ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT The Asabor-North Exploratory Well Drilling Project Contents

Abstract

1.0 Project Justification and Description 1.1 Project justification and sustainability 1.2 Project description 1.3 Scoping

2. Impact prediction and Mitigation 2.1 Legislation and Regulatory bodies 2.2 Air quality Baseline SO2 2.3 Impact Prediction 2.4 Impact Mitigation Measures

3. Consultation and decision making 3.1 Consulting parties 3.2 Consultation stages 3.3 Decision making

References

Abstract This report presents the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of a hypothetical Asabor-North exploratory well drilling project proposed by a hypothetical Big Oil Company Limited (BOC). The proposed project is to be carried out in the swamp area of BOCs Oil Mining Lease (OML) 663 and would involved the drilling of an exploratory well, Asabor-North, which is approximately 6km north of the existing BOC Asabor field. This EIA is being carried out by BOC, for whom I am a hypothetical consultant, in order to identify and predict the likelihood of the impact of this project on the people (health, culture and socioeconomics) and environment (biological, physical and chemical components of the air, water and land). As the project is not permanent, it will be assumed that its adverse impacts on land use, air, water, socio-economics and health are short-lived and could be controlled provided the recommended mitigation measures are strictly adhered to. These controls will be to prevent, reduce or ameliorate the adverse impacts resulting from a carefully crafted and sequential EIA. This work shall be divided into three broad sections: project description and scoping, impact prediction and mitigation inline with cognate legislation, and finally consultation and decision making.

1. Project Justification and Description In describing the proposed project, the need and the constituting elements for the development is stated, and the corresponding benefits ensuing from the development are predicted and itemized.

1.1 Project justification and sustainability The Oil and Gas industry accounts for about 90% of Nigerias foreign exchange earnings, about 20% of its gross domestic product and about 85% of the federal governments collectable revenue (www.budgetoffice.gov.ng, 2005). Further, the aspiration of the Nigerian government is to hit the 40billion barrel mark in reserve by 2010, with production doubling to about 4 mbopd (Nigeria Oil Industry, 2005). In the light of this, there is proof from 3-Dimensional seismic data sets that a good reservoir with possible potential for hydrocarbon accumulation exists in the Asabor area and spans about 1200km2. Further, developing and ultimately producing hydrocarbons from the area would facilitate BOCs effort to increase its crude oil production and ensure maximum exploitation of the concession as statutorily required. This is also inline with the national goal of maximizing and enhancing Nigerias oil and gas production capacity and maintaining its position as on of the leading oil producing nations in the world. The many benefit, amongst others, would include: Explore recoverable oil in a location close to existing infrastructure Add to Nigerias total hydrocarbon reserves, increase production capacity and ultimately the overall export earnings for the nation Provide employment opportunity to both skilled and unskilled, especially locals in the area Enhance the provision of basic social and infrastructural amenities in the area Promote good relations between BOC and the local people

Concerning the project sustainability the following table explains the economic, technical and environmental sustainability. This was hypothetically thought about, though in my own terms.

Economic/commercial Sustainability

The proposed project is supposed to explore the lower SL6.1, SS6.1, and SH7.1 reservoir sequences.

Advanced Reservoir studies of these formations shows a possible recovery of about 58.5MMbls of crude oil with an additional 79.3Bscf of associated gas. Technical Sustainability BOC has successfully explored/exploited for

hydrocarbon resources in the Niger Delta for the past twenty (20) years. In which time she has drilled over 225 wells of which 77 were exploratory, with a 72% success rate. BOC also enjoys the huge technical support of its foreign affiliates, BOC-Texas.

Environmental Sustainability

The EIA shall be integrated in all phases of the project, and its recommendations shall be in accordance with the local regulatory authority guidelines.

Table 1.1 Sustainability facts/analysis of project

1.2 Project description In describing the project, three main areas shall be covered; the precise project location, explanation of planned project action, and its time schedule.

The proposed project drilling site is within the Asabor Society, defined by 8 communities, in the Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. The field lies in the lower Niger Delta and within the Oil Mining Lease (OML) 663 operated by BOC. The exact boundaries of the prospect in geographical coordinates are defined by 56,400.00N and 395,000.00E and 57,106.80N and 396,060.10E (NDES, 1997). Fig. 1.2 presents the project site location. The vegetation in the area is characterized by the presence of primary and secondary forest. The climate is tropical with temperature range of 21-37C and rainy season from April to October while dry season from November to March (Derek, H. and Oguntoyinbo, J, 1987).

Fig 1.1 World map Africa and Nigeria (Graphic maps.com, 2006)

Project Location

Fig. 1.2 Map of Nigeria showing proposed project location (NDES, 1997)

The project, referred to as the Asabor-North exploratory well project, is an exploratory well. An exploratory or exploration well, sometimes called wildcat wells, probe the earth where no known hydrocarbons exist or have never being exploited to determine or confirm whether oil or gas are present in a subsurface rock formation and in what relative quantities. This project will be a deviated exploratory well to be drilled directionally to a maximum depth of about 4150m at

a high deviation of 75, and is expected to transverse all the envisaged reservoirs at optimum angles. A drilling rig/platform is normally used to drill this type of well, See fig. 1.3

Fig. 1.3 Directional drilling of an exploratory well on a land rig

The project would consist of: The development of an access way from the Sangana River in the Igbomoturu area. This will be a 375m long canal created from the nearest perpendicular distance of the Sangana river to the drilling location to allow passage of drilling rig, equipment, material/supplies and personnel; Site preparation that includes the clearing of vegetation and dredging to a minimum depth as determined by the prevalent water level. This is also to allow passage of drilling rig, equipment, material/supplies and personnel; The use of Bintan Kapsol, a specialized drilling rig with a derrick mounted on the drill floor, for operations in swampy areas. This shall house the drilling tool, equipment, personnel and all the necessary facility for smooth operations in this swamp area. The drilling process. This involves the use of a drilling string made up of standard lengths of steel pipes tipped with a drilling bit at the end which grinds the rock and opens the borehole as the drilling string is rotated and adequate weight is applied. As the drilling process proceeds, steel casing

will be run into completed sections of the borehole and cemented into place. Drilling mud will continuously circulated down the drillpipe and back to the well to cool the drill bit and flush out the rock fragments produced in the process. Water Based Mud (WBM) shall be used in the upper sections of the well, while Synthetic Oil Based Mud (SOBM) shall be used for the downhole sections. The Mud weight in the well also helps to prevent blowouts by providing the counterbalance to any underground pressure encountered when the bit enters gas, oil or water bearing rocks. Blowout preventers shall be installed at the well head to further reduce the risk of blowouts. Abandonment and decommissioning. The Asabor-North exploratory well drilling project will be abandoned and demobilized in accordance with regulatory body guidelines for abandonment of oil and gas facilities.

The duration of project, from conception to demobilization from site, is planned for a period of about one year only. The drilling process is expected to be for a total of about 44days, however offset situations or drilling difficulties could cause slight changes to this. See table below and graph for a projected timeline. Timing Activity Project conception/planning Consultation with regulators and stakeholders EIA process (screening / scoping / EIA draft preparation), Development of final well program, award of service contracts, procurement of drilling rig Arrival of rig to site, spudding of well and demobilisation from site Quarter2, Quarter3, Quarter4, Quarter1, 2006 2006 2006 2007

Table 1.2 Plan of activities for proposed project

1.3 Scoping In scoping for this project, the effect on environmental parameter resulting from project activities described above was compared with the existing baseline description of the project environment and checklists of potential and associated impacts were developed. The existing baseline information is predominantly secondary data from the Asabor central well project (fictitious well), 5km away, executed six months earlier. Involved in this scoping exercise where the project developer, regulatory body representative, community stakeholders, and some informed consultants. Two methods are then used to represent this below, tables 1.3 and 1.4 respectively. The second is more detailed as to include evaluation for significance from various perspectives of regulatory requirements (L), risk (R), magnitude of occurrence (M), importance (I) and public interest/perception (P). Impacts were considered as low, medium or high in each perspective.

Air quality (CO2, SO2, H2S, NO2, etc.)

Environmental categories Project actions Water Resources

Traffic / transportation

Site acquisition (land take / site survey) Access creation (Dredging) Site preparation (Vegetation clearing) Mob./ Demob. (Transportation) Mob./ Demob. (Mechanical lifting) Drilling Well testing

-6 5

-5 3 -5 2 -3 2 -5 3 -5 2 -3 2 -6 4 -6 4 -6 2 -6 2 -3 4 -2 2 -4 2 -5 4 -7 6 -8 6 -8 6 -5 3 +7 3 -5 2 -5 2 -7 4 +6 3

Culture & Economics

Wild life / Ecological species

Health & Safety

Vegetation

Aesthetics

Land use

Drainage

Fisheries

Noise

Soils

Waste disposal Oil spills Decommissioning and Abandonment +5 3 -5 4 -4 3 -4 3 -5 4 -7 4

-5 2

Table 1.3 Simplified matrix of scoping schedule (here, the numerator represents the magnitude (-ve for adverse and +ve for benefit), the denominator the significance, and the stoke indicates an impact is anticipated)

Project Phase
Site acquisition

Project activity / Predicted impact Environ. Aspect

Land take/Land use About 2000m2 for well construction and about 16225m canal Site survey/vegetation Destroy of natural vegetation and micro organisms to make channel ways
2

Impact description
Adverse, direct, longterm Adverse, direct, shortterm

Impact significance
L Med R High M Med I Med P High

Overall rating

Medium

for creation of access

Med

Med

Med

Low

Med

Medium

Access way creation

Dredging of access canal from Sangana River to project site and construction of a jetty./ Vegetation, Water quality

Changes in drainage, vegetation and ecological patterns which may lead to erosion in the area. Temporary degradation of water quality, and decrease in fisheries diversity in the area Fragmentation or loss of swamp habitat and disturbance to sensitive plant and animal species Significant localised reduction in ecological species diversity and abundance.

Adverse, direct, shortterm Adverse, direct, shortterm, normal Adverse, direct, longterm, normal Adverse, direct, shortterm, reversible

High

Low

Low

Med

Med

Medium

High

Med

Med

Med

High

Medium

Site preparation

Vegetation clearing/ Vegetation

Med

Med

Low

Low

High

Medium

Med

Low

Low

Med

Low

Medium

General site preparation/ Socioeconomics

Job creation for locals in the area.

Beneficial, direct, shortterm

Beneficial

Improvement of the economic status of the stakeholder community Mobilization / Demobilization Transportation of heavy equipment / Traffic, Noise & Air quality Negative effects on air quality due to emissions of atmospheric pollutants (SOx, Cox, etc) from internal combustion engines Increase in traffic volume/delays due to heavy truck movements

Beneficial, direct, normal Adverse, direct, shortterm, reversible Adverse, direct, shortterm, cumulative, residual, Med Med Med Low Med Med Low Low Low Med

Beneficial

Medium

Medium

Noise nuisance from increased vehicular and boat movements due to use of internal combustion engines Injury/death/assets damage due to road and marine traffic accidents, i.e. collisions

Adverse, direct, shortterm, residual Adverse, direct, shortterm, cumulative

Med

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Med

High

High

High

Med

High

Loading and offloading of cranes / Air quality & Noise

Negative effects on air quality due to emissions of atmospheric pollutants (SOx, Cox, etc) from internal combustion engines of cranes.

Adverse, direct, shortterm, cumulative, residual,

Med

Low

Med

Low

Low

Low

Noise nuisance from crane activity

Adverse, direct, shortterm, residual

Med

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

11

Injury/death/assets damage due to crane and lifting accidents

Adverse, direct, shortterm, cumulative

Med

High

High

High

Med

High

Drilling activities

Drilling related construction and other related drilling activities/ socioeconomics, health

Job creation for locals in the area.

Beneficial, direct

Beneficial

Injury/death/assets damage due to on the job accidents during drilling

Adverse, direct, shortterm, cumulative

Med

High

High

High

Med

High

Improvement in the socio-economics and possible introduction of secondary development in the area. Changes in community health status and introduction of alien diseases due to influx of workers Increased pressure on the social amenities in the area due to influx of workers and job seekers Well drilling, testing & flaring & other related activities /Air quality, Noise, aesthetics, soil/ground water, vegetation Localised increase (above baseline) in ambient conc. of air pollutants (NOx, SOx, Cox, etc) from fuel engines, gas flaring, and general well testing activities Damage to ecological resources and possible environmental degradation from

Beneficial, direct, cumulative Adverse, indirect, longterm, residual Adverse, indirect, shortterm Adverse, direct, shortterm, cumulative, residual, Adverse, direct, shortMed Low Low High High Med Med Low Low Med Med Med Low Low Med Med Med Low Med Med

Beneficial

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

12

oil spill. Soil, groundwater and surface water contamination from improper discharge of oil-stained drilling fluid, drilling cuttings and other wastes. Reduction in the aesthetic value of drilling site

term, Adverse, direct, longterm, abnormal Adverse, direct, shortterm, reversible Med Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low High High Medium

Increase in the ambient noise level in the area above baseline values (54-74dB) due to noise generated from heavy drilling equipment

Adverse, direct, shortterm, cumulative, residual,

Med

Med

Low

Low

Med

Medium

Decommissioni ng and abandonment

Decommissioning and abandonment / Land use & soil / ground water

Availability of Land for alternative uses

Beneficial, direct, normal

Beneficial

Soil, groundwater and surface water contamination due to hydrocarbon leaks from abandoned wellheads

Adverse, direct, longterm, abnormal

Med

Low

Low

High

High

Medium

Table 1.4 Detailed scoping schedule for proposed project

13

2. Impact prediction and Mitigation In the course of this proposed project a couple of environmental parameters will be impacted upon as indicative from the scoping matrix. However, one of these, Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), is investigated further, but first we mention the regulators. 2.1 Legislation and Regulatory bodies The work has being conducted in accordance with the statutory requirements for environmental management in Nigeria. The main regulations are: The EIA Act No. 86 of 1992, of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, FEPA (now subsumed into the Federal Ministry of Environment, FMENV) sectorial guidelines for Oil and Gas industry projects The Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry in Nigeria. The two major regulators are therefore the FMENV and the DPR. Others national and international regulations applicable include: Petroleum Act 1969, Section 8(III) Petroleum Drilling and Production Regulation 1969 Mineral Oils (Safety) Regulation 1963 (Amended 1997) Landuse Act Forestry Act Endangered Species Act Local area guideline of the States Ministry of Environment (the Bayelsa State Ministry of Environment, BSMENV) The World Heritage Convention The World Bank Operation Directive 4.01: Environmental Assessment of 1991 United Nations Guiding principle on the Human Environment Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

Of all these, the relevant policies and guideline directly relating to selected environmental parameter (SO2), and requiring priority compliance is part of the elemental policy of the FMENV the National Effluent Limitation Regulation,

S.I.8 of 1991 (No. 42, Vol. 78, August, 1991), and the Pollution Abatement Regulation, S.I.9 of 1991 (No. 42, Vol. 78, August, 1991).

The National Effluent Limitation Regulation makes it mandatory for industries as waste generating facilities to install anti-pollution and pollution abatement equipment on site based on the best available technology (BAT) for detoxification of effluent and chemical discharges and the regulation is specific to each category of waste generating facility with respect to limitations of solid and liquid discharges or gaseous emissions (SO2 inclusive) into the ecosystem (FEPA, 1995).

Further, the Pollution Abatement Regulation imposes restriction on the release of toxic substances and stipulates requirement for pollution monitoring units and machinery for combating pollution and contingency plan by industry. 2.2 Air quality Baseline SO2 Because of the rural nature of Asabor Community, and the lack of industrial sources of pollutants, the major sources of air emissions in the study area is from boat operations, which constitutes the major means of transportation. This environmental parameter has been measured and compared against the guideline limit of the regulatory bodies (FMENV and DPR) as shown in the table below. Sample 1 Parameter SO2 (ppm) < 1.00 < 1.00 Sample 2 FMENV Limit (Daily Average) 0.01

Table2.1 SO2 baseline in the Asabor area (FMENV, 2002) The above table is secondary data from a previous project about 6km away and as such may differ slightly in exact baseline data, but represent a good approximation as fresh sampling/analysis would be expensive and time consuming. This data was gotten originally by in-situ measurements of ambient air quality (of which SO2 was inclusive) at two (2) stations with 5km of the proposed project site.

15

SO2 is a colourless gas produced from biological decay and forest fire releases as well from the combustion of sulphur containing fuels, smelting and incineration of refuse. It is also know to be a harsh irritant and capable of aggravating asthma, coughing, bronchitis, emphysema and impaired functions in the human system (CCDI, 2001).

The level of SO2 in the ambient air of the study area indicated concentrations that were within the national air quality guidelines for maximum exposure (1-hr mean) and would not result in adverse health effects to operational personnel. However, the proposed project implementation may lead to increase in the ambient concentration of this gas due to emissions of fumes and smoke from drilling related activities (gas emissions from the well) and equipment as well as from burning of sulphur containing fuel.

2.3 Impact Prediction The use of previous evidence of similar action on similar environments is to be used to predict the impact of project action. SO2 concentrations before and after project action from similar executed projects could furnish sufficient information on the expectations of predicted impacts. This, however, must be in collaboration with the use of some experienced expert judgment.

Further, the SO2 prediction after project would be compared against the SO2 baseline in various locations within the project area before project. This comparison shall be done to check for significant differences by statistical hypothesis testing using the t-test and checking whether or not the p-value is greater than 5%.

2.4 Impact Mitigation Measures In mitigating the possible pollution of ambient air by SO2, three mains ways are considered; preventing significant or adverse impact from occurring, reducing to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) where inevitable, and/or controlling the residual effect to ALARP. These measures are to be applied in perspective of the mode of generation of the predicted impact from project activities. In the table below, the mitigation method are stated against the supposed predicted impact from proposed project activities.

16

Project Activity Mob./Demob. (Use of heavy engines)

Predicted Impact

Mitigation measure BOC shall ensure high quality (sulphur free) fuel is used BOC shall ensure that all combustions engines are at optimum operating conditions Install where possible gas scrubbers on exhaust manifold BOC to ensure emergency procedures are put in place in case of spontaneous release of sulphur contain gas from borehole. BOC HSE department to perform periodic drills to confirm readiness in case of emergency BOC to ensure that the drilling contractor has a functional degasser equipment installed BOC to make available on-site gas mask alongside other personal protective equipment (PPE) BOC to reduce gas flaring to ALARP while well testing BOC to ensure that the drilling contractor has a functional degasser equipment installed

SO2 gas emissions above limits into ambient air from the burning sulphur containing fuel

Well drilling

SO2 gas emissions from borehole into ambient air

Well testing / flaring

SO2 gas emissions from borehole into ambient air

Table2.2 Mitigation measures

Further, these measures will have personalities assigned to them as process owners. This way people shall be responsible for each mitigation measure as to evaluate its effectiveness (BOC GEOS, 2004).

17

3. Consultation and decision making Consultation is an integral part of the EIA process, also allowing socio-economic and health assessment. Interaction with people and eliciting feedback allows the affected population to influence the decision making process by raising issues that should be considered in project design, mitigation, monitoring and management plans as well as analysis of alternatives. An appropriate time to start consultation is in the scoping stage and generally, the earlier on in the process the better! (Wharmby, C. and Oglethorpe, D. 2005). For this project, a couple of parties are involved.

3.1 Consulting parties Prior to conducting the consultation, an identification of relevant stakeholders was performed. This would include: Directly affected groups and likely project beneficiaries. This group was determined by taking a 10km radius of the proposed project site. This group as stakeholders will help identify concerns and possible areas of conflict, and assist in the formation of mitigation and enhancement measures. Most vulnerable groups (fishermen, farmers and hunters). Also, with in the 10km radius of proposed project site. Regulators (FMENV, DPR and BSMENV). They shall help explain environmental procedures and standards as well as provide superior interpretation on statutory requirements. The Ministry of Lands and Surveys as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources BOC consultant (me) BOC HSE department Other interested bodies/people from the general public like Community based organisation or the Nigerian Conservation Foundation (NCF)

3.2 Consultation stages There are three (3) main stages in the consultation process. First, was a stakeholders forum. Then, a detailed consultation was done as part of the EIA

18

scoping, and baseline data gathering exercise to get the socio-economic and health baseline in the area. And finally was consultation and review of the EIA statement produced. The modified process diagram below (Fig. 3.1) helps to add some light to this. C1, C2 and C3 indicate the various stages.

Stakeholders Forum (C1): prior to any activity as regards this project, a public forum was held to formally introduce the proposed Asabor-North exploratory well drilling project to the community as well as other interested stakeholders. The aim of this was largely to gain trust and secure local approval and co-operation. A cross-section of this forum was the directly affected and vulnerable groups, representative from DPR, BOC consultant (myself and colleagues), BOC HSE Department and a couple of other interested parties from the general public.

Scoping / Baseline data gathering (C2): In the scoping and Terms of reference (TOR) determination processes, feedback was gotten from the local people to determine which impacted environmental parameters would be of the greatest adverse effect to them. Also consultations had to be done to determine the socioeconomic (and health) baseline. Involved parties included the directly affected and vulnerable groups, representative of the DPR, BOC consultant, and some ecological specialist from the university of Port-Harcourt.

Consultation and Review (C3): To review the EIA for completeness and adequacy as well as to decide on the project, another stage of consultation was done. In which case, this time the regulatory body (DPR) was the moderator. Others involved were the directly affected and vulnerable groups, BOC HSE Department, BOC consultant, ecological specialist from the University of PortHarcourt and the general public.

19

Project Preparation (Stakeholders forum)

C1
Public Statutory

Registry of TOR /EIA Proposal with FMENV/DPR

Screening Is an EIA required? YES!

Scoping What are the terms of reference?

Consultees

C2

Interested Parties Baseline Studies (Consultation to determine Socio-economic & Health baseline) Impact identification Impact prediction

C2

Submission of EIS and planning Application to competent Authority

Review of adequacy of EIS Public Interested Parties

Consultation

Statutory Consultees Decision- Making

C3

Post-decision monitoring if Project is granted consent

Fig. 3.1 Asabor-North Exploratory Well EIA process explaining consultation

20

3.3 Decision making To arrive at the No Development Option or the Undertake Exploratory Drilling Option some checks and balances must first be put in place.

First, the designated officer in the DPR assigned to the would-be project reviews the EIS to ascertain that the contained information concerning the environment in question is well collated and is enough for decision making. He does this by a detailed comparison with the FMENV sectorial guidelines for Oil and Gas industry projects (EIA Act No. 86, 1992).

Consultation with all stakeholders, university specialist, and all interested parties is then performed to re-evaluate the facts and confirm that the net benefit of the project vis--vis the identified impact is worthwhile. A couple of other issues are also considered here: possibility of better alternatives (of which there is obviously none), description and means of mitigation, as well as the quality and presentation of the EIS.

A detailed decision statement including reasons and adopted mitigation measures in the form of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is then made (which is believed to be in favour of undertaking the project) by the appropriate authority of the DPR in conjunction with the senior officers of the FMENV and BSMENV. This decision is communicated to the developer (BOC in this case) as well as to the community in whose area the project is to be executed. The decision is also published in the public media.

21

References 1. The Presidency, Federal Republic of Nigeria, (1992): National Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA act) Decree No. 86

2. Department of Petroleum Resources DPR, (2002): Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Abuja. Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN)

3. FEPA (1995): National Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Effluents, Gaseous Emissions and Hazardous Waste Management in Nigeria

4. Budget office (2005): www.budgetoffice.gov.ng

5. Graphic maps.com, (2006): www.worldatlas.comwebimagecountrysafricang.htm 6. Community Conservation and Development Initiative CCDI (2001): Air pollution and Industrialisation in Nigeria, Ecology and development Series Number 01, Edited by Ako Amadi

7. Derek, H. and Oguntoyinbo, J. (1987): Climatology of West Africa. Published by Hutchinson (South Africa) and Noble Book (Totowa, New Jersey, USA) 8. Niger Delta Environmental Survey NDES (1997): Final Report Phase1 Volume IV, Abridged version of Findings and Recommendations of Phase1.

9. World Bank (1991): Environmental Assessment Source-book vol. 111. Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Energy and Industrial Projects World bank Technical Paper Number 154, Environment department.

10. Wharmby C., Oglethorpe D. (2005): Environmental Impact Assessment (B59E62) course notes, FLAME, Heriot Watt University

11. BOC GEOS (2004): Technical reference: Equatorial West Africa. 22