Geotechnical Report - Rehman & Rizq, POGC (30092022)

REHMAN & RIZQ FRONT END COMPRESSION
REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF),
KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH.
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Prepared for
M/s Polish Oil and Gas Company, Pakistan - PGNIG
AUGUST, 2022
AJK Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd.
Document History
Document details
Project No. AJK/GT/101-2991
Document title Geotechnical Investigation Report – Rehman & Rizq Front End
Compression
Site address Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District Dadu, Sindh.
Report prepared for M/s Polish Oil and Gas Company, Pakistan - PGNIG
Document status
Revision Comment Prepared by Date issued

0 Draft Muhammad Azhar Saleem 23.08.2022
Revision-I
1 Muhammad Azhar Saleem 02.09.2022
(Lab Test Results Included)
Revision-II
(Lab Test Results Included)
Final Issue
(Comments Incorporated))
Distribution of copies
Revision Electronic Paper Issued to
0 Yes No M/s Polish Oil and Gas Company, Pakistan - PGNIG
2 Yes Yes M/s Polish Oil and Gas Company, Pakistan - PGNIG
The undersigned, on behalf of AJK Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd, confirm that this document and all attached
drawings, logs and test results have been checked and reviewed for errors, omissions and
inaccuracies.
Signature Date
Author 30.09.2022
Soft Copy (PDF) Can be

download by scanning
QR Code
AJK Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd
Table of Contents
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Brief Introduction 1
1.2 Objectives of Geotechnical Investigations 1
1.3 Scope of Field Activities 2
2. SITE DESCRIPTION 3
2.1 Project Overview 3
2.2 Geology of the Project Area 3
3. FIELD INVESTIGATION 4
3.1 General 4
3.2 Exploratory Boreholes 4
3.3 Excavation of Test pits 5
3.4 Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) 5
3.5 Sampling 5
3.6 Groundwater Observations 5
3.7 Core recovery parameters 5
3.8 In-Situ CBR Tests 6
3.9 Soil Electrical Resistivity Survey 6
3.10 Soil Thermal Resistivity Survey 6

3.11 Seismic Down-Hole Survey 6
4. LABORATORY TESTING 7
4.1 Findings on Laboratory Tests 7
4.1.1 Uniaxial Compressive Strength Test 7
4.1.2 Point Load Test 7
4.1.3 Hoek Shear Test 8
4.1.4 Rock Core Modulus Test 8
4.1.5 Modified Proctor Test 8
4.1.6 3-Point Soaked CBR Test 8
4.1.7 Chemical Analysis of Soil / Rock Samples 8
5. SITE GEOTECHNICS 9
5.1 General 9
5.2 Stratigraphy 9
5.3 Seismicity of the Area 9
5.4 Seismic Soil Profile Characterization 9
5.5 Liquefaction Potential 10
6. FOUNDATION DESIGN 11
6.1 Geotechnical Soil Model and Design Parameters 11
6.2 Geotechnical Design Criteria 11

6.3 Foundation Type, Depth and Allowable Bearing Pressures 11
7. CONSTRUCTION ASPECTS 13
7.1 Foundation Material 13
7.2 Construction of Internal Roads 14
7.3 Backfilling of Foundation Pit 14
7.4 Type of Cement 14
7.5 Inspections and Construction Verifications 14
8. CONCLUSIONS 15
9. LIMITATIONS 17
10. REFERENCES 18
APPENDICES:
Appendix A : Site Layout Plan
Appendix B : Seismicity of the Area
Appendix C : Foundation Recommendations
Appendix D : Subsurface Soil / Rock Profile
Appendix E : Field Logs
Appendix F : In-Situ CBR Results
Appendix G : Laboratory Test Results
Appendix H : Soil Electrical Resistivity Survey Report
Appendix I : Soil Thermal Resistivity Survey Report
Appendix J : Seismic Downhole Survey Report
Appendix K : Site Photographs

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Rehman & Rizq Front End Compression,
Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District Dadu, Sindh.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Brief Introduction
M/s Polish Oil and Gas Company, Pakistan (PGNiG) are planning to install Front End Compression
Facility at Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District Dadu, Sindh. M/s AJK Engineers
(Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad has been entrusted to carry out the Geotechnical Investigations for the project site
as Geotechnical Agency.
The field investigations of this project were carried out from 19th July, 2022 to 08th August, 2022. The
purpose of the investigation was to obtain geotechnical parameters to design the foundations of the
proposed structures. This report summarizes our findings on geotechnical investigations carried out at the
project site. Details of the investigation, borehole sampling, analysis of in-situ data, and the design of
foundations are presented in this report.
1.2 Objectives of Geotechnical Investigations
The Geotechnical Investigations have been conducted at the site to achieve the following objectives:
i. To establish the presence and extent of various lithological units prevailing at the proposed
project site.
ii. To ascertain the presence and location of groundwater from a geotechnical point of view and
to determine its quality from the construction perspective.
iii. To explore the zones of soft/weak soil stratum within the project area.
iv. To determine the geotechnical design parameters for carrying out the design of foundations to
be constructed for the proposed buildings/structures.
v. To furnish the considerations which are to be considered for the construction of foundations
and other geotechnical structures.
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 1

Rehman Production Facility (RPF), District Dadu.
1.3 Scope of Field Activities
Following geotechnical investigations were carried out to fulfil the above listed objectives and structural
requirements:
i. Drilling of Six (06) boreholes up to a maximum target depth of 20 m below the existing ground
level (EGL).
ii. To perform SPT at a regular interval of 1.0m up to the investigated depth.
iii. Excavation of Six (06) test pits up to the maximum depth of 3.0 m below the existing ground
level (EGL) or up to bedrock whichever is encountered earlier.
iv. Collection of disturbed soil samples / undisturbed tube samples at selected depths in the
boreholes / test pits to assist with classification and for laboratory testing.
v. Performance of Two (02) in-situ California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests at designated locations.
vi. Determination of groundwater level.
vii. Performance of detailed laboratory testing on selected soil samples for their classification and
the determination of engineering characteristics of subsoil.
viii. Performance of Three (03) Soil Electrical Resistivity Survey (ERS) at selected locations.
ix. Performance of Three (03) Soil Thermal Resistivity Survey (TRT) at selected locations.
x. Performance of One (01) Seismic Downhole Survey at the selected location.
xi. Preparation of a comprehensive report to summarize the findings of geotechnical

investigations and geophysical survey together with comments relating to the design and
construction of the proposed works.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Overview
The project site is located around 80 – 100 km away from Dadu City. This report mainly deals with the
geotechnical and geophysical investigations conducted at the POGC project site.
M/s PGNiG is planning to install a Front End Compression Facility (FEC) at the inlet of the Rehman
Production Facility. FEC will feature the following equipment:
1. Slug Catcher
2. Reciprocating Compressors (x3)
3. Evaporative Cooler
4. Separator Vessel
In addition to the civil works associated with the installation of the above equipment, there will be road
works as well. Part of each of the three foundations for the compressors and the evaporative cooler is
coming inside the area which is currently occupied by Evaporation Pond – 2 (EP-2). The Company is
planning to reclaim EP-2 and restore the area to make it fit for use as a site for constructing foundations
for the equipment. The depth of the evaporation pond is ~ 10 ft. below the natural grade. Based on the
data of the existing installed compressors at the facility, the depth of the foundation was ~3ft below
natural grade and the same has been used as a reference for the foundation of new compressors.
A general layout plan indicating the location of boreholes is presented as Fig. A-2 and A-3 appended in
Appendix-A.
2.2 Geology of the Project Area
The Kirthar Fold belt is bounded to the east by the Lower Indus Platform Basin, to the south by the
Offshore Indus Basin, to the west by the Bela-Waziristan Ophiolite and the Baluchistan-Pishin Basin, and
to the north by the Suleiman Fold belt. Kirthar Fold belt is the product of oblique collision between the
Indian Plate and the Helmand Block of the Eurasian Plate. The Kirthar Fold belt Basin underwent
transpression and inversion. The Fold belt shows a west to east stratigraphic and structural zonation, with
structural intensity and age tending to decrease from, west to east.
Seismic monitoring in Pakistan consists of six seismograph stations operated by the Pakistan
Meteorological Department (PMD). Seismic Maps and Fault Map of Pakistan is attached in Appendix B.

3. FIELD INVESTIGATION
3.1 General
Keeping in view the scope of the geotechnical studies, a field investigation programme was developed.
The investigation included the following activities;
- Drilling of exploratory boreholes
- Excavation of Test Pits
- In-situ testing
- Soil sampling
- Performance of In-Situ CBR
- Performance of Soil Electrical Resistivity Test
- Performance of Soil Thermal Resistivity Test
The details of fieldwork conducted at the project site are discussed in this chapter. The locations of
exploratory boreholes are shown on the layout plan attached in Appendix-A.
The fieldwork was supervised by AJK Geologist who was responsible for client liaison, field coordination,
logging of the strata encountered and handling of the collected samples. The fieldwork component of the
investigation was carried out between 19th July 2022 to 08th August 2022.
3.2 Exploratory Boreholes
A total of Six (06) boreholes were drilled up to the depth of 20 m below existing ground level (EGL) at the
proposed Structure location. The straight rotary drilling method was used for the execution of boreholes.
The diameter of the boreholes was 75 mm. Out of Six (06) boreholes, Three (03) boreholes
(BH-04 to BH-06) were drilled in the evaporation pond area.
A careful record of drilling, in the form of borehole logs, was prepared by qualified Engineers. The logs
present summary of encountered subsoil strata, in-situ test results (i.e., SPTs), location of groundwater
table and other anomalies that have been observed during the drilling operation. Plan indicating the
location of boreholes and detailed borehole logs are appended with the report as Appendix – A and
Appendix – E respectively. Due to the presence of rock stratum, instead of SPTs, rock classification along
with Core Recovery and Rock Quality Designations have been listed.

3.3 Excavation of Test pits
In-situ soils present at shallower depths were visually inspected by excavating Six (06) test pits at the
project site manually. The maximum excavated depth of test pits was 0.76 m below EGL. The excavated
test pit could not be advanced up to the required depth due to the presence of rocky strata at shallow
depth. Field density tests could not be performed due to gravelly/rock strata. Figure A-2, appended in
Appendix-A, show the locations of the excavated test pits at the project site. Test Pit Logs of the project
site are appended in Appendix-E of this report.
3.4 Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs)
Standard Penetration Tests with solid cone were generally conducted in overburden soils / at locations
where core recovery was more or less equal to zero in boreholes. These tests were conducted in
accordance with the procedures described in ASTM Standard. A donut type hammer, weighing 63.5 kg
was used for the testing which was lifted and dropped mechanically through the flywheel of the drilling rig
and pulley hanged to a tripod.
3.5 Sampling
Disturbed soil samples were obtained during the process by using a split spoon sampler. The collected
specimens were carefully placed in polythene bags which were stored in carefully labelled plastic jars
clearly identifying the project name, collection date, borehole designation, sample designation and its
depth.
All the soil samples were carefully transported for subsequent laboratory testing.
3.6 Groundwater Observations
A careful observation for the presence of Ground Water Table was kept as the design parameters and
engineering properties of soils are greatly affected by the presence of GWT. At the time of boring, water
table was not encountered up to the drilled depth of 20m in any of the boreholes.
3.7 Core recovery parameters
Core recovery parameters describe the quality of core recovered from a borehole. Rock Quality
Designation (RQD) is a measure of the quality of rock core taken from a borehole. RQD signifies the
degree of jointing or fracture in a rock mass measured in percentage, where RQD of 75% or more shows
good quality hard rock and less than 50% show low quality weathered rocks. RQD is used to evaluate the
quality of rocks such as degree of weathering, zones of rock weakness and fracturing. This information is
used for determining the depth of foundations, bearing capacity of rocks, settlement and sliding
possibilities of foundations. RQD helps in obtaining favourable tunnelling conditions and evaluating the
zones with poor quality rocks which may not support the engineering structures. Core recovery

parameters and respective RQD calculations have been listed in boreholes logs. Subsurface Soil / Rock
Profiles indicating Core Recovery & Rock Quality Designation (RQD) are appended in Appendix-D of this
report.
3.8 In-Situ CBR Tests
In order to assess the suitability of in-situ material as a subgrade, in-situ California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
tests were performed at the project site. Three (03) such tests were performed by the Dynamic cone
penetration method as per ASTM D-6951. In-situ CBR test results are appended in Appendix-F of this
report.
3.9 Soil Electrical Resistivity Survey
Three (03) Soil resistivity survey tests were conducted to determine the subsurface resistivity conditions
and to decide the perspective location of earthing system. ERS was conducted on Three (03) points of
maximum 5 meters estimated depth for designing of earthing system, the investigation was done by
deploying Wenner electrode configuration. Detail report on Electrical Resistivity Survey is appended in
Appendix-H of this report.
3.10 Soil Thermal Resistivity Survey
Three (03) Soil thermal Resistivity survey tests were conducted. The technical objectives of the survey
were to ascertain the Thermal Resistivity of soil at different depths, in order to overcome the problem of
heat generated by buried power cables/pipes and to find out the value of soil resistivity for earthing. Detail
report on Soil Thermal Resistivity Survey is appended in Appendix-I of this report.
3.11 Seismic Down-Hole Survey
One (01) Seismic Down-Hole survey test was planned to conduct to determine in-situ compression
(P-waves) and shear (S-wave) velocities with depth. But keeping in view of the area and previous
investigation carried out in 2019, Seismic Down-Hole Survey was not conducted. The previous detailed
report on Seismic Downhole Survey is also appended in Appendix- J of this report.

4. LABORATORY TESTING
For the evaluation of the physical strength and chemical characteristics of the subsoil, selected soil / rock
samples were tested in the laboratory. The following laboratory tests were performed on selected soil /
rock samples.
- Uniaxial Compressive Strength Test
- Point Load Test
- Hoek Shear Test
- Rock Core Modulus Test (Young's Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, Modulus of Deformation)
- Modified Proctor Test
- 3-Point Soaked CBR Test
- Chemical Analysis of Soil / Rock Samples
All the tests were performed according to the relevant standards. A summary of all the laboratory test
results and the corresponding laboratory test reports are attached in Appendix-G of this report.
4.1 Findings on Laboratory Tests
4.1.1 Uniaxial Compressive Strength Test
Eight (08) Unconfined compression tests on rock samples collected from boreholes were performed
as per relevant standard. Test results are summarized as follows:
 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Rock = 68.20 Kg/cm2 to 753.28 Kg/cm2
 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Rock = 6.69 Mpa to 73.87 Mpa
Laboratory test results are attached in Appendix-G.
4.1.2 Point Load Test
For determining the Point Load Strength of the rock sample, one (01) selected rock sample was
tested as per relevant standard. Test result indicate the point load strength of the sample as 0.2
MPa.

4.1.3 Hoek Shear Test
Two (02) rock samples were subjected to Hoek Shear Test as per the relevant standard for
determining the angle of shear resistance of rock samples. Test results indicated the angle of shear
resistance of rock samples is ranging from 8.53o to 19.29o.
4.1.4 Rock Core Modulus Test
Two (02) rock samples were subjected to Rock Core Modulus Test as per relevant standard. Test
results are summarized as follows:
 Young's Modulus (Mpa) = 3.20 x 103 to 2.92 x 104
 Poisson’s Ratio = 0.173 to 0.287
 Modulus of Deformation (Mpa) = 1.36 x 103 to 1.14 x 104
Laboratory test results are attached in Appendix-G.
4.1.5 Modified Proctor Test
Three (03) samples were subjected to Modified Proctor Test as per relevant standard. Test results
indicated maximum dry density (MDD) as 2.120 g/cc to 2.268 g/cc and optimum moisture content
(OMC) as 6.80 % to 8.80 %.
4.1.6 3-Point Soaked CBR Test
Three (03) samples were subjected to 3-Point Soaked CBR Test as per relevant standard. Test
results indicated CBR value at 95% modified AASHTO maximum dry density as 22.5 % to 38.0 %.
4.1.7 Chemical Analysis of Soil / Rock Samples
Chemical testing was performed on two (02) soil / rock samples collected from the borehole. Test
results are summarized as follows:
 Sulphate Content 0.11 % to 0.12 %
 Chloride Content 0.007 % to 0.008 %
 Organic Matter Content 0.51 % to 0.54 %

5. SITE GEOTECHNICS
5.1 General
The geotechnical investigations carried out at the project site comprised field and laboratory work. The
field and laboratory investigations were aimed at evaluating the engineering characteristics of the
foundation soils. The subsequent conditions and engineering characteristics of the soils existing at the
project site are discussed in the following sections.
5.2 Stratigraphy
At the time of these investigations, the maximum depth of drilled borehole was 20 m below existing
ground level (EGL). General stratigraphy of the project area, as deduced from the site investigations duly
corrected in the light of laboratory test results (wherever required), indicates the presence of the following
general stratigraphic units;
Depth below Existing

Material Description
Ground Level (EGL), m
Highly Fractured, Slightly to Highly Weathered Bed Rock (i.e. Limestone /

0.0 – 20.0
Sandstone / Siltstone / Shale / Mudstone)
Subsurface Soil / Rock Profile and Borehole logs are appended in Appendix-C and Appendix-E
respectively.
5.3 Seismicity of the Area
The project site is located in Zone 2A as per “Seismic Provisions-2007” of the Building Code of Pakistan.
Keeping in view the seismotectonic set up of the project site and the degree of importance of the
structures of the proposed project, it is recommended that the structures should be designed to withstand
horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.08 – 0.16g. This PGA has a 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years.
5.4 Seismic Soil Profile Characterization
The seismic profile of the subsoil present at the site has been characterized by using the guidelines
provided in “Seismic Provisions-2007” of the Building Code of Pakistan. Chapter 4, of this code describes
the procedure for determining Soil Profile Types SA through SF in accordance with Table 4.1 (BCP; SP
2007: Section 4.4). Soil profile “SC” is recommended to be used for this site. Here SC is defined as
follows;

SC: Very Dense Soil with Soft Rock
Vs (Shear wave velocity) = 350 m/s to 750 m/s
N (SPT Blows value) => 50
Su (Undrained Shear Strength) => 100 kPa.
5.5 Liquefaction Potential
Loose state, water-submerged, cohesionless soils are generally susceptible to liquefaction under dynamic
loads caused by earthquakes. Liquefaction results in total or partial loss of shear strength thereby leading
to substantial subsidence, ground heave and/or uplifting of lightweight structures. Based on subsurface
stratum and groundwater conditions encountered in the project area, liquefaction is not expected.

6. FOUNDATION DESIGN
Based on the field investigations and the subsequent laboratory testing, subsurface strata at the project
site have been established and the corresponding design of foundations has been carried out. The details
of foundation design recommendations are provided in the following sections.
6.1 Geotechnical Soil Model and Design Parameters
Based on the field investigations and subsequent laboratory testing and engineering judgement, the
critical geotechnical soil model along with the geotechnical design parameters prevailing at the proposed
project site have been established and are given below:
Depth below Existing Ground

Design Parameters
Level (EGL) (m)
Bulk Unit Weight (b) = 23 kN/m3
0.0 – 20.0 Friction Angle (ᶲ) = 400
= 100 Mpa
Modulus of Elasticity (Es)
6.2 Geotechnical Design Criteria
All shallow foundations should meet the following geotechnical design criteria:
 The allowable loads should not initiate the shear failure of the foundation soil.
 The settlement of the foundations should be within tolerable limits under the application of
allowable loads.
6.3 Foundation Type, Depth and Allowable Bearing Pressures
Keeping in view the subsurface ground condition and type of loading of proposed structures, isolated pad
/ strip and mat foundations may be considered to safely transfer loads of the proposed structures to the
subsurface stratum.
Based on the data of the existing installed compressors at the facility, the depth of the foundation was
approximately 3ft below the natural grade. Therefore, the same depth of foundation (3ft) below the natural
subgrade was considered for foundation recommendations of new compressors.
As the depth of foundation is 3ft below natural subgrade and the depth of evaporation pond is 10ft below
natural subgrade, therefore, in case of foundation placement in evaporation pond, filling material having
2.5m ~ 2.7m depth is recommended (including removal of approximately 0.6m loose material present at
the base of evaporation pond).

All the foundations have been analyzed for both shear and settlement criteria. The bearing capacity
curves for various sizes of isolated pad / strip and mat foundations are appended in Appendix-C of this
report. The tolerable settlement for isolated pad / strip foundation is 1 inch (25.4 mm) and for mat
foundation is 2 inches (50.8 mm).

7. CONSTRUCTION ASPECTS
7.1 Foundation Material
The material encountered at the foundation level should be thoroughly inspected by an experienced
geotechnical engineer and should conform to the material encountered in the explored boreholes. In case
the material encountered is different, the reporting authority must be contacted before the placement of
foundations.
Any loose or weak material encountered at the foundation level must be replaced with compacted
engineered fill. The compacted filling should comprise material of low reactivity such as ripped
sedimentary rock, slightly clayey sand or a processed crushed rock with a smooth grading curve. The
maximum particle size after compaction should not exceed 50 mm. As a general guideline, the material
used as engineered fill should be well graded (1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3, and Cu ≥ 4) granular material with fines not
greater than 15%.
Generalized elaborated engineering fill requirements are mentioned below:
Sieve No Opening (mm) Maximum Passing %
2 inch 50 100
# 10 2 50
# 40 0.425 30
# 200 0.075 15
The material to be used as engineered fill should be well graded (i.e 1 ≤ C C ≤ 3 and CU ≥ 4)
CC = Coefficient of Curvature ( (D30)2/ D60 x D10)
CU = Coefficient of Uniformity ( D60 / D10 )
In addition to the above, material passing #40 Sieve (0.425mm) should have plastic index not exceeding
6%.
All engineered filling placed beneath footings should be placed in horizontal layers not greater than 150
mm loose thickness and uniformly compacted to achieve at least 80% of relative density. In case the
selected fill material has more than 10% fines, it should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum
modified Proctor dry density. Materials should be compacted at a placement moisture content of +/- 2% of
Optimum Moisture Content. Care should be taken not to over compact or place clayey filling too dry of
Standard optimum to minimise the effects of post construction swelling.
Onsite foundation excavated material may be used as general fill for raising the area. The maximum
particle size of the general fill should not be more than 150 mm. General fill should be free from clods,
salts, sulphates and organic or other foreign material. In no case, the general fill material should be

expensive in nature. The general fill material should be placed in layers not exceeding 450 mm loose
thickness and be rolled and/or rammed to achieve compaction of at least 70 % of relative density.
7.2 Construction of Internal Roads
For the determination of pavement design parameters, three (03) CBR tests were performed on samples
at the laboratory. All tests were performed as per relevant standard. Test results indicated CBR value at
95% modified AASHTO maximum dry density as 22.5 % to 38.0 %. Test results from in-Situ CBR are
appended in Appendix-G of this report. The pavement design should be carried out considering the CBR
values summarized in Appendix-G of this report.
7.3 Backfilling of Foundation Pit
Select surplus spoils from the excavated materials, not larger than 150 mm, shall be used for backfilling
the foundation trenches. Backfill materials shall be free from clods, salts, sulphates and organic or other
foreign material. The backfill soil should not be expansive in nature.
The backfill material should be placed in layers not exceeding 450 mm loose thickness and be rolled
and/or rammed to achieve compaction to the satisfaction of the Engineer. The Contractor should prepare
a detailed methodology in this regard and submit it for approval from the Client.
7.4 Type of Cement
Chemical testing on soil samples collected from this site indicates the chemical aggressivity of the soil to
be of “S1” Class, i.e. “Moderate” scale as per ACI 318M-11. Which describes the use of special
considerations regarding sulphate resistant cement. Guidelines of ACI 318M-11 should be followed
accordingly for the selection of cement type for sub-surface construction. Chemical test results are
compiled in laboratory test results attached in Appendix-G.
7.5 Inspections and Construction Verifications
The comments and design recommendations presented in this report are based on descriptions of
conditions at known points (i.e. boreholes). Since the subsurface conditions can vary from the inferred
ground model for the site, it is important that the ground behaviour should be reviewed during
construction and compared with the design assumptions. Accordingly, it is recommended, provision be
made for a construction review and performance monitoring programme, with inspections to cover but not
limited to the following aspects of the works:
 subgrade preparation at the foundation level
 footing excavations
 subgrade preparation for internal roads

8. CONCLUSIONS
Our conclusions and recommendations regarding the soil investigations carried out for the Rehman &
Rizq Front End Compression, Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District Dadu, Sindh” are
summarized below;
 During these investigations, the subsurface was explored to a maximum depth of 20m below the
existing ground surface by means of six (06) exploratory boreholes.
 Strata encountered is Highly Fractured, Slightly to Highly Weathered Bed Rock (i.e. Limestone /
Sandstone / Siltstone / Shale / Mudstone) till the maximum explored.
 Groundwater table was not encountered up to the explored depths at the time of investigations.
 Based on our evaluations, the seismic soil profile type should be taken as SC and the project site is
located in Zone 2A as per “Seismic Provisions-2007” of the Building Code of Pakistan.
 Chemical testing on soil samples collected from this site indicates the chemical aggressivity of the
soil to be of “S1” Class, i.e. “Moderate” scale as per ACI 318M-11. Which describes the use of
special considerations regarding sulphate resistant cement. Guidelines of ACI 318M-11 should be
followed accordingly for the selection of cement type for sub-surface construction. Chemical test
results are compiled in laboratory test results attached in Appendix-G.
 Based on the results of our investigations, soils at the project site are not likely to undergo
liquefaction.
 Bearing capacity curves for isolated pad / Strip and mat foundations are attached as Appendix - C.
 For the determination of pavement design parameters, three (03) CBR tests were performed on
samples at the laboratory. All tests were performed as per relevant standard. Test results indicated
CBR value at 95% modified AASHTO maximum dry density as 22.5 % to 38.0 %. Test results from
in-Situ CBR are appended in Appendix-G of this report. The pavement design should be carried out
considering the CBR values summarized in Appendix-G of this report.
 Three (03) Soil resistivity survey tests were conducted to determine the subsurface resistivity
conditions and to decide the perspective location of earthing system. A detailed report on the ERS
tests conducted at the project site is attached as Appendix-H.
 Three (3) Soil Thermal resistivity survey tests were conducted in order to overcome the problem of
heat generated by buried power cables/pipes and to find out the value of soil resistivity for earthing.
A detailed report on the TRT tests conducted at the project site is attached as Appendix-I.

 Previous detailed report on the Seismic Down-Hole Survey Test conducted at the project site is
attached as Appendix-J.

9. LIMITATIONS
AJK Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. has prepared this report for this project “Geotechnical Inv estigations for
Rehman & Rizq Front End Compression, Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District
Dadu, Sindh” as per correspondence and acceptance received from M/s Polish Oil and Gas Company,
Pakistan – PGNIG. This report is provided for the exclusive use of the proposed site and its appointed
agents for the specific project and purpose as described in the report. It should not be used for other
projects or by a third party. In preparing this report AJK Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd has necessarily re lied upon
information provided by the client and/or their agents.
The results provided in the report are indicative of the sub-surface conditions only at the specific sampling
or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out.
Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of
anthropogenic influences. Such changes may occur after AJK’s field testing has been completed.
This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached notes and should be kept in its entirety
without separation of individual pages or sections. AJK cannot be held responsible for interpretations or
conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation,
outcome or conclusion given in this report.
M/s AJK Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd.

10. REFERENCES
1. Building Code of Pakistan, Seismic Provisions 2007
2. Sowers, G. F. (1962). Shallow foundations. Foundation Engineering, McGrawHill, New York, 525
- 632.
3. Bowles, J. E., (1996). “Foundation Analysis and Design, (5th Edition)”, McGrawHill, New York.
4. Das, B. M. (2010). “Principles of Geotechnical Engineering”, 7th Edition, Cengage Learning, CT,
USA.
5. NAVFAC, D. M. 7.02, (1986), “Foundations & Earth Structures”, Department of Naval Facilities and
Engineering Command, Alexandria.
6. Burt Look, “Handbook of Geotechnical Investigations & Design Tables”
7. ACI-318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
8. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2012

Appendix A
Site Layout Plan

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CONTRACTOR: Rehman & Rizq Front End Location Plan of Site
PROJECT: FIGURE: A-1
Compression
Rehman & Rizq Front End

CLIENT:
Compression REVISION: 0
Rehman Production Facility,
PROJECT NO: AJK/GT/101-2991
Kirthar Block, District Dadu.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CONTRACTOR: Rehman & Rizq Front End Location Plan of Investigated
PROJECT: Points FIGURE: A-2
Compression
CLIENT:
Compression
REVISION: 1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CONTRACTOR: Rehman & Rizq Front End Location Plan of Investigated
PROJECT: Points FIGURE: A-3
Compression
CLIENT:
Compression
REVISION: 1
Appendix B
Seismicity of the Area

Appendix C
Foundation Recommendations
700 (Without Filling)
(Applicable to foundations
in BH-1, 2 & 3 Area)
600
530
500
Net Allowable Bearing Pressure (kPa)
490
400
320
300
300
210
200 180
190
160
100
Isolated Pad Foundation

Strip Foundation
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Width (m)
Bearing Capacity Curve for Isolated Pad Founfation and Strip Foundation Placed at 0.6 ~1m depth below
NSL Level (Assumed equal to E.G.L at BH-1, BH-2 and BH-3 Location)(WITHOUT FILLING)
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CONTRACTOR: Rehman & Rizq Front End Bearing Capacity Chart
PROJECT: CHART: C-1
Compression Isolated Pad & Strip Foundation
CLIENT: Compression
REVISION: 1
PROJECT NO: AJK/GT/101-2991 Kirthar Block, District Dadu.
300 (With Filling)
250
225
210
200
170
160
150 140
120
130
100 110
50
Isolated Pad Foundation

Strip Foundation
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Width (m)
Bearing Capacity Curve for Isolated Pad Founfation and Strip Foundation Placed at 0.6 ~1m depth below
NSL Level (Assumed equal to E.G.L at BH-1, BH-2 and BH-3 Location)(WITH 2.5~2.7m FILLING)
PROJECT: CHART: C-2
Compression Isolated Pad & Strip Foundation
CLIENT: Compression
REVISION: 1
(Without Filling)
500
400
380
325
300 295
300
200
Mat Foundation
100
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Width (m)
Bearing Capacity Curve for Mat Founfation Placed at 0.6 ~1m depth below NSL Level (Assumed equal to
E.G.L at BH-1, BH-2 and BH-3 Location)(WITHOUT FILLING)
PROJECT: CHART: C-3
Compression Mat Foundation
CLIENT: Compression
REVISION: 1
400 (With Filling)
300
200
200 190 180
170
100
Mat Foundation
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Width (m)
Bearing Capacity Curve for Mat Founfation Placed at 0.6 ~1m depth below NSL Level (Assumed equal to
E.G.L at BH-1, BH-2 and BH-3 Location)(WITH 2.5~2.7m FILLING)
PROJECT: CHART: C-4
Compression Mat Foundation
CLIENT: Compression
REVISION: 1
Appendix D
Subsurface Soil / Rock Profiles

GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS - REHMAN & RIZQ FRONT END COMPRESSION
REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF), KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH.
Subsurface Soil / Rock Profile
BH-01 BH-02
Depth below
EGL (m) Material SPT "N" Recovery RQD Material SPT "N" Recovery RQD
Type Value (%) (%) Type Value (%) (%)
0 60 34 52 Nil
1.0
64 Nil 63 13
2.0
55 Nil 51 Nil
3.0
66 Nil 55 Nil
4.0
57 10 52 Nil
5.0
57 Nil 45 Nil
6.0
45 Nil 46 Nil
7.0
50 Nil 46 Nil
8.0
40 Nil 44 Nil
9.0
44 Nil 39 24
10.0
45 Nil 50 Nil
11.0
49 Nil 60 24
12.0
44 Nil 62 29
13.0
41 Nil 79 60
14.0
38 Nil 61 16
15.0
42 Nil 75 13
16.0
34 Nil 736 Nil
17.0
35 Nil 72 Nil
18.0
39 Nil 69 Nil
19.0
35 Nil 72 Nil
20.0
Legends:
Overburden Sandstone
Limestone Siltstone
Mudstone Shale
* NTS
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Rehman & Rizq Front End Subsurface Soil /

CONTRACTOR: PROJECT: Rock Profile PROFILE: D-1
Compression
Rehman & Rizq Front

CLIENT: End Compression
Rehman Production REVISION: 0
Facility, Kirthar
Block, District Dadu.
BH-03 BH-04
Depth below
0 62 Nil 75 Nil
1.0
65 30 56 Nil
2.0
59 Nil 57 Nil
3.0
50 20 63 Nil
4.0
56 10 61 15
5.0
66 10 60 11
6.0
69 26 54 Nil
7.0
68 12 50 Nil
8.0
76 14 53 Nil
9.0
79 37 49 Nil
10.0
57 Nil 60 Nil
11.0
53 Nil 68 Nil
12.0
66 10 47 Nil
13.0
75 Nil 55 Nil
14.0
74 Nil 47 Nil
15.0
55 Nil 44 Nil
16.0
54 Nil 43 Nil
17.0
44 Nil 42 Nil
18.0
39 Nil 53 24
19.0
42 Nil 59 Nil
20.0
Legends:
Limestone Siltstone
Mudstone Shale
* NTS

Compression
Rehman & Rizq Front

Facility, Kirthar
BH-05 BH-06
Depth below
0 32 Nil 41 Nil
1.0
45 Nil 40 Nil
2.0
39 Nil 45 Nil
3.0
Refusal
46 Nil
4.0
48 Nil 36 Nil
5.0
Refusal
43 23
6.0
45 Nil 49 Nil
7.0
33 Nil 55 Nil
8.0
27 Nil 44 Nil
9.0
40 Nil 48 Nil
10.0
46 13 55 Nil
11.0 Refusal
54 Nil
12.0
43 11 54 Nil
13.0
46 10 50 Nil
14.0
44 Nil 66 13
15.0
45 27 47 Nil
16.0
38 12 53 Nil
17.0
50 10 49 11
18.0
47 Nil 41 Nil
19.0
42 Nil 57 Nil
20.0
Legends:
Silty Sand Siltstone
Limestone Shale
Mudstone

Compression
Rehman & Rizq Front

Facility, Kirthar
Appendix E
Field Logs
BORELOG
Ground Engineering Services & Solutions
BOREHOLE NO.
(Geotechnical Engineering Department)
BH-01
PROJECT: GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS - REHMAN & RIZQ FRONT END COMPRESSION Drilling Started on:
22-07-2022
LOCATION: SLUG CATCHER, REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF), KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH.
Drilling Completed on:
23-07-2022
CLIENT: POLISH OIL AND GAS COMPANY, PAKISTAN - PGNIG
Engineer:
DRILLING INFORMATION Fahad Mansoor
METHOD OF DRILLING: Straight Rotary
PROJECT NO: AJK/GT/101-2991 Driller:
DIA. OF BORING: 75mm CO-ORDINATES: Ground Elevation (m): Saleem
BIT: Carbide/Diamond Rock Strike Level (m): 0.3m North: 26.58260 East: 67.27379 Direction / Inclination:
SPT HAMMER WEIGHT: 63.5 kg Drop: 76cm GROUND WATER TABLE: Not Encountered. Vertical
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Drilling Fld. Loss %

SAMPLE TYPE /
SPT Std. Penetration
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
Subsurface Description
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.0 OVERBURDEN (0.0 - 0.3m) Coring started from
0.0
Brown, Very Hard, Sandy Clay with Gravels 0.3 to 1.0m
R-1 LIMESTONE (0.3 - 2.2m)
White to Grey, Fine Grained, weak to medium strong,
SW
SF
Fractured, Weathered, layers of Sandstone 60 34
0
1.0 1.0
encountered,
MW - HW
Coring from 1.0 to
R-2
MF - HF
2.0m
64 Nil
0
2.0 2.0
SANDSTONE (2.2 - 4.1m)

MW - HW
Coring from 2.0 to

R-3
MF - HF
Yellowish Brown, Medium Grained, Extremely weak 3.0m

to weak, Fractured, Weahtered,
55 Nil
0
3.0 3.0
MW - HW
Coring from 3.0 to

R-4
MF - HF
4.0m
66 Nil
0
4.0 4.0
LIMESTONE (4.1 - 5.0m)

MW - HW
Coring from 4.0 to

R-5 White to Grey, Fine Grained, weak to medium strong, 5.0m
Fractured, Weathered,
MF
57 10
0
5.0 5.0
Brownish Grey, Medium Grained, Extremely weak to
MW - HW
Coring from 5.0 to

R-6 weak, Fractured, Weahtered,
MF - HF
6.0m
57 Nil
0
6.0 6.0
MW - HW
Coring from 6.0 to

R-7
MF - HF
7.0m
45 Nil
0
7.0 7.0
MW - HW
Coring from 7.0 to

R-8
MF - HF
8.0m
50 Nil
0
8.0 8.0
MW - HW
Reddish Brown, Medium to coarse grained, Coring from 8.0 to

R-9
MF - HF
Extremely weak to weak, Fractured, Weahtered, 9.0m
40 Nil
0
9.0 9.0
MW - HW
Coring from 9.0 to

R-10
MF - HF
10.0m
10.0 44 Nil 10.0

0
L E G E N D:
SPT/S Standard Penetration Test & Number FRACTURE: WEATHERING:
CPT/C Cone Penetration Test & Number F Fracture SW Slightly Weathered
RUN/R Rock Core Run and Number SF Slightly Fracture MW Moderately Weathered
RC Rock Core Recovery MF Moderately Fracture HW Highly Weathered
RQD Rock Quality Designation HF Highly Fracture SHEET 1 OF 2
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-01
22-07-2022
LOCATION: SLUG CATCHER, REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF), KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH.
23-07-2022
Engineer:
BIT: Carbide/Diamond Rock Strike Level (m): 0.3m North: 26.58260 East: 67.27379 Direction / Inclination:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
MW - HW
Coring from 10.0 to
R-11
MF - HF
Greenish Brown, Medium to coarse grained, 11.0m
Extremely weak to weak, Fractured, Weahtered,
45 Nil
0
11.0 11.0
Coring from 11.0 to

R-12
MF - HF
12.0m
49 Nil
H
0
12.0 12.0
Coring from 12.0 to

R-13 13.0m
HF
44 Nil
H
0
13.0 13.0
Coring from 13.0 to

R-14 14.0m
HF
41 Nil
H
0
14.0 14.0
Coring from 14.0 to

R-15 15.0m
HF
38 Nil
H
0
15.0 15.0
MW - HW
Coring from 15.0 to

R-16 16.0m
100
HF
42 Nil
16.0 16.0
MW - HW
Brownish Grey, Medium to coarse grained, Extremely Coring from 16.0 to

R-17
weak to weak, Fractured, Weahtered, 17.0m
100
HF
34 Nil
17.0 17.0
MW - HW
Coring from 17.0 to

R-18
18.0m
100
HF
35 Nil
18.0 18.0
MW - HW
Coring from 18.0 to

R-19
19.0m
100
HF
39 Nil
19.0 19.0
MW - HW
Coring from 19.0 to

R-20
20.0m
100
HF
20.0 35 Nil 20.0

L E G E N D: END OF BOREHOLE
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-02
26-07-2022
LOCATION: NEAR SLUG CATCHER, REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF), KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH.
28-07-2022
Engineer:
BIT: Carbide/Diamond Rock Strike Level (m): 0.2m. North: 26.58260 East: 67.27355 Direction / Inclination:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.0
R-1 LIMESTONE (0.2 - 2.1m)
HW
Greyish to White, Fine Grained, weak to medium
HF
52 Nil
0
1.0 strong, Fractured, Weathered, 1.0
SW - MW
Coring from 1.0 to
R-2 2.0m
SF
63 13
0
2.0 2.0
SANDSTONE (2.1 - 4.1m) Coring from 2.0 to

R-3
Brownish Grey, Medium to Coarse Grained, 3.0m
MW
Extremely weak to weak, Fractured, Weathered,

MF
51 Nil
0
3.0 3.0
Coring from 3.0 to

R-4 4.0m
MW
MF
55 Nil
0
4.0 4.0
Grey, Fine Grained, weak, Fractured, Weathered,
MW - HW
Coring from 4.0 to

R-5 5.0m
MF
Brownish Grey, Medium Grained, weak to slightly 52 Nil

0
5.0 5.0
strong, Fractured, Weathered, Patches of Mudstone,
MW - HW
Coring from 5.0 to

R-6 6.0m
HF
45 Nil
0
6.0 6.0
Coring from 6.0 to

R-7
7.0m
MW
HF
46 Nil
0
7.0 7.0
Brownish Grey, Medium to coarse grained, weak to

Coring from 7.0 to
R-8 slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered, 8.0m
MW
HF
46 Nil
0
8.0 8.0
SW - MW
Coring from 8.0 to

R-9
9.0m
MF
44 Nil
0
9.0 9.0
SW - MW
Coring from 9.0 to

R-10
10.0m
SF
10.0 39 24 10.0
0
L E G E N D:
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-02
26-07-2022
28-07-2022
Engineer:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50

R-11
Brownish Grey, Medium to coarse grained, weak to 11.0m
MW
slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered,
HF
50 Nil
0
11.0 11.0
SW - MW
Coring from 11.0 to
R-12 12.0m
MF
60 24
0
12.0 12.0
SW - MW
Coring from 12.0 to

R-13
Brown to Dark Brown, Medium to coarse grained, 13.0m
Medium strong, Fractured, Weathered,
MF
62 29
0
13.0 13.0
Coring from 13.0 to

R-14
Medium strong to strong, Fractured, Weathered,
SW
SF
79 60
0
14.0 14.0
SW - MW
Coring from 14.0 to

R-15
Medium strong, Fractured, Weathered,
MF
61 16
0
15.0 15.0
MW - HW
Coring from 15.0 to

R-16
Greyish Brown, Medium to coarse grained, Medium 16.0m
strong, Fractured, Weathered,
MF
75 13
0
16.0 16.0
MW - HW
Coring from 16.0 to

R-17
MF - HF
Brownish Grey, Medium to coarse grained, Weak to 17.0m

slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered,
73 Nil
0
17.0 17.0
MW - HW
Coring from 17.0 to

R-18
18.0m
HF
72 Nil
0
18.0 18.0
MW - HW
Coring from 18.0 to

R-19
19.0m
HF
69 Nil
0
19.0 19.0
MW - HW
Coring from 19.0 to

R-20
20.0m
HF
20.0 72 Nil 20.0

0
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-03
31-07-2022
01-08-2022
Engineer:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.0
R-1
HW
MF
62 Nil
0
1.0 Greyish to White, Fine Grained, weak to medium 1.0
strong, Fractured, Weathered,
Coring from 1.0 to
R-2 HW 2.0m
SF
65 30
0
2.0 2.0

MW - HW
Coring from 2.0 to

R-3
Brownish Grey, Medium Grained, weak, Fractured, 3.0m
Weathered, Patches of Mudstone,
HF
59 Nil
0
3.0 3.0
Coring from 3.0 to

R-4 4.0m
MW
MF
50 20
0
4.0 4.0
Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium Grained, Weak to

SW - MW
Coring from 4.0 to

R-5 Slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered,
SF - MF
5.0m
56 10
0
5.0 5.0
Coring from 5.0 to

R-6
SF - MF
6.0m
SW
66 10
0
6.0 6.0
SW - MW
Coring from 6.0 to

R-7
7.0m
MF
69 26
0
7.0 7.0
SW - MW
Coring from 7.0 to

R-8
MF - HF
8.0m
68 12
0
8.0 8.0
SW - MW
Coring from 8.0 to

R-9
MF - HF
9.0m
76 14
0
9.0 9.0
SW - MW
Coring from 9.0 to

R-10
10.0m
Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium Grained, Slightly
SF
10.0 strong to medium strong, Fractured, Weathered, 79 37 10.0

0
L E G E N D:
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-03
31-07-2022
01-08-2022
Engineer:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
SW - MW
Coring from 10.0 to
R-11 Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium grained, weak to
11.0m
slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered, Patches of
HF
Mudstone 57 Nil
0
11.0 11.0
SW - MW
Coring from 11.0 to
R-12 12.0m
HF
53 Nil
0
12.0 12.0
SW - MW
Coring from 12.0 to

R-13
Greenish Brown, Fine to Medium grained, Weak to 13.0m
Slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered,
HF
66 10
0
13.0 13.0
SW - MW
Coring from 13.0 to

R-14
Dark Brown to Grey, Fine to Medium grained, Weak 14.0m
to Slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered,
HF
75 Nil
0
14.0 14.0
SW - MW
Coring from 14.0 to

R-15 15.0m
HF
74 Nil
0
15.0 15.0
MW - HW
Coring from 15.0 to

R-16
Grey to Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium grained, 16.0m
Weak to Slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered,
HF
55 Nil
0
16.0 16.0
MW - HW
Coring from 16.0 to

R-17
17.0m
HF
54 Nil
0
17.0 17.0
MW - HW
Coring from 17.0 to

R-18
18.0m
100
HF
44 Nil
18.0 18.0
Coring from 18.0 to

R-19 Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium grained, Weak to
19.0m
Slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered, interbedded
100
HW
HF
with Shale, 39 Nil

19.0 19.0
SHALE / MUDSTONE (19.15 - 20.0m)

Coring from 19.0 to
R-20 Reddish Brown, Extremely weak to weak, Fractured,
20.0m
Weathered, interbedded layers with Shale &
100
HW
HF
20.0 Mudstone, 42 Nil 20.0

BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-04
05-08-2022
LOCATION: NEAR FRONT END COMPRESSOR, REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF), KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH.
06-08-2022
Engineer:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.0 OVERBURDEN (0.0 - 0.6m) BH Level w.r.t 0.0
Brown, Very Hard, Sandy Clay with Gravels adjacent area= -6.0
R-1 feet
SANDSTONE (0.6 - 18.0m) Coring started from
HW
HF
75 Nil 0.5 to 1.0m
0
1.0 Brownish Grey, Fine Grained, Extremely weak to 1.0
weak, Fractured, Weathered,
MW - HW
Coring from 1.0 to
R-2 2.0m
HF
56 Nil
0
2.0 2.0
Coring from 2.0 to

R-3 3.0m
SW
HF
57 Nil
0
3.0 3.0
Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium Grained, Friable,
Weak, Fractured, Weathered, Coring from 3.0 to
R-4 4.0m
MW
HF
63 Nil
0
4.0 4.0
Coring from 4.0 to

R-5
MF - HF
5.0m
MW
61 15
0
5.0 5.0
Coring from 5.0 to

R-6
MF - HF
6.0m
MW
60 11
0
6.0 6.0

Coring from 6.0 to
R-7 Extremely weak to weak, Fractured, Weathered, 7.0m
MW
HF
54 Nil
0
7.0 7.0
MW - HW
Coring from 7.0 to

R-8
8.0m
HF
50 Nil
0
8.0 8.0
MW - HW
Coring from 8.0 to

R-9
9.0m
HF
53 Nil
0
9.0 9.0
Coring from 9.0 to

R-10
10.0m
Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium Grained, Slightly
MW
HF
10.0 strong to medium strong, Fractured, Weathered, 49 Nil 10.0

0
L E G E N D:
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-04
05-08-2022
LOCATION: NEAR FRONT END COMPRESSOR, REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF), KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH.
06-08-2022
Engineer:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50

R-11 Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium grained, Friable,
11.0m
Weak to slightly strong, Fractured, Weathered,
HW
HF
Patches of Mudstone 60 Nil
0
11.0 11.0
Coring from 11.0 to

R-12 MW 12.0m
HF
68 Nil
0
12.0 12.0
Coring from 12.0 to

R-13 13.0m
HW
HF
47 Nil
0
13.0 13.0
Coring from 13.0 to

R-14 14.0m
MW
HF
55 Nil
0
14.0 14.0
Coring from 14.0 to

R-15 15.0m
MW
HF
47 Nil
0
15.0 15.0
Coring from 15.0 to

R-16 16.0m
MW
HF
44 Nil
0
16.0 16.0
MW - HW
Coring from 16.0 to

R-17
17.0m
HF
43 Nil
0
17.0 17.0
Coring from 17.0 to

R-18
18.0m
MW
HF
42 Nil
0
18.0 18.0
MUDSTONE (18.0 - 20.0m) Coring from 18.0 to

R-19
MF - HF
Dark Brown, Fine Grained, weak to Medium Strong, 19.0m

HW
Fractured, Weathered,
53 24
0
19.0 19.0
Coring from 19.0 to

R-20
20.0m
HW
HF
20.0 59 Nil 20.0

0
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-05
06-08-2022
LOCATION: FRONT END COMPRESSOR, REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF), KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH.
07-08-2022
Engineer:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
R-1 feet
SANDSTONE (0.3 - 5.0m) Coring started from
HW
HF
32 Nil 0.3 to 1.0m
0
1.0 Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium Grained, Friable, 1.0
Coring from 1.0 to
R-2 HW 2.0m
HF
45 Nil
0
2.0 2.0
Coring from 2.0 to

R-3 3.0m
MW
HF
39 Nil
0
3.0 3.0
Coring from 3.0 to

R-4 4.0m
MW
HF
46 Nil
0
4.0 4.0
Coring from 4.0 to

R-5 5.0m
MW
HF
48 Nil
0
5.0 5.0
SILTSTONE (5.0 - 6.17m)
Whitish Grey, Fine Grained, Medium strong, Coring from 5.0 to
R-6
SF - MF
Fractured, Weathered, Calcite veins in trace, 6.0m

MW
43 23
0
6.0 6.0
MW - HW
Coring from 6.0 to

R-7 SANDSTONE (6.18 - 10.8m)
MF - HF
7.0m
Extremely weak to weak, Fractured, Weathered, 45 Nil
0
7.0 7.0
MW - HW
Coring from 7.0 to

R-8
8.0m
HF
33 Nil
0
8.0 8.0
MW - HW
Coring from 8.0 to

R-9
9.0m
HF
27 Nil
0
9.0 9.0
MW - HW
Coring from 9.0 to

R-10
10.0m
HF
10.0 40 Nil 10.0

0
L E G E N D:
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-05
06-08-2022
07-08-2022
Engineer:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
Coring from 10.0 to
R-11 Extremely weak to weak, Fractured, Weathered,
MF - HF
11.0m
MW
SILTY SAND (10.8 - 12.0m) 46 13
0
11.0 C-1 27/2" - - R
50 11.0
Brownish Grey, Very Dense, Fine to Medium Grained,
trace Mica,
Coring from 11.0 to
12.0m
0
12.0 12.0

R-12 Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium Grained, Friable,
MF - HF
13.0m
Weak to Slightly Strong, Fractured, Weathered,
MW
43 11
0
13.0 13.0
MW - HW
Coring from 13.0 to

R-13
MF - HF
14.0m
46 10
0
14.0 14.0
Coring from 14.0 to

R-14
MF - HF
15.0m
MW
44 Nil
0
15.0 15.0
Coring from 15.0 to

MF - HF
16.0m
Weak to medium strong, Fractured, Weathered,
MW
Patches of Mudstone, 45 27
0
16.0 16.0
Coring from 16.0 to

R-16
MF - HF
17.0m
MW
38 12
0
17.0 17.0
Coring from 17.0 to

R-17
MF - HF
18.0m
MW
50 10
0
18.0 18.0
Coring from 18.0 to

R-18
19.0m
MW
HF
47 Nil
0
19.0 19.0
SANDSTONE/ MUDSTONE (19.0 - 20.0m)
Top 20 cm: Brownish Grey, Fractured, Weathered,
Coring from 19.0 to
R-19 Sandstone 20.0m
Bottom 22 cm: Greyish to Brown, Fractured,
MW
HF
20.0 Weathered, Mudstone 42 Nil 20.0

0
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-06
07-08-2022
08-08-2022
Engineer:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
R-1 LIMESTONE (0.3 - 1.0m) feet
Greyish to White, Fine Grained, weak to medium Coring started from
HW
HF
strong, Fractured, Weathered, 41 Nil 0.3 to 1.0m
0
1.0 1.0

R-2
Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium Grained, Friable, HW 2.0m
HF
40 Nil
0
2.0 2.0
Coring from 2.0 to

R-3 3.0m
MW
HF
45 Nil
0
3.0 C-1 R - - R
50 3.0
SILTY SAND (3.0 - 4.0m)
Brownish Grey, Very Dense, Fine to Medium Grained,
Coring from 3.0 to
trace Mica, 4.0m
0
4.0 4.0

Coring from 4.0 to
R-4 Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium Grained, Friable, 5.0m
MW
HF
36 Nil
0
5.0 C-2 R - - R
50 5.0
SILTY SAND (5.0 - 6.0m) Coring from 5.0 to

Brownish Grey, Very Dense, Fine to Medium Grained, 6.0m
trace Mica,
0
6.0 6.0
MW - HW
Coring from 6.0 to

R-5 SANDSTONE (6.0 - 18.3m)
MF - HF
7.0m
Extremely weak to weak, Fractured, Weathered, 49 Nil
0
7.0 7.0
MW - HW
Coring from 7.0 to

R-6
8.0m
HF
55 Nil
0
8.0 8.0
MW - HW
Coring from 8.0 to

R-7
9.0m
HF
44 Nil
0
9.0 9.0
MW - HW
Coring from 9.0 to

R-8
10.0m
HF
10.0 48 Nil 10.0

0
L E G E N D:
BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-06
07-08-2022
08-08-2022
Engineer:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Weathering
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
Fracture
BLOWS Test Data
RUN
NO.
Remarks
(cm) Blows per 30cm
RQD %
RC %
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50

R-9 Brownish Grey, Fine to Medium Grained, Friable, 11.0m
MW
HF
10
55 Nil
11.0 11.0
Coring from 11.0 to

R-10 MW 12.0m
HF
54 Nil
0
12.0 12.0
Coring from 12.0 to

R-11 13.0m
MW
HF
54 Nil
0
13.0 13.0
Coring from 13.0 to

R-12 14.0m
MW
HF
50 Nil
0
14.0 14.0
Coring from 14.0 to

15.0m
weak to Slightly Strong, Fractured, Weathered,
MW
HF
Patches of Mudstone, 66 13
0
15.0 15.0
Coring from 15.0 to

R-14
MF - HF
16.0m
MW
40
47 Nil
16.0 16.0
Coring from 16.0 to

R-15
MF - HF
17.0m
MW
40
53 Nil
17.0 17.0
Coring from 17.0 to

R-16
MF - HF
18.0m
MW
40
49 11
18.0 18.0
Coring from 18.0 to

R-17 MUDSTONE (18.3 - 20.0m) 19.0m
100
HW
Reddish Brown, Fine Grained, Extremely weak to

HF
41 Nil
19.0 weak, Fractured, Weathered, 19.0
Coring from 19.0 to

R-18
20.0m
100
HW
HF
20.0 57 Nil 20.0

Test Pit No:
AJK ENGINEERS (PVT.) LTD.
TP-01
Testpit Started on:
TEST PIT LOG
22-07-2022
PROJ.: GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION - REHMAN & RIZQ FRONT END COMPRESSION Testpit Completed on:
LOCATION: REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF), KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH. 22-07-2022
CLIENT: POLISH OIL AND GAS COMPANY, PAKISTAN - PGNIG Geologist:
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: Manual CO-ORDINATES: M. Ali

Water Table. Not Encountered. North: 26.58242 Test Pit Size:
Elevation (m): East: 67.27307 1.0m x 1.5m x 0.22m
Field Density Lab Density
In place % Compaction
Classification Symbol
Depth in Centimeters
Test Test
Optimum Moisture
Natural Moisture
Density (gm/cm )
Sample Type No.
3
Maximum Dry
Content (%)
Depth in meter
Content (%)
Dry Density
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL REMARKS
(gm/cm )
3
Profile
SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL

FDT Could not be
performed due to
Brown, Gravelly Silty Clay, trace Gravels of Mudstone, Gravelly and Rock
15
Rounded to subangular Gravel, stara.
ROCK ENCOUNTERED at 0.22m.

0.25
TESPIT TERMINATED
30
45
0.5
60
0.75 75
90
1.0
105
120
1.25
135
1.5 150
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 101-2991
Test Pit No:
TP-02
Testpit Started on:
TEST PIT LOG
22-07-2022

Test Test
Optimum Moisture
Natural Moisture
Density (gm/cm )
Sample Type No.
3
Maximum Dry
Content (%)
Depth in meter
Content (%)
Dry Density
(gm/cm )
3
Profile
SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL FDT Could not be

performed due to
Brown, Gravelly Sandy Clay, Rounded to subangular Gravelly and Rock
Gravel, stara.
15
TESPIT TERMINATED
0.25
30
45
0.5
60
0.75 75
90
1.0
105
120
1.25
135
1.5 150
Test Pit No:
TP-03
Testpit Started on:
TEST PIT LOG
22-07-2022

Test Test
Optimum Moisture
Natural Moisture
Density (gm/cm )
Sample Type No.
3
Maximum Dry
Content (%)
Depth in meter
Content (%)
Dry Density
(gm/cm )
3
Profile
SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL FDT Could not be

performed due to
Brown, Gravelly Sandy Clay, trace Gravels of Mudstone, Gravelly and Rock
Rounded to subangular Gravel, stara.
15
TESPIT TERMINATED
0.25
30
45
0.5
60
0.75 75
90
1.0
105
120
1.25
135
1.5 150
Test Pit No:
TP-04
Testpit Started on:
TEST PIT LOG
27-07-2022
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: Manual CO-ORDINATES: Fahad Mansoor

Test Test
Optimum Moisture
Natural Moisture
Density (gm/cm )
Sample Type No.
3
Maximum Dry
Content (%)
Depth in meter
Content (%)
Dry Density
(gm/cm )
3
Profile
FILLING MATERIAL
FDT Could not be
performed due to
Loose Filling Material Silty Clay with Gravel, Sand, Gravelly and Rock
15
Pieces of Bricks upto depth of 0.75m. stara.
0.25
30
45
0.5
60
0.75 75
TESPIT TERMINATED
90
1.0
105
120
1.25
135
1.5 150
Test Pit No:
TP-06
Testpit Started on:
TEST PIT LOG
01-08-2022

Test Test
Optimum Moisture
Natural Moisture
Density (gm/cm )
Sample Type No.
3
Maximum Dry
Content (%)
Depth in meter
Content (%)
Dry Density
(gm/cm )
3
Profile
FILLING MATERIAL
Loose Filling Material Silty Clay with Gravel, Sand,
15
Pieces of Bricks upto depth of 0.6m.
0.25
FDT Could not be
30 performed due to
Gravelly and Rock
stara.
45
0.5
60
TESPIT TERMINATED
0.75 75
90
1.0
105
120
1.25
135
1.5 150
Test Pit No:
TP-06
Testpit Started on:
TEST PIT LOG
05-08-2022

Test Test
Optimum Moisture
Natural Moisture
Density (gm/cm )
Sample Type No.
3
Maximum Dry
Content (%)
Depth in meter
Content (%)
Dry Density
(gm/cm )
3
Profile
SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL

Brown, Gravelly Sandy Clay, trace Gravels of Mudstone,
Rounded to subangular Gravel, FDT Could not be
15 performed due to
Gravelly and Rock
stara.
0.25
30
45
0.5 ROCK ENCOUNTERED at 0.45m.
TESPIT TERMINATED
60
0.75 75
90
1.0
105
120
1.25
135
1.5 150
Appendix F
In-Situ CBR Test Results

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer - Determination of CBR Value (%)

ASTM D-6951
Project: Geotechnical Investigation - Rehman & Rizq Front End Compression
Location: Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District Dadu, Sindh.
Client: Polish Oil and Gas Company, Pakistan - PGNIG
Project No. AJK/GT/101-2991 Test Date: 21-07-22
Test No. CBR-01 Performed By: M. Ali
North: 26.58206 East: 67.27333
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test
Data Sheet
Cumulative Penetration
Number of Total Penetration Hammer DCP Index CBR
Penetration per Blow
Blows Blows (mm) Factor mm/blow %
(mm) (mm)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 10 120 120 12.0 1 12.0 18
3 13 0 120 0.0 1 0.0 100
Tested By: Checked By:
Page 1 of 2

ASTM D-6951
North: 26.58206 East: 67.27333
Data Graph
Cumulative No. of Blows CBR Value %

0 5 10 15 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 0
20 20
40 40
Depth Below E.G.L (mm)
60 60
80 80
100 100
120 120
140 140
Page 2 of 2

ASTM D-6951
North: 26.58245 East: 67.273141
Data Sheet
(mm) (mm)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 10 20 20 2.0 1 2.0 100
4 14 0 20 0.0 1 0.0 100
Page 1 of 2

ASTM D-6951
North: 26.58245 East: 67.273141
Data Graph

0 5 10 15 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
20 20
25 25
Page 2 of 2

ASTM D-6951
North: 26.5829 East: 67.27401
Data Sheet
(mm) (mm)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 10 148 148 14.8 1 14.8 14
10 20 3 151 0.3 1 0.3 100
10 30 0 151 0.0 2 0.0 100
Page 1 of 2

ASTM D-6951
North: 26.5829 East: 67.27401
Data Graph

0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 0
20 20
40 40
60 60
80 80
100 100
120 120
140 140
160 160
Page 2 of 2
Appendix G
Lab Test Results

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS
Geotechnical Investigation - Rehman & Rizq Front End Compression, Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District Dadu, Sindh.
Uniaxial Compression Point Load Chemical Analysis of Soil /
Hoek Shear Test Rock Core Modulus Test Modified Proctor Test 3-Point Soaked CBR
Strength Strength Rock
Sample Depth
BH No. Run No. Organic
Type (m) Cohesion Angle of Shear Young's Modulus Modulus of MDD OMC 95% Value CBR Value at 0.2 SO4 Cl
(kg/cm2) MPA Is 50 (MPa) Poisson's Ratio Matter
(Mpa) Resistance (Deg) (Mpa) Deformation (Mpa) (gm/cm3) % of MDD in penetration (%) (%)
Content
R-1 0.3 - 1.0 753.28 73.87

BH-01
R-5 4.0 - 5.0 0.3747 8.53 29244.65185 0.287 11360.79552
R-10 WX-1 9.13 - 9.26 227.86 22.35

BH-02
R-14 WX-2 13.0 - 13.30 151.09 14.82
DS-1 0.0 - 0.5 0.11 0.008 0.51

BH-03
R-4 WX-1 3.20 - 3.40 111.54 10.94
R-10 WX-2 9.0 - 9.24 177.06 17.36

BH-04
R-5 WX-1 4.0 - 4.15 0.2 0.1862 19.29
R-19 WX-2 18.29 - 18.53 68.20 6.69

BH-05
R-6 WX-1 5.2 - 5.40 735.15 72.09
R-15 WX-2 15.28 - 15.43 3202.894973 0.173 1364.859576

BH-06
CPT-1 3.0 - 4.0 0.12 0.007 0.54
R-13 WX-1 14.31 - 14.46 145.87 14.30
TP-01 CS-1 0.0 - 0.25 2.120 8.50 2.014 22.5
TP-02 CS-1 0.0 - 0.15 2.145 8.80 2.038 24.3
TP-03 CS-1 0.0 - 0.15 2.268 6.80 2.155 38.0
Total Number of Tests Performed 8 8 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
Max. Value of Test 753.28 73.87 0.20 0.3747 19.29 29244.65185 0.287 11360.79552 2.268 8.800 2.155 38.000 0.120 0.008 0.54
Min. Value of Test 68.20 6.69 0.20 0.1862 8.53 3202.89497 0.173 1364.85958 2.120 6.800 2.014 22.500 0.110 0.007 0.51
Appendix H
Soil Electrical Resistivity Survey Report

Table of Contents
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. SCOPE OF THE WORK .................................................................................................................. 2
3. GEOGRAPHY OF THE AREA......................................................................................................... 3
4. GEOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 3
5. CLIMATE ......................................................................................................................................... 3
6. ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY ............................................................................................ 3
6.1 Principles of Resistivity Method ............................................................................................. 3
6.2 Instrumentation and Field Procedure .................................................................................... 6
7. METHOD OF EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 6
8. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 7
9. INTERPRETATION OF V.E.S. DATA ............................................................................................. 7
10. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 8
11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 8

Soil Electrical Resistivity Report

Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District Dadu, Sindh
1. INTRODUCTION
The Project area is situated in Kirthar Block near Tando Raheem, District Dadu, Sindh. The client intents to
extend its facility, to meet the requirements. Management has decided to test ground engineering
parameters prior to the extension/establishment of the facility. The Polish Oil and Gas Company (PGNIG),
operator of the Kirthar Block District Dadu, Sindh has completed the Rahman Production Facility for
processing the natural gas being produced by nearby gas fields. The facility was successfully
commissioned which is based on an efficient and safe design and offers the capacity to process gas from
future wells in the Kirthar Block.
The general location of the study area is shown in Appendix “A”. In order to assess the soil resistivity,
Electrical Resistivity survey was proposed. The project area is covered with Mountainous ranges.
The technical objectives of the survey were to ascertain the sub-surface resistivity conditions and the nature
of subsurface material to select the prospective location for the designing of earthing. In this regard, 03
shallow vertical electrical sounding (VES) were conducted. (Showing location Figure: H-1). An estimated
maximum depth of about 5 meters was explored by deploying the Wenner electrode configuration.
In addition to the findings of the resistivity survey, a brief account of field operations and data processing
has also been given to provide the basis of the method. It includes the interpretation of VES data, depicting
interpreted sub-surface resistivity conditions (Figures H-4 to H-6). Based on the interpretation of the
resistivity data, the sub-surface material has been classified into different resistivity zones as abridged in
the legend. The sub-surface columnar section drawn for sounding point shows the interpreted picture of the
sub-surface resistivity conditions in the area investigated.
Based on the interpretation of the resistivity data, the sub-surface material has been classified into different
resistivity zones as abridged in the legend. Each resistivity zone signifies typical subsurface conditions.
The subsurface layers drawn for sounding points show the interpreted picture of the subsurface layer
conditions in the area investigated. Based on the results of the resistivity survey, conclusions and
recommendations have been framed.
The fieldwork commenced on 21st July, 2022. A total of Three (03) ERS points were done for Rehman &
Rizq Front End Compression, Sindh. The location plan of the resistivity observation points is shown in
Figure H-1. The details of the field survey conducted, methodology, analysis of the data collected, results
and recommendations are presented in this report.
Soil Electrical Resistivity Report for Page 1

Figure H-1: Map Showing ERS points in Project Area
2. SCOPE OF THE WORK
The client aims to measure the soil layer resistivity for designing of earthing system. It is important to have
diagnostic scientific information regarding the sub-surface conditions like;
 Resistivity values of different layers
 Recommendation for the prospective zone for designing the earthing system
Electrical resistivity survey by vertical electrical sounding (VES) method is by far the most widely used
technique to obtain the requisite information, which in turn helps to make cost effective and technical
decisions like:
 Selection of the prospective sites for the earthing.
 Determination of target drilling depth to avoid unnecessary drilling.
 Identification of the nature and thickness of the layers in the areas of interest.

3. GEOGRAPHY OF THE AREA
The geography of the project area lies in the Kirthar mountain range located in the Pakistani provinces of
Sindh & Baluchistan. The mountains extend southward for about 190 mi (310 km) from the Mula River in
east-central Baluchistan to Cape Monze on the Arabian Sea. The Kirthar Mountains form the boundary
between the lower Indus Plain (to the east) and southern Baluchistan (to the west). It consists of a series of
parallel rock hill ridges rising from 4,000 ft (1,200 m) in the south to nearly 8,000 ft (2,400 m) in the north.
4. GEOLOGY
The project area lies in the Central Indus Basin. Kirthar Block has a simple mountain structure of the regular
anticlinal type, with the arches steepest towards the north and the west and gently dipping towards the
south. Dolomitic Limestone is encountered on the surface till depth of 2-3 m, underlain by Inter Mixed later
of fractured sand Stone and dolomitic limestone. The water table is not encountered at shallow depth in the
study area.
5. CLIMATE
The climate of the project area does not experience rainfall all year long. According to Köppen and Geiger,
this climate is classified as BWh. The average temperature in the project area is 35.7 °C. The average
annual rainfall is 133 mm. The driest month is October, with 0 mm of rainfall. With an average of 46 mm, the
most precipitation falls in July.
The warmest month of the year is June, where the maximum temperature is 48 °C. January has the lowest
average temperature of the year. It is 14.7 °C. The difference in precipitation between the driest month and
the wettest month is 46 mm. During the year, the average temperatures vary by 21.1 °C.
6. ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY
6.1 Principles of Resistivity Method
Among the various geophysical methods of subsurface exploration, the electrical resistivity method
has been successfully employed for groundwater investigations, particularly where electrical
resistivity contrast exists between the water bearing formation and surrounding soils or rock.
Considering the variable electrical properties of the subsoil, the technique of electrical resistivity
survey makes use of measuring the current and potential differences of various subsoil materials at
the surface. In general, the current is conducted electrolytically in the soils containing interstitial fluids.
The resistivity is controlled by porosity, water content, as well as the quantity of dissolved salts. Clay
minerals, however, are capable of storing electrical charges and current conduction in clay minerals is
electronic as well as electrolytic.

Thus, the resistivity of soils depends directly on the amount of contained electrolyte and clay minerals
and is inversely related to the porosity and degree of saturation of the formation. Therefore, the
resistivity of soil varies considerably not only from formation to formation, but also within the same
layer. In particular, the resistivity variations can be large in unconsolidated sediments. It has generally
been observed that the resistivity increases progressively from fine grained to coarse grained material
in the order of clay, silty clay, clayey silt, silt, sandy silt, silty sand, sand, gravel and boulder.
During the resistivity survey, commutated direct or very low frequency (less than 20 Hz) current is
introduced into the ground through two current electrodes C1 and C2 inserted into the ground surface
as shown schematically in Fig. 2.
The potential electrodes P1 and P2 are inserted in the ground between the outer current electrodes
C1 and C2 such that all the electrodes are aligned along a straight line. The potential difference is
measured between the two potential electrodes.
In homogeneous subsurface conditions, the above relation gives the true resistivity of the subsurface
material, but in anisotropic and inhomogeneous conditions, it represents the weighted average
resistivity of the formations through which the current passes. Since the subsoil is normally
inhomogeneous and anisotropic, the resistivity value computed from the above equation is called
apparent resistivity and is denoted by (Ra);
Therefore
Ra = K* V/I ------------------------------- (b)
The apparent resistivity values are obtained for various depths below the surface by expanding the
current and potential electrodes from its centre along a straight line, while the spacing between the
electrodes is maintained.
In the case of Wenner four-pin method, as shown in the figure, is the most commonly used technique
for soil resistivity measurements. Using the Wenner method, the true soil resistivity value is:
Where
ρE = measured apparent soil resistivity (Ωm)
a = electrode spacing (m)
b = depth of the electrodes (m)
RW = Wenner resistance measured as "V/I"

If b is small compared to a, as is the case of probes penetrating the ground only for a short distance
(as normally happens), the previous equation can be reduced to:
Equation is the general equation for calculating apparent resistivity in electrical resistivity prospecting.
The apparent soil resistivity obtained in this case represents an average value of the soils within the
sphere of influence of the test set up.
In Wenner array all four electrodes are moving between successive observations. In this
configuration, the distance between the current electrodes and the potential electrodes is same.
Figure H-2: Wenner Electrode Array Diagram
Figure H-3: Current and Voltage Flow Diagram
Following are the technical requirements for carrying out the resistivity survey:
 Electrical resistivity contrast should exist between the formations under study.
 While carrying out the electrical resistivity survey using Wenner configuration, the distance
between the current electrodes and the potential electrodes should be same.

6.2 Instrumentation and Field Procedure
Signal averaging resistivity-measuring equipment (SAS 1000) is used for measuring current and
potential values in the field. In the case of the Wenner array the electrodes are placed in a straight
line symmetrically about the center point. The two outer electrodes A and B are used for the current,
and the resulting potential difference is measured across the two inner electrodes M and N. The
distance of the current and potential electrodes are same as shown in the figure.
The ground is energized through the outer A and B electrodes under high D.C voltage and constant
current is made to flow through the ground with the help of “Power Pack” provided with the measuring
equipment. The constant selected current I (in milli amperes) passing through the two current
electrodes and resulting potential difference V (in milli/micro volts) between the two potential
electrodes is processed by the equipment and the resistance is displayed for the corresponding
reading.
The distance between the two potential electrodes and two Current electrodes are same.
Measurements are taken and noted before re-positioning the electrodes. All four electrodes are
moved between successive observations accordingly in order to measure the resistivity at given
depth level. At each location, in one sounding, apparent resistivity values are obtained at different
specific depths.
7. METHOD OF EVALUATION
The resistivity field curves are obtained by plotting the apparent resistivity values against depths on a bi-log
graph paper. After smoothing the plotted curves all the field data is registered to the computer. The
interpretation of sounding is done with the help of computer and direct interpretation software. The
resistivity sounding data collected from the area is interpreted by computer-aided techniques using
INTERPEX USA software, IX1D. The layer models are calculated by an iterative procedure. During each
interpretation the model parameters are adjusted and the deviation of the corresponding curve from the
measured curve is checked. The deviation is defined by the RMSE (root mean square error), which is
displayed after each iteration. At the end of calculations, the model, which results in the smallest error, is
plotted showing layer’s true resistivity and corresponding thickness.
In practice, interpretation of resistivity sounding is invariably subjected to the principle of equivalence i.e.
any resistivity sounding can be matched with several slightly deviating model curves, representing different
sub-surface resistivity stratification. The interpreter of the data is therefore, confronted with hundreds of
options for a single field curve to make his selection of the most consistent model of the sub-surface
conditions.

8. LIMITATIONS
The method has some limitations like; it measures apparent resistivity not true resistivity of the subsurface
formations and change of resistivity at greater depth have only slight effect on apparent resistivity as
compared to those of shallow depths. Thus, this method is seldom effective for determining actual resistivity
below few hundred feet. The true resistivity can only be obtained from homogeneous and isotropic medium
and in nature such conditions are impossible to exist in the subsurface strata’s. Therefore, it is not possible
that the value of resistivity of a given type of rock will remain the same at different locations. Resistivity
varies with locations due to change in environment, change in lithology, change in temperature and other
such controlling factors.
Groundwater, through the various dissolved salts it contains, is ionically conductive and enables electric
currents to flow on to the ground. By measuring the ground and surface resistivity therefore gives the
possibility to identify conditions necessary for the presence or otherwise of water. Resistivity of the rock
generally depends on the water content porosity, resisitiviy of the water, the clay content and the content of
metallic minerals. The following considerations help in the determination of the rocks resistivies.
 A hard rock without pores or fractures is very resistive to the flow of electric current. This generally in
hard fresh Precambrian rocks.
 Dry sand without water is very resistive.
 Porous or fractured rock bearing free water has resistivity, which depends on the resistivity of the
water and on the porosity of the rock.
 An impermeable clay layer, which is wet, has low resistivity but may not contain enough yields for
successful groundwater exploitation.
 Permeable sand layers, which is wet, has medium resistivity but may contain enough fresh water for
successful groundwater exploitation.
 Mineral ore bodies (iron sulphides) have very low resistivity due to their electronic conduction, usually
lower or much lower than 1 ohm – meter.
9. INTERPRETATION OF V.E.S. DATA
The measured resistivities when subjected to interpretation process have yielded sub-surface electrical
layers. These interpreted electrical layers need a correlation with the sub-surface geological conditions.
This transformation of interpreted layers into lithologic units is essentially based on the geological
information obtained from test holes and other data of previous investigations conducted in the project area.
The subsurface layer was divided in three zones High Resistivity Zone, Medium Resistivity Zone and Low
Resistivity Zone.

The subsurface zones are
0.1Ωm - 10Ωm - Low Resistivity Zone
10.01 Ωm - 50 Ωm - Medium Resistivity Zone
50.01Ωm - > - High Resistivity Zone.
10. RESULTS
The results of earth resistivity survey obtained at (Three) 03 observation points taken in the study area are
as following. The results show resistivity layers up to maximum investigation depth of 5 meter. The
resistivity of the subsurface material up to explored depth varies from 1.73 to 161.35 ohm-meter. Interpreted
Resistivity Model and Columnar view of the Sub-surface Conditions shown at Figure H-4 to H-7 of this
section.
Location Depth Electrical Resistivity
(M) Ohm-m
ERS 1 1 to 15 14.08 - 63.85
ERS2 1 to 15 16.56 – 55.01
ERS 3 1 to 15 12.74 – 62.20
11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the results of resistivity survey, it is concluded that:
 Water table was not observed.
 High Resistivity Zone: 0 to 60 ohm-m surface strata comprises of alternate beds sandstone and
Limestone and they are dry.
 Very high resistivity zone: > 60 ohm-m Lithology comprises of hard and dry rock.
 In sounding ERS point 1 & 2 upto 10 meters lies in high resistivity zone, and below lies very high
resistivity zone and onward.
 In sounding ERS point 3 surface layer upto 2 meters lies in high resistivity zone due to dry layer
and below 2 meters subsurface layer lies in high resistivity zone.
 ERS Point 2 is relatively low resistivity zone and better for earthing.

COMPUTER INTERPRETED RESISTIVITY MODELS
Fig H-4: Computer Interpreted Resistivity Model - ERS POINT # 01

COMPUTER INTERPRETED RESISTIVITY MODELS

Coordinates for the ERS points

ERS No. Latitude Longitude
1. 26.582128° 67.273333°
2. 26.582489° 67.273601°
3. 26.582632° 67.273750°

Appendix I
Soil Thermal Resistivity Survey Report

Table of Contents
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. SCOPE OF THE WORK .................................................................................................................. 2
3. GEOGRAPHY OF THE AREA ........................................................................................................ 2
4. GEOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 2
5. CLIMATE ......................................................................................................................................... 3
6. THERMAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY ................................................................................................ 3
7. SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL .................................................................................................... 4
8. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 4
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 5

Soil Thermal Resistivity Report

Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District Dadu, Sindh
1. INTRODUCTION
The Project area is situated in Kirthar Block near Tando Raheem, District Dadu Sindh. The client intents to
extend its facility, to meet the requirements Management has decided to test ground engineering
parameters prior to the extend/establishment of the facility. The Polish Oil and Gas Company (PGNIG)
processing the natural gas being produced by nearby gas fields. Facility was successfully commissioned
which is based on an efficient and safe design and offers the capacity to process gas from future wells in
the Kirthar Block.
The soil thermal resistivity is of a great importance for the design of high voltage cables. Underground
cables generate heat as a result of power losses when transmitting current. This heat must be dissipated in
a form that will not affect the performance of the cables. The presence of moisture normally helps to reduce
the thermal resistivity and keeps it within the design range. In arid areas the moisture content is decreased
to very low values in dry seasons. This is found to bring the thermal resistively beyond the design ranges.
Major cable failures took place during summer times.
The general location of the study area is shown in Appendix “A” of this report. In order to assess the
Thermal soil resistivity, Thermal Resistivity survey was proposed. Project area is covered with Mountainous
ranges.
The technical objectives of the survey were to ascertain the Thermal Resistivity of soil at different depths, in
order to overcome the problem of heat generated by buried power cables/pipes and to find out the value for
soil resistivity for earthing. In this regard, Thermal Resistivity Survey was conducted on 03 points. (Showing
location Figure: I-1).
The measurements of subsurface soil was taken up to the 1 meter depth. Ambient air temperatures were
also recorded at each location during investigation. Soil Thermal Resistivity at specific locations and depths
was measured during temperature rising and falling cycle.
An average of this thermal resistivity calculated and is given in Result Section. The measured average
thermal conductivity is converted into thermal resistivity by using the relation that resistivity is reciprocal to
conductivity.
The fieldwork commenced on 21st July, 2022. A total of 03 TRT point was done for Rehman & Rizq Front
End Compression, Sindh. The location plan of the resistivity observation points is shown in Figure “I-1”.
The details of field survey conducted, methodology, analysis of the data collected, results and
recommendations are presented in this section.
Soil Thermal Resistivity Report for Page 1
Figure I-2 : TRT Points along boreholes Locations
The client aims to measure the Thermal resistivity at different depths, in order to overcome the problem of
heat generated by buried power cables/pipes and to find out the value for soil resistivity for earthing. It is
important to have diagnostic scientific information regarding the sub-surface conditions
The geography of the project area lies in Kirthar mountain range located in the Pakistani provinces of Sindh
& Baluchistan. The mountains extend southward for about 190 mi (310 km) from the Mula River in east-
central Baluchistan to Cape Monze on the Arabian Sea. The Kirthar Mountains form the boundary between
the lower Indus Plain (to the east) and southern Baluchistan (to the west). It consists of a series of parallel
rock hill ridges rising from 4,000 ft (1,200 m) in the south to nearly 8,000 ft (2,400 m) in the north.
4. GEOLOGY
south. Dolomitic Limestone is encountered on the surface till depth of 2-3 meter, underlain by Inter Mixed

later of fractured sand Stone and dolomitic limestone. Water table is not encountered at shallow in the study
area
5. CLIMATE
The climate of project area do not experiences rainfall all year long. According to Köppen and Geiger, this
climate is classified as BWh. The average temperature in project area is 35.7 °C. The average annual
rainfall is 133 mm. The driest month is October, with 0 mm of rainfall. With an average of 46 mm, the most
precipitation falls in July.
The warmest month of the year is June, where maximum temperature is 48 °C. January has the lowest
6. THERMAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY
6.1 Methodology
Among the various geophysical methods of subsurface exploration, Thermal resistivity method has
been successfully employed for finding Resistivity values of different layers in the sub-surface, to
overcome the problem of heat generated by buried power cables/pipes and to find out the value for
soil resistivity for earthing.
The thermal conductivity determinations were made using, thermal conductivity needle method.
During the survey, heat is applied to a known constant rate to a probe embedded in soil and
temperature of the probe is measured as a function of time.
6.2 Instrumentation and Field Procedure
The thermal needle measuring system measures the thermal resistivity of soils on-site. The
measurement method is based on the use of a “thermal needle”. This method employs a heating wire
and a temperature sensor in a needle. The measuring system consists of the thermal needle,
mounted on an insertion tool, a control and readout unit. The needle is inserted into the soil. The user
performs control and readout of the measurement from the handheld device. The measurement result
is generated immediately by the device from the analysis of the time series of the temperature and
the heating power during the heating interval.
The Thermal needle is used for soil thermal resistivity test. A brief description of the equipment used
in this investigation is as follows;
 Thermal needle: 1/2-inch O.D. stainless steel, copper-constantan 0.03-inch diameter

thermocouple wire, constantan # 3 heat source wire with copper wire leads.

 Source power supply: Constant Voltage 0 – 30 volts and constant current 0-3 amps.
7. SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL
Though corrosion of metals embedded in soil is generally not as rapid as in the atmosphere or underwater,
yet under specified conditions it presents problems of sizeable magnitude. Factors governing corrosion by
soil include its:
 Oxygen content
 Moisture content
 Hydrogen ion concentration
 Electrical conduction
 Particle size
 Drainage
 Bacterial process activity etc.
In the case of subsurface steel corrosion, the concentration of electrolytic cells, formed due to the localized
difference in the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil coming in contact with the structures,
could lead to localized attack. Similarly, soil-water and groundwater attack metals to a degree, which
depends upon the nature and concentration of various salts present in the water.
8. RESULTS
The results of thermal resistivity survey obtained at (Three) 03 observation points taken in the study area
are as following. Soil Thermal Resistivity at specific locations and depths was measured during temperature
rising and falling cycle. An average of this thermal resistivity calculated and is given in the table below.

Table I-1: Thermal Resistivity & Conductivity of Test Points:
Electrical Thermal Thermal Ambient Temperature

Location Depth
Resistivity Resistivity Conductivity Date: 21st July, 2022
(M) Ohm-m m.K/W W/mK Air0C Soil0C
TRT-1 0.1 to 1 2 - 26 1.5 - 1.9 0.9 to 1.6 35 to 40 oC 35
TRT-2 0.1 to 1 8 - 36 1.8 – 2.11 0.85 to 1.47 35 to 40 oC 35
TRT-3 0.1 to 1 90 - 135 1.8 - 2.2 0.85 to 1.21 35 to 40 oC 35
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the results of resistivity survey, it is concluded that:
a. Thermal conductivity values measured at three different locations and depths ranges between 0.9
to 1.6 W/mK. The values of thermal resistivity ranges between 1.5 and 2.2 m.K/W.
b. Project site Lies near Mountainous ranges.
c. The ambient air temperature during the time of study was roughly 35-40
d. Depth of water table was not encountered in the project area.
e. The thermal resistivity and conductivity of points given in section 8 of this appendix.
CO-ORDINATES FOR THE TRT POINTS
TRT No. Easting Northing
TRT-1 26.582383° 67.273990°
TRT-2 26.582414° 67.273651°
TRT-3 26.582453° 67.273236°

Appendix J
Seismic Downhole Survey Report

(Performed in 2019)
Table of Contents
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. SCOPE OF THE WORK .................................................................................................................. 2
3. GEOGRAPHY OF THE AREA......................................................................................................... 3
4. GEOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 3
5. CLIMATE ......................................................................................................................................... 3
6. SEISMIC DOWNHOLE SURVEY .................................................................................................... 3
7. ENGINEERING PARAMETERS ...................................................................................................... 6
8. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 8
9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 10

Seismic Downhole Survey Report

For Capacity Augmentation and Upgrade Of
Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Sindh
1. INTRODUCTION
The Project area is situated in Kirthar Block near Tando Raheem, District Dadu Sindh. The client intents to
extend its facility, to meet the requirements Management has decided to test ground engineering
parameters prior to the extend/establishment of the facility. The Polish Oil and Gas Company (PGNIG)
processing the natural gas being produced by nearby gas fields. Facility was successfully commissioned
which is based on an efficient and safe design and offers the capacity to process gas from future wells in
the Kirthar Block.
M\s AJK Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. was commissioned by M\s. Polish Oil & Gas Company to carry out a
Downhole Geophysical Survey for Capacity Augmentation and Upgrade of Rehman Production Facility
(RPF), Sindh.
The aim of the survey was to determine the in-situ P-wave (Vph - Vertically propagating P-wave) and S-
wave (Vshv - Horizontally propagating, vertically polarised S-wave) velocity of the ground material to a max
depth of 15 m. From the measured velocities dynamic elastic modulli are determined,
Specifically:
P = Poisson Ratio
B = Bulk Modulus
E = Young’s Modulus
G = Shear Modulus
Downhole Seismic measurements were used to record parameters of P-wave and S-wave by utilising 1No,
triaxial geophone, 3 Channel Bison 4000 Digital Seismograph and 10 kg Hammer.
The fieldwork commenced on 03rd January, 2019. A total of 1 observation point was done for Rehman
Production Facility, Sindh. The layout plan is shown in Appendix “A” of this report. The details of field
survey conducted, methodology, analysis of the data collected, results and recommendations are presented
in this report.
Seismic Downhole Survey Report for Page 1

Capacity Augmentation and Upgrade Of
Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Sindh.
Figure J-3 : Seismic Downhole Survey Location Point
Downhole seismic survey is used for determining in-situ compression (P-waves) and shear (S-wave)
velocities with depth, which are used to determining the elastic moduli;
 P = Poisson Ratio
 B = Bulk Modulus
 E = Young’s Modulus
 G = Shear Modulus
In this method, time for body waves to travel between the surface and points within the soil are measured.
Wave velocities are calculated from the corresponding travel times once the travel distances have been
determined.

The geography of the project area lies in Kirthar mountain range located in the Pakistani provinces of Sindh
& Baluchistan. The mountains extend southward for about 190 mi (310 km) from the Mula River in east-
central Baluchistan to Cape Monze on the Arabian Sea. The Kirthar Mountains form the boundary between
the lower Indus Plain (to the east) and southern Baluchistan (to the west). It consists of a series of parallel
rock hill ridges rising from 4,000 ft (1,200 m) in the south to nearly 8,000 ft (2,400 m) in the north.
4. GEOLOGY
south. Dolomitic Limestone is encountered on the surface till depth of 2-3 meter, underlain by Inter Mixed
later of fractured sand Stone and dolomitic limestone. Water table is not encountered at shallow in the study
area
5. CLIMATE
The climate of project area do not experiences rainfall all year long. According to Köppen and Geiger, this
climate is classified as BWh. The average temperature in project area is 35.7 °C. The average annual
rainfall is 133 mm. The driest month is October, with 0 mm of rainfall. With an average of 46 mm, the most
precipitation falls in July.
The warmest month of the year is June, where maximum temperature is 48 °C. January has the lowest
6. SEISMIC DOWNHOLE SURVEY
6.1 Methodology
For downhole seismic survey, the borehole was equipped with UPVC pipes up to a depth of 15
meters. The annular space between UPVC pipe and borehole wall was grouted with cement and
bentonite grout. After giving sufficient time for setting of grout, the downhole seismic measurements
were taken in the UPVC pipe. For this purpose, a triaxial geophone with air bladder attached to it was
lowered into the UPVC pipe and clamped at the depth of measurement by inflating the air bladder
through air hose. The triaxial geophone was connected to 3-channel Seismograph.

An embedded concrete block with two angle steel rods, perpendicular to each other, was used as a
source for generation of shear waves. Schematic diagram of downhole seismic survey is shown on
Figure. “J-2”.

Figure J-2: Diagram of Seismic Downhole Survey
Horizontal distance between the downhole source and borehole was measured and used to obtain
downhole source-to-sensor distances. For shear wave measurements using the concrete block
source, source-to-sensor distances were measured from the center of the block to the listening
borehole. For compression wave measurements using a steel plate, source-to-sensor distances were
measured from the center of the steel plate.

Downhole seismic survey was performed at one-meter interval starting from depth of 1 meter to a
maximum depth of 15 meter.
At each depth of testing, two sets of compression and polarized shear wave records were obtained.
Each set consisted of two records: one record to obtain a general definition of the shear wave, and
the other record to obtain an accurate definition of the compression and shear wave arrivals. A typical
set of downhole compression and shear wave travel time records is presented on Figure. J-3.
During the downhole survey, accuracy of the seismograph and triggering system was monitored.
Trigger
'Time-Zero'
Horizontal Ch. 1
Horizontal Ch. 2
P-wave arrival
Horizontal Ch. 3
Horizontal Ch. 4
Vertical Ch. 1
Polarised S-wave arrival

from 'Up' and 'Down'
Hammer shots
Figure J-3: Typical Shot Gather from a Downhole Seismic Survey
Data acquisition parameters are normally selected after an initial trial survey of a number of shots. Record
lengths and noise filters are tested to provide optimum data quality. A noise test will also be undertaken
before survey if the environment proves to be excessively noisy in seismic terms.
7. ENGINEERING PARAMETERS
The arrival times of shear waves and longitudinal waves obtained from seismic records were not vertical but
had a slanting path as receiver gradually moving downwards at 1m interval for recording and the source

was at a distance of 5 meters from the top of boreholes. The measured travel times are plotted against
depth for shear as well as longitudinal waves.
Utilizing the P & S-wave velocities determined at each test depth, and bulk density values established from
the laboratory tests on samples taken from the boreholes, it is possible to calculate the following
engineering parameters:
B = d(Vp2 – 1.333Vs2)
P = ((0.5x(Vp/Vs) 2)-1)/((Vp/Vs) 2-1)
G = d*Vs2
E = (2*d)*(Vs2)*(1+P)
Where;
Vp = primary wave velocity (km/sec)
Vs = shear wave velocity (km/sec)
d = density (kg/m3)
B= Bulk Modulus
P= Poisson Ratio
G= Shear Modulus
E= Young’s Modulus
It is worth noting that the Bulk Density values were obtained from preliminary laboratory test results. Where
bulk density values were not available for each test location, a value has been interpolated. Should further
bulk density information be made available the parameters calculated in this report may also change.
The profiles of the P-wave velocity and S-wave velocity for the borehole presented in Figures “J-4 to J-9”.
The relevant parameters are also provided in tabular format below (Tables J-1). Presented below are the
tabulated results of the direct measurement P and S wave velocities and relevant engineering parameters.

8. RESULTS
The results of Downhole Seismic survey obtained at one observation points obtained in the study area are
presented below.
Client : M\s. Polish Oil & Gas Company
Project : Rehman & Rizq Front End Compression, Sindh.
DownHole : BH # SDHS
Total Test Depth (M) : 15.00
Shot-offset (M) : 1.5
Record Length(ms) : 125
Stick up Height (M) : 0.50.

Table J-1: Parameters
P- S- Bulk Shear Poisson’s Young's

Depth Distance Vp Vs RT DT
wave wave Modulus Modulus Ratio Modulus
Time Time
(M) (M) (km/s) (km/s) Vp/Vs (g/m3) GPa GPa GPa
(S) (S)
1.0 1.803 0.721 1.120 2.50 1.61 1.55 2.30 6.43 5.96 0.146 13.66
2.0 2.500 1.500 2.400 1.67 1.04 1.60 2.30 3.06 2.50 0.179 5.89
3.0 3.354 2.300 3.680 1.46 0.91 1.60 2.20 2.24 1.83 0.179 4.31
4.0 4.272 2.700 4.320 1.58 0.99 1.60 2.20 2.64 2.15 0.179 5.08
5.0 5.220 3.200 5.140 1.63 1.02 1.61 2.20 2.83 2.27 0.184 5.37
6.0 6.185 3.700 5.940 1.67 1.04 1.61 2.20 2.97 2.38 0.183 5.64
7.0 7.159 4.100 6.610 1.75 1.08 1.61 2.20 3.27 2.58 0.187 6.13
8.0 8.139 4.600 7.410 1.77 1.10 1.61 2.20 3.35 2.65 0.187 6.30
9.0 9.124 5.000 8.110 1.82 1.13 1.62 2.20 3.61 2.78 0.193 6.65
10.0 10.112 5.500 8.920 1.84 1.13 1.62 2.20 3.67 2.83 0.193 6.75
11.0 11.102 5.900 9.500 1.88 1.17 1.61 2.20 3.78 3.00 0.186 7.13
12.0 12.093 6.400 10.310 1.89 1.17 1.61 2.20 3.82 3.03 0.187 7.18
13.0 13.086 6.900 11.120 1.90 1.18 1.61 2.20 3.85 3.05 0.187 7.23
14.0 14.080 7.400 11.930 1.90 1.18 1.61 2.20 3.88 3.06 0.187 7.28
15.0 15.075 7.800 12.570 1.93 1.20 1.61 2.20 4.00 3.16 0.187 7.51

9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
M/s. AJK Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. was commissioned by M/s. Polish Oil & Gas Company to carry out a
Downhole Geophysical Survey for Rehman Production Facility, Sindh. The aim of the survey was to
determine the in-situ P-wave (Vph - Vertical propagating P-wave) and S-wave (Vshv - Horizontally
propagating, vertically polarised S-wave) velocity of the ground material to a depth of 15 m. From the
measured velocities dynamic elastic modulli may be determined, specifically:
 P= Poisson Ratio
 B= Bulk Modulus
 E= Young’s Modulus
 G= Shear Modulus
The following geophysical techniques were utilised to conduct the survey:
 Downhole Seismic measurements were used to record parameters of P-wave and S-wave by
utilizing 1No, triaxial geophone, 3 Channel Bison 4000 Digital Seismograph and 10 kg Hammer.
 The corrected travel times and velocities are plotted against depth for shear as well as
longitudinal waves shows increasing trend with depth.
 In general, the sections showed good correlation with the major lithological units derived from
intrusive information, in particular, a change in elastic properties shown with depth due to the
compaction and hardness in lithology with depth.
 The velocity of first layer was interpreted as 1313m/s at depth of 3 m and the velocity ranges in
second layer is from 2147 m/s.

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF DATA
Figure J-4: Velocities vs Depth

Figure J-5: P & S Wave Velocities (km/sec)

Figure J-6: Bulk Modulus (GPa)

Figure J-7: Shear Modulus (GPa)

Figure J-8: Poisson’s Modulus

Figure J-9: Young’s Modulus

Coordinates for the Seismic Downhole Survey point
SDHT No. Easting Northing
1. 26.582440° 67.273410°

Appendix K
Site Photographs
Geotechnical Investigations - Rehman & Rizq Front End Compression,
Rehman Production Facility (RPF), District Dadu, Sindh.
Site Photographs Borehole No. 01
Fig 01: A View of Site during drilling
Fig 02: Another View of Site during drilling

Fig 03: A View of core box 01 of 04


Fig 08: Another View of Site during drilling















Site Photographs Testpit No. 01
Fig 37: A View of Site during excavation of test pit
Fig 38: Another View of Site during excavation of test pit






Site Photographs Field CBR No. 01
Fig 49: Performance of Field CBR



Site Photographs Soil Electrical Resistivity Test No. 01
Fig 55: A view of performing ERS No.01



Site Photographs Soil Thermal Resistivity Test
Fig 70: A view of performing TRT No.01
Fig 71: A view of performing TRT No.02

Photographs Laboratory Testing Uniaxial Compressive Strength
BH-01 R-01 Depth = 0.3 – 1.0m BH-02 R-10 Depth = 9.13 – 9.26m
BH-02 R-14 Depth = 13.0 – 13.30m BH-03 R-04 Depth = 3.2 – 3.4m
Photographs Laboratory Testing Uniaxial Compressive Strength
BH-03 R-10 Depth = 9.0 – 9.24m BH-04 R-19 Depth = 18.29 - 18.53m
BH-05 R-06 Depth = 5.2 - 5.40m BH-06 R-13 Depth = 14.31 - 14.46m

Geotechnical Report - Rehman &amp; Rizq, POGC (30092022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Report - Rehman &amp; Rizq, POGC (30092022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REHMAN & RIZQ FRONT END COMPRESSION

REHMAN PRODUCTION FACILITY (RPF),

KIRTHAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DADU, SINDH.

Geotechnical Investigation Report

M/s Polish Oil and Gas Company, Pakistan - PGNIG

Revision Comment Prepared by Date issued

Soft Copy (PDF) Can be

1.1 Brief Introduction 1

1.2 Objectives of Geotechnical Investigations 1

1.3 Scope of Field Activities 2

2.1 Project Overview 3

2.2 Geology of the Project Area 3

3.2 Exploratory Boreholes 4

3.3 Excavation of Test pits 5

3.4 Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) 5

3.6 Groundwater Observations 5

3.7 Core recovery parameters 5

3.8 In-Situ CBR Tests 6

3.9 Soil Electrical Resistivity Survey 6

3.10 Soil Thermal Resistivity Survey 6

3.11 Seismic Down-Hole Survey 6

4.1 Findings on Laboratory Tests 7

4.1.1 Uniaxial Compressive Strength Test 7

4.1.2 Point Load Test 7

4.1.3 Hoek Shear Test 8

4.1.4 Rock Core Modulus Test 8

4.1.5 Modified Proctor Test 8

4.1.6 3-Point Soaked CBR Test 8

4.1.7 Chemical Analysis of Soil / Rock Samples 8

5.3 Seismicity of the Area 9

5.4 Seismic Soil Profile Characterization 9

5.5 Liquefaction Potential 10

6.1 Geotechnical Soil Model and Design Parameters 11

6.2 Geotechnical Design Criteria 11

6.3 Foundation Type, Depth and Allowable Bearing Pressures 11

7.1 Foundation Material 13

7.2 Construction of Internal Roads 14

7.3 Backfilling of Foundation Pit 14

7.4 Type of Cement 14

7.5 Inspections and Construction Verifications 14

Appendix A : Site Layout Plan

Appendix B : Seismicity of the Area

Appendix C : Foundation Recommendations

Appendix D : Subsurface Soil / Rock Profile

Appendix E : Field Logs

Appendix F : In-Situ CBR Results

Appendix G : Laboratory Test Results

Appendix H : Soil Electrical Resistivity Survey Report

Appendix I : Soil Thermal Resistivity Survey Report

Appendix J : Seismic Downhole Survey Report

Appendix K : Site Photographs

Geotechnical Investigation Report

Rehman & Rizq Front End Compression,

Rehman Production Facility (RPF), Kirthar Block, District Dadu, Sindh.

1.1 Brief Introduction

1.2 Objectives of Geotechnical Investigations

Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 1

1.3 Scope of Field Activities

ii. To perform SPT at a regular interval of 1.0m up to the investigated depth.

vi. Determination of groundwater level.

x. Performance of One (01) Seismic Downhole Survey at the selected location.

xi. Preparation of a comprehensive report to summarize the findings of geotechnical

Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 2

Geotechnical Report - Rehman & Rizq, POGC (30092022)

Geotechnical Report - Rehman & Rizq, POGC (30092022)