Ship/shore interface: cargo transfer and monitoring technology16 June 2020 • 09:00-09:45 BST

JH | Jonathan Heath, "K" Line LNG Shipping (UK)NK | Capt. Nilendra Kumar, Petronet LNGAB | Andrew Brown, Smit LamnalcoAS | Andrew Stafford, Trelleborg Marine Systems

Part ofTankers and Terminals: Gas Carriers Webinar Week16-18 June 2020

Webinar Q&A summary

Why doesn't the industry adopt for standard compatibility in all ports? This would make operations more effective and efficient, with much safer operations.

JH | Although this would be difficult to achieve with older and newer designs of vessels, there are several components of the cargo transfer system that could (reasonably easily) be standardised. There would need to be more industry guidance for the manufuacturers to work with, as their current systems are designed for that terminal/clients specification. The same manufacturer can have two completely different connections in two differnt ports. Hopefully this will begin to happen in the future.

AB | We could achieve standardisation if we could align the various codes such as IGC code with the various other codes/regualtions/standards. The easiest way would be for the terminal to work with the LNGC provider during marine assurance process or at the beginning of the project feasibility in the case of a new FLNG facility

Andrew, As Trelleborg is covering most of the terminals and vessels, would Trelleborg be able to answer our queries on SSC for compatibility remotely?

AS | Of course, just call our office 01244 539635

Jonathan: Is having SDP in a high pressure arm for FSRUs common as it is on LP arms?

JH | Unfortunately I am not the best person to answer this. We don’t operate any FSRUs, but do discharge to several. The HP connection side of the FSRU operation is not divulged to us.

For Capt Heath. The question of presentation flange specifications is included in SIGTTO's manifold standard document - but as you say makers and terminal requirements differ. Chris Clucas, LGC

JH | Thank you Chris. We are aware of the recommendations for our manifolds, but yes, the manufactures of the shore systems are complicating things, and the only way we can adapt at present is with more SDPs to bridge the ship/shore specification gap.

Looking at the big picture, does the increased safety scrutiny for floating regas units help shore authorities understand the need for linked ESD systems on standard jetties? Could this be beneficial for safety? Chris Clucas, LGC

AB | This is a great question and in my view falls into the port education durng site survey or feasbility. Applying a BOWTIE risk assessment would provide the required ESD procedure, action and equipment. In a commercial port with considerable activity, understanding the required response to the various stages of the ESD in my opinion would be benefical to safety. Port needs to be involved with the early stage, trying to develop the process after the fact is very challanging.

Can you please give a practical example for SDP clearance compatibility check between ship SDP and shore SDP?

JH | From our experience there has never been a standard check for this. If I were conducting the checks, I would be looking at all of the things mentioned in the presentation. ie Presentation flange required (flat/raised face), the outer diameter, inner diameter, contact face, the serration requirements, flange thickness, and so on. We would then select the closest specification SDP available on board. From there we would propose that SDP to the terminal with the specifications for their assessment. The shore side details of the loading arm connecting face, clamping arrangement, etc are very rarely shared, so we have to rely on the terminals compatibility assessment for this part.

What are the probelms, critical designs or operational procedures that lead to a vessel being rejected by a terminal, when all vessel are made under an international regulatory framework?

JH | In my experience we have had vessels rejected mainly due to the flat body/fendering arrangements. This is typically an issue more with the Moss vessels. Due to their spherical tanks, the manifold is often offset forward of the mid part by around 15 m, and they have a shorter parallel body to accommodate the tanks. These two issues combined can cause only partial fender contact, particulary when conducting ther mooring analysis in the ballast condition. If this was not considered at the jetty design stage, then many Moss vessels will be rejected, and the terminal is only really suitable for membrane vessels.

Is there a standard RA for ship to ship to shore operations?

AB | I assume you mean risk assessment - my answer would be yes, the BOWTIE risk assessment process has been adopted by the industry and supported by policies of the terminal, the FSRU and the LNGC for RA. I would direct you towards SIGTTO for a more detailed answer/guidance on this topic but in my view the RA has to bridge between each element of the ship to ship to shore. A single communication link needs to pass through each part of the process. HAZOPS will identify the required links. I would ask Andrew Staffrod to add more detail to his question regarding the commuinication link between the ship to ship to shore.

AS | There are no fixed risk assessments for ESD, each facility will undergo a HAZOP to define what they see as the particular issues for their site, of course a lot of it should overlap. In terms of ESD, the gas and liquid processes are treated seperately, typically a liquid transfer ESD would not stop gas send out, but a gas send out ESD would trip the liquid transfer as some of the systems involved in the regas operation are required by the liquid transfer. There is no fixed cause and effect for this trip logic. In terms of communication link, the SSL systems treat the ESD paths totally seperately and only trip if commanded to, the link should not include any additional logic to the processing. Telecoms are available between the jetty and FSRU and also the FSRU and LNGC, in some applications, the FSRU can bridge the links so that the jetty can call the LNGC.

What is capex and opex?

NK | Capital expenditure and operational expenditure.

JH | Capital expenditure and operational expenditure.

AB | Capital cost for the installation commissioning of the floating faciltiy and the operational cost to run the floating faciltiy.

Is there an established system at any LNG terminal to test ESD 2 while a ship is at berth? And what should the frequency of this test be?

AS | Not standard, however I've been present when a terminal has asked a ship to allow them to carry out an ESD2 for testing. In hose transfers prior to cargo operations they test the release actuators by removing the pin that links it to the coupling to prove the signal is functional.

Can transfer hoses be designed for 2 m to 3 m relative to the movement between ships?

AS | I can't speak for composite hoses, but the cryogenic floating 'hose in hose' technology allows for 5-6 m+ sea states, this would require changing the operation to tandem, however the technology exists.

What are the demerits of FSRUs inside a port?

AB | Another good question - And I could provide many detailed answers but I will offer one example. If the port hasn't worked with hydrocarbon vessels before, putting an FSRU within the port may interupt the general day-to-day operation due to the required safety procedures.

Hi Andrew, most IGF systems are fitted with 6 PIN NATO whereas new LBVs are fitted with 5 PIN SIGTTO, this causes a lot of issues and ships have to resort to ESD pendent which is not a safe option. How is Trelleborg dealing with this issue? Any input from

AS | I suggest you contact SIGTTO or SGMF to get an formal response, however for background, there has never been a 6-pin connector SIGTTO link. it has always been the same 5-pin connector (unfortunately SIGTTOs document shows a different 5-pin connector, but the 5-pin connectors used in practice are correct and SIGTTO are currently updating thier ESD document). A single system manufacturer used to use a 6 pin connector for a pendant connection alongside the standard 5-pin which was fine. Unfortunately the original connector manufacturer stopped producing so all SIGTTO link system providers had to source/manufacture their own connectors. One manufacturer didn't do this and started providing incompatible 6-pin 'non-SIGTTO' link connectors to the market. Other vendors have always produced the correct connectors. OCIMF in 2017 released a definitive guide to the 'SIGTTO link' system and connector, along with publishing the connector mating requirements provided by ourselves and confirmed by others. SGMF also includes the exact same 5-pin connector and system details in their ESD guidance publication. In short, if you have been supplied with an incompatible 6-pin connection system, I suggest you contact ourselves (or others) to discuss options to install the correct connectors.

Hi Andrew, can infrared be used for drift protection system instead of wires?

AS | Yes, I'm guessing as hose transfer systems are still classed as 'portable' that installing the fixed infrastrucure to accomodate known location sensors may be a limiting factor. The point is still, how does that system integrate back into the vessel ESD system? Without infrastructure such as a dedicated junction box or connection point to complete a circuit?

Andrew Brown, the SIMOPS for LNG bunkering vessels and the other issues you just mentioned are already happening

AB | Yes this is true. LNG bunker vessel are already in operation and SIMOPS are in place. SIMOPS/HAZOPS in these types of senarios should be considered together. But yes they are happening. I believe SGMF cover SIMOPS for LNG bunkering to ships.

Could Capt Nilendra expand on the reasons of his suggestion to involve the vessel master during the Ship Shore Compatibilites studies?

NK | The master represents the ship. The ship will have every minute detail of SSCS and on arrival they can remain better prepared.

How safe is the cryogonic hose in an STS operation when compared to a fixed loading arm?

AB | The industry have been doing commercial STS transfers with cryogenic hoses since 2003 with little or no real issues. Plus cryogenic hoses are used for emergency cargo transfer. In my view cryogenic hoses are safe for an STS operation. However MLA's do have some advantages due to the engineering of the MLA. In my view MLA's are used more on fixed jetties and cryogenic hoses more on STS transfer.

AS | If produced to current safety standards and used to manufacturers' guidelines then the hoses should be as safe as a loading arm. Of course hoses require replacement, but typically do not contain any swivels of points which can leak on loading arms. SGMF have produced a few guidelines around hose use and failure analysis. The integration of the hose into a handling and transfer solution is key as the handling of the hose can be made as easy as a loading arm if the correct solutions are applied.

Question to Andrew - how important is the role of mooring lines in ship-to-ship transfer? What is the best material for ropes ?

JH | If I may also add an answer for this, the role of mooring lines is extremely important. Many systems are now becoming more complex with the introduction of pennants and grommets for FLNG/FSRUs. The best material cannot be defined as it would depend on the application, however we have retrofitted the majority of our fleet with Dyneema (from wires) which is far safer with regards to line handling for STS operations.

AB | Very important Dyneema UHMWPE is a better option for mooring lines in STS. I would draw your attention to OCIMF MEG4 and an introdcution of a mooring systems managment plan (MSMP). However in my opinion MEG4 covers mooring to a jetty I would like to see an additon regarding STS in open waters in various operability guidance but in principle MEG4 is more than suitable.

Personnel transfer during STS is mainly for facilitating pre transfer meeting and connection of hoses or arms. The meeting could be done over a secure video link, I believe this is a more valid option these days. But connection will always need a physical

AB | Totally agree. You do have to have that physical presence for the connection.

Is it an option to include a secure video channel in future ship/shore links?

AB | My answer would be yes, but I would ask Andrew to give his opinion on this.

AS | Yes, FSRUs have been using 'digital' fibre optic systems which build on the existing fibre opic infrastructure used since 1989 by adding the digital functionality to previously unused connction cores/pins. This digital structure allows a 100 mbps data channel to be passed over the link as well as seperate dedicated channels for ESD and telecoms. The same technology is also in use in LNG bunkering transfers.

For vessel clearance, besides the ship/shore confirmation checklist, many terminals in India carry out a vessel trading certificate check, which is a duplication of work as the port authority does it. What are Indian terminals doing to expedite the SSCL p

NK | It is most important to have a detailed SSCS for safe and efficient operation.

What is the difference between side by side and ship to ship transfer operations?

AB | SBS, the vessels are moored together and ship to ship is reference to cargo transfer. In reality there is no real difference however with the introduction of offshore jetties the vessels technically are not side by side but the jetty provides the ship to ship transfer.

An ISO standard for QCDC has been published. Has Trelleborg has come out with a compliant QCDC as yet and what size QCDCs are available?

AS | Trelleborg recently aquired KLAW LNG into the group, they produce ISO QCDCs. They are producing a range from the smaller end with 8" being the largest produced.

A few terminals are adopting 20-inch loading arms ( the transfer of terminal SDPs to the vessel represent risks to terminal and to vessel). How can this be handled smoothly from the transfer of responsibilities perspective?

JH | I fully agree, however the lack of standarisation means this issue is present for the foreseeable future. Our vessels which have had to use the 20" x 20" SDPs have to swap out the 20" x 16" reducers that they normally use. This is planned well in advance taking into account the weather, etc and all relevent PTW and RAs in place. A bigger issue is the transfer of targeting spool pieces for vessels calling at an offshore terminal with a spot cargo. They often borrow these from the terminal, and the transfer sometimes means they have to arrive the evening before or at least 4 hours before the NOR is issued, in order to load and install them. The responsibility for the installation of these normally falls to the terminals loading master who boards with the equipment and some additional personnel, who are then assisted by the vessels crew.