Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/33025
Chevron and GISPRO Pipeline routing problems frequently find Joel Jensen of Chevron Pipe Line Company (CPL). As a scoping engineer, Jensen’s job is to evaluate international pipeline opportunities for early phase cost estimates (plus/minus 50 percent). “In the early phase of a pipeline project, it can take engi- neers weeks or months to scope a suitable route,” notes Jensen. He asserts that most pipeline project evaluations never materialize into feasible investment opportunities, but still require a thorough analysis. Jensen’s colleagues also acknowledge the difficulty of evaluating varied projects that range anywhere from two to 2,000 miles. “We are a resource-constrained organization,” adds Jerry Lynch, engineering scoping manager. “So figuring out how to best use our resourc- es is always a challenge.” In early January 2009, a resource remedy arrived, as CPL began leveraging a new routing tool called GISPRO (GIS-based Pipeline Routing Optimization). Driven by an agreed-upon standard, GISPRO allows analysts to quickly narrow pipeline alignment alternatives during any phase of route planning. “[GISPRO] is quicker and has less variability,” explains Lynch. “Routing can be tedious and time consuming, so if you can automate that, you have freed up the engineer.” According to Hector Fajardo, CPL vice president of international business development and GISPRO spon- sor, “GISPRO was developed primarily to support other Chevron [operating companies]. CPL knew customers were looking for this kind of information, and we saw it as an opportunity to help the greater [Chevron] enterprise.” However, before GISPRO, scoping engineers and the CPL GIS team were performing LCP analyses using out-of-the- box Esri ArcGIS Desktop technology. The early methods worked but were non-standard, slow to setup, and required an idiosyncratic knowledge of spatial data and analysis techniques—a skill “not widespread in our group,” accord- ing to Nathan Marx, a key GISPRO team member and CPL GIS project manager. “[Chevron] needed to standardize the process to the greatest degree,” he adds. The project team discovered that many off-the-shelf solutions didn’t meet requirements to pair with existing ArcGIS architecture or provide the necessary outputs to feed established Chevron cost-estimation processes. Consequently, this prompted the identification of a more-permanent routing solution. By spring 2008, the project team decided on a vendor for creating a custom ArcGIS Desktop extension; later known as GISPRO. Collaboration Initiated before GISPRO completion, Chevron began a crucial step to formalize the rules that drive the analysis. Facilitated by an outside expert, CPL and Chevron’s Energy Technology Co. convened for a two- day Pipeline Routing Workshop. Chevron attendees included pipeline engineers, scoping engineers, envi- ronmental specialists and GIS analysts. Using consensus-building techniques (Delphi and Analytical Hierarchy Process), the team of 10 experts was guided through a series of questionnaires designed to stimulate a discussion of critical map layers and their relative importance during the pipeline-planning and route-selection processes. In a two-part step, the team first ranked each unique Figure 3. An example depicts a single LCP analysis and its associated corridors, which provide pipeline stakeholders with visual cues for exploring alternate paths. map layer and any applicable attribute ranges (e.g., slope-degrees values, distances from existing pipeline corridors, etc.). Using qualitative values (1-9) allowed the experts to select from an intuitive scale with a varied degree of separation, where 1 is most suitable to 9, the least suitable for pipeline siting. The second step was a paired comparison to deter- mine the influence among individual map layers (i.e., slope vs. sensitive habitat, sensitive habitat vs. seismic zone, etc.). This normalization step shows significance when evaluating two equally favorable or unfavorable layers. If both constraints rank 9 of 9 in suitability, as is the case for an unfavorable seismic zone and sensi- tive habitat, then their assigned weights will increase or decrease their overall route influence. Ultimately, the workshop resulted in a consensus- driven routing standard by which all GISPRO analyses begin. A common GISPRO run includes performing the workshop benchmark, then running multiple scenarios with varying routing layers, costs, weights, origins or destinations. This approach functions as a “sandbox” for scenario-based route iterations. 24 GEO W ORLD / M AY 2O11 Infrastructure Visualization