OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL

LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES

Prepared for ~

Prepared by ~

H
|
H C H
|
H

LNG
LNG

H
H C H
H

CHIV International

Baltimore Office
1341A Ashton Road
Hanover, MD 21076
410-691-9640

Houston Office
1221 McKinney, Suite 3325
Houston, TX 77010
713-964-6775
CHIV International Document: 07902-TS-000-106
Client Review Draft November 28, 2007

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1

INTRODUCTION

LNG STORAGE TANKS

2.1 Background

2.1.1 Single Containment Tanks (SCT)

2.1.1.1

General Information

2.1.1.2

Advantages

2.1.1.3

Disadvantages

2.1.1.4

Example of SCT

2.1.2 Double Containment Tanks (DCT)

2.1.2.1

General Information

2.1.2.2

Advantages

2.1.2.3

Disadvantages

2.1.2.4

Example of DCT

2.1.3 Full Containment Tanks (FCT)

2.1.3.1

General Information

2.1.3.2

Advantages

2.1.3.3

Disadvantages

2.1.3.4

Example of FCT

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 22.1.1.4-1 Single Containment LNG Tank Design (CB&I)..............................................3
Figure 2.1.1.4-2 Four Single Containment Tanks at Cove Point LNG surrounded by Earth
dikes ..................................................................................................................................4
Figure 2.1.2.4-1 Double Containment LNG Tank Design............................................................6
Figure 2.1.1.4-2 Photograph showing the Double Containment Tank at the EcoElectrica LNG
import facility in Puerto Rico ...........................................................................................6
Figure 2.1.3.4-1 Typical Full Containment LNG Tank Design....................................................8
Figure 2.1.3.4-2 Full Containment LNG Tank under Construction with reinforced Concrete
Outer Tank and Roof (From CB&I marketing information) ............................................9

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION
Oregon LNG proposes to construct, own and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) Import
Terminal (the Terminal) on the East Skipanon Peninsula, near the confluence of the
Skipanon and Columbia Rivers in Warrenton, Clatsop County, Oregon.
The Terminal will consist of off-shore facilities for unloading LNG carriers and on-shore
facilities for the storage of up to 480,000 cubic meters (m3) of LNG, vaporization of LNG
and the send out of natural gas at a base load rate of 1 billion standard cubic feet per day
(bscfd), and a peak capacity of approximately 1.5 bscfd. Upon vaporization, the natural gas
will be sent out from the Terminal via an approximately 117-mile sendout pipeline.
The purpose of this report is to present the alternative options that were considered during
the selection of the Full Containment LNG storage Tank design that was subsequently
included in the front end engineering design for the facility as described in Resource Report
13.

LNG STORAGE TANKS

2.1

Background

Choosing the type of LNG Storage Tank design was an important first step in the
development of the Oregon LNG Import Terminal design. The choice of LNG storage tank
design considered the siting requirements specified in DOT Federal Safety Standards for
Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities 49 CFR Part 193 and NFPA 59A Standard for the
Production, Storage and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (2001 ed.).
In selecting the LNG storage tank design for the Oregon LNG Import Terminal the
applicability and suitability of the following design concepts were evaluated.
2.1.1
2.1.1.1

Single Containment Tanks (SCT)

General Information
A conventional single containment LNG storage tank consists of a suitable
cryogenic metal inner container (economics currently favor 9% nickel steel)
designed to hold the LNG, with a carbon steel outer tank designed to contain the
natural gas vapors at pressures up to 2.5 psig. This design pressure can be
increased with additional engineering of the top roof to wall joint, but at
additional cost. Insulation surrounds the inner tank to control heat leak into the

07902-TS-000-106

Page 1 of 9

November 28, 2007

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES
tank. The outer tank is not designed to contain LNG in the event of an inner tank
leak. A secondary means of LNG containment (in case of a rupture of the inner
tank) is generally provided, such as an engineered earthen dike designed to
contain 110% of the full volume of LNG from the inner tank. All of the original
tanks at the four existing U.S. LNG import terminals are of SCT design, as well
as the majority of existing LNG tanks world-wide. Further, most of the new
tanks for the terminal expansions at Lake Charles, LA; Elba Island, GA; and
Cove Point, MD are SCT. Also several of the approved new U.S. LNG terminals
are using single containment tank designs.
2.1.1.2

Advantages
Generally the lowest installed cost per cubic meter of LNG storage
Fastest schedule, engineering and construction schedule can usually be

reduced by several months from the typical 36 months for FCT

Regulatory approval of SCT designs has been consistent over the years

and not a cause for approval delays

Side and bottom LNG outlets can be used as long as certain other

requirements are met

2.1.1.3

Disadvantages
In the event of an inner tank failure or spill, the outer tank steel shell will

not contain the LNG and the vapors will be free to go to atmosphere.
Requires an external dike for secondary LNG containment; typically a

large, engineered earthen dike to contain 110% of the full contents of the
LNG tank. Thermal radiation and vapor dispersion zones are very large
and these tanks require a very large tract of land to maintain exclusion
zones within the property boundary. Calculated thermal radiation and
flammable vapor exclusion zones for a SCT design yield the largest
exclusion zone distances.
These tanks have lower design pressures than full containment tanks.

The lower pressure design results in increased size and cost of the vapor
handling systems.
Added maintenance cost to periodically repair and recoat the outer tank

paint system to prevent corrosion.

A system needs to be designed to remove accumulated storm water

runoff from inside the secondary containment dike.

Poor resistance to external forces such as flying debris; breach of outer

shell is more likely than other tank designs considered.

07902-TS-000-106

Page 2 of 9

November 28, 2007

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES

2.1.1.4

Example of SCT
An illustration of a typical SCT design is provided in Figure 2.1.1.4-1.

Figure 22.1.1.4-1 Single Containment LNG Tank Design (CB&I)

The original four LNG Tanks at the Cove Point LNG Terminal in Maryland are
installed with typical earthen dikes as shown in 2.1.1.4-2.

07902-TS-000-106

Page 3 of 9

November 28, 2007

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES

Figure 2.1.1.4-2 Four Single Containment Tanks at Cove Point LNG surrounded
by Earth dikes

2.1.2
2.1.2.1

Double Containment Tanks (DCT)

General Information
A conventional double containment LNG storage tank is essentially a single
containment tank surrounded by a close-in, reinforced open top concrete outer
container designed to contain any spill or leak from the inner tank, but not to hold
any vapor released during a spill. Like the SCT, the DCT consists of a suitable
cryogenic metal inner container (economics currently favor 9% nickel steel)
designed to hold the LNG, surrounded by a carbon steel outer wall designed to
contain the natural gas vapors at pressures up to 2.5 psig (this design pressure can
be increased with additional engineering of the top roof to wall joint, but at
additional cost). Insulation surrounds the inner tank to control heat leak into the
tank. The outer carbon steel tank is not designed to contain LNG in the event of
an inner tank leak. In addition to this outer carbon steel wall, the DCT design
also includes a concrete outer container which functions as a secondary means of
LNG containment. This outer container is an engineered reinforced concrete
cylinder surrounding the outer carbon steel tank shell and is designed to contain
the full tank volume plus some safety margin. Only one DCT has ever been built
at a North American LNG import terminal: the 160,000 m3 LNG storage tank at
the EcoElectrica facility in Puerto Rico. This tank has been successfully
operating since July 2000.

07902-TS-000-106

Page 4 of 9

November 28, 2007

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES

2.1.2.2

Advantages
Lower installed cost per cubic meter of LNG storage than FCT.
Engineering and construction schedule can likely be reduced by several

months from the typical 36 months for FCT.

Regulatory approval of DCT design has set a precedent for future

approvals.
Smaller thermal exclusion zones and reduced conventional onshore land

requirement (due to protection provided by outermost concrete

container), similar to FCT, but at a lower cost then FCT.
Resistance to external forces is improved with the high reinforced

concrete dike.
2.1.2.3

Disadvantages
Higher installed cost per cubic meter of LNG storage than SCT.
In the event of an inner tank failure or spill, the outer tank steel shell will

not contain the LNG and the vapors will be free to go to atmosphere due
to the open top of the high concrete secondary containment wall.
Lower pressure design is the same as SCT; this increases the size and

cost of the vapor handling system when compared to FCT.

Increased soil bearing requirements (over SCT) and higher foundation

loads due to the weight of the outer concrete containment dike.

Added maintenance cost to periodically repair and recoat the outer tank

paint system to prevent corrosion.

Systems need to be designed to remove accumulated storm water runoff

from inside the secondary containment dike

Personnel entry into the annular space between the outer tank shell and

the concrete dike for maintenance is generally considered as a confined

space and requires special procedures.

07902-TS-000-106

Page 5 of 9

November 28, 2007

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES

2.1.2.4

Example of DCT
An illustration of a typical DCT design is shown in Figure 2.1.2.4-1.

Figure 2.1.2.4-1 Double Containment LNG Tank Design

Figure 2.1.2.4-2 shows the EcoElectrica LNG tank as viewed from the LNG
unloading dock.

Figure 2.1.1.4-2 Photograph showing the Double Containment Tank at the

EcoElectrica LNG import facility in Puerto Rico
07902-TS-000-106

Page 6 of 9

November 28, 2007

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES
2.1.3
2.1.3.1

Full Containment Tanks (FCT)

General Information
A conventional full containment LNG storage tank consists of a suitable
cryogenic metal inner container (economics currently favor 9% nickel steel)
designed to hold the LNG with a reinforced concrete outer tank designed to
contain the natural gas vapors at pressures up to 4.3 psig. The outer concrete
tank is also designed to contain cryogenic LNG in the event of an inner tank leak
or rupture. Insulation surrounds the inner tank to control heat leak into the tank.
Additionally the outer tank is designed to act as the secondary LNG containment,
so no additional external spill containment is required. This design has been
predominant with the new North American LNG import terminals that currently
have regulatory approval or are under review. A number are now approved and
planned or under construction; for example, at Corpus Christi, TX; Sabine, TX;
Cameron, LA; Port Arthur, TX; Waterbury, CT; and a Mexican terminal in Costa
Azul.

2.1.3.2

Advantages
Highest integrity design: in the event of an inner tank failure, the outer

tank is designed to contain both an LNG spill and the vapor generated.
No side or bottom penetrations; all pipelines pass through the roof, so in

the event of an external pipe failure the tank contents do not spill out of
the tank.
Smallest thermal exclusion zone; resulting in the smallest footprint, tank

spacing and most efficient use of land. Also land required to be under
control of the owner to prevent exclusion zones crossing into adjoining
property is minimized.
Inherent higher pressure capabilities than either SCT or DCT; allows the

use of a smaller capacity vapor handling system, reducing the capital and
operating costs for the vapor recovery system.
Best resistance to external forces with complete reinforced concrete outer

shell.
Concrete finish minimizes coating maintenance of the outer tank.

2.1.3.3

Disadvantages
Highest cost per cubic meter of LNG for the conventional flat-bottomed

tank designs.
Marginally the longest engineering and construction schedule (nominally

36 months from tank contractor approval to proceed).

07902-TS-000-106

Page 7 of 9

November 28, 2007

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES
Increased soil bearing requirements and foundation loads compared to

SCT due to the higher weight for the outer concrete wall.
Tank profile is roughly the same as the SCT and DCT designs.

2.1.3.4

Example of FCT

Figure 2.1.3.4-1 Typical Full Containment LNG Tank Design

07902-TS-000-106

Page 8 of 9

November 28, 2007

H
H C H
H

CHIV International
OREGON LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
LNG STORAGE TANK ALTERNATIVES

Figure 2.1.3.4-2 Full Containment LNG Tank under Construction with reinforced
Concrete Outer Tank and Roof (From CB&I marketing information)

07902-TS-000-106

Page 9 of 9

November 28, 2007