Get help now

Risk assessment of Euro Tunnel

  • Pages 7
  • Words 1562
  • Views 350
  • dovnload



  • Pages 7
  • Words 1562
  • Views 350
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    In June 1982 the governments accepted an offer by an Anglo-French financing roof to study the feasibility of privately financing the fixed link. This reported in May 1 984, concluding that the bored tunnel option was best. Since there was no natural owner for the project, the banks felt that the chance of getting a significant portion of equity into the scheme was slim. Some level of SEC or government support would be necessary, they believed, given the size and novelty of the project, but some form of risk sharing between the private and public sectors might also be possible.

    On 30 November 1984, Mrs.. Thatcher and President Integrand announced their enthusiasm for a fixed link between their two countries, provided it was financed, built and operated by the private sector. The timetable set by the two governments was tight. French parliamentary elections Were scheduled for March 1986 and the French presidential election for 1 988, which was also the latest year for a general election in the UK. Under-staffing was an immediate and serious problem with eventual approval.

    Since the project was contractor-originated, the question immediately arose (as it always does on BOO(T) projects) of how to set up a strong owner organization independent of the sponsoring contractors that old give direction, manage the contractors and ensure value for money. The financing scheme proposed was one of the most complex for many years. The ACT partners contributed to the initial Meme of the project’s working capital (Equity). Further share placing were planned for June 1986 (Equity 2) and mid-1987 (Equity 3).

    The programmer was almost certainly over- optimistic, bring driven by the original promoters’ desire to minimize the money they had to put in (Equity 1) and to go to the market for equity 2 before complaints began to be aired during the planning hearings in Parliament. The date for Equity 3 was based on the project’s requirement for funds rather than the ability of Routinely to prepare for such a major share issue. Equity 3 also, of course, had to be after the Treaty had been ratified, so that the political risk element would not disturb the placing.

    The major challenge faced by the project is to be found in the problem of concurrency – of starting construction before the design is properly worked out. With the Tunnel, the problem was that the mechanical and electrical systems, the rolling stock and various safety requirements were not fully fined before the markets were approached for full funding. As the complexity of these systems grew, their costs rose. Inflation was significantly higher than forecast.

    Claims of Emma arose between Routinely and the contractors. Conflicts were high; teamwork was never particularly good and declined to the point in mid 1993 that Routinely was even barred from access to the works by the contractors. Concurrency, contractual disputes almost grounded the project to a halt. The project’s cost overran by 80% and concessionaire Routinely overestimated tunnel traffic and has met financial faculty. In 1996 a fire disrupted operation of the tunnel.

    Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers had been known in the past to use the tunnel to enter Britain causing a minor diplomatic row over the sitting of the Generates refugee camp which was eventually closed in 2002. Introduction The channel tunnel is one of Rupee’s biggest infrastructure projects ever and was a dream for about two centuries. The Channel Tunnel linking England with France is a superb technical and engineering achievement. The 50. Km long tunnel has fulfilled this old dream by linking Britain and the rest of Europe.

    The idea of a fixed link between Britain and France was first mooted by a French engineer in 1802; it connects England and France mm below the seabed of the English Channel. It’s not just a tunnel, but a huge infrastructure containing massive machinery and control systems in an underwater tunnel system. In 1990 the service tunnels broke through at the halfway point. The main rail tunnels met on May 22, 1991 and on June 28, 1991, each accompanied by a breakthrough ceremony. The next few years were spent refining, equipping, and finishing the tunnels.

    In 1 994 the Channel Tunnel was noninsured completed. It opened for business in late 1 994, offering three principal services: a shuttle for vehicles, Euro-star passenger service linking London with Paris and Brussels, and through freight trains. The Channel Tunnel was a build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) project with a concession. T ML would design and build the tunnel, but financing was through a separate legal entity: Routinely. Routinely absorbed ACT/F-M and signed a construction contract with HTML, however, the British and French governments controlled final engineering and safety decisions.

    The British ND French governments gave Routinely a 55- (later operating concession to repay loans and pay dividends. A Railway Usage Agreement was signed between Routinely, British Rail and the Sociot Nationals des Scheming De fear Francis guaranteeing future revenue in exchange for the railways obtaining half of the tunnel’s capacity. The Channel Tunnel cost in excess of Elope. However, as a business project it has undoubtedly been a failure. Shareholders in the Company Operating the concession for the tunnel have witnessed significant loss of value in their equity stake in the company.

    Fig 1: A map representation of the Routinely Private funding for such a complex infrastructure project was of unprecedented scale. An initial equity of EYE million raised by ACT/F-M, increased by IEEE million private institutional placement, IEEE was raised in a public share offer that included press and television advertisements, a syndicated bank load and letter of credit arranged EH billion. Privately financed, the total investment costs at 1 985 prices were EH million. At the 1994 completion actual costs were, in 1 985 prices, EH million; an 80% cost overrun.

    The cost overrun was partly due to enhanced safety, security, and environmental demands. Financing cost were 140% higher than forecast Eleven tunnel boring machines working from both the UK and France cut through chalk marl to construct two rail tunnels and a set-vice tunnel. Rolling stock using the tunnel includes Arrestor passenger trains based on the French TAG and vehicle shuttle wagons that are the largest in the world; the tunnel has its own fleet of service vehicles. The vehicle shuttle terminals are located at Coercion and Clueless, and are connected to the British and French motorways.

    In 1996 the American Society of Civil Engineers identified the tunnel as one Of the Seven Wonders Of the Modern World. [he project environment The environmental credentials of rail transport are not disputed; occupying less space, with greater safety, giving rise to a low level Of atmospheric pollution, and being a minor emitter of green house gases. By its very nature, Returnee’s core activities do not directly generate greenhouse gases. Routinely has to comply with special environmental regulations that apply to its maintenance activities, particularly rolling stock maintenance and repair ND Channel Tunnel cooling.

    Routinely endeavourers to optimism waste management. Routinely has forged many contacts in the areas around its sites on both sides of the Channel, evidencing its commitment to work together with all interested parties, particularly institutional bodies and local residents. Routinely and the White Cliffs Countryside Project (YWCA) have worked in partnership to manage and develop Campfire Hoe and the Flowstone Escarpment. This joint venture has been awarded a number of prizes. The urban biological purification plant built by Routinely in France, has a design opacity equivalent to a population of 13,500 people.

    This water treatment plant treats the waste water from Routinely and from Clueless. On the UK Terminal, the Environment Agency has been approached to formalism the administrative status of surface water discharges. On the French Terminal, Routinely actively contributes to the preservation Of the historic system Of Wateriness, which are local drainage systems for protecting the plain of Calais / Dunker / Saint Emmer, which is lower than high water sea level. Routinely continuously monitors PH. Temperature, suspended solids and infill on two retention lagoons in order to ensure water quality standards for the Generates water gang.

    Routinely have encouraged the electric vehicle fleet which are mainly used in the service tunnel to minimize exhaust emissions. Measures to protect residents from noise nuisance were taken during construction and have continued since opening. These include the covered loop of the UK terminal, soundproofing dwellings on the ELK side and an embankment around the Generates site. Noise surveys are carried out for every new project or future modification to minimize noise nuisance. The use of electricity for traction rower is for reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. It only uses fossil fuels, principal cause of greenhouse gases, in a minor way.

    Routinely is continuing its programmer of monitoring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (haloes and hydrochlorofluorocarbons). Freon (ROR) is used in the Tunnel cooling plant, rolling stock air conditioning units and air conditioning in buildings. The average energy consumption for the Routinely system is about MAW. Routinely analyses electricity consumption to find ways to improve its utilization. Efforts have been focused on the following areas of tunnel and Armenia lighting, cooling and pumping regulation, carrying out research on new lamps and equipment, better control of lighting.

    It is actively contributing to the development of renewable energy sources. Routinely has intros cued the selective collection of special waste and non-hazardous waste on the two Terminals. Selective collection has necessitated an overhauling of all equipment and facilities, the modification of waste flows, and the creation of a waste centre on the French Terminal. The existing water collection system in the waste storage area on the UK Terminal has been modified.

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    Risk assessment of Euro Tunnel. (2018, Mar 31). Retrieved from

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper
    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy