Post on 28-May-2020
Working together for a safer world
LNG as a Marine Fuel – Where Technology Meets Logistics
Rafael Riva Michael Walhof Joshua Sebastian
VP Business Development, Americas Director, Siemens Dresser Rand Engineering Manager, Shearer Group
Agenda
Why LNG Technical
Considerations Procedural
Considerations Logistical Viability
Why LNG – A Compliance Driven Development
Tier II Tier III
Why LNG
Why LNG – A Compliance Driven Development Why LNG
Why LNG – A Compliance Driven Development The Availability Challenge
Why LNG
Commercial
- Competition with land based applications
- Shipping a low volume consumer
- Inconsistency and volatility of prices
Infrastructural
- Bunkering Network
- Bunkering Method
- Consistency in calorific value, the Wobbe Index
Why LNG – A Compliance Driven Development The Availability Challenge
106.3
107.2 103.7
97.5
55.5
65.6 72
77.8 81.2 82.5 80.7 80.4 83
89.3 92.8
50
60
70
80
90
100
110Crude Oil Price $/bbl
Crude oil price prediction
Source: MSI
Gas price differentials
Source: Total
Oil & Gas price prediction
Source: ENN
Why LNG
Why LNG – A Compliance Driven Development A bit of context…
Why LNG
Populating the “Gas Technology Maze” makes
LNG as Fuel a reliable alternative
Technical Considerations
Engine Selection Technical
Considerations
High Pressure GI Low Pressure DF
Characteristics:
*HFO and NG Modes
*Very high pressure
*NOx compliance
requires EGR
Characteristics:
*MDO and NG
Modes
*Low pressure
*All emissions
compliant
Low Pressure,
Slow Speed, HFO,
MGO , MDO and
LNG coming onto
market
The Risk of LNG Bunkering Procedural
Considerations
The Risk of LNG Bunkering Viking Grace – 2 years of Safe Bunkering
Procedural Considerations
LNG Fuelled Vessels – The Radius of Operation LNG as Primary Fuel or LNG as ECA compliance fuel
Vessel Sizes / Rated
Power
Logistical Viability
LNG Fuelled Vessels – The Radius of Operation The LNG Consumption Model:
Inputs
Specific LNG Consumption g/KWh
LNG Density kg / m3
Indicative Vessel Speed knots
Indicative Vessel Power Requirement kW
Typical Routes NM
Max distance between LNG bunker
ports for a typical route
NM
Indicative Vessel Displacement
Volumes
m3
Note: No consideration taken for safety margins, losses to
boil off, or reserve volume required to maintain LNG
temperature
Note: Calculation assumes ME and GE run on LNG
Logistical Viability
𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑚3 =
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 (𝑁𝑀)𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 (𝐾𝑛𝑜𝑡𝑠)
∗ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐾𝑊 ∗ %𝑀𝐶𝑅 ∗ 𝑆𝐺𝐶 (𝑔
𝑘𝑊ℎ)
𝐿𝑁𝐺 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑔𝑚3)
LNG Fuelled Vessels – The Radius of Operation Ports Committing to LNG Bunkering
From LR’s Internal Intelligence Announced in Media
Amsterdam Ferrol Kaohsiung Portsmouth Aarhus Karmøy Santander
Antwerp Foss Latvia Rotterdam Bergen Kristiansund Stavanger
Barcelona Freeport Le Havre Sarnia Bodø Lübeck Talinn
Beaumont Fujairah Lithuania Singapore Buenos Aires Lysekil Turku
Bilbao Galveston Livorno Stockholm Busan Mongstad Wilhelmshaven
Bremerhaven Geismar Long Beach Tilbury Island Florø Nanjing Zhoushan
Brunsbuettel Gijon Los Angeles Trieste Fredrikstad Nynäsham Zwijndrecht
Burga Gothenburg New Orleans Valencia Ghent Oslo
Constanza Gulf of Bothia Piraeus Varna Helsinki Oulu
Copenhagen Hamburg Poland Venice Hirtshals Port Fourchon
Corpus Christi Houston Port Arthur Zeebrugge Incheon Roscoff
Logistical Viability
LNG Fuelled Vessels – The Radius of Operation * Possible Future ECA
Logistical Viability
Vessel: Container Line
Route: South Asia – East Coast USA
Air Emissions Area: NA and C ECA (SOx, NOx), Hong Kong Waters ECA,
Tokyo Bay ECA*, Pearl River Delta*, Malacca Straits*
LNG Bunker Ports: Singapore, Kaohsiung, Shanghai, Busan, LA, Long Beach
LNG Fuelled Vessels – The Radius of Operation * Possible Future ECA
Logistical Viability
Vessel Tank for Full
Voyage (m3)
Tank for ECA
(m3)
6600 TEU 3,700 704
18000 TEU 4,660 890
Vessel: Offshore Support , Tanker and Cruise
Route: Gulf of Mexico
Air Emissions Area: NA and C ECA (SOx and NOx),
Mexico ECA*
LNG Bunker Ports: Houston, Galveston, Freeport, Geismar,
New Orleans, Port Fourchon,
LNG Fuelled Vessels – The Radius of Operation * Possible Future ECA
Logistical Viability
Vessel Tank for Full
Voyage (m3)
Tank for ECA
(m3)
Cruise 3,200 1,600
Aframax 1,114 557
VLCC 1,990 993
Vessel: Tanker / Container Line
Route: North / West Europe – West Coast USA
Air Emissions Area: Baltic and North Sea ECA (SOx),
NA and C ECA (SOx, NOx)
LNG Bunker Ports: Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, Portsmouth,
Le Havre, Bilbao, Farrol, Gijon ,(+)
LNG Fuelled Vessels – The Radius of Operation * Possible Future ECA
Logistical Viability
Vessel Tank for Full
Voyage (m3)
Tank for ECA
(m3)
Aframax 2,000 278
6600 TEU 5,080 704
2016-22-11 Page 19 Walhof / Distributed LNG Solutions
Coastal vs. Inland Development
2016-22-11 Page 20 Walhof / Distributed LNG Solutions
E&P Equipment: Drilling/
Fracturing
• Significant per gallon equivalent fuel
savings to diesel
• High horsepower equipment (>6% of
1800 unit fleet use CNG/LNG)
Mining, Rail, and Marine
• Significant fuel cost savings
• High horsepower equipment (>1,000
gpd per unit typical) (i.e. 700 mining
units in PRB)
Retail/Utility LNG Supply • Low cost, low risk market seeding
• Early cash flow accelerator market
for large scale plants under
construction (30-60 months)
Local, low-cost alternate fuel source for diesel, propane, and heating oil users
Distributed LNG
Demand Side Markets
Typically distanced from large LNG supplies
2016-22-11 Page 21 Walhof / Distributed LNG Solutions
• Modular system converting natural gas to liquefied natural gas
(LNG)
• Micro-scale, point of use
• LNGo LP system – up to 7,000 GPD (11 tpd)
• LNGo HP system – up to 30,000 GPD (48 tpd)
• Re-deployable, skid mounted design with small footprint
• Dresser-Rand and Siemens industry proven technologies and
service
• Liquefaction cycle uses feed gas as fuel*, refrigerant, and
liquefied product * If power module is included.
• Self powered available - easy to permit
LNGo System
Overview
2016-22-11 Page 22 Walhof / Distributed LNG Solutions
LNGo System
Reference List
Item State Country Units / Scope Scope Application Commission date
1 NY USA 1 x LP Demo plant at Dresser-Rand Painted Post facility Demo plant 4Q / 2013
2 BC Canada 1 x HP LNGo systems plus extended scope including building LNG distribution 4Q / 2016
3 PA USA 1 x LP Complete LNGo system Gathering System 2Q / 2016
4 NJ USA 2 x LP Complete LNGo systems Peak shaving 1Q / 2017
5 BC Canada 2 x LP Complete LNGo systems Stranded gas 2017
6 AB Canada 1 x LP Complete LNGo systems Stranded gas 2017
2016-22-11 Page 23 Walhof / Distributed LNG Solutions
LNGo Floating Liquefaction Concept
• 2 x LNGo-HP systems
• ~ 60,000 GPD (96 tpd)
• 2,500 M3 storage
DUAL FUEL INLAND TOWBOAT
Conversion Design for PRINCIPIO
• Maritime Administration (MARAD)
• Pittsburgh Region Clean Cities (PRCC)
• Life Cycle Engineering (LCE)
• The Shearer Group, Inc. (TSGI)
PROJECT OVERVIEW
• Environmental Impacts of Dual Fuel on the inland waterways.
• Small scale consumer
• Use of existing technology and systems.
GAS FUEL STORAGE SYSTEM
• (2) Cryogenic Tanks
• Type C, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
BUNKERING SYSTEM