1. 1. AMECs application of route and site selection tools within an expert knowledge driven system supporting dynamic projects with large footprints Jeremy Hayden
2. 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. 3. Route Selection Interesting Parallels? Path finding in the gaming industry
4. 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. 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
6. 6. 3D World
7. 7. Corridor Analysis
8. 8. Cadastral Analysis
9. 9. Go and No-go Handling highly preferential Handling no-go Analysis mask versus scoring it out of contention
10. 10. Final Cost Surface
11. 11. 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
12. 12. Route Revisioning
13. 13. 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?
14. 14. 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
15. 15. 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
16. 16. 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
17. 17. 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, sitings 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
18. 18. Closing Remarks Integrate into a decision support tool Build on expert knowledge Offer scenarios rather than a result