October 2017


 

 

 
   




 Project : Hilli Episeyo FLNG | Credit : Golar LNG

Providing Reliable Liquefaction with

PRICO® Anywhere
Black & Veatch handles projects with a broad range of gas
streams through pretreament, liquefaction, and storage of LNG.
Our PRICO® technology is a proven small-scale, mid-scale,
and baseload solution. We’re also deploying proven PRICO®
Attending
technology for offshore applications. ADIPEC?
We use our design expertise, proven technology, EPC leadership,
and innovation to deliver clients reliable liquefaction wherever Visit us at Booth #5372.
they need it. Black & Veatch PRICO® offers integrated solutions
with no boundaries — onshore, near shore, and offshore. Abu Dhabi, UAE
November 13-16, 2017
Visit bv.com/oil-gas to learn more.
 ISSN 1747-1826

CONTENTS
03 Comment 24 Right place, right time
OCTOBER 2017
Stéphane Desbuisson, Fives Cryo, France, and Nicolas Teyssot, Fives Cryomec,
Switzerland, explain why it is vital to predict maintenance precisely to optimise
05 LNG news equipment efficiency and extend its lifecycle.

08 Qatar bids to stay LNG king 29 Rapid, representative results

Peter Kiernan, The Economist Intelligence Unit, UK, explains why
and how Qatar will remain the world’s largest LNG exporter in the
midst of growing US and Australian production.
Thomas Knight, Orbital, USA, explains the challenges inherent in LNG trace
measurement, and how to obtain a more representative gas sample.
32 Sloshing study
Bo Wang and Suqin Wang, ABS, outline the assessment of sloshing in a membrane
LNG carrier during loading/offloading at an FLNG terminal.

37 Tried and tested

Robin Boot, Kanon, the Netherlands, outlines an effective approach to safe and
reliable ship-to-ship LNG bunkering.

41 A flexible future
Niki Thomas, Quorum Business Solutions, USA, looks at the importance of a flexible
back office in the LNG industry.

43 Keep still
Arun Duggal, SOFEC Inc., USA, looks at the importance of mooring systems for FLNG
units.

47 Space Savers
08 Justin M. Ellrich and Tyler J. Thompson, Black & Veatch Corp., USA, present
technology and design enhancements to increase production density for FLNG.

51 A new cycle
13 LNG as transportation fuel Mark J. Roberts, Öznur Saygı-Arslan, Fei Chen and Janet F. Mitchell,
Alexander Harsema-Mensonides, Braemar Engineering, USA, explores Air Products and Chemicals Inc., USA, present a neww liquefaction cycle for FLNG
the challenges LNG faces in its bid for wide-scale acceptance as a applications.
transportation fuel.
56 15 facts on... the Middle East
17 Small scale LNG
G distribution
from an FSRU
Jochen Schmidt-Lüßmann and Glenn nn Bannister, Marine Service GmbH,
Germany, discuss the potential for a cost-effective method of bringing
ON THIS MONTH’S C
COVER
LNG infrastructure and a natural gass supply to a port or harbour.

21 Fuelling the Fleet

et Quorum delivers pu purpose-built
Paul Shields, Chart Industries, Inc., USA,
SA, in collaboration software that fuels ddigital
with Ground Force Worldwide introduces uces the world’s first
transformation. Quorum
Quoru
diesel/LNG dual-fuelling vehicle.
empowers energy companies
com to
improve collaboration and drive
efficiencies with a cloud-based
clou
software platform embedded
embe
with over 20 years of innovation.
inn
The myQuorum platform gives
energy businesses the control,
con
flexibility, and agility they need to
solve complex business challenges.
cha

Copyright © Palladian Publications Ltd 2017. All rights reserved. No part of

LNG Industry is audited by the Audit Bureau of Circulations
rculations (ABC).
An audit certificate is available on request from our sales department.
this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
transmitte
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical
mechanical, photoco
photocopying, recording
or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. All views
expressed in this journal are those of the respective contributors and are not
necessarily the opinions of the publisher, neither do the publishers endorse any of
the claims made in the articles or the advertisements. Printed in the UK.
 JOSEPH GREEN
EDITOR

COMMENT hings have not been going well for my team

T Crystal Palace this year, not well at all.

After seven games of the English Premier League,
Crystal Palace sit in 20th position, out of 20. We are yet
to win a game, or draw one, and have not managed to score a
single league goal. We have however managed to concede 17.
As I said, things have not been going well.
With this miserable start in mind, no Crystal Palace players
have featured prominently in my fantasy football team this
year.
Fantasy football is essentially a competition in which
participants select imaginary teams from among the players
in the league and score points according to the actual
performance of their players.
We have an office league, and it is competitive. Strolling
into work on a Monday after a successful weekend really does
feel good. Likewise, seeing your side drop down the league as
colleagues take your place at the top is difficult to take.
Accurate predictions are the key to a successful fantasy
season. This could be through banking on a team’s victory, or
anticipating a loss of form before you are left picking up the
pieces.
In late September, the Australian Energy Market Operator
projected there would be a gas shortfall of between 54
and 107 petajoules in 2018, or up to 17% of demand. In an
attempt to get ahead of this issue, the Australian government
threatened export curbs.
In response to the threats, Australia’s three east coast
LNG plants promised to plug the projected domestic gas
supply shortfall in 2018. The agreement follows six months
of government pressure on the producers of LNG, led
by Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Origin Energy and
Santos Ltd, who have been blamed for exhausting the local
market of gas and driving up prices.
Gas has become a hot topic in Australia as rising prices
are hurting households and threatening jobs. To deal with
the crisis the government passed a law earlier this year
that would allow it to limit exports from any of the
three LNG plants on the east coast to boost local supply
in any year that it deems there will be a shortfall. As
mentioned, anticipating form is the key to success, and the
Australian government is attempting to safeguard itself
from a dip in form.
With the promise of the three east coast plants to fill
the shortfall in 2018, the export controls will now not be
invoked.
Many Crystal Palace fans would put the failure of the
team this year down to hubris. Not content with grinding
out victories with a conservative, low-risk mentality,
the board felt the time was right to switch to a more
continental, attacking style of play. Some would accuse the
Australian LNG industry of similarly trying to run before
they could walk.
In a push to match up to Qatar, Australian LNG exports
have continued to rise in recent years. As the country
pressed to capitalise on a supply boom, it has been
domestic consumers that have suffered. Australia remains
on track to overtake Qatar as the world’s biggest exporter
of LNG by 2019, but getting there has not been easy for the
government or the oil and gas companies.
Just as my team Crystal Palace pushed for a bigger
slice of the Premier League pie before they were ready, the
Australian LNG industry seemingly moved ahead without
proper consideration of the balance between exportation
and domestic requirements. The result for both has not
been pretty.
The big question now is how the Australian
government will find a balance between the conflicting
interests of the country’s energy exporters and its
domestic consumers.

Managing Editor Production LNG Industry Subscription rates:

James Little Bethany Rees Matcham Annual subscription: £50 UK including postage
james.little@lngindustry.com bethany.matcham@lngindustry.com £60 overseas (postage airmail)
Editor Two year discounted rate: £80 UK including postage
Website Manager £96 overseas (postage airmail)
Joseph Green Tom Fullerton
joseph.green@lngindustry.com tom.fullerton@lngindustry.com Subscription claims:
Claims for non receipt of issues must be made within
Editorial Assistant Digital Assistant Editor 3 months of publication of the issue
Will Owen Angharad Lock or they will not be honoured without charge.
will.owen@lngindustry.com angharad.lock@lngindustry.com Applicable only to USA & Canada.

Advertisement Director
Rod Hardy
rod.hardy@lngindustry.com
Advertisement Manager
Will Powell
will.powell@lngindustry.com
Subscriptions LNG Industry (ISSN No: 1747-1826, USPS No: 006-760) is published monthly by
Palladian Publications Ltd, GBR and distributed in the USA by Asendia USA, 17B S
Laura White
Middlesex Ave, Monroe NJ 08831. Periodicals postage paid New Brunswick, NJ and
laura.white@lngindustry.com
additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: send address changes to LNG Industry, 701C
Administration Ashland Ave, Folcroft PA 19032.
Nicola Fuller Uncaptioned Images courtesy of www.bigstockphoto.com and www.shutterstock.com
nicola.fuller@lngindustry.com

Editorial/Advertisement Offices, Palladian Publications Ltd

15 South Street, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 7QU, ENGLAND, Tel: +44 (0) 1252 718 999 Fax: +44 (0) 1252 718 992 Website: www.lngindustry.com
LNG Industry Website

The home for the

latest LNG industry
news, analysis
and events
Visit our website today:
www.lngindustry.com
 LNGNEWS
Peru
First small scale LNG facility
nears completion
kra Energy has announced the installation of the first
O small scale LNG facility for the nation of Peru, utilising
Okra’s proprietary equipment design and technology.
Small scale LNG plants enable flexible and scalable growth
in support of the increasing energy demands of developing
countries with little or no pipeline infrastructure.
First-to-market in Peru with a high-efficiency
and affordable natural gas solution for remote areas,
Okra Energy – through its subsidiary Lantera Energy
S.A.C. – is helping the nation by bringing cleaner-burning
energy while significantly reducing operational costs to
businesses, industrial manufacturers and power generators
as well as to the marine, mining, rail, trucking, and
tourism industries.
Okra Energy constructs small scale natural gas liquefaction
plants offering operational simplicity, scalability and ultimately,
a reliable supply of affordable natural gas. The proprietary
modular solutions can be brought into production rapidly and
scaled over time to meet dynamic supply needs, while reducing
capital and operating expenses compared to legacy energy
sources, such as compressed natural gas, diesel and heavy
fuel oil. Additionally, Okra Energy’s plants are manufactured in
factory-controlled settings, reducing installation complexity
and commissioning labour costs, while still remaining
customisable to meet a client’s individual production
requirements.
The majority of the new facility’s supply of LNG in
northern Peru is already pre-sold to one of the largest
steel manufacturers in the western hemisphere, with the
balance under contract for delivery in early 2018.
Equatorial Guinea
Award of construction contracts for FLNG project
phir Equatorial Guinea Ltd, a 100% owned subsidiary
O of Ophir, has awarded the upstream construction
contract for the Fortuna FLNG Project to Subsea Integration
Alliance, which is a partnership between OneSubsea, a
Schlumberger company, and Subsea 7.
The contract is structured as an engineering,
procurement, construction, installation and
commissioning (EPCIC) contract for the subsea umbilicals,
risers and flowlines and for the subsea production systems
South Korea
Naming ceremony held for
world’s largest FSRU
itsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL) President & CEO, Junichiro Ikeda,
M has announced that a naming ceremony for the
MOL FSRU Challenger was held at the Okpo shipyard of
Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co., Ltd. in Korea on
28 September. This is the first FSRU for MOL to independently
build, own and operate.
Many guests were invited to witness the naming of the
FSRU as the MOL FSRU Challenger. The MOL FSRU Challenger will
provide storage and regasification services to a project in Turkey
after delivery during October. Operation is slated to commence
within 2017.
The MOL FSRU Challenger has a LNG storage capacity
of 263 000 m3 and has LNG re-shipment and gas transfer
capabilities. Its specifications allow for the re-export of LNG
and supply of LNG to neighbouring regions where the vessel
is located. MOL is moving into the LNG secondary transport
and LNG fuel supply businesses in Asia and Central and South
America regions where it anticipates rising demand for LNG.
FSRUs are drawing attention as a solution for flexibility
and mobility in the LNG supply chain. MOL will promote the
FSRU business, which meets customer needs for diversified LNG
procurement, as one of world’s largest LNG carrier operators, the
only Japanese FSRU owner and operator, and the only Japanese
shipping company that owns and operate FSRU.
In addition to ownership and operation of the FSRU, MOL
announced its decision to participate in an FSRU project
in India, reflecting its ongoing strategy to ‘pursue vertically
integrated businesses that are not limited to transportation in
the LNG business’, as set forth in its new ‘Rolling Plan 2017’
management plan.
scope of work.
The scope of the EPCIC is to deliver
440 million ft3 per day of gas through infrastructure
comprising four wells (three into the Fortuna field and one
into the underlying Viscata field) located at an average
water depth of 1790 m.
The EPCIC schedule is consistent with the planned
delivery of first gas in 2020 and work will commence at
Final Investment Decision.
October 2017 5
 UK
LNGNEWS Global
TTE and Durham
University provide
training for graduates
T he TTE Technical Training Group is working with
Durham University to help a group of graduates
from Nigeria gain vital skills to support their careers
in the LNG industry.
The group of 45 technicians, who are employed
by Nigeria LNG, will spend four months in the
North East to achieve skills and competencies that
will be applied to their roles in the LNG sector in
West Africa.
Devised in partnership between TTE, Nigeria LNG
and Durham University, the bespoke programme
covers engineering disciplines including mechanical,
process and electrical as well as a specialist focus on
LNG operations.
A six-week period of practical, vocational training
at TTE’s specialist, industry-standard training
facility in Middlesbrough will be supplemented
by a two-month programme delivered by
Durham University, predominately at its campus in
Stockton-on-Tees.
In addition to the technical training modules
at TTE, which will be delivered utilising the
organisation’s extensive workshops, rigs and
simulators, the programme has a core focus on health
and safety with the technicians working towards an
IOSH Managing Safely qualification.
During the programme at Durham University, the
technicians will cover a series of modules related to
elements of the LNG industry including heat transfer,
plant systems and combustion, and turbomachinery
and civil engineering, which will be delivered through
lectures and laboratory-based learning.
During their stay in the North East the students
will be based in accommodation in Hartlepool
organised by TTE, which will also be responsible for
the pastoral requirements of the group.
This is the latest in a series of training
programmes delivered by TTE for West African
industry and, in particular Nigerian LNG. The
organisation, which is a registered charity, regularly
welcomes technicians from international industry
employers to its Middlesbrough base to deliver
upskilling and reskilling programmes.
6 October 2017
LNG growth to propel oil and gas
industry’s carbon emissions
NG will be the biggest source of carbon emission growth for the
L world’s top oil and gas companies by 2025, according to a new study by
Wood Mackenzie, as demand for the super-chilled fuel is set to rise sharply.
Oil and gas companies such as Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Total
have promoted natural gas as a cleaner fossil fuel that will displace coal to
meet growing demand for energy as the world shifts away from fossil fuels
in the coming decades.
But converting natural gas into LNG by cooling it to minus 160ºC
in order to transport it to demand centres is a highly energy-intensive
and therefore emission-intensive process, according to WoodMac analyst
Amy Bowe.
Capping emissions of heat-trapping gases by the oil and gas industry
has moved to the forefront of investors’ agendas in the wake of the 2015
Paris climate agreement to limit global warming to below 2ºC by the end of
the century.
Companies are coming under growing pressure to tackle emissions from
flaring excess gas at oil fields as well as limiting the emissions of methane,
a highly potent greenhouse gas, from pipelines and LNG terminals.
The Edinburgh oil and gas industry consultancy said in a study that
emissions from oil and gas production operations of 25 of the world’s top
energy companies are nevertheless expected to rise by 17% by 2025.
Fossil fuel output will increase by 15% over the same period. Emissions
resulting from LNG production are forecast to grow by 43% over the period
compared with a 22% increase in supply, “representing the largest absolute
increase in emissions,” according to the report.
Around 10% of gas processed by an LNG terminal is lost into the
atmosphere, Bowe said in an interview.
Global demand for LNG could increase from around 240 million tpy to
around 430 million t by 2025 according to Shell.
However, despite its large contribution to carbon emissions, LNG
remains the least polluting fossil fuel when taking into account the full
chain of production, delivery and consumption, primarily for producing
electricity, Bowe said.
The growth in emissions is also driven by a wave of investments in
heavy oil projects such as Canada’s oil sands, according to the study.
WoodMac also estimated that around US$45 billion of oil and gas
projects representing some 2.3% of fossil fuel reserves of firms surveyed are
at risk of not getting the green light by 2025 because of their high carbon
emissions.
The number, based on a tax of US$40 per t of carbon, represents a
fraction of other estimates of so-called ‘stranded’ fossil fuel assets.
Conventional onshore oil and gas fields will remain the largest single
source of production and emissions by 2025, although their share of the total
will diminish as fields age, according to the study.
Norway
LNGNEWS
FLEX LNG announce new
Chief Financial Officer
LEX LNG LTD. has announced the appointment of
F Øystein Kalleklev as Chief Financial Officer of the company.
Kalleklev brings extensive experience in the shipping and energy
sectors and capital markets experience to FLEX LNG. Prior to joining
the company, he served as Chief Financial Officer of Knutsen NYK
Offshore Tankers AS from 2013 and Chairman of the General Partner
of NYSE-listed KNOT Offshore Partners LP until recently this year.
Kalleklev also worked for industrial investment company
Umoe Group from 2006 to 2011, acting as Chief Financial Officer
beginning in 2008. At Umoe he was also a Board Member of
Umoe Gas Carriers as well as the Managing Director of the
investment company Umoe Invest. In addition, Kalleklev was Partner
at investment bank Clarksons Platou from 2011 to 2013 and a
business consultant for various energy companies while working
for Accenture from 2005 to 2006. Kalleklev holds a MSc degree in
Business Administration from Norwegian School of Economics (NHH)
and a BA in Business and Finance from Heriot-Watt University.
Jonathan Cook, CEO, commented: “I am pleased to announce
that Øystein has joined FLEX LNG. We expect that the breadth of
his industry and corporate finance experience will add significant
value to the company as we work towards building the business
into a leading player in the LNG shipping and floating regasification
markets.”
Kalleklev, commented: “This is an exciting time for FLEX LNG. The
company has rapidly established a presence in the market ahead of
the scheduled deliveries of its state of the art fleet of LNG carriers.
I look forward to helping FLEX LNG continue to execute its strategic
growth plan and become a market leader in the LNG shipping and
regasification market.”
South Korea
HMD receives approval
for cargo handling system
design
H yundai Mipo Dockyard (HMD) has received approval in
principle from Lloyd’s Register for a cargo handling system
design for a 6600 m3 LNG bunkering vessel.
HMD and the Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI)
Corporate Research Centre jointly developed the cargo handling
system design based on their extensive experience of building
gas carriers. HMD chose to develop the LNG bunkering vessel
design because of the potential for growth in the LNG-fuelled
ship sector.
The cargo handling system is designed for LNG bunkering
to a LNG-fuelled ship, as well to supply fuel gas to the
dual-fuel main engine and managing BOG. The cargo pumps
are capable of bunkering at a maximum of 1100 m3/h to a
LNG-fuelled ship and fuel gas to dual-fuel main engine can be
supplied by BOG compression or LNG vapouring. BOG returned
from the LNG-fuelled ship during bunkering can be burnt in the
dual-fuel engine or collected inside the Type C cargo tank.
Insulation for the cargo tank is designed for lower BOG
generation. BOG generated from the cargo tank is less than
the fuel gas consumption of the main engine at the normal
continuous rating. This means that all BOG can be utilised by
burning in the main engine so that the cargo tank pressure and
temperature can be managed in a stable manner.
A HMD official commented: “HMD and the
HHI Corporate Research Centre expect that a cargo handling
system for larger LNG bunkering vessels and LNG carriers can
also be developed based on this approved design for a 6600 m3
LNG bunkering vessel”.

26 - 28 October 2016 14 - 16 November 2016 12 - 15 December 2016

Gas Asia Summit & Exhibition European Autumn Gas CWC 17th World LNG Summit
Singapore Conference Barcelona, Spain
www.gasasiasummit.com The Hague, the Netherlands world.cwclng.com
www.theeagc.com

07 - 10 November 2016 28 - 29 November 2016 23 - 25 January 2017

ADIPEC International Gas Summit European Gas Conference
Abu Dhabi, UAE Nice, France 2017
www.adipec.com www.gassummit.org Vienna, Austria
www.europeangas-conference.com

October 2017 7
 Qatar bids to stay

8
LNG KING
 Peter Kiernan, The
Economist Intelligence
Unit, UK, explains why and
how Qatar will remain the
world’s largest LNG exporter
in the midst of growing US
and Australian production.
n 2016, the Middle East was knocked off its perch as the
I largest LNG exporting region in the world, with the opening of
new Australian liquefaction terminals making the Asia Pacific
region the leading exporter last year. LNG exporters in the
Middle East also face another rising competitor – the US – but the
region will remain a key contributor to global supply. In fact, just
as Australia has become poised to be the largest LNG exporter
within the next few years, Qatar, which accounts for nearly 90%
of the Middle East’s LNG exports, announced in July that it plans
to expand LNG capacity by 30% by 2024. Australia will surge past
9
 Qatar as the largest LNG exporter (in terms of capacity) by the end
of the decade, but Qatar’s recent announcement means that it will,
if achieved, regain this position by the middle of the next decade.
More importantly, however, it also reflects that the Middle East will
remain a key LNG exporting region for the steadily growing global
demand for LNG going forward.
The Middle East is also emerging as a region for LNG imports
as well. This may seem odd given the resource abundance in
hydrocarbons the region possesses. However, the Middle East’s
natural gas resources are heavily concentrated (in Iran, Iraq, Qatar
and Saudi Arabia), and countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, and
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have joined the ranks of the
world’s LNG importers by developing floating storage
regasification capacity to meet their growing energy needs. The
Middle East LNG story is primarily one about exports, but its role
as an LNG importer should not be overlooked either.
The exporters
The Middle East’s proven reserves of natural gas were estimated
to be 2803 trillion ft³ in 2016, according to the BP Statistical
Review of World Energy 2017, or approximately 42% of the
global total. The overwhelming share (approximately 83%) of
these proved reserves, however, are located in Qatar, Iran and
Saudi Arabia alone, and of these three states, only Qatar exports
gas as LNG. Iran, with 80 million people, is the fourth-largest
gas consuming economy in the world, behind only the US,
Russia and China. It exports modest volumes of pipeline gas to
Turkey and Armenia, and plans to export gas to Pakistan and
Iraq as well. With energy sanctions lifted, Iran plans to accelerate
the expansion of output at the giant South Pars field in the
Persian Gulf (which adjoins Qatar’s North Field), and some of
this may eventually lead to the development of an Iranian LNG
sector, although the EIU believes this is more likely to be viable
only in the longer-term. Saudi Arabia is also a significant gas
consumer and its domestic production supplies the local market,
especially the power sector as the kingdom seeks to reduce
the role of oil as a source of fuel for electricity generation. Iraq
also has substantial gas reserves, but has not developed export
capability. To date, therefore, the main player in the Middle East
LNG story has been, and will continue to be, Qatar, while Iran is a
potential exporter of the future.
Regional state of play
According to the International Gas Union (IGU), the Middle East
had 113 million tpy of liquefaction capacity in 2016, of which
77 million tpy is in Qatar, with smaller volumes in Oman, the UAE,
Egypt and Yemen.1 This represents approximately 33% of global
liquefaction capacity last year of 339.7 million tpy. Due to three
liquefaction terminals in Australia coming online, the Asia Pacific
region became the largest region in terms of liquefaction capacity
in 2016 (with more capacity to be added in 2017 – 2018). However,
the Middle East is still a key source of LNG, with Qatar accounting
for over two-thirds of the region’s capacity. While Qatar, the UAE
and Oman had high utilisation rates (with the first two exporters
operating at near full capacity), Yemen actually did not export LNG
in 2016 (due to the conflict in the country) and Egypt exported
very little (due to rising domestic consumption and falling
production). There are no liquefaction plants under construction in
the Middle East, so the region’s capacity will remain static in the
shorter-term, although Qatar’s recent announcement would push
its capacity to 100 million tpy by 2024, and the region’s capacity to
136 million tpy.
10 October 2017
In terms of LNG exports, the Middle East was also surpassed
by the Asia Pacific region last year, due to increased exports from
Australia. The IGU reported that the Middle East exported
91.4 million tpy of LNG in 2016, with Qatar exporting
77 million tpy, or 84%.2 The remaining volumes were exported
from Oman and the UAE, with a small volume from Egypt. The
Asia Pacific region’s LNG exports reached just short of
100 million tpy, as Australia exported an additional 15 million tpy
compared to 2015. Nevertheless the Middle East still accounted
for 35% of global LNG exports last year. More than two-thirds of
the Middle East’s exports were bound for the Asia Pacific (the
largest LNG importing region) in 2016, with 64 million tpy
exported to markets including China, India, Japan, South Korea and
Taiwan. Qatar in particular is also a key supplier to Europe (mainly
the UK, Italy, Belgium and Spain), while just over 3 million tpy was
exported within the Middle East itself.
Qatar
Qatar probably has not been in the news since it became an
independent state in 1971 as much as it has this year. In April, the
tiny Gulf state announced that it was lifting a 12-year moratorium
on new development of its giant offshore gas North Field in the
Persian Gulf. The field, which is the chief source for Qatar’s LNG
exports, is of such a significant resource base that it has enabled
Qatar to become the leading supplier of LNG since 2006. That
Qatar had decided to ramp up output after a freeze of more than
a decade – during which time much in the global gas market
had changed – was significant news in itself in that it reflected a
realisation that Qatar’s market share was being threatened: firstly
by Australia and then the US. Furthermore, with sanctions on Iran
lifted, Qatar’s large energy-producing neighbour was expected to
accelerate development of the South Pars field, which adjoins the
North Field (a maritime boundary runs through the offshore field
and resources are shared between the two countries on this basis).
Given the confluence of factors emerging in the last five years, it
had become apparent that the time had arrived for Qatar to act
and the moratorium was lifted.
However, in a matter of months since the lifting of the
moratorium, Qatar became subsumed in a crisis involving some of
its Gulf Co-Operation Council (GCC) neighbours (and others such
as Egypt). In early June, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt
broke off diplomatic relations with Qatar and imposed travel bans,
accusing the state of financially backing jihadist groups,
supporting Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and becoming
diplomatically too close to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Qatar
denied the charges, but at the time of writing, the standoff
remained unresolved. The dispute is a bitter one and will have
implications for the viability of the GCC politically, but so far it has
not impacted Qatar’s ability to export LNG through the
Persian Gulf – a scenario the EIU believes is extremely unlikely.
However, if a supply disruption was to occur – such as a blockade
– the impact on the global LNG market would be devastating
given that Qatar accounts for 30% of LNG exports. There does not
appear, however, to be a move towards preventing Qatar from
exporting LNG and crude oil.
In fact, if anything, Qatar appears undeterred by the standoff
with its Gulf neighbours, and in July built on the decision to lift
the moratorium on North field development to announce that it
planned to expand LNG output to 100 million tpy by 2024, or by
30%. Given the background of crisis permeating the GCC, the
move was interpreted as Qatar’s response to the geopolitical
pressure it was receiving, but it actually represented a logical
 Building the Energy Future
through LNG

Chart LNG solutions are facilitating the use of natural gas as a safe,

economical, clean-burning fuel alternative to diesel and other distillates

for energy, transportation and industry.

www.
ChartLNG.com
LNG@ChartIndustries.com
 extension of the decision to resume North Field’s development.
The timing of the announcement served as a useful signal that
Qatar was not going to relinquish its cherished position as the
world’s top LNG exporter, and as a reminder of its key role in
supplying global energy markets. Although Qatar will endure the
wave of additional LNG expected from Australia and the US in
the short to medium-term, Qatar takes the view that its
additional capacity will be available towards the middle of the
next decade, when slackness in the LNG market is expected to
end. Given the lower cost of building liquefaction capacity in the
Persian Gulf, such a move could make it more difficult for higher
cost competitors, such as Australia, to further expand their export
capacity, and to prevent potential new entrants, such as Canada
(whose projects would also be at much higher cost), to make
inroads. It may even keep some US mooted projects on the shelf
as well.
Iran: LNG wildcard
Four other countries in the Middle East have liquefaction capacity:
Oman, the UAE, Yemen and Egypt. According to the IGU, Oman
“has announced it intends to decommission its export projects
by 2025 to fulfil domestic demand”, while the UAE is reportedly
considering de-commissioning some of its plants as well (also
to meet growing domestic demand).3 Egypt plans to resume its
net export status by 2021, but this depends on local exploration
success or being able to access offshore gas being developed in
Israel or Cyprus. Yemen may resume LNG exports, but in the short
to medium-term, this seems unlikely given the ongoing conflict.
With no liquefaction projects under construction, any increase in
capacity in the Middle East is likely to occur in Qatar.
There is one country that may enter the league of LNG
exporters in the longer-term, however – Iran. Iran is a significant
producer of natural gas, and the South Pars offshore field in the
Persian Gulf is a significant source of feedstock for the country’s
domestic market. Given Iran’s large population, it is not surprising
that its production has catered for the local consumption.
However, Iran has mulled export opportunities in the past, both
via pipeline and LNG. There is a proposal for a floating LNG
(FLNG) unit to be constructed, and the lifting of sanctions may
rejuvenate interest in LNG in the longer-term. That said, given
the continuation of (non-nuclear related) US sanctions, Iran may
find it difficult to access technologies applicable to LNG
development (indeed, this has frustrated attempts to consider
developing LNG capacity in the past). While Iran as an LNG player
should not be ruled out, this is only likely on a significant scale
in the longer-term. Nearer-term, Iran has been in discussions
with for the construction of a subsea gas pipeline to Oman, and
is seeking to complete the construction of an onshore pipeline to
Pakistan.
Israel favours the pipeline
There have also been some significant offshore gas discoveries
in Israel, such as Leviathan and Tamar, and for a while this raised
the possibility that Israel could join the ranks of LNG exporters.
While Israel has the resource base to become a major exporter,
the decision to implement a domestic gas reservation policy
dampened expectations of its LNG potential, and the most likely
export option appears to be the construction of a subsea pipeline
to Turkey, after which the gas would be exported to Europe. The
most likely Israeli LNG option in the shorter-term appears to be
supplying Egypt’s export facilities, although little progress has
been made to date.
12 October 2017
The importers
Discussion of the Middle East’s role in the LNG market naturally
revolves around its export potential, but, in recent years, the region
has been a steadily growing importer of LNG as well. In 2016,
the Middle East (including Egypt) imported nearly 17 million tpy
of LNG, or just less than 6% of the global total. Regasification
capacity in the region is in the form of floating storage and
regasification units (FSRUs), which enable smaller scale but rapid
capacity build to meet demand needs often based on seasonal
factors (such as in the hot summers when electricity consumption
spikes). In some countries, such as Kuwait, gas consumption is
rising and production has not been keeping pace. Kuwait is also
constructing an onshore regasification terminal with a capacity
of 11.3 million tpy, which will be operational by 2021. The UAE,
which both exports and imports LNG, saw its import capacity
increase last year with an FSRU offshore Abu Dhabi becoming
operational. Due to rising domestic consumption, the emirate
could be reducing its exports over time, thus becoming more
reliant on LNG imports (the UAE also imports gas via pipeline
from Qatar). Resource-poor Jordan also began importing LNG in
2015. Meanwhile, Bahrain is constructing an FSRU, with capacity of
6 million tpy, which will begin operations in 2019. By the early part
of the next decade, the Middle East’s regasification capacity could
reach approximately 50 million tpy, which is not an insignificant
amount.
Conclusion
Qatar, the world’s largest LNG exporter, is facing a challenge
from Australia and the US – two emerging LNG competitors that
are in the process of significantly boosting liquefaction capacity.
The lifting of the North Field moratorium reflects Qatar’s
intent to protect its market share. However, due to forthcoming
supply from elsewhere, Qatar will be forced to be more flexible
with customers, especially given that the collapse in the oil
price in 2014 has led to weakening prices for oil-indexed
LNG. Furthermore, the dominance of long-term contracting
in determining the nature in which LNG is sold is weakening,
with spot trading now accounting for 25% of the total LNG sold
in 2016, according to the IGU.4 Lower prices, more flexibility
in contracting, and more competitors to contend with, are
challenges for Qatar over the next decade.
Nevertheless, LNG demand is increasing as well, with new
consumers emerging, or likely to emerge soon, such as Jordan,
Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Even in North-Eastern Europe, LNG is
now being imported by Poland and Lithuania. The global LNG
market is steadily growing, although under economic
circumstances that are much less lucrative for exporters compared
to the period before the oil price crash and the US shale boom. Yet
low cost Qatar will keep its key role as a supplier. On the
consumption side, some markets in the Middle East will become
steadily more important as well, attracted by the prospect of
importing LNG on better terms. As a result, Qatar and other
leading exporters will need to demonstrate flexibility towards
their customers to navigate the changing circumstances of the
LNG market that favour buyers. In the meantime, the Middle East
will also become a more important consumer of LNG as well.
References
1. International Gas Union, 2017 World LNG Report.
2. International Gas Union, 2017 World LNG Report.
3. International Gas Union, 2017 World LNG Report.
4. International Gas Union, 2017 World LNG Report.
 LNG as
transportation fuel
Alexander Harsema-Mensonides,
Braemar Engineering, USA,
explores the challenges LNG faces
in its bid for wide-scale acceptance
as a transportation fuel.
ossil fuels have only recently made their way into
F the transportation business. Coal was the base
fuel for the first steam engines for steam ships
and locomotives throughout the 19th Century. The late
19th Century saw the advent of another form of motorised
transportation – the automobile. Its internal combustion
engine would use either gasoline or diesel, both distillates
of crude oil. When in 1910 the diesel engine made its debut
in shipping, and much later in railway traction, the days
13
 of coal as a transportation fuel were over. With airliners
being powered by internal combustion engines, coal was a
non-starter in the airline industry.
Although abundant in supply and easy to distribute,
oil and its derivatives from avgas for the airline industry
to heavy residual fuels for the maritime industry are
under increasing scrutiny for the pollution they cause.
From the carcinogenic properties of soot from diesel fuels
to asthma and other lung diseases triggered by ground
level ozone, particulate matters, NOx, and SOx emissions
from engines have a negative impact on life on planet
Earth. The solution would be to move away from fossil
fuel completely, but some things are easier said than
done. While working on these solutions, there is a fossil
fuel that may be less harmful and could function as a
bridging fuel until zero-emission fuels are commercially
feasible – LNG.
The road ahead
LNG is not exactly the new kid on the block. Actually,
2017 marks the Centennial of the first LNG plant that
Godfrey Cabot built in West Virginia, US. It was not a
commercially successful venture, but it pioneered an
industry that today generates tens of billions of dollars in
revenue around the globe. From 1959 onwards, the LNG
business focused on liquefying natural gas, transporting it
overseas and then regasifying it to feed power generation,
industrial customers and residential users. LNG is also
used increasingly as a transportation fuel. It is as a
transportation fuel that some of LNG’s physical properties
tend to have a significant impact on the fuel system and
the fuel tanks. Due to its very low temperature of -163ºC,
LNG needs to be stored in tanks made of cryogenic
materials, such as stainless steel, aluminium or high nickel
steel alloys. This makes these LNG fuel tanks more costly
than gasoline or diesel fuel tanks made of mild steel or
synthetic materials. Furthermore, the LNG tank insulation
needs to minimise heat ingress into the tank to limit the
tank pressure rise.
The road to wide-scale acceptance of LNG as a
transportation fuel is long and complex. Regulatory,
technical and commercial issues all have to be reconciled
before the final investment decision (FID) can be taken.
Below is a short review of a number of drivers and
obstacles in each of these categories.
Obstacles along the way
In the regulatory category are such issues as complex
regulatory boundaries, often with several national agencies
involved in the approval of a single project. For marine
projects, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
sets the emission standards for the high sea. The IMO has
released the IGF Code, which governs the use of LNG as
marine fuel. For land-based use of LNG as transportation
fuel, the federal authorities in each individual country
are responsible. In the US, the Environmental Protection
Agency set air emissions limits; the US Department of
Transportation regulates the use of LNG as transportation
fuel for on-road and railroad use; while the US Coast Guard
(USCG), which is part of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), regulates the marine use of LNG as fuel
under the US flag, using the IMO IGF Code as the guideline.
14 October 2017
State and local regulators also have their say in what
is allowed and what is prohibited. Luckily, the complex
patchwork of jurisdictions and regulations is not stopping
developers of LNG as fuel projects, as gas is an abundant
fuel with attractive price dynamics and LNG offers
excellent potential for compliance with the strictest air
emissions regulations.
However, public resistance to LNG facilities is not an
issue to be ignored. Much of the resistance is based on
misconceptions about the properties and perceived dangers
of LNG. Although the LNG industry has an excellent track
record in terms of safety, LNG is occasionally perceived to
be highly explosive and dangerous. Public information
sessions to remove misconceptions are only partly effective
as some of the resistance is more ideological than factual.
Most of the technical issues around LNG as
transportation fuel can be divided in two specific areas: the
suitability of the engines for gas as fuel and the LNG tank
system. Not every engine is suitable for conversion to a
gas-fuelled engine and the gas-fuelled engines currently in
production do not cover all applications. There are two
areas in which there is already a significant population of
LNG-fuelled engines: the marine business and on-road
transportation.
Marine market
LNG fuel in the marine business goes back to the
mid-1960s when boil-off gas (BOG) from LNG cargo tanks
was first being used to fuel the steam turbines driving LNG
carriers. In 1987, MERV-1, a shrimper in the Gulf of Mexico,
became the first experimental, commercial vessel to be
fitted with LNG as fuel. The engine was a Caterpillar 3406B
engine, converted to run in dual fuel mode with 20%
diesel fuel and 80% natural gas and LNG fuel was stored
in two cylindrical LNG tanks. In 2000, the motor ferry
Glutra became the first ferry in Norway to use LNG as fuel.
What is interesting about this project is that the engines
were single-fuel gas engines, made by Mitsubishi. In
2003, the offshore support vessel Viking Energy entered
service, powered by four Wärtsilä medium-speed dual-fuel
engines. Viking Energy marked Wärtsilä’s entry into the
LNG as marine fuel business. In late 2006, the LNG carrier
GdF Suez Global Energy became the first dual-fuel diesel
electric driven LNG carrier, the first of more than 100 LNG
carriers to be fitted with dual-fuel medium-speed engines
in an electric drive arrangement.
In the meantime, developments have gone beyond
marine, single-fuel gas engines and medium-speed,
dual-fuel engines. 2015 marked the commercial
introduction of German engine manufacturer MAN’s ME-GI
engine series – a high-pressure gas injected version of its
successful ME-C slow-speed marine engine programme. In
late October 2015, LNG carrier Rasheeda re-entered service
with her heavy fuel fired MAN ME-C engines converted to
dual-fuel operation. Also in 2015, US shipyard NASSCO
delivered container vessel Isla Bella with a slow-speed
dual-fuel engine. Wärtsilä has introduced a low-pressure
gas injected slow-speed engine, which is now in service in
a number of LNG-fuelled chemical carriers. LNG-fuelled
propulsion systems have been ordered for a wide range of
ship types, including cruise vessels, LNG carriers, RoRo
carriers, container vessels, offshore support vessels, crane
 ships, passenger ferries, crude oil carriers and bulk carriers
to name but a few applications.
LNG storage on board is another issue. The preferred
type of LNG tank for LNG as marine fuel is the cylindrical
pressure vessel – the so-called Type C LNG tank. The
advantages of this type of tank are its low price, its ability
to withstand pressures of up to 10 bar(g) and its
scalability in terms of dimensions. The main disadvantage
is its cylindrical shape, which means that it has a lower
hull space utilisation factor than a prismatic tank. To put
it simply, it wastes more space around the tank than
would be the case if the tanks were rectangular in shape.
There are prismatic tanks available, but, until now, high
prices of these tanks have delayed adoption of this
alternative. The thick insulation around the tank
compounds the space requirement issue. Furthermore,
LNG has a lower calorific value per volume unit than
traditional marine fuels, which means that you need to
carry almost twice as many cubic meters of LNG to have
the same amount of energy on board as you would have
with marine diesel fuels. If space utilisation and
insulation are factored into the equation, approximately
three to four times as much volume is needed within the
ship to store LNG compared to marine diesel. This makes
conversions of vessels from diesel to LNG as fuel
especially difficult, because the vessel was originally
designed for diesel fuel, with much less space reserved
for fuel bunker tanks. If LNG tanks can be mounted on the
deck of the vessel, as is the case with crude oil, product
and chemical tankers, then conversions are a whole lot
easier. The first LNG conversion of a commercial vessel
was product tanker Bit Viking, which re-entered service in
2011.
On-road market
In the on-road market LNG is certainly making inroads.
In many countries, LNG-fuelled trucks and buses are
in service. China is probably the biggest market for
LNG-fuelled commercial vehicles, due to the Chinese
government’s policy to severely limit air emissions from
vehicles in cities. In the US, Peterbuilt and Kenworth
brand trucks are available with LNG compatible engines.
Truck engine manufacturer Cummins cooperates with
Canadian gas fuel systems specialist Westport in the
development of a range of LNG compatible engines for
commercial vehicles. In Europe, a wide range of truck
brands are available with LNG options. Mercedes-Benz,
Volvo, Scania and IVECO have LNG-powered trucks in
their portfolios. Renault and MAN have CNG compatible
engines available. LNG, because of its higher energy
density per volumetric unit, allows for a longer operating
range than CNG. Therefore, LNG is more attractive for
long-haul distribution, whereas CNG is more suitable for
suburban distribution and city buses. LNG is less suitable
for cars than for trucks for one simple reason; trucks
are used daily and this means that the LNG in the fuel
tank has less time to heat up and raise the tank pressure
to the point that the pressure relief safety valve opens.
Cars are often unused for several days, which could
allow the LNG fuel tank pressure to rise until the safety
valve opens. A natural gas release from a car parked in
a street in a highly-populated area and very close to a
16 October 2017
source of ignition might have unintended consequences.
LPG is more suitable as fuel for cars, as it can be kept
liquid under pressure in a steel LPG fuel tank. In the
Netherlands, LPG-fuelled cars were very popular in the
1980s and 1990s due to the low price of LPG compared to
the price of gasoline.
Rail applications
In rail traction applications, Burlington Northern and
Union Pacific experimented with LNG-fuelled locomotives
in the 1980s and 1990s, but it never got beyond the testing
stage, partly due to rising LNG prices. Recently, CP Rail in
Canada and BNSF in the US tested LNG-fuelled locomotives
again. Under current US railroad regulation, the LNG tender
car with fuel for the locomotive can only be operated
under an exemption permit as an LNG fuel tender and not
as a regular tank car. LNG tank cars are not allowed on US
rail roads and, given the recent incidents with crude oil
tank cars, it seems doubtful that there will be imminent
policy changes. Other countries, such as Russia, Spain and
Indonesia, are also experimenting with LNG-fuelled trains.
India decided to shelve a project to introduce LNG-fuelled
locomotives until further progress has been made in the
US.
Aircraft possibilities
Aircraft are another frontier for LNG in transportation. The jet
engines are indeed suitable for conversion to LNG as fuel, as
many aeroderivative power plants and compressor stations
on the ground run on natural gas. However, the space for
cryogenic LNG fuel tanks and enough insulation to keep the
pressure in the LNG fuel tanks from rising too quickly comes at
a steep premium in aircraft. In the Soviet Union, experiments
with hydrogen and later with LNG as fuel were done by
Tupolev in a Tu-155 experimental airliner in the late 1980s
and early 1990s. Boeing, Airbus and MIT have devoted time
to LNG-fuelled airplane designs, but entry into commercial
service is still quite a few years away.
Conclusion
All in all, LNG may be on its way to become a credible
transportation fuel, but it will take another decade or two
before LNG will be a mainstream fuel in shipping and
trucking. Regulatory change and further development of
the LNG fuel compatibility of the most popular locomotive
engines could see LNG fuel also play a significant role
in rail traction. In aviation, the technological hurdles
seem to be steeper than in other modes of transportation
and the wide scale acceptance of LNG as fuel seems to
be further out. Compliance with upcoming air emission
limits, lower engine wear and attractive fuel pricing are
helping LNG become a more mainstream fuel, but higher
LNG fuel systems cost and cumbersome LNG fuel storage
arrangements are slowing down wide scale acceptance
of LNG as transportation fuel. Last but not least, LNG is
not widely available and many operators who decide to
switch to LNG as fuel need to put their own LNG refuelling
infrastructure in place, which means that the overall
economics of LNG as fuel become less attractive. When
the cost of the infrastructure can be shared with many
new users, the economics of LNG as fuel improve and early
adopters will become more competitive.
 Small scale
LNG
distribution
from an

FSRU
Jochen Schmidt-Lüßmann and Glenn Bannister, Marine Service GmbH,
Germany, discuss the potential for a cost-effective method of bringing
LNG infrastructure and a natural gas supply to a port or harbour.

cost-effective method of bringing LNG infrastructure and a

A natural gas supply to a port or harbour is the installation of

a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU). Such FSRUs
can either be purpose built or can be constructed as conversions
of existing LNG carriers. An FSRU offers not only cost advantages
compared to the construction of a land-based LNG import terminal,
but also provides benefits in the way of location flexibility, zoning and

Figure 1. Floating storage and

regasification unit (FSRU) bunker port.

17
 approval processes, related infrastructure requirements,
local building costs, etc. Only a suitable berthing pier at
shore or an offshore jetty/mooring turret is required as
well as a high pressure gas line connection to a trunk line
onshore and/or to a neighbouring power plant. LNG supply
can be done by direct ship-to-ship (STS) transfer from an
LNG tanker, or by the FSRU sailing itself to an LNG loading
port.
While the main use of LNG is to supply land-based
users connected to a pipeline, there are other possible
uses of LNG which require a local small scale distribution.
One main use is the supply of port users such as
LNG-fuelled ships calling to or operating in the port where
the FSRU is installed.
Fewer emissions with LNG
The use of LNG as fuel for vessels is rising in importance
due to environmental concerns and increasingly stringent
regulations. While ships have a positive environmental
balance per transported tonne and kilometre compared
to other means of transport, the absolute amount of
CO2 emissions is significantly higher. For the pollutants
sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate
matter, the balance sheet looks even worse. Especially
in maritime zones with dense traffic, such as the North
and Baltic Seas and in port cities, exhaust gases of
ships add significantly to the exposure to NOx and
particulate matter. The use of LNG as fuel allows vessels
to significantly improve their environmental balance and,
Figure 2. LNG filling station.
Figure 3. Connection to FSRU.
18 October 2017
especially in port cities, reduce the health risks posed
by particulate emissions. Vessels which only sporadically
require very small quantities of fuel could possibly
use compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel storage
means. However, this is not an option for the majority of
small scale users, for which it will be necessary to have
the fuel supplied in the form of LNG to take advantage of
the vastly reduced space requirements.
The mobile filling station
In ports where an FSRU has been installed with only a gas
connection to land, it is difficult to offload and distribute
LNG to other users. To solve this, Marine Service GmbH
has developed a mobile filling station using an array of
barge-mounted LNG container tanks. This containerised
filling station allows not only vessels to be supplied, but
also land-based users by transporting the containers by
truck to the consumer.
The LNG tank containers were originally developed by
Marine Service to be used on containerships as fuel gas
tanks and are specially designed to fulfil the requirements
of the IMO IGC Code. The type-approved tanks can be both
filled and discharged while on board a vessel, which is not
the case with standard containerised LNG tanks. This
flexibility allows the mobile filling station to be loaded
with LNG at an FSRU and transfer/discharge the LNG
directly to small scale users in the port area.
All devices needed for the filling and transport of the
tank containers and the discharge of LNG to users are
installed on the barge. Cell guides on the deck of the
barge allow up to twelve 40 ft tank containers to be
placed on board. A crane is installed near the LNG
manifold to facilitate the handling of cargo hoses.
The mobile filling station can be built as a
non-self-propelled barge, which is transported by tug or
pusher tug to the desired location. If frequent relocations
are necessary, another more cost-effective option could be
the deployment of a self-propelled version.
The LNG containers are connected via insulated pipes
to an LNG handling station located amidships. The final
container connections are done by using flexible cryogenic
hoses with quick couplings. The quick couplings allow
detachment with practically no release of LNG and have
an incorporated safety release
breakaway. Further safety devices
include gas detectors to monitor all
areas of the barge and a water spray
system to protect the containers against
heating-up in case of fire. A powder
extinguishing system in way of the
bunker connections serves as a
fire-fighting system.
Power supply for the barge’s cargo
and utility systems is provided by a
diesel generator located on the aft
deck.
Transfer from FSRUs
to other vessels
For replenishing the mobile filling
station, an STS transfer from the cargo
manifold of the FSRU is certainly
 possible, but a much more feasible solution is the
installation of a bunker port at a height similar to the
height of the mobile filling station’s manifold.
The filling station is brought into position or
manoeuvres itself alongside the FSRU so that its loading
manifold station is next to the bunker port. The transfer
manifold is connected to the FSRU via cryogenic hoses.
All containers can be filled simultaneously with a
maximum total bunker rate of 300 m³/hr.
After filling the containers, the barge can be
transferred either to its holding station in the port or
directly to a ship which is to be bunkered with LNG. The
barge can remain up to 30 days at its holding station
without impairing its ability to perform bunkering.
Liquefied nitrogen (LN2) connections on the tank
containers allow the LNG to be cooled down if the
maximum holding time is exceeded.
Figure 4. LNG handling station.
Figure 5. Spud poles.
Figure 6. Weighing cells.
20 October 2017
A pump at the LNG handling station is used to transfer
the LNG to the recipient ship with a transfer rate between
25 and 100 m³/hr, depending on the requirements of the
user.
For holding its position – both while connected to the
FSRU, as well as when supplying users – the filling station
is equipped with spud poles, which are lowered to the
seabed to give a safe holding without a necessity to use
any mooring ropes. This is especially useful when
connecting to bunker stations located at the aft of a vessel
where a flat side for mooring would not be available.
Full versatility
Filled containers can also be loaded with a crane onto a
truck or rail car and then be transported to end consumers
further inland. In this way, a supply of LNG to petrol
stations and industrial plants on land is also possible.
The standardised container slots on the mobile filling
station can also be used for other payloads, depending on
specific requirements in the FSRU port. Any standard 40 ft
container can be stored on the filling station. For example
tank containers with liquid nitrogen can be carried, in
order to supply LN2 to vessels which have to cool down
their LNG fuel tanks again to cryogenic temperature after a
docking time. The nitrogen may be transferred to the ship
either in liquid form or gaseous form, the latter by using a
vaporiser which can be installed in the LNG handling
station.
A further possibility is to use two container slots to
store two containerised power packs. These can supply
clean power to a vessel for cold ironing or for
commissioning of another vessel when a 50 Hz or 60 Hz
supply is needed and a land supply is not readily available.
This flexibility allows the filling station to act as a
versatile workhorse in the port.
Reliable custody transfer
measurement
A problem up to now when supplying LNG has been
accurately measuring the delivered quantities and ensuring
a reliable custody transfer. A volumetric measurement does
not deliver precise figures because the LNG can change
its density significantly depending on composition and
temperature. To solve this, the barge is equipped with a
weighing cell system which determines the exact weight
of each container while it is filled or discharged. Weighing
data from each sensor is transmitted to a custody transfer
computer for evaluation and printing. A small room at the
aft serves as a tally office and as a common room for the
crew.
Conclusion
FSRUs are a viable option when planning an LNG
infrastructure at or near shore. Increasing the use of LNG
in the port can significantly decrease the port’s overall
emissions. The capability of a port which has an FSRU to
handle and distribute LNG can be enhanced by using the
mobile filling station based on the LNG container barge. It
presents an efficient, flexible and cost-effective solution
for the small scale distribution of LNG from an FSRU to
end consumers, such as harbour work boats, moored ships
during port operations, or facilities on land.
 e
u nl l i
the
F

fleet g

Paul Shields, Chart Industries, Inc.,

USA, in collaboration with
Ground Force Worldwide introduces
the world’s first diesel/LNG
dual-fuelling vehicle.

hen Ground Force Worldwide (GFW), a global specialist providing

W fuel and lube truck solutions to the mining industry, was

approached by a large rock quarry in North America to provide a
fuelling solution for its fleet of recently retrofitted diesel/LNG hybrid haulers,
it turned to Chart Industries. This article presents the collaboration that
resulted in the first diesel/LNG dual-fuelling vehicle.

The vehicle
The dual-fuelling vehicle is based on a Kenworth T800. This particular truck
chassis was chosen primarily because the customer has other Kenworth
vehicles in its fleet. Parts availability and commonality is very important in
mining applications as it minimises downtime, reduces inventory costs and
provides additional convenience. The Kenworth is also suited to rugged

21
 terrain, proven in mining and quarrying environments, and
therefore a logical fit for this application.
The cryogenic tanker
The Orca is the cryogenic tanker that stores and dispenses LNG
from that section of the dual-fueller. It was originally developed
as part of the MicroBulk delivery system for packaged gases
whereby relatively low volume users of industrial gases, such
as pubs, restaurants, cinemas, small medical facilities and
industrial facilities, are able to use liquid gases economically to
replace less efficient and cumbersome cylinders. Over the years,
the Orca has been improved and adapted and adding LNG to its
service list of liquid gases was a natural extension that quickly
followed its initial introduction.
At its core, the Orca is a horizontal cryogenic storage vessel
and consists of an external stainless steel vessel and
aluminium inner vessel with perlite insulation in the interspace.
Safety, reliability and ease of use are always important, but
especially so when operators are potentially dealing with an
unfamiliar substance. Consequently, the unit has a submerged
pump with no pump seals to replace and a metering section
with no moving parts to wear out. Operators fuel from a single
hose with automatic cut-off, just like with distillates, and can
dispense between 30 and 50 gal./min. For optimum safety, and
Figure 1. First diesel/LNG dual-fueller in action.
Figure 2. Chart’s Orca technology celebrates its 21st birthday
this year.
22 October 2017
also because of methane’s potency as a greenhouse gas (GHG),
multiple features are incorporated for zero filling losses.
Basic features of the unit include the following:
z Submerged delivery pump capable of delivering
30 – 50 gal./min. at 210 psig.
z Auto-fill termination.
z Single hose delivery with quick-connect fittings.
z Push button programmable logic controller with manual
override
z Delivery system approved in accordance with
National Conference on Weights & Measures.
z Integrated saturation coil to facilitate pump filling for
spark ignited natural gas and high pressure direct injection
engine platforms.
z Stainless steel plumbing for maximum service life.
Adaptation
Adapting the standard Orca for mine operation was relatively
straightforward (from Chart’s perspective at least), with GFW
doing all of the heavy lifting in relation to the vehicle’s required
robustness for the terrain. In truth, that is the company’s forte,
and most of Chart’s work consisted of providing guidance and
support to GFW to enable it to incorporate the Orca unit onto
the chassis with the diesel fuelling segment.
Mounting locations and chassis requirements were
determined based on weight calculations and chassis data,
such as: requirements for axle splits; overall chassis
dimensions; and also the location of the pusher axle. Other
determining factors for mounting locations were: LNG area
classifications; tank volume; and optimal center of gravity. Fuel
nozzle and delivery location were dictated by the customer for
convenience and ease of use. Electrical routing was completed
in accordance with the Classification of Class 1 Division II on
the exterior of the LNG portion, while taking into consideration
convenience and safety.
As the mine truck conversions use a non-standard fuelling
receptacle, Chart was required to provide an ARTA design
fueling hose nozzle, which is different to the one associated
with on-road fuelling.
Vehicle specifications (diesel
section)
z 2500 gal. (9463 litres) diesel tank.
z GFW integrated innovative fuel tank baffling system.
z Tank built with rollover protection.
z Tank ‘internal valve’ built with cable-operated manual
emergency shutoff handle and thermal fallible link.
z Ground-level fill with ‘Hydrau-Flo®’ non-pressure shutoff
system.
z 20 in. manway with 10 in. inspection port/fill and vent.
z Rear access ladder and top spray-on, non-slip walkway to
manway with PPE tie-offs.
z Full-height site gauge.
z Equipped with heavy-duty fenders and rear mud flaps.
z Hydraulic-driven, high volume diesel transfer pump rated at
10 – 120 gal./min.
z Diesel pump with speed control and pump on/off controls.
z Includes automatic throttle control to increase engine
speed when pumping fuel.

SUBMERGED MOTOR
z Dual filtration with 30 micron, high-efficiency filter
assembly.
z High-volume, heavy-duty mechanical diesel totaliser.
z Meter, pump speed controls, and reels mounted in an CRYOGENIC PUMPS
enclosed compartment on driver’s side of truck.
z Pump and filtration compartment located on curb side.
FOR LIQUEFIED GASES
Vehicle specifications (LNG
section)
z Gross capacity (cold): 3398 gal.
z LNG capacity (at 0 psig saturation): 2755 gal.
z 160 MAWP (maximum allowable working pressure).
z Bottle length (overall): 16.38 ft (19.2 ft with cabinet).
z Bottle width (overall): 7.56 ft.

GLOBAL LEADER IN DEVELOPMENT,

z Height (bottle): 8.23 ft.
z Tare weight (bottle): 13 000 lbs.

ENGINEERING AND TESTING

z LNG dispense hose.
z ARTA ASK-TT fuelling nozzle.
z 30HP ACD KA submersed pump.
z Vehicle vent hose with macrotech-style fitting.
z Control system.
z Density compensated metering system accurate to +/- 2.5%.
z Saturation coil/pressure building coil.
z Electro static discharge (ESDs) – rear and front (two places).

Summary
Although the idea of a duel-fuelling vehicle is not particularly
new or revolutionary, this project is a demonstration of how
a bit of innovative thinking can help in the overall transition
from distillates to LNG. It is relatively straightforward to
highlight the environmental and pump price advantages of
LNG versus distillates, but, if there is no infrastructure already
in place, then persuading operators and organisations to
Superior Reliability
undertake the investment required in one fell swoop can prove
difficult and projects falter as a result. The dual-fueller helps
Full Range of Cryogenic Pumps
facilitate a gradual transition and, in this case, the quarry to
service both diesel and LNG vehicles from the same source. ‡,QWDQNUHPRYDEOHSXPSV
There are numerous examples of quarries and mines in off-grid
locations using LNG for power generation and haulage vehicles ‡9HVVHOPRXQWHGSXPSV
represents another way they can utilise the same fuel. ‡)L[HGPRXQWHGSXPSV
Prior to this project, Chart and GFW had not previously
worked together, but both declared themselves extremely Low total cost of ownership
satisfied with the results of their collaboration. More
importantly, reports from the quarry are that the mobile fueller
has already proved itself in service and provides a fuelling No shaft seals - maximize safety,
solution that is 50% faster than the previous system. With the with low maintenance costs
increasing use of LNG/diesel hybrid retrofit solutions on haul
truck fleets and the major rigid truck original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) working on designs for additional LNG or Unparalleled quality
hybrid haulers, the corresponding demand for on-location
fuelling vehicles looks set to also increase. GFW has already Exceptional pump-down capability
engineered dual-fuelling vehicles based on rigid frame and ADT ([WUHPHO\ORZ136+5
platforms.

WWW.NIKKISOCRYO.COM
24
 Stéphane Desbuisson, Fives Cryo,
France, and Nicolas Teyssot, Fives
Cryomec, Switzerland, explain why
it is vital to predict maintenance
precisely to optimise equipment
efficiency and extend its lifecycle.
quipment ages daily, regardless of how often
E or how intensely it is used. Without proper
understanding of its behaviour, maintenance
can become a headache for users who are not
adequately prepared.
Preventive maintenance is critical for process,
cost, and equipment reliability. However, one of the
main questions raised is how to verify that the right
maintenance is being performed at the appropriate
time. This prediction may be difficult if the customer
has not put in place proper monitoring for his/her
25
 installation and equipment. This monitoring can be
achieved with a large amount of data for an operational
performance follow-up, or specifically for the prediction of
the maintenance time.
Following the path of competitiveness, present and
future factories will continue to deal with the challenge
of cost efficiency. A broken piece of equipment can cost
two to five times more than routine maintenance,
resulting in a total of ten times the original maintenance
amount when all costs are included (such as emergency
response, process disturbance, and stress on the
production line). Therefore, it is crucial to outline proper
preventive checks to avoid these failures, and be able to
plan proper shutdown and maintenance times.
A cryogenic pump failure – the core of the installed
cryogenic liquid transfer process, like on LNG – is already
difficult to handle, despite redundancy in the process, due
to the increasing risk on the back-up pump. However,
would a customer feel safe if he/she started to see a
brazed aluminium heat exchanger (BAHX) leaking?
Figure 1. Brazed plate-fin heat exchanger structure.
Figure 2. Heat exchanger figure.
26 October 2017
While curative maintenance is not economical when
including the emergency repairs, the customer may
hesitate between a safe and easy periodic maintenance
and a predictive maintenance that requires more effort.
If the interval time for maintenance is not properly
set, the equipment can potentially reach breaking point. In
this case, the supposedly preventive maintenance would
become curative maintenance.
Maintenance intervals are complicated to plan because
of the variety of the equipment’s usage (time, running
conditions, start-stop cycling, etc.), and all of these usages
require proper monitoring.
Monitoring is the key of predictive maintenance. This
is based on the collection of specific data, such as
vibration, temperature, acoustic, electrical, or linked with
operational performances. Data collection may also
include simpler elements, such as visual checks and
periodic inspection.
The generalisation of new technologies and the digital
transformation of the industry represent good assets for
the development of various customer-oriented interfaces
and tools.
Monitoring customers’ installations and equipment
with new technologies will be mandatory to be able to
retrieve, gather and analyse as much data and information
as possible.
Heat exchangers and core
Plate-fin heat exchanger technology is used by
approximately 25% of the LNG liquefaction trains in the
world, and also on Q-Flex LNG carriers. The main concerns
faced by users of BAHXs are the risks of leaks (which
may require layer plugging) and fouling (1). Often, these
create disturbances in the customer’s processes and may
eventually lead to a complete plant shutdown for a long
and costly repair.
Monitoring
While plugging may be checked by performance
verification during the commissioning and operation,
additional diagnostic tools and periodic maintenance
should be implemented to avoid any issues. During
a planned factory shutdown, three tests should be
performed to assess the equipment condition:
z Leak testing to check for possible interaction between
two or more streams polluting each other, along with
external leaks.
z Control of distortion testing to detect
possible abnormal deformations in the heat
exchangers.
z Mercury testing, using x-ray techniques because it can
corrode aluminium under specific conditions.
Repair on-site
A leak can be external, stemming from sidebar leaks, or
from cracks on the welds (Figure 2) causing pollution
(communication between layers). When internal cracks
are observed, layer plugging is often required, but new
performance test simulations must be completed to
understand if the performance degradation is acceptable
for the customer.
 Providing optimum efficiency of the equipment is the
objective, and means that only reasonable pressure drops
are acceptable. Such repairs can be done onsite using
experienced field service engineers and technicians that
will seal leakage by welding, and perform tightness tests
to confirm plugged leaks and optimal efficiency.
Additional non-destructive tests (NDTs) are also
required, including the radiographic and dye penetrant
tests performed by experienced field service technicians.
Aluminium is the main material of Fives’ BAHX. It is
one of the most difficult alloys concerning welding and
requires several different qualifications, such as ASME and
European PED codes. To support customers on these
complex requirements, Fives created its own internal
welding school aimed to improve welding skills and
develop new welding procedures to ensure the highest
quality of welds on-site and at its workshops.
In partnership with Licensors and End Users, Fives is
involved in the ten year maintenance of Q-Flex LNG
carriers in dry dock (see Figure 4), to ensure the lifespan
of the re-liquefaction system. Thanks to the reliability of
the plate-fin technology, repair operations to be
performed by Fives remain rare, and do not exceed one
week as an average. Such repairs, when needed, are
performed at anchorage point or during ballast voyage.
All of the company’s technicians are trained so that
they can work on all types of heat exchangers regardless
of the manufacturer. For example, on spiral wound heat
exchangers (MCHEs), TIG and MIG welding can be
performed onsite by experienced service technicians. Figure 3. Replacement of one core.
Occasionally, the damages are such that one of the
cores is not functional anymore, and it has to be replaced.
Fives’ designs allow for single heat exchanger
replacements instead of modifying the complete
installation, whether the heat exchanger must be repaired
or replaced (Figures 3 and 4).
However, most of the times when these periodic
checks are performed, there remains potential internal
pollutants, such as dust, corrosion debris, or perlite, that
could plug and foul one or more layers. The de-plugging
technique used by Fives is called back-puffing, which
sends a large air quantity under pressure into one isolated
layer to push particles out. It is helpful to emphasise that
most plugging caused by dry particles can be de-plugged
with this procedure.
However, design and study are key in the exchanger’s
design, by enabling the optimisation of the replacement
solutions and minimisation of the welding on-site in order
to reduce the shutdown period. The design and process
teams play a key role in these operations. Designers
calculate the sizing for the process design and mechanical
integrity, while the process engineers check the design
with specifications (i.e. simulations to ensure optimal
efficiency).

Remote support
Whether for site intervention and checking or for
customer support, a remote team of application and
process engineers should be on call at the office. These
teams will remotely support the customer to resolve the
production issues, concerns, or demands in the quickest Figure 4. Q-Flex LNG carrier.
manner possible.

October 2017 27
 Fives’ highly qualified technicians can easily avoid
typical problems with BAHXs or MCHEs (fouling, plugging,
leaks, etc.) leading to devastating effects on production
losses.
Cryogenic pumps
Heat exchangers are not the only equipment that can
benefit from proper checks and verifications.
The cryogenic pump field is an area where predictive
maintenance can lead to important cost savings.
Such equipment, as per Fives’ recommendation, is
highly monitored with internal and external sensors.
Monitoring understanding
When talking about cryogenic pumps, the variety of
usage is as wide as the amount of customers worldwide.
Although the same type of pumps can be used onshore for
bunkering or in a trailer tank to unload its tank, it is key
to understand the customer’s business and its monitoring
requirements.
Prior to defining the proper tools to use for
monitoring, Fives always meets the customer first to
ensure that data can be retrieved, whether automatically
or manually.
For instance, motor grease quantity and interval
depend on motor usage (performance) and external
temperature.
Local monitoring and support
It is important to support customers by properly setting
up the preventive maintenance (whether it is periodic, or
constantly monitored), and therefore being able to spend
some time onsite on a regular basis to verify that proper
actions have been done. Whether it is led by one of Fives’
five service centres or by a local partner, all customers are
tracked on a yearly basis to ensure the adequacy of these
supports versus the latest customer objectives.
Onsite monitoring
Local monitoring through periodic check or sensor
monitoring is the best way to support preventive and
predictive maintenance.
For pump data, monitoring does not only mean
process parameters such as pressures or flow, but means
all the value chain in the equipment: motor power, motor
speed, vibration, temperature and vibration of bearing,
etc., and its accessories (lubricating system, seal gas, etc.).
Actual triggers are set to protect pumps from failure,
and whether it is an alarm point or a stop one, reaching
them means maintenance is already required. Field and
remote support are both provided to reach optimum
performance of the customer’s pump. While visiting a
customer in China, Fives’ local team was able to predict
the maintenance requirement for the pump more than six
months prior to the customer observing difficulties.
Remote monitoring
When equipment is working alone on a remote site, or
when the customer has several ports of control, it is
also important to set up remote monitoring. It helps
customers to understand how the pump works, but also
gives the service provider more data to support his/her
28 October 2017
customers and help him define proper timing for his/her
maintenance and proper actions to support his/her
maintenance.
For example, on the Cryomec VSMP pump, product for
LNG application, monitoring can be achieved through
constant remote support, on bunkering applications since
there is no local constant monitoring, but also for LNG
fuel gas supply systems (FGSSs) to ensure people on
board receive support on any actions since there is no on
board specialist available at any time.
While onsite monitoring by customer’s technicians and
engineers is only set to review instantaneous data for live
process, historical data should be reviewed in order to
assess trends as well as predict the next most appropriate
maintenance time.
Fives’ teams have developed the expertise to analyse
this data, assess trends and can predict precisely the
appropriate timing of the next maintenance required.
Repair on-site or in a workshop
The last step of good monitoring and follow-up is of
course the maintenance repair itself. This should also
follow strict rules to maintain high quality standards and
not reduce maintenance interval.
Customers are very often willing to take care of the
motor repair themselves since their maintenance team or
local workshop may have experience with motors.
However, motors used on cryogenic pumps are far from
being generic or standard motors, and their maintenance
requires very specific and detailed checks that regular
maintenance shops are not aware of. In this matter, it is
important for the customer to get in touch with certified
repair workshops that can handle such fine-tuned motors.
For example, Fives has developed a special methodology
for motor repair and has certified its five workshops
accordingly, in addition to the workshop of its official
service representatives. Poor motor re-assembly can
decrease the motor life-time drastically. A common
example would be the one Fives dealt with recently in
South Korea. While last motor maintenance on a Cryomec
VSMP managed by a Fives technician had made the pump
last three years without any issues on 24/7 duty, the
customer allowed a local, uncertified contractor to take
care of the maintenance of all equipment on-site,
including the Fives cryogenic pumps. While repairing the
motor as a regular motor, the lifetime of the pump
dropped significantly since the pump failed twice after
three months duty.
Performing predictive maintenance on cryogenic
equipment is key to achieve optimum efficiency and
extend its lifecycle. However, understanding the various
usages of cryogenic equipment is vital to monitor it
correctly and predict the maintenance adequately. This
can only be achieved by building a close relationship with
the customer.
Conclusion
Wherever the customer is located worldwide, he/she should
benefit from local support and experience of cryogenic
specialists to determine the trigger to properly scheduled
maintenance times, whether using his own system, or the
one developed by the Fives service teams.
 Thomas Knight, Orbital, USA, explains
the challenges inherent in LNG trace
measurement, and how to obtain a more
representative gas sample.

Rapid,
representative
results

o ensure that requirements are met for a clean,

T dry and likewise energy efficient gaseous fuel,

natural gas must undergo rigorous dehydration
processing once it has been extracted. The presence
of even minute quantities of water vapour in natural
gas streams has potentially serious implications
on LNG production equipment. The deposition of
trace moisture on metal components can lead
to corrosion as the water molecules oxidise
the solid surfaces. In addition, given sufficient
amounts, water vapour is able to mix with liquid
hydrocarbons in the gas, which then condenses
out as it is transported. This forms emulsions,
which can freeze under low-pressure conditions,
causing blockages and reducing flow capacities in
transport pipelines.

Figure 1. VE
fixed/retractable
sample probe, with patented helical strake design.

29
 The problems that arise due to the presence of
moisture in natural gas have meant that limits have been
set, restricting the amount of water to often no more than
0.4 ppm for LNG processing. This reinforces the need for
rapid and representative trace measurement, where
continuous, online gas sampling has become standard
practice in LNG production facilities. Any moisture present
in the gas stream should be identified early and accurately,
such that appropriate action can be taken to remove it, and
prevent thereafter. The efficient sampling and measurement
of trace moisture in natural gas is therefore essential such
that the process requirements are met and that LNG
production operations can run safely and sustainably.
The challenge of ‘dead space’
Sampling systems for LNG trace measurement need to be
able to deliver gas to the analyser quickly and directly. If
this is not achieved, then the analyser will be unable to
read the actual composition of the stream, which will entail
considerable delays. Unavoidably during sampling, moisture
present in natural gas will adsorb (stick) to the inner
surfaces of stainless steel and other metal components as
it is transported. This will continue until the active sites
on the solid surface become ‘saturated’ with water, until
no more is able to adhere. Depending on the complexity
of the sample system, a certain delay should be expected
before the analyser can output the correct concentration of
moisture.
Delay is, however, dramatically lengthened by the
presence of dead spaces in the sample line and sampling
components themselves. As gas is transported through the
sample system, it will build up in small gaps and crevices.
Meanwhile, this allows any water to adsorb to the
exposed surface. Although dead spaces are commonplace
in gas sampling processes, poor design can mean the
difference between a 5 sec. and a 24 hr delay. If the
sample equipment is overly intricate, providing numerous
areas in which gas can collect, the actual concentration of
gas may in some cases never be determined. This can
mean significant financial losses and/or production
delays.
Figure 2. Patented helical strakes eliminate vortex shedding.
30 October 2017
The most significant contribution to dead space often
comes from the sampling components themselves (e.g.
probes, valves, regulators, etc.). Research was conducted,
investigating the wet-up and dry-down times of a number
of different sample components (for example, the time
taken for the surfaces to saturate with water and then dry
out, respectively). One included a widely used membrane
filter probe, which was highly intricate in design and
included multiple seals, fittings, etc. Based on the data
collated, it was found that the presence of these
additional items seemed to dramatically increase the
dry-down times, when compared with probes of much less
complex designs. After four hours of continually purging
the probe with dry nitrogen, the analyser was still reading
in excess of 1 ppm (where it should have been reading
approximately 0 ppm).
The filter element is designed to collect liquid residue,
which would otherwise interfere with the analyser. It is
very possible that as gas was passed through it, small
droplets of water from the filter tip were becoming
entrained in the stream. The analyser would therefore be
reading what was coming off the filter and not what was
in the gas stream itself. This implies completely
misrepresentative readings.
What does this mean?
In line with meeting customer expectations, sample
systems need to be adaptable. The moisture content of
incoming natural gas streams will vary considerably. In
line with ISO 10715, the main objective of sampling is to
take measurements that are representative of the gas at a
given time. If a sample system is unable to quickly respond
to changes (due to poorly designed components causing
delays), then this objective is no longer fulfilled.
Obtaining a representative
sample
Earlier research
As already reinforced, for trace moisture applications,
adsorption plays a significant role in how quickly the
analyser is able to measure the actual
composition of gas. The key objective
of any trace measurement sampling
system is to facilitate the adsorption
process as quickly as possible.
Research was undertaken at
Orbital headquarters in Houston, Texas,
US, to address how different sampling
materials and methods affect the
speed of analyser response, for trace
moisture measurement. This was done
to establish optimal sampling
conditions/practices in terms of
generating rapid and representative
data, with the aim of applying this to
existing technology. This involved
investigating the effect of three
principle factors: the application of
surface treatments on sampling
components; the effect of
operating temperature; and the effect

of sampling component design on wet-up and dry-down
times.
The results of the experiments concluded a number of
key findings:
1. That a combination of an amorphous silica coating,
combined with an electropolished finish yielded the
best results in terms of maximising adsorption uptake
and thus minimising overall delay. It was hypothesised
that the presence of the silica coating reduces the
total number of sites available for adsorption through
physically blocking a portion of the sites with an inert
substitute. Furthermore, that the electropolished finish
reduces surface area and thus the total capacity for
adsorption.
2. That an optimal temperature exists for sampling
conditions, which will vary depending on the type of
surface treatment applied. Increasing temperature
exponentially does not necessarily correlate with
quicker responses. A balance must be maintained
between the rate of adsorption and desorption, which
are both direct functions of operating temperature.
3. That the less intricate and complex the sampling
components and likewise system as a whole, the
shorter the delay as this minimises dead volumes and
thus areas in which water can become trapped and
subsequently adsorb.
The outcome
The conclusions drawn from the research have helped to
validate that the sampling materials, methods and practices
used by Orbital have been optimised for trace measurement
applications. Every element of a sampling system needs
to be carefully tailored to the specific process area. This
involves identifying the optimal sampling points and
process conditions, as well as establishing the best design
and configuration of the sampling components themselves.
Sample systems require specially designed components,
which are able to rapidly and efficiently deliver gas to the
analyser, whilst minimising dead spaces where moisture
can build up. Orbital fulfils this through applying simple
concepts and design, readily equipped for trace
measurement applications. The sample systems have been
optimised such that gas can be delivered to the analyser
with no threaded connections or components interfering
with the sample pathway. This ensures that gas can be
transported as quickly as possible, preventing unnecessary
dead volumes.
Orbital employs VE Technology for gas collection and
conditioning; it is through this that near real-time results
can be generated:
z The VE fixed/retractable sample probe, used to extract
the gas, has patented helical strakes, which eliminate
vortex shedding. Vortex shedding is responsible for
probe damage, a common problem in conventional
sampling. The elimination of this problem means that
the probe tip can sample from the central third of
practically any application to ensure the sample taken
is as representative as possible of the main body of
flow. The VE probe can be utilised in any length and
also comes in two configurations. The technology is
therefore adaptable, ensuring it can be applied to a
variety of different process scenarios, both permanent
as well as temporary installations.
z The VE conditioning unit is able to efficiently eliminate
retrograde condensation that arises due to the
Joule-Thomson effect, another common problem in
conventional sampling operations. The non-obtrusive
conditioning system allows the gas to be transported
promptly, whilst ensuring that it has been correctly
adjusted in terms of its temperature, pressure and
flowrate, making it is suitable for analysis.
z As an additional measure, Orbital also applies surface
treatments, namely inert silica coatings and electropolish
finishes, to all of its sampling equipment. As supported
by the earlier research, this has proved to be the optimal
combination in terms of minimising analyser delays by
a significant margin. The VE system also completely
eliminates diaphragms, threads, changes in cross
sections, varying temperatures, different materials and
dead legs from the sample pathway.
Orbital’s sample systems are readily customisable
thanks to decades of detailed engineering. This means that
they can be adapted to suit a number of different LNG
production operations. This feature also makes them
suitable for all manner of other gas industry applications,
such as fiscal metering, drier beds, mercury removal units
and super critical phase processes, amongst many others.
Finally, careful and considered front-end engineering
and design (FEED) is integral to successful sampling,
something which Orbital is able to provide, based on
significant past experience in the sampling and analytics
industry. This entails a comprehensive study and
assessment of the process; establishing the optimal
sampling points and configuration necessary to deliver the
quickest and most accurate possible results.
Orbital’s experience in the natural gas, gas processing,
petrochemical and general analytical markets, combined
with decades of product development allows it to offer
advanced, accurate, responsive and, most importantly,
representative systems. The best sample system design is
achieved not when you have nothing left to add, it is when
there is nothing left to take away.
References
1. CHANDRA, V., ‘Fundamentals of Natural Gas – An
International Perspective’, PennWell, (2006). Online
version available at: http://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/
id:kpFNGAIP06/fundamentals-natural/fundamentals-
natural
2. Emerson. Fiscal Measurement – Natural Gas. (2014). Online
version available at: http://www2.emersonprocess.com/
siteadmincenter/PM%20Central%20Web%20Documents/
Fiscal%20Measurement%20Natural%20Gas%20FSG-
WP-0012.pdf
3. KOLASS, R. and PARKER, C., ‘Moisture Measurement in
Natural Gas’, Michell Instruments Ltd.; n.d.
4. MCGUIRE, M., ‘Stainless Steels for Design Engineers’,
ASM International, (2008).
5. PONEC, V., KNOR, Z. and CERNY, S., ‘Adsorption on Solids’,
Butterworths, (1974).
6. VAITTINEN, O. et al., ‘Adsorption of ammonia on treated
stainless steel on polymer surfaces’, Measurement Science
and Technology, (2013).
October 2017 31
 Sloshing
study
Bo Wang and Suqin Wang, ABS, outline the assessment
of sloshing in a membrane LNG carrier during
loading/offloading at an FLNG terminal.
o meet the increased worldwide demand for LNG, there
T has been a significant increase in FLNG terminals as an
upstream facility for converting natural gas into liquid,
storing the liquid in cargo tanks, and offloading to LNG carriers
for transport to onshore facilities for distribution and export.
In the application of this loading/offloading concept, a
side-by-side configuration is usually employed for cargo
transfer between the LNG carrier and FLNG terminal.
However, due to weather conditions or emergency shutdowns,
the LNG carrier may need to depart the terminal with one or
more tanks at partial filling levels, making it difficult to
maintain ‘standard filling levels’ at all times.
In recent decades, membrane-type LNG carriers have
been the most prevalent among the LNG fleet and are usually
designed for 20 – 25 year service life in severe wave
conditions of the North Atlantic. Even so, the design of these
ships must account for sloshing impact pressure; one of the
most important load factors to be considered for liquid cargo
holds and cargo containment systems (CCS).
The dynamic characteristics of sloshing impact loads and
dynamic structural response of the containment system itself
have previously been investigated using a direct calculation
approach and ABS also published Guidance Notes on the
strength assessment of membrane-type LNG containment
systems under sloshing loads.
32
In addition to operations at restricted filling levels which
reduce sloshing loads during the loading/offloading
operation at an FLNG terminal, the safety of the CCS should
also be evaluated under impact sloshing loads to reflect
unrestricted filling levels in site-specific environmental
conditions.
Since two vessels side-by-side are in close proximity, the
motion characteristics of the carrier and terminal may be
affected, leading to a further change in sloshing loads.
Therefore, coupled carrier-terminal motion effects on
sloshing loads also need to be investigated for a
membrane-type LNG tank at partial filling levels.
Undertaking fresh studies
In recent years, the sloshing-ship motion/coupling effect
on the global motion of the LNG carrier has been studied
in numerous experiments and numerical modelling. Early
analyses on coupled seakeeping and sloshing problems
consisted of a ‘frequency domain’ approach with linear
analysis and a ‘time domain’ approach using non-linear
analyses of the interior flow in the tank. Wave tank test
models on a 1/50 scale LNG carriers and an FPSO showed
a significant coupling effect on the roll motion of the ship.
Experimental data also validated the correlation between
linear and nonlinear analyses.
33
 More recent work has highlighted the significant
difference in roll and sway motions of LNG carriers with
partially-filled cargo tanks. Analysis has also been conducted
of seakeeping and sloshing analysis of an FLNG unit during
offloading operations considering the complex interaction of
multiple bodies and the coupling effect of seakeeping and
sloshing. It can be concluded that interaction effects affect
not only global LNG carrier motion, but also sloshing impact
pressures on the cargo containment system.
To date, CFD has been the most applicable method of
investigating strong non-linearity of the internal sloshing
and roll motions, but this remains a time-consuming process.
ABS identified the need for a simplified approach to
investigate coupled motion effects of sloshing loads on the
membrane containment system during side-by-side cargo
transfer operations.
The objective of the study was to develop a procedure to
construct operational restrictions for an LNG carrier with
different partial filling levels operating at a FLNG terminal in
terms of significant wave heights and wave headings.
Coupled/uncoupled seakeeping analyses were performed
to obtain motion response amplitude operators (RAOs) for a
prototype vessel and sloshing pressures on tank boundaries
were determined from sloshing analysis based on the
coupled/uncoupled motion RAOs and wave data from an
example site.
Figure 1. Flowchart of sloshing assessment for LNG carrier
operating at FLNG terminal.
Figure 2. LNG carrier with internal tank and FLNG side-by-side layout.
34 October 2017
In seakeeping analysis, ship motions were studied
considering interactions of internal tank fluid motions and
the presence of an FLNG terminal side-by-side. In sloshing
analysis, pressures derived from coupled/uncoupled
seakeeping data were studied for each partial filling level.
Finally, operational guidance in terms of restricted
environmental conditions at a specified site was developed
for a membrane-type LNG carrier with unrestricted and
partial filling levels during loading/offloading operations at
an FLNG terminal.
Seakeeping analysis
ABS performed numerical motion analysis, including
tank-ship interaction, ship-terminal interaction and
tank-ship-terminal interaction using the Wave Analysis at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (WAMIT) software tool.
The primary focus of the seakeeping analysis was to
obtain the six degrees of freedom motion characteristics in
terms of RAOs of an LNG carrier for tank sloshing analysis. In
this modelling, the body surface geometry was represented
using quadrilateral panels. In numerical simulations, the
water depth was set at 1000 m, reflecting the example site
condition where the terminal is planned to be deployed.
Water density is 1025 kg/m3 and LNG fluid density is
0.5 kg/m3. 6-DOF motion analyses are to be run for
22 regular wave frequencies (0.5 rad/sec to 1.05 rad/sec) and
13 wave headings (0º to 180º, 15º interval) from head sea to
following seas.
A conventional 138 000 m3 LNG carrier was selected as
the example vessel and an FLNG terminal with a design
capacity of 1.5 million tpy and total weight of 152 000 t was
selected as an example terminal. This facility is assumed to
be moored using an external turret and designed to operate
for 20 years without dry-docking. The unit is designed to
offload LNG cargo in side-by-side configuration.
The terminal is modelled in its full-load condition with a
VCG (vertical centre of gravity) of 24.38 m and LCG
(longitudinal centre of gravity) of -3.336 m aft of mid-ship.
For the FLNG vessel, a total of 960 panels were used to
represent the half-ship model.
In general, the LNG produced by the floating terminal is
stored temporarily in its tanks and is frequently offloaded to
LNG carriers. For LNG transfer between LNG carrier and FLNG
terminal, side-by-side configuration would be the preferred
option because of existing mid-ship coupling manifolds on
the present carrier fleet as well as standard mooring systems.
In this study, a separation gap of 4 m between the two
vessels is assumed for positioning and operation of loading
Our equipment is
efficient, proven, robust,
and now, seaworthy.
When Petronas built the world’s first FLNG
vessel, they brought Air Products aboard.
We put 45 years of LNG expertise and 20
years of FLNG development to work in our
process technology and equipment for
offshore use. So whether you have a small
peak-shaving plant or a large base load facility,
our proven capabilities will make any LNG
project — especially offshore — a success.
Call +1-610-481-4861 or visit us online.

Coil Wound
Heat Exchanger

tell me more
airproducts.com/LNG

Photo credit: Petronas | ©2017 Air Products


Figure 3. Example sloshing loads versus filling levels and
headings.
arms, mooring lines and fenders. This gap reflects an offset of
the vessel origins from the global origin as shown in
Figure 2.
In summary, the presence of the FLNG terminal increases
both heave and roll motions significantly in beam seas. This
is critical as the increased roll motion will generate relatively
high transverse sloshing loads inside the tank. The effect on
the internal tank might reduce coupled-roll responses, but it
introduces an additional roll peak in a different spectral
region, particularly close to the tank’s natural frequencies.
This proximity may induce higher sloshing loads than
that without considering interaction effects. As a result, it is
important that both interactions are considered in the motion
RAOs to be used in sloshing analysis.
Sloshing analysis
The wave climate used for a vessel design is dependent on
its area of operation, but ocean vessels are usually designed
based on the North Atlantic wave statistics for unrestricted
service. However, for the sloshing assessment of a vessel
operating at a permanently moored FLNG terminal, the
environmental conditions are defined based on a specific site
with a 40-year return period used to select critical sloshing
conditions.
Sloshing analysis in this study was performed based on
critical regular wave inputs defined by amplitude, frequency,
and heading. They are determined by site wave scatter data
along with the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP)
spectrum and the tank resonance frequency. An equivalent
wave amplitude (EWA) approach was used, such that the
carrier and tank motion excited by the regular wave is
equivalent to that of an irregular sea-state.
To identify critical sea states for the sloshing analysis, the
resonant condition of the tank at different filling levels was
considered for both transverse and longitudinal directions.
Natural tank periods for the reference vessel were calculated
and EWA wave data within 30% of the tank natural period are
selected as critical wave conditions with different headings
at each corresponding filling level up to the 40-year return
period envelope.
Finally, all critical sloshing wave conditions with different
headings between 0º and 180º on a 150 interval were used
to determine maximum sloshing pressures in time-domain
36 October 2017
2-D sloshing analysis. Sloshing simulations were conducted
using the ABS SLOSH program based on coupled and
uncoupled motion RAOs for different filling levels.
Sloshing load assessment and
operation restrictions
The conventional 138 000 m3 LNG vessel used as a
reference has no major damage record for membrane type
CCS (cargo containment system) at standard filling levels.
Thus, the sloshing load at 70% (of the tank height) filling
level calculated by ABS SLOSH was selected as a reference
sloshing load in the comparative approach.
The ratio of the reference sloshing load to the CCS
capacity was introduced as a scale factor to calibrate sloshing
loads from numerical simulations. The structural capacity of
the CCS was determined with respect to the loaded area and
the failure mode. For example, if the reference sloshing load
in full scale exceeded the capacity of the insulation box, it
means that numerical results were overestimated.
Therefore, a scale factor was applied to scale down the
reference sloshing load to the capacity of the containment
system for all failure modes and loaded areas. Conversely, the
reference sloshing load could be scaled up to the CCS
capacity.
To construct the metocean restriction matrix for a
membrane LNG carrier operating at an FLNG terminal,
multiple simulations were conducted to obtain sloshing loads
under different significant wave heights, which correspond to
EWAs, at each peak period, which is in the range of a tank
natural period.
The maximum allowable wave height was determined at
each filling level and heading as the corresponding sloshing
load from sloshing analysis reached the CCS capacity. The
metocean restriction matrix for an LNG carrier operating at
an FLNG terminal at a specific site can thus be constructed
based on transverse and longitudinal sloshing loads in both
ballast and full load conditions.
In the restriction matrix, the maximum allowable
significant wave heights were given for that which the LNG
carrier can sustain at different filling levels and headings
without exceeding the CCS capacity.
Conclusion
From the ABS analysis, it can be seen that the interaction
effects with the motion of the LNG carrier significantly
affects sloshing pressures. The interaction of the carrier with
the FLNG terminal increased the tank sloshing loads, whereas
the interaction with the internal tank decreased the sloshing
pressure at most filling levels except at 20%.
Observing the fully-coupled model for interactions with
both the internal tank and FLNG terminal, the effect of the
FLNG terminal appears to be absent and follows the trend of
the internal tank. It can be said that the internal tank
coupling plays a more significant role of the two interactions
in determining sloshing loads.
It should also be noted that a scale factor was introduced
for safety assessment to calibrate sloshing loads from
numerical simulations mainly due to assumption and
limitations of the numerical procedure. A complete procedure
for constructing the metocean restriction matrix has been
developed for membrane-type LNG carriers operating at
FLNG terminals.
Tried
and
tested
Robin Boot, Kanon,
the Netherlands,
outlines an
effective
approach to
safe and reliable
ship-to-ship LNG
bunkering.

unkering is a term covering activities that provide vessels

B with fuel. For the most part, seagoing vessels, coasters

and barges run on heavy fuel oil (HFO) or diesel.
A recent development in bunkering is the transition towards
natural gas, initiated by the governments of a number of
countries in the world, with the aim of considerably reducing
emissions of hazardous gases and carbon dioxide. LNG fuelling
does not consist of only LNG, but a mixture of LNG with diesel of
fuel oil. This increases the speed of the transition, since diesel
engines can be used for the mixture after a minor modification.
Bunkering can be performed in the following two basic ways:
z Subsequently. The receiving vessel needs to enter the bunker
spot at the bunker jetty before or after cargo (un)loading.
This is ship-to-shore bunkering.

37
 z Simultaneously. The receiving vessel receives its fuel during
cargo (un)loading, either by means of a bunker loading arm
or a bunker hose, which is located at the same jetty where
the ship is (un)loading, or by means of a dedicated bunker
vessel, which berths alongside the receiving vessel and
connects to the bunker manifold. This is ship-to-ship (STS)
bunkering.
LNG-fuelled vessels are relatively new and so is the LNG
bunker methodology made suitable for a wide range of
receiving ship types.
What are the challenges of LNG bunkering when it comes
to accommodating the widest possible range of receiving
vessels? How can a reliable and quickly-introducible way of
doing this be developed?
Fluid transfer through hoses
versus rigid piping
Transfer of flammable liquids to and from a vessel is a
challenging operation and includes several risks. Considering
the dynamics inherently associated with a vessel while
connecting and transferring, accidents can easily happen
during any of the operational phases. Marine loading hoses and
marine loading arms are two available alternatives to transfer
liquids, as they offer the flexibility required to accommodate
ship movements during the transfer.
Connections made by hoses offers better flexibility, but,
compared to loading arms, they are prone to tear and wear;
they have a limited lifetime and require relatively inconvenient
operation. Hoses are often subject to periodical tests and
inspections (once or twice a year), and so they inherently
include a certain yearly cost of ownership. From a safety point
of view, automatic emergency release provisions with ‘zero’
spillage are hardly available or practically applicable for hoses
and neither are actuated quick couplers that make life easier
for operators. A crane is often used to bring the hose to the
receiving vessel.
Connections made by marine loading arms achieve a fully
rigid connection, and are still able to follow all of the ship’s
movements through the use of swivel joints in between the
steel pipes, and so solve the disadvantages of loading hoses.
They can also be executed with automatic ‘no spillage’
emergency release couplers, and equipped with powered quick
couplers to increase personal safety and to protect the
environment. The flexibility, reach and connecting range of
Figure 1. Diesel bunker boom assembly.
38 October 2017
loading arms obviously have more limitations compared to
hoses. The design is based on the vessel data known at the
start of the project, and cannot be extended later on without
major, difficult changes.
In the case of STS transfer, making connections becomes
more difficult for a rigid loading arm compared to a hose, since
two independent ship movements occur, which have to be
accommodated by the hydraulic actuation of the loading arm.
A bunker service provider needs as much flexibility as
possible in order to serve the widest possible range of vessels,
including the ones that show up incidentally.
Current bunker practice for STS
Currently available bunker arms for hydrocarbons can mainly
be found in northern European ports, such as Rotterdam,
Amsterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg. These constructions
consist of a rigid boom with hard piped components running
in parallel. Points of rotation of this boom are bridged with
swivel joints. The final connecting element towards a ship is a
flexible hose that is lifted on board the receiving vessel with
the bunker boom. In itself, the boom is both a lifting structure
and a transfer system. The fact that the final element is a
flexible hose is for practical reasons. Vessel manifolds of
ordinary ship types are not standardised similarly to oil and
LPG/LNG carriers (per OCIMF). Bunker connections present
themselves on various places, sometimes only reachable via
a hatch in the hull of the ship. As the variation and distance
compared to bunker ship is limitless, it is impossible to design
a fully hard piped system (similar to a marine loading arm)
that can both reach all different locations and compensate for
large height differences between the bunker vessel and the
receiving vessel. Therefore, bunker arms have been developed
that can carry hoses with different lengths on board the
receiving vessel. This is to prevent the unwanted bends in
flexible hoses and to prevent undesired torsion in the same
hoses.
How to fit for LNG
In LNG bunkering facilities – unlike in hydrocarbon bunkering
facilities – an emergency release system (ERS) is an absolute
requirement. This system, comprising of two valves that
are closed and then separated from each other, serves as a
‘dry-break’ system, preventing uncontrolled spillage when
both ships move too far away from each other. Since the
valves are released, they cause drop of weight and their mass
should, therefore, be limited. ERCs provided with marine
loading arm suppliers are usually built around two heavy ball
valves. Alternatives supplied in the market are built around
a combination of two poppet valves that, whilst connected,
keep each other in open position. This type of unit is currently
found in flexible hose LNG bunker facilities (Norway, Denmark,
Finland and Sweden). These units disconnect when the pulling
force in direction of the flexible hoses is approximately 75%
of burst pressure. The two poppet valves are kept together by
means of break-bolts with pre-determined break force. This
means that disconnection is neither detected a priori, nor
can be carried out when desired/upon call. To achieve this,
a powered ERS unit is required, which can be activated by
means of sensors. The low weight ERC should, in that case,
be modified with an actuator. Applying the method used for
decades for marine loading arms would provide a reliable and
field-proven configuration. This method consists of a hydraulic
THE LOADING ARM MANUFACTURER
40 YEARS FIELD-PROVEN EXPERIENCE AND ONGOING PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

 NEXT GENERATION SYMMETRIC DESIGN

SUITS ANY APPLICATION
One or two liquid lines in one loading arm
Integrated or piggy-back vapor return lines
Specials: Ultra-long reach, Short tail

 ALL CRYOGENIC, PRESSURIZED AND HEATED

FLUIDS AND GASSES
LNG – CNG – Oils – Chemicals - Food

 FLEXIBLE LNG BUNKERING SOLUTIONS

 100% EN 1474-1:2009 CERTIFIED
LNG MARINE LOADING ARMS

ENGINEERED FOR GENERATIONS. WWW.KANON.NL


Figure 2. General outline of LNG bunker boom assembly with emergency safety break valves
and fall arrestors.
actuator controlled by a sophisticated programmable logic
controller (PLC) based control system.
Control of emergency release
coupler
When it comes to safety, the reliability of the powered
emergency breakaway system itself, as well as the control
system, is extremely important. The emergency release coupler
(ERC) is controlled by a PLC-based electric/hydraulic control
system in SIL2 arrangement. The system itself should be ATEX
certified for all areas the components are to be located.
Bunker boom manoeuvring controls are decided to be
separate from actual ERC control/release. A dedicated hydraulic
power unit (HPU), to be installed in the vessel’s engine room,
takes care of the movements of the boom. To operate the boom,
it is sufficient to use the manual lever controls near the
pedestal of the bunker boom.
The operation of the ERC is arranged via hydraulic oil
pressure. Oil flow will be made available from the HPU
(separate unit from manoeuvring controls). Two hydraulic lines
will run alongside the bunker boom arm. One pressure line (P1)
and one tank return line (T). The lines will be connected to a
hydraulic valve block (solenoid operated). Whenever activation
of ERC is required, a set of solenoid valves corresponding with
required direction/function will switch and activate the correct
ERC cylinder.
One hydraulic accumulator (nitrogen pre-charged) bottle is
installed inside of the HPU. This bottle will ensure automatic ERC
activation in case of motor failure or powercut (as long as control in ATEX design are available on the market and are of proven
power to the PLC in the electronic control system remains
available). The pressure inside the hydraulic accumulator is
safeguarded by a pre-set pressure switch (refer to project related
hydraulic diagram) that is part of the PLC logic. When accumulator
pressure is too low (below pre-set value of pressure switch), the
hydraulic pump will automatically run in order to pre-charge to
required pressure. In case the pressure cannot be restored within
15 sec., the pump will be stopped, a ‘low oil pressure alarm’ will
raise, and the PLC will send this signal to the distributed control technical configuration with regard to the actuation and the
system (DCS) (ESD-1 system signal will be initiated). The pump is
stopped to prevent spillage of oil that can be caused, for instance, system will be a synergy of proven equipment and significantly
by a broken hydraulic tube that thus would prevent re-charging
40 October 2017
the accumulator to pre-set
pressure. If the pump would
not be stopped, this means
that the pump would empty
the reservoir of oil until such
a level that a low oil level
alarm is triggered.
Each bunker boom arm is
equipped with its own
dedicated alarm sensor
system. The ERCs will need to
be armed (ready for
activation) when the bunker
boom arm is in loading
position. Otherwise, it will not
activate the ESD-2 signal
when overreaching the
flexible hose’s connecting
range as result of ships
drifting away from each other.
Moreover, it is to be designed
to prevent accidental activation in all other cases. To detect the
‘overreach’ positions of the flexible hose, they are each equipped
with intrinsically safe release connectors (in fail safe mode).
The control system will detect two excessive positions in
any direction, generating a first stage alarm when the flexible
hose begins to move outside of its allowable range. This first
stage alarm can be used to stop the pumps and close upstream
valves. When the flexible hose is pulled out even further of its
connection range, a second stage alarm will be activated. This
causes the actual release of the ERC.
For first stage and second stage alarm detection, a total of
three sensors/release connectors will be applied. One sensor will
detect first overreach. Two sensors/release connectors will be
applied to detect further second stage overreach alarm (final).
These sensors will be fed from the arm to the PLC control system
in the control system. The two second stage sensors will have an
effect only in combination with simultaneous occurrence of the
first stage alarm. The second stage alarm will function in a two
out of three voting principle). All hydraulic actions will be taken
– no intervention can be made by the operator to stop the
automatic closure of ERC valves and the subsequent
disconnection of the flexible hose from the bunker boom.
Fall arrestor
The drop of weight of the flexible hose and the bottom valve
of the ERC is to be guided in a controlled manner towards the
receiving vessel. This can be arranged by a cable reel with an
internal inertia triggered braking mechanism. Various solutions
concept/design.
Conclusion
Since STS LNG bunkering is a relatively new phenomenon,
the best way to achieve a reliable loading configuration is
to adapt the already-existing practice of conventional fuel
bunkering by adding an emergency release provision. When
the emergency release provision is based on the field-proven
electric/hydraulic control system, the overall LNG bunkering
reduce the ‘novelty’ risk of this new development.
 A
flexible
future
Niki Thomas, Quorum Business Solutions,
USA, looks at the importance of a flexible
back office in the LNG industry.
ven as the LNG industry continues to grow, it is in a
E state of major transition. According to data presented at
the CWC World LNG & Gas Series 15th Americas Summit,
the expected number of active liquefaction trains planned
in 2020 is 23, increasing the already aggressive and
global nature of competition among markets and industry
participants. Operational flexibility, agility, and responsiveness
are key for LNG operators to expand volumes profitably and
maintain a competitive edge. Due to varying business models
– a constantly changing environment, regulations, geopolitics
and socioeconomics – and the need to maximise productivity,
energy companies are seeking quicker and less expensive
methods to adapt their current software and better adjust to
the evolving LNG market.
Adapt to the evolving market
There is no such thing as a standard template for an LNG
liquefaction facility. Projects and the resulting structures are
influenced by a variety of factors, such as: participants; risk
tolerance; taxes; regulations; legal considerations; and access
to and structuring of capital. Taking this variability into account,
the possible number of variations is limitless. Each facility has
its own nuances, whether it be purchase and sale agreements
where the facility operator is responsible for procuring gas
supply, liquefying, and selling; a tolling model where the
liquefaction facility does not purchase or sell anything; or a
hybrid. Regardless of the operating model, all facilities have
a common need to react quickly to changing market forces,
ensure profitability, and maintain acceptable margins.
41
 Political uncertainty and price volatility continue to push
natural gas buyers to seek greater diversification in sourcing
and flexible contracts to accommodate shifts in supply and
demand. For example, Cheniere Energy, Inc., the only active
LNG exporter in the contiguous US, delivered Lithuania its
first LNG cargo from the US in August. Lithuania, as well as
countries like Poland, has restructured its purchasing
strategies as a way to reduce dependence on Russian energy.
Japan, South Korea, and China, some of the largest importers
of LNG, are now seeking contracts and sources from countries
like the US to put pressure on their primary supplying
countries of Qatar and Australia. With shifting buyer
behaviours and exporting to new geographies, energy
companies need the ability to adapt their processes quickly
and match workflows to their new business environment.
As the global LNG market ebbs and flows with price
fluctuations, maximising productivity and efficiency endure
as top priorities for companies that want to stay competitive.
However, operators have largely already exploited gains from
operational technology. Therefore, turning to the back office
is a next logical step. This pivot puts software innovation
centre stage, enabling employees with solutions that
simplify work, automate tasks, and drive better decisions.
Additionally, to accommodate the varying expectations and
requirements of new customers in new markets, the
information technology (IT) teams of multinational
operations must have the flexibility to tailor software
according to the needs of the business and deliver
decision-ready data to users.
Empower the next energy
evolution
Now more than ever, LNG facilities require flexible
tools that allow them to modify workflows and business
Figure 1. myQuorum LNG dashboard with customer-tailored widgets (image by
Quorum Business Solutions).
42 October 2017
processes when and as needed. This ability to ‘personalise’
energy software to fit the ever-changing business is key
in the drive to be more competitive in the LNG market. By
configuring off-the-shelf software capabilities using proven
and familiar tools for software development, companies can
create unique solutions for their operations, drive business
agility, and streamline business functions. This flexibility
to modify software on demand allows energy companies to
future-proof their business and adapt to changes when and
as they need it.
From new customers and geographies to changing
regulations, the changing business environment requires the
successful organisation to evaluate their operations and find
areas of improvement on a continuous basis. In addition to
achieving adaptability via personalisation on an
enterprise-wide scale, energy companies can equip
employees with personalised user experiences that are
unique to their roles and responsibilities. Persona-based
user experiences allow users to perform their daily tasks
more efficiently by promoting focused information to the
user first, giving priority to the most contextually-relevant
information.
For example, when facilities are optimising export
shipments to a new location, a user may need specific
information about that geographical location. The right
technology allows the facility to create a tailored user
experience that surfaces relevant information such as
weather conditions or other pertinent data points for a
geographic location to keep the scheduler up-to-date at all
times. It is important to note that what information can be
accessed does not have to be limited to a single system. To
truly deliver value, persona-based dashboards should
aggregate information from multiple systems for the user,
creating a single command center personalised just for the
end user.
Position for change
As new companies enter the LNG
industry, today’s players need new
and innovative tools that allow them
to modify, customise, and adapt their
existing investments in software
according to an ever-changing
business environment. Minimising
expense, shortening timelines, and
adding flexibility are only a few of the
benefits LNG companies are seeing
with personalisation tools. With
enterprise-wide personalisation, energy
companies can:
z Adapt workflows to account for a
dynamic market.
z Simplify tasks for users and tailor the
user experience to reflect job roles.
z Shorten customisation time and
streamline process changes.
Does your LNG facility have the
tools in place to stay competitive and
maximise productivity for the next LNG
market wave?
 Keep
still

Figure 3. Petronas Satu on location

(image courtesy of Petronas).

Arun Duggal, SOFEC Inc., USA,

looks at the importance of
mooring systems for FLNG units.
he floating LNG (FLNG) facility concept has helped for Exmar’s FLNG unit have been commissioned, but the

T revolutionise the development of LNG production

from gas fields, both nearshore and in deeper water.
The concept has been around for over 20 years, but in
the past 10 years has been taken to the engineering,
procurement and construction (EPC) level, culminating
in Petronas’ PFLNG Satu producing and offloading LNG
earlier this year, and the completion of fabrication of
Shell’s Prelude. Four other floating facilities are in various
stages of completion. For instance, the production systems
facility is looking for a deployment location; Petronas’
PFLNG2 and the Golar Hilli, meanwhile, are both at various
stages of fabrication; and another FLNG unit was recently
awarded to the TJS Consortium for the ENI Coral South
field offshore Mozambique, with an expected first LNG
date in approximately five years. One more FLNG unit is
currently under consideration for final investment decision
(FID) this year: the Golar Fortuna FLNG for a field in
Equatorial Guinea.

43
 A key technology for FLNG units is the mooring system integrity of the riser and umbilical systems under all
that maintains the system on location for the duration of environmental conditions. The weathervaning capability
the project typically on the order of 20 – 30 years. FLNG comes from the bearing system that is used to allow the
units are able to leverage the technology developed for vessel to align itself to the predominant environment and
floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessels transfer loads from the moorings to the vessel and
over the past 30 plus years, specifically the development ofvice versa.
a number of single-point mooring systems that have been The fluid-transfer system primarily provides pressure
developed for over 150 FPSOs. These systems have been and flow control of the incoming fluids to the topsides
installed in a wide range of water depths (20 – 3000 m) and to export or re-inject fluids from topsides to the
and environmental conditions (West Africa, the North Sea reservoir. The key component within the fluid-transfer
and the Gulf of Mexico), and for a wide range of reservoir system that allows the system to weathervane and
and fluid processing systems. To date, all FLNG units have transfer fluids from the earth-fixed riser and umbilical
utilised single-point mooring systems except the system to the rotating process equipment on the vessel is
Exmar FLNG unit that was designed to be jetty-moored. the swivel stack. The swivel stack contains several swivels
Single-point mooring systems, and more specifically to allow the transfer of gas, liquids, power and signals.
turret mooring systems (and tower yoke mooring systems Figure 1 shows the external turret for Petronas FLNG2,
illustrating the various components of a turret mooring
for shallow water), are both load-transfer and fluid-transfer
systems. The turret mooring system (which can be both system.
internal to the vessel or external) is the main interface The ability of the FLNG unit moored with a turret
between the floating facilities (hull and topsides) and the mooring system to weathervane allows the vessel to align
subsea production systems, including the riser and itself with the predominant environmental direction. This
umbilical systems that interface between the turret and the results in reduced loads on the system during extreme
subsea equipment. This makes the turret mooring system storm conditions, and provides flexibility for the approach
the equivalent of the central nervous system for the berthing, offloading and de-berthing operations of the
development, and optimum design requires proper LNG carrier that will typically offload in a side-by-side
definition of all interfaces. (SBS) arrangement. In open seas, the berthing and
The load-transfer portions of the turret provide the de-berthing operations of the offloading carrier to and
stationkeeping performance required to ensure the from the FLNG unit is a critical operation that can be aided
by aligning the host vessel to the environment in the most
favourable orientation. This tends to occur naturally, but if
not, can be achieved by controlling the vessel heading
using a thruster on the stern of the FLNG unit. This results
in higher availability for offloading while ensuring
reliability of the operation.
The technology described above is mature, having been
developed for FPSOs over the past 30 years. FLNG facilities
vary greatly in size depending on processing and storage
capacity. From the fluid-transfer perspective, FLNG systems
are typically less complex than the requirements for large
FPSOs, with similar pressure and temperature requirements.
Swivel systems for gas are very mature so no new
Figure 1. Schematic of an External Turret Mooring System. technology is required.
Some of the smaller FLNG
systems, such as the Golar Hilli,
Petronas FLNG Satu, and
Petronas FLNG2, are similar in size to
a very large crude carrier (VLCC)
based FPSO, and are in relatively
moderate environments. Therefore,
they have utilised a mooring system
with components similar to a
moderate to large FPSO. For the two
large FLNG units, Prelude and
Coral South, the large size of the
vessel hull (up to 500 m long, 70 m
wide and 40 m deep), extensive
process equipment over the entire
length (up to 60 m high), and harsh
environmental conditions (both are in
active cyclone regions), the
Figure 2. The Tower Yoke moored Hoegh Lampung FSRU (image courtesy of
Hoegh LNG).
load-transfer component of the turret
(primarily the bearing, anchor leg

44 October 2017
system and the structure) are much
larger than that typically used for
FPSOs.
The technology described above is
equally transferable for the mooring of
floating storage and regasification
units (FSRUs) when jetty mooring is
not deemed practical or becomes
expensive. With the expected sharp
increase in FSRUs worldwide, as part of
the distribution systems for large
amounts of LNG expected on the
market, this is seen to be a growing
market for mooring systems. One
option is the use of a tower yoke
mooring that has been employed on
the PGN FSRU Lampung, offshore
Indonesia. This system provides the
ability to permanently moor the vessel
on location for all seastates up to the
100 year environmental conditions, and
to allow offloading in seastates up to
the 10 year environmental conditions
with 100% availability. The added
advantage of a tower yoke mooring is
that the gas is transferred to the
seabed using a rigid conductor with
the flexible lines being suspended
between the vessel and the tower as
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 4. The Petronas FLNG2 Turret Mooring System at the Turret Fabrication
Project specific Yard.
experiences
Over the past 15 years, SOFEC – a
member of the MODEC Group – has been active in studying similar in size to a VLCC hull. The production capacity is
the specific requirements and developing technology for 1.2 million tpy of LNG, with a maximum gas throughput of
both the mooring of, and offloading from, FLNG units. 230 million ft3/d at 130 bar.
SOFEC has participated in several collaborative FEED The external turret mooring system is designed to
studies with several large contractors (including MODEC), accept a maximum of three 10 in. risers and three
and major oil companies to define the requirements for umbilicals, and is designed with a 12-leg anchor leg
mooring FLNG units, and has been successful in being system, arranged in three groups of four. The 100 year
awarded the EPC of the turret mooring for three of the first design seastates are approximately 8 m significant, with a
five FLNG units to date. maximum wind speed of 30 m/sec. The relatively small
This section provides a brief summary of each of the vessel size and the moderate environment allowed the use
three turret mooring systems, focusing at some key of a moderately sized external turret, very similar to turrets
parameters that define the requirements for the turret supplied for FPSOs. The total turret weight was
mooring system, and also some milestones from the project approximately 1000 t.
execution schedule. The FEED for FLNG Satu started in 2011 and the
contract was awarded in December 2012. The turret was
Petronas FLNG Satu delivered 18 months later in 2014. The FLNG unit was
FLNG Satu has been designed to operate at several fields installed at the site in mid-2016, and the first LNG offload
in 70 – 200 m of water, offshore Malaysia. The turret was in 2Q17. The facility is pictured in Figure 3.
was designed to accommodate the changes in riser and
umbilical count, total gas flowrate, and loading on the Petronas FLNG2
system for a range of deployment locations (and reservoirs) PFLNG2 will be located on the deepwater gas field Rotan,
and water depths. offshore Malaysia, in approximately 1250 m of water.
The FLNG unit is designed to have a 20 year life with The environmental conditions are similar to PFLNG Satu.
the first deployment (Phase 1) for approximately five years The FLNG unit is also designed to be deployed at various
in approximately 75 m of water. For this deployment, the locations ranging in water depth from 500 to 1500 m.
gas is fed from a platform so the external turret receives SOFEC is supplying a large external turret for this FLNG
the gas through one 10 in. riser. The FLNG unit is based on unit that is 333 m long, 64 m wide and 31 m deep, with
a hull that is 300 m long, 60 m wide and 33 m deep, very a production capacity of 1.5 million tpy with a maximum

October 2017 45

Figure 5. The SOFEC Very Large Turret (VLT).
gas throughout of 300 million ft3/d at 100 bar, with a
design pressure of 255 bar.
The SOFEC external turret for FLNG2 features a high
integrity pressure protection system (HIPPs) on board the
turret to provide protection to the process equipment
downstream of the valves. This also allows a specification
break on the piping and swivels downstream of the HIPPs
valves. The turret also allows for 2000 bpd of rich MEG
injection and supports a total of four 10 in. risers and three
umbilicals. The anchor legs are arranged in a 3 x 4
arrangement with the deepwater locations using chain and
polyester rope as the main components, while the shallower
water depths use chain and spiral strand wire rope. The
turret is almost complete and awaiting delivery to the
shipyard for integration and commissioning. Figure 4
presents a picture of the turret at the turret fabrication yard.
46 October 2017
The project started a FEED competition exercise in
2012 and awarded the EPC contract in 2014. The original
schedule required a turret delivery in 26 months, but the
client has since changed the first gas milestone on the
project schedule. SOFEC is now expecting to deliver the
turret by the end of 2017.
Coral South FLNG
This project was recently sanctioned in June 2017, with
the project award being made to the TJS Consortium,
comprising of TechnipFMC, JGC Corp., and Samsung
Heavy Industries (SHI). SOFEC is a subcontractor to the
TechnipFMC-JGC joint venture (JV), and will supply a
large internal turret based on its very large turret (VLT)
technology that has been under development since the
early 2000s.
The FLNG unit will be based in approximately 2000 m
water depth off the coast of Mozambique. This will be the
first large offshore gas development in East Africa. The
region is subjected to complex metocean conditions with
monsoons, swells from the Indian Ocean, and cyclonic
storms, with a 100 year wave height of approximately 13 m
and 33 m/sec. wind speed, and a 10 000 year wave height
of approximately 17 m with a wind speed of approximately
50 m/sec.
The FLNG unit is based on a vessel hull with
dimensions of 433 m length, 64 m wide and 38.5 m depth.
The rated capacity of the unit is 3.4 million tpy with a
maximum gas throughput of 600 million ft3/d at 143 bar.
The design pressure is approximately 400 bar.
The SOFEC turret is a large internal turret with a main
bearing system that is replaceable in situ. The bearing
diameter is approximately 25 m and the turret employs a
20-leg taut mooring system arranged in four groups of five
legs each (4 x 5). The anchor leg configuration utilises
chain and polyester rope, anchored with a suction pile. The
turret supports eight 9 in. flexible risers, and four
umbilicals. The turret also provides injection of up to
30 m3/hr of lean MEG, and 10 m3/hr of water production.
The upper turret is designed for ease of maintenance and
operation with three large decks to support the piping,
manifolding, swivels, and the electrical room. The turret has
a total turret weight of approximately 7500 t. Figure 5
presents a schematic of a SOFEC VLT.
Coral South FLNG started as a FEED competition in
2014 with a contract award in 2017. The turret delivery is
scheduled in 35 months and the vessel is expected to be
producing LNG in five years.
Conclusion
With FLNG units becoming a demonstrated and viable
technology for the production of LNG, this opens up the
development of both stranded and new gas fields for
development worldwide. Leveraging mature technologies
from the FPSO industry, such as single-point mooring
systems, results in a reliable and cost-effective means to
provide a safely moored vessel in environmental conditions
with a return period up to 10 000 years, and provides
high availability for offloading. The projects undertaken
and currently underway demonstrate the feasibility of the
technology transfer from FPSO mooring systems to a wide
range of FLNG systems worldwide.
Space
savers
Justin M. Ellrich and Tyler J. Thompson,
Black & Veatch Corp., USA, present
technology and design enhancements to
increase production density for FLNG.

loating LNG (FLNG) has become a major player for companies looking

F to monetise stranded gas fields with a fast-track schedule and better

control of costs. However, because of the requirements of offshore and
vessel hull engineering, both the footprint and weight of topside equipment
play heavily into the total cost of an FLNG facility. To maximise the value of
floating projects, conventional onshore thinking must be challenged. A simple
and helpful approach to process design decision-making is to consider the
effect on a project’s production density – LNG production per m2 of plot area.
The ability of a technology to maximise LNG production by reducing
equipment count (refrigeration cycle selection and larger train capacities),

47
 while also minimising the size of the required equipment,
is the number one factor to achieving a successful and
profitable FLNG project. Enhancements to PRICO®
technology, such as LNG expanders, the patent-pending
PRICO-Boost™ for turbine inlet air chilling, or the recently
patented PRICO-Plus® add-on, provide efficiency gains that
increase LNG production from a single train in the limited
deck space available. Black & Veatch now has designs
available for greater than 1.5 million tpy of LNG with a
single train – one driver, one compressor, one cold box – or
even more by paralleling drivers with a common main
cryogenic heat exchanger.
While technology enhancements are the primary
means to better utilisation of floating plot space, smart
process design and equipment selection of any technology
option can further reduce weight and footprint while
achieving the same maximum production. When the
PRICO® improvements are combined with advanced
separation internals and compact heat exchanger
technologies, the production density of LNG greatly
increases, while capital cost for the entire FLNG vessel
and topsides will be lower per unit of LNG. Black &
Veatch considers both technology selection and advanced
equipment designs to provide the most profitable LNG
plant for the client.
Table 1. Separator case study results – based on vessel internal,
footprint and weight costs
Service V-1 V-2
Vertical with mesh pad only 1.00 0.86
Vertical with vane pack 0.70 0.84
Vertical with vane pack and swage NA 1.07
Horizontal with mesh pad only 1.30 1.00
Horizontal with vane pack 0.71 1.01
Horizontal drum with vertical vane pack section NA 1.29
Horizontal with mesh pad and two inlets 1.19 1.02
Figure 1. Black & Veatch’s patent-pending PRICO-Boost™ integrated inlet air chilling for higher
production with minimal footprint.
48 October 2017
Technology qualification and
scaling up
New process technologies are only as effective as
manufacturing capabilities allow. Therefore, when
developing these new technologies, it is of utmost
importance to Black & Veatch to ensure that multiple
reliable and proven suppliers can meet the needs of the
PRICO enhancements. Proper due diligence of past supplier
experience has been conducted to confirm that refrigerant
compressors and drivers, brazed aluminium heat exchangers,
the cold box, and all other ancillary components have
proven ability in similar service to deliver larger than
1.5 million tpy train sizes with the PRICO process.
Scalability of design is another chief consideration in
any technology application as manufacturing capability
grows. The early operating history of PRICO required
scaling from 10 million standard ft3/d to greater than
180 million standard ft3/d; the same basic design and
control philosophies are used today that were successful
40 years ago to enable larger train size offerings. The key
equipment components in the PRICO liquefaction process
are the main refrigerant exchanger (cold box) and the
refrigerant compressor/driver. The inherent design of these
components and how they are configured to achieve higher
train throughput significantly mitigate scale-up risk. Mega
LNG trains have continued to push the capabilities
of refrigerant compression, and the modular
nature of brazed aluminium heat exchangers
allows paralleling of cores to match capacity so
V-3 that each component continues to operate
properly as it has for decades.
1.11
1.02 LNG expanders
LNG expanders have become a common
0.85
efficiency improvement for LNG facilities
1.00
with a minimal footprint impact. Despite the
moniker ‘expander’, this component is more
1.12 aptly described as a hydraulic turbine acting
like a reverse pump. LNG expanders can be
0.96
used to produce electricity when coupled with
1.16 a generator. When high-pressure LNG is let
down to the near-atmospheric storage pressure
using a liquid expander,
the isentropic process
lowers the outlet
stream enthalpy by
removing work with
an electrical generator.
Flash gas is considerably
reduced compared
to an isenthalpic
Joule-Thomson throttling
valve. Liquid expanders
used in LNG service have
a short payback period
for mid-scale and larger
LNG facilities, commonly
resulting in efficiency
gains of 1.5 – 2%. Small
scale projects normally
cannot overcome the
LNG expander equipment
cost, but economy of scale makes them a must for larger
and/or multi-train facilities.
Turbine inlet air chilling
The refrigeration system often occupies significant deck
space on an FLNG vessel. Because of this, the liquefaction
trains should be closely scrutinised for opportunities to
improve production density. One common improvement
to consider is the addition of turbine inlet air chilling.
Assuming the refrigerant compressor utilises a gas turbine
driver, which is commonly the case for large trains,
chilling the inlet air will increase air density and thus
decrease volumetric flow to the turbine air compressor,
which results in increased available turbine power.
Turbine inlet air chilling can be especially important
during summer months when warm ambient air would
otherwise result in reduced LNG production, and allows a
smoother annual production curve to meet global demand
trends. Mechanical chilling packages are commonly
used in not only the power industry but also LNG plants.
However, the plot space and associated cost required for
a commonly employed separate propane compressor and
condenser may be prohibitive in a floating environment.
Black & Veatch has developed a patent-pending
improvement, PRICO-Boost, to the standard turbine inlet
air chilling approach. The technology minimises the
footprint required for a turbine inlet air chilling package.
High-pressure refrigerant liquid from the PRICO
refrigerant pump is let down in pressure and cooled via a
Need a reprint?
We can tailor to your
requirements,
produce 1 - 12 page
formats, print colour or
mono and more
+44 (0)1252 718999
reprints@lngindustry.com
Joule-Thomson valve. The cold refrigerant is then used to
cool the inlet air via an intermediate fluid (often a
water/glycol solution) and returned to the refrigerant
compressor suction drum. This eliminates a separate
compression and condenser package and instead utilises
the main PRICO refrigeration system to provide the
chilling duty in a relatively small heat exchanger.
PRICO-Boost inlet air chilling can be tailored to the
local climate’s humidity and temperature variations and is
capable of increasing production by 3 – 5% on mild days
and upward of 6% during peak summer temperatures.
Although this method may not realise the full production
potential of a separate propane refrigerant package, the
plot and weight savings associated with minimising
additional equipment are more valuable for floating
applications. By increasing the production density, more
LNG can be produced with less plot space and lighter
equipment. Figure 1 displays the technology.
Refrigerant optimisation
A focus on efficiency improvement and increased
production density also guided Black & Veatch to develop
PRICO-Plus. This process closes the gap between single
and dual-loop refrigerant processes. The addition of a
secondary high-pressure refrigerant loop allows for a
tighter temperature approach at the top of the refrigerant
exchanger and shifts power from the compressor to
the pumps. Only one compressor is needed, but this
configuration produces similar benefits as two refrigerant
 recent experience and
leveraging relationships with
shipbuilders, a cost per weight
and area of equipment in
regard to the module and hull
structure was developed to
compare the different
technology options. For select
items, an exercise with layout
and modular design was
undertaken to verify that
compact technologies
translated into real space
savings compared to
conventional designs. This
Figure 2. Patented PRICO-Plus® process.
resulted in approximately 20%
less footprint and a
significantly lower weight and
Table 2. Heat exchanger case study results – based on exchanger, centre of gravity for a liquefaction module with
footprint and weight costs the equipment highlighted on Tables 1 and 2.
Equipment common among all of the
Service E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4
company’s patented PRICO process applications
Equipment purchase cost comparison was compared to ‘conventional’ design
technologies. Some other frequently seen, smaller
Shell and tube 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 services applicable to most gas processing and
liquefaction operations were also analysed. The
Plate and frame 3.34 1.97 NA NA
results of this study show that using compact heat
Printed circuit 4.67 3.44 1.61 3.70 exchangers and advanced separation devices
results in a total cost advantage for large items.
Total cost comparison However, the incentive for smaller services does
Shell and tube 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
not clear the technology upcharge. In addition,
different separator services with different liquid
Plate and frame 0.72 0.45 NA NA loads can result in different configurations. One
blanket change in design philosophy is not
Printed circuit 0.46 0.31 0.50 1.47
necessarily the correct answer. Thus, the optimal
solution for FLNG design is a combination of
traditional and compact technologies.
loops. Depending on feed gas composition and pressure, This trend is well demonstrated on Table 2 where the
an efficiency gain, or conversely a production increase smallest exchanger, E-4, did not benefit from the advanced
with the same available driver power, up to 2.5% can be options but the three larger exchangers were well worth
achieved. Operationally, the simplicity and reliability of the the additional exchanger cost when weight and footprint
PRICO process are preserved, and the footprint remains the were considered.
same with only a slight alteration to the cold box. No new
equipment is required. Figure 2 displays the additional loop Conclusion
present in the PRICO-Plus process. Black & Veatch’s continued involvement in developing
FLNG solutions has resulted in a number of technology
Advanced separation internals and design enhancements to offer the most compact
and compact heat exchangers and cost-effective FLNG facilities. Modifications to the
Many technologies are available from multiple vendors well-proven PRICO process allow single train sizes to
of both advanced separation internals and enhanced grow while maintaining the simplicity and reliability
heat transfer solutions. Employing these specialised of operation. Smart, proven equipment selection and
pieces of equipment can be more costly than traditional employment of advanced vessel and heat exchanger
designs when looking at only the supplier price. However, options further reduce the weight and footprint of a
if the impact of weight and space on an FLNG vessel is liquefaction train thus increasing the facility’s LNG
quantified, then vane packs, inlet distributors, plate and production density.
frame exchangers, printed circuit heat exchangers and This is especially important for a floating facility where
other advanced options can be applied to shrink the every tonne and square meter is at a premium. The most
modularisation effort and deliver a lower overall cost profitable FLNG plant will have the highest production
solution for the facility. density. Efficient use of space and reduction of weight
Multiple case studies were completed incorporating based on smart equipment selection coupled with a highly
Black & Veatch tools with design and price inputs from efficient liquefaction technology translates into higher
manufacturers of specialised equipment. Pulling from value for the project stakeholders.

50 October 2017
AAnew
new cycle
cycle
Mark J. Roberts, Öznur Saygı-Arslan, Fei Chen and
Janet F. Mitchell, Air Products and Chemicals Inc., USA, present
a new liquefaction cycle for FLNG applications.

loating LNG (FLNG) production as a means to priorities: capacity; location (nearshore or deepwater); gas

F monetise stranded gas reserves and potentially

reduce construction costs has attracted increased
interest in recent years, with several projects currently
under construction. These projects use three different
liquefaction cycles: dual mixed refrigerant (DMR); single
mixed refrigerant (SMR); and the nitrogen expander cycle.
This varied liquefaction technology demonstrates that there
is no single best process for all projects. Rather, several
alternatives are needed to satisfy the diversity of project
composition (lean or rich with LPG production); design
philosophy; and owner preference.
DMR cycles have the advantage of high efficiency, while
nitrogen expander cycles are attractive due to low liquid
hydrocarbon inventory and insensitivity to sea motion. This
article presents a new liquefaction cycle that retains the key
advantages of the nitrogen expander cycle while improving
efficiency by up to 15%, reducing plot space, and improving
turndown performance.

51
 The process employs a closed loop expander cycle using
natural gas for cooling and liquefying the feed, while
Joule-Thomson (JT) refrigeration is used for LNG subcooling.
This novel cycle eliminates the need to produce and store
refrigerants as the refrigerant is predominantly natural gas.
In addition, since the feed pressure is uncoupled from the
refrigerant pressure, efficient turndown is achieved by
lowering the refrigerant inventory and pressure, which keeps
the rotating equipment at the peak operating point. The
removed refrigerant is liquefied and sold as product. Plot
space is reduced and reliability is improved by eliminating
cold boxes and using only coil-wound heat exchangers
(CWHEs). This process can be further enhanced to increase
production without increasing plot space requirements.
Introduction
Brayton cycles are a general class of refrigeration processes
that provide refrigeration by expanding a high pressure
gas stream through a turbine or reciprocating expander to
produce a cold lower pressure vapour stream, which is then
warmed to provide refrigeration. Brayton cycles, employing
nitrogen as a working fluid, have long been used to produce
refrigeration in the air separation industry and for small
scale LNG production. A nitrogen-based Brayton cycle is
also used for final subcooling of LNG at the six AP-X®
process cycle mega trains in Qatar, and to provide all the
refrigeration for the recently commissioned Petronas FLNG
Figure 1. Comparison of methane and nitrogen as working
fluids.
52 October 2017
project. In addition, methane can also be used as a Brayton
cycle working fluid for LNG production.
Comparison of working fluids
For LNG production, methane and nitrogen are the main
working fluids. Nitrogen is needed for equipment inerting
and purging, while methane is available from the feed gas.
In an ideal Brayton cycle, nitrogen and methane provide
similar efficiencies since the overall process is reversible
and ideal (100% equipment efficiency, no pressure drop or
lost work). In the real world, methane and nitrogen working
fluids will have different efficiencies and the associated
equipment may vary in size since the system is not perfect.
Since real equipment is not perfect, heat transfer and fluid
transport involves a pressure drop, and the expanders are
not isentropic, compressors are not reversible, or isothermal.
The performance of nitrogen and methane as Brayton
refrigeration cycle working fluids were studied by running
several simple process simulations. Three discrete
temperature ranges were simulated: precooling, where
vapour natural gas cools from 25ºC to -30ºC; liquefaction,
where natural gas cools from -30ºC to -120ºC, and changes
from vapour to liquid phase; and subcooling (LNG cools from
-120ºC to - 150ºC) LNG.
The specific power requirement (required energy per unit
LNG mass produced, kWh/t) was calculated for each process
and the results for both methane and nitrogen are shown in
Figure 1.
LNG precooling and liquefaction
The specific power requirement results for a Brayton
refrigeration cycle using nitrogen and methane (Figure 1)
show that methane is more efficient (i.e. has lower specific
power) in the precooling and liquefaction temperature
ranges. Since nitrogen has a higher heat capacity ratio
(Cp/Cv), for a given compression ratio, nitrogen will have a
higher outlet temperature than methane. This means that
more work is expended as the compression proceeds and
more lost work will be incurred during the heat rejection
step. Detailed discussion can be found in a previous
publication.1
Also shown in Figure 1, the required piping sizes for
methane are smaller than for nitrogen for both the
precooling and liquefaction processes. This is due to the
difference in the properties of the two fluids.
In a cylindrical pipe of uniform diameter, flowing full, the
pressure loss due to viscous effects can be calculated by the
Darcy-Weisbach equation (where: ∆P/L = pressure drop per
ᵨ
unit length; = density of the fluid; D = diameter of the pipe;
v = the mean flow velocity, or the volumetric flowrate Q per
unit cross sectional area A; and fD = the Darcy friction factor):
ᵨ
Since v = Q/A and Q = m/ (m is the mass flowrate, Q is
the volumetric flowrate), pressure drop equation can be
written as:
 The friction factors for methane and nitrogen are
calculated at the corresponding pressure and temperature
and the difference was negligible, therefore they are
assumed to be the same.
In order to maintain the same pressure drop through the
pipe using two different fluids, the pressure drop equation
can be rearranged to show that the pipe diameter ratio is
dependent on the mass flowrate and the densities.
Since it is assumed that two fluids should provide the
same cooling with the same temperature change, the mass
flowrate can be replaced by the specific heat values (Cp).
Therefore, using properties at typical pressures and
temperatures for LNG precooling and liquefaction:
For precooling and liquefaction, the fifth equation shows
why the nitrogen cycle requires larger size piping than the
methane cycle due to the difference in fluid properties.
While nitrogen has a higher density, the higher heat capacity
of methane dominates.
LNG subcooling
For the subcooling portion of the process, the results are
different where the nitrogen Brayton refrigeration cycle is
more efficient than the methane cycle and also requires
smaller line sizes. This is due to methane’s comparatively
low vapour pressure. The vapour pressure of the fluid at
the coldest temperature in the process (-153ºC) sets the
maximum pressure at the expander outlet. The vapour
pressures for methane and nitrogen at -153ºC are 1.9 bara
and 25 bara, respectively.
Since the pressure drop loss is proportional to the
absolute pressure, warming methane at a low pressure
results in high pressure drop losses, while decreasing the
overall efficiency of the process when methane is used as
the working fluid for the entire cooling duty. In addition, the
lower pressure results in higher volumetric flows and thus
larger line sizes, despite the higher heat capacity.
Liquefaction process for small
scale LNG
Air Products developed a new liquefaction cycle – the
AP-C1TM liquefaction process – to take advantage of the
benefits of methane as a Brayton refrigeration cycle working
fluid. Figure 2 shows a basic version of the AP-C1 process
that is suitable for small scale LNG (less than approximately
0.25 million tpy). Refrigeration to cool and liquefy the
LNG is provided by a closed loop single expander Brayton
refrigeration cycle which cools the LNG to approximately
-105°C in the main heat exchanger. Final subcooling of the
LNG (-160°C) is done by flashing the LNG with a JT valve to
Figure 2. Basic AP-C1 process.
a pressure of approximately 1.1 bara. This results in a flash
vapour stream that is warmed in an endflash heat exchanger
to recover refrigeration while cooling and liquefying a
portion of the feed. The warmed endflash gas is then
compressed and recycled to the main exchanger feed.
For small scale plants, the process can be further
simplified by combining the main and endflash heat
exchangers. If an integral gear type compressor is used, the
endflash compressor and main recycle compressor can also
be combined into a single unit.
The AP-C1 process has advantages when compared to
nitrogen expander processes:
z The AP-C1 process has higher efficiency.
z There is no need to import or generate and store
refrigerant, since the refrigerant is essentially feed gas.
While nitrogen storage and supply requirements are
not a major issue for small scale nitrogen expander
liquefiers in developed locations, the requirements are
a significant design and logistical issue for mid or large
scale shipboard liquefiers.
Liquefaction process – closed loop
refrigeration
In developing the AP-C1 process, Air Products has chosen to
employ a closed loop methane Brayton refrigeration cycle
(US Patent Application US 20160313057 A1). In a closed
loop cycle, the refrigerant gas is isolated from the feed gas
under normal operation. This has advantages over an open
loop cycle in which feed gas is combined with compressed
returning refrigerant gas and a portion of the combined
stream is liquefied.
Firstly, it is much easier to reject heavy components
from the closed loop. Depending on the source, gas that
meets LNG heating value and heavy component
specifications may still contain heavy components that can
form liquid at the inlet to the expander. This liquid may
cause damage to the expander over time. To remove these
heavy components and protect the expander, a very large
separation drum would be required in an open loop system,
since the recycled flow is quite large. With a closed loop
system, it is possible to remove the liquid-forming
components in a transient operation by processing a small
portion of the recycled flow until the refrigeration loop is
purified.
October 2017 53

Figure 3. Turn down.
Figure 4. Turn up.
Another advantage of a closed loop system is that the
refrigerant composition may be optimised to improve
performance. The process can be started up and operated
using feed natural gas and the performance can be improved
with the addition of a small amount (approximately 10
– 25%) of nitrogen. The nitrogen lowers the dew point of the
refrigerant, which allows an increase of the low side
pressure from the expander, reducing the sensitivity of the
process to pressure drop. However, by keeping the fluid
composition primarily methane, the refrigerant Cp/Cv stays
low, keeping the power consumption down. For nitrogen
containing feeds, no additional nitrogen generation
capability is typically needed to achieve the desired
refrigerant composition.
Efficient and simple capacity control
A closed loop system using a methane expander cycle
enables efficient and simple capacity control. To reduce
production, gas is removed from the refrigerant loop and
sent to the feed circuit to be liquefied (Figure 3) while
reducing the feed flowrate. By doing this, the volumetric
flowrate to the recycle compressor and the expanders
remain constant, keeping the machines at the design
54 October 2017
point for maximum efficiency. The machinery operates
far away from surge or stonewall as capacity is reduced.
The lower pressure reduces the circulating mass flowrate,
thereby reducing the power consumed and the refrigeration
produced. To return the train to full production, the feed
flowrate is increased while a portion of feed is sent to
charge the refrigeration loop, until normal operating
pressures and mass flowrates are achieved (Figure 4).
This method of capacity regulation is possible with any
closed loop Brayton cycle liquefier. However, it may not be
preferable for a closed loop nitrogen such as the AP-NTM
liquefaction process. To increase the production rate quickly,
a large amount of nitrogen will be required at high flowrates
to charge the refrigeration loop. To provide this, additional
liquid nitrogen will need to be produced on board (or
imported) and stored.
Turndown is not as efficient for an open loop system,
since the pressure of the natural gas being liquefied is tied
to the operating pressure of the refrigeration loop. Lowering
the pressure of the working fluid also reduces the pressure
of the feed being liquefied. This reduces the efficiency of the
liquefier, since the feed gas is being liquefied at a lower
temperature. Lower pressure also alters the shape of the
feed gas cooling curve, which can cause large temperature
differences in the heat exchange system.
Liquefaction process for mid to
large scale LNG
The simple process shown in Figure 2 can be modified as
shown in Figure 5 to achieve higher efficiency for large
and mid scale LNG production. A warm expander is added,
along with a second LNG flash step. The second expander
improves the efficiency by improving the cooling curves and
reducing the temperature differences in the main exchanger.
The second flash drum and flash exchanger improves the
efficiency because the portion of flash gas formed in the
first flash step is compressed from a higher pressure. In
the simple process of Figure 2, all of the endflash gas is
compressed from low pressure. A third flash step can be
added to improve the efficiency further.
For large and mid scale LNG, CWHEs are used for all
process heat transfer except water coolers. This type of
exchanger is well proven and robust. CWHEs can process a
large feed rate in a single exchanger. For FLNG applications,
CWHEs have a distinct advantage due to their compactness
and small footprint. In addition, the process performance of
the exchangers is insensitive to sea motion since the
refrigeration is provided by a single-phase gaseous refrigerant.
Large scale FLNG case study
A process study has been completed to evaluate the use
of the AP-C1 process for a large capacity FLNG plant at
a tropical location. The process scheme for the study
was similar to Figure 5. The design basis for the study
specified a very lean feed gas containing nitrogen. The feed
pressure was 65 bara. The design employed a single train
with parallel refrigeration systems. Process heat exchange
comprised parallel 5 m dia. wound coil main exchangers
along with two small 2 m dia. wound coil exchangers for the
flash gas streams.
Power was provided by two Trent 60 gas turbines driving
the main methane recycle compressors plus electric motors
for flash gas compression. The results of the study show that
a single train capacity of 3.4 million tpy (assuming 95%
availability) is feasible using the AP-C1 liquefaction process.
While optimising the design, it was found that efficiency
improved by approximately 2.5% by adding 15% nitrogen to
the refrigerant gas. Since this feed contains nitrogen, no
additional nitrogen generation capability was needed.
Detailed evaluation of the wound coil exchangers and
the methane expanders was performed by Air Products to
ensure feasibility, and a major compressor supplier verified
the feasibility of the compression equipment.

Summary
Key success factors for FLNG projects include: high efficiency;
turndown capability; small footprint; safety; and refrigerant Figure 5. AP-C1 process for mid/large scale.
availability. FLNG project developers have many process cycle
options to choose from to develop a successful project.
For FLNG projects where minimising flammable LPG z Higher efficiency.
refrigerant inventory on the vessel is a key objective, Brayton z Efficient and simple capacity regulation.
refrigeration cycles are particularly attractive. This is
especially true where the feed gas is lean and hydrocarbon Benefits for the AP-N process include the following:
refrigerants must be imported. In addition to the AP-N z Smaller endflash system.
process, Air Products has recently developed the new AP-C1
z Non-flammable refrigerant.
process. Both of these liquefaction processes have their own
benefits. The choice depends on the specific requirements for the
Benefits for the AP-C1 process include the following: project.
z No refrigerant production or storage requirements; feed
and refrigerant are same fluid. Reference
1. ROBERTS, M., CHEN, F., and SAYGI-ARSLAN, Ö., ‘Brayton
z Smaller piping sizes.
refrigeration cycles for small-scale LNG’, Gas Processing,
z No cold expander. (July/August 2015), pp. 27 – 32.

ADINDEX
Advertiser Page Advertiser Page

Air Products 35 CWC World LNG Summit 02

AUMA OBC Kanon Loading Equipment 39

Black & Veatch IFC LNG Industry IBC, 04 & 49

Chart 11 Nikkiso Cryo 23

Corban Energy Group 15 Quorum OFC & 19

LNG Industry is audited by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC).

www.lngindustry.com An audit certificate is available on request from our sales department.

15FACTS
There are between 15 and 20
countries in the Middle East
THE LARGEST NATION
IN THE MIDDLE EAST
IS IRAN WITH
80.4 MILLION PEOPLE
...ON The
MIDDLE EAST
Despite holding just 3% of
the global population, the
Middle East consumes nearly
15% of the world’s natural gas
There are seven major
liquefaction terminals The Middle East holds over
in the Middle East 40% of the world’s proven

The most widely spoken languages in natural gas reserves

the Middle East are Arabic, Persian,
The Burj Khalifa Qatargas is
Turkish, Berber and Kurdish
in Dubai is the the largest LNG
tallest building IN SEPTEMBER 2017, RASGAS producing company
in the world AGREED BANGLADESH’S in the world, with an
annual LNG production
at 828 m FIRST LNG IMPORT DEAL
capacity of 42 million tpy
WITH PETROBANGLA

IN TURKEY IT WAS ONCE LEGAL FOR A

WOMAN TO DIVORCE HER HUSBAND IF HE DID
NOT BRING HOME A DAILY QUOTA OF COFFEE
The UAE has less crime than Germany,
Saudi Arabia imports
the US, Canada, Britain, Australia camels and sand from Australia
and New Zealand
Qatar is due to
The Middle host the FIFA In two-thirds of
East has a total World Cup in 2022 Middle Eastern
area of nearly countries, more
9 million km 2, and women than
is only slightly men attend
smaller than the US universities

56 October 2017
Subscribe to LNG Industry

A unique source
of information
for the latest
developments in
technology
Subscribe online at:
www.lngindustry.com/subscribe
Please visit us:
ADIPEC
Abu Dhabi, UAE
13. – 16. Nov. 2017
Stand 13030

FIREPROOF
Electric actuators for industrial valves in areas subject to fire hazards

■ Fully operational at temperatures up to 1,100 °C for minimum 30 minutes

In the event of a fire, the prime objective is to save life first, followed by minimising
material damage.
Fire-proof AUMA actuators function perfectly at the fire source and help
to minimise fire damage.

Discover our solutions for

the oil and gas industry
www.auma.com