Page 1 of 48

2006-2009 Triennium Work Report

October 2009




PROGRAMME COMMITTEE D3: CREATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR NEW LNG
FACILITIES


Chair: Rob Klein Nagelvoort

Netherlands



Page 2 of 48
Executive Summary

The triennium 2006-2009 has been one of exceptional change and development for the
LNG industry.

The start of the period was a time of expansion. LNG prices were high and it was a
sellers market. New capacity was desired quickly and a high number of final investment
decisions were taken. It was becoming apparent that costs of projects were rising,
however. As a result of the high EPC costs the number of final investment decisions
dropped dramatically.

By the end of the period the situation was reversed. The global economic downturn led to
a decline in natural gas demand. Companies delayed new projects, waiting to see
whether LNG prices would recover and where construction costs would level off.

Despite the rapid change in circumstances, the industry did not stall. There is no
shortage of proposals for new export plants, carriers and import terminals. A surge in
creativity and innovation occurred.

Future LNG export plants will be located in more remote locations and process more
difficult feed gases. Strict environmental regulations and public resistance to new
developments make it difficult to obtain permits.

New solutions that address these challenges have been proposed across the entire LNG
value chain. Some of the main trends that have been observed are presented and
critiqued in this paper. Proposed solutions are assessed against criteria including Cost,
Environmental Impact, Safety & Security, Fit for Purpose design, degree of Local
Content, Public acceptance and Operational Costs.

An increasing move to offshore developments is apparent, on both the export and import
sides, which is a significant change to the traditional value chain. Locating facilities
offshore has the advantage of being remote from public areas and therefore receive less
opposition. A floating export plant close to the reservoir has an economic advantage. It
eliminates the need for long sub-sea pipelines to shore and makes previously
unattainable fields viable for development. Associated gas can be recovered that might
otherwise have been flared or re-injected. The challenge for these remote and sometimes
harsh locations is the requirement for high plant reliability since the number of personnel
onboard and maintenance capabilities are reduced.

Onshore LNG export plants have seen variation around the 3 5 mtpa standard capacity
size of recent years and show a spread from mini (+/-0.1 mtpa) to mega (> 6mtpa)
trains. The sizes are tailored to meet specific applications and niche markets. New
liquefaction processes are being implemented for the first time including Mixed Fluid
Cascade, Dual Mixed Refrigerant and AP-X.

New approaches to heat integration to reduce fuel use have now been implemented; the
Tangguh LNG plant recovers all available waste heat from the gas turbine drivers in a
high pressure steam system, providing energy to process drivers, power generation and
process heating.

Modularisation has been employed to reduce construction costs. An entire LNG train can
be constructed in a fabrication yard as individual modules, shipped to the site and
re-assembled. This was applied for North West Shelf Train 5 and is being repeated with
Page 3 of 48
improvements for the Pluto project. For Snohvit, a major part of the plant was pre-
assembled and shipped to the site as one large barge-mounted module.
The concept of offshore LNG export plants has been proposed. Floating Production
Storage & Offloading - also known as Floating LNG - is technically feasible for many
areas in the world. There are two emergent designs: an LNG production vessel of 2 mpta
nominal capacity and a larger barge capable of producing NGLs as well as LNG in the
range of 3.5 5 mtpa. The concept designs will be developed further when they progress
to the engineering phase.

The shipping industry has seen remarkable changes in carrier size and propulsion
systems. The 4-tank LNG carrier has increased capacity from 130,000 m
3
to 170,000 m
3

in recent years. A bigger step change is the new 5-tank LNG carriers: the Q-flex and Q-
max vessels with 210,000 m
3
and 260,000 m
3
capacity respectively. Dual-fuel diesel
electric propulsion and slow-speed diesel engine with boil-off gas reliquefaction have
reduced transport costs and provided flexibility. LNG can now be routed over larger
distances at lower costs, bringing a global marketplace a step closer.

Onshore regasification terminals have found ways of improving economical and
environmental elements. New technologies like ambient air vaporizers and Intermediate
Flow Vaporisers can be used instead of traditional Open Rack Vaporisers and
Submerged Combustion Vaporisers in certain environments reducing operating costs and
green house gas emissions. Furthermore, integrating the import terminal with
neighbouring industry can improve overall process efficiency, albeit at the price of
increased complexity.

Offshore regasification projects have seen a surge of interest due to combined factors of
environmental legislation, public resistance to onshore development, congestion of
coastlines and the need for fast-track project schedules. The most promising technology
is the Floating Storage Regasification Unit, both new-built designs as well as converted
carriers.

Finally, there has been on-going development of LNG transfer systems for ship-to-ship
transfer, flexible hose technology and LNG pipelines. Potential benefits include simpler
jetties without breakwater or dredging and the capability to transfer cargo in rougher sea
conditions.

Many of the creative solutions described in this paper are already reality. Others are
imminent and expected to be realized soon. Even after 50 years, the LNG industry
continues to change and re-invent itself to address the economic, environmental,
technical and political challenges it faces. The LNG industry will continue to respond to
challenges through innovation to meet the growing global demand for natural gas.
Page 4 of 48

Executive Summary............................................................................................2
1. Introduction, Objective & Methodology.....................................................5
1.1. International Gas Union, Programme Committee D.3 ............................5
1.2. Introduction.............................................................................................5
1.3. LNG Value Chain, Grouping & Methodology ..........................................5
2. Creative solutions........................................................................................6
2.1 LNG Export.............................................................................................6
2.1.1 Onshore LNG Production....................................................................6
2.1.2 Offshore LNG Production..................................................................13
2.2 Shipping................................................................................................20
2.3 LNG Import ...........................................................................................23
2.3.1 Onshore Regasification ....................................................................24
2.3.2 Offshore Regasification .................................................................29
2.4 Transfer Systems .................................................................................38
3. Conclusions and Trends...........................................................................45
4. Acronyms ...................................................................................................47
5. References .................................................................................................47
Appendix A Study Group Members ............................................................48

Page 5 of 48
1. Introduction, Objective & Methodology
1.1. International Gas Union, Programme Committee D.3
This report has been written by the International Gas Unions (IGU) Programme
Committee D.3 (PGC D.3) during the triennium 2006 - 2009. The following people have
contributed to this report:

Rob Klein Nagelvoort (Royal Dutch Shell), Masanori Oki (Osaka Gas), Wouter Pastoor
(Flex LNG), Mun-keun Ha (Samsung), ystein Bruno Larsen (Hamworthy), Stephanie
Regni (GDF SUEZ), Calogero Migliore (Repsol YPF), Arrigo Vienna (ENI), John
Holleyoak (BP), Dirk van der Mast (Royal Dutch Shell).

All PGC D.3 group members are given in appendix A.

The study group would like to thank the Chairman (Rob Klein Nagelvoort), Co-chairman
(Arrigo Vienna) and Secretary (Dirk van der Mast) for their contributions during this
triennium.

1.2. Introduction
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the key
enabling criteria of profitability and public acceptability. Future LNG export plants are
likely to be situated in more remote locations and receive gas from more scattered and
more difficult to produce reservoirs. Together with an increase in construction and
operating costs, this causes a strain on project economics. LNG terminals are subject to
increased public opposition. New import schemes may have to find new ways of
providing buffer capacity in markets with large demand variations.

In a buoyant market and uncertain gas world, the study group aimed to review the weak
links in the LNG value chain in need of creative solutions to make LNG a more attractive
energy option. The study group investigated a host of creative solutions for production
plants, ships and receiving terminals providing an insightful overview and forecast of
future trends.

1.3. LNG Value Chain, Grouping & Methodology
In order to present the wide range of creative ideas in a logical manner, the report is
divided into sections corresponding to the stages of the LNG value chain: LNG export,
Shipping, LNG import and additionally LNG transfer systems.

The creative solutions are assessed against pre-selected criteria including Cost,
Environmental impact, Safety & Security, Fit for Purpose design, degree of Local
Content, Public Acceptance and Operational Costs. The study group chose these criteria
as a result of several brainstorming sessions.
Page 6 of 48
2. Creative solutions

This chapter discusses innovations in each of the main elements of the LNG value chain:
LNG export, Shipping, LNG import and LNG transfer systems.
2.1 LNG Export
Appreciable LNG production capacity is currently being installed or commissioned
onshore, mostly brown-field developments at existing sites and for a large part in the
Middle East. However the industry is currently experiencing delays in getting approval for
new projects, especially the larger ones, because of tighter economics. Whilst the LNG
export business is mature (50 years old) it is interesting to note that the new projects
being approved or in the pipeline have more variations than before, both in terms of
capacity and technology. The capacity of the trains in a plant now ranges from 8 mtpa
down to 0.1 mtpa. However, there is scope for further innovation beyond the present
technologies.

Plans for offshore LNG production have been around for decades, but it now looks like
they will become reality. Many proposals have been made with capacities ranging from 1
to 5 mtpa LNG.
2.1.1 Onshore LNG Production
The majority of the plants coming on-stream in the last few years have large trains with a
capacity of 3 5 mtpa. The main drivers for development were: economy of scale
stretching the capacity to the 5 mtpa mark, fit for purpose designs for new locations,
improving efficiency and reducing emissions. This will be highlighted with the examples of
Snohvit, Sakhalin and Tangguh, green-field plants, introducing respectively new
liquefaction technologies in the (sub) arctic and fuel efficient design in the tropics and NW
Shelf train 5, brown-field, introducing large scale modularization. Other projects coming
on-stream during the last triennium were NLNG train 6, Rasgas train 5 and Equatorial
Guinea. However impressive, these projects are considered repeat projects from a
technology point of view.

Apart from these large trains the last three years also saw the construction of even larger
trains with capacities up to 7.8 mtpa. This will be highlighted with information from Qatar
and other projects. The different train sizes around are being classified as follows:

Mega trains > 6 mtpa
Large trains 3 5 mtpa
Medium trains 1 2 mtpa
Small trains 0.3 0.5 mtpa
Mini trains +/- 0.1 mtpa

Proposals for plants with trains in the small category are now coming up in various
places, sometimes using new feed gases like Coal Bed Methane. It is an area with
technology developments and fit for purpose construction approaches. New liquefaction
processes are being considered and also equipment new to the LNG industry is being
applied. It will be interesting to see to what extent the new approaches explored here are
suitable for scale up. Some of these projects are not delivering into the large gas
distribution and power markets, but are seeking niche markets like diesel replacement
(power, heating, auto-motive).

There is also an upcoming category of mini plants, often built as modules, for local
markets.
Page 7 of 48

Large Trains 3 5 mtpa

Snohvit

With the start-up of the Snohvit project in September 2007 a new liquefaction process
was introduced, viz. the Mixed Fluid Cascade process (MFC) of Statoil Linde. It is
claimed to be particularly suitable for the North Sea and similar environment. The one
train plant, with a capacity of 4.1 mtpa, features many novelties. The construction of the
plant was partly modularized, see figure below, and partly stick built.

The purified gas is pre-cooled, liquefied and sub-cooled by means of three separate
mixed refrigerant cycles in series. The cold of the pre-cool cycle is transferred to the
natural gas via plate fin heat exchangers, whereas the cold of the liquefaction and sub-
cooling cycle is transferred via spiral wound heat exchangers. The exchangers are all
mounted in a 3000 tonne coldbox. The plant uses seawater taken from great depth for
direct cooling.


Figure 1: 33,000 tonne process unit for Statoils Snohvit LNG Project
Photograph courtesy of Statoil

The three refrigerant compressors are all electric driven, which is a novelty in the
baseload LNG industry. Another new feature in the plant is that the CO
2
captured from
the feed gas is re-injected underground. The plant was designed to set a benchmark for
minimum fuel usage and minimum emissions. This is yet to be demonstrated because
equipment problems have prevented the train from operating at full capacity. Features
like all electric drive and CO
2
injection will undoubtedly be applied again in the industry.

Sakhalin

Another new liquefaction process was introduced with the start-up of the Sakhalin LNG
plant in March 2009, viz. the Dual Mixed Refrigerant (DMR) process of Shell (see Figure
2). It is a flexible process that can cope with a wide range of ambient temperatures, from
sub-arctic to hot conditions, and a suite of feed compositions, still maintaining efficiency.
Page 8 of 48
The two train plant, with a capacity of 9.6 mtpa, has started up smoothly in the coldest
month of the year.

The treated gas is pre-cooled and liquefied/sub-cooled in two mixed refrigerant cycles in
series. The drivers are two General Electric Frame 7 gas turbines. The cold of both
cycles is transferred to the natural gas via spiral wound heat exchangers. The plant is
fully aircooled, so as not to cause any thermal or chemical pollution via water outfall in
the sensitive sub-arctic area. The air temperatures ranges from 25
o
C in winter to
+25
o
C in summer.

A further merit of the liquefaction process is that the number of equipment items is limited
and the sizes are limited as well. This is important for construction in the earthquake
prone area of Sakhalin.


Figure 2: LNG Export Facility at Sakhalin
Photo courtesy of SEIC

The type of process lends itself also for offshore applications because of its compactness
and flexibility.

There are three processes now operating in (sub) arctic areas, viz MFC in Hammerfest,
DMR in Sakhalin and Cascade (1969) in Alaska.

Tangguh LNG

This 2-train green field development uses the well established propane pre-cooled mixed
refrigerant technology, licensed in this case by APCI. The major innovation in this
project's design is highly efficient use of fuel and reduced combustion emissions,
achieved by heat and power integration. Start up of this plant is in Q3 2009.

The process is driven by 2 frame 7 gas turbines; all available waste heat is recovered
from the turbine exhausts to a high pressure steam system. The steam system provides
motive power to steam turbines for the refrigerant compressors' starter / helper, and
power generation. Low pressure steam discharged from steam turbine exhausts provides
all the plant's process heat requirement.

Page 9 of 48
The train capacity and steam pressure levels have been selected such that there is no
requirement for additional gas turbines for power generation - the consequence of this is
that the only gas turbines on site drive the refrigeration loops directly; hence there is no
redundant, or partially loaded gas turbine on site as is usually the case with a gas turbine
power station. This configuration results in highly efficient use of fuel and reduced
combustion emissions - notably CO2 and NOx. A further benefit is reduced turbine
maintenance burden, being particularly beneficial at a remote site.

NW Shelf Train 5

Innovation is not limited to technology and equipment. There is also scope for creativity in
engineering and construction. In a drive to reduce costs and schedule and to increase
manageability of large developments, several projects have used a modular approach to
construction. Export of labour saves costs and time in an over-heated labour market.
Furthermore it may be easier to maintain the quality of work in controlled fabrication
yards than in remote sites. However extra structural steel and transport offset some of
the benefit.

An interesting example is the modular construction of train 5 in the NW Shelf project in
Australia. In a tight labour market there was all the risk of cost breakout and schedule
slippage. Train 5 was planned to become a copy of the existing train 4 (Shell C3MR), but
since a different contractor was selected they could not make use of the previous detailed
engineering and construction information. The lay-out of the particular air-cooled train
(capacity of 4.4 mtpa) lent itself to modularisation.



Figure 3: Module for NW Shelf T5 in Transport
Photo courtesy of Woodside

The new contractor performed a complete 3-D imaging of train 4 and used that as basis
for the detailed engineering of train 5. The train was divided into 75 modules ranging from
35 1800 tonne. Large sections were constructed with extra support steel on the island
of Batam, Indonesia. These sections were subsequently divided into transportable
modules, refer to figure 3. In total 24 shipments were needed.

Page 10 of 48
The Pluto project in NW Australia is using the same approach (same processes) albeit
that here the modules are fabricated in Thailand. The Gorgon project is also expected to
follow the modularization route. In a way, Snohvit followed a (part) modular construction
as well by floating in a large process barge (see Figure 1).

The conclusion is that modularization is apparently a solution for remote areas with high
labour rates, but that elsewhere stick building remains the first choice.

Mega Trains > 6 mtpa

Mega size trains are the epitome of the quest for economies of scale. Several designs
exist at the moment and the 7.8 mtpa trains in Qatar features prominently in this category
[1]. One such train at Qatargas is operating now and five trains are in
construction/commissioning stages. This size of train cannot be seen separate from the
huge resource base.

In order to achieve this capacity, APCI has developed the AP-X process by adding an
extra Nitrogen cooling cycle behind the well proven C3MR process.

The three cycles in series are being driven by three General Electric Frame 9 gas
turbines, the first application of these machines as mechanical drive in the LNG industry
(but well known in the steel industry). The equipment in the trains is very large, bringing
its own issues of limited number of vendors, quality control, construction, maintenance
etc.

The presence of very large starter/helper motors on the gas turbine/compressor shafts
has in fact created a hybrid drive system. Steam from the waste heat is used for power
generation and process heat.

Another route for producing large volumes was selected for the design of NLNG 7. The
selected process is the Shell Parallel Mixed Refrigerant (PMR) process where a single
C3 cooling cycle serves two parallel MR cycles. Capacity is 8.5 mtpa using three GE
Frame 7 gas turbines. Equipment sizes are within the bracket of the large trains (3 5
mtpa) built so far.

Medium Trains 1 2 mtpa

These train sizes have not been built for more than 30 years, mostly because developers
were seeking economy of scale through larger trains. The increasing demand for natural
gas and the availability of many gas reservoirs in the 1 2 tcf range has sparked renewed
interest in plants and trains up to 2 mtpa.

Donggi LNG plant in Sulawesi, Indonesia, is currently under development. The plant will
have one liquefaction train of 2 mtpa. The train is gas turbine driven. The process is
C3MR (APCI), using a spiral wound heat exchanger for liquefaction.

Sengkang LNG plant in Sulawesi, Indonesia, is also currently under development. The
plant will have four liquefaction trains of 0.5 mtpa each. The trains are electrically driven
and the drive sets have been fabricated. The process is an SMR variant of Chart, using a
cold box with plate fin heat exchangers.

In addition to the above, other liquefaction processes proposed for this capacity range
include:

Shell SMR (double pressure concept with spiral wounds)
Pritchard SMR (plate fin exchangers)
Page 11 of 48

Small Trains 0.1 0.8 mtpa

For small train projects to be viable the plants should be easy to install, easy to operate
(location not too remote) and easy to maintain.

The technology has to be environmentally sound and meet current expectations of
minimum emissions. Electro-motors or aero-derivative gas turbines make suitable
drivers. Where possible the plants should be modularized and prefabricated in easy to
transport units, thus eliminating long installation periods and reducing the number of
necessary installation personnel.

Entrepreneurs are coming up with different business models, being helped by
advancements in technology. The diversity of approach can be illustrated with a number
of projects, which are in various stages of development. Especially the Chinese Shan-
Shan plant represents just one example of the growth in China in this area.

Shan-Shan LNG plant in operation in the interior of China. The plant has one train of
0.4 mtpa, which employs the Linde Single Mixed Refrigerant (SMR) process. The
process is gas turbine driven and uses a spiral wound type cryogenic heat exchanger.
The product is trucked to remote communities over large distances.

Skaugen LNG plant in Norway, currently under construction. The plant has one train of
0.3 mtpa and also employs the Linde SMR process. The process is electrically driven and
uses a spiral wound exchanger. The product is shipped with small tankers to remote
communities and plants along the coasts of Scandinavia and the Botnic Gulf, as
replacement for conventional fuels.

In addition to the above, several other liquefaction processes have been proposed for this
capacity range. The following examples all use plate fin exchangers.

Pritchard SMR (plate fins)
Hamworthy Brayton Nitrogen cycle (plate fins)
Mustang Smart LNG (plate fins)
CB&I Niche LNG (plate fins, N2 and C1 cycles)

Mini Trains +/- 0.1 mtpa

Mini LNG is the arbitrary name for plants or trains within a wide capacity range, from
around 0.01 to 0.2 mtpa. Traditionally LNG plants of this capacity are used for peak
shaving. By scaling up and some process modification, mini LNG as a base load export
plant has evolved from this origin. Sources of gas are typically pockets of land locked
gas, e.g. biogas, associated gas from small oil production, Coal Bed Methane, other tight
gases. The LNG product is often trucked away for use as local power fuel or automotive
fuel. Some schemes take their feed from gas transmission lines.

Although there is an inherent lack of economy of scale, the benefits are the ability to use
off the shelf equipment and a compact process design. Mini LNG can be a cost effective
alternative to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

Page 12 of 48

Figure 4: 84 ktpa mini LNG production at the Kollsnes LNG plant

The smaller plants tend to use Nitrogen as refrigerant. For instance Hamworthy, Norway
can provide liquefaction plants ranging from 15 tonne per day (biogas or landfill gas) to
sizes beyond 0.1 mtpa. An example is the Kollsnes plant (see Fig 4). Hamworthy, Kanfa
Aragon and some other companies are now offering Nitrogen type liquefaction plants
scaled up to 0.7 mtpa. These are more sophisticated processes with double (warm and
cold) compressor/expander sets.

China is seeing a rapid growth of the number of mini plants in the 0.1 0.8 mtpa bracket.
Typical feedstock is CBM or pockets of (non) associated gas. The processes employed
are typically a simple SMR scheme or a simple N2 cycle, both using plate fins for
cryogenic heat exchange.

Section Conclusions

Onshore LNG production has seen new plants started up in this triennium and others
scheduled to come on-stream shortly thereafter. The global economic downturn meant
that very few final investment decisions were taken within the triennium. Consequently,
there will be a plateau in LNG export capacity once current projects are completed.

There has been variation around the 3 5 mtpa standard capacity size of recent years
with new train sizes ranging from mini (+/- 0.1 mtpa) to mega (>6 mtpa). New
liquefaction processes are being implemented for the first time including Mixed Fluid
Cascade, Dual Mixed Refrigerant and AP-X.

The designs have been developed to suit the local conditions and in this respect are
considered Fit for Purpose. This is particularly the case for the Snohvit and Sakhalin
projects, which have been optimised for the challenging (sub) artic environment.

All LNG export plants must meet stringent Environmental legislation. Regulations on air
quality, water usage, site location etc. are ever tightening. The Snohvit project has
implemented carbon capture and storage to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions; a
benchmark that future projects will likely be measured against. The Tangguh project has
Page 13 of 48
implemented a fully integrated heat and power system to optimize fuel use and reduce
combustion emissions.

LNG export plants are often in remote locations. Careful site selection and early
engagement with local communities has meant Public Acceptance of onshore export
plants has not been a major issue. The impeccable Safety record of export plants has
aided this process.

To reduce Costs, the new mega trains in Qatar attempt to maximize the benefit of
economies of scale. Modularisation has been employed for NWS Train 5 to reduce
construction costs. It can be argued that this goes against the Degree of Local Content
criterion. However, the construction phase is short in the overall lifetime of an LNG
project and the government and local communities will benefit from the plant during the
operation phase.
2.1.2 Offshore LNG Production
Offshore LNG can be defined as a configuration in which either the LNG production or
the regasification process is performed offshore. This section focuses on LNG
production. The plants are built on offshore man-made infrastructures, typically floating
vessels, Gravity Based Structures (GBS), fixed or floating platforms (artificial islands). So
far the first option, commonly known as Floating LNG seems the most regarded
configuration.

The first studies on offshore LNG date back to the seventies, but the first serious
attempts were made in the nineties by Shell for the development of the Sunrise field,
located between Australia and East Timor. During and since that time the feasibility of the
technology has been proven and the main technical obstacles overcome. Some of the
topics that were addressed include:

Confidence in the possibility of using side-by-side LNG transfer between floating
vessels;
A lack of experience with membrane and prismatic tanks, the only types of ship
that have sufficiently wide deck space available to install a plant onboard: at that
time, the Moss tank type was the most commonly used;
Compactness of liquefaction and regasification equipment and their ability to
withstand marine conditions;
Weight of the liquefaction process equipment, compatible with the existing hull
designs.

Market conditions at the time gave little incentive for investment in new ventures like
Floating LNG.

Today it appears offshore LNG is becoming a reality, within technical reach and
supported by a favourable business environment.

Project Drivers

LNG production is the more difficult side of the offshore challenge, both in its realisation
and in operation, due to the complexity and criticality of the equipment. The reduced
spaces and volumes available on offshore structures compared to onshore plot layouts
present additional challenges. The time to develop these plants has come and there is no
lack of motivation in the industry. There is not one single driver that leads to a decision to
locate LNG production offshore, but rather several conditions as illustrated in the
following examples.

Page 14 of 48
Deepwater seas
1
make up the majority of the earth surface. As affordable and reliable
technologies became available in the late nineties, deepwater exploration increased
sharply. In some specific areas, like in West Africa, Brazil and Gulf of Mexico, activities in
deepwater are outnumbering the activities in shallow waters.

Often produced hydrocarbons from deepwater fields are taken to shore to separate the
associated gas portion. The high cost of deepwater pipelines can sometimes prevent this
being realised, especially for small fields. Flaring of gas is undesired and re-injection is
the only solution, usually with negative impacts on the well economics.

The high costs involved in taking this gas to shore raises the minimum size of fields that
are worth developing. Consequently, many small to medium sized fields (typically, natural
gas production below 3 Bm
3
/y (2.5 mtpa equivalent) with production for less than 20
years) located hundreds of kilometres away from the shoreline are left stranded.

In other cases, offshore fields cannot be connected to a suitable coast site for
environmental political, social acceptability or simply geographical reasons. Refer to
Figure 5.


Figure 5: Summary Map of Standed Gas Reserves and Near Markets
Courtesy of ABB

Developing these kinds of resources by means of a LNG Floating Production Storage
and Offloading (FPSO) facility commonly known as Floating LNG or FLNG - may be
the only economically viable solution.

In more conventional cases, like shallow waters or reduced distance from the shore, an
FPSO can still provide many economical advantages over a traditional onshore project.
The high costs of conventional onshore plants, the potential to relocate an FPSO to a
new field after initial usage, no requirement for marine works to allow the LNG carrier
approach, no long and expensive jetties, low impact on the coastline with virtually nil
usage of land etc. bring significant savings that can turn the project in favour of offshore
configurations.

The main drivers that support offshore production of LNG are summarized:


1
In this report deepwater conventionally means more than 300m water depth
Page 15 of 48
Unlocking stranded offshore resources;
Production of associated fields without flaring or reinjection of gas portion;
A reduction in the lead time to LNG production in comparison with conventional
onshore liquefaction projects;
No coastal disruption or land occupancy and reduced interference with human
activities;
In specific cases, an overall economical advantage against onshore solutions.

The main disadvantages of offshore LNG production are:

An intrinsically higher safety risk;
Lower LNG production rate (as average for the projects currently proposed);
Higher operation and maintenance costs;
More complicated logistics;
Reduced social benefit for the local population, since project CAPEX is spent in
remote fabrication yards and few jobs are created locally.

Typical characteristics of these offshore LNG production technologies are given below,
with references to specific projects.

Incorporating the Experiences of Oil FPSO and Onshore LNG

When developing an LNG FPSO project it makes sense to look to the experience and
lessons learned of the Oil FPSO's. Although a great portion of the experience gained in
building and operating Oil FPSOs can be successfully transferred to LNG FPSOs, the
two configurations are quite different in several aspects.

First of all, the LNG FPSO must treat, separate, liquefy and store hydrocarbons, the bulk
of this in cryogenic state. This requires significant differences in the equipment and
materials of construction and leads to far higher overall complexity. The process itself is
not just separation and treatment but also the high energy consuming phase transition of
gas to cryogenic liquid, with a temperature drop of around 200C or more. The weight of
the process equipment is usually far higher that on an Oil FPSO. Handling large
quantities of gas and liquefied gas requires a different and stricter approach to safety.

Considering all of the above, a LNG FPSO is preferably designed and built new. It would
be difficult to convert an LNG carrier into a LNG FPSO, as is often done with oil tankers
that are converted to Oil FPSOs. The transfer of LNG from the FPSO into LNG ships has
more stringent limitations when compared to offshore oil transfer that usually occurs by
using simple flexible hoses. When cryogenic liquids are transferred currently only rigid
arms in vessel side-by-side configuration is considered. Furthermore LNG storage tanks
are more sophisticated and more costly than oil tanks.

An LNG FPSO is also very different from an onshore LNG plant. The available footprint of
a vessel is significantly smaller than the wide areas occupied by land based liquefaction
plants: 20,000 - 30,000 m
2
for a vessel compared to about 500,000 m
2
for land based for
a production capacity ratio 1:2. The limitations in available space and height of the
superstructures means that the production capacity range of an FPSO will likely not
exceed 5 mtpa (with 1 - 3 mtpa being a more typical range) while onshore trains are now
ranging from 3 to 8 mtpa. A further consequence is the separation distances between
process units are reduced onboard a vessel.

The dynamic characteristics of the marine environment have a direct impact on the
design and selection of equipment. The technology must withstand the normal vessel
motions at sea. Individual equipment weights must be minimised in order to satisfy hull
Page 16 of 48
load requirements; the hull already contains the cryogenic product storage tanks that are
able to withstand dynamic loads. The design and engineering must be such that
maintenance can be reduced and simplified as much as possible. In fact, the possibility to
perform maintenance offshore is limited because of reduced accessibility and working
spaces, reduced numbers of spare equipment stored or installed, and the logistic
restrictions in transferring specialized personnel and spare equipment to/from the shore.
In an offshore environment, simplicity of the architecture, modularity and reliability of
components has a strong priority over process efficiency. Operational benefits cascade to
produce a large positive impact on the plant availability. Production flexibility and the
capability for fast, safe and easy start ups and shut downs have a higher importance than
for onshore plants. An LNG FPSO may need to stop production during poor maritime
conditions.

In the case of associated fields (with sufficient reserves) an LNG FPSO and an Oil FPSO
can complement each other. The gas treatment facilities can be installed on the Oil
FPSO where more space is available, leaving more room available on the LNG FPSO for
liquefaction equipment and storage tanks. For smaller fields, an integrated production on
a single hull would be required.

Description of an LNG FPSO

When selecting a liquefaction process for an LNG FPSO the characteristics of the
offshore environment tend to discourage use of the most commonly used onshore
processes: C3/MR and Cascade processes. The most processes currently being
proposed for offshore LNG are:

Single/Dual Mixed Refrigerant (SMR / DMR)
Multifluid Cascade process (MFC)
Nitrogen expander cycle (standard single or dual)
NicheLNG
SM
or Dual Expansion Methane/Nitrogen
LNG Smart
R
Technology (open or closed loop)
Optimized Expander cycle

All of these have been purposely studied with the aim of modularising units to reduce in-
situ maintenance and increase the overall reliability.

Power generation can be provided by gas turbines or by steam turbines. In the case
where the process compressors are driven by electric motors, the overall power
generation requirement can be around 150 MW for 3 mtpa LNG production. The use of
electrical motors may simplify the process configuration providing better availability and
maintainability but it also increases complexity. Alternatively the process compressors
can be directly driven by steam turbines or gas turbines. Where gas turbines are
selected, aero derivative types are preferred to heavy duty industrial turbines because of
reduced dimensions and weights and their modular nature. The high power requirement
of the liquefaction process requires the installation of multiple power generation units
(with spares) consuming large areas of deck space and overall volume.

The choice of LNG storage tank type is limited. It appears very difficult, for layout
reasons, to accommodate a liquefaction plant onboard a vessel with spherical tanks. For
this reason, almost all the proposed LNG FPSO designs use membrane or prismatic type
tanks that provide a flat free deck space. The tanks will have to be able to operate whilst
partially filled tanks to withstand any sloshing effect due to sea movement. The ratio
between the cargo capacity and the production capacity in offshore plants is about the
same as onshore plants. A 3 mtpa plant for example needs about 200,000 m
3
of storage
capacity.

Page 17 of 48
LNG FPSOs designs have a hull made of steel. As alternatives, caisson concrete hulls
have been proposed as well as round footprint hulls. Typical dimensions are 300-450m in
length, 50-80m width and about 15m draft. The height is very dependent on the specific
project, although the hull is usually 15-20m above the sea level.

LNG FPSOs can also have autonomous propulsion, both for navigation and for
manoeuvring during dockings.

FPSOs tend to be designed to stay offshore for the whole duration of their operative life
but in some cases, depending on the environmental conditions, dry docking for
extraordinary maintenance or conversions has been foreseen.

The layout of the plant must be studied carefully to meet safety, operational and
maintenance criteria. For example, the positioning of the gas flare/vent, the power
generation units, the accommodation block and the helideck. Cooling water intake can be
from the bottom of the hull or from deep water, where the temperature is cooler,
depending on process requirements.

Mooring can be secured by turret configurations that allow a rotation of the vessel in
order to accommodate different directions of wind, waves and current. This facilitates the
docking operations with LNG carriers. It must be noted that the only type of LNG transfer
currently proposed is the vessel side-by-side configuration. This method can be safely
adopted with significant waves in the range of 2.5 -3.5 m, after detailed design and
analysis of the mooring configuration. In contrast, a spread mooring fixed configuration
could only guarantee a good availability of the FPSO to LNG carrier docking in very mild
sea conditions.

The capital Costs for an LNG FPSO are very difficult to compare with traditional onshore
plants given the expanded scope of the former (turret, flexible risers, gas processing
facilities). The fluctuating contractors market and a different risk profile (novel
technologies, marine environment, availability) provide even more uncertainty in this
equation. Hence the first LNG FPSO examples will need to provide the essential
evidence of Cost compatibility. Economies of scale are uncertain for FPSOs and
probably depend heavily on the specific application. Construction time can be in the order
of 4 years.

Design Concepts and Applications

Two emerging design concepts have been seen, linked to different business
opportunities. The first is concept is a compact and flexible LNG production vessel and
an example can be seen in figure 6. It has a nominal capacity of <2 mtpa. Storage
capacity is 170,000 m
3
of LNG (prismatic tanks) and 50,000 m
3
of liquid condensates.


Page 18 of 48

Figure 6: Example of Flex LNGs Raider FPSO

Four hulls for Flex LNG production vessels have been ordered. They will be tendered on
the market to the best offer. Two projects could be sanctioned in 2009, one of which is for
Papua New Guinea LNG.

Large LNG FPSOs are floating plants of greater capacity, from 3.5 to 5 mtpa. They are
typically capable of processing heavier feed gases and producing additional LPG
products. Shell announced that is seriously considering such a type for a project in
Australia - Prelude FLNG (see figure 7) on a barge that is about 450 m long. Shells
philosophy is design one, build many. This makes Shells FLNG suitable for a wide
range of feed compositions and metocean conditions.

Other Floating LNG projects, whose details have not been disclosed yet, have been
proposed all over the world and testify to the strength of the surge.


Figure 7: Example of Shells Large LNG FPSO
Courtesy of Shell FLNG

Page 19 of 48
It is challenging to put in operation a completely new class of industrial objects (that also
include new liquefaction processes) but the experience gained in Oil FPSO and the
strong determination of the investors is expected to yield results. The archetype projects
will have to prove the overall feasibility of the LNG FPSO scheme. Operational issues
with possible long-term impact are lessons still to be learned.

One of these unknowns is the true level of the operating costs. Each LNG FPSO will
have to be put in operation for the first time offshore at its specific location. Start up
problems will have to be faced there, in an environment that does not favour extensive
maintenance and where all the daily rates for visiting support personnel are at maximum
levels. Hence careful preparation before sending them offshore is of utmost importance.

All costs need to be counted with extreme care. Tug logistics and operability, the impact
of the met ocean conditions, training and turn over of the key personnel, contingency and
emergency plans, spare levels and the control systems will all have to be optimized in
order to maintain a high overall availability at a reasonable cost. The design must
address all foreseeable operational problems because of the high costs incurred in order
to fix the plant at location.

Finally, the characteristics of the feed gas will have to be carefully analysed. A wide
degree of flexibility should be incorporated in the design in order to accommodate
variations in the composition during the production life of the field. The design should also
be flexible enough to cater for any unexpected occurrences during the operation. This
increases the likelihood that the LNG FPSO can be re-used at other locations, which can
improve project economics, but at the disadvantage of higher capital cost.

Section Conclusions

There has been a surge of interest and activity in bringing the Floating Production
Storage and Offloading design concept closer to reality in the triennium.

Floating LNG is within technical reach and applications have been proposed all over the
world.

The capital Costs for an LNG FPSO are very difficult to compare with traditional onshore
plants given the expanded scope of the former (turret, flexible risers, gas processing
facilities). The fluctuating contractors market and a different risk profile (novel
technologies, marine environment, availability) provide even more uncertainty in this
equation. Hence the first LNG FPSO examples will need to provide the essential
evidence of Cost compatibility. Similarly the true operational Costs will only be known
when the plant is running. It remains to be seen whether the design measures taken to
achieve low maintenance, high reliability and high plant availability are successful in
practice.

An LNG FPSO scores highly for the Environment criterion. Substituting an onshore plant
with a floating compact plant means no land take or disturbance to the coastline. In
addition, associated gas that might otherwise have been flared is recovered.

In terms of Safety, an LNG FPSO poses additional design challenges. The limited space
available on a ship requires careful layout of the facilities whilst considering safety
distances, flare radiation levels, relative position of the living quarters, lifeboats and
emergency egress. The LNG FPSO may be at a remote location from shore and shuttling
personnel back and forth, either by helicopter or boat, introduces further safety risks. The
number of personnel stationed on the FPSO is kept to a minimum for these reasons.

Page 20 of 48
Finally, with regard to Local Content it is reasoned that there will be limited benefit for the
local population, since project capital investment is spent in remote fabrication yards and
few jobs are created locally. However the economic benefit to the host country is evident:
the ability to produce a field that would have previously been unattainable.

2.2 Shipping
The LNG shipping industry forms a vital part of LNG projects. Over the past years the
LNG shipping industry has introduced new LNG carrier designs, equipped with new
technologies. Furthermore, a variety of new technologies are being proposed. Some of
these new developments and their application drivers are presented here.

Increased Size LNG Carriers

For years the fleet of LNG carriers has been dominated by vessels with rather standard
cargo capacities. Only a small increase of the maximum size was seen over time. But in
recent years the maximum cargo capacity of LNG carriers with 4 tanks has increased
from 130 - 170,000 m
3
. This increase applies for both the well known Moss and
Membrane type vessels. Most remarkable is the size jump for LNG carriers with 5 cargo
tanks. Two sizes have been introduced, namely the so-called Q-flex vessels of 210 -
216,000 m
3
and the Q-max ships with a capacity of 266,000 m
3
.

The reduction of transportation costs by taking advantage of economies of scale has
been the key driver for increasing cargo capacities. This results in either reduced costs
that improve overall project returns, or alternatively LNG can be transported over longer
distances and still maintain competitiveness. The large Q-max vessel is a good example
where the lower transport costs enable a cost effective transport from the Middle East to
markets in Europe or the US.

Alternative Propulsion Systems

For many years the steam turbine has been the prime propulsion arrangement for LNG
carriers. In this arrangement the boil off gas (BOG) from the cargo tanks is used as fuel
for the boilers, which in turn provide steam for the turbine. Whilst steam turbines are in
general safe and reliable, the efficiency of this arrangement is poor. Frequent and
significant use of a forced vaporiser is required to make-up sufficient fuel. Alternatively
Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) has been used. Two main propulsion systems have replaced the
steam turbine on new LNG carriers:

1. Dual-fuel diesel-electric propulsion (DFDE)
2. Slow-speed diesel engine propulsion with boil-off gas reliquefaction

The first alternative uses a set of 4 or 5 medium speed four-stroke diesel engines that
can use BOG as fuel or marine diesel oil (MDO). For normal operations these engines
run on gas and use only 1% diesel as pilot fuel. Each of the engines drives a generator to
produce the electric power for two electric motors that drive the propeller through a
gearbox. The propulsion efficiency of this installation is ~40%, which is a significant
improvement over the steam turbine arrangement which has a propulsion efficiency of
~30%. Moreover, these same generator sets are used during cargo handling operations
when significantly more power is needed. When a vessel is manoeuvring or sailing at low
speed it must be able to dispose of the surplus BOG since only little is used for
propulsion. A steam turbine arrangement can always burn this surplus gas in the boilers
and dump the extra steam in the condenser. A DFDE vessel does not have this
Page 21 of 48
functionality and therefore needs a Gas Combustion Unit (GCU). This unit can burn the
entire BOG in a large funnel with huge dilution fans, such that the exhaust temperatures
remain below the ignition temperature of methane. Although the DF engines provide a
clear improvements over steam turbine configurations there are some disadvantages:
first of all they are more sensitive to the nitrogen content in the fuel gas, they are more
sensitive to the fuel gas supply pressures and they are expected to have high
maintenance costs.

The latest development of the DFDE propulsion system is the addition of a reliquefaction
plant. Four LNG carriers with 170,000 m
3
of cargo capacity are on order at SHI for British
Gas and these vessels will have reliquefaction facilities installed. With this addition the
vessels will have maximum fuel flexibility.

The second new propulsion alternative that has been introduced is the slow speed diesel
engine. These engines use Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) as fuel and an onboard reliquefaction
plant recovers BOG. Slow speed diesel engines are applied in a twin-engine-twin-
propeller configuration on the Q-flex and Q-max ships. Slow-speed, two-stroke diesel
engines are the main propulsion source for merchant vessels. Their efficiency is better
than both steam turbine and DFDE arrangements (unless the latter is used in
combination with a reliquefaction module). A key driver for the installation of these
engines was their high efficiency and secondly to use the cheapest fuel stock (HFO).
However in the past years we have seen a large variation in both LNG and HFO prices,
such that this benefit is not always apparent anymore. Moreover environmental
requirements are becoming stricter on the use of HFO. More environmentally friendly
HFO compositions, like low-sulphur HFO, are more expensive. Already in some areas
(Sulphur Oxide Emissions Control Area, SECA) only low sulphur HFO is allowed to be
used. This restriction will gradually spread worldwide until only low sulphur is allowed. An
important new development to counteract this disadvantage is expected to be introduced.
This solution comprises a slow-speed diesel engine that can use HFO or natural gas as
fuel or a mix of both fuels. This engine, designed by MAN, injects natural gas under high
pressure in the cylinders. Using natural gas or HFO or a combination of the two provides
great flexibility to the operator to optimise the fuel costs.

Since the conventional steam turbine is gradually being phased out, the steam turbine
manufacturers are promoting improved designs with significantly better efficiency. The
conventional steam turbine has good maintainability and reliability, but lacks efficiency
compared to the DFDE or slow-speed diesel engines. The improved designs are based
on the reheater concept:

Conventional steam turbine Boiler High pressure turbine
Low pressure turbine Condenser
Reheat steam turbine Boiler High pressure turbine Reheater
Intermediate pressure turbine
Low pressure turbine Condenser

Currently there are two LNG carriers on order at KHI of 177,000 m
3
cargo capacity with a
reheat steam turbine as the propulsion system.

Another promising propulsion alternative is the use of gas turbines combined with electric
drives. This propulsion configuration is competitive with DFDE installations on both
efficiency, costs, space and weight. It has not been selected for any new buildings yet.
Page 22 of 48

When selecting propulsion systems for LNG carriers it is obvious to consider criteria for
costs, efficiency, maintainability, reliability etc. Environmental criteria will however
become more and more important, especially emissions of SOx and NOx.

New and Improved Containment Systems

The dominant containment system for current new buildings has been the Gaztransport &
Technigaz (GTT) membrane system. GTTs three main commercial membrane types are
NO-96, MK-III and CS-1:

NO-96 comprises of two layers of thin longitudinal Invar plate strakes, supported
by insulation attached to the vessel inner hull. The membranes act as dual
barriers that protect the hull from low temperatures. Insulation is reinforced
silicon-treated Perlite.
MK-III is built up of thin corrugated plates to allow thermal expansion. The plates
are supported by reinforced polyurethane foam insulation, installed inside
plywood casing. A secondary barrier is integrated into the insulation.
CS-1 (Combination System 1) incorporates the insulation layer and secondary
barrier from the Mark-III system and the plate strakes as primary barrier from the
NO-96 system.

Alternatively, self-supporting Prismatic type systems like IHI-SPB are available at higher
cost than Moss and membrane systems but with the great benefits of being able to
withstand sloshing and providing a large flat deck space. Currently there are 4 vessels on
order at Samsung Heavy Industries for Flex LNG that will use the IHI-SPB system.

With the advent of larger LNG carriers the cargo tanks have increased in size and the
issue of cargo sloshing has been a topic of investigation by many parties. Sloshing is the
violent motion of the liquid inside the tanks that can induce large, localised impact loads
on the tank walls. Specifically the membrane type containment systems are more
vulnerable than other systems, like the Moss or IHI-SPB systems. As a result both the
NO-96 and MK-III system have been modified such that their strength against local loads
has improved. These improved versions are applied in the Q-flex and Q-max vessels as
well as advanced LNG carriers that may operate with partially filled cargo tanks in open
seas, like Shuttle and Regasification Vessels.

With the introduction of larger carriers, operations in harsher environments and operation
with partially filled tanks the industry has seen a significant effort to develop improved
and new containment systems. The following examples are given:

Aker Double Barrier Tank system (ADBT). This system is a Type A containment
system using aluminum extruded profiles as double tank walls. The tanks are
resting inside a cargo hold.
Sevan Marine has introduced a cylindrical single compartment tank system to be
utilised in their cylindrical FPSO designs.
SHI have redesigned the IHI-SPB system. This design improvement has resulted
in change of the prismatic shape of the tanks to provide a more effective use of
the cargo carrying capacity of the vessel. Secondly, the tank can be constructed
in either aluminium or stainless steel.
DSME have developed the Seal LNG containment system. This system
comprises of the well-known GTT NO-96 system but fitted in a reinforced tank
compartment, such that a higher tank pressure is allowed. Consequently, the
boil-off gas does not necessarily have to be used as fuel or disposed by other
Page 23 of 48
means. By letting the tank pressure increase the boil-off can be contained in the
tank for many days.

Winterised and Arctic LNG Shipping

The LNG trades have predominantly been in tropical and calm waters, typically from the
Middle East, Indonesia and Australia to Japan and Korea. New trades are emerging on a
world-wide scale, like the Snhvit project delivering LNG from Northern Norway to the US
and Europe. These new trades are in harsher waters, in colder climates and often in
ecologically vulnerable areas. The Snhvit LNG carriers have therefore been designed
for cold climate operations. Typical adjustments that were incorporated are: structural
modifications, de-icing measures, equipment protection, improved/covered working
spaces, additional training and additional comfort.

The LNG shipping industry has demonstrated its ability in the past years to adapt rapidly
to new requirements. With increasing LNG demand and the enormous reserves in the
northern arctic areas it is not surprising that increased production of LNG in the arctic is
seriously being considered. In order to be ready for this the LNG shipping industry needs
to solve several difficult issues. Initial concept studies have been conducted, for example
the double acting LNG Carrier from Aker Arctic or the Arctic LNG Shuttle from Hegh
LNG. This latter study developed a transport scheme from Yamal to Northern Norway, by
assessing possible routes and ice-breaker support services. Based on this a vessel
conceptual design, a cost analysis and an environmental impact assessment were
conducted. It was concluded that the shipping would be technically and commercially
feasible but still important aspects need further attention, which include the applicable
rules and regulations, ship detail design and human factors/training.

Section Conclusions

For many years the LNG shipping industry was relatively stable in size and characterised
by minor technical developments. However, recent years have shown a step change in
the fleet size, the vessel sizes and the technologies applied on these ships. By
developing and implementing new vessel designs the LNG shipping industry has been
able to reduce the Cost of transportation and therefore improved its competitiveness.
LNG can now be routed over larger distances at lower costs, making a global
marketplace a reality.

The introduction of SO
x
Emissions Control Areas (SECA) in some areas gives benefit to
the Environment. New designs for propulsion systems are being proposed that meet the
low sulphur requirements whilst still providing flexible and economic transportation.

With advent of new shipping routes in harsh waters, cold climates including the
(sub)arctic, further improvements to the ship designs have been developed but more
work is needed.
2.3 LNG Import
The capacity of LNG import terminals has been expanded considerably over the last few
years, green field as well as brown-field, and virtually all of them onshore. The onshore
business is characterized by rather conventional practices and incremental innovations.

There are many creative ideas around for offshore re-gasification (regas) terminals, often
driven by public acceptance. Also cost minimization and speed of deployment play an
important role. Concepts range from gravity based structures to floating structures
Page 24 of 48
located near- or inshore. A few of these structures are now in operation or about to start
up.
2.3.1 Onshore Regasification
Todays new developments in regasification terminals concern mainly vaporization
technologies. This will be the focus for this paper. Installation of LNG vaporizers at an
onshore LNG terminal requires the selection of the optimal vaporizer type for the targeted
site. In this, the vaporizer main unit cost, running cost, type of heat source required for
vaporization, and environmental measures that meet the demands of the local
government and residents, must be considered.

The drivers vary on a case-by-case basis. However, in recent years, the reduction of
energy cost required for vaporization and the reduction of CO
2
, NOx and SOx emissions
have been prevalent. For this reason alternative regas solutions are now able to compete
with conventional ones.

Conventional LNG Terminals Regas Technologies

Serving as the heart of the LNG import terminal, vaporisers regasify the LNG received at
the terminal and send it out to the demand destination. Currently, various types of
vaporisers are adopted according to the various conditions such as gas send-out
patterns, layout area, environmental conditions etc. Generally, the regas onshore plant
uses seawater as an LNG heating source because LNG terminals are mostly constructed
along seashores. There are currently two main technologies: Open Rack Vaporizer
(ORV) and Intermediate Fluid Vaporizer (IFV). In cases where seawater is not available,
the alternative technology is Submerged Combustion Vaporiser (SCV), which uses the
heat that results from gas combustion.

Like ORV, SCV is generally used in base load units in Europe and USA. However, in
Japan, SCV is employed as a countermeasure against peak gas demand because of the
high running cost but lower installation cost compared to both ORV and IFV.

SCV technology consumes high amounts of fuel gas thus leading to a high level of
emissions. One very interesting improvement of this classical technology is to couple
SCV with cogeneration units: hot water will be sent to the SCV and electricity will be
either sold on the grid or consumed by the terminal, depending on the energy prices. This
kind of arrangement can already be found on some terminals in Europe (Montoir de
Bretagne in France and Zeebrugge in Belgium).

Innovative Technologies

Ambient Air Vaporisers
Some types of air vaporisers are already available today: plate fin or air fin types. The
only applications known are for small-scale units, like satellite stations, where LNG is
brought by trucks and regasified to supply a local gas network.

Page 25 of 48

Figure 8: Ambient Air Vaporiser
Courtesy of Cryoquip

The vaporiser technology currently used is Ambient Air Vaporisers (AAV) (refer to Fig 8).
They have a limited capacity, more suitable for use in satellite stations because the LNG
flow rate to regasify is quite small, compared to the flow rates in base load LNG
terminals.

Air Vaporisers
When air is chosen as the heat source, LNG terminals require another technology than
AAV because of the high LNG flow rates involved. Today we can find three examples of
air vaporiser technologies, in three different terminals:

In Dahej terminal (India): the air heaters with intermediate fluid option have been
in operation since early 2004 and no problems have been reported (Fig 9);
In Lake Charles terminal (USA): the expansion project of the terminal includes
Mustang technology Smart Air Vaporization (SAV) (Fig 10) [2];
In Freeport LNG terminal (USA): the project has chosen Air Tower technology to
regasify LNG.

In all these examples, the air is not in direct contact with LNG as there is a loop with an
intermediate fluid.


Figure 9: Air Vaporisers in Dahej (India)


Page 26 of 48

Figure 10: Mustang Smart Air Vaporiser Concept (SAV)

Air vaporisers can be an interesting solution but only in a limited number of cases.
Indeed, the weather conditions that give a good efficiency are very specific: the climate
must be hot and wet all year long. This condition is thus limiting the number of areas
where this solution is applicable: India, Gulf of Mexico, Indonesia. Environmental issues
and cost pressure are clearly the two main drivers that can lead to air vaporisers.
Especially in the US Gulf of Mexico, it seems to be a very attractive solution to replace
SCVs, because LNG terminals are not allowed to use seawater for the regasification.
Using air vaporisers leads to a huge decrease of the OPEX and of green house gases
(GHG) and other pollutants emissions.

Cryogenic Energy Recovery

Conventional regasification processes consume energy in heating and vaporizing LNG.
By applying energy recovery systems, that make use of the cryogenic energy available
from the LNG, it is possible to reduce consumption and improve overall process
efficiency. This is also known as valorization.

Figure 11 gives examples of energy recovery schemes. The majority of these involve
integration with neighbouring industry, although there is also the option to generate
power within the import terminal itself, for its own needs or for export to the grid.
Integrated projects have potential benefits for both parties. These will be best realized if
integration is included from the offset of the design phase. The amount of cooling
available from the import terminal and its form must be closely matched with the needs of
the industrial process. The distance between the terminal and receiving facility should be
no more than a few kilometres.

Page 27 of 48

Figure 11: Options for Cryogenic Energy Recovery Systems [4]

Since the natural gas consumption pattern (regas operation) does not necessarily match
the cooling demands of the receiving plant, it may be necessary to store the cryogenic
energy in an intermediate fluid or design the system to be able to accommodate the
fluctuations. Maintenance programmes for the two facilities should be aligned.


Integration with Power Generation Facilities

Power generation facilities use cooling for steam-turbine condensers and gas turbine inlet
air chilling, for example. Part of the cooling duty can be provided by the import terminal,
by routing chilled sea water from the vaporizers to the power plant instead of returning
directly to the sea. It is also possible to have a closed loop scheme where an
intermediate fluid is circulated between the LNG vaporizer and the power plant e.g.
water, glycol or methanol solutions.

Another way of integrating a power plant and a LNG import terminal is exemplified in the
Bahia Bizcaia Gas (BBG) import terminal in Spain that is integrated with an 800 MW
combined cycle power plant. The heat integration at the BBG terminal involves only the
effluent from the power plant: A stream of the warm effluent is diverted through the
ORVs; the (cool) effluent from these is directed straight to the sea.

Integration with Cryogenic Facilities

Cryogenic facilities e.g. air separation units, refrigerated warehouses and production
facilities for liquid CO
2
and dry ice, require large amounts of refrigeration. The high power
consumption can be reduced by as much as 50% by integration with an LNG import
terminal.

An example is the GDF SUEZ import terminal at Fos-Tonkin that is integrated with the
nearby Air Liquide facility. There are many other examples, mostly in Japan.

Page 28 of 48
In Japan, the Tokyo Gas Negishi terminal recovers 15% of the total energy available for
integration with local cryogenic facilities. A further 25% is used for power generation
within the terminal.

Integration with Non-cryogenic Facilities

Energy recovery from LNG is also applicable for non-cryogenic facilities that require
some degree of refrigeration.

Power Generation

It is possible to generate power within the LNG terminal by means of a Rankine cycle, for
example. In this configuration, an intermediate fluid is circulated though a gas turbine
using LNG as the heat sink in a condenser and either sea water or ambient air as the
heat source in a vaporiser.

In Japan, where cost of imported electricity from the grid is relatively high, the power
generated is used to satisfy the terminals own electrical requirements. In Europe, excess
power generated in the terminal can be sold and exported to the grid at a good price.

ENAGAS is building the first European example at its Huelva terminal. 550 m
3
/h of LNG
is used to produce 5140 kW of electricity (gross output). It was designed by the
engineering company ORMAT (see Fig 12), and supposed to enter into service in 2010.


Figure 12: ORMAT Recovered Energy Generation System

Another example is the 6 MW power generation unit utilizing IFV (LNG 370 m
3
/h) at
Osaka Gas Senboku terminal.

Section Conclusions

LNG terminal operators developed two ways of improving the economic and
environmental conditions of vaporization units:

Page 29 of 48
1. New technologies
2. Recovery of LNG cryogenic energy

The first item is case specific since it depends on the ambient conditions, although hybrid
solutions are also possible e.g. air vaporisers in summer, ORV/SCV in winter.

The second item should be evaluated for all new LNG terminals. Three drivers for
applying cryogenic energy recovery solutions are highlighted.

Increased terminal profitability (Cost):
The investment required for producing electricity can be large, but selling electricity or a
source of cooling can both be very profitable operations.

Reduction of global environmental impact (Environment):
An import terminal has the lowest environmental impact of all stages the LNG value
chain. These innovations allow the production of green electricity or provision of a
cooling source without associated GHG emissions.

Influence on the approval of a new project (Public Acceptance):
Including a cryogenic energy recovery unit in the design of a new import terminal can be
an advantage during the approval process. Governments and the public are more
receptive to green projects and this can help minimise opposition.
2.3.2 Offshore Regasification
Between 2002 and 2009, the overall nominal regasification (regas) capacity of the LNG
terminals installed or in construction worldwide nearly doubled. This sudden proliferation
did not occur uniformly since different drivers acted in different market areas or countries.

In Asia, where LNG was a mature market well before the new millennium, the growth in
capacity was +17%. In Europe, where just few terminals were in operation, the capacity
rose by 250% while in North America where the LNG introduction was strongly supported
by the government, the growth marked a stunning increase of 700% [3].

The drivers were very different and case specific but one was common to all the
countries that invested in LNG regasification terminals: the need to diversify the energy
import mix. This driver was so strong that some countries even modified their laws and
regulations in order to allow the construction of new terminals. In some countries/states,
California, Florida and Italy, the attention to the environment and NIMBY effect (Not In My
Back Yard!) were so strong that it proved to be very difficult to find an acceptable location
along their coasts. Given these circumstances the benefit of going offshore was clear: no
interference with human onshore activities, a decreased perception of risk for the civil
population and no impact on the coastal environment. Even if the regasification process
maintains a certain intrinsic impact on the environment (the amount of air emissions or
water used for warming LNG is about the same as for onshore terminals) the advantages
of de-localising a plant are very strong and usually decisive.

In some countries in South America the most important driver was the reduced time to
market, i.e. fast track project, necessary to feed the fast growing natural gas demand. A
less prominent but important driver for offshore import LNG was the overall safety and
security, which is under renewed scrutiny due to concerns about terrorist attack.

In all those cases, offshore solutions allow moving around the obstacle: currently all the
approved and proposed LNG regasification projects in California and Florida are offshore.
In Italy the first two new terminals entering in operation are offshore i.e. Adriatic LNG,
planned to be operative from 2009 and OLT LNG from 2010-2011.
Page 30 of 48

In Asia the approach was more conventional: new terminals are under construction, but
just onshore, perhaps because the coasts are less congested than in western countries
and the attitude of people and governments are more favourable to industrial initiatives.

Three types of terminals are becoming reality, while other new designs are being
presented (some even patented) ready to be introduced into the market in the near
future. The first configuration is based on the historically proven concept of GBS (Gravity
Based Structure) on top of which a regasification plant is installed. The second one
comprises a vessel with vaporization capacity onboard. The third type is the new built or
the converted Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU), the latter obtained by
converting existing LNG carriers into floating regasification plants.

All three are discussed below, followed by some more unusual / exotic creative
technologies.

GBS

The first offshore regasification plant to be approved by local authorities was a GBS
located in the Adriatic Sea, offshore Porto Viro, more than 20 km away from the Italian
coast, obtaining the environmental permit in 1999. The plant took ten years to become
reality because during the authorization process the terminal capacity was increased,
thus requiring a restart of the process. Additionally construction and installation lasted
almost 5 years.

The plant, located on a concrete structure integrating the LNG tanks, is capable of
producing 8 Bcm of natural gas from LNG and, since the structure is not floating but
permanently seats on the sea bottom it can use conventional Open Rack Vaporizers that
would not otherwise work on other moving platforms.

The GBS is a little artificial island with a similar plot layout as a compact onshore regas
terminal. Docking occurs at open sea, in a fixed position without any kind of protection
from waves except from the GBS structure itself. At the moment Porto Viro Terminal is
the only GBS structure built in the world for the LNG industry and there are no future
projects of the same kind.

Because of their large size, few yards have the capability to construct GBS structures,
especially in the case of concrete units, which require a large graving dock. As a result
the capital investment is much higher than other similar offshore types of structures.
Additionally, it is quite hard to find the right combination of sea bottom depth and mild
marine conditions necessary for a practical application. For those reasons an entire suite
of five GBS projects in the Gulf of Mexico were cancelled or frozen in the last half
decade.

Regasification Vessels

The first offshore terminal that started operations was a buoy deployed in the Gulf of
Mexico fed by a LNG carrier equipped with an onboard regasification plant. This
configuration was launched in 2005 by Excelerate Energy Limited Partnership after many
years of studies and was followed by other similar terminals.

Page 31 of 48

Figure 13: Buoy docking - Courtesy of Hoegh LNG

These vessels named LNG Regasification Vessels (LNGRV) are typically capable of
transporting 138,000 to 150,900 m
3
of LNG
2
, regasifying it directly offshore and sending
the produced gas through a buoy into an offshore pipeline that takes the product to the
onshore pipeline network. See Fig 14. The vaporization system is shell & tube type and
can operate by managing the warming water in open or closed loop-

The limited regasification capability of the LNGRV
3
means that the discharge operation
can take some 5-7 days.

There are currently 2 terminals installed and at least 7 more are proposed
4
, some with
two buoys in order to allow a theoretical continuity of production: when a LNGRV has
ended discharging in one buoy, a second vessel could start sending gas from the second
buoy without interrupting the supply (see Fig 15).

Geographical distribution of these terminals is absolutely skewed, since the majority of
the projects involve the US market where the LNG demand is volatile and the spot
market has a stronger relevance. These terminals can be built by at least two different
contractors with some common components like the buoy and the docking system.

An early variation to this scheme was introduced with the Teeside terminal in UK,
consisting in a shore-mounted high pressure gas arm that can connect to a specific
manifold installed onto the LNGRV. Gas is produced while the ship is docked and is sent
directly to the distribution network.

Another similar terminal should be in service by summer 2009 in Kuwait and more are
currently planned or discussed in Germany and South Africa.

Another version, that has been recently put in operation in Argentina - Bahia Blanca,
consists of a LNGRV permanently moored to a jetty that receives LNG from conventional

2
Reference to the existing LNGRV only, built from scratch in two classes with different capacities.
Tanks are membrane type.
3
From 400 to 690 mmcf per day, depending on the specific vessel and on other operating conditions.
4
The existing ones are located in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Boston. The planned ones, some
of which already authorised, are located in California, New Jersey, Florida, New England, and UK..
Page 32 of 48
carriers that dock in side-by-side configuration. LNG transfer occurs through cryogenic
flexible hoses laid directly between the LNG carrier and the LNGRV manifolds. This will
be the first time such hoses are used for normal operation: up until now these were
designed for emergency discharge of LNG from LNG carriers only. It is yet to be proven
that the intense use of hoses for LNG transfer has the same safety record of rigid arms
connection. This scheme is quite similar to an onshore terminal but with a moderate
capacity (4 Bcm per year). It has a very fast track realization: slightly longer than 7
months from the site choice to gas production including the authorization phase. It
deserves mentioning that the project was pushed by the shortage of natural gas in
Argentina.


Figure 14: Two buoy discharge terminal
Courtesy of Hoegh LNG

Currently the utilization of the existing buoy terminals has been scarce and discontinuous
since the market conditions have become difficult for the LNG in the US, but in the near
future regular LNG deliveries are expected to commence.

It must be noted that the construction and installation of an offshore buoy or a shore
unloading arm, are very fast track projects, and can be put in operation in one or two
years, provided that LNGRV vessels are available.

The advantages of this regasification scheme are:

the fast availability;
the relatively low initial investment;
the overall simplicity both in construction and in terminal operation that can be
almost entirely delegated to specialized ship owners;.
the inherent robustness of the offshore buoy concept, used for decades in the
offshore industry, which has proven to be very reliable in all sea state conditions.

All those factors show that the two leading drivers for this solution are the search for
highly rewarding spot markets by the creation of low cost entry points and, in specific
cases, the need to quickly cover short term gas demand gaps.

On the reverse side, while the use of specifically modified vessels constitutes a strong
constraint and since a LNGRV is more expensive than a traditional LNG carrier, the
Page 33 of 48
overall economics are very case specific, with a high degree of uncertainty, depending
on:

the amount of natural gas required;
the distance from the liquefaction terminals (and thus the number of LNGRV
required);
the specific market conditions.

In addition, unless the terminal is provided with buffer storage or multiple berths, gas
supply will be interrupted during vessel changeover. Therefore this concept may be more
suitable to spot and peak shaving use.

Generally the limited number of LNGRV and suitable terminals, combined with their
overall narrow regasification capacity means that this solution will not have significant
impact on the industry but appears to be more applicable for niche solutions. For
example, the terminal that will be deployed offshore Fort Lauderdale in Florida, will allow
the import of gas while avoiding damage to the fragile coral barrier and preventing
damage to the coast by the construction of a conventional terminal.

This kind of solution has opened the eyes of the LNG operators to the true possibility of
being creative in looking for new solutions. Many technological progresses on specific
components and certification procedures have been made thanks to the LNGRV concept
and more confidence has been gained on the whole feasibility of Offshore LNG.

Converted FSRU

A third type of LNG terminal, realized by converting a LNG carrier with spherical tanks
(Moss type) into a floating stationary regasification vessel, is having increased success,
see figure 15.


Figure 15: Example of spherical tank type converted FSRU
(SBM concept)

One converted LNG carrier is already installed in Pecem, and another one in Guanabara
Bay, both in Brazil. They will provide regasification capacity of respectively 5 and 2.8
Bcm.

Page 34 of 48
Works are in progress to build a FSRU to be located offshore Tuscany, Italy, by
converting a LNG carrier into a vessel, able to regasify up to 2.8 Bcm. One more project
is under way in Dubai, see figure 16 below, while others have been announced.


Figure 16: Arrangement for Dubai LNG
Courtesy of Golar Freeze, Dubai Supply Authority (DUSUP) project

As the LNGRV demonstrated, it is possible to install compact shell and tube vaporisers
with small to medium capacity on vessels that have the same dimensions of an LNG
carrier with membrane type tanks. With some modifications to the deck it is also possible
to install vaporizers on LNG carriers with spherical tanks with the advantage of
withstanding more severe sea conditions with partially filled tanks. As a consequence, in
case of limited vaporization capacity it appears quite feasible and economically attractive
to convert such existing vessels into FSRU.

In this context, the most often applied type of vaporizer is shell & tube and intermediate
fluid exchangers. The overall plant is quite simple: LNG is just vaporized and compressed
into a pipeline. Safety requirements seem not to bring any severe challenges since the
number and characteristics of the equipment does not pose significant risk. The mooring
system can be the single mooring type, with external turret or less likely the spread
mooring type.

Periodically, these FSRU should have to be dry docked: the frequency is variable among
the engineering companies, from two years to five years.

Converted FSRUs succeed in matching many requirements, from the relatively low cost
to a quicker development, and an acceptable, at least for many customers, regasification
capacity.

Another key advantage of the FSRU against onshore solutions is that the construction
occurs in a controlled environment, in yards, along precise construction slots with a very
high reliability on schedule and costs. This increased certainty on the project numbers is
increasingly valuable in economically difficult years, with cost pressures as a key driver.

Page 35 of 48
New built FSRU

Many projects have been proposed that require the realization of stationary floating
regasification vessels from scratch. The main driver that usually pushes towards a new
built instead of a converted FSRU, is the dimension of the terminal. The maximum
existing LNG carrier with spherical tanks has a storage capacity of about 147.000m
3 5
. On
the other hand, the existing carriers with membrane tanks that have larger containment
systems are normally not considered suitable for a conversion into FSRU, since their
capability to withstand the effect of LNG sloshing is limited. As a consequence, for
storages volumes of 200 - 300,000m
3
, purpose-built vessels are usually designed: the
vaporization system can be quite easily accommodated on top of the membrane tanks,
since the deck space is large. Mooring systems are more complex than those used for
converted FSRU because the forces and inertia increase.

However, similarly to what is happening onshore, both liquefaction and regasification, few
large projects are being undertaken. Most projects are accomplished by converting
existing LNG carriers and, at present, only two new built FSRU projects are being
progressed. These are both in the northeast of the US.

Other Creative Proposals

Regasification on platform

Two projects that use existing platforms to house a regasification plant have been
proposed, one in the Gulf of Mexico, the second in California. The two initiatives are very
different yet very technologically creative.

In the first case, the Main Pass Energy hub, four platforms will be revamped and others
built from scratch. LNG storage in small tanks is provided
6
while regasification will be
performed by SCV only. The produced gas, 10.3 Bcm per annum, will be sent to a salt
dome cavern. LNG vessels will be able to dock alongside a platform for unloading
operation.

In the Clearwater Port project (see Fig 18), to be located offshore Long Beach
(California), a single platform will house a regasification plant with a capacity of 12.4 Bcm
per annum, without any storage. LNG is discharged by carriers docked to two floating
berths and sent through a special cryogenic pipeline to the nearby platform, formerly an
oil drilling facility. Vaporization occurs by ambient air vaporizers, after that the gas is sent
directly to the shore.


5
New vessels are in construction with a capacity of 177,000 m
3

6
Six tanks should be built on two new platforms. Size of each tank should be 24.000 m
3

Page 36 of 48

Figure 17: Example of regasification terminal on platform: the Clearwater Port
Project

Many novelties are included in those projects apart from the concept of reusing existing
platforms: storage in cylindrical tanks on top of platforms, the combination with an
underground gas storage and the use of air vaporizers are first offshore technological
applications of their kind.

Floating Power Generating Plant (FPGP)

An offshore project in Cyprus is under evaluation, concerning the conversion of a LNG
vessel into a regasification unit (0,7 Bcm per annum) and power generation (300 MW of
electric power) unit. The electrical power is sent to shore through a special cable. The
vessel is spread moored since a suitable electrical swivel (such as those used in the
turret mooring configuration) is not available.

Floating Regasification without Storage

An original configuration has been proposed and patented, starting from an existing
attachment system for oil tankers by TORP Technology (see Fig 19).
A floating structure capable of keeping position by means of a dynamic positioning
system powered by 360 rotating thrusters is equipped with suction plates capable of
keeping an LNG carrier strongly attached. Unloading arms and submerged shell and tube
vaporisers are fitted onboard the structure. A bundle of risers send the produced gas to
shore.


Page 37 of 48

Figure 18: Regasification floating system
Courtesy of TORP Technology

The idea behind this type of terminal is to transform any LNG carrier into a floating
regasification plant when docked, and to return it to be a conventional vessel while
sailing.

Many similarities can be found in this configuration with the LNGRV scheme: the main
difference is that the vaporization occurs on the receiving side and not on the LNG carrier
side. The main advantage is the possibility to unload from any conventional LNG carrier
over a wide size range. The floating structure is designed to be able to operate even in
very high sea conditions, including hurricane condition thanks to its free floating
characteristics.

This concept has been proposed for two terminals in the US, one in the Gulf of Mexico,
the second in California and for a potential project in Mexico.

Section Conclusions

A variety of drivers have led to taking regasification offshore, with specific geographical
factors featuring prominently. Key ones are: the need to comply with Environmental
legislation, resistance by local communities and the congestion of coastlines or their high
scenic and tourist value (California, North Eastern US, Florida and Italy). Similarly
shallow waters, where vessels are not allowed to dock (Persian Gulf), and the need for
fast-track projects (South America) have pushed the industry towards offshore
regasification.

In all the example cases, highly customised offshore designs were developed to advance
projects that would have not have been approved as onshore developments.

Whilst Public Acceptance is considered the main driver for many of the current offshore
projects, for the near future the pressure on the Costs will be prevalent. Expensive
technologies like GBS will likely have little or no future in regasification. The FSRU
appears to be the most favourable option. It is less likely to suffer cost or construction
time overrun compared to onshore developments. A Converted FSRU project is
particularly suitable when speed to market is key.

Many offshore projects are under development and despite the current economic
challenges there is no real reason to believe this trend will stop.
Hiload Hiload
Page 38 of 48
2.4 Transfer Systems
Traditionally, LNG projects have been founded on the basis of an onshore production
plant, a fleet of ships to transport the LNG to the buyers, and an onshore regasification
terminal. All routine transfer of LNG has been between ship and shore in a relatively
sheltered environment, and at a fixed marine facility equipped with articulated (un)loading
arms.

Over the years the industry has also developed equipment and procedures for the
transfer of LNG between ships in an emergency situation. Single-use hoses have been
developed and stored at a number of locations for such an emergency, but fortunately the
number of occasions when they have been used is very small.

In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in offshore LNG plants, many of which
would operate in exposed conditions, and all would need to transfer LNG to an offtake
vessel. As a result several studies to develop transfer equipment and systems have been
undertaken.

Transfer of LNG over longer distances in cryogenic sub-sea pipelines is also an area of
interest. An LNG carrier exporting its cargo to the shore from a mooring point at sea
could lead to simpler jetties without breakwater, or eliminate the need for regular
dredging of shallow water harbours.

Transfer Techniques - Offshore

Side-by-Side Offloading

Side-by-side transfer is a 'proven' technique and the industry has a great deal of
experience in such operations with oil. These are executed with either both vessels under
way, or with one shuttle vessel coming alongside a permanently moored vessel e.g. a
Floating (Production) Storage & Offloading (FSO or FPSO) facility. In both cases the
operation is carried out in benign conditions with wave heights not greater than about 1.5-
2.0 m (See Figure 19).

There is similar, but less extensive, F(P)SO experience with refrigerated LPG. However
there is only limited experience with LNG, and this has mostly been in the context of
emergency response exercises or salvage operations.

Unlike oil and LPG, all LNG transfer operations have been conducted with hoses and a
considerable amount of temporary scaffolding and staging works has been necessary to
support them.
Page 39 of 48


Figure 19: Side-by-Side Transfer using hoses

Tandem Offloading

The industry has experience in tandem transfer operations with oil, primarily in an
offshore environment and in the context of FSO facilities. There is a limited amount of
experience with refrigerated LPG but no experience with LNG.

Bow loading operations with LNG should be possible, and a number of proposals are
being developed, based on floating hoses, aerial hoses and even articulated rigid piping
systems.

The operation requires two vessels, one of which is single point moored and provided
with transfer and possibly mooring equipment at its stern. The other vessel is
manoeuvred to the stern of the moored vessel, bow-on, and either secured with large
mooring ropes or maintained on station using Dynamic Positioning.

Transfer is through flexible hoses, usually coiled on a reel on the stern of the storage
vessel. The hoses are connected to either the central manifold or a bow manifold of the
offtake (shuttle) vessel. Bow loading can also be conducted through a single point
mooring (SPM) using floating, aerial or partly submerged hoses (see Figure 20).

Tandem transfer aerial hoses Tandem transfer aerial hoses

Figure 20: Tandem transfer




Page 40 of 48
Transfer Equipment

Transfer Arms

Transfer arms for LNG are used on fixed berths throughout the world and are
manufactured and supplied by several companies worldwide. LNG arms are usually
hydraulically powered, and the connection to the ship's manifold is by a bolted or
clamped flange at the end of the arm. Hydraulically powered quick connect/disconnect
(QCDC) couplers and powered emergency release couplings (ERC) are usually provided
for LNG duty.

Their operation tends to be limited to relatively benign conditions in protected port areas,
where relative movements between the fixed berth and LNGC are small. In most port
areas, the limiting wave height for berth operations can be up to about 1.5 to 2.0 metres,
although the threshold for connecting the transfer arms is often lower than this.

Exposed LNG berths have experienced difficulties in making the initial connection
because of the relative movement between the ship and the berth, this has encouraged
the development of designs that can operate in higher wave heights. A design has now
been developed for which a 3 m threshold is claimed, using bigger arms and a higher
capacity power pack.

Manifold line-up is aided by the use of a guide cone attached to the transfer arm and a
stabbing probe attached to the ships manifold. A winch and guide wire arrangement is
used to pull the transfer arm towards the ships manifold until the connection can be
made.

The only application of the exposed location transfer arm to date has been on a Gravity
Based Structure (GBS) in the Mediterranean Sea, where berth availability would
otherwise have been low. Future applications will probably be in similar circumstances,
and on fixed berths or floating berths such as an FPSO.

These 'exposed location' arms can also be used on ships, for side-by-side operations but
they are not suitable for tandem transfer operations. A much larger boom and pantograph
system has been developed for tandem transfer, but this is not yet proven and requires
further development and testing to prove feasibility.

Transfer Hoses

LNG transfer hose designs broadly fall into two design concepts; metallic bellows or
composite constructions. Both are being developed for floating LNG applications.

Metallic bellows
Welded metallic bellows provides primary containment. Axial loads are
constrained by either spiralled wires, polyester cords or an external fabric
strengthened outer elastomeric tube.
Bellows based designs can be manufactured in continuous lengths, although
some are length limited due to the high flow friction forces which may create
excessive tensile loads in the bellows.

Composite constructions
Primary containment is provided by a number of layers of fabrics and films.
Stainless steel inner and outer wires provide the pipe hoop and axial structural
strength.
Page 41 of 48
Composite hoses are normally manufactured on a mandrel. This can limit the
length of the hose, and result in the requirement for hose strings to be made up
of multiple connections.
Composite hoses are smooth-bored which significantly reduces hose pressure
drop, and provides greater flexibility with smaller minimum bend radii and lighter
weight.

Only small bore hoses (up to 8) have been used to date. They are unsuitable for
continuous long-term use or for operations requiring high transfer rates. Large diameter
hoses (up to 20") are now under development, but none has been proven in service yet.
Both aerial and floating hose designs are anticipated to be available to the industry by the
end of 2009.

The use of hoses has so far been limited to side-by-side operations, mostly for
emergency response purposes. They will probably continue to be used in side-by-side
operations, although transfer arms have advantages in terms of convenience and safety
in the event of a vessel breakout. Future areas of application for hoses are likely to be
wider than for transfer arms; their greater contribution is likely to be in tandem and SPM
transfer operations

Transfer Systems

Transfer systems include not only the immediate transfer equipment described above,
but also the means of deploying it and the other elements required to transfer LNG from
tank to tank:

Transfer equipment, e.g. hoses and transfer arms
Deployment, retrieval and storage systems for the transfer equipment
Mooring and berthing systems such as SPM, including the cryogenic swivel
Integrated safety and control systems
Manifold system on the receiving unit (e.g. LNGC)
Support systems, i.e. monitoring, control, utility systems
Sub sea pipelines for LNG

Single Point Mooring (SPM) installations provide a means of mooring a vessel remote
from a shore for the purpose of transferring product. The installation includes a large
buoy secured (usually anchored) to the seabed with a rotating turntable on the top, and a
sub sea pipeline leading to the storage facility (see Fig 21).

The flow path between the storage and the vessel comprises the pipeline, flexible hoses
from the pipeline to a swivel unit in the buoy, the swivel, the piping on the buoy's
turntable, and flexible floating hoses to the vessel's manifold. The vessel is moored to the
turntable with one or two large hawsers, which are an integral part of the SPM
installation.

Page 42 of 48
Cryogenic Hoses Single
Buoy
Mooring
Pipeline
End
Manifold
Single Point
Mooring (CALM
type) installation
for LNG.
Cryogenic Hoses Single
Buoy
Mooring
Pipeline
End
Manifold
Cryogenic Hoses Single
Buoy
Mooring
Pipeline
End
Manifold
Single Point
Mooring (CALM
type) installation
for LNG.

Figure 21: Single Point Moorings

There are many such installations throughout the world, and all of them serve oil and
products operations. Although conceptual designs have been prepared, there are no
SPM's for LNG service at present.

SBM Inc. are working on a number of concepts (table below); with one exception these
are focussed around SPMs.

Soft Quay Mooring

Soft Yoke Mooring and
Unloading (Fig 22)
Fixed Tower SPM
Fixed berth with mooring
dolphins and high
capacity berthing beam
Installed either on an SPM
or on the stern of an FSO
Tower with a rotating boom
(alt w/ hose reel).
Transfer arms Aerial hoses. Aerial hoses
(alt w/ floating hoses)
Midships manifold
connection
Bow manifold connection. Bow manifold connection
(alt w/midships connection).

Soft Yoke Mooring & Offloading
(SYMO) aerial hoses
Soft Yoke Mooring & Offloading
(SYMO) aerial hoses

Figure 22: Soft Yoke Mooring & Offloading scheme
Courtesy of SBM Inc.

SBM Inc. have also developed a floating hose design concept with Amnitec. Although this
could be used with an SPM system, it seems more likely that its principle role will be in
Page 43 of 48
tandem transfer operations, for example between a shuttle tanker and a floating LNG
plant or regas vessel. They are also designing and testing a cryogenic swivel for SPM
duty.

Bluewaters "Big Sweep" concept is designed to enable transfer of LNG at a midships
manifold, thereby minimising the need for modifications to existing LNG carriers. The
concept is based on a long arm, pivoted at one end and with the transfer equipment at
the free end. Vessels approach the fixed end and moor up to it using conventional SPM
hawsers. The arm, with its transfer equipment, is then manoeuvred alongside the vessel
and connection is made similar to a conventional jetty operation (See Figure 23).

Similar to SBM Inc, Bluewater have developed a hose design but for an aerial
application, this time with BHP/Dantec. It seems likely that its principal role will be in
tandem transfer operations.

Big Sweep Big Sweep

Figure 23: Big Sweep concept
Courtesy of Bluewater

SOFEC have devised a floating platform concept that is capable of carrying process or
other equipment on its deck (see Figure 24). Operations will be similar to those for a
GBS. This will have a midships manifold connection and utilise transfer arms

Floating platform concept Floating platform concept

Figure 24: SOFEC (FMC) Floating Platform concept

LNG pipelines

Pipe-in-pipe is seen as a key enabling technology to transfer LNG by sub sea pipeline
between an offshore system and an associated onshore facility. Such technology has
been developed, primarily to provide an alternative to conventional insulation systems,
but they also claim to have a number of other advantages:
Page 44 of 48

Reduced construction time because of reduced on-site activity (insulation)
Significantly reduced heat in-leak through improved insulation systems
Elimination of expansion loops, expansion is either greatly reduced or the forces
are accommodated in the pipeline structure
Reduced outer diameter as a result of more effective insulation systems

The technology also offers the potential for buried LNG pipelines, which could be of
interest for areas where long piping runs needing physical protection are required.

Figure 25: Pipe-in-pipe technology for LNG pipelines

Recent application of the technology has been limited to relatively simple but long piping
runs (2 km in 30 for Darwin LNG, 3km sub-sea in 20 for Pisco LPG Export Terminal in
Per), where cost savings have been achieved through the thermal efficiency of the
system and the elimination of expansion loops.

Section Conclusions

Day to day transfer of LNG in an offshore environment is not routinely practised by the
industry. The revived interest in offshore LNG plants and terminals has highlighted a
need for transfer systems for regular operational use.

Potential benefits include the ability to transfer cargo in rougher sea conditions or in the
case of an LNG carrier exporting its cargo to the shore, simpler jetties without breakwater
or dredging.

Side-by-side transfer operations are conducted in relatively benign conditions, and may
be based on either hard arm or hose systems. They tend to be perceived as a lower
technology risk, and are likely to be preferred for the first regular LNG transfer operations.

Tandem transfer operations may be conducted in more exposed conditions. They are
perceived as a higher technology risk, and no system has yet been proven for LNG
service.

A considerable amount of design work has been carried out by various companies to
demonstrate the feasibility of their proposed transfer systems. However, the time frame
for such design and the associated testing is still years rather than months; a duration of
about three to five years from order to commissioning would appear to be realistic.
Page 45 of 48
3. Conclusions and Trends
The triennium 2006-2009 has been one of exceptional change and development for the
LNG industry.

The industry has come up with creative solutions to address recent challenges across the
entire LNG value chain and continues to innovate.

There is an increasing interest in offshore LNG with new developments on both the
export and import sides, which is a significant change to the traditional value chain.
Locating facilities offshore has the advantage of being remote from public areas and
therefore receive less opposition. A floating export plant close to the reservoir has an
economic advantage. It eliminates the need for long sub-sea pipelines to shore and
makes previously unattainable fields viable for development. Associated gas can be
recovered that might otherwise have been flared or re-injected. The challenge for these
remote and sometimes harsh locations is the requirement for high plant reliability since
the number of personnel onboard and maintenance capabilities are reduced.

Onshore LNG export plants have seen variation around the 3 5 mtpa standard capacity
size of recent years and show a spread from mini (+/-0.1 mtpa) to mega (> 6mtpa)
trains. The sizes are tailored to meet specific applications and niche markets. The mini
trains can be offered as packaged modules. The mega trains utilise large GE Frame 9
gas turbines across 3 refrigeration cycles.

New liquefaction processes are being implemented for the first time including Mixed Fluid
Cascade, Dual Mixed Refrigerant and AP-X. Innovative heat integration concepts have
been deployed to reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

Modularisation has been employed to reduce construction costs. An entire LNG train can
be constructed in a fabrication yard as individual modules, shipped to the site and
re-assembled. This was applied for North West Shelf Train 5 and will be repeated with
improvements for the Pluto project. For Snohvit a major part of the plant was pre-
assembled and shipped to the site as one large barge-mounted module.

The concept of offshore LNG export plants has been proposed. Floating Production
Storage & Offloading also known as Floating LNG - is technically feasible for many
areas in the world. With strong drivers including respecting the coastal environment,
unlocking stranded gas fields and for specific locations even providing economical
advantage, the future for this novel technology seems brighter than ever.

The shipping industry has seen remarkable changes in carrier size and propulsion
systems. The 4-tank LNG carrier has increased capacity from 130,000 m
3
to 170,000 m
3

in recent years. A bigger step change is the new 5-tank LNG carriers: the Q-flex and Q-
max vessels with 210,000 m
3
and 260,000 m
3
capacity respectively. The dual-fuel diesel
electric propulsion (DFDE) and slow-speed diesel engines with boil off gas reliquefaction
have reduced transportation costs and provided flexibility. LNG can now be routed over
larger distances at lower costs, making a global marketplace a reality.

Onshore regasification terminals have found ways of improving economical and
environmental elements. New technologies like ambient air vaporizers and Intermediate
Fluid Vaporisers can be used instead of traditional Open Rack Vaporisers and
Submerged Combustion Vaporisers in certain environments reducing operating costs and
green house gas emissions. Furthermore, integrating the import terminal with
neighbouring industry can improve overall process efficiency, albeit at the price of
increased complexity.
Page 46 of 48
Offshore regasification projects have seen a surge of interest due to combined factors of
environmental legislation, public resistance to onshore development, congestion of
coastlines and the need for fast-track project schedules. The most promising technology
is the Floating Storage Regasification Unit, both new-built designs as well as converted
carriers.

Finally, there has been on-going development of LNG transfer systems for ship-to-ship
transfer, flexible hose technology and LNG pipelines. Potential benefits include simpler
jetties without breakwater or dredging and the capability to transfer cargo in rougher sea
conditions.

Many of the creative solutions described in this paper are already reality. Others are
imminent and expected to be realized soon. Even after 50 years, the LNG industry
continues to change and re-invent itself to address the economic, environmental,
technical and political challenges it faces. The LNG industry will continue to respond to
challenges through innovation to meet the growing global demand for natural gas.
Page 47 of 48
4. Acronyms

AAV Ambient Air Vaporizer
BCM Billion Cubic Meter
BOG Boil Off Gas
DFDE Dual-Fuel Diesel-Electric Propulsion
FLNG Floating Liquefied Natural Gas
FPGP Floating Power Generating Plant
FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading
FSRU Floating Storage Regasification Unit
GBS Gravity Base Structure
GCU Gas Combustion Unit
GHG Green House Gas
HFU Heavy Fuel Oil
IFV Intermediate Fluid Vaporizer
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LNGRV LNG Regasification Vessels
MDO Marine Diesel Oil
MTPA Million Ton Per Annum
ORV Open Rack Vaporizer
SCV Submerged Combustion Vaporizer
TCF Trillion Cubic Feet


5. References

[1] Qatargas 2, the designs and technologies for a 7.8 MTPA LNG train, 7
th
Doha Natural
Gas Conference, Perez et al., March 2009
[2] http://www.panhandleenergy.com/expansion_lng.asp
[3] Data from Wood Mackenzie
[4] Cryogenic Energy Recovery, Tubilleja C, Gas International Magazine, Institution of Gas
Engineering and Managers (IGEM), UK, 2008
















Page 48 of 48
Appendix A Study Group Members

Study group member Company
Mr. Rob Klein Nalgelvoort Royal Dutch Shell
Mr. Mourad Tandjaoui Sonatrach/AVL
Mr. Dirk van der Mast Royal Dutch Shell
Mr. Francis van de Walle Fluxys
Mr. Mostafa Alavi NIGC
Mr. Giuseppe Vareschi Snam RG
Mr. Arrigo Vienna ENI G&P
Mr. Masanori Oki Osaka Gas Co., Ltd.
Mr. Yong Yung Kim Ezer
Mr. Marat Mansurov / Mr. M Golovyov Gazprom
Mr. Mun-keun Ha Samsung Heavy Industries
Mr. Aleksandar Savic JP Srbijagas
Mr. Joon Hyeong Yoo Kogas
Mr. John Holleyoak BP
Mrs. Stphanie Masson GDF Suez
Mr. Duncan Van Bergen Brazilian Petroleum and Gas Institute
Mrs. Li Na Yang Petrochina
Mr. Bernard Perisse / Christophe Thomas TOTAL
Mr. Ricardo Villanueva Union Fenosa Gas
Mr. Wouter Pastoor Flex LNG
Mr. Vegard Hellekleiv Leif Hegh & Co A
Mrs. Angelica Fernandez TGS
Mrs. Andreja Ana Lopac INA
Mr. ystein Bruno Larsen Hamworthy
Mr. Calogero Migliore Repsol YPF
Mr. Thomasz Lelonek PGNiG