CNG by ship

Technology status and challenges

Ketil Firing Hanssen, Dr. Senior Research Engineer, DNV Research

OG21/Demo 2000 Workshop Offshore Gas Solutions February 17-18, 2005

Ocean Transport Pressure System 1968

CNG at 80 bar and -600C Approved by USCG Prototype built and tested in New Jersey, but not found to be commercial

Saga / Moss Rosenberg CNG Design 1976

CNG carrier capable of carrying a mixture of gas and oil at 100 bar Idea conceived by Saga Petroleum in 1976 Concept drawings developed by Saga and Moss Rosenberg yard of Norway Loading directly from subsea wells using well pressure for loading and water for discharging the cargo. 18,000 m3 in 280 bottles

Modern CNG Carrier Concepts (1)

Many concepts proposed - most are based on transportation in pipeline pressure vessels
EnerSea (steel, vertical pipes, 130 bar, -29C) Coselle (Williams) (steel, coiled, 275 bar, ambient) Knutsen (steel, vertical pipes, 250 bar, ambient) CETech: (Statoil, Teekay, Hegh) (steel, horizontal pipes, 200-250 bar, ambient) TransCanada (wrapped steel liner) Trans Ocean Gas (composite)

Modern CNG Carrier Concepts (2)

Enersea

Knutsen OAS

Williams (Coselle)

Modern CNG Carrier Concepts (3)

CETech

TransCanada Pipeline Ltd.

Trans Ocean Gas

Trends in CNG Technology

Lower transport temperatures to attain higher densities Higher strength steel Lighter weight materials Wrapped steel pipes with nylon or carbon fibers Composite pressure vessels

CNG Transport Advantages

CAPEX distribution

Less permanent assets 100 % 90 % Adds flexibility : 80 % 70 % - market location 60 % - gas field location 50 % - reservoir size 40 % 30 % - production profile 20 % Handles both dry and rich gas 10 % 0% Gas processing requirements Pipeline LNG CNG are less than for LNG CNG is more energy efficient than a LNG transport: energy loss 5-8% vs. 15%

Flexible

Permanent

Marine transportation alternatives

Production Volume (mill. MT/y)

Pipeline
4

LNG

CNG
2

Stranded
1

Distance to Market (kNM)

Prospective Projects- Eastern Hemisphere

Source: Zeus Development Corporation, 2002

Prospective Projects- Western Hemisphere

Source: Zeus Development Corporation, 2002

DNV rules for CNG carriers

Issued January 2003 Burst design and material selection based on DNV offshore pipeline standard, DNV-OS-F101 :
Used for most deepwater offshore pipelines today Used for most proposed CNG concepts

Based on Formal Safety Assessment principles (QRA) Based on passage in the International Gas Code on equivalent safety level as LNG Higher material utilization factors
Reduced weight and material costs Increased production requirements to achieve equivalent overall safety level

DNV pipeline rules, DNV-OS-F101

Most modern & used offshore pipeline standard in the world. Enabled the Blue Stream pipeline at 2200m water depth Applied to potential project at 3500m water depth

DNV rules for CNG carriers

To launch the first project, flag state, export and import states must accept the DNV CNG rules This includes accepting rules based on Formal Safety Assessment philosophy with less reliance on experience (IMO MSC 72/16 Annex 1) Future revision of the IGC code when experience is gained

RULES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF

SHIPS
SPECIAL SERVICE AND TYPE ADDITIONAL CLASS

Compressed Natural Gas Carriers PART 5 CHAPTER 15

January 2003

Det Norske Veritas

CNG Challenges

Economy cost drivers

Cost of containment system
> 50% of CAPEX Steel prices soaring

Installation complexity Temperature control

Cargo capacity
Gas capacity, 140000 cbm cargo tanks 70000 60000 Capasity (tonnes) 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0 50 100 150 Pressure (bar)
Basis: 95% methane, 5% C2-C3

LNG CNG -30C

CNG 15C

200

250

Temperature profile
During loading/discharge, no active heat control will result in a large T in the tanks
P = 250 bar

Cargo temp.

T = 50 - 60C

Loading

Transport loaded

Discharge

Transport ballast

Time

Temperature control
Action Active heating/cooling Reduced T Novel materials, e.g. high quality steel or composites Low temperature Constant pressure Liquid push No action High max. temperature Economical penalty Increased CAPEX/OPEX Higher energy consumption Increased CAPEX Higher material cost Increased CAPEX/OPEX More complex system Lower cargo capacity

CNG operation & logistics

Loading site
Production rate Loading rate Storage Waiting time

Transport
Service speed Distance Congestion

Receiving terminal
Discharge rate Storage Waiting time

Cargo capacity
Operating pressure Return heel cargo Temperature Tank volume

Number of ships

Docking
Draft limitations Inspection: Accessibility Extent

Project risk
Regulatory acceptance (IMO, shelf state) Business alliances Taking offshore technology to shipping Technical maturity Manufacturer availability Dry dock availability Construction time Complexity of installation Rather fast 2nd that number 1

Conclusions
What is the current status for CNG as a marine gas transport solution?
Several concepts close to commercialization who will be the first mover?

What are the main challenges for the CNG technology?

Containment system Operation & logistics Industry conservatism