‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬

Environmental Balance Establishment

JUBAIL 3A & 3B DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT

Hydrodynamic and Dispersion Modeling

Study Report:

Submitted to
Saudi Water Partnership Company (SWPC)

Prepared by
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE ESTABLISHMENT
PO Box: 3500, Jeddah-21471, Saudi Arabia
Te: 00966 12 606 7393, Fax: 00966 12 606 7399, 00966 12 606 0222
Email: info@ebe.com.sa, www.ebe.com.sa

Ref : RCS/EBE/002/2019 Rev.1

Date : 16/11/2019
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared on behalf of and the exclusive use of M/s. Saudi Water
Partnership Company and the M/s Environmental Balance Establishment,Jeddah,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and is subject to and issued in accordance with the agreement
between M/s. Saudi Water Partnership Company and the M/s Environmental Balance
Establishment, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as part of Environmental Studies to
support design services for Jubail 3A and 3B Sea Water Reverse Osmosis Desalinization
Plant Project. M/s. Saudi Water Partnership Company and the M/s Environmental
Balance Establishment,Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accepts no liability or
responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any
third party. Copying this report without the permission of M/s. Saudi Water partnership
Companyand M/s Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia is not permitted.
========================================================================
DOC NUMBER: RCS/EBE/002/2019 Rev.1 Dated16/11/2019
PROJECT: J 3A 3B: RECIRCULATION STUDY
Prepaired by : Prof. Alaa M. A. Albarakati (Alaown Expertise House)
Dr. Aboobacker V.M.
Department of Marine Physics, Faculty of Marine Sciences, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia

REV DESCRIPTION PREPERATIONAPPROVAL DATE

===============================================================================
06 RCS- J/3A/3B Dr. Alaa Al Barakati Eng Osama J Qurban 16/11/2019
========================================================================
REV Issued by Date Reviewed Approved Comment Date
QA/QC

0 DilshadThalappil 10.11.2019 Dr. Suresha Gududappa Eng Osama J Qurban 11.11.2019

1 DilshadThalappil 16.11.2019 Dr. Suresha Gududappa Eng Osama J Qurban 16.11.2019

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2 Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Contents
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................iv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... v
Acronyms ..........................................................................................................................................vi
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 2
2. Numerical Modelling ................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Model description .............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Domain and bathymetry ..................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Tidal levels at Jubail........................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Open boundary conditions .................................................................................................. 5
2.5 Input wind conditions ......................................................................................................... 5
2.6 Model setup and calibration................................................................................................ 7
2.7 Model validation ................................................................................................................ 7
2.8 Model scenarios ................................................................................................................. 9
3. Analysis of the results .............................................................................................................. 11
3.1. Hydrodynamics ................................................................................................................ 11
3.1.1. Peak flood and ebb........................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2. Mean and maximum currents ........................................................................................... 12
3.2. Brine plume dispersion..................................................................................................... 12
3.2.1. Future 1 ........................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2. Future 2 ........................................................................................................................... 17
3.3. Assessment on intake locations ........................................................................................ 22
3.3.1. Future 1 ........................................................................................................................... 22
3.3.2. Future 2 ........................................................................................................................... 24
4. Summary and conclusions........................................................................................................ 26
References....................................................................................................................................... 29

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Google Image showing the study locations ....................................................................... 1
Figure 2-1 Model domain, bathymetry and the flexible mesh. Open boundaries are marked (as B1, B2
and B3). ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2-2 Wind speed and direction during 10 Jul – 09 Aug 2019. .................................................... 6
Figure 2-3 Annual wind rose at Jubail................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2-4 Comparison between measured and modelled surface elevations at Jubail ......................... 8
Figure 2-5 Comparison of measured and modelled current speeds and direction................................. 8
Figure 2-6 Outfall locations of existing, Phase-2 and Phase-3 plants ................................................ 10
Figure 3-1 Snapshots of peak flood and ebb currents at surface, middle and bottom layers w.r.t.
Future 1 scenario ............................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 3-2 Mean and maximum current speeds ............................................................................... 12
Figure 3-3 Monthly mean and maximum salinity (depth-averaged) due to Future 1 discharges for
normal wind conditions ................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3-4 The areas where the mean and maximum excess salinity are above 3% of the ambient
salinity w.r.t. Future 1 scenario for normal wind conditions ............................................................. 15
Figure 3-5 Monthly mean and maximum salinity (depth-averaged) due to Future 1 discharges for
extreme wind conditions .................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 3-6 The areas where the mean and maximum excess salinity are above 3% of the ambient
salinity w.r.t. Future 1 scenario for extreme wind conditions ............................................................ 17
Figure 3-7 Monthly mean and maximum salinity (depth-averaged) due to Future 2 discharges for
normal wind conditions ................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-8 The areas where the mean and maximum excess salinity are above 3% of the ambient
salinity w.r.t. Future 2 scenario for normal wind conditions ............................................................. 19
Figure 3-9 Monthly mean and maximum salinity (depth-averaged) due to Future 2 discharges for
extreme wind conditions .................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 3-10 The areas where the mean and maximum excess salinity are above 3% of the ambient
salinity w.r.t. Future 2 scenario for extreme wind conditions ............................................................ 21
Figure 3-11 Time series of excess salinity at three tentative intake locations for different options of
Phase-3 outfalls: (top) 2.5 km; (middle) 5 km and (bottom) 6 km w.r.t. Future 1 scenario. The spatial
mean excess salinities are also shown (right).................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-12 Time series of excess salinity at three tentative intake locations for different options of
Phase-3 outfalls: (top) 2.5 km; (middle) 5 km and (bottom) 6 km w.r.t. Future 2 scenario. The spatial
mean excess salinities are also shown (right).................................................................................... 24

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

List of Tables
Table 2-1 Various tidal levels (above CD) at Jubail coast................................................................... 5
Table 2-2 Tidal constituents at Abu Ali and Ras Tannurah stations .................................................... 5
Table 2-3 Tidal constituents at Jubail ................................................................................................. 7
Table 2-4 Intake and outfall specifications ......................................................................................... 9
Table 3-1 Statistics of excess salinity at tentative intake locations w.r.t. Future 1 scenario................ 23
Table 3-2 Statistics of excess salinity at tentative intake locations w.r.t. Future 2 scenario (blue
highlight indicates the values are well within the reasonable limits; light green indicates fine during
extremes and orange indicates fair during extremes) ........................................................................ 25

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Acronyms
AD Advection - Dispersion
ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
CD Chart Datum
CFL Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy
CFSR Climate Forecast System Reanalysis
DHI Danish Hydraulic Institute
EBE Environmental Balance Establishment
ENE East North East
ESE East South East
FM Flow Model
GAMEP General Authority of Meteorology and Environmental Protection
HAT Highest Astronomical Tide
HD Hydrodynamics
MHWS Mean High Water Spring
MHHW Mean Highest High Water
MLWS Mean Low Water Spring
MLLW Mean Lowest Low Water
MSL Mean Sea Level
N North
NE North East
NNE North North East
NNW North North West
NW North West
PSU Practical Salinity Unit
RHM Red Sea Hydrodynamic Model
S South
SE South East
SSS Sea Surface Salinity
SST Sea Surface Temperature
SW South West
SWCC Saline Water Conversion Corporation
SWRO Sea Water Reverse Osmosis
USA United States of America
W West
WNW West North West
WNW West North West

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

1. Introduction

1.1 Background
The Saudi Water Partnership Company (SWPC) is proposed to Construct a new SWRO
Desalination plant ;Jubail Phase 3A and Phase 3B adjacent to the existing SWCC plant. The
new SWRODP will be constructed to meet the increasing demand of the treated fresh water
in the region, although there are few existing desalination plants along the coast. The sea
water will be treated in the desalination plant to generate the fresh water. Previous
investigations on the Phase-2 DP (under consideration) along with the existing plants indicate
that the salinity near the coast is significantly high (HR Wallingford, 2019). In view of this,
the present study aims to investigate the impact of brine discharge from Phase-3A and 3B
DP along with the Phase-2 and existing DPs. The impact assessment has been carried out
through numerical modelling considering various outfall scenarios.

Figure 1-1 shows the study region. The hydrodynamics in this region is mainly controlled by
the tidal currents and wind-induced circulations. The dispersion of temperature and salinity
are primarily based on the hydrodynamic conditions of the region.

Figure 1-1Google Image showing the study locations

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

1.2 Objectives

The study aims to investigate the impact of brine discharge in sea water due to the proposed
Phase-3A and 3B DP which will be located at Jubail. The impacts are assessed based on the
existing topographic and bathymetric conditions in addition to the brine discharge from the
Phase-2 and existing DPs. The specific objectives are:

a) Analyzing the impact of brine discharge considering selected outfall scenarios.

b) Identifying suitable locations of intake and outfall while meeting the quality criteria
for the Sea Water Reverse Osmosis plant (SWRO).
c) Determining whether the discharge of the brine from the proposed Jubail 3A & 3B
SWRO can be compliant with local environmental regulation and provide guidelines
for the design of the outfall pipe in order to ensure that the dispersion is achieved in
accordance to the Kingdoms' Environmental regulations.

1.3 Methodology

Numerical modelling of the hydrodynamic circulations (HD) and advection-dispersion (AD)

has been carried out using a three dimensional hydrodynamic flexible mesh model; MIKE 3
FM, the Flow Model package developed by DHI Water & Environment, Denmark. One
month period has been chosen for the simulations which take in to account both the tidal and
wind-induced circulations. Shorelines are extracted from the latest Google Earth. The
meteorological conditions (wind velocities) are derived from the CFSR (Climate Forecast
System Reanalysis, USA). The tidal elevations were obtained from an established Arabian
Gulf Hydrodynamic Model . More details on the modelling are given in Chapter 2.

Shorelines of the model domains are extracted from the latest Google Earth (Google Earth,
2019). The meteorological conditions (wind velocities) are derived from the CFSR (Climate
Forecast System Reanalysis, USA) (Saha et al., 2010). The tidal constituents were obtained
from Admiralty Tide Table (NP203, 2002).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

2. Numerical Modelling

2.1 Model description

DHI Water & Environment, Denmark (DHI, 2012) was developed the MIKE 3 FM, a three
dimensional Flow Model. MIKE 3 HD (Hydrodynamic) is the basic module of the MIKE 3
FM, which simulates the tidal and wind-driven circulations in the coastal and offshore
regions. The HD model is based on the numerical solution of the three-dimensional
incompressible Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations invoking the assumptions of
Boussinesque and hydrostatic pressure. Thus, the model consists of continuity, momentum,
temperature, salinity and density equations, and is closed by a turbulent closure scheme. In
the horizontal domain both Cartesian and spherical coordinates can be used. The free surface
has been taken into account using a sigma-coordinate transformation approach.

The spatial discretization of the primitive equations was performed using a cell-centered
finite volume method. The spatial domain is discretized by subdivision of the continuum into
non-overlapping element/cells. In the horizontal plane an unstructured grid was used while in
the vertical domain a structured discretization was used. An approximative Riemann solver
was used for computation of the convective fluxes, which makes it possible to handle
discontinuous solutions. For the time integration a semi-implicit approach was used where
the horizontal terms are treated explicitly and the vertical terms are treated implicitly.

The MIKE 3 HD AD (Advection-Dispersion) Module has been used to simulate the brine
dispersion with respect to the hydrodynamic conditions, which are derived using the MIKE 3
HD. The model takes in to account of the discharge magnitudes and concentrations, and
allows for the advection and dispersion according to the flow conditions in the channel or sea.

2.2 Domain and bathymetry

Figure 2-1 shows the domain, bathymetry and mesh used for the HD simulations. The domain
covers 100 km in the alongshore direction and 36 km in the cross-shore direction. The
shoreline data was obtained from the latest Google Earth. The digitized bathymetry chart data
and the fine resolution bathymetric survey were interpolated to each element grids. The
flexible mesh varies from 400 m in the far offshore to 20 – 100 m in the vicinity of the
project area. The open boundaries are denoted by B1, B2 and B3. The water depths vary up to

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

50 m within the model domain, however, in the vicinity of the project site the depths are
below 20 m.

Figure 2-1Model domain, bathymetry and the flexible mesh.Open boundaries are
marked (as B1, B2 and B3).

2.3 Tidal levels at Jubail

Various tidal levels at Jubail are given in Table 2-1, as obtained from the Admiralty Tide
Table, which takes in to account of the long-term variations. The levels are in meters with
respect to Chart Datum (CD). The Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) and the Mean Low

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Water Spring (MLWS) are 1.6 m and 0.4 m above CD, respectively. The mean seal level
(MSL) was 1.0 m above CD. The average tidal elevation during spring tide was around 1.2
m.

Table 2-1Various tidal levels (above CD) at Jubail coast

MHWS (m) MLWS (m) MSL (m)

1.6 0.4 1.0

2.4 Open boundary conditions
The tidal elevations at the open boundaries were derived from the tidal constituents at
standard tidal stations obtained from the Admiralty Tide Table (NP203). The boundary tide
location in the north is Abu Ali and that in the south is Ras Tannurah. The tidal elevations
between these two stations were interpolated to derive the east boundary condition. Table 2-2
lists the tidal constituents at the boundary locations.

Table 2-2 Tidal constituents at Abu Ali and RasTannurah stations

Abu Ali Ras Tannurah

Tidal
constituents Amplitude Phase Amplitude Phase
(m) (degree) (m) (degree)
M2 0.46 132 0.59 129
S2 0.16 192 0.20 188
K1 0.18 323 0.14 339
O1 0.14 272 0.12 280
F4 0.063 328 - -
F6 0.023 324 - -

2.5 Input wind conditions

The wind data was obtained from CFSR, which is available for every 0.2° × 0.2° spatial
resolution (Saha et al, 2010). The CFSR wind data was verified against measurements in the
Arabian Gulf and have been successfully applied for the three dimensional hydrodynamic
modelling (Peng and Bradon, 2016).

We have used typical wind patterns (time-series) for a period of one month for the
hydrodynamic model simulations. Figure 2-2 shows the time-series wind speed and direction
during 10 July – 09 August 2015 at Jubail. The wind speed goes up to 11.5 m/s with a
dominant NNW direction. Although relatively weak, wind from E and SW was also obtained.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Figure 2-3 shows the annual wind rose at Jubail. The wind speeds up to 14 m/s were observed
from NNW direction, and up to 12 m/s were observed from NW, SE, and SSE directions.
Land breezes up to 12 m/s was found from NE and SSE directions. The major contribution is
from WNW, followed by NW and N. The shamal winds were prevalent in this region during
winter and early summer.

Figure 2-2 Wind speed and direction during 10 Jul – 09 Aug 2019.

Figure 2-3 Annual wind rose at Jubail

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

2.6 Model setup and calibration

 The hydrodynamic model has been setup considering three equidistant vertical layers
on a sigma co-ordinate system. The thickness of each layer varies according to the
water depth, i.e., the layer thickness at a 3 m depth location is 1 m, while that at 15 m
location is 5 m.
 Both tides and winds are contributing to the hydrodynamic circulations in the study
region. Hence the model simulations have been carried out by forcing the open
boundaries with tidal elevations and the surface boundary by forcing with the CFSR
wind velocities.
 The minimum and maximum computational time steps for the iterations are 0.01 s and
30 s, respectively. The critical Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) number was given as
0.8.
 The flood and dry parameters used are: Drying depth = 0.005 m; Flooding depth =
0.05 m; wetting depth = 0.1 m.
 Smagorinsky formulation was applied to calculate the eddy viscosity. This is a
calibration parameter, and a value of 0.28 was found reasonable.
 Quadratic drag coefficient formulation was applied to define the bed resistance.
Spatially varying bed resistance have been applied. A value of 0.05 has been applied
in the deep water while a range of 0.05 – 1.0 has been applied near the coast,
according to the bathymetric features. This is also a calibration factor.
 Wind friction coefficient was taken as 0.002.
 The model outputs such as surface elevation, current velocities, current speed and
direction were derived for every 30 min. spatially and for every 15 min, for specific
locations.

2.7 Model validation

Table 2-3 lists the tidal constituents at the Jubail coast (NP 203, 2002). This has been used to
derive the tidal elevations, which has been compared with modelled tidal elevations.

Table 2-3 Tidal constituents at Jubail

Tidal constituents Amplitude (m) Phase (degree)

M2 0.47 119
S2 0.17 184

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

K1 0.19 317
O1 0.13 274

Figure 2-4 shows the comparison between measured (predicted) and modelled tidal
elevations at Jubail. The comparison is reasonable, with correlation coefficient of 0.99 and
r.m.s. error less than 3%.

Figure 2-4 Comparison between measured and modelled surface elevations at Jubail

Current speed and direction were collected from the near shore region of Jubail during 03 –
18 October 2019 using Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP). Figure 2-5 shows the
comparison between the measured and modelled current speeds (depth-averaged) and the
current directions. The match was reasonably good; the model picks most of the peaks and
variations in the measurements. The underestimation at few occasions may be attributed to
the uncertainties of the global winds near the coast.

Figure 2-5 Comparison of measured and modelled current speeds and direction
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

2.8 Model scenarios

In view of all the existing and proposed DPs in the region, two possible cases have been
designed: (i) Phase-2 & Phase-3A and 3B DPs with existing DPs (hereafter referred as
“Future 1”) and (ii) Phase-2 & Phase-3A and 3B DPs without existing DPs (hereafter
refereed as “Future 2”). There are 5 existing plants which are functioning on the MSF
technology and discharges large amount of brine to the sea water through the outfall situated
near the coast. It is presumed that these plants may be decommissioned when the Phase-3A
and 3B DP becomes operational. The Phase-2 is the proposed new SWRO plant, which will
be operational in the near future; it will discharge the brine to an offshore location, approx.
2.5 km away from the coast.

Three optional locations of outfalls have been assigned for the Phase-3A and 3B DP, which
are at 2.5 km, 5 km and 6 km from the coast. The simulations have been carried out for
Future 1 and Future 2 cases with three outfall options for Phase-3 DP (6 scenarios in
total).The intake and outfall specifications applied in the hydrodynamic simulations are listed
in Table 2-4.Figure 2-6 shows the outfall locations. The specifications of Phase-3 DP (A and
B) are provided from SWPC. Jubail RO2 and the existing desalination plants are provided
from SEPCO3 report to SWCC.
Table 2-4 Intake and outfall specifications
Location Item Existing plants Phase-2 Phase-3
A B
Flow rate (m3/s) 166.11 12.26 19.8 18.8
Intake Temperature (°C) 32 32 32 32
Salinity (PSU) 42 42 42 42
3
Flow rate (m /s) 152.8 7.57 12.9 12.3
Depth (m) 5 Sea bed (EBE) Sea bed (EBE)
Temperature +2.5 +1.0
+0.5 +0.5
difference (°C)
Salinity difference +9 +33 +25 +25
(PSU)
49°49'23.57"E; 49°49'36.78"E;
Outfall 26°54'29.04"N 26°54'17.63"N
(2.5 km) (2.5 km)
49°50'17.35"E; 49°50'32.72"E;
Co-ordinates 49°47'30.04"E; 49°49'15.11"E; 26°55'37.23"N 26°55'23.79"N
(long/lat) 26°53'47.88"N 26°54'34.15"N
(5 km) (5 km)
49°50'39.00"E; 49°50'52.63"E;
26°56'4.49"N 26°55'47.30"N
(6 km) (6 km)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Figure 2-6 Outfall locations of existing, Phase-2 and Phase-3 plants

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

3. Analysis of the results

The results of the simulations have been analysed for each of the scenarios. The circulation and brine
dispersion characteristics have been particularly analysed. Since, there are no significant impacts of
temperature in the vicinity of the outfalls; they are excluded from further analysis. The results are
discussed in the following sections.

3.1. Hydrodynamics
3.1.1. Peak flood and ebb

Figure 3-1 shows the current patterns (peak flood and ebb currents) during Spring tide. The flood
currents are towards the SSE/SE, which also effected by the NW/NNW winds. The current speeds
during peak flood reaches up to 0.7 m/s near edges of the structures, where as they are generally up to
0.5 m/s in thesurrounding areas. The ebb currents are towards the north.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Figure 3-1 Snapshots of peak flood and ebb currents at surface, middle and bottom
layers w.r.t. Future 1 scenario

The wind direction is opposite to the tidal flows; hence, the net ebb is weaker (up to 0.3 m/s). Since,
the region is vertically homogenous; there are significant differences in current speeds between the
layers.

There are no significant difference in current patterns due to different options of Phase-3 outfalls (2.5
km, 5 km and 6 km), as they are at offshore.

The difference in current patterns between Future 1 and Future 2 is mainly restricted to the nearshore
outfall location of the existing plants as the outfall of the existing plants near the coast is excluded in
Future 2.

3.1.2. Mean and maximum currents

The monthly mean represents the average conditions. The maximum currents; especially when the
wind speeds are high represent the extreme conditions. Figure 3-2 shows the mean and maximum
current speeds (depth-averaged) during the study period. The mean current speed ranges up to 0.5 m/s
and the maximum current speed is up to 0.9 m/s. The difference in mean and maximum current
patterns between Future 1 and Future 2 is mainly restricted to the nearshore outfall location of the
existing plants.

Figure 3-2Mean and maximum current speeds

3.2. Brine plume dispersion

The salinity dispersion has been analysed considering the Future 1 and Future 2 DP cases. In each
case there are three options of outfall locations (2.5 km, 5 km and 6 km) and two climatic conditions
(normal and extreme). Hence, a total number of twelve scenarios of plume dispersion have been taken

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

in to account in the analysis. Excess salinities (scenario – ambient) are discussed in the following
sections.

3.2.1. Future 1
(i) Normal winds
Figure 3-3 shows the monthly mean and maximum excess salinity (depth-averaged) due to different
options of Phase-3 outfalls along with the Phase-2 and existing outfalls. The mean and maximum
salinity increases up to 9.0 PSU within 1 km alongshore distance of the existing outfall near the coast,
while the mean salinity gradually decreases towards offshore (up to 1.5 PSU within 1 km offshore).
The maximum salinity remains high (5 to 6 PSU within the 3 km offshore distance).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Figure 3-3 Monthly mean and maximum salinity (depth-averaged) due to Future 1
discharges for normal wind conditions
The mean salinity increase near the Phase-2 outfall was less than 0.5 PSU. The mean salinity
increasesin the vicinity of Phase-3 outfalls are: up to 2.0 PSU for the 2.5 km option and less than 0.5
PSU for the 5 km and 6 km options. The maximum salinity increase is up to 7.0 PSU in the vicinity of
Phase-2 and 2.5 km of the Phase-3 outfalls when they operate together. When the Phase-3 outfall is at
5 km or 6 km, the maximum salinity near the Phase-2 outfall is only up to 3.0 PSU. In the vicinity of
5 km and 6 km outfalls (with respective options), the maximum salinities are up to 2.0 PSU and 1.2
PSU, respectively.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Figure 3-4The areas where the mean and maximum excess salinity are above 3% of the
ambient salinity w.r.t. Future 1 scenario for normal wind conditions

Considering the mean salinity increase, the options with far offshore outfalls (5 km and 6 km) have
least impacts. However, the maximum salinity increase is not within the reasonable limits. This might
due to the combined effect of all the plants, with high amounts of brine from the existing plants. An
intake location at far offshore (around 5-6 km) may be suggested considering the least impact regions.

Figure 3-4 shows the areas over which the mean and maximum excess salinity are higher than the 3%
of the ambient salinity (~1.25 PSU) with respect to the Future 1 scenario. The area where the mean
excess salinity is above 1.25 PSU which is limited to the vicinity of the existing outfalls with an
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

alongshore distance of 6 km and cross-shore distance of 1 km.The mean excess salinities in the areas
of Phase-2 and Phase-3 outfalls (all options) have not crossed the GAMEP limits.The area spread by
the maximum excess salinity over 3% is wide (around 20 km along the coast and 5 km offshore) with
slight differences in the distribution when the outfalls are at 2.5 km, 5 km and 6 km distances.

(ii) Extreme winds

Figure 3-5 shows the mean and maximum excess salinity derived for extreme wind
conditions. A relatively quick dispersion is found during extremes compared to normal
conditions; hence, the area affected by high concentration has been significantly reduced.

Figure 3-5 Monthly mean and maximum salinity (depth-averaged) due to Future 1
discharges for extreme wind conditions

Figure 3-4 shows the areas over which the mean and maximum excess salinity are higher
than the 3% of the ambient salinity (~1.25 PSU) during extreme conditions. The area where
the mean excess salinity is above 1.25 PSU which is limited to the vicinity of the existing
outfalls with an alongshore distance of 6 km and cross-shore distance of 700 m. The mean
excess salinities in the areas of Phase-2 and Phase-3 outfalls (all options) have not crossed the
GAMEP limits. The area spread by the maximum excess salinity over 3% is around 9 km
along the coast and 5 km offshore, when the Phase-3 outfall is at 2.5 km. The area of

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

distribution of excess salinity over 3% is significantly reduced when the Phase-3 outfalls are
at 5 km and 6 km distances.

Figure 3-6 The areas where the mean and maximum excess salinity are above 3% of the
ambient salinity w.r.t. Future 1 scenario for extreme wind conditions

3.2.2. Future 2
(i) Normal winds
Figure 3-7 shows the monthly mean and maximum excess salinity (depth-averaged) due to different
options of Phase-3 outfalls along with Phase-2 outfall, for Future 2 scenario. In absence of the
existing outfall, the dispersion has been significantly modified. The mean salinity has not been

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

increased over 1 PSU with all the three outfall options, while the maximum salinity exceeds 1 PSU in
the vicinity of the outfalls. The maximum excess salinities for different outfall options are as follows:

 2.5 km: Increases up to 7.0 PSU in the vicinity of Phase-2 and 2.5 km outfalls.
 5 km: Increases up to 3.0 PSU near Phase-2 and 2.5 km outfalls; increases up to 2.0 PSU near
5 km outfall.
 6 km: Increases up to 3.0 PSU near Phase-2 and 2.5 km outfalls; increases up to 2.0 PSU near
6 km outfall.

Figure 3-7 Monthly mean and maximum salinity (depth-averaged) due to Future 2
discharges for normal wind conditions

Figure 3-8 shows the areas over which the mean and maximum excess salinity are higher
than the 3% of the ambient salinity (~1.25 PSU) during extreme conditions. No area will
exceeds this limit for the mean excess salinity. The area affected by the maximum excess
salinity over 3% is 1.5 km away from the coast; the spread is relatively wide when the Phase-

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

3 outfall is at 2.5 km due to the combined effect of it with Phase-2 outfall. When the outfall is
at 6 km, there will be no excess salinity over 3% in the vicinity of it.

Figure 3-8 The areas where the mean and maximum excess salinity are above 3% of the
ambient salinity with respect to Future 2 scenario for normal wind conditions

(ii) Extreme winds

Figure 3-9 shows the mean and maximum excess salinity derived for extreme wind
conditions for Future 2 scenario. A relatively quick dispersion is found during extremes

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

compared to normal conditions; hence, the area affected by high concentration has been
significantly reduced.

Figure 3-9 Monthly mean and maximum salinity (depth-averaged) due to Future 2
discharges for extreme wind conditions
Figure 3-10 shows the areas over which the mean and maximum excess salinity are higher
than the 3% of the ambient salinity (~1.25 PSU) during extreme conditions. No area will

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

exceeds this limit for the mean excess salinity. The area influenced by maximum excess
salinity will be limited to a small region in the vicinity of 2.5 km outfall.

Figure 3-10 The areas where the mean and maximum excess salinity are above 3% of
the ambient salinity with respect to Future 2 scenario for extreme wind conditions

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

3.3. Assessment on intake locations

3.3.1. Future 1
Based on the spatial distribution of mean excess salinities, three tentative locations (p1, p2
and p3) have been opted for the intake assessments. Figure 3-11 shows the time-series excess
salinities derived from the model results at the chosen intake locations with respect to three
Phase-3 outfall scenarios. The distances of locations p1, p2 and p3 from the shore are 3.5 km,
4.5 km and 5.5 km, respectively. They are at north/northwest of the Phase-3 outfall locations.

Figure 3-11 Time series of excess salinity at three tentative intake locations for different
options of Phase-3 outfalls: (top) 2.5 km; (middle) 5 km and (bottom) 6 km w.r.t. Future
1 scenario. The spatial mean excess salinities are also shown (right).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

The time-series data indicates that there are no significant increases in salinity, except when
the winds are from E/SE. But, in an annual cycle the occurrence of moderate or stronger
winds from these directions are very less (< 5%). Hence, the mean value tends to zero,
although the maximum values are relatively higher. The maximum values often tend to be
unrealistic in any analysis due to various uncertainties. Such high values may exist only once
or twice. To find realistic values, the statistical estimations are necessary.

Table 3-1 shows the statistics derived for the excess salinities at locations p1, p2 and p3 for
three Phase-3 outfall scenarios. The mean, 90th percentile, 99th percentile and maximum
values have been presented. The 90th percentile is a near extreme condition, which indicates
there exists only 10% chances to exceed the derived value. Similarly, the 99th percentile is an
extreme condition, which means there exists only 1% chance to exceed the derived value.
The results indicate that the mean and 90th percentile values estimated at the three intake
locations for all the scenarios are well within the acceptable limits; the excess salinities are
less than 0.06 PSU. The 99th percentile values were also within the reasonable limits: well at
all the three intakes when the outfall is at 2.5 km and at p3 when the intake is at 5 km; fairly
good for all other scenarios. This confirms that the intake locations p1, p2 and p3 are
acceptable when the outfalls are at 2.5 – 6 km distance in the presence of existing outfall.

Table 3-1Statistics of excess salinity at tentative intake locations with respect to Future 1
scenario

Intake
location
Scenario Mean 90th percentile 99th percentile Maximum

P1 (3.5 km) 0.03 0.05 0.43 1.28

2.5 km
P2 (4.5 km) 0.01 <0.01 0.27 0.29
outfall
P3 (5.5 km) 0.01 <0.01 0.20 0.26
P1 (3.5 km) 0.04 0.06 0.79 1.22
5 km
P2 (4.5 km) 0.04 0.04 0.75 0.90
outfall
P3 (5.5 km) 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.53
P1 (3.5 km) 0.03 0.04 0.60 1.07
6 km
P2 (4.5 km) 0.03 0.02 0.59 0.68
outfall
P3 (5.5 km) 0.02 0.01 0.50 0.63
(blue highlight indicates the values are well within the reasonable limits; light green indicates fine during
extremes and orange indicates fair during extremes)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

3.3.2. Future 2
In absence of the existing outfall, the excess salinities in the nearshore areas have been
significantly dropped down. In view of this, we have chosen a near shore intake location (p0)
in addition to the other two locations (p1 and p2: same as in Future 1).Figure 3-12 shows the
time-series excess salinities derived from the model results at the chosen intake locations
with respect to three Phase-3 outfall scenarios. The time-series data indicates that there are no
significant increases in salinity, except when the winds are from E/SE as discussed in
Future1.

Figure 3-12 Time series of excess salinity at three tentative intake locations for different options
of Phase-3 outfalls: (top) 2.5 km; (middle) 5 km and (bottom) 6 km w.r.t. Future 2 scenario. The
spatial mean excess salinities are also shown (right).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Table 3-2 shows the statistics derived for the excess salinities at locations p0, p1 and p2 for
three Phase-3 outfall scenarios. The mean, 90th percentile, 99th percentile and maximum
values have been presented. The results indicate that the mean and 90th percentile values
estimated at the three intake locations for all the scenarios are well within the acceptable
limits; the excess salinities are less than 0.12 PSU. The 99th percentile values are also within
the reasonable limits. This confirms that the intake locations p0, p1 and p2 are acceptable
when the outfalls are at 2.5 – 6 km distance for Future 2. Here p1 and p2 are acceptable in
Future 1 scenario too.

Table 3-2 Statistics of excess salinity at tentative intake locations w.r.t. Future 2
scenario (blue highlight indicates the values are well within the reasonable limits; light
green indicates fine during extremes and orange indicates fair during extremes)

Intake
Scenario location Mean 90th percentile 99th percentile Maximum

P0 (150 m) 0.03 0.12 0.50 0.80

2.5 km
P1 (3.5 km) 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.51
outfall
P2 (4.5 km) <0.01 < 0.01 0.09 0.10

P0 (150 m) 0.01 0.04 0.23 0.29

5 km
P1 (3.5 km) 0.03 0.03 0.54 0.83
outfall
P2 (4.5 km) 0.03 0.02 0.60 0.84

P0 (150 m) 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.27

6 km
P1 (3.5 km) 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.47
outfall
P2 (4.5 km) 0.02 <0.01 0.45 0.51
(blue highlight indicates the values are well within the reasonable limits; light green indicates fine during
extremes and orange indicates fair during extremes)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

4. Summary and conclusions

Hydrodynamic modeling has been carried out along the Jubail coast to identify the feasible
locations of outfalls for the Phase-3 development. The hydrodynamic conditions and the
associated dispersion characteristics were assessed for a period one month. Normal and
extreme winds have been taken in to account in the analysis. The model results have been
validated with available measurements.

The current speeds are moderate at Jubail coast. The wind and tide has nearly equal
contribution in the circulation of the region. The flood currents are stronger compared to the
ebb currents.The flood currents are towards the SSE/SE, which also effected by the
NW/NNW winds. The ebb currents are towards the north and they are weaker. The monthly
mean current speed ranges up to 0.5 m/s and the maximum current speed is up to 0.9 m/s.

The monthly mean SST increases up to 0.05°C in the vicinity of the outfall, while the
increment is negligible at both the intake locations. Although there are slight variations for
the cases with typical winds (from west and south), the increment in SST is not significant.
Vertically, the increment of temperature is only up to 0.2°C near the outfall (in the bottom
layer).

The dispersion of brine varies according to the outfall scenarios.

Future1 (with existing outfall):

 The mean excess salinity crosses the GAMEP limits (3% of the ambient) within 6 km
alongshore and 3 km offshore.
 The maximum excess salinity crosses the 3% at a distance of around 20 km along the
coast and at 3 - 5 km offshore in the vicinity of the outfalls.
 The dispersion during extreme conditions is relatively quicker than the normal
conditions.
Future 2 (without existing outfall):

 The mean excess salinity was never exceeded the GAMEP limits (3% of the ambient).
 The maximum excess salinity crosses the 3% in an area with approximately 6 km
alongshore distance and 2.5 m cross-shore distance, however, 1.5 km away from the
coast. This is when the outfall is at 2.5 km.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

 The area of spread of maximum excess salinity which crosses 3% is smaller for the
other options (5 km and 6 km).

The assessment on possible intake locations was made based on the mean excess salinity
distribution. The locations chosen are p0 (nearshore), p1 (3.5 km), p2 (4.5 km) and p3 (5.5
km). The locations p1, p2 and p3 are suitable for intake when the existing plants are
functional. The locations p0 is suitable for intake when the existing plant is not functional, in
addition to the other intake locations. The locations with the order of least impacts for each
scenario have been tabulated as given below:

Scenario Outfall options Intakes with order of

impacts

2.5 km p3 < p2 < p1

Future 1 (with existing outfall) 5 km p3 < p2 < p1

6 km p3 < p2 < p1

2.5 km p2 < p1 < p0

Future 1 (without existing

5 km p0 <p1 < p2
outfall)

6 km p0 <p1 < p2

* p0 – 150 m; p1 – 3.5 km; p2 – 4.5 km; p3 – 5.5 km from the shore

Recommendations:

 Future 1: The intakes at P1, P2 and P3 are acceptable for outfall locations 2.5 km, 5
km and 6 km considering the mean excess salinity distributions, which are lower than
GAMEP limits (discussed in Section 3.3.1). Choosing 2.5 km outfall may expose
some risks as shown in Figure 3-11, where the excess salinity at intake P1 crosses the
GAMEP limit of 1.25 PSU at least by an hour in a month (Please note that it is the
maximum value which crosses the limit, which will not affect the overall mean).
Choosing 5 km outfall will reduce such risks. Although the intakes P2 and P3 are
comparatively better, the intake P1 can be an optimum location considering the
economic aspect too. The larger inputs which affect the intake P1 are not arisen from
the Phase-3 DP, when the outfall is chosen at 5 km.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

Hence, a future increase in capacity of Phase-3 DP (when outfall is at 5 km) may also
have less chance of impacting at P1. In this context, we recommend an outfall at 5
km and the intake at location P1 for Phase-3 DP. Any future increase in capacity of
Phase-2 DP (other than used in this study) with its 2.5 km outfall is not taken in to
account in this assessment.
 Future 2: Considering the economic and environmental aspects, the optimum
location for intake is at P1 and that for outfall is at 2.5 km.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah
 ‫ﻣؤﺳﺳﺔ اﻟﺗوازن اﻟﺑﯾﺋﻲ‬
Environmental Balance Establishment

References

1. NP203, 2002: Admiralty Tide Table, Indian Ocean and South China Sea.
2. DHI, 2012a: MIKE 21 Flow Model FM, User Guide, 120 pp.
3. DHI, 2012b: MIKE 21 & MIKE 3 Flow Model FM, Scientific Documentation, 58 pp.
4. Gharbi S.H., Albarakati A.M., Alsaafani M.A., Saheed P.P., Alraddadi, T.M., Simulation
of tidal hydrodynamics in the Red Sea using COHERENS model. Regional Studies in
Marine Science, 22, 49-60.
5. Saha S, Moorthi S, Pan H-L, et al. 2010. The NCEP Climate Forecast System
Reanalysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 91:1015–1057. doi: 10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1.
6. Google Earth, 2018. Google Earth virtual globe. http://earth.google.com.
7. HR Wallingford, 2019. Brine dispersion modelling and recirculation study – offshore
outfall. Al Jubail SWRO Desalination Plant Phase-2 Project Report, 52 pp.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jubail 3A and 3B DispersionStudy rev 2-Submitted to SWPC
Copyright @ Environmental Balance Establishment, Jeddah