , , >100, Table 6-2: Reference anchor parameters. Container size Height (m) Width (m) Length (m) Maximum total mass (kg) 20 ft ft Table 6-3: Typical container dimensions. Ship class Dragging length (m) Table 6-4: Assumed anchor dragging lengths.

28 Sh. 28 of 6.5 AIS ship traffic data Ship crossing per KP The list of identified crossings per kilometre point is reported in the Ramboll data (ref. /B1/). The number of crossings per KP per year has been computed using the full AIS data for the period from January to December In order to obtain the ship crossings for each KP along the pipeline, the pipeline is divided into linear segments of 1km. The segment from KP x 1 to KP x will be used to calculate the crossings for KP x (e.g. the ships crossing the line spanned by KP 30 and KP 31 will represent the number of crossings for KP 31). Using the dynamic ship data (location coordinates) it can be determined if a ship crosses the pipeline by assuming that the ship sails linear between two successive locations. The pipeline crossing is then defined as the intersection between the two lines spanned by the KP s and the ship coordinates. Based on AIS data from the Baltic Sea, a total of vessels per year (with reference to Base case route) were found to cross the pipeline route in the considered section of the pipeline that runs in Finnish EEZ (i.e. 374 km of length). Since the NSP2 design life is 50 years, it is necessary to provide forecast on the future ship traffic. The relevant data made available by Ramboll (ref. /B2/) include the future ship traffic until the year The interaction scenario frequency has been evaluated also based on these forecasts. However it is recommended to perform detailed analysis during the operational phase of the system to evaluate the real trend of the ship traffic Crossing angle Using the information gathered for each crossing, the angle θ, relative to the line spanned by KP x-1 and KP x, is computed for each crossing. The relative crossing angle θ is illustrated in Figure 6-2.

29 Sh. 29 of Figure 6-2: The crossing angle definition For each KP the distribution of crossing angles will be given in 10 degrees intervals ranging from 0 to 90 degrees resulting in the 9 intervals shown in Table 6-5. Interval Relative crossing angle < < < < < < < < 90 Table 6-5: Intervals related to the crossing angle distribution The crossing angle distribution and mean crossing angle are given for each KP AIS ship traffic data In accordance with sections and 6.5.2, the AIS ship traffic data have been collected for each pipeline KP (for more details refer to APPENDIX A). In particular the traffic data provided include the followings: Total merchant ship traffic crossing each pipeline KP per year; Number of ships of each category crossing each pipeline KP per year; Number of cargo vessels crossing each pipeline KP per year; Ship type distribution; Mean crossing angle.

30 Sh. 30 of The ship traffic crossing the pipeline in the Finnish EEZ is shown in the following plots. Ship type 'Base Case' Cargo Tanker Fishing vessel Other 25% 1% 50% 24% Figure 6-3: Ship type distribution percentage Base Case Route

31 Sh. 31 of ship/km/year Ship traffic 'Base case' KP Class 6 Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1 Figure 6-4: Ship class distribution per KP Base Case Route 3500 Cargo 'Base case' ship/km/year Figure 6-5: Cargo crossing distribution per KP Base Case Route KP

32 Sh. 32 of ship/km/year Crossing angle <30 > Figure 6-6: Crossing angle distribution per KP Base Case Route KP 4000 Total traffic comparison KP107-KP145 ship/km/year KP Base case Alt-1 Figure 6-7: Comparison of total ship crossings for base case and Alt-1

33 Sh. 33 of AIS ship traffic data Forecast 2025 The ship traffic forecast for 2025 (see ref./b2/) is analysed to estimate the developments in the Baltic sea ship traffic from 2014 to Two trends are analysed: Development in the total number of ships and class distribution; Development in the type of ships. From the analysis, it follows that: The overall traffic is expected to increase by 38% according to the distribution indicated in Figure 6-8. The largest increase is observed for the traffic of class 2, 3 and 6 vessels (40-50%); no significant changes in the class distribution are observed; The cargo traffic is expected to increase by 61% while the number of tankers movements is expected to decrease by 4%. Ship traffic increase Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 53% 17% 46% 26% 39% 41% Figure 6-8: Ship traffic increase for each ship class Year Vessels Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class % 3% 33% 56% 1% 0% % 4% 33% 56% 1% 0% Table 6-6: Percentage distribution per ship class over the total

34 Sh. 34 of AIS ship traffic at GATE In order to characterise the ship traffic along main shipping lane in UTM zone Z35, ship traffic data have been collected along a specific path identified as GATE in Figure 6-1. The gate is 60km long and intersects the P/L at approx. KP 141. Info relative to the annual ship traffic crossing the gate are reported in Table 6-7 and Table 6-8. Ship class distribution per ship class is shown in Figure 6-9. Figure 6-10 shows the ship class distribution along the gate. On the basis of the forecasted data for 2025, the overall ship traffic increase registered at the gate is 37%. Ship class Annual total No. of crossings at gate Class Class Class Class Class Class Class NIC 0 Total Table 6-7: Annual crossings at gate per ship class Ship type No. of crossings at gate/year Cargo Tanker 9153 Fishing vessel 991 Other 6880 Total Table 6-8: Annual crossing at gate per ship type

35 Sh. 35 of Ship traffic GATE Z Ship frequency (ship/year) Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Figure 6-9: Ship traffic distribution at Gate per ship class 700 Ship traffic at GATE 600 ship/100m/year Class 6 Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1 Class Progressive (100 m) Figure 6-10: Ship class distribution per progressive (m) at Gate

36 Sh. 36 of 6.6 Site specific incident data The incident frequencies split by ship classes used for the NSP1 project (ref. /D6/) are reported in Table 6-9. These values were obtained from MARIS database (ref. /D3/). This database reports accidents occurred in the Baltic Sea together with a number of information (e.g. date, country, name of involved ship, etc.) and classifies into different categories (collision, sinking, technical failure and other causes). The information of this database have been transferred into the HELCOM map and data service in Accidents recorded in the Baltic sea in have been extracted from the HELCOM map and data service (ref. /D10/) and provided by Ramboll in a dedicated report (ref. /D5/). These accidents have been used to update the accident frequencies in each region. Incident frequencies are expressed as event per ship per nautical mile. Ship Class Occurrence Frequencies (event/ship/nm) Sinking Collision Other Machinery failure E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-07 Table 6-9: Accident frequencies split by ship classes for the Finnish EEZ The number of marine accidents recorded in classified by type is reported in Table Type of Accident n of Accident Collision 7 Other 6 Table 6-10: Marine accidents registered in the Finnish region in (ref. /D5/) According to ref. /D4/, the AIS data have been analysed to yield the total number of nautical miles travelled by vessels per year in the Finnish EEZ. Finnish EEZ (2014): nm Considering the number of travelled nautical miles per year in the Finnish EEZ and the number of registered accidents in the mean accident frequencies have been reassessed. No occurrence has been registered for sinking and machinery failure accidents. Thus the same accident frequencies used for the NSP1 project have been used in this analysis. Type of Accident Accident frequency [event/sh/nm] Collision 1.38E-07 Other 1.18E-07 Table 6-11: Mean updated accident frequency in the Finnish EEZ

37 Sh. 37 of The updated mean value can be split per ship classes according to literature data distribution. Summarising, the accident frequencies split by ship classes used in this analysis are shown in Table Ship Class Occurrence Frequencies (event/sh/nm) Sinking Collision Other Machinery failure E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-07 Table 6-12: Updated accident frequencies split by ship classes in the Finnish region 6.7 Critical areas for navigation The critical areas for navigation and constraints in the UTM zone 35 and UTM zone 34, in Finnish EEZ, are shown in Figure As it can be observed there are three sections where the P/L crosses TSS in Finnish waters. These three zones are in correspondence of: RA1:TSS Off Kalbådagrund Lighthouse: KP35-KP47 RA2: TSS Off Porkkala Lighthouse,: KP110-KP130 RA3: TSS Off Hankoniemi Peninsula: KP222-KP235. The critical areas for navigation have been analysed in order to evaluate the dragged anchors frequency. It is expected that the casualties rates and in particular the emergency anchoring rate in these regions will be higher with respect to the remaining part of the route in the Finnish area. However in presence of a rocky seabed the vessel master may be more reluctant to drop the anchor for the risk of loosing it. Thus for these sections the dragged anchor scenario frequency is calculated by means of Eq. 9 and Figure 5-5 or Figure 5-4 depending on the soil type (rocky or non-rocky). The type of seabed for each area is specified in Table 6-13.

38 Sh. 38 of Risk area 1 2 From Event tree for To KP Main type of soil KP anchoring Well stratified clay Figure Chaotic hard sediments Figure Well stratified clay Figure Very soft clay Figure Hardground outcrop Figure Well stratified clay/very soft clay Figure Well stratified clay/very soft clay Figure 5-5 Table 6-13: Type of seabed inside critical areas

39 Agreement PO Sh. 39 of RA2: Off Porkkala Lighthouse TSS RA1: Off Kalbådagrund Lighthouse TSS Nord Stream 2 corridor RA3: Off Hankoniemi Peninsula TSS Nord Stream 1 Figure 6-11: Critical areas for navigation (ref. /D8/)

40 Agreement PO Sh. 40 of 7 RESULTS 7.1 Sections with high intensity ship traffic (>250 ship/km/year) For the Base case route nine sections with high intensity ship traffic are identified (Table 9-1). Details are reported in Table 9-2 and Table 9-3. Location of the sensitive sections along the route is shown in Figure The maximum number of crossings is 4726 ship/km/year and occurs at KP 24. For the alternative option (KP107-KP145) slightly different sections are identified. Details are reported in Table 9-4 andtable 9-5. The following paragraphs report the calculated interaction frequencies in these P/L sections for all scenarios. Details of the interaction frequency per km for all sensitive sections are reported in Appendix B Overall interaction frequency at sensitive sections Base case route The overall interaction frequency (event/section/year) has been calculated for the sensitive sections. For the base case route results are reported in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 together with the contributions of each interaction scenario. The highest contributing factor is represented by dropped objects in all sections, other than section 3 where the dragged anchor scenario is the most significant. The highest interaction frequency is registered at section 2. Base case Route Interaction Scenario Frequencies (event/section/year) at the Sections with High Ship traffic Frequency (>250 ships/km/year) Section ID From KP To KP Grounding Objects Anchors Dragged Anchors Sinking Ships Total [#] [km] [km] [event/section/year] E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table 7-1: Interaction scenario frequencies at sensitive sections Base case Route

41 Sh. 41 of Base case Route Interaction Scenario Frequencies (event/section/year) at the Sections with High Ship traffic Frequency (>250 ships/km/year) Section ID From KP To KP Grounding Objects Anchors Dragged Anchors [#] [km] [km] Contributing factors to overall frequency Sinking Ships % 76% 0.4% 23% 0.5% % 83% 0.6% 16% 0.4% % 22% 1.2% 75% 1.7% % 97% 0.8% 2% 0.3% % 93% 0.7% 6% 0.4% % 97% 0.8% 2% 0.3% % 72% 0.6% 27% 0.6% % 80% 0.4% 19% 0.6% % 97% 0.9% 2% 0.3% Table 7-2: Contributing factors to overall frequency of interaction Base case Route Alternative (KP107 - KP145) The overall interaction frequency (event/section/year) has been calculated for the two sensitive sections along the alternative route segment (KP107-KP145). Results are reported in Table 7-3 and Table 7-2 together with the contributions of each interaction scenario. The highest contributing factor is represented by dropped objects in both sections. The highest interaction frequency is registered at section 5. Alternative Section (KP107-KP145) Interaction Scenario Frequencies (event/section/year) at the Sections with High Ship traffic Frequency (>250 ships/km/year) Section ID From KP To KP Grounding Objects Anchors Dragged Anchors Sinking Ships Total [#] [km] [km] [event/section/year] E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table 7-3: Interaction scenario frequencies at sensitive sections Alternative section (KP107-KP145)

42 Sh. 42 of Alternative Section (KP107-KP145) Interaction Scenario Frequencies (event/section/year) at the Sections with High Ship traffic Frequency (>250 ships/km/year) Section ID From KP To KP Grounding Objects Anchors Dragged Anchors [#] [km] [km] Contributing factors to overall frequency Sinking Ships % 96% 1.5% 2% 0.3% % 75% 0.8% 23% 0.4% Table 7-4: Contributing factors to overall frequency of interaction Alternative section (KP107-KP145) Overall interaction frequencies at sensitive sections Forecast Base case route The overall interaction frequency (event/section/year) has been calculated for the sensitive sections using the forecasted data for Results for the base case route are reported in Table 7-5 and Table 7-6. Table 7-7 reports the forecasted percentage increase of the interaction frequencies in 2025 with respect to the calculated ones based on 2014 ship traffic. With respect to results reported in Table 7-1, the main findings are: one new sensitive section is identified (KP190-KP199); the total interaction frequency is lower than 1.0E-05 event/section/year; Section 3 to 5 and section 8 extend slightly more than what identified on the basis of 2014 data; the interaction frequency of section 3 becomes high ; the highest contributing factor is represented by the dropped objects scenario in all sections, including the new section, other than in section 3 where it is due to the dragged anchor scenario.

43 Sh. 43 of Base case route Interaction Scenario Frequencies (event/section/year) at the Sections with High Ship traffic Frequency (>250 ships/km/year) Section ID From KP To KP Grounding Objects Anchors Dragged Anchors Sinking Ships Total [#] [km] [km] [event/section/year] E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-05 NEW E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table 7-5: Interaction scenario frequencies at sensitive sections Base case Route Forecast 2025 Base case route Interaction Scenario Frequencies (event/section/year) at the Sections with High Ship traffic Frequency (>250 ships/km/year) Section ID From KP To KP Grounding Objects Anchors Dragged Anchors Sinking Ships [#] [km] [km] Contributing factors to overall frequency % 79% 0.4% 20% 0.5% % 86% 0.5% 13% 0.3% % 30% 1.1% 67% 1.4% % 97% 0.7% 2% 0.2% % 95% 0.6% 4% 0.5% % 97% 0.8% 2% 0.3% % 74% 0.6% 25% 0.6% NEW % 81% 2.9% 14% 1.9% % 77% 0.5% 22% 0.6% % 97% 0.8% 2% 0.3% Table 7-6: Contributing factors to overall frequency of interaction Base case Route Forecast 2025

44 Sh. 44 of Route R Interaction Scenario Frequencies percentage increase with respect to 2014 Section ID From KP To KP Grounding Objects Anchors Dragged Anchors Sinking Ships Total [#] [km] [km] % % 38% 34% 43% 54% % 43% 26% 30% 56% % 50% 47% 34% 65% % 52% 96% 59% 77% % 77% 42% 137% 96% % 43% 39% 34% 61% % 47% 45% 37% 57% % 102% 109% 90% 84% % 36% 38% 35% 60% Table 7-7: Interaction frequencies percentage increase 2025 forecast with respect to 2014 Base case route Alternative (KP107-KP145) The overall interaction frequency (event/section/year) has been calculated for the sensitive sections using the forecasted data for Results are reported in Table 7-8. With respect to results reported in Table 7-3, the main findings are: Section 4 and 5 merge to form one longer sensitive section (36km); the interaction frequency of this merged sensitive section is higher than 1.0E-04 event/section/year; the highest contributing factor is represented by the dropped objects scenario. Alternative Section (KP107-KP145) Interaction Scenario Frequencies (event/section/year) at the Sections with High Ship traffic Frequency (>250 ships/km/year) Section ID From KP To KP Grounding Objects Anchors Dragged Anchors Sinking Ships Total [#] [km] [km] [event/section/year] E E E E E E-04 Table 7-8: Interaction scenario frequencies at sensitive sections Alternative section (KP107-KP145)

45 Sh. 45 of 7.2 Sinking scenario The interaction frequency per KP due to sinking scenario has been evaluated by means of equations described in section 5.7 and reported in Figure 7-1 for the base case route and Figure 7-2 for the alternative. The plot represents the overall interaction frequency and the contribution of the different ship categories. In correspondence of KP127-KP133, the alternative route presents a higher interaction frequency compared to the base case route. Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 4,5E-07 4,0E-07 3,5E-07 3,0E-07 2,5E-07 2,0E-07 1,5E-07 1,0E-07 5,0E-08 0,0E+00 Sinking - Base case Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Figure 7-1: Interaction frequency per KP due to sinking vessels Base case KP

46 Sh. 46 of Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 4,5E-07 4,0E-07 3,5E-07 3,0E-07 2,5E-07 2,0E-07 1,5E-07 1,0E-07 5,0E-08 0,0E+00 Sinking Alternative KP107-KP Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Figure 7-2: Interaction frequency per KP due to sinking vessels Alternaative KP KP 7.3 and dragged anchors scenario The interaction frequency per KP due to dropped and dragged anchors has been evaluated by means of equations described in section 5.5 and 5.6 and is reported in Figure 7-3 to Figure 7-6. The plots represent the overall interaction frequency and the contribution of the different ship categories. The highest contribution to the dropped and dragged anchor interaction frequency is due to class 4 vessels. The alternative route presents a higher interaction frequency for both scenarios.

47 Sh. 47 of Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 5,0E-07 4,5E-07 4,0E-07 3,5E-07 3,0E-07 2,5E-07 2,0E-07 1,5E-07 1,0E-07 5,0E-08 0,0E+00 anchors - Base case KP Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Figure 7-3: Interaction frequency per KP due to dropped anchors Base case Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 5,0E-07 4,5E-07 4,0E-07 3,5E-07 3,0E-07 2,5E-07 2,0E-07 1,5E-07 1,0E-07 5,0E-08 0,0E+00 anchors - Alternative KP107-KP KP Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Figure 7-4: Interaction frequency per KP due to dropped anchors Alternative KP

48 Sh. 48 of 3,0E-05 Dragged anchors - Base case Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 2,5E-05 2,0E-05 1,5E-05 1,0E-05 5,0E-06 0,0E KP Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Figure 7-5: Interaction frequency per KP due to dragged anchors Base case 3,0E-05 Dragged anchors - Alternative KP107-KP145 Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 2,5E-05 2,0E-05 1,5E-05 1,0E-05 5,0E-06 0,0E KP Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Figure 7-6: Interaction frequency per KP due to dragged anchors Alternative KP

49 Sh. 49 of 7.4 objects scenario The interaction frequency per KP due to dropped objects has been evaluated by means of equations described in section 5.8 and reported in Figure 7-7 for the base case and Figure 7-8 for the alternative. The plot represents the overall interaction frequency per KP. The alternative presents a higher interaction frequency with respect to the base case route. 7,0E-05 objects - Base case Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 6,0E-05 5,0E-05 4,0E-05 3,0E-05 2,0E-05 1,0E-05 0,0E Figure 7-7: Interaction frequency per KP due to dropped objects Base case KP

50 Sh. 50 of 7,0E-05 objects - Alternative KP107-KP145 Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 6,0E-05 5,0E-05 4,0E-05 3,0E-05 2,0E-05 1,0E-05 0,0E+00 Figure 7-8: Interaction frequency per KP due to dropped objects Alternative KP Grounding scenario No risk of grounding is expected in this section as the water depth is always > 27m. 7.6 Total interaction frequency The total interaction frequency per KP has been evaluated by means of equations described in section 5.3 and is reported in Figure 7-9 for the base case route and in Figure The target interaction frequency per km is exceeded at KPs listed in Table 7-9 for the base case route. For the alternative route KPs and from 113 to 119 have an interaction frequency below the target while the KPs listed in Table 7-10 have an interaction frequency above the 10-5 target. Table 7-10: KPs with Interaction frequency >10-5 (Alternative route) KP Section KP 2025 Total interaction frequency (occ/km/year) Main contribution E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object E-05 Dragged anchor E-05 Dragged anchor

51 Sh. 51 of E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object Table 7-11 lists the additional KPs where in 2025 the target is exceeded. All KPs where the target criteria is exceeded are part of the sensitive sections identified in section 7.1.

52 Sh. 52 of Sec. KP Sinking Dragged Anchor Anchor Object Total interaction frequency Main contribution (occ/km/year) E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 Dragged Anchor E E E E E-05 Dragged Anchor E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object 2.36E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object Table 7-9: KPs with Interaction frequency >10-5 (Base case Route) Sec. KP Sinking 5 Dragged Anchor Anchor Object Total interaction frequency Main contribution (occ/km/year) E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object E E E E E-05 object Table 7-10: KPs with Interaction frequency >10-5 (Alternative route)

53 Sh. 53 of Section KP 2025 Total interaction frequency (occ/km/year) Main contribution E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object E-05 Dragged anchor E-05 Dragged anchor E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object E-05 object Table 7-11: KPs with Interaction frequency >10-5 (Base case Route 2025) 9,0E-05 Sinking Dragged Anchor Anchor Object Target per km Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 8,0E-05 7,0E-05 6,0E-05 5,0E-05 4,0E-05 3,0E-05 2,0E-05 1,0E-05 0,0E Figure 7-9: Interaction scenario frequency per km (2014 Base case route) KP

54 Sh. 54 of 9,0E-05 Sinking Dragged Anchor Anchor Object Target per km Interaction frequency (occ/km/year) 8,0E-05 7,0E-05 6,0E-05 5,0E-05 4,0E-05 3,0E-05 2,0E-05 1,0E-05 0,0E KP Figure 7-10: Interaction scenario frequency per km (2014 Alternative KP ) 7.7 Comparison of route Alternatives (KP107 KP145) Figure 10-6 and Figure 10-7 show the identified sensitive sections on the base case route and the alternative in the segment from KP 107 to KP 145. In this area the P/L crosses the main shipping route (FI-D) in/out of the Gulf of Finland (ref. /B3/). Both options first run parallel to the shipping route and then cross the westbound traffic, run between the east- and westbound traffic and then parallel to the westbound traffic. Differences are associated to the different point the P/L options cross the shipping route and the the crossing angle between the P/L and the shipping route. Details can be compared in Table 7-12 for 2014 AIS data and Table 7-13 for the farecasted data. For both sections and route options the main contribution to the interaction frequency is due to the dropped object scenario as the majority of traffic is associated with cargo vessels along the shipping route FI-D (ref. /B3/). As it can be observed according to the 2014 AIS data the alternative route for both sections present a higher total interaction frequency. According to the forecasted AIS data, for the alternative route section 4 and 5 merge to form a longer sensitive section.

55 Sh. 55 of Section From KP To KP Length Base case Total interaction frequency (occ/section/year) 2014 From KP To KP Alternative Length Total interaction frequency (occ/section/year) E E E E-04 Table 7-12: Comparison of Alternatives in segment KP107- KP Base case Alternative Section Total interaction Total interaction From To From Length frequency To KP Length frequency KP KP KP (occ/section/year) (occ/section/year) E E E-05 Table 7-13: Comparison of Alternatives in segment KP107- KP

56 Agreement PO Sh. 56 of 8 REMARKS The overall interaction frequencies calculated at the identified sensitive sections inside Finnish EEZ for the two route alternatives have been compared with the acceptance criteria given in the section Base case Results for the Base case route are shown in Figure 8-1 Acceptable Not negligible High Section 3 Section 5-8 Section 1-2 Section 4 Section 9 1E-05 1E-04 F occ/section/year occ/section/year overall Figure 8-1: Comparison with acceptance criteria Base case Route From Figure 8-1 it follows that the overall interaction frequencies are Not Negligible in section 3 and from 5 to 8 and are high in section 1, 2, 4 and 9. Therefore pipeline damage assessment will be perfomed and alternatives to reduce risk will be investigated, if relevant. It is to be noted that considering the interaction frequency per kilometer, there are some KPs (Table 7-9) that exceed the 1.0E-05 occ/km/year criteria. The ship traffic development from 2014 to 2025 has been analysed considering the forecasted data provided by Ramboll (ref./b2/). The overall interaction frequency becomes high for section 3. The new sensitive section has an interaction frequency <10-5 occ/section/year. Acceptable Not negligible High Section New Sections 5-8 Sections 1-4 Section 9 1E-05 1E-04 F occ/section/year occ/section/year overall Figure 8-2: Comparison with acceptance criteria Base case Route (2025)

57 Sh. 57 of 8.2 Alternative KP107-KP145 Results for the Alternative route are equivalent to the one fo the base case route other than for section 4 and 5 as shown in Figure 8-3. Acceptable Not negligible High Section 4 Section 5 1E-05 1E-04 F occ/section/year occ/section/year overall Figure 8-3: Comparison with acceptance criteria Alternative route (2014) The ship traffic development from 2014 to 2025 has been analysed considering the forecasted data provided by Ramboll (ref./b2/). With respect to the 2014 data, section 4 and 5 merge to form a longer sensitive section with an interaction frequency higher than 1.0E-04 occ/section/year as shown in Figure 8-4. Therefore pipeline damage assessment will be perfomed and alternatives to reduce risk will be investigated, if relevant. Acceptable Not negligible High Section 4+5 1E-05 1E-04 F occ/section/year occ/section/year overall Figure 8-4: Comparison with acceptance criteria Alternative route (2025)

58 Agreement PO Sh. 58 of 9 TABLES Section ID. From KP Base case route To KP Section length (km) Max Water depth (m) Min Water depth (m) Table 9-1: Sections with high intensity ship traffic water depth range Section ID. From KP To KP Section length (km) Ship No. (ships/ section/ year) Base case route Vessel categories (ships/ section/ year) Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Cargo Table 9-2: Sections with high intensity ship traffic Base case Route 2014

59 Sh. 59 of Section ID. From KP To KP Section length (km) Ship No. (ships/ section/ year) Base case route Vessel categories (ships/ section/ year) Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Cargo NEW Table 9-3: Sections with high intensity ship traffic Base case Forecast 2025 Alternative (KP107-KP145) Ship Section No. Vessel categories (ships/ section/ year) Section From To KP length (ships/ ID. KP (km) section/ Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Cargo year) Table 9-4: Sections with high intensity ship traffic Alternative Route 2014 Section ID. From KP To KP Section length (km) Alternative (KP107-KP145) Ship No. Vessel categories (ships/ section/ year) (ships/ section/ year) Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Cargo Table 9-5: Sections with high intensity ship traffic Alternative Route Forecast 2025

60 Sh. 60 of 10 FIGURES Figure 10-1: Interaction frequency assessment methodology flowchart Water depth (m) Seabed profile KP Figure 10-2: Bathymetric profile (Fin_Z35 Line A_27 and Fin_Z34 Line A_27)

61 Sh. 61 of Z35 Rev 27 AlT1 Base case (ship traffic) ALT-1 (Ship traffic) Figure 10-3: Base case (ship traffic) and alternatives in Z35 (comparison of preliminary vs. consolidated route) Z34 Rev 27 ALT 2 Base case (Ship traffic) Figure 10-4: Base case (ship traffic) and alternatives in Z34 (comparison of preliminary vs. consolidated route)

62 Sh. 62 of North Pipeline route - Finland Base case Sensitive sections East Figure 10-5: High intensity ship traffic sections along the base case (ship traffic route) North Route alternatives and sensitive sections KP KP 145 Base case East Figure 10-6: Comparison of base case (ship traffic) and alternative and sensitive sections 2014 ALT

63 Sh. 63 of Route alternatives and sensitive sections KP KP 145 (2025) North Base case ALT East Figure 10-7: Comparison of base case (ship traffic) and alternative and sensitive sections

64 Agreement PO Sh. 64 of Gate Alt-1 Base case (ship traffic) P/L route Shipping Route A Figure 10-8: Ship traffic intensity in Z35 (ref. /D11/)

65 Sh. 65 of Alt-2 Base case (ship traffic) P/L route Figure 10-9: Ship traffic density in Z34 (ref. /D11/)