DEVELOPING NIGERIAN OIL AND GAS PIPELINE USING MULTI-CRITERIA

DECISION ANALYSIS (MCDA)

Adewumi Rowland, MSc SIRAJ Consulting Engineers, Plot 3162b, IBB Way – Maitama, Abuja – Nigeria; P.O.Box 8435, Wuse Abuja

rowlandadewumi@yahoo.co.uk National Engineering Conference and Annual General Meeting (Gateway 2006): Technological and National Content

Development for Economic Self-Reliance

ABSTRACT

The Nigerian oil and gas industry is, as of

today a century old, and inevitably the backbone

of the Nigerian economy, accounting for majority

of the total foreign exchange revenue. However, a

look over the oil and gas pipelines that crisscross

the country clearly reveals an image of

mismanagement and inappropriate consideration

for the local communities. Practices, such as

pipeline explosions, vandalism, and saboteurs put

the general environment, ecosystem, and public

health in great danger.

In limiting chaotic pipeline route location

and selection, this paper proposes to find the best

pipeline route using multi-criteria decision making

process, considering basic constraints like: no

pipeline shall pass through a dense populated zone,

to find the least expensive route for laying oil

pipeline, avoid physical constraints which might

influence construction. In addition, environmental

constraints will be taken into consideration as

relevant authority has identified areas of ecological

value, so a route does not touches an ecologically

valuable area. The task is thus, to choose a

pipeline route that is the least damaging to the

environment.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

is integrated with Geographical Information

System (GIS). In ArcView 9.1 all data are stored

and the criterion values and factor map are

generated for all criteria as map layers. The

criterion maps are converted into grids and

mathematical processes are applied to the criteria

using Pairwise Comparison Method (PCM) to

calculate the weights. Composite maps are created

using Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA)

Method including fuzzy concept on

standardization of the criterion values.

INTRO DUCTIO N

Public and private officials have critical

decisions to make regarding the management of

our national resources at their disposal. Hence, the

implementation of any national economic

empowerment strategy needs consideration for

proper decision making analysis. When a nation

succeeds in the economic empowerment of her

citizens, someone once made a courageous

decision and many nations has perished due to lack

of optimum decision-making. Where are Greece,

Egypt, Rome and Assyria in world economy

today, once mighty and in wealth? The world’s

economy is now dominated by the so called third-

world nations that are once forgotten and from

their silent decision-making strategy have surprise

mankind. Nigeria, with her present national

economic empowerment strategy in this present

and predictable future dispensation is equally

positioned to be counted among world economic

giants. However, it is all about making the right

decision from the multi-criteria factors peculiar to

our country.

Figure 1: P ipeline explosions, (Source: BBC News.com)

Nigeria has a network of over 5000Km of

oil pipelines with an oil reserve estimated to be

over 20 billion barrels and, at the current level of

production, Nigeria should be able to produce oil

for the next 30 years [1]. To avoid catastrophes,

pipelines of this multi-billion dollar business

should be selected and designed with satisfactory

factors of safety, and selected on the basis of

minimum social and environmental impact [2].

However, despite meeting standard regulations,

failures have been reported from all over the

country. No fewer than 40 residents were injured

and many more fainted after an oil pipeline busted

in Oke-Odo area of Lagos on Monday 3rd April

2006 [3]. “In July 2000, a pipeline explosion

outside the city of Warri caused the death of 250

people. An explosion in Lagos in December 2000

killed at least 60 people. The NNPC reported 800

cases of pipeline vandalisation from January

through October 2000. In January 2001, The

Nigeria lost about $4 billion in oil revenues in

2000 due to the activities of vandals on our oil

installations. Nigeria lost about N7.7 billion in

2002 as a result of vandalisation of pipelines

carrying petroleum products. The Nigerian

government and oil companies say up to 15

percent of the country's two million barrels per

day oil production is taken illegally taken from

pipelines in the Niger Delta and smuggled

abroad” [4].

Figure 2: P ipeline exploded killing people. (Source: BBC)

Nationally, there is no other means for

now by which Nigeria’s petroleum products are

transported more efficiently than pipelines. It is

safe, environmentally friendly, and economical.

Nigeria’s economic development can be heavily

dependent on smooth operation and management

of these pipelines. Hence, Oil and Gas related

disasters in the country calls for a multicriteria

decision consideration in providing a sustainable

solution. This paper will show how multi-criteria

decision process can be used to locate oil and gas

pipeline route as an elements of a sound decision

making strategy. The paper will intend for use by

decision makers and environmental management

personnel on how to analyse different alternative

options. This will aid in the selection of a cost

effective and environmentally friendly pipeline

routes. Moreover, it will provide an overview of

the factors that should be considered by the

government in evaluating decision making

practices in the management of our natural

resources.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis is an

appropriate methodological procedure for solving

complex decision problems, and more appropriate

where development for local content are

envisaged. Malczewski [5] reviewed that over

80% of data on which a decision will be arrived by

any decision marker is geographically related. The

advantages of this methodological procedure can

not be over-emphasised for a nation like Nigeria.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), is a

systematic modus operandi expected to support

and assist decision maker(s) to solve numerous

and conflicting decision related problem by

evaluating limitations, assumptions, circumstances

and criteria involve in a process. Lahdelma et al

[6] and Beinat [7] states that all of the economical,

political, industrial, and financial decisions are

multi-criteria in nature and decision making for a

given project require complex derivative analysis.

Nigeria characterised in some cases by difficult

socio-political, economical, and environmental

judgements, needs multi-criteria analysis as an

effective procedure in understanding precision,

suitability and strength of a decision. This will

pave way for a cohesive national content

development for economic self-reliance.

STUDY AREA

The study area is in the Delta state of

Nigeria which was formally created on August

1991. This area lies between longitudes 5000 and

6045 E and latitudes 5000 and 6030 N. 15 to 20 per

cent of the entire Niger Delta lies in Delta State.

The study area has a total land area of 16,842 km2.

Over 70% of the populations live in rural areas.

The area under study is very swampy/marshy of

riverine nature, containing about 8,000 sq.km of

swampy land, and crisscrossed with rivers and

creeks. Though it is the major oil producing area,

it is still considered the most neglected area of

Nigeria [8]. Pipeline routes location in the study

area conventionally focus on the economic

optimisation with cost minimisation being the sole

objective, with disregard for potential adverse

environmental, political and social impacts.

Figure 3: Study area: Delta State of Nigeria

METHO DO LOGY

Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

is integrated with Geographical Information

System (GIS). Primary survey was implemented

using questionnaires to secure the participation of

the civil society (community elders, chiefs, NGOs,

youth, women association, professionals etc.) for

the development of weight to prioritise the criteria.

Policy maker’s opinion on pipeline development in

their region and identification of preferred criteria

for pipeline networks and facility were sourced. In

addition, policy makers contacted were required to

suggest environment guidelines in the

identification of area of environmental sensitivity

with respect to land, forests, water, water bodies,

and air.

Figure 4: Multi-Criteria Decision-Thinking Process in Route Selection

Limited fieldwork was conducted since the

project is based on secondary data. Landsat

satellite imagery, land use cover maps, roads, oil

field, railways ArcGIS shape files for the project

was obtained from Siraj Nigeria Limited. The

above sourced dataset of the study area were

prepared in a GIS ready format and used as input

into the GIS geodatabase. Banai et al. [9] site-

suitability problem evaluation using pairwise

comparison method was adopted in the analysis

for this study. The criteria for the project were

assessed for relative importance considering this

method. Two major steps were adopted, generating

pairwise and computing criterion weights [5].

Anchor Dis

tanc

e fr

om c

ities

/tow

ns

Dis

tanc

e fr

om a

irpor

ts

Dis

tanc

e fr

om ra

ilway

line

s

Prox

imity

to re

finer

ies

Dis

tanc

e fr

om c

onse

rvat

ion

area

s

Dis

t. fr

om c

oast

al e

rosi

on z

one

Dis

tanc

e fr

om ro

ad

Dis

tanc

e fr

om st

ream

s/riv

ers

Distance from cities/towns 1.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 1/3 6.0 5.0 3.0

Distance from airports 1/4 1.0 1/3 1.0 1/4 1/2 1.0 1/2

Distance from railway lines 1/2 3.0 1.0 1/2 1/4 1/2 1/2 1.0 Proximity to

refineries 1/5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1/5 1.0 1/5 Distance from conservation

areas 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 8.0 4.0 Distance from

coastal erosion zone 1/6 2.0 2.0 5.0 1/9 1.0 1/2 1/6

Distance from road 1/5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1/8 2.0 1.0 1/4

Distance from streams/rivers 1/3 2.0 1.0 5.0 1/4 6.0 4.0 1.0

Column sum: 5.65 18.00 14.33 19.50 3.32 25.20 21.00 10.12

Table 1: Determination of Relative Criterion Weights

In summary, considerations adopted in this

research to route the most optimum route are: (1)

Distance from urban areas, and (2) distance from

ecological and coastal erosion prone areas, (3)

distance from airports, (4) distance from reserves

and regional recreation lands of the Niger Delta,

(5) distance from political and resistive -zones, and

(6) distance from railways, (7) distance from road,

and (8) proximity to existing exploration and

refining companies.

The first seven criteria are to be

maximised. That is, the farther the route from each

of this criterion the better. The last one is

minimisation that requires the pipeline route to be

closer to these criteria. Each of the above

criterions is represented as a map layer or criterion

map (Table-3). Analytical Hierarchy Process

(AHP) was applied in choosing optimal weights

for the criteria. This enables criteria alternatives to

be compared.

In ArcView 9.1 software, all data are

stored and the criterion values and factor map are

generated for all criteria as map layers. The

criterion maps are converted into grids and

mathematical processes are applied to the criteria

using Pairwise Comparison Method (PCM) to

calculate the weights. Composite maps are created

using Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA)

Method. A suitability map was thus generated

pipeline routes.

The eight most important critical criteria,

peculiar to the study area were selected for use in

Saaty’s [10] pairwise comparison method.

Definition and expressions Intensity of importance Equal importance 1 Equal to moderate importance 2 Moderate importance 3 Moderate to strong 4 Strong importance 5 Strong to very strong 6 Very strong importance 7 Very strong to extreme 8 Extreme importance 9

Table 2: Saaty’s Scale for Pairwise Comparison

Overview of Saaty’s approach: Let X = {x1, x2,

...., xn} be a set of elements, hence Saaty [10]

derive priorities for the elements of X which

requires that a number; denoted wij be assigned to

each pair of elements (xi, xj); this will represent

decision numerically, by given a real number

between 1 (inclusive) and 10 (exclusive) to rate the

relative preferences for two given criteria (Table 2)

Weights in Saaty’s [10] AHP are normally

determined by normalising the eigenvector

associated with maximum eigenvalue. A positive

reciprocal matrix is denoted in one line, and in one

column denoting each element x1, x2, ..., xn of X.

The table is thus filled by inserting at the

intersection of the line of xi with the column of xj

the number required for each criterion.

���

�

���

�

�

i

jji

ijij

jiij

xdominate

not does xand xdominatenot does xif1

xdominates xif1/w xdominates xifw

For example, assuming that for all i, j ∈ {1, 2, ...,

n} xi dominates xj if and only if i < j, the format of

the positive reciprocal matrix will be:

������

�

�

������

=

1.../1/1......

...

.........

...

......1/1...1

W

21

212

112

nn

n

n

ww

ww

ww

Finally, Saaty [10] associate with each element xi a

“weight” which is a numerical value that we will

denote w (xi) by calculating the maximal

eigenvalue of the matrix W and determining the

respective normalised eigenvector.

Specific to the study area, political and

environmental constraints are of the most utmost

consideration in locating oil and gas pipeline. This

is assumed hypothetically considering numerous

violent and near war situation in the region. The

study area has been marred by various protests for

political and environmental consideration by the

local communities for inclusion in all oil and gas

related developments in the region. Political

campaigns against pipeline installation and protest

against environmental dilapidation have all

resulted to restlessness in the region. CONCAWE

[11], US Department of Transportation [12],

Institute for the Analysis of Global Security [13],

Rodrigue, et al. (2005), Oduniyi and Segun. [14],

Haruna [15], and Shay [16] reports and confirm

similar international occurrences.

Therefore, it was considered that distance

from towns/cities is “moderate to strong

importance” preferred over distance to airports;

hence the comparison results in a value of 4

(Table-1).

Anchor Dis

tanc

e fr

om

citie

s/to

wns

Dis

tanc

e fr

om a

irpor

ts

Dis

tanc

e fr

om ra

ilway

li

nes

Prox

imity

to re

finer

ies

Dis

tanc

e fr

om

cons

erva

tion

area

s

Dis

tanc

e fr

om c

oast

al

eros

ion

zone

Dis

tanc

e fr

om ro

ad

Distance from

cities/towns 0.1771 0.2222 0.1396 0.2564 0.1003 0.2381 0.2381

Distance from airports 0.0443 0.0556 0.0230 0.0513 0.0753 0.0198 0.0476

Distance from railway

lines 0.0885 0.1667 0.0698 0.0256 0.0753 0.0198 0.0238

Proximity to refineries 0.0354 0.0556 0.1396 0.0513 0.3013 0.0079 0.0476

From conservation

areas 0.5313 0.2222 0.2791 0.0513 0.3013 0.3571 0.3810

From coastal erosion zone 0.0295 0.1111 0.1396 0.2564 0.0334 0.0397 0.0238

Distance from road 0.0354 0.0556 0.1396 0.0513 0.0377 0.0794 0.0476

Column Sum 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Table 3: Normalised matrix for criteria table

Furthermore, knowing that distance from

towns/cities is “equal to moderate importance” to

distance from railway lines, and then from Table-1

above, this equals a numeric score of 2. Thereafter,

assuming that same distance from towns/cities is

of “strong importance” compared to proximity to

refineries, this equals 5 in the numeric scale. Same

scenarios are recorded for all the criteria (Table-1).

Remaining entries are computed and entered

correspondingly.

Figure 5: Weight comparison chart, showing scale of priority

Using Malczewiski’s [5] concept, this step

involves, (a) summing values in each column of

the matrix; (b) divide each element in the matrix

by its column total; and (c) calculating the average

of all elements in each row of “ (b)” above, and

dividing the sum scores for each row by 9- the

numbers of criteria (Table-1 and Table-3).

APPLICATION RESULTS

The dataset used in the analysis were based on

current practices, occurrences, prevalent pipeline

incidence and literature judgment of the study

area. All the dataset layers were included in the

multi-criteria analysis; the procedures described

earlier were processed as described. Fig 6-1 to Fig

6- 8 illustrates standardised factor maps for all

criteria. Generally, the green areas correspond to

high values for suitable areas for pipeline routes,

whereas the red areas represent lower values for

areas, which are not suitable for pipeline routes.

Pairwise comparison method was used for

weighting the various layers, which was consider

the most critical part in decision support models.

Fig 6- 1: Airport factor

Fig 6- 2: Railway factor

Fig 6- 3: Reserved area factor

Fig 6- 4: Roads factor

Fig 6- 5: Political factor

Fig 6- 6: Refinery factor

Fig 6- 7: River factor

Fig 6- 8: Town/villages/ cities factor

The resulting standardised map factor

reveals the ability of the MCDA system to cope

with poor data, and allow integration of human

judgment into the process of weight determination.

This study uses the AHP process to assist in the

priority setting process for the criteria. This is

evident as there is natural limitation to human’s

comprehensions and remembrance of large

numbers of things at a t ime.

Figure 7: Final suitability map for pipeline routes

CONCLUSION This paper is a first step towards the

utilisation of multi-criteria decision analysis

(MCDA) in studying and planning for oil and gas

pipelines routes in Nigeria. It addresses all MCDA

components and made full use of the limited

available data. The main barriers that faced the

study are the scarcity of information from

government bodies and the unwillingness of

decision makers to divulge available information

at their disposal. With this paper, the floor is open

for further research that should be directed at

collection of information for database build-up;

and the development of additional modelling tools

that addresses the remaining parts of MCDA in the

Nigerian content.

Prior to embarking on any oil and gas

pipeline project, activity, and development in

Nigeria, it should be mandatory that proponents

and contractors carry out a study using the concept

of multi-criteria decision analysis. This will

ascertain a more comprehensive impact, and the

extent of these impacts on the physical, biological,

human, and socio-economic environment.

Throughout all stages of the project from its

planning phase to operational and

decommissioning phases, proponents should be

made to ensure that all identified adverse impacts

are addressed in different stages of the project.

One of the most important aspects of the above

process should be consultation with the

communities, stakeholders and the regulatory

agencies in quantifying a decision.

Dresnack et al., (2000) compare and

contrast the United States Pipeline Safety

Regulations, that of Canada, Australia, Germany,

Japan, and the United Kingdom as they relate

specifically to the land use and sitt ing of pipelines

in close proximity to urban and environmentally

sensitive areas. The report concludes that all the

regulations reviewed are similar in fashion as

regards sitt ing of petroleum pipelines. However,

local content development for economic self-

reliance in Nigeria needs no comparison or

adaptation of any international policies, but rather

exploitation of these technologies to make superior

decision in our designs.

REFERENCES [1] Niger Delta Development Commission

(NDDC), (2004), “Niger Delta Regional Master Plan”. Available from the Niger Delta Development Commission Head Office, Port Harcourt.

[2] Dey, P.K. and Gupta, S.S. (2000),

“Analytic hierarchy process boosts risk analysis objectivity”, Pipeline and Gas Industry Journal, Vol. 83 No. 9.

[3] Yakubu Lawal, (2006), “World Bank

to fund Trans-Saharan gas project”, Business Guardian (Daily Newspaper), March 29, 2006

[4] Badejo O.T and P.C. Nwilo, (2004),

“Management of oil spill dispersal along the Nigerian coastal areas” Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics, University of Lagos, Lagos-Nigeria. GEOSAN conference, 2004

[5] Malczewski J., (1999), “GIS and

Multicriteria Decision Analysis”, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

[6] Lahdelma, R.; Salminen, P.; Hokkanen, J.; (2000), “Using Multicriteria Methods in Environmental Planning and Management”, Vol. 26; No. 6; pp. 565-605; Springer-Verlag; New York

[7] Beinat, E, (2001), “Multi-criteria

analysis for environmental management”, Journal of multi-criteria analysis; No 10; p 51

[8] Siraj Nig Limited, (2000), “Proposal

for the regional development master plan for the riverine area of Delta State, April 2000.

[9] Banai –Kashani, R, (1989), “A new

method for site suitability analysis: the analytic hierarchy process”. Environmental Management, Vol 13. (6) Pg. 685-693

[10] Saaty, T.L. (1980), “The analytic

hierarchy proess”, New York, McGraw-Hill [11] CONCAWE (Conservation of Clean

Air and Water) (1994), “Annual Report”, Brussels.

[12] US Department of Transportation

(1995), Pipeline Safety Regulation, October 1, Washington, DC.

[13] Rodrigue, J-P, (2005) “Transport

Geography on the Web”, Hofstra University, Department of Economics and Geography, available from http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans. (Last accessed 12 December 2005)

[14] Oduniyi M and Segun J,. (3 January

2006), “Again, Militants Attack Oil Pipeline”, This Day Newspaper online. Available from: http://allafrica.com/stories/200601031067.html (accessed 8 January 2006).

[15] Haruna, G. (2006), ‘RA Decries

Environmental Impact of Pipeline Explosions’, This Day Newspaper online. Available from: http://allafrica.com/stories/200601031019.html (Last accessed 8th January 2006).

[16] Shah A, (03 July 2004), “Nigeria and

Oil”, Conflicts in Africa. Available from: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Nigeria.asp (accessed 8 January 2006).

[17] Saaty, T.L. (1980), “The analytic

hierarchy proess”, New York, McGraw-Hill