Indonesia+GAS-FSRU+and+Small+LNG+Seminar+by+Lloyd's+Register-December+13+-+Handout (1)

Working together for a safer world

Lloyd’s Register and variants of it are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Copyright © Lloyd's Register Asia. 2013. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group.

Indonesia GAS: FSRU and Small LNG Seminar

Presentation pack

Hotel Borobudur Jakarta, 12 December 2013

Indonesia GAS: FSRU and Small LNG Seminar Hotel Borobudur Jakarta, 12 December 2013

Lloyd's Register Seminar

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



Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker

Jose Navarro

Principal Gas Technology Specialist

1

Working togetherfor a safer world


Jose Navarro – Principal Gas Technology Specialist

12 December 2013

Lloyd’s Register – Mini LNG and Gas Bunker Tanker


2





Topics:

• International Gas Code and Classification Notations

• Mini LNG Ships - Existing fleet and New Designs

• Mini LNG Supply Chain - Challenges and LR Solutions

3



• 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.



Lloyd’s Register - Classification Notations

Conventional and Large LNG Vessel 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, Minimum Temperature minus 163 degrees C,

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

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

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

|Lloyd’s Register RMC(LG) |Lloyd’s Register RMC(LG)

Descriptive Notations: Descriptive Notations:

ShipRight (FDA plus, CM, BWMP(S), IHM,SERS, SCM), GF


4







Maximum Vapour Pressure 0.25 Bar, Minimum Temperature minus 163 degrees C,

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













Maximum Vapour Pressure 0.25 Bar,

Minimum Temperature minus 163 degrees C,

Maximum Vapour Pressure 18.0 bar,

Minimum Temperature minus 163 degrees C,







5


Mini – Small Existing LNG Fleet

LR/IMO_Ship_No. Name_of_Ship Gas_Capacity Length

Breadth_Moulded Depth

Total_KW_Main_Eng Shipbuilder Group_Owner Built Country_of_Build

9275074 PIONEER KNUTSEN 1078 68.87 11.8 5.5 3080 Bijlsma Shipyard BV Knutsen OAS Shipping AS 2004-03 Netherlands

9317200 NORTH PIONEER 2512 89.23 15.3 7.2 2206 Shin Kurushima Imabari Unknown 2005-11 Japan

9433884 SHINJU MARU NO. 2 2536 86.29 15.1 7 1912 Higaki Chuo Kaiun KK 2008-10 Japan

9469235 KAKUREI MARU 2536 86.29 15.1 7 2059 Higaki Tsurumi Sunmarine Co Ltd 2008-11 Japan

9260603 SHINJU MARU NO. 1 2538 86.25 15.1 7 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

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 Taizhou Wuzhou Shipbuilding Skaugen SE 2010-07 China, People's Republic Of

9378292 NORGAS INVENTION 10000 137.1 19.8 11.5 7000 Taizhou Wuzhou Shipbuilding Skaugen SE 2011-01 China, People's Republic Of

9378307 NORGAS CONCEPTION 10000 137.1 19.8 11.5 7000 Taizhou Wuzhou Shipbuilding Skaugen SE 2011-11 China, People's Republic Of

9468437 NORGAS UNIKUM 12000 152.16 19.8 11.5 8280 Dingheng Jiangsu Shipbuilding Teekay Corp 2011-06 China, People's Republic Of

9468449 BAHRAIN VISION 12000 152.3 19.8 11.5 8280 Dingheng Jiangsu Shipbuilding Teekay Corp 2011-10 China, People's Republic Of

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

9060534 SURYA AKI 19538 151 28 16 8827 Kawasaki HI - Sakaide earl Humpuss Trans Inc 1996-02 Japan

10,000 CBM – Design by Hyundai Mipo Dockyard

PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS CARGO TANK MAIN ENGINE 6S35ME-B9.2 (TIER II)

LOA ABT. 139 M CAPACITY(100% FULL) 10,000 M³ NOMINAL RATING 5,220 kW X 167.0 RPM

LBP 130.0 M DESIGN -163℃, 500kg/m3, 4.2 bar g DMCR 4,520 kW X 156.0 RPM

B(mld.) 20.2 M SEGREGATION - NCR 4,068 kW X 150.6 RPM

D(mld.) 11.8 M DECK TANK - DIESEL GENERATOR 850 kW x 2 SETS

Td/Ts 6.6 / 7.0 M SERVICE SPEED 15.0 KNOTS

CARGO SYSTEM D.F.O.C. / EEDI 16.7 MT/DAY / -4.45%

DEADWEIGHTCARGO PUMP

500 m3/h X 2 SETS CRUISING RANGE

9,300 N.M.

at Td/Ts7,200 / 8,200 MT RELIQUEFACTION

PLANT- COMPLEMENT 18+4 PERSONS

Principal Particulars – Small LNG Carrier

6

15,000 CBM – Design by Hyundai Mipo Dockyard

PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS CARGO TANK MAIN ENGINE 6S40ME-B9.2 (TIER II)

LOA ABT. 154 M CAPACITY(100% FULL) 15,000 M³ NOMINAL RATING 6,810 kW X 146.0 RPM

LBP 144.0 M DESIGN -163℃, 500kg/m3, 4.2 bar g MCR 5,370 kW X 142.0 RPM

B(mld.) 23.0 M SEGREGATION - NCR 4,833 kW X 137.1 RPM

D(mld.) 15.1 M DECK TANK - DIESEL GENERATOR 1,000 kW x 2 SETS

Td/Ts 7.0 / 7.4 M SERVICE SPEED 15.5 KNOTS

CARGO SYSTEM D.F.O.C. / EEDI 19.5 MT/DAY / -5.35%

DEADWEIGHTCARGO PUMP

270 m3/h X 6 SETS CRUISING RANGE

11,500 N.M.

at Td/Ts9,300 / 10,400 MT RELIQUEFACTION

PLANT- COMPLEMENT 18+4 PERSONS




6,000 CBM – Design by Kawasaki – Aluminum LNG tanks

7



6,000 CBM – Design by Kawasaki – Aluminum LNG tanks



5,000 CBM – Design by STX

8



7,500 CBM – Design by STX



Design by AVIC Dingheng

9



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

10


Mini LNG Supply Chain Challenges

Pre DesignUncertainty 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

11


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 of Design Pressure Increase limitations for transfer

• Increase of Design Pressure 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.

12



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

• Electric load will be higher than conventional HFO Bunker Tankers

• Machinery arrangements for Gas Valves, GCU, Inerting System (CO2, N2)

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

13



SMALL LNG Vessel

LNG Cargo tank (-163°C, P1 Tank)

Unloading Terminal LNG Tank

Ship LNG Bunker Tank

(-163°C, P2 Tank)

Loading Terminal

(-163°C, P3 Tank)Ship Propulsion Engines

Re-Liquefaction Plant

BOG Compressor

Vaporiser

Gas Combustion UnitBOG Management



• During Normal Sea Going

• Using Gas as fuel

• Re-liquefaction, as required.

• During anchoring or idle condition

• Using pressure increase limited by maximum allowable working

pressure.

• Pressure on Type C tanks may “collapse” by spraying cold LNG prior

to transfer.

BOG Management

14



During Transfer – Mini LNG takes role as “Loading Terminal”

• 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/h2 x 3.2 Tons/h 3 x 2.2 Tons/h

BOG Management



During Transfer, Normal Sea Going or In Idle condition

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.

BOG Management

15



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

16



• 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

17


• Main Specific Gaps:

• Lack of Complete Competency

Standards for Gas Bunkering for

• Bunker Tankers Crew

• Receiving Ships Crew

• Bunker Terminals Personnel

• Lack of Standards for Gas

Bunkering Suppliers and its

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

Making People Aware and Competent


Systematic Approach: Competence Standards Cat A: Basic Safety; Cat B: Deck Officers & Ratings; Cat C: Engineer Officers & Ratings

Each “Specific Competence Requirement” to be developed into “Performance Criterion”

In accordance with: Areas of Competence Specific Competence

48

Training Manual / MaterialPerformance Criterion

Specific Competence

Each “Area of Competence” translated into “Specific Competence Requirements”

Technology Operational ProceduresRegulationsIncidents / Risk

Areas of Competence

18


Mini LNG Supply Chain Solutions

Pre DesignLR 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

Lloyd’s Register and variants of it are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates.

Copyright © Lloyd’s Register Asia. 2013. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group.

Jose NavarroPrincipal Gas Technology Specialist

T +82 (0)51 640 5079 E [email protected]

Lloyd’s Register Asia11th Floor, CJ Korea Express Bldg, 119, Daegyo-ro, Jung-GuBusan 600-700, Republic of Korea




FSRU's Technology and Operations - Critical Issues

Thanos Koliopulos

Global Special Projects Manager

1


FSRU’s Technology and Operations – Critical Issues

Thanos Koliopulos – Global Special Projects Manager

12 December 2013

Lloyd’s Register – FSRU’s Technology and Operations – Critical Issues

Contents

• World Firsts

• Evolution of FSRU Design & Operations

• Real Case Projects – Critical Issues

• Overview

2


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 World’s 1st FLNG Terminal

REG

AS E

VO

LU

TIO

N


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

3


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.

4


Regas Jetty Terminal – Assessment of HP NG Export

• HAZID Optimise lay-out for new Regasmanifold 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

5


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

6


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

7


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

8


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

9


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

10


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

11

Lloyd’s Register – FLNG / FPSO Topside Structure and Interface with Hull

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

ANY QUESTIONS ?


Copyright © Lloyd’s Register EMEA. 2013. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group.

Thanos KoliopulosGlobal Special Projects Manager


Lloyd’s Register EMEA71 Fenchurch Street, London EC3M 4BS




FSRU Safety and Class Certification

- Structural and containment systems - New Build

Jose Navarro


1


FSRU safety and class certification

Structural and containment systems – New Build


12 December 2013

Lloyd’s Register – Structural and containment systems – New Build

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

2


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

3


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

Lloyd’s 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

4


Outline description of containment systems for Large FSRU –

Comparing Moss, Membrane & SPB Tanks

Moss

Less chance of damage by

mis-operation

Primary barrier fully gas-

tight

Visible secondary barrier

No barred fill ranges

Easier access for repair

Expensive build facilities at

shipyard

Membrane

cool-down rate limit

Better visibility from

bridge

Ships are smaller

Flat deck area

Design company

available for in-service

advice

Integrity of

containment system

depends on sub-

contractors quality

SPB

Same as Moss, plus…

Good visibility from

bridge

Flat deck area

In-service experience

limited to two smaller

aluminium tank ships

Higher CAPEX


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

5


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

6


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 LR’s 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

7


Gaz Transport & Technigaz – Mark III Flex


Schematic of typical prismatic type B tank arrangement

Centreline bulkhead

Insulation

Walkway

Anti-roll chock

Bearing seat

Access space

Inner hull

Insulation

Swash bulkhead

Walkway

Tank dome

Centreline Bulkhead

Insulation

Anti-Roll Chock

Bearing Seat

Access Space

Inner Hull

Insulation

Swash Bulkhead

Walkway

Tank Dome

8


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

Aluminium5083-O

Yield stress

(N/mm2)

@ Room temp

235 / 325 125†

Illustrative SN

class for plate

bending

FAT 100 FAT 40

Illustrative SN

class for stiffener

connections

FAT 50 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

9


Types of LNG regasification systems

Studies of different type of systems for FSRU’s & SRV’s 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

10


Typical cascade vaporizer design using propane

1st stage Booster pump pressurize the

LNG before it is heated against propane

(From -163°C to -10°C)

Closed Propane loop


2nd stage

Seawater used for final vaporization

In cases with low seawater temperature, steam to be

used

Typical cascade vaporizer design using propane

Closed Propane loop

11


Typical regasification using cascade system

LNG capacity ton/h 140 (one unit)

4 x 140 (four units)

LNG flow m3/h 300 1200 NG outlet pressure bara 81 81 LNG inlet temperature °C -160 -160 NG outlet temperature °C 0 0

Propane flow ton/h 232 930 Propane liquid flow through pump m3/h 431 1725 Propane gas flow to PCHE m3/h 22 480 90 000 Propane temperature liquid °C -10 -10 Propane temperature gas °C 0 0

Seawater flow, total m3/h 3200 12 800 Seawater inlet/outlet temperature °C 14 / 7 14 / 7

Power LNG pump kW - - Power propane pump kW 25 100 Power seawater pump kW 450 1800 Total Duty 27,5 110


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

12


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


LR’s 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

13


LR’s 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 Lloyd’s Register?

14


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 Lloyd’s RGP

Risk Analysis today is an integral part of LR prescriptive Gas Ships Class rules and revised IGC requirements.










- FSRU Nc\ggjr R\o`m Mooring System

Ika Prasetyawan

Naval Architect Specialist

1


FSRU Shallow Water Mooring System

Ika Prasetyawan – Naval Architect

12 December 2013

Lloyd’s Register – FSRU Shallow Water Mooring System

Key Points

• Introduction

• Classification of Station Keeping

• Shallow Water Mooring

• Design Consideration

• Class Requirements

2


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

A Moored floating unit under pre-tension forces Initial mean position

B 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

3


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

4


…..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!?)

5


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

6



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

7


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.

8


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

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)

B) FSRU Disconectable at location

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, Lloyd’s RGP

9


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 PrasetyawanNaval ArchitectEnergy Compliance ServiceT +603 2034 9060 E [email protected]

Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (M) Bhd.Suite 21-04, Level 21 Menara Tan & Tan, 207 Jalan Tun Razak50400 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia





- FSRU's and Extended Dry-dock Periods

Jose Navarro


1


FSRU’s and Extended Dry-dock Periods


12 December 2013

Lloyd’s Register – FSRU’s and Extended Dry-dock Periods

FSRU’s In Service and Extended Dry Dock

• What will be the benefits of maintaining Lloyd’s Register Class during in service?

2


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

3


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.

4


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

5



• 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.

6



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)

7



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

8



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.

9



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”

10









FLNG/FPSO Topside Structures and Interface with Hull

Bahram Amir

Lead Structural Specialist

1


FLNG/FPSO Topside Structures and Interface with Hull

Bahram Amir – Lead Structural Specialist

12 December 2013

Lloyd’s Register – Gas As Fuel UPDATE

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.

2


Familiarization with ship structure

• Ship’s / tanker’s 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.

3


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

4


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 vessel’s 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.

5



• 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

6


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

7


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

8


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

9


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

10


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/s².

• 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:-

“Lloyd’s 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

11


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.

12


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

LR SDAFree edge panel buckling check

LR Buckle final panel buckling check including edge stiffener details

Stress and deformation punch file for Max’ fill case

Panels within 20% of critical buckling

Lloyd’s Register SDA Buckling


• All local and global loads are extracted from the FEA

• Applicable buckling analysis based on project’s work instruction is applied

• The results are tabulated with recommendations for strengthening – if necessary

Buckling Check – Module Supports and Hull Structure -2

13


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 Lloyd’s Register can support your projects not only in terms of providing Certification and Classification services but also providing full technical support when needed.



Bahram AmirLead Structural SpecialistEnergy Compliance ServiceT +603 2034 9036 E [email protected]

Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (M) Bhd.Suite 21-04, Level 21 Menara Tan & Tan, 207 Jalan Tun Razak50400 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia




Gas as Fuel Update

Luis Benito

Global Strategic Marketing Manager

1


Gas As Fuel UPDATE

Luis Benito – Global Strategic Marketing Manager

12 December 2013

Lloyd’s Register – GAS as Fuel UPDATE

SOx 2015 / 2020/25 are you ready?

Designated Emission Control Areas (ECA)

North Sea Baltic; North America Game

changer?

2


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

3


GAS FUELLED SHIPPING with LR – A Safe Reality on the water

FIRST Gas Fuelled Oil Tanker - ARGONON


GAS FUELLED SHIPPING with LR – A Safe Reality on the waterGas Propulsion Type C Oil Tankers for SHELL

4


GAS FUELLED SHIPPING with LR – A Safe Reality on the water

Dual Fuel Dry Cargo / Container Ship for Danser of Netherlands


GAS FUELLED SHIPPING with LR – A Safe Reality on the waterVIKING GRACE – FIRST LARGE Gas Fuelled Passenger Ferry

5


Agenda


• More Gas As a Fuel: Non-LNG Solutions


MORE GAS AS a FUEL: Non–LNG SOLUTIONS

LNG

LPG

Methanol

ETHANE

6


LPG as a marine fuel

• Interesting and possible

• LPG is by product of LNG production and also about 2% of Crude production…so abundant…and 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.

7


Lloyd’s 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

8


MR Tankers on Methanol–fuelled 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”


Methanol / DME as a marine fuel

Expected Benefits

• Methanol envisaged to be cost competitive with regular marine fuels in the long run due emissions regulations

• Single molecular structure (engine can be much more tuned c/w distillates/RFO)

• Methanol contains zero sulphur

• Reduction in NOX and PM’s

• No cryogenic risks associated with volume

expansion into gas compared to LNG

Drawbacks

• Methanol is a toxic liquid requiring safety handling considerations compared to HFO/MGO

• Inert systems required for fuel tanks

• 2 X volume of MGO for same

equivalent energy output

• Not enough methanol to fuel global fleet,… as of today!

9


Methanol / DME as a marine fuel –

STENA Ro-Ro to be the FIRST Methanol-fuelled Ship in the water,

LR Class

First Methanol-fuelled Ferry Ship in Europe –

it is hoped to enter into service in 2014

Lloyd’s Register Rules for

Methanol Fuelled Ships -

Submission to Technical

Committees in 2014


Ethane as a marine fuel

Lloyd’s Register Approval In Principle (AiP) was provided for the

MAN ME-LGI Engines

• operating on LPG early in 2013; and, most recently,

• for operation on ETHANE as well

Forecast for US NGL and Ethane Output

Source: MSI – Marine Strategies International Ltd.

10


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 gas-

oil

• Shipyard Kooiman, The Netherlands

• Owner Veerhaven Thyssen Krupp

• Delivery estimated 2014

11


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

• 2 x 40m3 LNG tanks; 2 x Engine Rooms; 4 x Gas Engines

• LNG-Fuelled / Electric Propulsion Type G Oil and Gas Bunkering Tanker

• 1300 m3 LNG + 1200 m3 gas-oil

• LNG-Fuelled / Electric Propulsion Dry Cargo Ship

• 135 x 11.45 x 5.1 m, 4000 tons

• 2 x Dual Fuel LNG / HFO Type C Oil Tankers

• 110 x 11.45 x 5.2 m, 3200 tons

• Dual fuel CNG / HFO Car / Passenger Ferry

• 1,750 passengers + 340 cars

12


Some New Gas Fuelled Ships Planned –

STQ Ferries soon in the water, FIRST Gas Fuelled Ships in Canada

Societe des travesiersSTQ Ferries

Built at Chantier Davie and FIincantieri to LR Class


Agenda


• Some Feasibility Studies and New Designs

13


Some Feasibility Studies - 2012

GREEN SHIP OF THE FUTURE PROJECT (2012) -- % at ECA

dependant


Some Feasibility Studies – August 2012Lloyd’s Register LNG-fuelled deep sea shipping bunkering study

High Case Scenario –Over 2,000 Deep Sea Gas Fuelled Ships by 2025

14


Some New Feasibility Studies – WEST COAST CANADA forecast Gas

Fuelled Ships calling at their Ports: 150 Ships by 2025

Transport Canada, Lloyd’s 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


LNG Vessels


Tankers 99 1 5,000 9 50,000 20 110,000

Bulk 829 0 0 6 69,000 73 213,000

Container 178 0 0 8 78,000 17 168,000

Cruise 27 0 0 3 135,000 9 330,000

General Cargo 20 0 0 0 0 1 1,000

Vehicle/ RoRo 60

0 1 4,000 1 4,000

Ferry 45 1 2,000 13 73,000 26 146,000

Tug 35 0 0.0 2 3,000 3 5,000

Total 2 7,000 42 412,000 150 977,000


Some New Approved Concept and Basic Designs

15


LR’s Assessment of Risk Based Designs:

All Novel Technology possibilities considered

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

YES

NOStage 1Scoping

Study

Stage 2Conceptual

Design HAZID

Stage 4Detailed

Design HAZOP

Stage 3Detailed

Study(s)

START ENDAcceptance

criteriasatisfied


Project: 14000 teu ULCS Gas Fuelled Design (2011)Main Objective: Approve the Concept Design In Principle

• 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

57 Recommendations made: main concerns were related to:

Design details under confidentiality agreement

16


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 multi-

purpose vessel (MPV)* will be designed to meet current and future environmental and efficiency targets

17


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 bncbm LNG / year

18


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


• Large Infrastructure Future

19


Large Infrastructure Future –

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”


Large Infrastructure Future –EU addressing the “chicken and egg” issue

20


Large Infrastructure Future –

EU addressing the “chicken and egg” issue


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”

21



“…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 co-

financed over 20M€ to LNG related TEN-T projects)….’



“The harmonization of Canadian regulations with international standards has been identified in the Government of Canada’s Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management as a key approach to establishing an effective and appropriate regulatory framework”

“Three Infrastructure phases:Phase 1: West Coast CanadaPhase 2: Great Lakes and St. LawrencePhase 3: East Coast Canada”

22



Indonesia gains support for the adoption of LNG as marine fuelSingapore 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

Lloyd’s Register working with MPA Singapore and three International bodies, looking at harmonisationof Standards with:IMO (IGF), ISO (TC) and IAPH

23


Agenda


• Gas Bunkering Standards and Operational Procedures Update


Gas Bunkering Standards and Operational Procedures Risk-Assessing today’s 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

24


Gas Bunkering Standards and Operational Procedures

Today’s 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


Lloyd’s Register’s Standards and Operational Procedures for Safe GAS BUNKERING

Lloyd’s 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

25


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


Today’s Challenges in LNG Bunkering solved by Lloyd’s Register

26


SAFETY of GAS AS MARINE FUEL



Luis BenitoGlobal Strategic Marketing ManagerBusiness Development and InnovationT +65 6891 7328 E [email protected]

Lloyd’s Register 460 Alexandra Road, #28-01, PSA Building, Singapore 119963




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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Indonesia+GAS-FSRU+and+Small+LNG+Seminar+by+Lloyd's+Register-December+13+-+Handout (1)

Documents

Transcript of Indonesia+GAS-FSRU+and+Small+LNG+Seminar+by+Lloyd's+Register-December+13+-+Handout (1)