The NSP route

Nord Stream 2 AG considers the experience from the route selection process for NSP important for the selection of an optimal route for the NSP2 project. This is due to the high similarity of the two projects both being gas transportation pipelines running through the Baltic Sea and since the rout-ing of the NSP2 pipelines will be faced with many of the same challenges when gorout-ing through Danish waters. Therefore, a short presentation of the route selection process for NSP is given in this section.

In the period 2005 to 2009, Nord Stream AG identified, studied and conducted field investigations in several different route corridors in Danish waters around Bornholm before selecting the preferred S-route for the project. This included routes to the north of Bornholm in the Danish TW and EEZ as well as routes to the south and east of Bornholm in the TW and EEZ, as illustrated in Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2 Different pipeline routes investigated from 2005 to 2009 for the Nord Stream project.

The route selection was challenged by several factors, such as the EEZ border between Poland and Denmark not yet being settled and intensive maritime traffic with several traffic separation schemes. Furthermore, the route needed to consider a European important commercial fishery area (bottom trawling) in particular east of Bornholm, as well as the location of a World War II (WWII) chemical munitions dumping ground, which limited the possibilities for seabed intervention works in an area close to the Swedish EEZ border.

When Nord Stream AG first approached the Danish authorities concerning NSP in 2006, route DK-00 outside of Danish TW and to the east and south of Bornholm was the preferred route /75/. This route is very similar to the SE route presented in this EIA. The DK-00 route had been surveyed in mid-2005 and served as the basis for the conceptual engineering at that stage of the project. The route was presented in the notification documentation sent out for consultation on transboundary environmental impacts according to the Espoo Convention in November 2006 /76//77/. However, comments received during the consultation on transboundary environmental impacts in the begin-ning of 2007 pointed out that the route was located in an area where maritime borders had not been agreed between Denmark and Poland, and therefore jurisdiction in the area was claimed by both countries /78/. As stated in the information provided by the then Minister for Climate and Energy to the European Affairs Committee of the Danish Parliament in November 2009, the Danish authorities hereafter informed Nord Stream AG that the area of the proposed pipeline route was not available for the project /79/. At the request of the Danish authorities, Nord Stream AG there-fore abandoned this route option and started investigating other alternatives.

In November 2009, one month after the granting of the permit for NSP, the European Affairs Committee of the Danish Parliament raised questions to the then Minister for Climate and Energy

concerning the construction permit for NSP. The Minister was asked to account for – among other things – the possibilities of influencing the routing of NSP. The question was answered in a memo dated 2 December 2009, which was prepared by the DEA /79/. In the memo prepared by the DEA, the following is stated in relation to the requirements for the NSP route:

“In the case of Nord Stream, the company has worked with four route options in the area around Bornholm: Two north and west of Bornholm and two south and east of Bornholm.

At the time, in 2006, when the company approached the Danish authorities, the company’s preferred route was south and east of Bornholm, and it was this route which was presented in the project description, and sent out in public hearing in November 2006 in all countries around the Baltic Sea. Poland objected to this route since it crosses a sea territory to which the border line between Poland and Denmark had not yet been settled by mutual agreement, and which both countries claim as theirs. This border dispute has previously been attempted settled, and the Nord Stream project gave cause for a meeting between the authorities of the two countries where this could once again be discussed. A solution was not found and subsequently Nord Stream AG was informed that this area was not an option for the pipeline.

Nord Stream then investigated a route north and west of Bornholm. The investigations resulted in both the Swedish and the Danish maritime authorities expressing their concern about a route so close to the heavily trafficked shipping lane between Bornholm and Sweden. This route would furthermore involve substantial seabed intervention works and would be close to Natura 2000 areas (specially designated nature protection areas). The Danish authorities therefore believed that an investigation should be made to whether an optimization, both in terms of environment and safety, could be made by choosing a route east and south of Born-holm, but this time closer to Bornholm and outside the disputed area between Denmark and Poland.

The Energy Agency hereafter instructed Nord Stream to investigate a route corresponding to the now permitted S-route east and south of Bornholm. This route is partly inside, partly outside Danish territorial waters. The instruction was given based on the so-called ALARP principle. ALARP means As Low As Reasonably Practicable, and is used in connection with offshore projects to lower risks. The Energy Agency was, after consultation with the other involved authorities, of the opinion that this route would be the best one, both from an envi-ronmental and a safety perspective.

The biggest challenges in Danish waters were dumped chemical munitions and fishery. In the sea around Bornholm, and in particular after WWII, large amounts of conventional and chem-ical munitions were dumped. The Navy Operational Command Denmark (SOK) on Bornholm is in charge of managing fished munitions and are experts in this field. SOK was, based on their knowledge of the conditions, not concerned about installing the pipeline in this area, which is outside the actual dumping area but within the risk zone where fishermen are in-structed to carry special equipment on board.

In this area there is furthermore significant bottom trawling. It was important for the Danish authorities that the fishermen of Bornholm could continue this fishery.

Nord Stream was requested to investigate this pipeline route. Three objects were found, which turned out to be chemical munitions. No conventional munitions were found. More than 100 sediment and water samples were taken and analysed by accredited and independent insti-tutes. The conclusion was that a light contamination from chemical munitions was found in the samples, but that the pipeline installation would not change this condition.

The pipeline route crosses important trawling areas. The Danish authorities required Nord Stream to install the pipelines in such a way that fishery was not obstructed. This has led Nord Stream, in collaboration with fishery organisations, to develop a new type of trawl board that enables fishery to take place unhindered across the pipelines. The new trawl gives at least as good catch as the previous trawl, it is gentler towards the environment and at the same time saves fishing vessel fuel. Nord Stream has made an agreement with the fishery organisations that Nord Stream pays for the new trawl equipment.

Based on an overall assessment, it is the opinion of the involved Danish authorities that the permitted route is the optimal one in Danish waters of the Baltic Sea at Bornholm, and that this route has been found after investigating other possible routes in the area.”

Based on the memo from the DEA as reported above, Nord Stream 2 AG understood that the route selection process for NSP was performed in close collaboration with the Danish authorities and that the advice and evaluations of the authorities in relation to the route selection were followed by Nord Stream AG. Furthermore, it is noted that NSP has been built and operated without limitation to fishery and has proven to have no significant environmental impacts.

Building on this experience and advice from the authorities, the NSP2 base case route (see Figure 5-1) was aligned with the route corridor for NSP in Danish waters.