84
S.Eld0Y
Fig. 8.1 . Europipe II from Norway to Germany, showing the different alternative starting points originally considered (KoUsnes, Karst0, Sleipner)
the sea all the way from Karst0 to Germany. However, with this alternative a quite rough
sea-bottom in Boknafjorden and depths down to 580 m would have to be overcome.
Both from a technical and economic point of view, the main alternative via Vestre
Bokn would be the preferred alternative. The total cost of this was estimated in the
concept phase at 6800 million NOK. The cost of the alternative via Kalst0 was estimated at 7100 million NOK, and the alternative in Boknafjorden directly from Karst0
was estimated at 7200 million NOK. Technically it would be a major challenge to place
an additional pipeline in the existing tunnels under the fjords between Karst0 and
Kalst0, as well as laying the pipeline on the rough bottom with depths down to 580 min
Boknafjorden. However, from an environmental point of view and with respect to fishery interests major challenges where identified with the main alternative via Vestre Bokn.
8.3
Fishery Interests
Just a few years earlier Statoil applied for a permit to construct a condensate pipeline
from the Sleipner field to Karst0 along more or less the same route via Vestre Bokn to
S.Eld0Y
Fig. 8.1 . Europipe II from Norway to Germany, showing the different alternative starting points originally considered (KoUsnes, Karst0, Sleipner)
the sea all the way from Karst0 to Germany. However, with this alternative a quite rough
sea-bottom in Boknafjorden and depths down to 580 m would have to be overcome.
Both from a technical and economic point of view, the main alternative via Vestre
Bokn would be the preferred alternative. The total cost of this was estimated in the
concept phase at 6800 million NOK. The cost of the alternative via Kalst0 was estimated at 7100 million NOK, and the alternative in Boknafjorden directly from Karst0
was estimated at 7200 million NOK. Technically it would be a major challenge to place
an additional pipeline in the existing tunnels under the fjords between Karst0 and
Kalst0, as well as laying the pipeline on the rough bottom with depths down to 580 min
Boknafjorden. However, from an environmental point of view and with respect to fishery interests major challenges where identified with the main alternative via Vestre Bokn.
8.3
Fishery Interests
Just a few years earlier Statoil applied for a permit to construct a condensate pipeline
from the Sleipner field to Karst0 along more or less the same route via Vestre Bokn to