HomeMy WebLinkAboutouzinkie_line_extension_feasibility_final_report May 2011.01d
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
OUZINKIE LINE EXTENSION
OF
MONASHKA FEEDER
(HIGH SUBSTATION)
Prepared for:
KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC
1711 Chichenoff Street
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Prepared by:
DRYDEN & LaRUE, INC.
3305 Arctic Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
April 2011
Ouzinkie Line Extension Feasibility Study Page 2
I. Introduction
Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) has tasked Dryden & LaRue with performing a feasibility
study of an intertie between the existing KEA’s distribution system and the town of Ouzinkie on
Spruce Island. The majority of the route would be an overhead extension of the Monashka
distribution feeder supplied from High Substation, with a short submarine crossing between
Kodiak Island and Spruce Island, and an overhead tie into Ouzinkie’s existing distribution
system.
II. Power Supply
The existing Monashka Feeder extends from High Substation to the bailer facility at Monashka
creek approximately 5 miles, of which about 3 miles is underground. The majority of the
overhead section is closest to the substation and consists of 1/0 ACSR overhead conductor on
standard pole top assemblies with 8’ arms. The underground section follows the road out to
Monashka Bay and is 4/0 AL 15 kV conductor. The existing line has a capacity of
approximately 5 MW without voltage drop considerations. KEA information indicates that the
current feeder peak loading is about 800 kW with a fairly low power factor.
A new line to Ouzinkie would extend the Monashka Feeder and connect with the existing
Ouzinkie distribution system. The current peak electrical load in Ouzinkie is approximately 150
kW (from KEA); for this report we will be using a peak future load of 300 kW. This new load
can be added to the existing Monashka Feeder without exceeding its capacity.
For feasibility level, the line extension is designed for a total feeder load of approximately 5
MW, with a maximum load at Ouzinkie of 300 kW as noted above. The biggest issue with the
new line extension is voltage drop considerations. A preliminary look at the Monashka Feeder
voltage profile considered various options, including different conductor sizes and different
operating voltages. It appears the most economical option for installation is to extend the
overhead line using 1/0 ACSR, operated at 12 kV, with possible installation of a pole mounted
capacitor bank to assist with voltage regulation. Installation and location of this regulatory
capacitor bank should be examined further as the project moves forward; our best voltage profile
was obtained with the capacitor bank installed at Ouzinkie, but this was modeling the line with
the Ouzinkie system as a load bus with no generation running on the Ouzinkie system. In
addition, as future loading is added to the existing portion of the Monashka feeder, it is assumed
that appropriate voltage regulation measures will be installed as required for those future loads.
Ouzinkie Line Extension Feasibility Study Page 3
III. Line Routing
The terrain on the north end of Kodiak Island is undulating with small hills and wide valleys.
The location of new electrical lines is subject to several considerations including
Land ownership
Soil/Rock conditions
Icing conditions
Construction and maintenance access
Termination sites
Two possible overland routes have been tentatively identified and are shown on the following
map. Final routing will depend on assessment of the specific conditions. Route #1 begins at the
end of the existing Monashka Feeder and follows the eastern side of Monashka Mountain, at
approximately the 500’ elevation contour. Note that there is an existing trail lower down the side
of the hill, but following a higher elevation maintains the route on Borough and Ouzinkie Native
Corporation land. From Monashka Mountain the route follows the coast north, again following
the 500’ approximate elevation contour, and connects to the coast about half way between
Otmeloi Point and Course Point. The overhead portion of Route #1 is approximately 6 miles in
length. A segment of submarine cable, just under a mile in length, crosses the Narrow Strait and
lands just east of Black Point on Spruce Island. From there, a short segment of overhead line ties
into the Ouzinkie distribution system near the landfill.
Route #2 starts out using the same alignment as Route #1, following the east side of Monashka
Mountain. On the north side of Monashka Mountain, instead of following the coast, this
alternate route heads inland and follows the first small valley and creek that flows north and ends
up at the head of Neva Cove opposite Ouzinkie Point. The overhead portion of Route #2 is
approximately 7 miles in length. A submarine crossing of about a mile and a half would then
terminate on the North Side of Ouzinkie Point, from which a short section of overhead would
connect into the Ouzinkie distribution system.
In reviewing both routes, a helicopter flyover was performed in order to look at the routes as well
as potential submarine cable landing sites. The terrain of Route #2 is slightly gentler than that
over which Route #1 traverses. However, both routes appear to be feasible construction options
utilizing helicopter for access and transportation. Route #2 is approximately one mile longer
than Route 1 and appears it may require more clearing than Route #1; we anticipate it will be
slightly more expensive. Since neither overhead route offers a significant advantage over the
other, and because ultimately the route selection will depend on the submarine crossing, the
higher cost of Route #2 was used as the budgetary estimate for this study. A route map
indicating both routes is attached to this report in Appendix A.
Ouzinkie Line Extension Feasibility Study Page 4
IV. Permitting
Based upon the potential routes, the following is a listing of permits along with the permitting
agencies that may be required for completion of this project. This does not include easements
from any corporate or private land owners.
Right-of-Way/Driveway Permits – Kodiak Island Borough, etc
Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Activities) or 404 Individual Permit – Corps of Engineers
Section 10 Navigable Water Permit – Corps of Engineers
Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement – DNRDCOM
DNLR Right-of-Way Grant (Lands and Navigable Waters) – DNR
Title 16 Anadramous Fish Stream Permit – ADF&G
Notice of Intent for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activities –
EPA
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration – FAA
V. Overhead Construction
As was noted above, this feasibility report will be using 12 kV construction for the overhead
portion of the line extension. A typical distribution assembly is anticipated, with crossarm
construction 3-phase assemblies using raptor protection spacing and a neutral conductor attached
to the pole beneath the crossarm. An estimated ruling span of 250’ and typical 45’ class 3 wood
poles are assumed. For this high level feasibility estimate, a 3/8” EHS or similar strength guy
strand for guying deadends and angles is anticipated and plate anchors will be used wherever
possible. Design will be to NESC Heavy Loading District and Grade “B” construction using
standard NESC overload and strength factors.
VI. Submarine Cable Construction
Because the feasibility of this connection depends greatly on the feasibility of the submarine
crossing, Cabletricity Connections Ltd. was retained to examine the feasibility of two potential
submarine crossings. They have recommended an installation of four single conductor
submarine cables for this crossing over two multi-conductor submarine cables. We have
included their report in Appendix C. From the report, based on existing readily available
information, both routes appear to be technically feasible. However, more detailed information
is required at these crossing locations in order to both select a preferred option and to verify the
feasibility of the project. Therefore as this project moves forward, the recommendation is to
Ouzinkie Line Extension Feasibility Study Page 5
perform bathymetric surveys and marine geophysical studies to refine and verify the submarine
feasibility.
VII. Cost Estimates
A feasibility level cost estimate has been prepared to determine if the project fits within
reasonable funding; this estimate should be considered rough order of magnitude as it is based on
a conceptual level of design. The overhead portion of this line consists of typical construction
methods with many similar examples throughout Alaska. The submarine cable portion is
completely different and requires very sophisticated equipment and expertise that is not available
in state. Submarine power cables are presently being installed around the world by a very few
companies. Since many of these are large multimillion dollar endeavors with huge electrical
capacity, small distribution level projects do not necessarily fit with the norm. There are many
water crossings in Alaska that use standard URD (underground residential) cables that are
typically buried in the ground. When this type of cable is used in a submarine application, these
installations have a fairly short life because the environment is too harsh.
This feasibility study is based on a submarine cable installation that is more typical of large
projects with an armored cable specifically constructed for submarine use and installed with
equipment and methods that will better assure a long cable life.
The feasibility level estimate for this project is included in Appendix B.
VIII. Possible Timeline
Depending on funding availability, the following rough timeline could be considered for design,
permitting and construction of this project. Assuming project design starts in Summer/Fall of
2011, the longest lead permit item would be the DNR Right-of-Way grant across navigable
waters (for the submarine crossing), which has an expected duration of 12 months. Design and
bathymetric survey should be completed to the point where that permit can be submitted in Fall
of 2011. (The permit for the crossing would be approved by Fall 2012). Design of the overhead
line would be completed for material ordering, staking and potential bidding by end of 2011. In
spring to early summer of 2012, the line could be cleared, staked and design finalized for
construction in Summer and Fall of 2012. The submarine cable would be bid in 2012 and
anticipated installation would be Fall of 2012 or Late Spring of 2013, with the line extension
expected to be operational in 2013.
Ouzinkie Line Extension Feasibility Study Page 6
IX. Conclusion
The overhead portion of the line is typical and no fatal flaws are expected or anticipated.
However, the feasibility of constructing this particular line extension is highly dependent on the
successful installation of the submarine cable which is dependent on locating satisfactory sea
bottom conditions. As noted in the submarine cable section, the next phase of feasibility will be
to perform some underwater survey to determine the sea bottom conditions. Until this is
completed, the feasibility of the project is in question.
Ouzinkie Line Extension Feasibility Study Appendix A
APPENDIX A – ROUTE MAP
Ouzinkie Line Extension Feasibility Study Appendix B
APPENDIX B – COST ESTIMATE
Item Cost
Overhead Wood Pole Line (15 kV)
Wood Poles 440,000$
Pole Top Assemblies 200,000$
Guys and Anchors 120,000$
Conductor 430,000$
Miscellaneous 60,000$
Mob/Demob 100,000$
Clearing 150,000$
Helicopter/Access Costs 750,000$
Capacitor Bank/Voltage Regulation 40,000$
Recloser/Line Sectionalizing (Monashka Creek area) 45,000$
Interconnection/Communications* 540,000$
Subtotal 2,875,000$
Submarine Cable Crossing
Materials/Supply 602,000$
Installation 1,780,000$
Engineering/Pre-lay Surveys and Mapping 297,000$
Subtotal 2,679,000$
Total Overhead Line + Submarine Cable 5,554,000$
Indirect Costs, not including Submarine Cable Portion
(Permitting, Engineering, etc) (20%) 575,000$
Contingency (15%) 833,100$
Total Cost Range 6,129,000$ to 6,962,100$
*This does not include any synchronization controls for operating
Ouzinkie generation sources simultaneously with the KEA feed
Ouzinkie Line Extension - Monashka Feeder
Feasibility Level Estimate Costs
Ouzinkie Line Extension Feasibility Study Appendix C
APPENDIX C – SUBMARINE CABLE CONNECTION STUDY
Cabletricity
Spruce Island
25 kV ac Submarine Cable Connection Study
-
Submitted to:
Dryden & LaRue. Inc.
by:
Cabletricity Connections Ltd.
April 8, 2011
Cabletricity Report 2011-2
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 2
Disclaimer
This report was prepared by Cabletricity Connections Ltd. (Cabletricity) solely for Dryden & LaRue, Inc.
Dryden & LaRue has the right to reproduce, use and rely upon this report for purposes related to
providing an electricity connections between Spruce Island and Kodiak Island, Alaska, including without
limitation, the right to deliver this report to regulatory authorities in support of, or in response to,
regulatory inquiries and proceedings. For the purposes of this Disclaimer, all parties other than
Cabletricity, Dryden & LaRue and their customer for this project, are “Third parties”. Neither Cabletricity
or Dryden & LaRue represent, guarantee or warrant to any Third Party, expressly or by implication, the
accuracy, suitability, reliability, completeness, relevance, usefulness, timeliness, fitness or availability of
this report for any purpose or the intellectual or other property rights of any person or party in this
report.
Third Parties shall not use any information, product or process disclosed, described or recommended
in this report and shall not rely upon any information, statement or recommendation contained in this
report. Should any Third Party use or rely upon any information, statement, recommendation, product
or process disclosed, contained, described or recommended in this report, they do so entirely at their
own risk. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall Cabletricity or Dryden &
LaRue accept any liability of any kind arising in any way out of the use or reliance by any Third Party
upon any information, statement, recommendation, product or process disclosed, contained, described
or recommended in this report.
Copyright Notice
This report is copyright protected by Cabletricity and may not be reproduced in whole or part without
the prior written consent of Cabletricity.
Acknowledgement
This report was prepared by:
G. Allen MacPhail, P.Eng.
Principal Engineer
Cabletricity Connections Ltd.
Revision No. Description Date
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 3
Contents
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 4
2. Route Descriptions...................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Route A – East Option ........................................................................................ 5
2.2 Route B – West Option ................................................................................ 6
2.3 Comparison of Route Options ........................................................................... 7
3. Submarine Cable System Description and Parameters ............................................ 8
4. Installation Methodology ........................................................................................... 10
5. Environmental Impact of Options .............................................................................. 10
5.1 Environmental Impact During Construction ..................................................... 10
5.2 Environmental Impact during Operation .......................................................... 11
6. Hazards and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 11
6.1 Natural Hazards ................................................................................................ 11
6.2 Anthropogenic Hazards, Avoidance and Mitigation ......................................... 15
6.3 Hazards and Risks Summary ........................................................................... 15
7. Costs .......................................................................................................................... 16
8. Conclusions and Key Findings .................................................................................. 17
9. References ................................................................................................................ 19
10. Appendices ............................................................................................................. 19
Appendix A – Cost Estimates ........................................................................................ 20
Appendix B – Budgetary Cost Quotation – Submarine Cables.................................... 21
Appendix C – Budgetary Cost Quotation – Submarine Cable Transportation and Laying 22
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 4
SPRUCE ISLAND
25 KVAC SUBMARINE CABLE CONNECTION STUDY
1. Introduction
Spruce Island lies across Narrow Strait from near the northeast tip of Kodiak Island, Alaska. The main
settlement, Ouzinkie, independently generates electricity for residential and commercial users on the
island. There is a desire to increase reliability and flexibility of electricity supply on Spruce Island, by
installing a 25 kV submarine power cable connection between the two islands. It would initially be
energized at 15 kV, but a higher voltage rating would provide opportunities for future up-rating. The
present electrical load on Spruce Island is less than 1 MW.
This report examines two separate preliminary options for routing a new submarine cable supply
system between the two islands. One route option is across the northwest entrance to Narrow Strait
west of Ouzinkie and the other is a more central crossing east of Ouzinkie.
Attributes of each route are identified, costs estimated and preliminary recommendations made. They
are considered to be preliminary because the investigation was done only using readily available
information in the public domain, without benefit of hydrographic and marine geophysical surveys.
Should cost estimates be within the range of affordability, it is recommended that these surveys be
done and used as a basis for refining final routes and costs, including considerations for overhead line
interfaces.
2. Route Descriptions
The two routes selected for consideration and comparison are shown in Figures 1 as an aerial view
and Figure 2 from a bathymetric chart. Both are technically feasible, subject to verification with
supplemental surveys and final designs. Cable performance and costs will vary for the two routes.
Figure 1: Cable routing options – aerial view (source: Google Earth)
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 5
Figure 2: Cable routing options – bathymetry view (source: NOAA Chart 16594 – depths in fathoms)
A central route running due north-south into Ouzinkie Harbor was considered, but rejected because of
heavy vessel traffic in the area and possible threats from anchor damage. Both route options are
crossed by the Alaska Marine Highway Ferry System between Port Lions and Kodiak.
2.1 Route A – East Option
The south terminal for the east route option would cross Narrow Strait starting at a small gravel bar
almost due south of Ouzinkie Harbor and east of Neva Cove. Cable route length would be
approximately 1.0 miles (1.6 km) and as shown in Figure 2, maximum water depth would be about 53
fathoms (318 feet; 97 m). The marine chart does not indicate water current velocity through this area,
but the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) „Tides and Currents‟1 tables
show the maximum tidal current in Narrow Strait to be 2.2 knots (1.1 m/s). These relatively high water
currents could subject the cables to abrasion from current-driven sands and gravels, vortex shedding
vibration at free spans and possible accelerated corrosion. Vortex shedding vibration can result in
fatigue failure of metallic cable components, such as armor wires, metallic shield and conductor, as well
as abrasion at cable touchdown points.
1 http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/currents (accessed February 2011)
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 6
Ultimate routes would be refined to choose as gentle and even a slope as possible to the bottom of
Narrow Strait. On the north side of the Strait, the cables would terminate in a wide bay east of Black
Point. Figure 3 does not show any kelp beds in the area.
Shores on both sides are subject to erosion and possible sediment mobility due to high water currents.
The existence of sand waves and mega-ripples on the bottom of Narrow Strait is a possibility.
Hydrographic and geophysical surveys of the sea bottom would be needed to carefully determine an
optimum route through a relatively challenging environment for submarine cables. The area
experienced significant tsunami damage during the 1964 seismic event, so cable terminals should be
located as high as practical above the tidal zone to avoid damage should a similar event reoccur. F inal
route selection activities should aim to avoid possible underwater and above-ground landslides due to
earth shaking.
Figure 3: Route A – East route option (source: Google Earth)
2.2 Route B – West Option
The south terminal for the West route option would begin near the entrance to Neva Cove and
terminate on the west shore of Spruce Island near a small lake, as shown in Figure 4. Cable route
length would be approximately 1.4 miles (2.3 km). As shown in Figure 2, maximum water depth would
be about 11 fathoms (66 feet; 20 m). The final route would be selected to avoid shallows and ensure at
least 30 feet (9 m) water depth. NOAA Tide and Current tables do not indicate water currents in this
area, but they could be higher than in the main part of Narrow Strait due to the constriction caused by
Ouzinkie Point, and the shallower water. NOAA Chart 16594 indicates „rip tides‟ west of Ouzinkie Point,
which could be a hazard to submarine cables if they pass through the same area.
The cable descent to sea bottom would be more gradual than for the east Route A, at both cable
landings. High water currents could subject the cables to abrasion from current-driven sands and
gravels, vortex shedding vibration at free spans, and possible accelerated corrosion. Shores on both
sides are subject to erosion and possible sediment mobility due to high water currents. Hydrographic
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 7
and geophysical surveys of the sea bottom would be needed to carefully determine an optimum cable
route. The marine chart shown in Figure 2 indicates kelp beds near the north landing. They are habitat
for marine life and could complicate cable laying activities so should be avoided.
Figure 4: Route B - West route option – aerial view (source: Google Earth)
2.3 Comparison of Route Options
Following is a preliminary comparison of the characteristics of each route option, expressed mainly in
terms of the geographical setting, economic impact and natural/man-made hazards.
Attribute Route A - East Route B - West
Length (mi/km) 1.0/1.6 1.4/2.3
Max. depth (feet/m) 318/97 66/20
Max. water current (knots) 2.2 2.2 inferred
Shore approach incline steep gentle
Sea bottom profile irregular irregular
ROW acquisition uncertain uncertain
Anchor hazards medium medium
Fishing hazards medium medium
Tugboat tow line hazards medium medium
Vortex shedding vibration hazards medium medium
Bottom abrasion hazards high high
Shoreline erosion hazards high high
Armor wire corrosion hazards high high
Table 1: Attributes of route options
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 8
3. Submarine Cable System Description and Parameters
The cable system proposed for this project is a single-core design with either cross-linked polyethylene
(XLPE) or ethylene propylene rubber (EPR) insulation. Cables would be supplied to meet the following
general specifications and recommendations.
IEC 60840 „Power cables with extruded insulation and their accessories for rated voltages
above 30 kV (Um = 36 kV) up to 150 kV (Um = 170 kV) - Test methods and requirements‟
ICEA S-93-639, „5-46 kV Shielded Power Cable for Use in the Transmission and Distribution
of Electric Energy‟
ICEA S-94-649, „Standard for Concentric Neutral Cables Rated 5 through 46 kV‟
AEIC CS8 „Specification for Extruded Dielectric, Shielded Power Cables Rated 5 through 46
kV‟
Electra No. 171 article: „Recommendations for mechanical tests on submarine cables‟
The cable conductor would be #1/0 AWG stranded copper with strand-fill water blocking compound.
Insulation thickness would be about 8.0 mm for the 25 kV level. Cable weight in air would be
approximately 5.2 kg/m. Outside diameter would be approximately 50.5 mm.
Because of the relatively remote location and low availability of cable laying vessels for installation and
repair, it was assumed that installing four single-core cables would be the most economical, with one
serving as a spare in case of a cable failure. They could be laid, and repaired if necessary, with a
landing barge transporter vessel, as shown in Figure 5, which is available in the Pacific Northwest.
Figure 5: Cable laying vessel suitable for laying single-core cables to Spruce Island
A general description of the proposed single-core cables id given in Figure 6.
Cabletricity
A Copper conductor
B Conductor screen
C Insulation
D Insulation screen + Water swelling tape
E Concentric neutral + Water swelling tape
F Inner cable jacket
G Polypropylene Bedding
H Galvanized steel wire Armor
I Polypropylene Serving
Figure 6: General description of proposed single-core cable (source: Prysmian)
It was anticipated that the customer might consider two three-core cables, so for completeness,
information is provided in Figure 7.
Figure 7: General description of alternate three-core submarine cable (source: www.nexans.de,
accessed January 2011)
The three-core cable conductor would also be #1/0 AWG stranded copper with strand-fill water
blocking compound and 8 mm insulation thickness for the 25 kV level. Cable weight in air would
be approximately 13 kg/m. Outside diameter would be approximately 90 mm.
Comparative budgetary costs of single-core versus three-core cables are provided in Appendix B.
They confirm that supplying four single core cables would be less costly than two three-core
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 10
cables, for this application. Repairs would also be easier to carry out, since cable repair
equipment could be lighter duty and splices could be made faster.
4. Installation Methodology
Regardless of route option finally selected, the relatively high water currents and steep
underwater slopes for at least some of the landings, suggests using a cable laying barge with
superior positioning capabilities. If needed an outboard thruster could be used to assist lateral
stability of the cable laying barge.
It is anticipated that PE or PVC conduits would be pre-installed at each landing site, so cables
could be pulled ashore quickly, without concerns about tidal cycles interfering with maintaining
trenches open during the critical landing operation. Lay-barge, tug and diver standby time would
also be minimized. Figure 8 shows an example of a typical installation of conduits and trench
backfilling for a 25 kV submarine cable project.
Figure 8: Typical pre-installation and backfilling of conduits through inter-tidal zone (source: BC
Hydro)
Once the first end was safely ashore and anchored, the cable laying barge would carefully lay the
cable down the incline of the sea bottom. Laying cables on the relatively flat sea bottom for most
of the route between terminals would be relatively straight-forward and fast, provided weather was
good. Laying the cable up the critical incline to the remote terminals would be done in a similar
manner.
5. Environmental Impact of Options
5.1 Environmental Impact During Construction
Impact to the sea bottom is expected to be minimal, since the cable would not be buried, except
from terminal poles to about 3.5 feet (1.0 m) vertically below Mean Low Water (MLW). Burial
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 11
depth would be about 3.5 feet (1.0 m), to protect against hazards such as vessel groundings, high
wave energy, sediment transport and abrasion. Final selection of landing sites would strive to
locate areas where excavation was as easy as possible and environmental impact was minimal.
Emissions from internal combustion engines would be released by the cable laying barge,
tugboat, excavators, generators and miscellaneous equipment during cable laying and
construction of the cable landings.
Care would be taken to avoid harm to kelp beds and other habitat for marine life, such as eel
grass. Eel grass is not expected at any of the route options due to high water currents and the
probable absence of fine sands, but this will need to be confirmed.
5.2 Environmental Impact during Operation
The cables would not contain any insulating fluids that could possibly leak out into the ocean
environment.
A small amount of heat would be emitted when the cables were energized and loaded. Effects on
the land or aquatic habitat are expected to be negligible.
6. Hazards and Mitigation Measures
The three route options pose several natural and man-made (anthropogenic) hazards.
6.1 Natural Hazards
6.1.1 High water current velocity
As noted above, predicted water current velocities for all route options reach a maximum of 2.0
knots (1.0 m/s). These velocities are typically predicted at about 5 to 10 m above the sea bottom
and will be reduced with height above bottom in accordance with bottom texture, as described in
the formula below [1]. Zspan and Zmeas are the heights above the bottom for cable and
measurements, respectively.
Assuming Vmeas = 1.0 m/s, Zspan = 0.5 m, Zmeas = 10.0 m
then Vspan = 0.8 m/sec
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 12
Implications of high water velocities are increased tendency for vortex shedding vibration at cable
free spans [1], abrasion at free span touchdown points and rapid replenishment of oxygen at
armor wire corrosion sites.
6.1.2 Armor wire abrasion
Abrasion of armor wires can occur due to sand blasting from current-driven granular material on
the sea bottom and from movement at free span touchdown points due to vortex shedding
vibration. Modern power cables use at least one layer of polypropylene twine over the bitumen
coated armor wires. Polypropylene is more resistant to abrasion than jute twine used up until
several decades ago. Nevertheless, it is expected that eventually the serving layer will wear
through. Possible mitigation methods are to:
- Install cables where water currents are low.
- Install cables where bottom conditions are relatively smooth.
- Lay cables very carefully to avoid long free spans.
- Bury cables (often uneconomical and triggers additional environmental approvals).
- Manufacture cables with an extra layer of tough armor serving, delaying abrasion and
exposure of armor wires to open sea water [2].
6.1.3 Armor wire corrosion
Armor corrosion is affected by the following main in-situ seawater parameters.
- dissolved oxygen content
- sea currents
- temperature
- salinity
- marine growth and decaying organic matter
Site water currents are relatively high, leading to high oxygen concentrations due to mixing of
water as it passes through Narrow Strait between Kodiak and Spruce Island. Wave action will also
lead to high oxygen concentration in the shallow waters of the west Route B.
Submarine cable armor wires are susceptible to four main corrosion mechanisms.
General chemical corrosion
Chemical corrosion occurs where cables are directly exposed to salty, oxygen-rich sea water.
Primary protection is by coating the steel armor wires with zinc. Secondary protection is provided
by the hot bitumen coating and polypropylene serving applied during manufacturing. The bitumen
and serving layer can be degraded during installation, by external impacts and due to sand-
blasting abrasion from high water currents. References describe the corrosion rate of hot dipped
galvanized zinc coatings immersed in seawater to be about 9 µm/year on average [4]. For bare
carbon steel, references show the corrosion rate to be about 10 µm/year if buried beneath the sea
bottom in anaerobic conditions [4] and about 50 µm/year if immersed in seawater [5].
Typical cables would have an armor wire diameter of 4.19 mm. ICEA S-66-524 requires a
minimum zinc weight of 275 g/m2 to be incorporated into the wire diameter. Zinc coating thickness
and steel wire radius are calculated to be about 3 µm and 2090 µm respectively. Applying the
above corrosion rates for unburied cables indicates that the zinc would be lost in less than a year
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 13
and the steel in about 40 years. It is noteworthy that the 50 µm/year corrosion rate for steel in
seawater is very dependent on oxygen concentration and water current velocity.
Mitigation efforts could increase the zinc coating thickness and improve the quality of bitumen
coating over the wires. Some users have specified individual armor wires with polymer jackets. A
cathodic protection system is required in order to prevent consumption of steel under the jacket, in
the event of damage.
AC corrosion
AC cables are subject to corrosion in areas of mutual impedance change, notably where the inter-
phase spacing of single-core cables converges/diverges near the landings. Here induced
„transverse‟ AC currents in the armor can pass into the sea or sea bottom [6]. If AC current
densities are sufficiently high, AC corrosion can occur.
Mitigation and avoidance possibilities are to specify cables with a low resistance metallic shield (or
return conductor), which causes most of the return current to flow in it rather than the armor wires.
It is recommended to specify distribution submarine cables with a 100 % metallic shield
(concentric neutral same size as central conductor), in order to minimize return current flowing in
the armor, seawater and deep earth. Nevertheless, some zero sequence AC current will flow
transversely through natural paths from cable armor into the sea and earth. In order to reduce
such transverse currents, some utilities install sea electrodes near the cable terminals, connected
to the distribution neutral.
Otherwise the rate of change in cable separation needs to be carefully controlled, with a
suggested value of 15 feet separation change per 300 feet of cable [6]. It should be noted that this
value is strongly dependent on cable design specifics.
Differential aeration corrosion
This occurs where cables transition from buried, where oxygen levels are low, to unburied, where
concentrations are higher. As described in [7], the equilibrium potential of the iron corrosion
cathodic reaction at constant pH depends on dissolved oxygen concentrations as follows:
E0 = constant + 0.0148*log(p(O2)) Volts
Where p(O2) is the partial pressure of oxygen in equilibrium with the quantity of the same gas
dissolved in water.
As a consequence, if a part of an iron wire is prevented from being reached by dissolved oxygen
due to burial, while another part is not because it is unburied, a longitudinal potential difference
will develop in the armor wires. The exposed part will behave cathodically with respect to the
buried part, which will corrode. The corrosion rate is determined by the ratio between buried and
unburied lengths, and the relative amount of dissolved oxygen in water.
This phenomena has been observed when recovering old submarine cables.
Mitigation efforts could apply cathodic protection to the armor wires.
Geo-magnetically induced leakage current corrosion
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 14
Another explanation for advanced corrosion at the transitions between buried and unburied
sections is due to geo-magnetically induced DC currents in the armor wires [2], [8]. The potential
difference between two locations, which is generated by tidal flow of electrically conductive
seawater in the presence of the earth‟s magnetic field, can be calculated as follows.
E = B*V*L
Where E = induced electromotive force
B = vertical component of earth‟s magnetic field
L = width of water crossing
V = velocity of water flow, assumed perpendicular to cables
DC leakage current from the armor is dependent on leakage resistance. Where buried, the
resistance is higher and the leakage current lower. Where current leaves the armor wires, they
become anodic, resulting in corrosion. The maximum corrosion rates occur at discontinuities
between buried and unburied sections, at locations where the water dept h changes rapidly and
near the terminals.
Mitigation efforts could be to completely bury the cables or to apply cathodic protection to armor
wires.
Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC)
Sea bottoms comprised of decomposing organic matter can result in sulphide reducing bacteria
creating acids that corrode cable armor [9], [10]. Fortunately these conditions do not appear to be
present for submarine cables installed in most Alaskan waters.
Corrosion protection measures
Most of the above corrosion hazards can be mitigated by applying an impressed current cathodic
protection system. Typically they place a potential of about -0.8 to -1.1 Volts (relative to a Ag/AgCl
half cell) onto the armor wires. Detailed application descriptions are provided in [11].
It is recommended that an impressed current cathodic protection system be applied to any new
Kodiak to Spruce Island cables as an insurance measure.
6.1.4 Free spans and vortex shedding vibration
Susceptibility to cable vortex shedding vibration at free spans can be calculated using methods
described in [1]. Calculations require knowledge of water currents and the cable‟s dynamic
bending stiffness, as well as other knowledge about geometry of the free span, cable tension, etc.
As described previously, vortex shedding vibration can cause fatigue failure of cable metallic
components, as well as abrasion at touchdown points.
Some free spans are inevitable, so mitigation efforts need to be directed at carefully controlling
cable bottom tensions during laying and final resting place on the sea bottom. This suggests using
divers to monitor and control cable touchdown in shallow water.
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 15
6.2 Anthropogenic Hazards, Avoidance and Mitigation
6.2.1 Fishing
The Kodiak and Spruce Island areas are popular for commercial and recreational fishing. Bottom
trawlers can pose threats to submarine cables but there is presently no information on whether
they are used in the Narrow Straits area or not. Avoidance and mitigation is typically to bury
cables, however it is considered to be uneconomical for this size of project.
6.2.2 Vessel anchors
These usually pose the largest threat to submarine cables. Due to high water currents in the area
it is unlikely that vessels would set an anchor for mooring purposes, however, they can be
dropped accidentally or deployed purposely to prevent a vessel from running aground. Typical
avoidance/mitigation measures are to bury cables below anchor penetration depth, however that
is considered uneconomical for this size of project.
6.2.3 Vessels running aground
Probability is considered to be low. Mitigation/avoidance is to bury cables to about 3.5 feet (1.0 m)
vertically below MLW.
6.2.4 Tugboat tow lines
Forestry is an important industry and tugboats sometimes tow log booms through the area. Tow
lines can sag to the sea bottom and abrade power cables. This hazard could be particularly high
for the shallow waters of the westerly Route B. Mitigation would suggest cable burial, which is
considered to be uneconomical, given low probability of occurrence.
6.3 Hazards and Risks Summary
This sub-section provides a subjective quantitative summary of hazards and risks, with and
without mitigation. They are very preliminary because site surveys studies have not yet been
done, however, they provide a format for further consideration and evaluations.
„Risk‟ is defined mathematically as the product of probability times consequence.
For these purposes the following weighting system was used:
Probability (or Likelihood)
Low 1
Medium Low 2
Medium 3
Medium High 4
High 5
Consequences (or Impact)
Low 1
Medium Low 2
Medium 3
Medium High 4
High 5
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 16
Hazard ID
Probabil-
ity without
mitigation
Conse-
quence
without
mitigation
Risk
without
mitigation
Risk
reducing
measure
Probability
with
mitigation
Conse-
quence
with
mitigation
Risk with
mitigation Comments
Abrasion 4 5 20 Serving ++ 3 5 15 burial
impractical
Corrosion 5 5 25 CP 2 5 10 burial
impractical
Vibration 4 5 20 ROV 2 5 10 ROV
planned
Fishing 3 5 15 bury 3 5 15 burial
impractical
Anchors 3 5 15 bury 3 5 15 burial
impractical
Towlines 2 5 10 bury 4 5 20 burial
impractical
Grounding 2 5 10 bury 1 5 5 burial
planned
Environment 3 3 9 EMP 1 1 1 EMP
planned
Ranking 124 91
Table 2: Hazards and Risks summary for Route A - East
Hazard ID
Probabil-
ity without
mitigation
Conse-
quence
without
mitigation
Risk
without
mitigation
Risk
reducing
measure
Probability
with
mitigation
Conse-
quence
with
mitigation
Risk with
mitigation Comments
Abrasion 5 5 25 Serving ++ 4 5 20 burial
impractical
Corrosion 5 5 25 CP 2 5 10 burial
impractical
Vibration 4 5 20 ROV 2 5 10 ROV
planned
Fishing 3 5 15 bury 3 5 15 burial
impractical
Anchors 3 5 15 bury 3 5 15 burial
impractical
Towlines 4 5 20 bury 4 5 20 burial
impractical
Grounding 2 5 10 bury 1 5 5 burial
planned
Environment 3 3 9 EMP 1 1 1 EMP
planned
Ranking 139 86
Table 3: Hazards and Risks summary for Route B - West
The rankings are relatively close, and as noted above, risks were estimated without benefit of
marine surveys. The risk of abrasion for Route B - West is higher due to uncertainties about the
„Rip Tides‟ shown on marine charts, and therefore suggest a preference for Route A – East until
further investigations are carried out. Rankings also do not consider implications of overhead line
location on cable route selection. Rankings are therefore subject to change once the other
investigations are complete.
7. Costs
Detailed cost estimates were done for the two route options two. Budgetary cable supply costs
were obtained from a leading U.S. manufacturer of 25 kV submarine cables (Appendix B).
Budgetary cable transportation and laying costs were obtained from a company with much
experience installing telecommunication and power submarine cables on the west coast of North
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 17
America (Appendix C). Estimate results are detailed in Appendix A and summarized in Tables 4
and 5 below.
Assumptions for the estimates were as follows:
1. Costs are in 2011 Dollars.
2. Cables are as described in Appendix A.
3. Proposed cable routes are approximately 1.6 and 2.3 km long.
4. Maximum water depth is 97 m.
5. Cable is supplied by competitive tendering.
6. Cable laying will be done in summer months.
7. Owner's Engineering, Project management and Permitting costs are included at 10%.
8. Interest During Construction is not included.
9. Cost of obtaining rights-of-way is not included.
10. Estimate accuracy is -15%/+25%.
11. No contingency has been applied (15% is recommended at this stage).
Four 1/c cables #1/0 Cu conductor
Supply ($) 434,000
Installation ($) 1,780,000
Engineering, project
management & permitting ($) 280,000
Total 2,494,000
Table 4: Cost estimate summary for Route A – East Option
Four 1/c cables #1/0 Cu conductor
Supply ($) 602,000
Installation ($) 1,780,000
Engineering, project
management & permitting ($) 297,000
Total 2,679,000
Table 5: Cost estimate summary for Route B – West Option
8. Conclusions and Key Findings
A preliminary desk top investigation has been carried out into the feasibility of installing a 25 kV
submarine cable link between Kodiak and Spruce Islands. The following conclusions were
reached.
Detailed bathymetric surveys, marine geotechnical and marine geophysical studies will
be needed to refine cable routes before a final option is selected.
Both route options appear to be technically feasible, subject to verification with
completion of the above surveys and studies.
The Route A - East option appears slightly more desirable from a long term cable
performance perspective.
The Route A – East option also has lowest initial costs due to less cable.
Much of the cost is for mobilizing to and demobilizing from a relatively remote site, which
tends to reduce the overall cost differential due to route length variations.
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 18
None of the routes appear to have high environmental impacts, but further investigations
are required to confirm possible conflicting locations of kelp, eel grass and other critical
marine life habitat.
Cable abrasion, corrosion and vortex shedding vibration hazards have the highest risk
rankings, mainly due to high water currents and oxygen concentrations.
Cathodic protection systems are recommended to mitigate cable armor corrosion for the
new cables.
Cable laying methods will need to assure accuracy in placing cables on the sea bottom
to avoid long free spans and possible vortex shedding vibration problems, especially for
the relatively steep approaches to cable terminals for Route A - East.
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 19
9. References
1. G.E. Balog, K. Bjørløw-Larsen, A. Ericsson, B. Dellby, „Vortex Induced Vibration on
Submarine Cables‟, Paper B1-208, CIGRE 2006, Paris.
2. M. Furugen, et al, „Completion of Submarine Cable Lines Combining Low Environmental
Impact with Low Cost‟, Furukawa Review No. 21, 2002.
3. Porter, F. C. „Corrosion Resistance of Zinc and Zinc Alloys‟, Dekker, New York, 523pp.
1994.
4. E. Bascom, et al, „Construction Features and Environmental Factors Influencing
Corrosion on a Self-Contained Fluid-Filled Submarine Cable Circuit in Long Island
Sound‟, IEEE Trans. On Power Delivery, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 1998.
5. P. Anelli, „Some Considerations on the Chemical Corrosion of a Submarine Cable in Sea
Water‟. Submitted with Pirelli‟s bid for BC Hydro MSA-DMR 525 kV AC submarine
cables, February 1979.
6. G. Luoni, P. Anelli, „Armour Corrosion in Single Core Submarine Cables‟, Paper A 76
190-9, IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY, January 25-30, 1976.
7. P. Anelli, „Some Considerations on the Chemical Corrosion of a Submarine Cable in Sea
Water‟. Submitted with Pirelli‟s bid for BC Hydro MSA-DMR 525 kV AC submarine
cables, February 1979.
8. M. Fujii, T. Uematsu, et al, „Steel Armour Corrosion of Submarine Cable‟, IEEE PES
Summer Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, July 16-21, 1978.
9. H. A. Flores, „Submarine Cables to 34.5 kV of the Carmen Beach to Cozumel Island in
Mexico. Corrosion Specification and Operational Experience‟, Paper B1-115, CIGRE
2010, Paris.
10. M. Eashwar et al, „Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion of Steel During Putrefaction of
Seawater: Evidence for a New Mechanism‟, NACE, Corrosion 49, 108, 1993.
11. Det Norske Veritas, „Recommended Practice RP-401, Cathodic Protection Design‟, Det
Norske Veritas www.dnv.com, January 2005.
10. Appendices
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 20
Appendix A – Cost Estimates
Item Description Route A - East Route B - West
Supply Quantity Unit Price Extended Price Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
S-1 Supply 1/c 35 kV, # 1/0 copper conductor, EPR or XLPE insulation, 100%
concentric neutral, single wire armored submarine cable (meters)6,400 60 384,000 9,200 60 552,000
S-2 Supply terminal poles, hardwaure, disconnects, arrestors and cable
terminations for each side 2 25,000 50,000 2 25,000 50,000
S-T Subtotal - Supply 434,000 602,000
Installation by Cable Laying Contractor + Local Crews Quantity Unit Price Extended Price Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
I-1 Mobilize cable laying barge, tug and crew from Seattle-Vancouver area to
Spruce Island area 14 33,929 475,000 14 33,929 475,000
I-2 Mob/demob local cable crews from Anchorage area or equal (2 + 2 days)4 15,000 60,000 4 15,000 60,000
I-3 Local crews install conduits from 1 m below MLW to terminal poles 2 100,000 200,000 2 100,000 200,000
I-4 Cable laying contractor Installs 4 submarine cables from barge (1 day prep
+ 1 day per cable + 3 days bad weather standby)7 50,000 350,000 7 50,000 350,000
I-5 Local crews pull-in 4 submarine cables on land including terminations (1
day per cable + 2 days bad weather standby)6 15,000 90,000 6 15,000 90,000
I-6 Local crews install cathodic protection system, including sea anodes - one
side only (lump sum)1 100,000 100,000 1 100,000 100,000
Demobilize cable laying barge, tug and crew from Spruce Island back to
Seattle-Vancouver area 14 33,929 475,000 14 33,929 475,000
I-7 Miscellaneous (per day)6 5,000 30,000 6 5,000 30,000
I-T Subtotal - Installation 1,780,000 1,780,000
Engineering
E-1 Engineering, project management, permitting, properties (10% of Supply +
Installation)221,400 238,200
E-2 Marine surveys, navigation and mapping (days)10 5,000 50,000 10 5,000 50,000
E-3 Commissioning tests (4 days)3 3,000 9,000 3 3,000 9,000
E-T Subtotal - Engineering 280,400 297,200
TOTAL Supply, Installation and Engineering 2,494,400 2,679,200
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 21
Appendix B – Budgetary Cost Quotation – Submarine Cables
1
Allen MacPhail
From:Kirk Lauritsen [lauritsen@okonite.com]
Sent:April 6, 2011 4:01 PM
To:a.macphail@ieee.org
Subject:FW: Budgetary cost quotations for single-core and three-core 25 kV submarine cables
Allen, Budgetary as follows.
Alternative 1: $15/ft
Alternative 2: $35/ft
Alternative 3: $22/ft
Alternative 4: $60/ft
We could only do the single conductors in continuous lengths.
We could also do the 3 conductors but it would need to be spliced..
Submarine Cable ESTIMATING ONLY.
Thanks again Allen.
Kirk Lauritsen
Okonite Portland
Office (503) 598‐0598
Cell (503) 807‐5102
lauritsen@okonite.com
For Allen MacPhail, Consulting.
One of our customers is planning a 25 kV submarine cable link to Spruce Island from Kodiak Island in
Alaska. We are preparing a feasibility study for them with another consultancy in Anchorage. The
question has arisen whether to use four single-core cables or two-three core cables. We would appreciate
it if you could provide us with budgetary costs to supply both types, in two different conductor sizes.
Assume delivery on reels FOB trucks in the Port of Seattle, where they would be transferred to an
installation contractor’s barge.
Cable requirements would be as follows:
Alternative 1:
Single core cable:
Conductor size: 1C # 1/0 Compact copper, 354 mil wall Okoguard
Armour: galvanized. steel wire – single layer
Length: 1.5 miles x four single-core cables = 6.0 miles on four reels
Alternative 2:
2
Three-core cable:
Conductor size: 3C # 1/0 Compact copper, 345 mil Okoguard
Armour: Overall galvanized steel wire – single layer
Length: 1.5 miles x two three-core cables = 3.0 miles on one or two reels
Alternative 3:
Single core cable:
Conductor size: 1C# 250 kcmil copper, 345 mil Okoguard
Armour: steel wire – single layer
Length: 1.5 miles x four single-core cables = 6.0 miles on four reels
Alternative 4:
Three-core cable:
Conductor size: 3C # 250 kcmil copper, 345 mil Okoguard
Armour: steel wire – single layer
Length: 1.5 miles x two three-core cable = 3.0 miles on one or two reels
Cables should be supplied in general accordance with ICEA S-94-639, ICEA S-93-649 and AEIC CS8.
Maximum water depth is about 300 feet.
Thanks very much for your help with this Kirk. A reply by April 8, 2011 would be appreciated.
Best regards,
Allen.
Allen MacPhail, P. Eng.
Cabletricity Connections Ltd.
1221 Devonshire Crescent
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6H 2G2
Tel/Fax: 604-738-5289
Mobile: 778-840-3210
E-mail: a.macphail@ieee.org
Spruce Island 25 kVac Submarine Cable Connection Study 22
Appendix C – Budgetary Cost Quotation – Submarine Cable Transportation and Laying
Page | 1
April 5th, 2011
G. Allen MacPhail, P.Eng.
Principal Engineer
Cabletricity Connections Ltd.
Via E-Mail: a.macphail@ieee.org
RE: Budgetary Price Proposal for Submarine Cable Installation Spruce Island, AK
Dear Allen,
Island Tug has reviewed the Spruce Island 35 kV Submarine Cable Connection Study and is pleased to submit a
budgetary price proposal for the intended submarine cable installation between Kodiak Island and Spruce Island in
Alaska, USA.
For the submarine cable installation ITB recommends to use the ITB503 in combination with a support tug and a
thruster. The ITB 503 is a 168’ - 48’ deck barge equipped with submarine cable installation equipment which is suitable
to be towed from Vancouver, BC to Kodiak Island, AK. The support tug shall be the Island Tugger with sufficient
accommodation for the number of crew needed for the deck operations on board the ITB503.
ITB has estimated the cost for mobilization, standard cable installation, divers and demobilization including fuel cost.
# Days Budgetary Price
Mobilization Vancouver-Spruce Island 14 $ 475,000.00
Submarine Cable Installation 7 $ 350,000.00
Demobilization Spruce Island-Vancouver 14 $ 475,000.00
$ 1,300,000.00
The above prices and assumptions reflect the current market for budgetary purposes. A detailed scope of work
will have to be developed closer to the project date. When a detailed scope of work is approved ,
ITB looks forward to the opportunity to be a part of the cable installation project between Spruce Island and
Kodiak Island, AK.
Yours sincerely,
Island Tug and Barge Ltd.
John Lindsay
Vice President & General Manager
55 Rogers Street
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6A 3X8
Office: 604-873-4312
Facsimile: 604-873-4318
Cable Lay and Repair Job History
Date Approx Type of
Started Customer Location Length (ft) Work
Feb‐65 B.C. Tel Deep Bay‐Brown Isl Repair cable ends
Feb‐65 B.C. Tel Marpole ‐ Fraser River 2,000 Pick‐up and re‐lay
Feb‐65 B.C. Tel Gibson Landing 1,800 Pick‐up and salvage
Feb‐65 B.C. Tel Fraser River Pick‐up, Splice, cut back and re‐lay
Apr‐65 B.C. Tel Jap Bay ‐ Beaver Pt 6,500 Lay and repair
Apr‐65 B.C. Tel Savory Isl ‐ Lund 16,000 Lay
Apr‐65 B.C. Tel Vancouver‐Nanaimo
Apr‐65 B.C. Tel Chemainus‐Thetis
May‐65 B.C. Tel Pt Grey‐Shoal Hbr‐Sylvia Bay
Jul‐65 B.C. Tel
Ucluelet & Tofino‐Sooke Hbr‐Shiringham
Light‐Port Renfrew 7,319 Lay
Jul‐65 B.C. Tel Half Moon Bay‐Point Roberts
Jul‐65 B.C. Tel Point Roberts
Jul‐65 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt‐Vananda
Jul‐65 B.C. Tel
Chemainus‐Bucaneer Bay‐Gunga Pt‐Billings
Bay‐Cockburn Pt
Jul‐65 B.C. Tel Gunga Pt‐Pender Hbr 180,000 Pickup gulf cable and re‐lay in several locations to length 180,000 ft.
Aug‐65 B.C. Hydro Texada Isl ‐ Grief Pt 18,000 Lay
Sep‐65 B.C. Hydro Vananda‐West Grief Pt 18,000 Lay
Oct‐65 R.E. Dueck Dolphin Rd‐Knapp Isl 3,000 Lay
Oct‐65 B.C. Hydro Westview‐Vananda 18,000 Lay
Dec‐65 B.C. Tel Cambie Bridge 1,800 Lay
Dec‐65 B.C. Tel Gossip Isl 3,000 Lay
Feb‐66 B.C. Hydro Piers Isl from Vancouver Isl 8,000 Lay
Mar‐66 B.C. Tel Piers Isl 4,000 Lay
Apr‐66 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt‐Vananda 20,000 Lay
Apr‐66 B.C. Tel Britannia Beach‐Woodfibre 18,000 Lay
Jun‐66 B.C. Tel Brentwood Bay‐Willis Pt 2,500 Lay
Jun‐66 B.C. Tel Thetis Isl & Chemainus 20,000 Lay
Jul‐66 B.C. Tel Denman Isl Fanny Bay & Deep Bay 6,000 Lay
Jul‐66 B.C. Hydro Hastings Pt‐Knapp Isl 3,000 Lay
Jul‐66 B.C. Tel Thetis Isl Repair
Aug‐66 B.C. Tel Nanaimo‐Kanaka Bay Repair
Sep‐66 B.C. Tel Grief Pt‐Vananda 18,000 Lay
Nov‐66 B.C. Hydro Acitve Pass 5,000 Lay and repair
May‐67 B.C. Tel Morray Channel 1,500 Lay
May‐67 B.C. Tel West Vancouver Repair
Jul‐67 B.C. Tel Quadra & Galiano Isl 9,665 Lay
Oct‐67 B.C. Tel Johnston St Bridge 3,000 Pickup and salvage
Apr‐68 B.C. Hydro Vananda‐Grief Pt 18,000 Pickup, repair and re‐lay
Apr‐68 B.C. Hydro Denman Isl‐Hornby & Gabriola‐Harmack 10,000 Lay
Apr‐68 B.C Hydro Texada‐Grief Pt Repair
Jun‐68 B.C. Hydro Saltspring to Kuper Isl Repair
Jun‐68 B.C. Tel St John Pt Mayne‐Saturna Isl Repair shore ends
Aug‐68 B.C. Hydro Vananda‐Grief Pt 18,000 Lay
Oct‐68 B.C. Tel Lantzville‐Winchelsea Isl 20,000 Lay
Nov‐68 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt 18,000 Pickup, repair and lay
Dec‐68 B.C. Tel Canoe Pass 2,000 Lay
Dec‐68 B.C. Tel Babine Lake 15,000 Lay
Jan‐69 B.C. Tel Babine Lake 15,000 Lay
Jan‐69 B.C. Hydro Crofton‐Saltspring 8,000 Lay
Jan‐69 B.C. Hydro Saltspring‐Kuper Isl Repair
Jan‐69 B.C. Hydro Vananda‐Grief Pt 18,000 Repair and re‐lay
Jan‐69 B.C. Hydro Crofton‐Saltspring 8,000 Pickup, repair & re‐lay
Feb‐69 B.C. Tel Mayne Isl‐Saturna Isl Repair
Feb‐69 B.C. Tel Mayne Isl‐Saturna 1,200 Repair & re‐lay
Mar‐69 B.C. Hydro Crofton Repair
Mar‐69 B.C. Hydro Piers Isl Repair
Mar‐69 B.C. Tel Pitt River 1,500 Lay
Mar‐69 B.C. Tel Pitt River 1,500 Lay
May‐69 B.C. Tel Howe Sound‐Savoury Repair shore ends
May‐69 B.C. Tel Bowen Isl‐Whytecliff Repair
May‐69 B.C. Hydro Crofton 3,000 Repair & re‐lay
Jun‐69 Orcas Power Ropez & San Juan 5,000 Pickup, repair & re‐lay
Jun‐69 B.C. Hydro Kuper‐Crofton 1,500 Repair & re‐lay
Jun‐69 B.C. Tel Cordova Spit‐Piers Isl Swartz Bay Repair shore ends
Jul‐69 B.C. Tel Mayne & Saturna Isl 1,600 Lay
Jul‐69 Canadian Dept of Transport San Juan Pt‐Port Renfrew 10,000 Lay
Sep‐69 B.C. Hydro Westview‐Grief Pt 18,000 Pickup, repair & re‐lay
Nov‐69 B.C. Hydro Saltspring & Crofton 8,000 Lay
Nov‐69 B.C. Hydro Langdale & Gambier Repair
Jan‐70 B.C. Hydro Beaver Pt to Otter Bay 45,000 Lay three cables
Feb‐70 B.C. Hydro Bella Bella 9,000 Lay three cables
Feb‐70 B.C. Hydro Active Pass 5,000 Pickup & re‐lay
Feb‐70 B.C. Tel Quadra Isl & Campbell River 11,000 Pickup, repair & re‐lay
Apr‐70 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt‐Vananda 18,000 Lay
Jun‐70 B.C. Hydro Sarah Point‐Carter Isl 16,000 Lay two cables
Jun‐70 B.C. Tel Irvins Landing & Quarry Bay Repair
Jul‐70 B.C. Tel Fraser St Repair
Aug‐70 B.C. Tel Fraser St Repair
Sep‐70 Canadian Dept of Transport Whiffin Spit 4,000 Lay
Sep‐70 B.C. Tel Cadboro Pt‐Strongtide Isl Repair
Oct‐70 B.C. Hydro North Pender‐Saturna Isl 21,000 Lay three cables
Oct‐70 B.C. Tel Gibsons‐Keats Isl‐Madiera Park 6,000 Lay
Oct‐70 B.C. Tel Campbell River‐Quatiaske 11,000 Lay
Nov‐70 B.C. Tel Beaver Pt‐Jap Bay, North Pender, Beaver Pt &15,000 Pickup, repair & re‐lay in new location
Nov‐70 B.C. Hydro Coffin Pt‐Thetis Isl 8,000 Lay
Nov‐70 B.C. Hydro Kuper Isl & Saltspring Repair
Jan‐71 B.C. Hydro Booth Bay‐Crofton Repair
Jan‐71 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt‐Vananda 18,000 Pickup, repair & re‐lay
Jan‐71 B.C. Hydro Sandspit‐Skidegate 2,500 Repair & lay
Mar‐71 B.C. Hydro Mayne Isl‐Galiano Repair
Mar‐71 B.C. Hydro Crofton Repair
May‐71 B.C. Hydro Bowen Island Repair
May‐71 B.C. Tel North Pender & Mayne Repair
1of 4
Cable Lay and Repair Job History
Date Approx Type of
Started Customer Location Length (ft) Work
Jul‐71 B.C. Tel Winchelsea Isl Repair
Jul‐71 B.C. Hydro Vananda Repair
Aug‐71 Canadian Dept of Transport Bamfield Hbr, Lennard Isl, Lookout Isl 30,000 Lay
Aug‐71 B.C. Tel Murray Rd, Sooke‐Elisa Pt 3,000 Lay
Sep‐71 B.C. Hydro Comorant Isl‐Malcolm Isl 33,000 Lay three cables
Sep‐71 B.C. Hydro Sandspit‐Skidegate 14,000 Pickup old & re‐lay new cable
Nov‐71 B.C. Tel Gunga Pt‐Pender Hbr Repair
Jan‐72 B.C. Hydro Texada Isl‐Phase A 18,000 Pickup
Jan‐72 Orcas Power Lopez‐San Juan Repair
Feb‐72 B.C. Hydro Twawwassen Repair
Mar‐72 B.C. Hydro Vananda‐Grief Pt 18,000 Lay
Apr‐72 Seaspan Vancouver Hbr‐Overseas Telecom Repair
Apr‐72 B.C. Hydro Tsawwassen Repair
May‐72 B.C. Hydro Chattham Isl Repair
May‐72 B.C. Telephone Nanaimo Hbr‐Protection Isl 4,000 Lay
May‐72 Orcas Power 26,000 Lay two cables & pickup & re‐lay BP cable
Jun‐72 B.C. Tel Buckley Bay‐Denman Isl 5,000 Lay
Jun‐72 B.C. Tel Mayne Isl‐Saturna Repair
Jun‐72 B.C. Hydro Chatham Isl 12,000 Lay three cables
Sep‐72 Orcas Power San Juan Channel 13,400 Pickup & re‐lay
Sep‐72 B.C. Tel Mayne Isl‐Active Pass 6,000 Lay
Sep‐72 Department of Transportation Lookout Isl‐Spring Isl 8,000 Lay
Oct‐72 B.C. Hydro Trial island Repair
Nov‐72 B.C. Hydro Off Roberts Bank Repair ‐ 138 KV gas fill
Nov‐72 Orcas Power Pear Pt 1,000 Pickup & reposition
Dec‐72 B.C. Tel Active Pass 5,000 Pickup & salvage
Jan‐73 B.C. Tel Nanimo‐Newcastle Isl‐Pender Hbr 8,000 Pickup & re‐lay
Jan‐73 Department of Transportation Orlebor Pt‐Entrance Isl 3,000 Lay
Mar‐73 B.C. Tel Sooke Repair
Apr‐73 B.C. Hydro Quatsino Sound 3,200 Lay
Apr‐73 B.C. Hydro Vananda‐Grief Pt Repair
May‐73 Orcas Power San Juan‐Lopez Isl Repair
May‐73 B.C. Tel Savory Isl 11,000 Repair
Jun‐73 B.C. Hydro Vananda‐Grief Pt
Jul‐73 B.C. Tel Active Pass 6,000 Lay
Aug‐73 B.C. Tel Pickup Georgia St. relay Lasquiti 125,000 Pickup & re‐lay
Aug‐73 Department of Transportation Port Renfrew‐San Juan Repair
Sep‐73 Orcas Power San Juan‐Lopez Repair
Sep‐73 B.C. Tel Swartz Bay‐Piers Isl & Pender Hbr 3,000 Lay
Oct‐73 Orcas Power Lopez‐Lan Juan 6,000 Lay
Oct‐73 Department of Transportation Sandheads‐Roberts Bank 13,400 Lay
Nov‐73 B.C. Hydro Hornby & Denman Repair
Nov‐73 B.C. Hydro Trial Isl Repair
Feb‐74 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt Repair
Apr‐74 Department of Transportation Entrance Isl Repair
Apr‐74 B.C. Hydro Prince Rupert Repair
Apr‐74 B.C. Tel Barnston Isl 3,000 Lay
May‐74 B.C. Tel Nelson Isl Repair
Jul‐74 B.C. Hydro Jones Isl Repair
Jul‐74 B.C. Tel Langdale‐Avanlon Bay 3,500 Lay
Aug‐74 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt. Repair
Aug‐74 Department of Transportation Sandheads Repair
Oct‐74 B.C. Tel Active Pass Repair
Mar‐75 B.C. Tel Pitt River Bridge 1,500 Lay
Apr‐75 B.C. Hydro Prince Rupert 1,700 Lay
Apr‐75 B.C. Hydro Saturna Isl‐Pender Hbr 1,300 Repair
May‐75 B.C. Tel Bedwell Hbr 3,600 Lay
May‐75 B.C. Hydro Alert Bay‐Vancouver Isl 8,500 Lay
Jul‐75 B.C. Hydro Denman Isl 7,500 Lay
Jul‐75 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt‐Texada Isl 2,200 Repair
Jul‐75 B.C. Tel Bella Bella 8,600 Lay
Aug‐75 B.C. Tel Pitt River Bridge 1,500 Lay
Oct‐75 B.C. Hydro New Brighton, Gambier Isl Repair
Dec‐75 B.C. Hydro Knapp Isl Repair
Feb‐76 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt‐Vananda 2,500 Repair two cables
Apr‐76 B.C. Hydro Trial Isl Repair
Apr‐76 B.C. Tel Winchelsea Isl 170 Repair
May‐76 B.C. Hydro Active Pass Repair
Jun‐76 B.C. Hydro Vananda‐Grief Pt 5,000 Repair
Aug‐76 B.C. Hydro Trial Isl Repair
Oct‐76 B.C. Tel Thetis Isl Repair
Oct‐76 B.C. Hydro Vananda‐Grief Pt 22,000 Pickup & re‐lay cable
Nov‐76 B.C. Tel Thetis Isl Repair
Dec‐76 B.C. Hydro Pitt river 1,000 Lay
Jun‐77
Jul‐77 B.C. Hydro Trial Isl 4,400 Pickup & re‐lay new cable
Jul‐77 B.C. Tel Esquimalt Hbr 4,200 Lay
Sep‐77 B.C. Hydro Denman Isl 7,500 Lay
Oct‐77 B.C. Tel Active Pass Pickup cable
Nov‐77 B.C. Tel Esquimalt Hbr 3,600 Pickup & lay new cable
Dec‐77 B.C. Hydro Tofino 12,000 Lay
Dec‐77 B.C. Hydro Bella Bella 8,000 Repair & lay new cable
Jan‐78 B.C. Hydro Bella Bella 8,000 Repair & lay new cable
Feb‐78 B.C. Tel Esquimalt Repair
Apr‐78 B.C. Tel Campbell River Repair
Jun‐78 B.C. Tel Strongtide Isl Repair
Sep‐78 B.C. Hydro Active Pass Repair
Oct‐78 B.C. Tel Bella Bella 8,600 Pickup & lay new cable
Dec‐78 B.C. Tel Ewquimalt & Sooke 4,200 Lay
Feb‐79 B.C. Hydro Sandspit, Queen charlotte Isls Repair
Apr‐79 Transport Canada Merry Isl 9,000 Lay
Apr‐79 B.C. Tel Sooke Repair cable ends
May‐79 B.C. Hydro Skidegate 21,000 Lay
May‐79 B.C. Tel Hornby Isl 6,000 Lay
May‐79 B.C. Tel Gabriola Isl Repair
2of 4
Cable Lay and Repair Job History
Date Approx Type of
Started Customer Location Length (ft) Work
Jun‐79 B.C. Hydro Tsawwassen Repair
Aug‐79 B.C. Tel Beaver Pt, Village Bay Repair
Oct‐79 B.C. Hydro Bowen Isl 18,000 Lay
Nov‐79 Orcas Power Spieden Isl 3,000 Lay
Nov‐79 B.C. Hydro Bowen Isl Repair
May‐80 B.C. Tel Pender Hbr Repair
Jun‐80 C.H.E. Williams Second Narrows 4,800 Lay
Jul‐80 B.C. Hydro Sandspit, Bowen Isl 10,000 Pickup & re‐lay
Aug‐80 B.C. Tel Lasquiti Isl Pickup
Aug‐80 B.C. Tel Bidwell Pickup
Jan‐81 B.C. Hydro Active Pass Repair
Feb‐81 B.C. Hydro Prince Rupert 6,000 Repair & lay
Apr‐81 B.C. Tel Thetis Isl Repair
Apr‐81 B.C. Tel Keats Isl, Bowen Isl Repair
May‐81 B.C. Tel Nelson Isl, Billings Bay Repair
May‐81 B.C. Tel Nelson, BC 18,000 Lay
Jun‐81 B.C. Tel Esquimalt 4,000 Pickup & re‐lay
Jun‐81 B.C. Tel Active Pass 5,000 Pickup
Jun‐81 B.C. Tel Nelson Isl Repair
Jul‐81 B.C. Hydro Cortez Isl 6,000 Lay
Aug‐81 B.C. Tel Point Roberts, Mayne Isl 72,000 Pickup
Oct‐81 Mr. C. Andre Daymen Isl 3,000 Lay
Oct‐81 Mr. E. Cawyer Hudson Isl 3,000 Lay
Nov‐81 Can‐Dive Serv.
Nov‐81 Teleglobe Can Vancouver Hbr 11,000 Repair & lay
Dec‐81 B.C. Hydro Active Pass 6,000 Repair & lay
Jan‐82 B.C. Tel Lund Repair
Feb‐82 B.C. Hydro Keats Isl Temporary repair
Mar‐82 Ace Electrical Fox Isl, Washington 4,200 Lay
Mar‐82 B.C. Hydro Keats Isl Repair
Mar‐82 Orcas Power Bell Isl, Pole Pass, Destruction Isl 6,800 Lay
Mar‐82 Mr. C. Andre Daymen Isl, Thetis Isl 3,000 Lay
Mar‐82 Western Power Gossip Isl 1,800 Lay
Mar‐82 B.C. Tel Cap Cockburn 9,000 Repair & lay
Mar‐82 B.C. Hydro Keats Isl 3,500 Re‐lay
Apr‐82 B.C. Tel Savory Isl 6,000 Repair & lay
May‐82 B.C. Tel Banfield 1,680 Lay
Jul‐82 B.C. Tel Pender Hbr 1,800 Repair & lay
Jul‐82 Transport Canada Entrance Isl 3,500 Lay
Aug‐82 B.C. Hydro Tofino Area 64,450 4 ‐ lays
Aug‐82 B.C. Tel Stubbs Island Inspection
Sep‐82 Telephone Utilities of Washington Lopez Island Repair
Sep‐82 Chesham Investments Goudge Island 1,000 Pickup & lay
Sep‐82 B.C. Hydro Bowen Island Repair
Oct‐82 B.C. Tel Mayne Island Repair
Nov‐82 B.C. Hydro Egmont 16,000 3 ‐ lays
Nov‐82 B.C. Tel Egmont 2,800 Lay
Jan‐83 B.C. Hydro Bowen Island Repair
May‐83 Alaska Power Auth. & Mitsui (USA Wrangell 264,000 Lay 16 cables 138 kv
Jul‐83 B.C. Tel Saturn to Main Island Repair
Sep‐83 B.C. Hydro Active Pass Repair
Dec‐83 B.C. Tel Madera Park 4,000 New lay
Mar‐84 Orcas Power & Light Decatur to Blakley Isl Repair
Apr‐84 B.C. Hydro Parker Isl to Saltspring Isl 16,000 Lay
Jun‐84 B.C. Hydro Parker Isl to Saltspring Isl 16,000 Lay
Jun‐84 Dawson Construction Ketchikan, Alaska 4,000 Lay
Jul‐84 B.C. Tel Buccanear Bay Repair
Aug‐84 Dept. of National Defence Parry Bay 12,000 Lay
Oct‐84 Orcas Power & Light Blakely Isl to Decatur Lay
Nov‐84 B.C. Tel Gunga Pt to Cape Cockburn 6,000 Repair
Nov‐84 B.C. Tel False Creek 10,000 Pickup
May‐85 B.C. Hydro Mayne to Saturna Repair
May‐85 Estate of R.M. Andrews Jr. Kuper Isl to Norway 10,000 Supply & lay cable
Jun‐85 B.C. Hydro Bowen Isl Repair
Aug‐85 Western Power & Light Johnson Isl 3,000 Lay
Aug‐85 B.C. Hydro Port McNeill 17,000 Pickup and lay
Sep‐85 B.C. Tel West Vancouver & Sechelt Remove into storage
Oct‐85 B.C. Tel Mayne Isl 12,000 Lay
Nov‐85 Pacific Telecom Services Orcas to Blakely Isl Lay
Apr‐86 B.C. Hydro Active Pass 5,000 Repair and lay
May‐86 B.C. Hydro Bowen Isl Repair
Jul‐86 B.C. Hydro Tofino Repair
Sep‐86 B.C. Tel Protection Isl 4,500 Lay
Oct‐86 B.C. Hydro Active Pass 5,000 Lay ‐ 3
Nov‐86 B.C. Tel Coal Island Transfer stored cable
Jan‐87 Bill Garden Johnson Isl 3,000 Lay cable
Jan‐87 B.C. Tel Cape Cockburn Repair
May‐87 Central Coast Power Gunboat Pass 6,000 Lay ‐ 3
Jul‐87 B.C. Tel Lund & Savary 20,000 Lay
Jul‐87 Orcas Power Orcas Island 5,750 Retrieve and Lay
Sep‐87 B.C. Hydro Bowen Island 30,000 Lay ‐ 3
Jan‐88 (West Coast Trans Cont.) Northern Gulf of Georgia Pipeline survey
Jan‐88 B.C. Tel Ucluelet 1,968 Lay
Jan‐88 B.C. Tel Tofino 6,900 Lay
Jan‐88 B.C. Tel Kyuhuot 15,400 3 ‐ Lays
Jan‐88 B.C. Tel Quatsino 14,100 Lay
Jan‐88 B.C. Tel Fulford Hbr 6,000 Splice & lay ‐ 4
Jan‐88 B.C. Tel Trincomali Channel Lay
Jan‐88 B.C. Tel Johnson Channel 22,000 Lay ‐ 4
Jan‐88 B.C. Tel Keats Island 40,000 Lay 1
Jan‐88 B.C. Tel Thetis Island‐Vancouver Isl 11,000 Lay
Feb‐88 Public Utility District 1Lake Crescent 13,000 Lay
Jan‐89 BC Hydro Port McNeill ‐ Alert bay 7,000 Lay
Feb‐89 Inter Island Telephone Blakely Isl to Decatur 4,000 Lay
Mar‐89 Arctic Services Saanich Inlet Set Monitors
3of 4
Cable Lay and Repair Job History
Date Approx Type of
Started Customer Location Length (ft) Work
Mar‐89 BC Telephone Pitt River 3,000 lay
May‐89 Dawson Construction Back Island 14,000 lay
Jun‐89 BC Hydro Alert Bay 7,000 Lay
Jun‐89 Orcas Power & Light San Juan Island Repair
Jun‐89 BC Hydro Kitkatla 100,200 Lay
Jun‐89 Inter Island Telephone Decatur to Blakley Isl 4,000 lay
Jul‐89 BC Hydro Bowen Island 1,000 Lay
Sep‐89 BC Hydro Pender Hbr 3,000 Lay
Oct‐89 HN Engineering Porcher Island ‐ Stephens Island 60,000 lay
Oct‐89 Transport Canada Ballenas Island lay
Mar‐90 Orcas Power Lopez island ‐ San Juan Island 14,000 Lay
Jun‐90 Mitsui & Co Lopez island ‐ San Juan Island Lay ‐ 4
Apr‐91 John Vincent Forrest Island 12,000 Lay
May‐91 Telephone Utilities of Washington Gig Harbor ‐ Vashon Island 14,000 lay
Jun‐91 Transport Canada Breakwater island Lay
Aug‐92 PTI Communications Pear Pt. Cable re‐positioning
Sep‐93 Westmar Consultants Subtle Island Lay
Jan‐94 BC Hydro
Feb‐94 BC Hydro Saturna to Pender Island 8,000 Repair and Relay
Apr‐94 B.C. Tel Saturna to Samual 2,300
Jun‐94 BC Hydro Tofino 6,500 Lay
Sep‐94 B.C. Tel Sandspit to Queen Charlotte City 19,685 Lay fibre optic submarine cable
Nov‐94 BC Hydro Denman to Hornby Island 4,000 Repair and Lay
Jan‐95 Orcas Power & Light San Juan Island to Spiedel Island 8,000 Repair and Relay
Jan‐96 Sigma Engineering Brown Bay 12,000 Lay ‐ 3
Mar‐96 Vancouver Island Power Coulter island 15,000
Apr‐96 BC Hydro Pearson Island 7,500 Lay
Apr‐96 Transport Canada Merry Isl Lay
Aug‐96 BC Hydro Gohiano Island 12,000 Inspection and Recovery
Apr‐97 BC Telephone Lions Bay ‐ Furry Creek Lay ‐ 2
Apr‐97 Raven Bay Holdings May Island 1,600 8 submarine cables
Oct‐97 R&R Excavating Ltd. Stewart island 18,000 3x25kV
Jun‐98 Ledcor Industries Shuswap Lake 87,000 Lay
Oct‐98 Century Tel Shaw island ‐ Crane Island 2,060 Lay
Oct‐98 ICF Ltd. Sutton Island 2,500 Lay
Feb‐99 Transport Canada Nanaimo Retrieve and Lay
May‐99 B.C. Tel Saturna ‐ Mayne Island pick up and lay
Jul‐99 Horizon Power Installations James Island 1,700 Lay
Jul‐99 B.C. Tel Denman Island 17,000 48 Fibre submarine cables VCR Island and Denman Island
Aug‐99 Century Tel San Juan Islands 9,980 3 cable laying projects
Oct‐99 B.C. Hydro Knapp Isl repair
Feb‐00 B.C. Tel Sook harbour 4,020 Lay
Feb‐00 Alaska Electric Light&Power Stephens Passage 69,131 Lay, 20 cables
Mar‐00 Synex Energy Fair Harbour ‐ Chamiss Bay 20,000 Lay
May‐00 B.C. Hydro lawyer Island ‐ Smith Island Repair and Relay
Jun‐00 B.C. Tel Sandspit 21,155 11 cables
Jul‐00 B.C. Hydro Campbell River 7,500 Repair and Lay
Jul‐00 Horizon Power Installations Knapp Isl Lay
Nov‐00 B.C. Tel Lund Island ‐ Savary island 12,000 Lay
May‐01 B.C. Tel Chemainus Isl ‐ Thetis Isl. 7,000 lay
Jun‐01 UMA Engineering Ltd. Entrance Isl Lay
Feb‐02 B.C. Hydro Campbell River pick up and lay
Feb‐02 B.C. Tel Gossip Isl 3,000 Repair and relay
Apr‐02 International Telecom Repair
May‐02 B.C. Hydro Dolphin Rd ‐ Knapp Island 8,500 Retrieve and lay
May‐02 B.C. Tel Alert Bay ‐ Beaver Cove 10,000 lay
Sep‐02 B.C. Hydro Sechelt 16,000 lay 3 cables
Nov‐02 Seapower North Trail island 3,000 Lay
Jan‐03 University of Victoria Alcatel 247,500 Retrieve and storage
Feb‐03 Horizon Power Installations Pym Island 4,950 Lay power and water
Mar‐03 B.C. Hydro Alert bay 8,580 Retrieve and lay
Jun‐03 Komex International Forrest Island 7,000 lay of waterline
Jun‐03 Canadian Coastguard Pym Island 5,250 lay
Aug‐03 Komex International Forrest Island Repari submarine waterline
Oct‐03 B.C. Hydro Pender to Salt Spring 19,800 lay of 4 cables
May‐04 B.C. Hydro Saturna Island lay
Sep‐05 B.C. Hydro Grief Pt ‐ Texada Island Retrieve and lay of 4 cables
Nov‐05 Synex Energy Walters Cove 25,000 Lay
Jan‐06 B.C. Tel Passage Island 8,530 Lay
Sep‐06 Clean Current Power Systems Race Rocks 1,650 Lay
Nov‐06 B.C. Hydro Denman Island ‐ Buckley Bay 16,830 Retrieve and lay of 3 cables
Nov‐06 B.C. Tel Mayne Island ‐ Saturna Island Replacement of three cables
Jan‐07 B.C. Hydro Saturna Isl ‐ North Pender Isl 36,730 Replacement of three cables
Jan‐07 B.C. Hydro Saturna Island ‐ Mayne Island Repair
Apr‐07 University of Victoria Venus Strait of Georgia Array 27,650 lay
Aug‐07 BCTC Trincomali Channel 77,000 Retrieve and lay
Sep‐07 Canpac Divers Roberts Bank ROV inspection
Sep‐07 B.C. Hydro Alert Bay 25,245 Replacement of three cables
Dec‐07 Canpac Divers Sandheads ROV inspection
Jul‐08 Raytheon Company Winchelsea Isl 5,200 lay
Jul‐08 B.C. Hydro Pender to Salt Spring 16,500 lay spare cable
Aug‐08 BCTC Texada Island ROV inspection
Sep‐08 B.C. Hydro Saturna Island 100,000 Retrieve 3 cables + lay 2 cables
Aug‐09 B.C. Hydro Texada Island ROV inspection
Aug‐10 B.C. Hydro Okanogan Lake 49,200 Retrieve 3 cables + Lay 4 new 25 kV cables
Sep‐10 WestCoast Diving Contractors Thetis Island 3,600 Install power cable to private island
Sep‐10 TELUS Burrard Inlet 12,000 Retrieval of 2 telecom cables
Aug‐10 Orcas Power & Light Spieden Island ROV Inspection
Oct‐10 VISCAS Corporation Trincomali Channel 48,000 Retrieve 2 cables + lay 2 252 kV power cables
374 Total Jobs Total Feet Handled 3,614,448
4of 4
Safety Management Structure
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Policy
Health, Safety,
Quality and
Environmental
Safety, Quality and Pollution
Prevention Manual
Company Procedure Manual
Operations Manuals
Tug Barge Shop
Tier 4
Supporting
Instructional
Letters
WHMIS Manual ECOPRO Plan HS&E Manual CDN & US
SOPEP
Passage Plan
Emergency
Plans and Drill
Book
Bulk Oil
Products Quality
Assurance
man al
Deck Cargo
Product Handling
Manual
Barge
Maintenance
Log
Certificates
and License
Book
Charts and
Publications
Checklist
Manual
ISPS Plan Etc.
Our Mission
Island Tug creates the highest value solutions for our customers in
bulk liquids, submarine cable and support services on the West
Coast of North America and the Arctic.
We seek long-term relationships with our customers, priding
ourselves on delivering innovative solutions tailored to their needs.
Through our talented people living our values, continuous process
improvement and leading-edge equipment, we lead the industry in
safety, performance, professionalism, and environmental
stewardship, while generating sustainable stakeholder value.
Our standards are high. We define excellence—and we deliver.
Our Values
Everyone Returns Home Safely!
At Island Tug we…
• Value our People and invest in their future
• Deliver on our promises and thrive on a good reputation
• Create value for our Customers at every level
• Respect one another
• Communicate openly, honestly and with integrity
• Are positive and passionate in everything we do
• Value competence, experience, knowledge, and innovation
• Are committed to social responsibility and environmental stewardship
• Celebrate our Successes
Island Update
Last month, we put our new dynamically positioned
(DP2) cable barge to work for the first time, laying
the biggest cable we’ve ever handled – 242-kV
cable made by Viscas – in Trincomali Channel. The project
was an enormous group effort, and the end user, BC Hydro,
was delighted with the results.
“Island Tug has been doing cable since 1968, but now
we’ve taken a huge step,” says Ferdi van de Kuijlen. “Now
we can handle any size of cable, so it’s a great opportunity
for the business.”
It’s also an opportunity to contribute to the
economy, as any big cable lay job involves
other businesses such as dive companies,
shore contractors, environmental compa-
nies, and safety experts.
“We received positive feedback from the
client,” adds Ferdi. “They were very happy
that they have now a company that can
do this here in BC. Now they can look in
their back yard instead of going south of
the border.”
Andy Farmer served as technical advisor
and helped with project implementation,
working closely with the cable experts to
make sure the equipment operated properly.
“We had to get to know the equipment, and the procedure
we were using was also new to this company,” he says. “As
well, we did a lot of recording of data – measuring the angle
and tension of the cable, for example.”
Andy says that the preparation took much longer than the
I s l a n d T u g a n d B a r g e L t d.November 2010
Everyone returns home safely!
job itself. “We had to acquire, build, and assemble equipment.
“But now we have our DP barge, so the next project will be a
lot quicker.”
Mate and relief Master Alex Edwards has done a lot of cable
work in his 12 years with ITB, but says this project was
definitely different. “It was a bigger job than anything we’ve
done,” he says. “There were 32 people on the barge, and it
was so impressive to see everyone in their roles, and every-
thing going so smoothly.”
Those people were each focused on their
piece of the project, and dedicated to one
thing: getting the cable out of the pan, over
the stern and onto the bottom without damag-
ing it. “It’s surprisingly delicate and you had to
be careful with it,” says Alex.
Geoff Porter, director and general manager
of our project partner Seabridge Marine, calls
the barge a “fantastic” piece of machinery.
“This was one of the premier cable lay jobs in
the world at the moment,” he says. “There are
only a few companies in the world that can
manufacture it, and laying it is a big deal.”
That big deal was made a little easier by
the fact that ITB and Seabridge have a well-
established working relationship. “The best thing about work-
ing with ITB is that everyone always wants to do things right,”
he says. “You don’t have to argue that point ever – and that’s
a nice way to work.”
Our commitment to doing things right resulted in a successful
first project for our DP2 barge. And we expect that this is only
the beginning.
ITB 45 completes major cable projectITB 45 completes major cable project
“Thank you for your cooperation
during the entire cable install, I
am sure BCH and guests height-
ened your stress level … they
were amazed at ITB’s profession-
alism to ensure a first-class per-
formance. The BC Hydro team
were impressed with ITB’s efforts
to successfully complete the
cable installation; we are pleased
to have a viable local contractor
to be available to assist.”
— Harvey Manchuk,
Construction Officer, BC Hydro
To help people get in touch with where they are, where
they are going, and how to improve their performance, ITB
has been conducting employee evaluations.
“The evaluations provide one-on-one feedback with our
seagoing crew,” says John Lindsay. “It’s a way of identify-
ing what you do well, what you can improve, and what
direction you want to move in. Not everyone wants to
become a mate, for example. But if you want to keep on
as a deckhand, maybe we can identify ways to help you be
a better deckhand.”
Port Captains Bill Ford, Jed Brown, and Gary Duncan
have been doing the evaluations, uncovering strengths and
opportunities for improvement. “It’s a way to measure how
our employees are doing – and that’s good information for
the company as well as for the employees themselves,”
says Jed.
He adds that the evaluations help reveal whether or not
a person is ready to advance. For the role of master, for
example, there’s a long checklist that covers everything
from handling boats to handling people and paperwork.
“For those who want to move up, if they have the potential
and the ability, we put them through more training,” says
Gary. “It can be an overwhelming job though, so they don’t
move up until we see fit, and until they’re comfortable. It’s
important that they be the best they can be at their own
jobs before they step into the next role.”
There are also a few who simply aren’t suited to stepping
up to the next level yet. “A couple of guys told us it hurt to
hear that, but they really appreciated hearing the truth,”
says Jed. “Now they can really work on the areas they
need to work on, instead of wondering why they’re getting
passed by.”
Good training is priceless
In conjunction with the evaluations, the trio is heading up
an intensive training program for mates ready to move up
to a master position. “In my time, the training was pretty
slim,” says Bill. “The industry tended to hire people who
have the savvy and pick things up on the job. But honestly,
the seat of the pants method is not the ideal way to learn.”
A more formal training program helps reduce damage and
injury. Bill notes that even with a few green masters, our
damage has been down since the training has been imple-
Nov 2010
Everyone returns home safely!
Page 2 of 3
mented. Spending the money on training rather than on
fixing damage, makes good business sense.
One employee who successfully stepped into the role of
master last February was Neil Parris. “The formal training
was very beneficial,” he says. “It took a lot of guesswork
out of it. The theory is the same when you come into any
landing or approach; it’s a matter of current and wind. But
having someone with the kind of experience Gary has
showing me how it’s done gave me experience that would
have taken years to get on my own.”
Neil adds that he’s glad the company has moved toward a
more formal training program. “It’s a very steep learning
curve,” he says. “Without the training, I don’t think I would
have had the nerve to jump in and do it.”
For the trainers, helping people achieve their best is
very satisfying. Says Gary, “It’s really rewarding to me
because I’ve seen many of them as green, inexperienced
deckhands, and now they’re doing a heck of a good job.”
Evaluations and training help us be the best we can be
Gary Duncan gives Neil Parris the benefit of his experience
and wisdom during a training session.
Safety corner by Stephen Shimek
A near miss is an event that did not result in injury or damage, but that had the
potential to do so. Near miss reporting allows us to deal with those events before
they become problems.
A recent near miss at ITB provides a good example of how the process should
work. In this case, the Master did all the paperwork right away, documenting ex-
actly what happened and making recommendations for procedures that would
help prevent a similar incident in the future.
The meticulous way he wrote it allowed us to present the issue very clearly in a
meeting with the customer and contractor, and get them involved. It allowed them
to understand what the issues were, and it set the ground for us to move forward.
A few weeks later, we were able to use that document again in a conference call
so that everyone still had a clear picture of what happened and no details were
lost with the passage of time.
Once you take the step to document an issue, you know that it’s preserved – frozen in time. The information can then be
used as we develop measures that will prevent the incident from occurring again.
The Master did a fantastic job of reporting, and his attention to detail will result in important safety improvements. So while
paperwork may not be anyone’s favourite task, near-miss reporting is a necessary and valuable way for us to ensure that
we are continually improving.
ITB has won a North American Occupational Safety and
Health (NAOSH) Week safety award in the “Marine”
category. A secondary “Special Award” was given for “Most
Innovative.”
Our seagoing division took the prize for the two activities it
submitted. One was the abandon ship and survival at sea
training that was arranged at the BCIT marine campus. The
other was the publication of a summary of all our incidents
that have occurred during the first quarter of 2010.
As well, our maintenance facility received an honourable
mention for its two NAOSH Week activities. Five groups did
a “what’s wrong with this photo” hazard identification activity.
One group each day presented their scenario to the rest of
the maintenance facility. The rest of the groups had to
identify the issues or hazards in each photo. For its second
submission, the facility conducted a spill drill.
Although our third entry didn’t win official recognition, it did
result in producing an excellent tool that we will use. Our
office created a visitor site safety information pamphlet to
hand out to visitors and contractors who come to the office.
The pamphlet provides key emergency information and
safety procedures that they should know while visiting or
working for ITB.
Nov 2010
Everyone returns home safely!
Page 3 of 3
From left: Don Lynum, Jed Brown, John Lindsay, Stephen Shimek,
Roger Wright and Vincent Russell, Director, Industry & Labour
Services, WorkSafeBC
The awards were presented last month at the NAOSH
awards luncheon. But the benefits go well beyond the award
ceremony – all our projects supported our core value that
“everyone returns home safely,” and participating in these
and other safety projects contributes to our continual safety
improvement.
ITB receives safety award
NATIONAL SAFETY AWARD ISLAND TUG AND BARGE LTD.