Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The paper highlights some considerations for the marine operations associated with on- and offshore LNG terminals.
Some principal concerns are voiced on the terminal layouts currently proposed and a case is built for Single Point Mooring
(SPM) systems for ‘ship to shore’ transfer of LNG in combination with subsea cryogenic pipelines. Such a system allows
for a large separation between the LNG carrier, the storage tanks and the re-gas facilities. An SPM system is described
that can accommodate non dedicated LNG carriers. It addresses the conceptual design and analysis work done and
describes the model basin tests performed for an offshore LNG import terminal for the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, the
operational aspects, in specific the berthing and unloading of an LNG Carrier offshore to an SPM system are addressed.
Furthermore, the paper describes the design construction and installation of the subsea cryogenic pipelines.
© Gastech 2005
Introduction
The US is currently by far the world’s largest gas market. Of the current supply 85% is produced within the US, and 15%
is imported; 98% from Canada and only 2% in the form of LNG. Whereas US demand is expected to grow with 2% per
annum, the current U.S. gas production shows an increasing intrinsic decline rate and more undiscovered gas reserves
are needed each year to keep up with demand. E&P operations in new frontier areas (e.g. the Alaskan North slope) are
unlikely to be allowed in the near future and gradually the realization is dawning that only large scale LNG imports can
meet the expected demand and stabilize the price of natural gas. In its annual outlook for 2004 the US Energy
Information Administration predicts that LNG imports will grow from a modest 0.2 Tcf in 2002 to 4.8 Tcf or 15% of
expected total supply by 2025 [1].
Most of the current LNG projects are developed by the large integrated oil companies that control the chain from
the reservoir to market delivery. Comparing the investment in an LNG project to a ‘traditional’ oil development, the most
striking difference is the capital required: an LNG project is nearly an order of magnitude more expensive. At the Zeus
conference on non traditional LNG receiving terminals[2], a build up was given on the LNG supply chain costs which
indicated that the receiving terminals only represent ~ 10% of the total investment. Even a substantial cost reduction in
the import terminal will only have a marginal effect on the overall project economics and thus the project developers
have been conservative in the selection of their terminal concepts as not to put the total project at risk.
Marine Operations
In order to maintain a maximum send-out of 2.5 Bcfd, up to five LNG carriers per week need to be discharged; this incurs
24 hour operation. Although the terminal is located offshore, navigation to the site will not be unrestricted because of the
large number of Oil & Gas installations in the area, see figure 9. Considering that three more LNG terminals have been
announced in the same region, a high number of LNG related marine operations is expected which, in combination with
the existing Oil & Gas operations, will need some sort of overall coordination and planning, for instance in the form of a
vessel traffic management system. Ship arrivals at the terminal can be normally planned within hours; however an
anchorage area close by is planned to cater for any shipping disruptions, e.g. after a hurricane. An aside observation is
that even though all currently planned LNG import terminals are ‘project based’, terminals that are able to handle ‘cargos
of opportunity’ will have a significant operational advantage, e.g. by accommodating an incoming vessel destined for a
nearby terminal that is temporarily out of operation.
LNG carriers are foreseen to navigate via the existing Safety Fairways to Sabine Pass to a latitude of 28o 50’ N
from where they would take an easterly course, into the prevailing weather, towards the Vermilion 179 terminal, some 35
NM distant. Along this leg 1 or 2 escort tugs will connect, depending on the handling characteristics of the LNG carrier. At
the terminal site the tug(s) will deploy to ‘fully tethered’ mode to control the maneuvering in close quarters and the
carrier will continue dead slow to the SPM. A messenger line will be transferred from the carrier and connected to the
pick-up rope which in turn is connected to the mooring hawser assembly, see figure 10. The LNG carrier will winch itself
in and secure the hawser chafe chain in its bowstopper, in line with standard oil tanker procedures. The forward tug, if
present, will now disconnect. The aft tug will remain tethered at the stern throughout the duration of the discharge
operation. This primarily as back-up in case the propulsion of the LNG carrier fails, but also to ‘tension up’ the system and
make it more stable in very light environments, or to provide heading control for roll mitigation. Once the operation is
complete, the LNG carrier will disconnect and the stern tug will pull it away. When sufficiently clear the LNG carrier will
continue its voyage under its own power in a westerly direction back towards the safety fairway.
Conclusion
Offshore LNG receiving terminals can be an economic, safe and secure alternative to land based ones, provided that the
experience gained in ~ 40 years of offshore oil terminal operation and design is respected. Mitigation of technology risk,
by qualifying only proven onshore equipment and configurations, will have an adverse effect and in fact incur operability
and safety risks.
Terminals offshore, located far from populated areas and congested ports will heighten community acceptance
and reduce security concerns. The use of salt caverns can result in an LNG import terminal that compared to a cryogenic
tank based terminal is more secure, less expensive to build and operate, and can have both higher storage capacity and
higher take away capacity.
The conceptual design studies, the analytical analysis and the model basin tests confirm feasibility of ‘Big Sweep’
concept. The conceptual design studies, the analytical analysis and the preliminary flowline LNG tests confirm the
feasibility of the subsea cryogenic pipeline concept.
Acknowledgements
Grateful acknowledgement is given to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory for
commissioning the cooperative research agreement under which this work was done, and the funding industry partners
herein. Moreover the authors want to thank Conversion Gas Imports L.P. for their contract for the conceptual design of
the ‘Vermilion 179’ terminal, and to thank AGL Resources for their use of the Cherokee plant facilities for the site of the
tests conducted with respect to this program. Additionally, special thanks are given to Floatec Deepwater Services for
their assistance in the development of the non-metallic spacers and bulkheads for the cryogenic pipeline, to Aspen
Aerogels, Inc. for their development of their high efficiency insulation and to Astro Technology, Inc. for their development
and grateful assistance with the fiber-optic monitoring system for the cryogenic pipeline. Last but not least, our gratitude
goes to our colleagues at Bluewater Energy Services and Fluor Corporation for their contributions and constructive
comments while writing this paper.
Internal cryogenic
product pipe for LNG /
vapor / LPG service. Concrete weight
coating if required
• ASTM 333 Grade 8,
9% Nickel Steel External casing pipe Carbon
Steel with FBE corrosion
coating.
Note: Inner and outer pipe
connected with non-metallic or
metallic bulkheads.
Pipe-in-pipe joint
Prefab
transition
Prefab Split sleeve
Pipe-in-pipe joint transition
External insulation
at joint, if required
Pipe-in-pipe joint
Pipe-in-pipe joint
External insulation
at joint, if required