GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

FOR NORTH STAR PLANT

AT RAS AL DORAH, KHASAB
SULTANATE OF OMAN

REPORT : PO/3122B/08/02 7
th
SEPTEMBER 2008





REPORT ISSUE STATUS

<01> 9-Aug-08 Draft Interpretative AA KC NS
<02> 7-Sept-08 Final Interpretative AA KC NS



Issue Date Description Prepared Checked Approved





















MOTT MACDONALD & CO. LLC FUGRO MIDDLE EAST & PARTNERS LLC
P.O. BOX 587 P.O. BOX 1334,
P. C. 112, RUWI P.C. 112 RUWI
SULTANATE OF OMAN SULTANATE OF OMAN

























GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR NORTH STAR PLANT
AT RAS AL DORAH, KHASAB
SULTANATE OF OMAN



CONTENTS PAGE



SUMMARY (i)

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING 2

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3

5.0 ENGINEERING DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMEDNATIONS 4

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS 8



PLATES

PLATE 1 LOCALITY PLAN
PLATE 2 SITE PLAN




































Report: PO/3122B/08/02 Page i

SUMMARY

A geotechnical investigation, comprising seven (7) exploratory boreholes, six (6) trial pits, six (6)
electrical resistivity tests and a single (1) down-hole seismic testing, was performed as instructed by
Mott MacDonald & Company LLC in connection with the proposed North Star Gas Plant at Ras Al
Dorah, in Musandam peninsula, Sultanate of Oman. Geotechnical fieldwork was undertaken in
stages, between 8
th
J une and 29
th
J uly 2008, and again on 6
th
August 2008 and a subsequent
programme of laboratory testing as performed on representative soil and rock samples recovered
from the site.

On the basis of the geotechnical data obtained, recommended bearing pressures for square and strip
footing, and raft foundations have been provided for the proposed structures, with consideration of
bearing capacity and limiting settlement criteria.

Excavation of the near surface soils and weathered rock has been considered. The corrosive
potential of the soil with respect to appropriate concrete mix design has also been provided.

The groundwater level was encountered during fieldwork at depths of between 0.6m (TP-H) and
14.7m (BH-10) below existing ground level.

The recommendations given in this report are based on the findings of the boreholes, trial pits and the
results of the laboratory tests being representative of the site as a whole.

































Report: PO/3122B/08/02 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Oman Gas Company SAOC (OGC) intends to build a new onshore oil and gas processing
plant (North Star Plant), to process the oil and gas fluids from West Bukha field, at Ras Al
Dorah, near Khasab, Musandam Peninsula, Sultanate of Oman. Mott MacDonald & Company
LLC (MMCI) is the engineering consultant for the project. Fugro Middle East & Partners LLC
(Fugro) was commissioned by MMC to perform a geotechnical investigation in connection
with the project. The investigation has been based on a Fugro proposal (ref: R/04/218R/08)
dated 3
rd
May 2008, which was confirmed by MMC through their email dated 7
th
May 2008
and authorised Local Purchase Order (Ref No.: 0345) dated 10
th
May 2008.

The site location is indicated on the locality plan, Plate 1. Field test locations, relative to the
proposed site layout, are indicated on the site plan, Plate 2. Fieldwork for the investigation
was performed in stages, between 8
th
J une and 29
th
J uly 2008 and again on 6
th
August 2008.

This report (Ref.: PO-3122B-08) presents the interpretation of the data collected. A
description of the proposed development, summary of laboratory tests and subsurface
conditions are given in this report. The site description, regional geology, borehole and trial pit
logs, detailed description of field and laboratory test procedures and results are contained in
the Factual Report (Ref: PO-3122A-08) and are not repeated in this report. The factual report
is being submitted independently of this report.


2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is understood that the proposed development will consist of new oil and gas processing
plant, which mainly includes construction of oil/gas processing/treatment plant, crude oil &
LPG storage tanks, compressors, substation and associated structures.

The distribution of boreholes among the proposed structures is given in Table 1, below.































Report: PO/3122B/08/02 Page 2


Table 1: Distribution of boreholes & trial pits and proposed structures
BH/TP
location
Original
Ground Level
Finished Ground
Level (Fill
Thickness, m) Name of the Structure
BH 1 +4.2 +15 (10.8) Near Gate No.02
BH 4 +5.2 +15 (9.8) Fire Water Tank
BH 6 +8.4 +15 (6.6) Near 30 Export Line
BH 7 +40.4 +50 (9.6) Crude Oil Storage Tanks (44m dia & 20m Ht)
BH 8 +2.3 +15 (12.7) Switch Yard
BH 10 +17.2 +15 (-2.2, cut) Sulphur Recovery Unit
BH 12 +7.2 +15 (7.8) Control Building

TP D +5.6 +15 (9.4) Utility Road
TP E +3.9 +15 (11.1) Sulphur Pit
TP G +4.2 +15 (10.8) Diesel Storage Tank
TP H +1.1 +15 (13.9) Switchyard
TP I +1.4 +15 (13.6) Power House
TP J +5.5 +3 (-2.5, cut) Utility Road


3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

A programme of laboratory testing was performed on selected soil, rock and groundwater
samples obtained during the fieldwork. Details of the tests undertaken and quantities are
given below in Table 2. In general, laboratory testing has been performed in accordance with
the international Standards.

Laboratory test results are presented in the factual report, Appendix B. Table 2 below
provides summary of the laboratory tests performed for the project.

Table 2:- Summary of Laboratory Tests Performed
Type of Test Test Specification Quantity
Grading (by wet sieving) BS 1377, Part 2, Cl 9.2 25
Atterberg Limits BS 1377, Part 2, Cl 4 & 5 8
Dry density/moisture content relationship BS 1377, Part 4 5
Point Load Index Tests ISRM 8
Unconfined compression test on rock
samples
Method based on ASTM D 2938
1995
12
Sulphate, chloride and pH of
soil/weathered rock and groundwater
samples
BS 1377, Part 3, Cl 5, 7 & 9 15























Report: PO/3122B/08/02 Page 3

The properties of engineering parameters of the materials, as determined from the laboratory
tests are summarized in Table 3 below.

Table 3:- Summary of Engineering Parameters of soil deposits encountered at site
Type of Test Unit No. of tests Range
Average
value
Moisture Content
(cemented rock/ cobbles)
% 20 0.1 15.1 2.1
Liquid Limit % 7 17 47 30.5
Plastic Limit % 4 19 28 22.2
Plasticity Index -
4 12 19 16
Gravel %
27 1 92 55.8
Sand %
27 5 73 29.1 Particle Sizes
Silt/Clay %
27 1 82 15.1
OMC %
5 4 6.2 5.3
Density/Moistur
e content
relationship
MDD Mg/m
3

5 2.25 2.30 2.27
Sulphate Content asSO
3
g/l 15 0.02 1.84 0.76
Chloride Content % 15 <0.01 14.18 3.60
pH value - 15 7.8 9.6 8.6
Unconfined compressive
strength (cemented
formation/ cobble)
MPa 12 1.38 140.71 92.8
Point Strength Index
(cemented formation/
cobble)
MPa 8 0.08 4.36 1.62


4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The boreholes and trial pit logs are presented in Appendix, on Plates A4.1.1 to A4.7.2 and
A5.1.1 to A5.6.1, respectively.

The borehole observations and test results indicate variable subsurface conditions, possibly
due to the long distance between the boreholes, difference in ground elevations and also due
to the fact that the site is located within the transition zone between terrestrial and marine
environments.

The existing ground elevations at the investigated locations are varying between 1.1m and
40.4m MSL. On the basis of the relative positions of the boreholes and subsurface conditions
revealed, have been described separately with respect to depths and summarized as follows.























Report: PO/3122B/08/02 Page 4

Boreholes BHs 1, 7 & 8, revealed following geological horizons:

From the ground level to depths of between 3.5m to 7.5m: Medium dense, locally
dense to very dense, silty, very sandy GRAVEL/gravelly SAND, except, a thin layer of
soft sandy SILT is revealed between 1m & 2m depths in BH8
Below this to boreholes termination depths of 20m and 25m below the existing
ground level: Very dense, silty, sandy GRAVEL
*Boreholes BHs 1 & 8 locally revealed cemented conglomerate cap rock, thickness of 1m

Boreholes BHs 4, 6, 10 & 12 revealed dense to very dense, silty, very sandy GRAVEL/ silty
SAND (BH12 locally revealed cemented conglomeratic Sandstone cap rock, thickness of
2.5m), to boreholes completion depth of 20m below the existing ground level. Except, very
stiff, cemented sandy SILT revealed in boreholes BH12 & BH6, below depths of 9m & 16m,
respectively.

Over the excavated depths of between 2.7m and 3.0m, trial pits TPs D, E, H, I & J from the
ground level revealed silty, very sandy GRAVEL, occasionally gravelly SAND. However, trial
pit TPG, from the ground level revealed very silty, very gravelly SAND to 1m depth, overlying
slightly gravelly, slightly sandy SILT to the trial pit excavated depth of 3m below the existing
ground level. The presence of Silt layer, locally, is possibly due to repetition of accumulation
of fines in low lying ground, which transported by floods over the years.

A graphical representation of SPT N values versus elevation profile for each borehole
location is presented on Plates 3.1 to 3.7 of the factual report (PO/3122A/08).

The results of dynamic shear modulii obtained by performing Downhole seismic test are
presented on Plate 7 of the factual report (PO/3122A/08), are used in the designing of
machine foundations such as reciprocating pumps, turbines etc, where cyclic or dynamic
loads are expected. The results of seismic test performed at BH8 location indicate presence
of granular material; with generally increase in relative density with depth.

For more detailed, location and depth specific descriptions, reference should be made to the
boreholes and trial pit logs presented in Appendix A of the Factual Report (PO/3122A/08).


5.0 ENGINEERING DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMEDNATIONS

The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions with respect to
the design of foundations for the proposed development. As mentioned in Section 2, the
proposed development will mainly include a new oil and gas processing facility, crude oil &
LPG storage tanks, compressors and associated structures.






















Report: PO/3122B/08/02 Page 5


At the time of writing this report, detailed information regarding details of loading and layout of
the structures had not been made available, and therefore only a general discussion can be
undertaken.

Further, due to access restrictions limited number of boreholes were mainly spread at the
structures only on the northern half and western parts of the site, along the foot of the jebel,
and also considering the distance between boreholes and results of this preliminary
investigation, it is recommended to conduct a detailed subsurface investigation to include
more boreholes at the proposed structures, before finalising detailed design of the
foundations.

5.1 General Foundation Considerations

On the basis of the subsurface conditions summarized in Section 4 and finished ground levels
provided by MMC (given in Table 1), for all the structures it is considered that shallow foundations
set on fill materials are considered appropriate for the proposed developments, however, for
some structures locally cutting is required and the foundations will be set on natural soil
formation.

5.2 Shallow Foundations

Allowable bearing pressures were calculated in accordance with classical bearing capacity
theory, considering bearing capacity factors recommended by Vesic (1975). Settlement
estimates for layered, predominantly sandy soils, were based on the Schmertmann method
(1978).

As indicated in Table 1, the thickness of fill material at the borehole locations is varying
between 6.6m (BH6) and 12.7m (BH8), except at BH10, cutting of 2.2m is required to reach
finished ground level. Therefore, foundations for all the structures will be set on fill material.
For selection and placing of fill material, guidelines provided in section 5.4 below, should be
followed as a minimum.

For the foundation analysis the relative density of fill material is considered as medium
dense (with SPT value as 25). For the proposed structures, the maximum allowable bearing
pressures of shallow square and strip foundations of various sizes (1.0m to 3.0m), and
foundation depths that can be recommended are presented below in Table 4.
























Report: PO/3122B/08/02 Page 6


Table 4: Maximum Recommended Allowable Bearing Pressure (Q
allow
in kPa) of shallow
square and strip footings of various widths W for the proposed structures
Allowable Bearing Capacity (kPa) for
Various Foundation Widths (m)
For Structures at
Borehole Nos.
Foundation
depth below
FGL (m)
Foundat
ion
Type W=1.5 W=2.0 W=2.5 W=3.0
Square 300 300 275 250
BHs 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 &
12
1.5m
Strip 250 250 225 200

Table 5: Allowable bearing pressure (kPa) for mat foundations
For Structures at Borehole Nos.
Foundation depth
below FGL (m)
Allowable bearing
pressure (kPa)
BHs 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 & 12 1.5m
150
FGL Finished Ground Level

It should be noted that the recommended maximum bearing pressures presented in this
report are for static loading conditions only, and make no allowance for any simultaneous
horizontal load or vertical load eccentricity. Where foundations are to be subjected to cyclic or
dynamic forces, such as under reciprocating machinery or turbines, an appropriate dynamic
load reduction factor should be applied.

At the quoted bearing pressures given above it is estimated that the settlements for
square/strip footings will be about 25mm and for the raft foundations on the order of 30mm to
35mm.

For Crude Oil Storage tanks at borehole BH7 location, the allowable bearing pressure for the
raft is dependent on the settlements allowed. Recommended bearing pressures for different
settlements are given below:
- Allowable bearing pressure of 140kPa for a settlement of 45mm
- Allowable bearing pressure of 160kPa for a settlement of 51mm
- Allowable bearing pressure of 180kPa for a settlement of 58mm
- Allowable bearing pressure of 200kPa for a settlement of 64mm

When excavating to foundation level care should be taken not to disturb the underlying strata.
Any disturbed material, gypsum soils or soft spots encountered at foundation level should be
removed and replaced with properly compacted engineering fill. Prior to foundation
construction, the soil at foundation level should be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density
as determined from a modified Proctor test. The compacted surface should then be protected
by immediately covering with a layer of concrete blinding.






















Report: PO/3122B/08/02 Page 7


5.3 Earthworks

Excavation of the upper granular deposits present across the site should be within the
operating capacity of typical hydraulic excavators. However it is considered that excavation
into underlying locally present cemented formations may require the use of suitable rock
breaking equipment.

Un-retained temporary excavations should be suitably supported, or battered back to a
maximum slope of 2horizontal to 1 vertical.

5.4 Guidelines for Selection and Placement of Fill Materials

The granular materials encountered at the site are considered suitable for structural fill, with
exclusion of larger diameter (more than 75mm) particles.

The following comments and recommendations are given as guidelines for selection and
placing of fill material below any of the foundations or load bearing ground floor slabs. It is
recommended that the material used should meet, or exceed, the following criteria:-

1. Type of soil : Inorganic and free draining with no more than trace amounts
of organic matter, gypsum or other salts.
2. Particle size : 50mm max.
3. Fines content : 15% max.
4. Gradation : Well graded
5. Liquid Limit : 25 max.

The fill should be placed in loose layers not more than 225mm thick and each layer should be
compacted with suitable equipment to not less than 95% of its maximum dry density as
determined from the modified Proctor test.

It is recommended that confirmation of compliance with compaction requirements be made by
field density testing at a frequency of about one test per 300 to 500m
2
per layer.

5.5 Chemical Attack on Buried Concrete:

The soil samples tested had soluble sulphate contents (determined as SO
3
in 2:1 aqueous
extracts) of between 0.02 and 0.78 grams per litre, with water sample concentrations of 1.04
and 1.84 grams per litre. The soil samples tested had chloride contents of between <0.01%
and 0.58%, with water sample concentrations of 6.56 and 14.18 grams per litre. The pH value
of the samples tested varied between 7.8 and 9.6.






















Report: PO/3122B/08/02 Page 8


For guidance of suitable concrete design it is recommended that reference should be made to
CIRIA Special Publication C577 (Guide to construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsula, published by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association,
London 2002). This publication considers both sulphate and chloride contamination of soil
and groundwater in various exposure conditions and is not restricted to just to sub-surface
concrete.

It is considered that this site would be classed as having significant contamination with both
sulphate and chloride salts. On this basis it is considered that Exposure Condition d (iii)
would apply, for which it is recommended that a moderate sulphate resisting cement such as
an ASTM type V or ASTM type II cement confirming to ASTM-C150 be used to in a mix
meeting the following criteria.

Minimum cement content for 20mm aggregates 320 to 400kg/m
3
Maximum water cement ratio 0.42
Minimum cover to reinforcement 40mm to 50mm

In addition it is recommended that the outer surface of the concrete be protected with a
waterproof coating or membrane. However, prior to finalising and adopting a mix design,
appropriate consultation with the structural engineer is advised.

5.6 Construction Supervision

It is recommended that an experienced engineer, or supervisor, should be present on the site to
oversee all earthworks and foundation construction activities. In particular, it is recommended
that all foundation excavations are inspected by a suitably qualified engineer, prior to foundation
construction, to ensure that the contact surface is properly prepared, and that exposed
subsurface conditions are consistent with design assumptions.


6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The boreholes and trial pit logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at
the specific locations and times where sampling was conducted. The lines designating the
changes between soil / rock layers represent approximate boundaries. The transition
between materials may be gradual or may occur between recovered samples.







































PLATES



LOCALITY PLAN PLATE 1
SITE PLAN PLATE 2




Project: North Star Plant TITLE: Locality Plan
Location: Ras Al Dorah, Khasab
J OB REF : PO/3122/08 Sultanate of Oman
DATE: 09-Aug-08 CLIENT: Mott MacDonald & Co. LLC PLATE No: 1
Site Region