Nord Stream 2 pipeline system – route development Nord Stream extension (2012-2013)

5.4.1

After the construction of NSP, Nord Stream AG performed a feasibility study for the potential extension of NSP (NEXT) in 2012-2013. The objectives of the feasibility study were to identify and evaluate potential options for up to two additional pipelines in the Baltic Sea.

By this time, NSP had been built and therefore the spatial planning perspective needed to be considered through the planning of the additional pipelines, although all feasible options were reassessed. Three main route options, including a route through the Estonian and Latvian EEZs, were developed based on technical routing requirements, experience from NSP and various environmental interests:

• Finland-Sweden reference route (REF-FS-01.02);

• Estonia-Sweden reference route (REF-ES-01.03);

• Estonia-Latvia reference route (REF-EL-01.03).

In addition to the main corridors, a number of route options connecting the main routes and landfall areas were also investigated. Figure 5.1 shows the main routes and route options developed during the NEXT project.

Figure 5-1 Route options considered during the Nord Stream Extension project.

Applications for survey permits were submitted in the corresponding countries for further investigations to optimise the pipeline routing. The Estonian government, however, decided in December 2012 not to grant a reconnaissance survey permit in the Estonian EEZ. Thus the originally identified three main route corridors were reduced to two. The remaining route alternatives and options all followed a routing from the landfall options in Russia through Finnish, Swedish and Danish waters to landfall options in Germany.

The route corridor options were developed on the basis of a routing assessment, in which numerous environmental constraints in the potential project area were considered.

The term “route corridor” means a spread on the seabed of in general 2 km in width. Select route corridors were further investigated by reconnaissance and detailed level surveys to establish seabed topography and to provide the required data for the technical basic design of pipeline routes.

Two locations along the south coast of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland were identified as being potentially suitable for the landfall site:

• Kolganpya at the Soikinsky Peninsula;

• Narva Bay at the Kurgalsky Peninsula.

The routing assessment for the Gulf of Finland concluded that a route corridor entirely through Finnish waters was environmentally and technically feasible if adequate mitigation measures were adopted. The route corridor ran north of the existing NSP and to the south of the limit of Finnish TW within the Finnish EEZ, extending from the Russian/Finnish EEZ border to the Finnish/Swedish EEZ border.

The routing assessment for the Baltic Sea Proper concluded that in connection with the Gulf of Finland routing three routing options were feasible. The route corridor options entered Sweden in the northern part of the Baltic Sea Proper. They followed the existing NSP on either side through the Swedish EEZ and allowed for a total of three options to cross Danish waters before merging into one German landfall approach. The three routing options were:

• Routing option north and west of the existing NSP;

• Routing option south and east of the existing NSP;

• Routing option south and east of the existing NSP with a routing further east of Bornholm.

The German coastline was screened for feasible landfall locations. The Greifswalder Bodden was identified as a preferred region for a possible landfall location in view of its proximity to the existing Nord Stream infrastructure at Lubmin. Alternative possible landfall locations within the Greifswalder Bodden were to be investigated.

The study of the feasible route options for NSP2 was carried out on the basis of previous planning and experience from the existing NSP as concluded in the NEXT phase and supplemented by new route surveys and seabed investigations. Furthermore, experience from the installation of NSP contributed to the planning and technical design of NSP2.

A number of criteria were considered when selecting the optimal route. The first criterion was environmental aspects and focused on avoiding protected and/or sensitive designated areas and other areas with ecologically sensitive species of animals or plants. Minimising any seabed intervention works that may cause local environmental impacts was also taken into account.

The second criterion looked at socio-economic factors to minimise any interference with shipping, fishing, dredging, military practice areas, tourism and existing cables and wind turbines. No impacts on the existing raw material extraction activities should take place. Avoiding areas with known discarded conventional and chemical munitions was also a priority in the route selection process.

The third criterion covered technical considerations regarding pipeline design, component manufacture, installation methods, operations, and integrity and risk assessment results. These included water depth for pipeline stability, seabed roughness, minimum pipeline bend radii, installation, maintenance and repair, design options for cable and pipeline crossings as well as distance to and crossing of shipping lanes. Furthermore, minimising construction time, and

therefore any disruptions of construction works, as well as reducing the technical complexity of the operation to keep the use of resources low was considered.

On the basis of the experience of NSP and available data on the existing pipelines, and taking the selection criteria described above into account, a thorough route corridor assessment has been performed as a desk study which identified a number of feasible route corridor and landfall options as a basis for further planning.

Alternative routes for NSP2 in Russian waters 5.4.2

The planned NSP2 will be routed as far as possible along the existing NSP corridor. In the Russian sector, however, alternative locations for the starting point (the landfall facilities) and the offshore route had to be sought owing to technical, environmental and social aspects that constrained the location of the facilities in Portovaya Bay, which is the starting point of the Nord Stream system.

A comprehensive study of possible alternatives has been carried out and will be included in the EIA that will be submitted to the authorities of the Russian Federation. A summary of the study is included below. The assessment of route alternatives was carried out in three phases: