LNG Carriers An Update on Technology By: Stavros Hatzigrigoris - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

LNG Carriers

An Update on Technology

By: Stavros Hatzigrigoris Richard Gilmore Andreas Spertos

1

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

2

1. Market Overview

a) LNG Growth b) Terminals & Ships c) LNG Fleet d) Emergence of Greek LNG Ownership

2. Design Key Factors

a) Size i. Terminal Compatibility ii. New Panama Canal b) Boil Off Rate - Containment Systems c) Prime Mover Selection d) Power Savings – Hull Forms

3. Conclusion

Contents

2

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

3 3

• SAFETY FIRST -

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

4 4

LNG Growth - Demand

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

5 5

LNG Growth - Supply

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

6 6

Terminals & Ships Year Up to 1979 Up to 1989 Up to 1999 By the end

• f 2013

LNG Ships

40 60 106 381

Import Terminals

11 23 36 93

Export Terminals

8 16 25 46

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

7 7

LNG Growth

1990 Global LNG Trade Routes 2000 Global LNG Trade Routes 1980 Global LNG Trade Routes 2010 Global LNG Trade Routes

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

8 8

LNG Fleet

Historical LNG Fleet Development LNG Orderbook LNG Fleet by Size

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

9 9

Emergence of Greek LNG Vessel Ownership

Worldwide vs Greek controlled LNG Fleet (No. of Vessels) timeline 1969-2017

World LNG fleet (No. of Vessels) Greek LNG Fleet (No. of Vessels)

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

10 10

Design Key Factors

• Size of the fleet workhorse is increasing
• A. Ship size / Trading Flexibility
• Boil Off is being reduced from 0.15% to 0.10% or even

lower

• B. Low Boil Off Rate (0,10% or

below)

• This is coupled with new type of propulsion systems
• C. Low fuel consumption over a

wide operation range

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

11 11

Terminal Compatibility

Key Areas:

• 1) Size:
• LOA: Turning Basin
• Draft: Approach & Dockside
• Cargo Volume: Store Storage tanks
• 2) Gangway Landing Area
• 3) Mooring Arrangement
• 4) Air Draft (Boston & Montoir de Bretagne)

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

12 12

New Panama Canal

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

13 13

New Panama Canal

Dimensions

Current Width: 33.5m Lock Length: 304.8m Draft: 12.04 TFW

Future Lock Vessel Length : 488m 366m Beam : 55m 49m Draft : 18.28m 15m

Schedule

Tests to be completed by May 2015 First transit expected by June 2015

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

14 14

New Panama Canal

Description / Tug attendance

Vessels will be escorted at the most part of the canal. Vessels will enter the locks with the assistance of tug boats.

LNG safety issues

Current practice, LNG carriers subject to special safety precautionary measures. The ACP will most probably consider special measures for LNGCs transiting the Canal.

SIGTTO Publication

SIGTTO to issue recommendations for safe Panama Canal Transit, in respect of LNGCs safety and

• perational issues.

To be determined in upcoming SIGTTO meetings (Houston, Jul 2013 & London, Sep 2013)

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

15 15

Transportation Cost

as affected by the New Panama Canal

• 159K TFDE vessel
• 19.5 kts service speed
• $90,000 daily charter hire

Sabine Pass - Tokyo (via Panama Canal) 9,322n. miles

Case I: Gas Mode Case II: HFO Mode Case III: Dual Mode Freight (US$ / MMBTU) = Loading Volume Base $2.22 $3.38 $2.28 Freight (US$ / MMBTU) = Discharging Volume Base $2.43 $3.41 $2.40

Sabine Pass - Tokyo (via Cape) 16,034n. miles

Case I: Gas Mode Case II: HFO Mode Case III: Dual Mode Freight (US$ / MMBTU) = Loading Volume Base $3.51 $5.49 $3.62 Freight (US$ / MMBTU) = Discharging Volume Base $4.09 $5.54 $3.92

Sabine Pass - Tokyo (via Suez) 14,658 n. miles

Case I: Gas Mode Case II: HFO Mode Case III: Dual Mode Freight (US$ / MMBTU) = Loading Volume Base 3.22 5.03 $3.32 Freight (US$ / MMBTU) = Discharging Volume Base 3.71 5.08 $3.58

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

16 16

Boil Off Rate (BOR)

• Evolution-

Evolution in containment systems

1970s: 0.25% 1980s: 0.15% 2013: 0.125% & 0.10% Future: Lower (0,08%/Day)

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

17 17

Boil Off Rate (BOR)

Type Design Features BOR Thickness Moss Rosenberg Independent Self Supporting tank – Spherical type – Al or 9% Ni 0,100 28-32mm at Poles 160mm at Equatorial Ring GTT No. 96 2 Invar + Perlite Boxes 0.150 530mm GTT No. 96 2 Invar + Glass wool boxes 0.125 530mm GTT No. 96 - LO3 2 Invar + boxes + PU foam 0.108 530mm GTT No. 96 - LO3 Flex 2 Invar + boxes + PU foam (marginally lower than previous, about: 0,1) 530mm GTT MK III Corrugated SUS + Triplex + PU Foam 0.150 270mm GTT MK III Flex

Corrugated SUS + Triplex + thicker PU Foam

0.095 400mm / HFC-245fa GTT CS1 Invar + Triplex + PU foam 0.150 285mm SHI SCA W/S 2 x corrugated SUS + PU Foam 0.090 400mm Hyundai HMCCS Invar + sus x 2 + PU Foam 0.090 TBA (About 400mm) GTT Mark V Corrugated SUS + Invar +PU Foam About: 0.095 400mm

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

18 18

Containment Systems

• Market Share-

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

19 19

Containment Systems

1. Moss Rosenberg BOR: 0.10% per Day

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

20 20

Containment Systems

• 2. No. 96

BOR: 0.150% per Day (Standard historic design) 0.125% per Day (with Glass wool instead of perlite)

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

21 21

Containment Systems

• 3. No. 96 – LO3

BOR: 0.108% per Day

Glass Wool + Foam Panel

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

22 22

Containment Systems

• 4. No. 96 – LO3+

BOR: 0.100% per Day

More Extensive Application of Foam Panels

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

23 23

Containment Systems

• 5. MKIII

BOR: 0.150% per Day

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

24 24

Containment Systems

• 6. MKIII Flex

BOR: 0.095% per Day

Total Insulation thickness increased to 400mm

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

25 25

Containment Systems

• 7. CS1

BOR: 0.150% per Day

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

26 26

Containment Systems

• 8. SHI SCA w/s

BOR: 0.090% per Day

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

27 27

Containment Systems

• 9. Hyundai HMCCS

BOR: 0.090% per Day

• 10. GTT Mark V

BOR: ≈0.095% per Day

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

28 28

Prime Mover Selection

• 1. Steam turbine with reheat cycle

a) Able to burn wide mixture of gas and HFO b) Manoeuver with pilot fuel/dual fuel mode

• 2. TFDE and Engine size

a) Vary number of engines in operation to optimize fuel consumption b) Gas burning possible at low (zero) loads c) Constraints on mixed fuel operations

• 3. MEGI

a) Able to burn wide mixture of gas and HFO b) Manoeuvering on liquid fuel oil

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

29 29

Steam vs. Ultra Steam Plant

CONVENTIONAL STEAM PLANT ULTRA STEAM PLANT BOILER STEAM CONDITION (at superheater outlet) 6.0 MPaG x 515oC 10.0 MPaG x 565oC STEAM FLOW BOILER -> HP TURB-> LP TURB BOILER-> HP TURB -> REHTR->

• >IP TURB -> LP TURB

FLANGE RATING ANSI 900 LB ANSI 2500 LB

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

30 30

Medium Speed Dual Fuel Diesel with Oxidiser (MSDF)

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

31 31

Slow Speed Diesel with Reliquefaction (SSDR)

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

32 32

Wärtsilä SSD - GI

Principles:

• Engine operating accordingly

to Otto process

• Injection of gas at mid-stroke.

Low pressure gas injection (<10bar) sufficient

• High impact on NOx reduction
• Meets IMO Tier III without

after treatment

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

33 33

MAN MEGI

Principles:

• Engine operating accordingly

to Diesel process

• Injection of gas close to TDC.

Air is completely compressed and, therefore, high pressure gas injection (300bar) is required

• No significant NOx reduction
• Requires SCR OR EGR (not

proven) in order to meet IMO Tier III levels

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

34 34

Prime Mover Selection

Gas Handling Systems

Engine Type Gas Delivery to Engine Excess BOG Steam Turbine Gas Delivery at <1 Bar via: Low duty compressor, or free flow. Burn in boiler and dump steam to condenser Tri-Fuel Diesel Electric Gas Delivery at 4 - 6 Bar via: 2 x 2 stage low duty compressors; or 1 x 2 stage and 1 x 4 stage low duty compressors Gas Combustion Unit (optional Reliquefaction Plant) MEGI Gas Delivery at 300 Bar via: Large high pressure compressors; or LNG fuel pump with vaporizer (possibly in combination with a re-liquefaction plant) Gas Combustion Unit; or Reliquefaction Plant; or Joule Thompson Valve

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

35 35

Typical Speed in Relation to available BOG in Laden Condition

Boil Off Rate SPEED (knots) 160K DFDE 0.15% 18.5 160K DFDE 0.125% 17.5 160K DFDE 0.108% 16.2 162K DFDE 0.1% 15.6 145K Steam LNG 0.15% 12.5

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

36 36

Prime Mover Selection

• Factors affecting choice-

Steam TFDE MEGI

CAPEX Low High Medium Maintenance cost & time Low High Medium Lubricating Oil Consumption Low High Medium Operational Flexibility High High Medium COx emissions High Low Lower SOx emissions Low Low Low NOx emissions Lower Low High Fuel Consumption High Low Lower In Gas Mode

Need SCR and/or EGR Depending

• n Fuel

consumed

MARAN GAS MANAGEMENT INC.

Choices Thermal Efficiency Steam – Traditional ~ Base Case 30% Ultra Steam 15% Improvement 35% Diesel:

• Slow Speed Diesel

>50%

• TFDE (Tri-Fuel Diesel Electric) *

48%

• MEGI (Electronic Gas Injection)**

≈50% Gas Turbine (marine combined cycle) ≈45%

37 * Net 42% , about 6% loss on electric transmission * * This is an MAN engine. Wartsila are developing their own 2-stroke gas injection engine – details are not available yet.

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC. Power Plant

MARAN GAS MANAGEMENT INC.

* Includes operation of re-liq. plant * * Includes electric losses

Power Requirements – Gas Mode Load (kW) Propulsion Aux Total (with losses) MEGI 23,740 3,900 * 27,640 TFDE 23,740 2,300 28,700** Daily Fuel Consumption – Gas Mode kCal Consumed Ton - FOE MEGI 88.8 T LNG 1,060,700 6.6 T HFO 67,300 Total 1,128,000 116.3 TFDE 102.3 T LNG 1,222,000 0.9 T MDO 9,200 Total 1,231,200 126.9

MEGI is approximately 9% more efficient in gas mode. Vessel Speed 19.5 Knots

38

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC. Power Plant MEGI vs. TFDE -> GAS MODE

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

39 39

MARPOL Annex VI

Low Sulphur MARPOL Annex VI NOx – Tier III Compliance

Steam Equivalence – Gas + LS HFO in compliant ratio or modify to burn MGO during manoeuvering OK TFDE Gas & LS MGO (pilot) ~ or LS MGO Gas OK – Lean Burn Otto Cycle MEGI Gas / LS HFO (pilot) ~ or MDO Fit: Exhaust Gas

• Recirc. (EGR) ~ or

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

40 40

Power Savings – Hull form At the design stage

 Extensive model testing program to test Hull over different speeds, draft & trim, weather conditions  Optimization over wide speed range (12 -16-19.5 kts)  Optimization between Ballast and Laden condition  Optimization over rough and calm seas  Changes in: stern hull form & bulbous bow  Twin screw (2 x propellers)  Application of Propeller Boss Cap Fins (PBCF)  Pre Swirl Fins  Rudder Angle Optimization

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

41 41

Power Savings - Hull Form

Item Approximate Savings Redesign Bow – make it more efficient over a wider operating profile: speeds, drafts, weather conditions, etc. 3 - 4 % Twin Skeg – applicable to larger vessels. 3 - 4 % Three Bladed Propeller 1 - 2 % Propeller Boss Cap Fins 1 - 3 % Pre-swirl Fins 1 - 2 % Rudder Angle Optimization 0.5 %

Approximate Contribution to Fuel Savings

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

42 42

Optimization of Bow Shape

to improve performance in ballast condition at lower speeds

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

43 43

Optimization of Bow Shape

to improve performance in ballast condition at lower speeds

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

44 44

Optimization of Bow Shape

• Note small changes in Bow Lines
• The HFO tank boundary at FR 147

will be reduced about 1.62 m in width due to narrowed hull form.

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

45 45

Optimization of Bow Shape

to improve resistance in rough weather

Improved Bow Shape Original Bow Shape

MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.

46 46

Optimization of Bow Shape

to improve resistance in rough weather

Comparison of the added resistance in irregular waves between original and improved bow shape

Sea State Ship Speed (Knots) Added resistance due to waves % Reduction in added resistance due to waves Improved bow shape (KN) Original bow shape (KN)

4 18.0 49 110 55,45 19.0 67 85 21,18 20.0 96 67

• 43,28

5 17.0 242 366 33,88 18.0 265 310 14,52 19.0 248 360 31,11 6 16.0 594 821 27,65 17.0 651 732 11,07 18.0 669 786 14,89

MARAN GAS MANAGEMENT INC.

• The LNG Industry is going through a

period of rapid expansion and change

• LNG ship design is evolving very quickly
• All areas of design are under examination

to improve performance

47

Conclusion

MARAN GAS MANAGEMENT INC.

Shale Gas Economics are Driving North American Price Levels

US Gas market is not resource-constrained for the foreseeable future

• US is now the world’s largest gas producer
• Unconventional gas has gone from ~15% of US production

in 1990 to more than 50% in 2008

• Long term Henry Hub projections are around $5 / MMBtu

North American Shale Gas Cost of Service (i.e., breakeven cost)

$0

$1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6

$/MMBtu

2010 Monthly HH Prices

Max: $5.25/MMBtu Avg: $4.24/MMBtu Min: $3.35/MMBtu

Woodford Horn River Marcellus

(new tax)

Haynesville

(Texas)

Fayetteville Barnett Haynesville

(Louisiana)

Marcellus

North American Shale Gas Cost of Service (i.e., breakeven cost)

$0

$1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6

$/MMBtu

2010 Monthly HH Prices

Max: $5.25/MMBtu Avg: $4.24/MMBtu Min: $3.35/MMBtu

Woodford Horn River Marcellus

(new tax)

Haynesville

(Texas)

Fayetteville Barnett Haynesville

(Louisiana)

Marcellus

Thank you!