Indonesia GAS-FSRU and Small LNG Seminar by Lloyd&#39 S Register-December 13 - Handout

Indonesia GAS: FSRU and Small LNG Seminar
Presentation pack
Hotel Borobudur Jakarta, 12 December 2013
Working together
for a safer world
Lloyds Register and variants of it are trading names of Lloyds Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Copyright Lloyd's Register Asia. 2013.
A member of the Lloyds Register group.

Agenda
Time
Presentation
08:30 - 09:00
Registration
09:00 - 09:10
Welcome - Safety and Opening Remarks
09:10 - 09:40
I. Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Jose M Navarro, Principal Gas Technology Specialist
09:40 - 10:20
II. FSRU's Technology and Operations - Critical Issues

Thanos Koliopulos, Global Special Projects Manager
10:20 - 10:40
Coffee Break
10:40 - 11:40
III. FSRU Safety and Class Certification

Structural and containment systems - New Build
FSRU shallow water moorings system
Ika Prasetyawan, Naval Architect Specialist
FSRU's and Extended Dry-dock Periods
11:40 - 12:10
Panel Discussion
12:10 - 13:30
Lunch
13:30 - 14:00
IV. FLNG / FPSO Topside Structure and Interface with Hull

Bahram Amir, Lead Structural Specialist
14:00 - 14:45
V. Gas as Fuel Update

Bunkering at ports
Latest significant projects
Market updates
Luis Benito, Global Strategic Marketing Manager
14:45 - 15:30
Panel Discussion
15:30
Close
Lloyd's Register Seminar

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Jose Navarro
Principal Gas Technology Specialist

Jose Navarro Principal Gas Technology Specialist
12 December 2013
Working together
for a safer world
Lloyds Register Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker
Topics:
International Gas Code and Classification Notations
Mini LNG Ships - Existing fleet and New Designs
Mini LNG Supply Chain - Challenges and LR Solutions
International Gas Code
General Arrangements requirements
Double Hull Structure
Containment design
Construction Materials
Vapour Control
Safety Requirements
Gas Detection
Water Spray
Dry Powder
Coastal waters LNG Ships

may not require to comply with IGC.
Lloyds Register - Classification Notations

Conventional and Large LNG Vessel
|100A1 Liquefied Gas Tanker, Ship Type 2G
|100A1 Liquefied Gas Carrier, Ship Type 2G
Methane (LNG) in Membrane Tanks,
Methane in Independent Tanks Type C,
Maximum Vapour Pressure 0.25 Bar,

Minimum Temperature minus 163 degrees C,
Maximum Vapour Pressure 18.0 bar,

ShipRight (SDA, ACS), *IWS, LI, ECO
ShipRight (SDA, ACS) *IWS, LI, ECO
|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS
|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS
|Lloyds Register RMC(LG)
Descriptive Notations:
ShipRight (FDA plus, CM, BWMP(S), IHM,

SERS, SCM), GF

SERS, SCM), GF

Maximum Vapour Pressure 0.25 Bar, Minimum Maximum Vapour Pressure 18.0 bar, Minimum
Temperature minus 163 degrees C,
Temperature minus 163 degrees C,
|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS
|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS

SERS, SCM), GF

SERS, SCM), GF

Maximum Vapour Pressure 0.25 Bar,

Maximum Vapour Pressure 18.0 bar,

|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS
|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS

SERS, SCM), GF

SERS, SCM), GF
Mini Small Existing LNG Fleet
LR/IMO_Shi
p_No.
Name_of_Ship
Gas_Capacity
Length
Breadth_M
oulded
Depth
Total_KW_
Main_Eng
9275074
PIONEER KNUTSEN
1078
68.87
11.8
5.5
3080
Bijlsma Shipyard BV
9317200
NORTH PIONEER
Shipbuilder
Group_Owner
Knutsen OAS Shipping AS
Country_of_Build
Netherlands
2005-11
Japan
2512
89.23
15.3
7.2
2206
Shin Kurushima Imabari
9433884 SHINJU MARU NO. 2
2536
86.29
15.1
1912
Higaki
Chuo Kaiun KK
2008-10
Japan
9469235
2536
86.29
15.1
2059
Higaki
Tsurumi Sunmarine Co Ltd
2008-11
Japan
9260603 SHINJU MARU NO. 1
2538
86.25
15.1
1912
Higaki
Kono Kaiun
2003-07
Japan
9554729
AKEBONO MARU
3556
99.37
17.2
7.8
2942
Higaki
Chuo Kaiun KK
2011-10
Japan
9404584
CORAL METHANE
7550
117.8
18.6
10.6
13300
Polnocna Stocznia SA Northern
Veder Rederijzaken BV
2009-04
Poland
KAKUREI MARU
Unknown
Built
2004-03
9378278 NORGAS INNOVATION
10000
137.1
19.8
11.5
7000
Taizhou Wuzhou Shipbuilding
Skaugen SE
2010-01
China, People's Republic Of
9378280
NORGAS CREATION
10000
137.06
19.8
11.5
7000
Skaugen SE
2010-07
9378292 NORGAS INVENTION
10000
137.1
19.8
11.5
7000
Skaugen SE
2011-01
9378307 NORGAS CONCEPTION
10000
137.1
19.8
11.5
7000
Skaugen SE
2011-11
9468437
NORGAS UNIKUM
12000
152.16
19.8
11.5
8280
Dingheng Jiangsu Shipbuilding
Teekay Corp
2011-06
9468449
BAHRAIN VISION
12000
152.3
19.8
11.5
8280
Dingheng Jiangsu Shipbuilding
Teekay Corp
2011-10
9617698
CORAL ENERGY
15600
155
22.7
14.95
8000
Neptun Werft GmbH
Veder Rederijzaken BV
2012-12
Germany
9016492
AMAN BINTULU
18927
130
25.7
16.6
5516
NKK Corp - Tsu
PETRONAS
1993-10
Japan
9134323
AMAN SENDAI
18928
130
25.7
16.6
5517
NKK Corp - Tsu
PETRONAS
1997-05
Japan
9161510
AMAN HAKATA
18928
130
25.7
16.6
5517
NKK Corp - Tsu
PETRONAS
1998-11
Japan
9349942
SUN ARROWS
19531
151
28
16
8830
Kawasaki Shipbuilding - Sak'de
Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd
2007-11
Japan
Lloyds
Register
Mini LNG19538
and Gas151
Bunker28Tanker 16
9060534
SURYAAKI
8827
Kawasaki HI - Sakaide earl
Humpuss Trans Inc
1996-02
Japan
Principal Particulars Small LNG Carrier

10,000 CBM Design by Hyundai Mipo Dockyard
PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS
LOA
LBP
B(mld.)
D(mld.)
Td/Ts
ABT.
CARGO TANK
139 M
CAPACITY(100% FULL)
130.0 M
DESIGN
20.2 M
SEGREGATION
11.8 M
DECK TANK
10,000 M
-163, 500kg/m3, 4.2 bar g
-
CARGO PUMP
7,200 / 8,200 MT
5,220 kW X 167.0 RPM
DMCR
4,520 kW X 156.0 RPM
NCR
4,068 kW X 150.6 RPM
SERVICE SPEED
CARGO SYSTEM
at Td/Ts
6S35ME-B9.2 (TIER II)
NOMINAL RATING
DIESEL GENERATOR
6.6 / 7.0 M
DEADWEIGHT
MAIN ENGINE
RELIQUEFACTION
PLANT
D.F.O.C. / EEDI
500 m3/h X 2 SETS
-
CRUISING
RANGE
COMPLEMENT
850 kW x 2 SETS
15.0 KNOTS
16.7 MT/DAY / -4.45%
9,300 N.M.
18+4 PERSONS

15,000 CBM Design by Hyundai Mipo Dockyard
PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS
LOA
LBP
B(mld.)
D(mld.)
Td/Ts
ABT.
CARGO TANK
154 M
144.0 M
15,000 M
CAPACITY(100% FULL)
DESIGN
23.0 M
SEGREGATION
15.1 M
DECK TANK
5,370 kW X 142.0 RPM
NCR
4,833 kW X 137.1 RPM
DIESEL GENERATOR
SERVICE SPEED
CARGO PUMP
9,300 / 10,400 MT
6,810 kW X 146.0 RPM
MCR
CARGO SYSTEM
at Td/Ts
6S40ME-B9.2 (TIER II)
NOMINAL RATING
-163, 500kg/m3, 4.2 bar g
7.0 / 7.4 M
DEADWEIGHT
MAIN ENGINE
D.F.O.C. / EEDI
270 m3/h X 6 SETS
RELIQUEFACTION
PLANT
CRUISING
RANGE
COMPLEMENT
1,000 kW x 2 SETS
15.5 KNOTS
19.5 MT/DAY / -5.35%
11,500 N.M.
18+4 PERSONS

6,000 CBM Design by Kawasaki Aluminum LNG tanks

6,000 CBM Design by Kawasaki Aluminum LNG tanks

5,000 CBM Design by STX

7,500 CBM Design by STX
Design by AVIC Dingheng
Design by GTT
Mini LNG Solutions for Indonesia
From Indonesian News (Pertamina) :
PT Pertamina Gas, is collaborating with PT Indonesia Power, a subsidiary of

PT PLN (Persero), to form a joint-venture PT Pertadaya Gas that will conduct
several (7) Small Scale LNG projects in East Indonesia.
The total capacity of Small Scale LNG in East Indonesia will reach around 1
million tons per year
the use of LNG for power plant would save up to US$ 5.4 billion per year
1 MM
Tons per
year
7 Small
LNG
Terminals
150 K
Tons per
year
25,000
cbm
month x
terminal
6k 8k
Ship /week
x Terminal
Saving US$ 5.4 billion per year

Mini LNG Supply Chain Challenges
Pre Design
Uncertainty to secure USD 5.4 billions saving on time as

planned
Design &
Construction
Difficulty in design for optimum design performance

Difficulty in securing best suitable shipbuilder
Operations &
Maintenance
Difficulty in securing operational performance safely

Managing Bunkering Safety Compliance
Human
Factor
LNG and Bunkering Crew Competency
What Containment System to guarantee and maximise

operational returns?
Cargo Containment System
Is Type C the only option for small LNG Solution?
Presently, Type C is dominant for up to 10K, however with significant

design restrictions above this capacity
There is a Grey Zone between 5k and 10k where it is debatable

whether Type C or Membrane is optimum solution.
GTT recently presented LNG Bunker tanker design with 2,000 cbm for the
US market.
LR can provide technical and

commercial evaluation on
Containment Systems Solutions
10
What cargo tank design pressure for best operation

performance?
Type C cargo tanks What design pressure?
Increase of Design Pressure
Increase the operational range
Increase limitations for transfer
Increase cargo tank weight and cost
Critical to obtain good balance. Alternatives:
Hyundai Mipo: 4 to 5 barg (Operation)
Kawasaki: 4 to 6 barg (Operation)
TGE: 6 to 8 barg (operation); 8 to 10 barg (design)
Where to build a Mini LNG ship?
New Building Shipyard
The construction of a Mini LNG is more than just Cargo Containment
The vessel is to comply with IGC and Gas Rules
Large Shipbuilders with experience on LNG may not be interested in such

small ships.
Unexperienced Shipbuilders in Gas ship construction will need a robust and

experienced Class. Well define ship design and support during construction
LR has the capability to audit Yards and determine their suitability or gaps
to build successfully Mini LNG ships and to provide assistance to close the
gaps.
11
Propulsion System and Machinery Arrangements
Utilize LNG as Fuel but with dual fuel flexibility
Handling of BOG
Low fuel/gas consumption
Selection on Electric or Mechanical Propulsion
Machinery arrangements for Gas Valves, GCU, Inerting System (CO2, N2)
Electric load will be higher than conventional HFO Bunker Tankers
LR has the capability to deliver technical and operational advice
Compatibilities with Loading and Unloading Terminals
Location of Terminals
Water Depth considering possible shallow drafts
Full manoeuvrability, including self berth without tug assistance
Distance between terminals (days, nautical miles, speed)
Dedicated pier for small LNG at the Loading Terminal
Fenders
ESD Alternatives
Manifold arrangements (SIGTTO Standards)
LNG Receiving Terminals, Ship to Ship, Ship to Truck
LR is capable of delivering early technical, operational and safety advice so

compliance is not an obstacle on the way of achieving operational performance
12
Gas Combustion Unit

Loading Terminal
(-163C, P3 Tank)
BOG Management
Ship Propulsion Engines
Re-Liquefaction Plant
BOG Compressor
Vaporiser
SMALL LNG Vessel
Unloading Terminal LNG Tank
LNG Cargo tank (-163C, P1 Tank)
Ship LNG Bunker Tank

(-163C, P2 Tank)
During Normal Sea Going
Using Gas as fuel
Re-liquefaction, as required.
During anchoring or idle condition
BOG Management
Using pressure increase limited by

maximum allowable working
pressure.
Pressure on Type C tanks may

collapse by spraying cold LNG prior
to transfer.
13
During Transfer Mini LNG takes role as Loading Terminal
BOG Management
Calculations of Return Gas Flow Rate during LNG Transfer
Transfer Rate
Heat ingress
Design Pressure of receiving LNG tanks
Design capacity of BOG Compressor
Design capacity of Re-liquefaction plant, if fitted.
Design capacity of Oxidiser (GCU)
Can the Client [receiving ship or terminal] manage some of the BOG excess?
Unloading Rate
Vapour Generated
Re-liquefaction capacity
1,200 m3/h
9200 kg/h
2 x 3.2 Tons/h
3 x 2.2 Tons/h
During Transfer, Normal Sea Going or In Idle condition
BOG Management
LR is capable to advice on all possible technical solutions that allow client to

take their investment decision with regards to the choice of BOG management
that will fit their intended commercial operation.
14
Operation
Aerating, Inerting, Gas Up, Cool down, Stripping, Warm Up, Internal LNG
Transferring
Flag Requirements
Dry Dock and Maintenance in Indonesia Service providers
Bunkering is transfer of gas in more different modes than just "cargo

transfer"
And to more different interfaces (STS, STJ, S to Truck,...);
Managing Bunkering Safety Compliance (with Class, with Port Authority, with
Flag), Bunkering System Design and Bunker Station Design and the
Operational Procedures of Bunkering is the main challenge
LR has been capable of writing first Standards and Operational Procedures
for Gas Bunkering (for MPA Singapore) and is able to support clients
globally
15
Mooring with Receiving Vessel for STS Transfer (Emergency Shutdown

Functionality)
STS Transferring compatible with SIGTTO / OCIMF / ISO guidance
LNG Transfer Rate, Amount of Return Gas from Receiving Vessel, HFO/MGO
Bunkering, etc.
Volume of Receiving Vessel, Amount of Required LNG
Working Time, Environment Condition
Custody Transfer System compatible with GIIGNL Guidance (Gas Composition,

Mass Flow, etc.)
Hot Line Link (Ship to Ship Communication, ESD)
Pressure / Temperature at Receiving Vessel
LNG Bunkering Arm
Size and Arrangement of Manifold Connection Lines

(ISO28460, EN1474-1/2/3 compatible)
More Fast(QDQC), More Safe(ESDV),

Remote Operation Possible, Safe Releasing
Variation of Manifold Position

(Height Difference, Ships Movement during STS Transfer)
Flexible hoses
16
Making People Aware and Competent
Main Specific Gaps:
Lack of Complete Competency

Standards for Gas Bunkering for
Bunker Tankers Crew
Receiving Ships Crew
Bunker Terminals Personnel
Specific Solution by LR:
Creation of Competence Standards to

cover the gaps Creating a Syllabus for
Complete Training Manual for Gas
Bunkering
New Continuous Competency

Management System LR CCMS
Lack of Standards for Gas

Bunkering Suppliers and its
Personnel
Systematic Approach: Competence Standards

Cat A: Basic Safety; Cat B: Deck Officers & Ratings; Cat C: Engineer Officers & Ratings
Specific Competence
Each Area of
Competence translated into
Specific Competence
Requirements
Areas of Competence
Training Manual / Material

In accordance with:
Areas of Competence
Specific Competence
Technology
Operational Procedures
Regulations
Incidents / Risk
Performance Criterion
Each Specific Competence
Requirement to be
developed into Performance
Criterion

48
17
Mini LNG Supply Chain Solutions
Pre Design
LR provide technical and commercial evaluation on Containment Systems

Solutions
Design &
Construction
LR has the capability to audit Yards and determine their suitability or gaps to build
successfully Mini LNG ships and to provide assistance to close the gaps.
Operations &
Maintenance
LR has the capability to deliver technical and operational advice

LR first Standards and Operational Procedures for Gas Bunkering (for MPA
Singapore) and is able to support clients globally
Human
Factor
LR Competence Standards to cover the gaps

Creating a Syllabus for Complete Training Manual for Gas Bunkering
Jose Navarro
T +82 (0)51 640 5079 E jose.navarro@lr.org
Lloyds Register Asia
11th Floor, CJ Korea Express Bldg, 119, Daegyo-ro, Jung-Gu
Busan 600-700, Republic of Korea
Working together
for a safer world
Copyright Lloyds Register Asia. 2013. A member of the Lloyds Register group.
18

FSRU's Technology and Operations - Critical Issues

Thanos Koliopulos
Global Special Projects Manager
FSRUs Technology and Operations Critical Issues

Thanos Koliopulos Global Special Projects Manager
12 December 2013
Working together
for a safer world
Contents
World Firsts
Evolution of FSRU Design & Operations
Real Case Projects Critical Issues
Overview
Lloyds Register FSRUs Technology and Operations Critical Issues
LR Track Record Regas Projects in Operation
EE Boston Neptune - Regas/ LNG STS 1st Regas offshore via APL
EE STS Offshore LNG cargo transfer 1st STS Operations Manual
EE Teesside GasPort - Regas/ LNG STS 1st double banked via hoses
EE/KNPC Mina Al-Ahmadi Regas/LNG STS 1st tandem jetty via pipelines
Petrobras Guanabara - Regas/LNG STS Terminal 1st on artificial island
EE/PREPA Aguire CCPP Puerto Rico 1st on double island
DSME/Petrobras VT3 FSRU Regas/LNG STS 1st FSRU over 170k m3
YPF Escobar - Regas/LNG STS Terminal 1st Regas Certification in S. America
YPF Bahia Blanca - Regas/LNG STS Terminal Regas Certification in S.A
QatarGas/STASCO Nigg LNG STS Terminal 1st STS with Qmax
Shell Prelude Classification Worlds 1st FLNG Terminal
REGAS EVOLUTION
Regas Offshore Terminal - STS
FMEA APL system
RAM Study for Critical Spares
STS HAZIDs using two FSRUs
STS HAZOPs with spools for 8 LNG hoses
STS with 8 Gutelling hoses dry run in

international waters
Input in EIA and DWP submission
Draft Operations Manual/ safety reviews
STS HAZOPs with marine couplings/ERS
LR Full Operations Manual update
First STS LNG cargo transfer in Scapa Flow

Scotland
Regas System Risk Assessment
Hazard Identification (HAZID)
Fire Explosion Risk Analysis
Lay-out Optimisation
Fire Protection System Optimisation
Hazard & Operability Study (HAZOP)
ESD, ERS, Blow-down Configuration
STS, STJ Offloading System Assessment
RAM for critical spares assessment
Regas Jetty Terminal Operations Teesside U.K.
Regas Jetty Terminal Assessment of HP NG Export
HAZID Optimise lay-out for new Regas

manifold forward
HAZID safety lay-out at jetty (proximity to

gangway)
Identify hazards related to HP gas release

forward FSRU
Evaluate HP arm design and operations / gas

release
HAZOP regas export system up to ESDV

connection to gas grid
HAZOP combined operations STS cargo

loading/regas export
HAZOP Cause & Effects as part of

Emergency Disconnection /ESD system
Jetty Tandem STS LNG Transfer Mina Al-Ahmadi
First regas operation within existing

plant KNPC
Benefits from standard LNG Chiksan

arm /pipeline cargo transfer
Drawbacks from large LNG inventory

on Jetty
Benefits from vapour relief operations

through plant vent
Drawbacks from applying NFPA 59A

compliance within jetty
Guanabara Regas Terminal - Brazil
Near Shore Island Terminal Critical Issues
Emergency drainage requirements will

require the provision of cold drains sumps.
These need to be positioned in a way to
avoid impact on the FSRU or LNGC
Emergency relief via the common vent

needs to be carefully controlled as the
plume generation will have a direct impact
on the installation
Position of drains vessel to be carefully

considered and effects on hazardous area
classification minimized
Heating requirements for the gas export

need to be very carefully addressed as it
has direct impact on vaporizer design
Vapour management STS Critical issues
Potential large quantity of vapour due to:

State of the tank (temperature, heat capacity)
Method used to transfer (velocity of liquid)
Mechanical energy input (pump, piping)
For non-pressurised tank operation:
Steam dumping
Vapour return to LNGC
Utility users
Pressure rise can seriously limit the transfer rate
(LNGC STS 6000 m3/hr to 1000 m3/hr @ 2 bar
pressure)
Nigg Terminal STS Operations Qmax Critical Issues
Suitability of jetty construction for Q Max

double banked operation, mooring
dolphins, size, position of mooring hooks in
order to address safe double banked
operations with QMax/138k m3 LNGC and
other combinations with Q Max/smaller
vessel
Specific Spool offset design
Vapour management system
Issues with reliquefaction system
Issues with GCU operations
LR HAZOP with participation of Port

Authority and SIGTTO representatives
Escobar Terminal Site Operations
FSRU HP gas export

LNG carriers STS LNG transfer
Area dredging
Mooring pier/dolphins
Regas export arm installation
Regulation, filtration, metering
Control Room (TGN link)
Tie in facilities in TGN pipeline
Auxiliary systems / utilities / safety
Terminal QRA - Scope

Task 1
Identify Hazards (HAZID/HAZOP/ Simulations)
Task 2
Establish accidental releases (set scenarios)
Task 3
Model release consequence (impact to Terminal)
Task 4
Estimate the likelihood of occurrence of releases
Task 5
Determine the potential on-site and off-site risks
Task 6
Determine the tolerability of the calculated risks

against International/National Standards
Task 7
Present results to the Authorities
Port Qasim - Proposed Regas Terminal Sites
Navigation Simulations - Objectives
The maximum size of shuttle LNGCs at three LNG

terminal sites,
The maximum size of FSRU at three LNG terminal

sites,
Number and size of tugs required for transit and

berthing operations
Consequences of the typical failure event scenarios
Two LNG ship sizes

-148k MOSS (the least manoeuvrable)
- QFlex (the biggest size )
A total of 36 real time navigation simulation runs

were carried out
LR Presentation of Findings to PQA and Ministry of

Energy in support of EIA
Navigation / Manoeuvrability Punta Sayago Critical
Analyse LNGC ship motions in order to finalise common criteria

which will apply to all operating vessels. Issues to be addressed
are basic speed of approach/speed at passage of critical areas on
the river and potential squat while maintaining 1m keel
clearance.
Address potential of sloshing loads impact on containment

system due to partial cargo loads after emergency
disconnection ops. Based on LNGC 138k DSME design) data, safe
operation is Hs <2.0 meters and Tp < 8 sec, roll angle max 2 deg,
is the limit to prevent sloshing.
Provision escort towage that is capable of indirect towage shortly after the pilot boards as the
width of the entrance channel. Provision of a standby tug at berth
Analyse real time critical crossing at channel, berthing/turning manoeuvre define tug
size/number requirement
Address emergency response scenarios impact on passing traffic as a part of the marine HAZID
and QRA study
Bahia Blanca Regas Terminal MEGA Plant
Upgraded jetty within MEGA Plant
HAZID/HAZOPs
Impact collision assessment
QRA study compliance with
Emergency Response Procedures
FSRU/Terminal Safety/Control
system compatibility (Cause &
Effects)
Full Certification Approval of

Regas Terminal
Overall Terminal Risk Analysis - Conclusions
Marine Ops HAZID, Terminal Lay-out HAZID

Design HAZOP, Operations HAZOP
Navigation Simulations (real time)
QRA Study based on Actual Operating Parameters
Risk Levels off-site to very low
Risks Levels on-site are tolerable/ALARP
Further Risk Reduction achieved by :

Ship Class design /construction/ installation
integrity
Compliance to National Legislation Port /Coast
Guard requirements with study presentations
Marine Operations Manual critical review and
Class approval
Pipeline Design Integrity Certification approval
Shell Prelude LR Classification
Topside systems dry

weight 77,000 tonnes /
Operating 90,000
tonnes
10
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

ANY QUESTIONS ?
Lloyds Register FLNG / FPSO Topside Structure and Interface with Hull
Thanos Koliopulos
Global Special Projects Manager
T +44 (0)23 2345 5432 E Thanos.Koliopulos@lr.org
Lloyds Register EMEA
71 Fenchurch Street, London EC3M 4BS
Working together
for a safer world
Copyright Lloyds Register EMEA. 2013. A member of the Lloyds Register group.
11

FSRU Safety and Class Certification

- Structural and containment systems - New Build
Jose Navarro
FSRU safety and class certification

Structural and containment systems New Build
12 December 2013
Working together
for a safer world
FSRU safety and class certification

Structural and containment systems New Build
Topics:
Introduction and Class Notations
Ship types and Cargo Containment alternatives
Regasification Plant types
Regasification Safety Critical considerations
LR Regasification Rules
Lloyds Register Structural and containment systems New Build
Why ship-borne LNG regasification?
Ability to provide high pressure gas directly from the ship into land-based gas
distribution networks
Reception terminal and the land-based gasification & distribution facility not
required. Ability to provide Gas/Clean energy to small and remote locations
Circumnavigates facility planning constraints and allows gas to be provided in

locations where safety and environmental considerations apply
Energy / Gas needs but NIMBY (Not in my back yard)
Possibility to deploy the unit rapidly where needed (Summer/Winter)
Concepts of LNG regasification ships / units
1.
LNG Ships with Regasification units
2.
LNG Barges (not propulsion) with Regasification units
3.
Barges with Regasification units (not able to store LNG)
FSRU Floating Storage Regasification Unit usually considered under 2

Other aspects:
Is Turret fitted to send out gas?
Is Tower Flare fitted to avoid overpressure?
Mooring arrangements:
Regasification unit and
LNGC delivering LNG
FSRU Class Notation New Building
100A1 Liquefied Gas Tanker, Ship Type 2G, Methane (LNG) in

Membrane Tanks, Maximum SG 0.5, Maximum Vapour Pressure 0.7 bar,
Minimum Temperature Minus 163 deg. C, APBU, ShipRight (SDA, FDA
plus (40, ww), CM, ACS(B)), *IWS, LI, ECO (BWT, IHM)
LMC, UMS, NAV1
Lloyds RGP
Descriptive Notes:
ShipRight (BWMP(T), SERS, SCM)
FSRU Class Notation New Building
What that means?
The FSRU is built using traditional Ships Rules (No Floating Offshore
Installation)
Highest structural design for 40 Years World Wide operations
How many more years operating at benign locations?
Increased allowable pressure within cargo tanks to 0.7 bar
Regasification Class Notation
Technical safety assurance for you and your clients on regas design
integrity and operation
Outline description of containment systems for Large FSRU

Comparing Moss, Membrane & SPB Tanks
Moss
Membrane
SPB
Less chance of damage by
cool-down rate limit
Same as Moss, plus
Better visibility from
Good visibility from
mis-operation
Primary barrier fully gas-
tight
Visible secondary barrier
No barred fill ranges
bridge
Ships are smaller
Flat deck area
Flat deck area
In-service experience
Design company
Easier access for repair
available for in-service

advice
Expensive build facilities at
shipyard
bridge
limited to two smaller

aluminium tank ships
Higher CAPEX
Integrity of
containment system
depends on subcontractors quality
MOSS independent tank flat deck
Conventional Cargo tank covers
Do not contribute structurally
Added light weight
Difficult to maintain
Connection to deck is prone to fatigue

defects
Deck arrangement constrains
New designs have been developed in Japan

(MHI), Korea (HHI) and Europe (AKER)
Continuous cargo tank cover From aft

to forward
Is being applied to a ship under

construction at MHI and HHI to LR Class
LNG Akwa Ibom
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) design:

SAYAENDO
Increased cargo capacity via

stretched tanks
Reduced hull weight and compact

design
Lower fuel consumption
Low boil-off rate (BOR)
Lower maintenance costs
Highly versatile cargo capacity
Compact design, comparable to a

typical 147,000m3 carrier
Environmental performance
Unrestricted operation on cargo

tank filling limits
Gaz Transport & Technigaz NO96 L03
This system is a development of NO96 with some modifications to achieve

reduced BOR 0.1%
To reduce the BOR, the insulation properties are increased by introducing

Reinforced Polyurethane Foam for use in regions of the tank where
unreinforced and the first grade reinforced insulation boxes are used in the
standard NO96 system
Secondary Insulation component is form by:
A Secondary Box fabricated with plywood and filled with perlite. The box
height is reduced from 300 mm to about 100 mm
The secondary box is supplemented with an insulation panel fabricated

with reinforced foam R-PUF with top and bottom plywood plates. The
thickness is about 200 mm.
Other minor modifications are introduced

to accommodate the R-PUF panel installation
Gaz Transport & Technigaz Mark III Flex
Why Mark III Flex

Two alternative options:
Flexibility in partial filling conditions
To reinforce as much as possible the CCS strength regarding sloshing

without downgrading safety conditions for other functional loads
Various Boil Off Rate (BOR)
0.2% 0.1% BOR range
Both options are covered by LRs Approval.
R-PUF Foam Range of densities and thickness
from 130 to 210 kg/m3 and from 270 to 400 mm
Gaz Transport & Technigaz Mark III Flex for low boil off
MARK III FLEX
MARK III
Gaz Transport & Technigaz Mark III Flex
Schematic of typical prismatic type B tank arrangement
Tank
Tank dome
Dome
Walkway
Walkway
Swash Bulkhead
bulkhead
Swash
Insulation
Insulation
Inner Hull
hull
Inner
Centreline Bulkhead
bulkhead
Centreline
Insulation
Insulation
Walkway
Access Space
space
Access
Bearing Seat
seat
Bearing
Anti-roll chock
Anti-Roll
Chock
Comment on type B concept applied to prismatic tanks
Viability of prismatic tanks for liquefied gas can

be established based on service experience of
LPGC using low temperature carbon steel
Low temperature carbon steel is not suitable
for LNG temperatures, and aluminium is used
instead, but it requires special consideration to
ensure integrity, especially fatigue strength
Yield stress of aluminium is approximately half

that of low temperature steel
Fatigue strength of aluminium is less than half

that of low temperature steel
Steel
LT-FH27/32
Aluminium
5083-O
Yield stress
(N/mm2)
@ Room temp
235 / 325
125
Illustrative SN
class for plate
bending
FAT 100
FAT 40
Illustrative SN
FAT 50
class for stiffener
connections
FAT 18
0.2% proof stress
Considerations to reduce stress concentrations and construction quality such as

welding and alignment control are essential components of the design
A stringent quality control procedure to verify and record this during construction
is essential
Concept view of FSRU with SPB tanks
Source: SENER
Types of LNG regasification systems
Studies of different type of systems for FSRUs & SRVs with vaporizers of
different types:
Shell & Tube type system using Seawater, Steam & Glycol or
Intermediate media heated by steam or cascade system
Open rack vaporizer (ORV)
Submerged combustion vaporizer (SCV)
Type dependant on available space and type of gas supply required
SCV for ship applications, where space is limited.
Regasification systems may included; blending facilities, dew point

correction/dehumidification, odorizing as well as control and monitoring
functions (send out system).
Typical regasification
Two stage heating system
Capacity of one skid: 50-210 tons LNG per hour
Length, width, height: 11 x 4 x 8 meters
Operating pressure: 40 to 130 bara
Locked-in volume approximately 1 ton
Initial liquid inventory, varied from 0 to 100%
No insulation
Typical cascade vaporizer design using propane
Closed Propane loop

1st stage
Booster pump pressurize the
LNG before it is heated
against propane
(From -163C to -10C)
Typical cascade vaporizer design using propane
Closed Propane loop

2nd stage
Seawater used for final
vaporization
In cases with low seawater
temperature, steam to be
used
10
Typical regasification using cascade system
LNG capacity
ton/h
140
4 x 140
(one unit) (four units)
LNG flow
NG outlet pressure
LNG inlet temperature
NG outlet temperature
m /h
bara
C
C
300
81
-160
0
1200
81
-160
0
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
flow
liquid flow through pump
gas flow to PCHE
temperature liquid
temperature gas
ton/h
m3/h
m3/h
C
C
232
431
22 480
-10
0
930
1725
90 000
-10
0
Seawater flow, total

Seawater inlet/outlet temperature
m /h
C
3200
14 / 7
12 800
14 / 7
Power LNG pump

Power propane pump
Power seawater pump
Total Duty
kW
kW
kW
25
450
27,5
100
1800
110
LNG regasification systems safety aspects: Vapour return
Large quantity of boil off to be dealt with
Galveston receiving vessel was fitted with larger boiler to deal with vapour
(9000 m3 / hour)
To reduce boil off the receiving vessel has high pressure in cargo tanks. The
discharge ship has low pressure. Possible danger of off-spec gas (high pressure
and temperature)
Vapour return can limit the transfer rate to 1000 m3/hour @ 2 bar pressure
(normally 9 bar)
For a typical 135,000 m3 tanker 24 hours cargo transfer & 40 hours total
transfer operation time
11
LNG regasification systems safety aspects: ship to ship
Quick release coupling on receiver ship. May need to be prevented from

freezing by circulating oil around the valves
Hoses supported by a wire from manifold crane, or other arrangement, so

that, on breakaway, the hose will not drop in the sea or hit the ship side
Electrical and pneumatic ESD systems use
Pneumatic joined by plastic hose which breaks in an emergency
Programmable ESD may help
Emergency departure procedures including manoeuvrability
LRs involvement, rule requirements and approval

procedure
LR Published Guidance notes on regasification systems on 2004
LR carried out HAZID and HAZOP on First Regasification vessels for Excelerate
Energy
LR Concept Design Evaluation and Approval in Principle (AiP)
Initial HAZID on GA
HAZOP Regas and Offloading system FEED and AFC stages
FERA on Regas and STL system
Fire Protection System optimisation study
FMEA STL system
Reliability & Availability Study (regas / STL) and onboard maintenance

spares review
HAZOP ship-to-ship (STS) LNG transfer system and operations
HAZOP Gas High Pressure (HP) Arm export system design and operations
12
LRs involvement, rule requirements and approval procedure
LR Rules for Regasification vessels are available
Two Class Notations are available:
RGP Regasification Plant
RGP Plus Regasification Plant Plus Provides 100% redundancy on

the operational aspects
The Rules incorporate details of:
Submission of documentation and Plans
Safety Reliability and Analysis
System design
Materials, Piping and electrical Installation
Commissioning and Testing
FSRU safety and class certification New Build
What will be the benefits of Classing the new building under Lloyds
Register?
13
FSRU safety and class certification New Build
A FSRU is not only regasification

It is large LNG ship with regasification capability requiring to safely fulfil specific
operability requirements
Critical issues of FSRU design are directly related to classification integrity as

follows:
Proven Structural design with increased scantling to withstand 0.7 bar
Proven CCS particularly on Sloshing related issues
Experience engineering design for complex projects such as Prelude
Technical dedicate specialised surveyors coverage.
Class Notation Lloyds RGP
Risk Analysis today is an integral part of LR prescriptive Gas Ships Class rules
and revised IGC requirements.
Jose Navarro
Working together
for a safer world
14


- FSRU 1F?JJMU5?RCPMooring System
Ika Prasetyawan
Naval Architect Specialist
FSRU Shallow Water Mooring System

Ika Prasetyawan Naval Architect
12 December 2013
Working together
for a safer world
Key Points
Introduction
Classification of Station Keeping
Shallow Water Mooring
Design Consideration
Class Requirements
Lloyds Register FSRU Shallow Water Mooring System
Mooring System of a Floating Unit/FSRU
FSRUs and floating offshore units,

tethered with mooring lines to the
sea bed by anchors, will experience
forces and moments from combined
intensities of swell, wave, wind and
current.
For station keeping purpose, the

mooring system must have sufficient
restoring forces to balance such
loads to avoid excessive tension on
the line and unwanted excursion of
the unit (e.g. to prevent damage to
risers or offloading hoses).
Motion of Floating Units + Mooring System
Moored floating unit under pre-tension

forces Initial mean position
Moored floating unit under mean wave

drift forces
Acquiring new mean position
C;D
Moored floating unit under oscillating

forces
Moving (surging) w.r.t. new mean position
Mooring System of Floating Units
Spread Mooring
Single Point Mooring
Turret Mooring
CALM (Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring)
SALM (Single Anchor Leg Mooring)
Dynamic Positioning
Mooring System in Different Water Depth
Catenary system as spring

effect.
As the water depth get
shallower, the spring effect
is higher.
The spring effect = mooring
stiffness
..continued.
Comparison of mooring stiffness against various water depth.
Very Shallow Water Mooring (water depth < 50m)
The mooring system provides higher

stiffness which restraint the motion of
vessel
Shallow water causes large current

force and wave drift excitation force
at low frequency
The two above will lead to higher

mooring force
Need to find a system with good

compliant to shallow water effects
(drop the catenary system!?)
FSRU Fleet in the World
FSRU Golar Spirit, Brazil
Moored at existing
upgraded jetty
Receiving gas via loading

arms fixed on the jetty
FSRU Golar Freeze, Dubai
Moored at jetty & mooring

dolphin
Receiving gas via ship-to-ship

(STS) double banked. LNG
carrier utilizing transfer arms
from the FSRU
FSRU Toscana, Italy
Turret Mooring System.

Six anchor lines
Receiving gas via STS

double banked by LNG
carrier
Current FSRU in Indonesia
FSRU Nusantara Regas Satu,

Indonesia
Mooring dolphin & breasting

dolphin
Receiving gas STS double

banked by LNG carrier
Future FSRU in Indonesia
FSRU Lampung
20 km offshore, south east

Sumatra
23 m water depth
Soft Yoke Mooring System;

including swivel stack
Import gas via STS moored

LNG
General Arrangement of Soft Yoke System
Efficient / cost effective for very

shallow water depth
Vessel connected to tower system

through yoke arm with pitch and roll
joints
Weathervaning capability to adapt

with weather directionality
The yoke include ballast tank to

provide necessary restoring force,
providing more compliant system.
Sea Eagle FPSO - Nigeria
LR Rules Application for FSRU
LR Rules cover the following :
Hull and marine systems (mandatory)
Mooring systems (mandatory)
Process plant (optional)
Choice of two clear Classification paths to follow:

A) FSRU Permanently Moored at location
B) FSRU Disconectable at location
Floating Offshore Installation Rules (FOIFL

2013) apply :
Typical FSRU class notation;
OI 100 AT Floating Oil Storage
Installation for service at the Banyu Urip
Field, Offshore Indonesia LI, OIWS,
ShipRight FOI (SDA, FDA,CM)
Gas Ship Rules (2012) incorporating IGC apply:

Typical FSRU trading ship class notation:
100A1 Liquefied Gas Tanker, Ship Type 2G,
Methane (LNG) in Membrane Tanks, Maximum
SG 0.5, Maximum Vapour Pressure 0.7 bar,
Minimum Temperature Minus 163 deg. C, APBU,
ShipRight (SDA, FDA plus (40, ww), CM, ACS(B)),
*IWS, LI, ECO, Lloyds RGP
Summary - Key Aspects
Response of FSRU in shallow water dictates key element for selecting

its mooring system. Catenary system is somehow not favourable due
to higher stiffness.
Mooring and breasting dolphin system are suitable for most benign
waters with low environment directionality.
Alternatively for higher directionality, use soft yoke mooring tower

with weathervaning ability.
Design of FSRU typically require understanding of hydrodynamic

properties in shallow water. Unfortunately this is not a problem, to a
large extent, amenable to numerical solution. To address complex
environment model test validation may required.
Ika Prasetyawan
Naval Architect
Energy Compliance Service
T +603 2034 9060 E Ika.Prasetyawan@lr.org
Lloyds Register of Shipping (M) Bhd.
Suite 21-04, Level 21 Menara Tan & Tan, 207 Jalan Tun Razak
50400 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Working together
for a safer world


- FSRU's and Extended Dry-dock Periods
Jose Navarro
FSRUs and Extended Dry-dock Periods

12 December 2013
Working together
for a safer world
FSRUs In Service and Extended Dry Dock
What will be the benefits of maintaining Lloyds Register Class during in

service?
Lloyds Register FSRUs and Extended Dry-dock Periods
Docking Intervals
To achieve a 20+ years docking interval:

In water surveys equivalent to a docking are to be held every 2.5 years
The Investigation of 20 year (non) docking
Classification and Regulatory Framework
Class Notation change from Ship to Floating Offshore Installation (FOI) when
operation at site
Approval from Flag
IWS required every 2.5 years
Docking equivalent surveys are to be carried out
Docking Intervals
Up to 20 Years, as a moored storage tanker in-water surveys (IWS) may

take place, at 2.5 yearly intervals, up to 20 years, subject to satisfactory In
Water Survey results
Beyond 25 years, in-water surveys (IWS) may continue, and will be assessed
on a case-by-case basis, and depending on the results dry docking may be
required at 27.5 years.
30 Years and beyond. Irrespective of the result at 27.5 years, the moored
storage tanker will be required to dry dock at 30 years, and at every 10
years thereafter, subject to continuing to remaining in a satisfactory
condition.
Any transit voyage, from storage location to dry dock, can be added on as
regards allowable time, as long as the transit is a single voyage, unloaded.
Docking Intervals
FSRU Mode into LNGC Mode. If a change takes place from operations in
FSRU mode to LNGc mode, for either a single cargo or for trade over a
more prolonged period, the moored storage tanker reverts to being a
ship, and has to dry dock prior to trading as an LNGc.
Flag Matters - docking scenarios discussed with proposed Flags and they
are agreeable in principle subject to compliance with Classification
requirements as outlined.
Reference: Guidelines for Moored storage vessels that will be incorporated
into Lloyds Registers Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships in
2014 with a suitable Class notation.
The Challenges
Technical Challenges
Increase of corrosion margins for under water parts?
Increase of corrosion resistance by Increasing Coating specification and DFT?
Automatic Controlled impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) system
Valves generally below the waterline must be maintainable in all conditions

without dry docking and without operation interruption, by divers
assistance, (possible duplicated seachests and lines)
Solutions and LR Capabilities

Increase of corrosion resistance by Increasing Coating specification and DFT
Option 1:
Glass flake vinyl ester (GFPE) 2x500,

Total DFT1000
Option 2:
Jotacote Universal 2 x 200

Safeguard Plus 1 x 100
Sea Quantum Ultra SPL 2 x 150
Sea Quantum Static 1 x 150
Total DFT 950
Option 3:
Aluminum pigmented abrasion resistant pure epoxy 2 x 150

Epoxy tie coat 1 x 100
Tin free SPC A/F 1 x 100 or Fluoropolymer A/F DFT 350
Total DFT 750
Regas Plant Periodic surveys are to be carried out in order to maintain

Classification and Statutory certification
A Risk Based Inspection (RBI) and survey regime can be developed in

collaboration with Owner to reduce intervention as required by the current
periodic survey regimes
Challenge:
To maintain same level of compliance with minimum disruption to operations
FSRU Commissioning during normal in service operation
Cargo tanks
Entering into the tanks may not be required subject to:
No gas concentrations noted at the IBS
No requirements for maintenance cargo pumps and other equipment

inside cargo tank
Satisfactory results of the global tests required by GTT.
Can global test of the secondary barrier be carried out in cold condition?
GTT involved on the design of the survey RBI regime, together with Owner
and LR.

FSRU Cargo and IBS/IS safety valves:
Provisions should be made to maintain the safety valves without interrupting

operations. If so, the IGC Requirements are to be taken into consideration:
8.2.8. Stop valves or other means of blanking off pipes between tanks and pressure
relief valves to facilitate maintenance should not be fitted unless all the following
arrangements are provided:
.1. suitable arrangements to prevent more than one pressure relief valve being out of
service at the same time;
.2. a device which automatically and in a clearly visible way indicates which one of
the pressure relief valves is out of service; and
.3. pressure relief valve capacities such that if one valve is out of service the remaining
valves have the combined relieving capacity required by 8.5. However, this capacity
may be provided by the combined capacity of all valves, if a suitably maintained spare
valve is carried on board
Commissioning during normal in service operation
When needed cargo tanks entering:
A defined operational procedure will have to be developed
It is very important to define GCU Capacity and functional requirements
The FSRU shall be capable of purging / warming-up / gas freeing two

(2) cargo tanks by means of the GCU in lieu of venting at the jetty
and this within a reasonable time (of about 10 hours)
FSRU Hull structure Entering into WBT and other spaces
This can be either on a five year cycle, two and half years cycles or in
continuous bases.
For entering into the WBT during the time that the unit is gas up, there is a
risk of having hazardous atmosphere inside of the water ballast tanks.
A procedure shall be established line up with the normal operation of the

unit to permit safe entry into the spaces.
FSRU Machinery Equipment
What will be the operational policy for the unit?
Laid Up Plan and maintenance plan for:
Propulsion system, including shaft
Steering Gear and rudder system
Certain deck machinery equipment such as windlass
Bridge navigation equipment
Regas Plant
Maintenance of each Regas Unit shall be possible while any other Regas Units
are operating.
It must be possible to positively isolate any Regas train by a valved solution,
applying a set of two (2) Double Isolation & Bleed valves.
HP LNG Pumps rotating elements subject to higher failure/incident rate.
Regas Plant - Safety Systems
Gas Detection
Dry Powder
Spray System
ESD, PSD, Blowdown
N2 System
CO2 System
Traditionally commissioned during Dry Dock.
Commissioning during normal in service operation
Cargo tanks
Hull structure Entering into WBT and other spaces
Machinery Equipment
Re Gas Plant
Other statutory requirements
Lifeboats, Liferafts
In Conclusion:
RBI Regime based in best knowledge and experience
Specific LR Class Notation for Extended Dry Dock EDD
Jose Navarro
Working together
for a safer world
10

FLNG/FPSO Topside Structures and Interface with Hull

Bahram Amir
Lead Structural Specialist
FLNG/FPSO Topside Structures and Interface with Hull

Bahram Amir Lead Structural Specialist
12 December 2013
Working together
for a safer world
Introduction
It is the intention of this presentation to provide background knowledge and

understanding of the design considerations and processes involved in structural
design of Topside Modules on Floating Offshore installations such as FPSOs,
FSRUs, FSOs etc.
Information on Sub-Sea structures and their interface with FOI hull structure plus
Turret Structure and associated structures such as the Bogie support, Swivel stack
, Gantry and the Manifold platform which are classed as major primary structures
on FPSOs are not included in this course material and will be the addressed
separately.
Lloyds Register Gas As Fuel UPDATE
Familiarization with ship structure
Ships / tankers hull structure is normally built in

stiffened panels and to CLASS RULES (LR RULES).
The construction is made of series of one two or

three longitudinal bulkheads running the length
of the vessel
Usually about 16m apart with intermediate

longitudinal frames usually at 900mm centres. The
transverse bulkheads are placed at around 30m all
along the vessel with transverse frames at 900mm
centres.
List of key items
Familiarization with ship structure.

FPSOs and Different Types of Mooring systems.
General design Rules.
Loading conditions particular to Floating Offshore Installations.
Typical Layout
Topsides Module supports / interface with Hull structure.
Typical restraints for Module Supports
Vessel Motion induced forces on Topside structures.
Fatigue life assessment
Buckling check _ Module supports and Hull structure.
Structural Design Appraisal - Checklist for FOI topside structures.
FOIs and Different Types of Mooring Systems

3 different types of mooring system are used
FSRU and FPSO Different Types of Mooring Systems
Schematic of internal and external turret/swivel system are shown here, with
some sub sea interface
General Design Rules -1
Generally dimensions of a typical FPSO / FSRU vessel is around 260 to 340 m

long. Topside module weights range from a few hundred metric tonnes up to
6000+ mt, although the higher weights relate to FLNG topside facilities.
Topside module supports are generally located in line with the vessels
transverse frames and bulk heads. The main frames are generally around 6 m
apart with bulk heads around 30 m apart.
The aft and fore part of the vessel are normally heavily stiffened. The
accommodation module / Helideck are located close to the aft. Flare towers
are located towards the fore end of the vessel. The lighter modules are
usually placed towards the middle of the vessel, however, the layout of
topside modules is driven by the process requirements.
The above diagram shows the required process packages for full FLNG installation.
The pink and blue boxes (plus one or two of the yellow boxes, for example power
generation) represent minimum requirement for Liquefaction only. Total topside
weight for an average (say Peregrine / Vincent) VLCC conversion or new built of
similar size is around 40,000 t depending on facilities, and by comparison for
liquefaction alone we should consider 25 to 30,000 t.
Flare towers can be up to 120 m high. They have wind induced vortex issues.
Weights approx. 200 to 250 tonnes and is usually in the worst location for
accelerations due to vessel motions.
Accommodation modules for conversion vessel are usually classed items. For new
built it is considered under verification.
The main crane pedestals are usually integrated into the vessel at convenient
deck levels.
In general the shear is transferred through hull side shells and the bending
moments are transferred between top deck and bottom plates.
Pipe racks are generally fixed to vessel deck directly. The pipe rack do not
contribute to vessel hull stiffness as the are generally designed in small
modules with generous expansion ( relative movement) allowance, however,
pipe-racks are open to relatively higher fatigue damage.
The topside and local interface structural detailed design are normally to AISC
or agreed equivalent codes and standards.
Corrosion allowance is specified in LR and CSR (Common Structural Rules for

Double Hull Oil Tankers) Rules.
FLNG / FSRU Process System -1
The FSRU units would contain substantially less topsides facilities than FLNG
installation as depicted in the following sketch
FLNG / FSRU Process System -2
It should be possible to support this load on available topside deck area of VLCC with
single row configuration.
The hull structure should normally be separate from the LNG membrane tank
structure with isolation gap. This will provide ample space for local reinforcement if
required.
Loading Conditions Particular to Floating Offshore Installations -1
Operating loading considered in the design
Dead Loads, Live Loads
Environmental - Wind Loads

Environmental Return Period considered in the design
1 years for operating and Accidental
100 years for Storm, extreme conditions
10000 years for abnormal conditions
Vessel motion induced inertial load
Support miss alignment
Loads from green water
Loading Conditions Particular to Floating Offshore Installations -2
Accidental load cases include:
Blast
Hull Damage
Ship impact
Dropped objects
Acceptance Criteria Under Extreme or Accidental Load Case:- No operation

& No escalation of damage is assumed
Typical Layout
Topsides Modules Supports / Interface with Hull Structure - 1
A topside process module is shown here
This module weights around 4500 mt and is supported on four

points
Topsides Module Supports / Interface with Hull Structure - 2
Finite Element Representation of interface details
Typical Restraints for Modules Support Details

FEM representation of sliding pad
Vessel Motion Induced Forces on Topside Structure - 1
Usually roll, pitch and heave are governing the design
Normal operating condition for FPSO of 300m by 50m by 30m depth:-
Roll is 5 deg period is 12 sec
Pitch is 1.5 deg and period is 12 sec
Heave is 2 m period is 10 to 12 sec
These if converted to acceleration will be approximately Roll 0.2 m/s2 Pitch

0.06 m/s2 and Heave is 0.2 m/s2
Vessel Motion Induced Forces on Topside Structure -2
Generally transportation is the governing case, with typical acceleration of

Roll 0.65 g, Pitch 0.3 g and Heave is 0.2 g.
The change in period can have significant impact on acceleration. e.g. if the
period is changed from 12.0 sec to 10 sec the acceleration will be doubled
from 0.2 to 0.4m/s.
The ship acceleration at the centre of rotation should be translated to centre

of gravity of the topside module.
Reference can also be made to LR cargo fastening rules which includes

examples to show how normal accelerations are calculated.
Vessel Motion Induced Forces on Topside Structure -3
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS can be found in:Lloyds Register RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPS
July 2010. Cargo Securing Arrangements Part 3, Chapter 14, Sections 8 & 9
MOTION INDUCED ACCELERATIONS is based on vessel characteristics
10
Fatigue Life Assessment -1
Procedure:
Strength Analysis. [FEA]

- Fine mesh model to evaluate
maximum and minimum principal stresses.
Identify areas of concern [Member and / or connection detail]
Calculate Stress concentration factors (SCF) and adjust maximum stress's

accordingly
Apply appropriate Design Fatigue Factor (DFF)
Fatigue Life Assessment -2
Derive transfer function. Transfer function relates a motion state to a

stress level at a location
Combine with Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) and Use maximum

stress's and Weibull distribution to calculate fatigue life.
RAO gives relationship between unit loading (1 deg roll, 1 deg pitch etc)
and corresponding stresses for each wave direction.
11
Buckling Check Module Supports and Hull Structure -1
BUCKLING check on module support and vessel hull structure

directly in line with the module support
The FEM is sorted into PANEL sizes bound by stiffeners
Base model
geometry
Stress and deformation

punch file for Max fill
case
LR SDA
Free edge panel
buckling check
Panels within
20% of critical
buckling
LR Buckle final
panel buckling
check including
edge stiffener
details
Lloyds Register SDA Buckling
Buckling Check Module Supports and Hull Structure -2
All local and global loads are extracted from the FEA
Applicable buckling analysis based on projects work

instruction is applied
The results are tabulated with recommendations for

strengthening if necessary
12
Closing Statement
This intended aim of this presentation was to highlight the following to the
audience:a)
What is involved in designing a FOI, FSRU or FPSO
b)
How Lloyds Register can support your projects not only in terms of
providing Certification and Classification services but also providing full
technical support when needed.
Bahram Amir
Lead Structural Specialist
Energy Compliance Service
T +603 2034 9036 E Bahram.Amir@lr.org
Lloyds Register of Shipping (M) Bhd.
Suite 21-04, Level 21 Menara Tan & Tan, 207 Jalan Tun Razak
50400 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Working together
for a safer world
13

Gas as Fuel Update

Luis Benito
Global Strategic Marketing Manager
Gas As Fuel UPDATE

Luis Benito Global Strategic Marketing Manager
12 December 2013
Working together
for a safer world
SOx 2015 / 2020/25 are you ready?
Designated Emission Control Areas (ECA)

North Sea Baltic; North America
Game
changer?
Lloyds Register GAS as Fuel UPDATE
Agenda
Gas Fuelled Shipping:
A Safe Reality on the water
More Gas As a Fuel: Non-LNG Solutions
Some New Gas Fuelled Ships planned
Some Feasibility Studies and New Designs
Large Infrastructure Reality
Large Infrastructure Future
Gas Bunkering Standards and Operational Procedures Update
Agenda
A Safe Reality on the water
GAS FUELLED SHIPPING with LR A Safe Reality on the water

FIRST Gas Fuelled Oil Tanker - ARGONON

Gas Propulsion Type C Oil Tankers for SHELL

Dual Fuel Dry Cargo / Container Ship for Danser of Netherlands

VIKING GRACE FIRST LARGE Gas Fuelled Passenger Ferry
Agenda
More Gas As a Fuel: Non-LNG Solutions
MORE GAS AS a FUEL: NonLNG SOLUTIONS
LNG
ETHANE
LPG
Methanol
LPG as a marine fuel
Interesting and possible
LPG is by product of LNG production and also about 2% of Crude

productionso abundantand with some infrastructure already.
Currently about 15% cheaper than MGO.
Some Anthony Veder LPG ships now to run on LNG seems counter
intuitive
Probably suits specific niches
LPG as a marine fuel
Probably competes with Methanol as an alternative to LNG
Direct Injection into combustion chamber requires 500 bar pressures (as
compared to 300 bar for LNG)
Heavier than air
Needs pilot fuel or spark ignition.
Containment and associated systems potentially simpler (not cryogenic) and

lower cost.
Lloyds Register LPG as a marine fuel project
Joint Industry Project and

risk assessment workshop on
the use of LPG cargo as a
fuel with leading shipyard,
vessel owners and industrial
partners
Methanol / DME as a marine fuel
In a full scale pilot project, test the alternative non-oil-based fuels methanol and
DME(OBATE) in order to contribute to finding the best environmental and
economical alternative for a sustainable and successful maritime transport
industry
MR Tankers on Methanolfuelled order
BUNKERWORLD.COM
9th December 2014
Six new tankers are to be given engines that have the option
to use methanol as a marine fuel
The six 50,000 dwt ships on order will be equipped with MAN
ME-LGI flex fuel engines
Waterfront Shipping says the ships being built will be owned
by Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL), Marinvest/ Skagerrak Invest and
Westfal-Larsen & Co A/S. Waterfront Shipping will charter the
vessels to replace older ships in its fleet
Expected Benefits
Drawbacks
Methanol envisaged to be cost competitive

with regular marine fuels in the long run
due emissions regulations
Methanol is a toxic liquid requiring

safety handling considerations
compared to HFO/MGO
Single molecular structure (engine can be

much more tuned c/w distillates/RFO)
Inert systems required for fuel

tanks
Methanol contains zero sulphur
Reduction in NOX and PMs
2 X volume of MGO for same

equivalent energy output
No cryogenic risks associated with volume

expansion into gas compared to LNG
Not enough methanol to fuel

global fleet, as of today!

STENA Ro-Ro to be the FIRST Methanol-fuelled Ship in the water,
LR Class
Lloyds Register Rules for
Methanol Fuelled Ships Submission to Technical
Committees in 2014
First Methanol-fuelled Ferry Ship in Europe

it is hoped to enter into service in 2014
Ethane as a marine fuel
Lloyds Register Approval In Principle

(AiP) was provided for the
Forecast for US NGL and Ethane Output
MAN ME-LGI Engines
operating on LPG early in 2013; and,

most recently,
for operation on ETHANE as well
Source: MSI Marine Strategies International Ltd.
Agenda
Some New Gas Fuelled Ships planned
SOME NEW GAS FUELLED SHIPS PLANNED

Push Boat by Kooiman Yard for Veerhaven Thyssen Group
PUSH BOAT
L 40 m; B 18 m; D 2.8 m; T
1.6 m
4 x Wartsila 6LDF 1060 kW
95% LNG + 5% gasoil
150 m3 LNG tank + 80 m3 gasoil
Shipyard Kooiman, The

Netherlands
Owner Veerhaven Thyssen

Krupp
Delivery estimated 2014
10
SOME NEW GAS FUELLED SHIPS PLANNED

Gas Bunker Tanker by Veka / Deen of Netherlands
GAS BUNKER TANKER
3 x LNG tanks of 750m3 each
2 x Caterpillar Dual Fuel 500kW Engines
Delivery estimated 2015
SOME OTHER NEW GAS FUELLED SHIPS PLANNED
LNG-Fuelled Cargo / Small Container Ship
LNG-Fuelled / Electric Propulsion Type G Oil and Gas Bunkering Tanker
135 x 11.45 x 5.1 m, 4000 tons
2 x Dual Fuel LNG / HFO Type C Oil Tankers
1300 m3 LNG + 1200 m3 gas-oil
LNG-Fuelled / Electric Propulsion Dry Cargo Ship
2 x 40m3 LNG tanks; 2 x Engine Rooms; 4 x Gas Engines
110 x 11.45 x 5.2 m, 3200 tons
Dual fuel CNG / HFO Car / Passenger Ferry
1,750 passengers + 340 cars
11
Some New Gas Fuelled Ships Planned

STQ Ferries soon in the water, FIRST Gas Fuelled Ships in Canada
Societe des travesiers
STQ Ferries
Built at Chantier Davie
and FIincantieri to LR
Class
Agenda
Some Feasibility Studies and New Designs
12
Some Feasibility Studies - 2012

GREEN SHIP OF THE FUTURE PROJECT (2012) -- % at ECA
dependant
Some Feasibility Studies August 2012

Lloyds Register LNG-fuelled deep sea shipping bunkering study
High Case Scenario
Over 2,000 Deep Sea Gas Fuelled Ships by 2025
13
Some New Feasibility Studies WEST COAST CANADA forecast Gas

Fuelled Ships calling at their Ports: 150 Ships by 2025
Transport Canada, Lloyds Register and Partners Joint Industry Project Forecast
Short Sea and Deep Sea Shipping calling at West Canada
WEST COAST CANADA -- LNG adoption by vessel type Medium adoption rate
2015
2020
2025
Vessel Type
Fleet Quantity
LNG
Vessels
Annual LNG
consumption (MT)
LNG
Vessels
Annual LNG
consumption (MT)
LNG
Vessels
Annual LNG
consumption (MT)
Tankers
99
5,000
50,000
20
110,000
Bulk
829
69,000
73
213,000
Container
178
78,000
17
168,000
Cruise
27
135,000
330,000
General Cargo
20
1,000
Vehicle/ RoRo
4,000
4,000
0
Ferry
45
2,000
13
73,000
26
146,000
Tug
35
0.0
3,000
5,000
7,000
42
412,000
150
977,000
Total
Some New Approved Concept and Basic Designs
14
LRs Assessment of Risk Based Designs:
All Novel Technology possibilities considered

START
Stage 1
Stage 2
Scoping
Study
Conceptual
Design HAZID
Acceptance
criteria
satisfied
NO
Stage 3
Stage 4
Detailed
Study(s)
Detailed
Design HAZOP
END
YES
Stage 1 Scoping Study

Stage 2 Conceptual Design Hazard Identification Study (HAZID)
Stage 3 Detailed Study(s)
Stage 4 Detailed Design Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP)
Stages 1, 2 and 4
simple designs with few/minor safety implications
Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4
complex designs and/or significant safety implications
Project: 14000 teu ULCS Gas Fuelled Design (2011)

Main Objective: Approve the Concept Design In Principle
57 Recommendations made: main concerns were related to:
Hydrocarbons Leak/Rupture/Failure of LNG/NG Pipes/Flanges/Pump Seals and Tanks resulting in Fire and
Explosion etc
Ventilation Failure
External Fire
Cold Surface LNG Handling Equipment
Operational issues (HAZOP Issues)
Drop Objects
Collision by Other Vessel (Bunkering Vessel)
Wild Sea State (Green water, Sloshing etc)
Corrosion Sea water, Salty Air
Layout and others
Utility Failure or Shortage Hazards from Utility Shortage on Gas Fuelled System, Instrument air, Water, Hydraulic
Others
Design details under confidentiality agreement

15
Project: Bulk Carrier Gas Fuelled Design (2012)

Main Objective: Approve the Concept and Basic Design
LR, COSCO Yard and GOLDEN UNION
of Greece develop LNG-fuelled
Bulk Carrier Design
LR Approved Technology Solution
Project: MPV Gas Fuelled Design (2013)

Main Objective: Approve the Concept and Basic Design
LR and COSCO KHI (NACKS)
to develop LNG fuelled MPV
28,000 deadweight multipurpose vessel (MPV)* will
be designed to meet current
and future environmental
and efficiency targets
16
Agenda
Large Infrastructure Reality
Gas Fuelled Shipping Large Infrastructure Reality
ROTTERDAM PORT 2011

GATE Terminal = Gas Access To Europe
Three storage tanks 180,000 cbm each
Two jetties and gasification plants.
Throughput capacity of the terminal is 12 bn

cbm LNG / year
This can be expanded in the future to 16 bn

cbm LNG / year
17
Gas Fuelled Shipping Large Infrastructure Reality
SINGAPORE PORT 2013

SLNG Terminal
Singapore first LNG terminal operational 7th May

2013!
Three tanks, total capacity of 6Mtpa
Secondary jetty also for LPG
Tertiary jetty for gas bunkering (10k to 40k cbm

ships)
Oct 2012 Decision to build a fourth LNG tank and

reach up to 9Mtpa
Agenda
18

EU addressing the chicken and egg issue
The lack of sufficient infrastructure network (bunkering facilities along

shipping routes) is considered as the main obstacle to the development and
use of LNG as marine fuel. An EU co-financed study as well as the impact
assessment which accompanies the legislative proposal on the deployment of
alternative fuels infrastructure conclude on the need to quickly establish a
minimal infrastructure for LNG bunkering in order to kick-start the
development, increase demand by ships and further decrease prices for
technology and LNG fuel

19

Large Infrastructure Future - COMMON MINIMUM STANDARDS
To avoid competition between ports on higher safety and environmental

protection requirements while bunkering, a common minimum standard is
necessary. Such a standard should also facilitate LNG fuelled vessels to bunker
in different ports without having to face different bunkering operations and
requirements in different ports.
a specific EU LNG bunkering standard may seem useful to safeguard a level
playing field
20
International regulatory initiatives addressing outstanding gaps related to the

use of LNG as an alternative shipping fuel, notably :
IMO (development of the IGF Code) (LR involved)
ISO (development of Technical Specifications for LNG bunkering), (LR involved)
IAPH (International Association of Ports and Harbours development of bunkering
checklists), (LR involved)
outcomes of various TEN-T co-financed projects on LNG (the EU has so far cofinanced over 20M to LNG related TEN-T projects).
The harmonization of Canadian

regulations with international
standards has been identified in
the Government of Canadas
Cabinet Directive on Regulatory
Management as a key approach
to establishing an effective and
appropriate regulatory
framework
Three Infrastructure phases:

Phase 1: West Coast Canada
Phase 2: Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Phase 3: East Coast Canada
21
Indonesia gains support for the adoption of LNG as marine fuel

Singapore News Desk, 11th December 2013 04:45 GMT
The government has welcomed plans by energy giant Royal Dutch Shell to conduct retrofitting
works on Indonesian ships to run on LNG, according to local news provider Jakarta Globe.
To convert diesel into gas for thousands of ships will really help Indonesia," Energy and Mineral
Resources Minister Jero Wacik, was quoted
The country is looking to develop renewable energy technologies to reduce its dependency on
imported fuel.
Large Infrastructure Future & COMMON MINIMUM STANDARDS
Creating Safety Standards and Operational

Procedures for Gas Bunkering at Ports
Lloyds Register working with MPA Singapore and
three International bodies, looking at harmonisation
of Standards with:
IMO (IGF), ISO (TC) and IAPH
22
Agenda
Gas Bunkering Standards and Operational Procedures Update
Gas Bunkering Standards and Operational Procedures

Risk-Assessing todays Challenges in LNG Bunkering
Risks that needs Assessing:
Vessels
Location
Personnel
Equipment
Environment
Emergency Planning
Regulations
GOAL:
Create Standards that address the entire gas bunkering
supply chain needs
23
Gas Bunkering Standards and Operational Procedures

Todays Challenges in LNG Bunkering, addressed by LR
STANDARDS Challenge
Incomplete Safety Standards for Gas Bunkering /

Gaps
Lack of Awareness and Training of all Personnel

involved
PROCEDURES Challenge
Lack of standard safety for LNG Bunkering

Operational Procedures
No Quality and Quantity Procedures for LNG as

shipping fuel
Other COMMERCIAL VIABILITY Challenges

Lloyds Registers
Standards and Operational Procedures for Safe GAS BUNKERING
Lloyds Register working in 5 Critical Areas with
Clients:
New Gas Bunkering Standards
New Gas Bunkering Operational Procedures
Technical Solutions for Bunkering Equipment

(Transfer and Off-loading) at Port
Safety and Compatibility of Gas Bunkering Ships

and Gas Receiving Ships
Safety at Exclusion Zones anywhere Gas Bunkering

is performed
Emergency Procedures at Bunkering Location / Port
Competency Standards for Personnel
24
Other COMMERCIAL VIABILITY Challenges for Port Authorities
In order to ensure commercial viability, Port Authorities and Gas Suppliers

may need to consider other issues, like:
Have an Accreditation Procedure and Standard to the Gas Supplier
Different Ship Types required different Bunkering location
Different Bunkering location requires a variety of Bunkering solutions

and flexibility on Bunker Tanker (connections, freeboard, mooring,)
Time to bunker gas cannot exceed time to bunker fuel oil
Custody Transfer System for when there is vapour return (bigger ships
/ ships without C-Type Bunker Tanks, other solutions,)
Land Regulations may apply to some bunkering locations
Too prescriptive requirements from Port Authorities / Land

Authorities may constraint gas fuelled ships traffic into Port
Todays Challenges in LNG Bunkering solved by Lloyds Register
25
SAFETY of GAS AS MARINE FUEL
Luis Benito
Global Strategic Marketing Manager
Business Development and Innovation
T +65 6891 7328 E luis.benito@lr.org
Lloyds Register
460 Alexandra Road, #28-01, PSA Building, Singapore 119963
Working together
for a safer world
26

Feedback and keep in touch

Thank you for attending this workshop. We hope you found it interesting and informative.
1. If you have any feedback for the workshop, please contact our speakers or
Ms Carmen Chia
Lloyd's Register Asia
T: +603 2034 9012
E: carmen.chia@lr.org
2. For further information about Lloyd's Register Marine Business in South Asia, please contact
Mr N. Irfani Fahmi
Lloyd's Register Asia
T: +62 (0) 21 576 0968
M: +62 (0) 812 101 3193
E: irfani.fahmi@lr.org

Indonesia GAS-FSRU and Small LNG Seminar by Lloyd&#39 S Register-December 13 - Handout

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indonesia GAS-FSRU and Small LNG Seminar by Lloyd&#39 S Register-December 13 - Handout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indonesia GAS: FSRU and Small LNG Seminar

Indonesia GAS: FSRU and Small LNG Seminar

Welcome - Safety and Opening Remarks

I. Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

II. FSRU's Technology and Operations - Critical Issues

III. FSRU Safety and Class Certification

IV. FLNG / FPSO Topside Structure and Interface with Hull

V. Gas as Fuel Update

Lloyd's Register Seminar

Indonesia GAS: FSRU and Small LNG Seminar

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Lloyd's Register Seminar

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Lloyds Register Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Lloyds Register Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

International Gas Code and Classification Notations

Mini LNG Ships - Existing fleet and New Designs

Mini LNG Supply Chain - Challenges and LR Solutions

Lloyds Register Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

International Gas Code

General Arrangements requirements

Double Hull Structure

Coastal waters LNG Ships

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Lloyds Register - Classification Notations

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

|100A1 Liquefied Gas Tanker, Ship Type 2G

|100A1 Liquefied Gas Carrier, Ship Type 2G

Methane (LNG) in Membrane Tanks,

Methane in Independent Tanks Type C,

Maximum Vapour Pressure 0.25 Bar,

Maximum Vapour Pressure 18.0 bar,

ShipRight (SDA, ACS), *IWS, LI, ECO

ShipRight (SDA, ACS) *IWS, LI, ECO

|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS

|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS

|Lloyds Register RMC(LG)

|Lloyds Register RMC(LG)

ShipRight (FDA plus, CM, BWMP(S), IHM,

ShipRight (FDA plus, CM, BWMP(S), IHM,

Lloyds Register Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Lloyds Register - Classification Notations

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

|100A1 Liquefied Gas Tanker, Ship Type 2G

|100A1 Liquefied Gas Carrier, Ship Type 2G

Methane (LNG) in Membrane Tanks,

Methane in Independent Tanks Type C,

ShipRight (SDA, ACS) *IWS, LI, ECO

|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS

|LMC, UMS, NAV1-IBS

|Lloyds Register RMC(LG)

|Lloyds Register RMC(LG)

ShipRight (FDA plus, CM, BWMP(S), IHM,

ShipRight (FDA plus, CM, BWMP(S), IHM,

Lloyds Register Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Lloyds Register - Classification Notations

Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker