A Briefing Paper from the GUIDE TO COMMERCIAL FRAMEWORKS FOR LNG IN NORTH AMERICA A Research and Public Education Consortium
Center for Energy Economics Bureau of Economic Geology The University of Texas at Austin www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon
Summer 2005 (FINAL RELEASE DATE)
Center for Energy Economics, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin. No reproduction, distribution, or attribution without permission of the CEE.
VERY ROUGH DRAFT for Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 2 OFFSHORE LNG RECEIVING TERMINALS 1 INTRODUCTION
Although offshore deepwater ports exist and have been widely used for loading crude oil and oil products for many years, to date no offshore receiving terminals for imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) have been built. Several different designs of offshore terminals are under development in North American and worldwide. These borrow from plans and technologies tested over time in both crude oil applications and onshore LNG receiving terminals. If engineering and economic feasibilities are met, offshore LNG terminals can add diversity to how imported LNG is received and handled. Apart from operating considerations, a range of concerns surround development of offshore LNG receiving facilities, including marine safety for LNG shipping and LNG tanker berthing; environmental impacts associated with construction and deployment of offshore facilities; and environmental impacts associated with LNG re-gasification. In the case of LNG re- gasification, plans for proposed offshore terminals mainly incorporate either flow-through or "open-rack" vaporizers using ambient seawater as the heat medium, or gas-fueled vaporizers which have significantly higher emissions. Our objective in this report is to review available information and knowledge on types of offshore LNG receiving and re-gasification terminals that are being developed, planned, or proposed. We discuss key components, identify technical issues relating to each type, and evaluate potential solution
1 This briefing paper was prepared by Mr. Fisoye Delano, Group Head of Corporate Planning, Nigeria National Petroleum Corp. and Dr. Michelle Michot Foss, Chief Economist and Head, CEE-BEG-UT Austin, with assistance from Ms. Elvira Irady, _____, and Mr. Dmitry Volkov, _______, CEE-BEG-UT Austin. Sponsors of the consortium are: BG LNG Services; BP Americas-Global LNG; Cheniere Energy; Chevron Global Gas Group; ConocoPhillips Worldwide LNG; Dominion Energy; El Paso Corporation; ExxonMobil Gas & Power Marketing Company; Freeport LNG; Sempra Energy Global Enterprises; Shell Gas & Power; and Tractebel LNG North America/Distrigas of Massachusetts. The U.S. Department of Energy/Office of Fossil Energy helps to coordinate peer reviews with other federal agencies and commissions. Technical advisors to the consortium are: ABS, CHIV, DNV, Lloyds Register, PTL, SIGTTO, the Ministry of Energy and Industries of Trinidad & Tobago, and Nigeria National Petroleum Corp. Other briefing papers that are part of the Guide to Commercial Frameworks for LNG in North America can be found on the CEE web site, www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 3 options where possible. We also identify the role of offshore terminals in the U.S. natural gas supply chain. KEY CONCLUSIONS HERE OVERVIEW OF LNG MARINE IMPORT TERMINALS IN NORTH AMERICA Currently, there are four operating onshore LNG import terminals in North America with a total peak sendout capacity of 2.88 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). Planned expansions, when completed, will account for another 2.33 Bcf/d of sendout capacity. Roughly 46 new LNG import terminals including both onshore and offshore designs, with a potential total peak sendout capacity of more than 45 Bcf/d, have been planned or proposed for North America alone. 2 At this time of writing, of the roughly 46 potential new terminals in North America, five projects had received final regulatory approvals in the U.S. for an aggregate peak sendout capacity of 5.1 Bcf/d. Three of these projects are onshore terminals: Quintana Island, Texas operated by Freeport LNG; Sabine Pass, Louisiana operated by Cheniere Energy; and Hackberry in Louisiana operated by Sempra Global Energy Enterprise. Construction at both onshore locations has been approved, ground has been broken in Freeport (CHECK STATUS OF SABINE) and contracts for the available storage capacity have been finalized (the Freeport LNG project is already over-committed and discussion is underway regarding adding storage capacity to the original, two-tank design).
Two of the five approved terminals in the U.S. would be located in offshore waters and comprise a total peak sendout capacity of 2.5 Bcf/d: Port Pelican, operated by Chevron, to be located about 40 miles from the southwestern Louisiana coastline; and Energy Bridge, a combined shipping and re- gasification technology that discharges through a submerged sea buoy about
2 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), http://www.ferc.gov/. Comentario [m1]: Need to update to reflect most recent FERC decisions, week of June 27. Comentario [m2]: Cheniere is under construction. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 4 116 miles offshore Louisiana. Table 1 provides a summary of the approved offshore projects in the U.S. Five other offshore projects are in various stages of the regulatory approval process with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and another five LNG offshore projects remain in the planning stages (see Table 2 for a summary of offshore LNG projects that are pending approvals or that are proposed). The total average send out capacity of all seven offshore terminals that are approved or under regulatory review is 9.4 Bcf/d or 3.45 Tcf per year; the peak send out capacity is 14.8 Bcf/d or 5.4 Tcf per year. All of the seven offshore terminals are proposed to be constructed and to start operations between 2005 and 2009. If all seven of these offshore facilities were to be built and placed into service, the send out capacity would be adequate to meet most of the projected LNG import volumes required for the U.S. by 2025, 13.1 Bcf/d or 4.8 Tcf a year (see Error! Reference source not found.). If all seven facilities were to be built along with the two onshore terminals already approved for construction, the U.S. market could actually be oversupplied. All new LNG receiving terminals, even those that have regulatory approvals, are subject to market conditions. The competitive, market driven process for new LNG import terminals in the U.S. is intensely competitive. Given the number of onshore import terminals that are planned or proposed, it is unlikely that all of the potential offshore capacity will be developed. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 5 Figure 1 Estimated Additional Capacity from the Nine Proposed Offshore LNG Terminals (CHECK EIA OUTLOOK FOR UPDATE)
The Deepwater Port Act (DPA) authorized the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) to serve as the licensing authority responsible for permitting new offshore LNG terminals in U.S. waters, in coordination with the USCG. 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act; . By law, MARAD has only one year in which to issue a license to an offshore LNG applicant and then it can only issue a license with approvals from the Governors of all adjacent coastal states. Along with MARAD and the USCG, other regulatory approvals must come from: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval for onshore interstate natural gas pipelines;
3 The USCG retained its non-administrative duties under DPA even though USCG was moved to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from the U.S. Department of Transportation, where MARAD is based. USCG duties include staffing the determination of completeness, preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and other duties. Information for this and the following paragraphs on regulatory reviews and approvals was taken from Licensing of Offshore Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal Facilities by Monica Schwebs, for the 12 th Section Fall Meeting, Section on Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association, October 6-10, 2004, San Antonio, Texas. 0 5 10 15 20 25 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 b c f d Exist ing Ter minals wit h expansion Appr oved Of f shor e Ter minals (USCG) Pr oposed Of f shor e Ter minals (USCG) EIA LNG Impor t For ecast AEO 2005 Comentario [m3]: Done, no change DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 6 U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) approval for importats of natural gas; U.S. Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Research and Special Projects Administration approval concerning pipeline safety; U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) Minerals Management Service (MMS) determination of fair market rental; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) approval concerning fisheries impacts; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), depending upon the location of the species, for consultation concerning the Endangered Species Act; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits. Under the DPA, and in addition to executive approval, the States have certain rights and responsibilities. They must determine the consistency of the offshore LNG facility with state coastal zone management plans made under the Coastal Zone Management Act; issue leases for any use of state submerged lands for natural gas pipeline purposes; approve any new intrastate natural gas pipelines that must be developed; and be involved through their State environmental agencies in the Endangered Species Act consultation process. Finally, certain local land use approvals must be obtained by offshore LNG project developers for any onshore facilities. LNG currently accounts for about two percent of U.S. natural gas supply. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) forecasts a shortfall in U.S. natural gas supply of about 7.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) by 2025. 4
4 See U.S. EIA annual long term outlook, December 2004, LNG imports are projected to reach about 13.1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) or 4.8 Tcf a year by 2025 and would account for about 15 percent of total U.S. consumption (pipeline imports of natural gas from Canada would comprise the remainder of total www.eia.doe.gov. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 7 natural gas imports required to balance the U.S. market). A level of LNG imports of 4.8 Tcf would be almost ten times the volume of LNG imported in 2003. Growing demand for natural gas as well as challenges in maintaining and replacing domestic production of natural gas are the major factors driving U.S. EIA, and other, outlooks for U.S. LNG imports. In addition to the U.S., LNG is expected to play an important role in Mexicos energy supply portfolio. A new LNG onshore receiving terminal is under construction in Altamira, Tamaulipas state. Additional onshore projects are under discussion for both the east and west coasts of Mexico. Two offshore projects are proposed on Mexicos Pacific coast (see Table 3). LNG facilities also are under review in the Atlantic Canada provinces. Disappointing results from offshore natural gas exploration coupled with supply-demand signals in the northeastern U.S. have stimulated considerable discussion and effort to locate LNG receiving capacity in eastern Canada. An onshore receiving terminal will soon be under construction in New Brunswick and other onshore projects are under regulatory review. 5
No offshore LNG receiving facilities are being contemplated for Atlantic Canada.
5 The UH IELE has conducted a major review of natural gas supply demand balances and the role of LNG. This report can be obtained at www.energy.uh.edu/lng.
CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 8 Table 1 Approved U.S. Offshore LNG Import Terminals 6 Name /Location
Technology Anticipated startup date Estimated Cost $millions Storage Tanks Capacity # of tanks x bcm of LNG (Bcf of NG) Vaporizer Type Baseload Sendout Capacity Avg/Peak MMcfd Comments 1. Port Pelican Chevron Vermilion Block 140. 40 miles offshore Louisiana Gravity Base Structure
Phase 1: 800/1000 Phase 2: 1600/2000 USCG approved November 2003, DOT Docket # 14134. Chevron awarded major contracts to Aker Kvaerner and Fluor, for front-end engineering design (FEED) and to perform engineering, procurement and construction management (EPCM). Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed fabrication site submitted on July 27, 2004. The EA for the fabrication of the Chevron Port Pelican Gravity Based Structure (GBS) is being prepared
6 Updates from various industry trade publications including Natural Gas Intelligence (NGI), Status of Proposed and Existing Facilities. http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng/terminals/lng_terminals.html, November 2004 why only mention this one?? DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 9 Name /Location Technology Anticipated startup date Estimated Cost $millions Storage Tanks Capacity # of tanks x bcm of LNG (Bcf of NG) Vaporizer Type Baseload Sendout Capacity Avg/Peak MMcfd Comments by the USCG. 2. Louisiana Energy Bridge Deepwater Port Excelerate Energy & El Paso Corp. West Cameron Block 603 Gulf of Mexico, 116 miles offshore Louisiana. Submerged Turret Loading (STL) Buoy System
Water Depth 298ft Jan. 2005 700 138,000 m3 (2.9 Bcf) Shell and Tube Vaporizers (STV)
500 USCG approved Jan, 2004. 3 specialized 138,000 cu. meter LNG ships were being built in South Korea scheduled to be delivered in Nov. 2004, April 2005 & Dec 2006. DOT Docket # 14294 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 10 Table 2 - Other Pending or Proposed Offshore U.S. LNG Import Terminals 7,8 Name /Location
Technology Anticipated Startup Date Estimated Cost $millions Storage Tanks Capacity # of tanks x bcm of LNG (Bcf of NG) Vaporizer Type Baseload Sendout Capacity Avg/Peak MMcfd Comments Pending with USCG 3. Main Pass Energy Hub. Offshore Freeport- McMoRan Energy LLC Gulf of Mexico 16 miles southeast Louisiana. 9 Salt caverns
Water Depth 210ft. 2007 440 6x24660m3 145000m3 (3.1 Bcf) surface LNG storage and 28 Bcf salt dome natural gas storage facility
Open Rack Vaporizing (ORV) 1000/3000 Application for a deepwater port license was submitted Mar. 2004. Regulatory clock stopped on 09/17/04 due to lack of necessary information
DOT Docket # 17696 4. Cabrillo Deepwater Port, FSRU (Floating 2008 550 3x91000m3 Submerged combustion 800/1500 Application for a deepwater port license was submitted
7 Updates from various industry trade publications including Natural Gas Intelligence (NGI), Status of Proposed and Existing Facilities. http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng/terminals/lng_terminals.html, November 2004. 8 California Energy Commission Staff report, West Coast LNG Projects, September 24, 2004. 9 http://www.mpeh.com check site and reconfirm DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 11 Name /Location Technology Anticipated Startup Date Estimated Cost $millions Storage Tanks Capacity # of tanks x bcm of LNG (Bcf of NG) Vaporizer Type Baseload Sendout Capacity Avg/Peak MMcfd Comments BHP Billiton. 21 miles offshore Port Hueneme, California 10 Storage and Regasification Unit) . Water Depth 2900ft. 273000 m3 (6 Bcf)
vaporizers (SCV)
Sept. 2003. Regulatory clock stopped on 04/16/04 due to data gaps/EPA permitting. Clock was restarted 09/03/04.
DOT Docket # 16877 5. Pearl Crossing ExxonMobil Gulf of Mexico, 41 miles off of Cameron Parish, La., Gravity Base Structure
Water Depth: 62ft 2008 2x125000 m3 (5.3Bcf) Open Rack Vaporizing (ORV) 2000/2800 Application for a deepwater port license was submitted 7/21/2004 in May 2004.
DOT Docket # 18474
6. Gulf Landing Shell Gas & Power 38 miles offshore Louisiana. West Cameron Block 213. Gravity Base Structure
Water Depth: 54ft 2008 370 2x90000m3 180000m3 (3.8Bcf) Open Rack Vaporizing (ORV)
1000/1200 Application submitted. Public hearings and comments till 1/3/2005. DOT Docket # 16860
10 http://lngsolutions.bhpbilliton.com DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 12 Name /Location Technology Anticipated Startup Date Estimated Cost $millions Storage Tanks Capacity # of tanks x bcm of LNG (Bcf of NG) Vaporizer Type Baseload Sendout Capacity Avg/Peak MMcfd Comments 7. Crystal Clearwater Port, Crystal Energy LLC. 13 miles west of Oxnard, California 11 Platform based (Converting an existing offshore, Platform Grace.) .
Water Depth 318ft. 2007 300 0 800/1200 Application filed as an offshore natural gas project with USCG on 1/28/04. Crystal also is working on an LNG supply agreement with the Alaska Gasline Port Authority.
Application re-filed with USCG on 7/27/04. DOT Docket # (TBD) Proposed 8. Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge Deepwater Port, Excelerate Energy Offshore Gloucester MA. Submerged Turret Loading (STL) Buoy System
Water Depth 300ft 2007 200 400/800
11 http://www.crystalenergyllc.com DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 13 Name /Location Technology Anticipated Startup Date Estimated Cost $millions Storage Tanks Capacity # of tanks x bcm of LNG (Bcf of NG) Vaporizer Type Baseload Sendout Capacity Avg/Peak MMcfd Comments 9. Broadwater Energy TransCanada Corporation/ Shell US Gas & Power LLC FSRU (Floating Storage and Re- gasification Unit)
Water Depth 75 - 100ft 2010 700 10. Port Penguin LNG Chevron USCG, Chevron has discussed the project publicly but has not proposed a specific site 11. Freedom LNG HNG Storage Salt Cavern Bishops Process
12. Offshore California Chevron 750
DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 14 Table 3 - Proposed Offshore LNG Import Terminals in Mexico Name /Location Technology Anticipated startup date Estimated Cost $millions $millions Storage Tanks Capacity # of tanks x bcm of LNG (Bcf of NG) Vaporizer Type Sendout Capacity MMcfd Avg/Peak MMcfd Comments Terminal GNL Mar Adentro de Baja California 12 Gravity Base Structure Chevron 8 miles off the coast of Tijuana, Northern Baja California, Mexico.
Water Depth 65ft. 2007 650 250000m3 (5.3 Bcf)
750/1400 Chevron was awarded authorization from the Environment and Natural Resources Secretariat (SEMARNAT) for its Environmental Impact Assessment (Manifestacin de Impacto Ambiental, or MIA) and Risk Assessment for a proposed natural gas receiving and regasification terminal off the coast of Baja California, Mexico on 17th of September, 2004. Planned Conversion Gas Imports Bay of Campeche, Mexico Bishops Process. Salt caverns Studying feasibility
12 http://www.Chevron.com/gnlbaja/about/
CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 15 OFFSHORE LNG TERMINALS Table 4 - Summary of Proposed Offshore LNG Terminals in North America Type of Operation # of Terminals Mode of Operation Continuous 7 Intermittent 2 Water Depth
Shallow water (<200ft) 5 Deepwater (>200ft) 4 Distance from Shore
0 20 miles 4 20 50 miles 4 More than 50 miles 1 Location
Gulf of Mexico 6 West Coast 3 Vaporization Method
Open Rack Vaporizer (ORV) 6 Submerged Combustion Vaporizer (SCV) 1 Shell and Tube Vaporizer (STV) 1 Modes of Operation of Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals Offshore LNG terminals can be generally divided into two groups based on the operational models: continuous baseload operations or intermittent operations. Continuous base load operations require LNG terminals to have storage capacity for LNG or vaporized natural gas. Terminals that do not include storage for LNG would generally be used for intermittent operations. Five of the seven approved or pending offshore terminals are continuous baseload operations as depicted in Table 4. All the types of LNG terminals would include systems for docking and unloading of LNG vessels and systems for vaporization of the LNG for delivery to onshore markets via undersea pipelines. NOTE This table needs to be checke for the correct number of terminals see tables 1-2. Comentario [m4]: Check and reconfirm data in table Comentario [m5]: Reconfirm approvals DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 16 Continuous Baseload Operations Since continuous baseload operations mean constant send out of natural gas from an LNG import facility, a typical conventional onshore tank-based LNG receiving facility must have sufficient tank storage capacity to receive two to three ship cargoes. This implies storage capacity of between 250,000 and 380,000 cubic meters (cm) of LNG or about 5 to 8 Bcf of natural gas at standard conditions. A standard cubic foot (scf) is the natural gas volume measured at standard conditions (60F and 1 atmosphere or 14.7 pounds per square inch, psi, of pressure). With LNG storage on site, the terminal will always have LNG reserves in its storage tanks to keep the pipelines cooled down. The high-pressure pumps and vaporizers determine the send-out capacity of the facility. A typical onshore LNG import facility can receive a cargo in about 24 hours but takes from three to six days to vaporize and discharge that volume to the natural gas pipeline system. This same process is used offshore. To facilitate continuous baseload operations from offshore LNG import terminals, cryogenic storage tanks would be fitted on floating vessels, as part of shipboard re-gasification units (FSRU), in gravity based structures (GBS), or on platforms supported by pilings. Intermittent Operations At offshore LNG receiving facilities using intermittent operations, the LNG would not be stored at the receiving terminals but immediately converted to natural gas for delivery through a subsea pipeline (with likely storage in conventional underground natural gas storage facilities). In this case, the offshore terminal can be either stationary or floating. Stationary mooring and delivery methods would be much like those required for continuously operating facilities, but without storage. Floating moorings typically involve a buoy with associated anchoring systems to connect a pipeline to the LNG vessel as in the Shuttle and LNG Regasification System (Energy Bridge, see Table 1). Floating mooring and delivery methods would generally require water depths greater than 160 feet to accommodate the flexible pipeline connection between the unit and the seafloor pipeline. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 17 Water Depth, Distance from Shore, and Location When considering siting of LNG offshore terminals, a wide range of possible locations present themselves. LNG offshore terminals must be located in waters of at least 40 feet (approximately 13 meters) in depth. LNG vessels typically have a draft of 38 feet and require an additional two feet of depth to provide sufficient clearance from the sea bottom for safe maneuvering. This means that the minimum water depth for siting LNG offshore terminals will be determined by the minimum depth of water required for the safe maneuvering of the LNG vessels, which is about 40 feet. At present, there is no maximum depth of water that would limit the location of an offshore LNG terminal, but ultimate water depths for safe, economic operation are also determined by geometry of the sea floor, wave action, distance from shore, and other factors. GBS and platform-based offshore facilities would sit on the seabed and thus be depth restricted. These facilities would be located closer to land and hence be more visible from the beach. Deepwater locations would be farther offshore and would require longer subsea pipelines at higher incremental cost, but would be significantly less visible. 13 Some of the advantages of offshore LNG terminals include the possibility of locating the terminal in deeper water thereby eliminating the need for dredging inland waterways and increased availability, safety and reduced voyage time as LNG carriers need not enter and maneuver in congested waters.
In the U.S., the Deepwater Port Act (DWPA) of 1974 14
13 Said, Mike and Joram Meijerink, Shell Global Solutions International B.V., LNG Import Terminals: Offshore vs Onshore - A Site & Concept Screening Methodology, 14th International Conference on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG-14), Doha, Qatar. March, 2004. , as amended, specifies the regulations concerning offshore oil and gas terminals. The DWPA established a licensing process for ownership, construction and operation of manmade structures beyond the U.S. territorial waters. The limit of the US EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) sets the maximum limit for siting LNG offshore terminals. In concept, this would include any location along the maritime coastline of the U.S. in the Atlantic 14 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 18 Ocean, Pacific Ocean, or Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in the U.S. EEZ, and that is at least 12 miles offshore. Since the DWPA was passed it has been modified twice to streamline the application process and to promote the offshore importation of natural gas in addition to oil. The last modification was in November 2002 when the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) was signed, which formally amended the DWPA to extend the definition of deepwater ports to include natural gas facilities and implement measures to improve vessel and facility security. Ports must not be sited in areas specially designated as vessel navigation routes, cargo operations areas, or environmental protection and conservation areas. The DWPA allows the deepwater ports to be operated for exclusive use, thereby dedicating the entire capacity of the facility for its own purposes, without being subject to the requirements of open access or common carriage. Since the passage of the DWPA of 1974, the only operational deepwater port in existence today is the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP). The USCG has established a 500m Safety Zone surrounding the offshore LNG terminal to exclude ship traffic not related to the port operations. The requirement of this safety zone necessitates that the offshore LNG terminal be located away from shipping fairways, existing oil or gas platforms, other deepwater ports, and other areas of activity on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to avoid interference with those activities. Other considerations of location, such as proximity to existing offshore and onshore pipeline distribution systems and support infrastructure, will also influence the cost effectiveness of a deepwater port. 15 Six of the proposed LNG offshore terminals are in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Error! Reference source not found.. The GOM provides many favorable conditions for the development of offshore LNG terminals. Extensive existing onshore support infrastructure and the general economy of the Gulf area strongly support development of offshore LNG terminals. In addition to onshore resources, the GOM offers access to an extensive existing offshore pipeline infrastructure with direct access to major onshore distribution points.
15 US Coast Guard: Maritime Administration Final Environmental Assessment of the El Faso Energy Bridge Deepwater Port License Application, Nov. 2003 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 19 Type of Regasification Process The LNG regasification process starts with the offloading of LNG from ocean-going LNG ships into storage tanks, pumping the LNG from storage tanks through vaporizers (heat exchanger) at pipeline pressure and finally sending out the product, natural gas, through custody transfer metering to the gas pipeline network, see Error! Reference source not found.. Figure 2 General LNG Receiving Terminal Operation
Use this graphic? If so, need source The types of vaporizers applicable to offshore LNG terminals include: The open rack vaporizer (ORV); Submerged combustion vaporizer (SCV); and Shell and tube vaporizer (STV) using either once-through heating seawater (open-loop) or a steam heated (closed-loop) system. Of the nine proposed offshore terminals in North America six plan to use the ORV and one each plan to use the SCV and STV. Safety during operations, commercial Comentario [m6]: Check against previous table DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 20 viability, operability and maintainability, space requirements and suitability for offshore use and environmental impacts are some of the parameters considered in selecting the appropriate vaporizers. Open Rack Vaporizer (ORV) Systems Figure 3 - Schematic Drawing of ORV ORV systems use seawater flowing over a series of panel coils to warm the LNG which is flowing countercurrent within the panels, as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The ambient seawater is the sole source of heat. Seawater would flow through intake screens, which eliminate debris, and then pumped to the ORVs through strainers. Intake screens would be designed with mesh sizes and operated at intake velocities that minimize impingement and entrainment of marine organisms (see Error! Reference source not found.). Impingement can occur when larger aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other structures and killed or injured. Entrainment can occur when eggs, larvae, young juveniles, and smaller aquatic organisms are drawn into cooling systems and killed or injured by thermal, chemical, or physical stresses. The cooled seawater would be collected and discharged to the ocean after one pass through the system. Depending on the send-out capacity the discharge line can be up to 5 7 feet in diameter, Error! Reference source not found.. The seawater is chlorinated to protect the surface of the tube panel against biofouling and to prevent marine growth inside the piping. Biofouling (biological fouling) is the undesirable accumulation of microorganisms, plants and animals on artificial surfaces. This occurs on artificial Source: KOBELCO : www.kobelco.co.jp/eneka/p01/orve.htm
DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 21 surfaces submerged in seawater (marine biofouling), such as ships hulls, seaside piers and sea defenses, as well as on other surfaces in continuous contact with water, such as air conditioning systems and water pipes. The once-through warming water discharges must meet environmental permits requirements. Figure 4 - Picture of Installed ORV
Source: KOBELCO : www.kobelco.co.jp/eneka/p01/orve.htm Submerged Combustion Vaporizers (SCV) SCV systems burn natural gas as their source of heat. The process will superheat the natural gas to a temperature of about 41 o F at a pressure of about 1,500 psig. The LNG and natural gas flow are contained within process piping submerged in the water bath. Neither LNG nor natural gas is directly released into the water bath, but combustion exhaust gas does bubble through the water bath. Water for the bath is fresh water generated by collection of condensed water formed from the natural gas fuel burned in the SCV. Moisture in the exhaust gas will condense on cold LNG piping. Potable water for the terminal can be supplied from the condensation of moisture out of the air at the SCV units. The water bath provides stable heat transfer to the LNG and natural gas. The water bath is cooled as the natural gas absorbs heat from it. No circulating seawater is required for the submerged combustion vaporization process. There are NO x and CO 2 emissions due the burning of natural gas to fire the burners. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 22
Shell and Tube Vaporizer (STV) can be operated in an open-loop, closed-loop, or combined mode. In the open-loop configuration, relatively warm seawater is pumped from fixed intakes and passed through the shell-and-tube vaporizer to provide the heat necessary to change the LNG to its natural gas phase. In this configuration the STV is similar to the ORV except that the seawater is pumped through the shell and tube exchangers. STV come in smaller sizes than ORVs, therefore more STVs are required for a given vaporization system. In the closed- loop configuration, a boiler would heat the water circulated in a closed-loop through the shell-and-tube vaporizer. Natural gas would be the fuel for the boiler and there will be some level of NO x and CO 2 emissions. [insert picture of STV] Cost Comparison: The ConocoPhillips LNG Vaporizer Options Study presented a detailed cost analysis of the vaporization options applicable to offshore LNG terminals. The study concluded that the ORV system has a higher capital cost than DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 23 SCV system, but the ORV system has a lower operating cost and requires less fuel. The cost of the STV for seawater application will be generally higher although the installed cost is lower than that of ORVs. TYPES OF OFFSHORE LNG RECEIVING TERMINALS IN NORTH AMERICA There are five main types of offshore LNG terminal: Gravity Based Structure (GBS) Floating, Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) Concept Shuttle and LNG Regasification System (Energy Bridge) Cavern Based LNG Receiving Facilities Platform Based Import Terminal The different types of LNG offshore terminal will be examined and the components will be discussed and the technical issues would be highlighted. An example taken from the proposed projects will then be presented to further illustrate the key component of each type. A complete list of the proposed projects is provided in Table 1 - Error! Reference source not found.. Gravity Based Structure ( GBS) GBSs have been used to support offshore facilities for more than 30 years. The concrete construction is adaptable to extreme cold temperatures and would be designed to tolerate contact with LNG where applicable. GBS supported production facilities are typically considered for shallow water offshore locations, with water depths typically limited to the range of 40 ft 100ft. The lower limit is to accommodate the minimum draft requirements for LNG ships as discussed above. All the proposed LNG terminals fall in this water depth range, see -Table 1- Error! Reference source not found.. GBS structures must also be located in areas where the seafloor is relatively level or gently sloping, lacking in geologic hazards, and with satisfactory sediments to support the foundation and weight of the structure. If there is a significant thickness of soft clays, the most effective DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 24 means of founding the GBS is by constructing concrete skirts. A concrete skirt is a vertical structure that cuts through the solid foundation to harder material below. Figure 6 - Offshore LNG GBS Production, Storage and Offloading Terminals
Source: [Get a picture of showing GBS layout] The GBS concept is particularly well suited to phased expansion, additional GBS units may be constructed and installed adjacent to existing facilities and linked to the existing GBS by a shallow water jackets and a bridge. Significant synergies can arise due to the sharing of production utilities, storage and offloading facilities for the phased expansion of the facility. The size of the GBS is defined by the storage volume or topside area required for the support of facilities or a combination of both requirements. GBS Components and Configuration The LNG terminal usually consists of two reinforced concrete, rectilinear GBSs. Each GBS would be about 200 ft wide, 500 ft long, and 150 ft tall. One GBS unit, the Utility GBS, would support the control and maintenance buildings and utilities. The other GBS, the Process GBS, would support the regasification facilities on its top deck. The two GBSs would be positioned end to end, separated by about 100ft and connected by a jacket and bridge. High-strength cement technology and steel reinforcing would be used to design the GBSs to safely withstand extreme loads like DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 25 severe wave loads caused by hurricanes force similar to what is experience in the Gulf of Mexico and other energy-imparting events, including vessel impact. 16 Offloading LNG Ships If the GBS is sitting in about 80ft of water, there will be about 70 ft of freeboard above the seawater level. The berthing and unloading facilities for LNG ships would include one or two LNG ship berths and a berthing control tower to manage all berthing operations and procedures. The mooring system would allow one or two LNG ships to be moored alongside the GBS. LNG ships would berth anytime of the day or night, subject to suitable weather conditions. The LNG GBS offloading facilities would be designed to accommodate LNG ships ranging in capacity from 100,000 m 3 to 160,000 m 3 or more depending on the water depth at location. [insert picture of offloading arms] Ship cargo transfer would use a loading arm package per berth. The loading arm package consists of four 16-in diameter loading arms. The loading arms would be similar to those used at existing onshore LNG facilities; however, the specific configuration would be designed to accommodate offshore ship movements at berth. LNG ships would offload through three of the four loading arms. Typical offloading rates would be about 10,000 - 12,000 cubic meters per hour (m/hr) (353,000 to 423,600 cubic feet per hour (ft 3 /hr]) of LNG. The fourth loading arm would be dedicated to vapor return from the terminal to equalize pressure between LNG ship and terminal storage tanks. One of the three arms used for liquid could be used for vapor if the vapor arm is damaged, but offloading rates would be reduced. During the absence of LNG ships at either berth, LNG from the GBS storage tanks would be re-circulated in the terminal offloading piping network to maintain cold temperatures for the next ship cycle, minimizing the need for cool down the pipes when the next ship arrived. The time LNG ship spend at berth would be
16 US Coast Guard: Maritime Administration: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Pelican Llc Deepwater Port License Application. August 2003. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 26 approximately 24 hours (hr), including berthing, hookup, offloading, disconnect, and un-berthing. LNG Storage on the GBS The LNG is stored within the GBS hull in a double containment tank with membrane liner. Each GBS would have an integrated LNG tank. The substructure is made up of flat concrete walls and slabs for ease of construction. Concrete is particularly well suited to the storage of cryogenic liquids like LNG if suitable insulation, heating or liquid barriers are provided to limit the exposure of the concrete to large areas of extreme cold. Submerged LNG cargo pumps are placed inside the tanks to transfer LNG from storage tanks to LNG sendout pumps mounted on the GBS deck 17 [insert picture showing tank cross-section from Conocophillips] . LNG storage tanks are fitted with thermal insulation both to prevent heat flow into the cargo tank to reduce boil-off of the LNG and also to protect the ships structure from cryogenic temperatures that would cause brittle fracture. The insulation is either "sandwiched" between the inner hull and primary membrane, or in the case of Moss tanks applied externally. The insulation is protected from external sources of ignition by the steelwork of the ships structure. 18
17 Raine, B., Kaplan, A.; Concrete-based offshore LNG production in Nigeria, LNG journal September/October 2003. However, some LNG is vaporized in the tank by heat picked up from the surroundings and changes in the fluid composition when LNG is offloaded into the tank from LNG ships. This vapor is referred to as boil-off gas (BOG). The boil-off of natural gas from the LNG provides evaporative cooling that keeps the remaining liquid at the low storage temperature. This process is comparable to water boiling in an open pan, except the temperature is much lower. Regardless of the amount of heat transferred from a stove burner to a pan of boiling water, as long as the pan is open to the atmosphere to allow steam to disperse, the temperature of boiling water will remain at approximately 212 F (100 o C). If the pan were covered and sealed, the steam pressure would build and then the temperature of the water would increase. 18 See UH IELE FAQ Understanding LNG Cargo Tank Insulation www.energy.uh.edu/lng.. Dec. 2004 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 27 Boiling water at atmospheric pressure will remain at 212 F while steam boils off, similarly LNG at atmospheric pressure will remain at approximately -260 F while natural gas boils off. Boil-off gas can be used to supply vapor to the LNG ship to fill the void left when LNG is pumped out or as fuel gas or compressed, condensed, and recombined with the LNG for vaporization. LNG Sendout Vaporization The LNG sendout pumps discharges LNG into the ORVs where it would be warmed. The GBS may have more than one parallel vaporization trains to warm up and convert the LNG to natural gas and deliver the gas to the pipeline at the required pipeline pressure of about 1450psi. Each vaporization train would consist of smaller trains, each with an LNG sendout pump, a vaporizer, most likely an ORV, and a seawater lift pump. For example a 1 billion standard cubic feet per day (scfd) train would consist of six 200-million scfd trains. Five of the six trains would be in operation during peak sendout rate (1.0 billion scfd), and one would be used as a spare. Gas Metering The gas then would pass through a custody transfer meter system before entering the pipeline. Metering capacity for the pipeline would match the peak discharge capacity from the LNG sendout pumps. Utility Services All services not in direct contact with the delivered LNG are considered utility rather than process services. Utility services take place on the Utility GBS. Utility services include power generation, instrument and utility air, open drains and oily water treatment, fuel gas, utility water, the hypochlorite system, potable water, wash down, nitrogen generation and high pressure storage, wastewater treatment, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, the emergency flare system, and fire and safety systems. The electrical power for the terminal would be generated by natural-gas-powered turbine generators. Gas would be supplied by the fuel gas system from boil-off gas DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 28 with emergency diesel generators. The emergency diesel generators would allow operation during the absence of natural gas or during emergency situations involving the turbine generators. The facility would receive bulk diesel from supply vessels. Emergency Flare System To meet applicable safety standards, an emergency gas flare would be installed on a separate support structure adjacent to the end of the Process GBS. The flare would be oriented such that the prevailing winds would direct its plume away from the GBS. The flare platform would be accessed using an extended gangway. A flare header system would collect hydrocarbon flows from relief valves, tank blankets (air spaces around the tank with nitrogen and natural gas sensors), and miscellaneous sources and send them to a flare drum and then to the flare. The flare would be equipped with multiple pilots and electronic igniters. Living Quarters and Helideck Crew quarters would be placed on a free-standing platform a short distance from the Utility GBS, at the end farthest from the Process GBS and emergency flare in order to meet the requirements for safety setbacks from the LNG tanks. The building would accommodate about 50 personnel, offices, recreation, communications, and a galley. Mooring System Mooring of LNG ships at the GBS Terminal would be carried out through a combination of both breasting and mooring dolphins. Breasting and mooring dolphins are clusters of piles driven and bound together at the top (or a large diameter pile) used to moor, anchor, breast or turn a vessel and also to protect bridge piers and docks. Tugs would be required to assist in berthing and un- berthing the LNG ships. [insert picture of dolphins from Bluewater] DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 29 Fabrication GBS fabrication and installation of the majority of the LNG tanks and regasification equipment would be performed at a shore-based facility. The GBS needs to be constructed inside an unflooded dry-dock and the operating equipment is installed and tested. The dock would then be flooded in order to float the GBS to the installation site. The GBSs would then be towed to the terminal site and fixed to the seabed. The installation procedures generally involve gradually lowering each GBS to the seafloor using ballast tanks around the perimeter of the GBS. The skirts on the bottom of the GBS would require jetting away the softer sediments so that the GBS skirts can be drawn into the seafloor to firmly anchor the GBS at the site. Once the GBSs are in place, the remaining operating equipment would be installed and connections made between the GBSs, quarters platform, offloading platforms. Lift barges would be used to install some aspects of the Terminal. The pipeline would also have been fabricated and installed. The LNG terminal would then be placed in service after a series of final testing and inspections. Decommissioning GBS Terminals may be designed for up to 40 years of service. The decommissioning involves removing all underwater structures and leaving facilities in place below ground. The decommissioning procedure is a reverse of the installation procedure. An Example of Gravity Based Structure (GBS) The Port Pelican Deepwater Port 19
19 US Coast Guard: Maritime Administration: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Pelican Llc Deepwater Port License Application. August 2003. proposed by Chevron consists of two GBSs with LNG storage, process equipment, and ancillary facilities. The terminal would be located approximately 36 statute miles (mi) south southwest of Freshwater City, Louisiana in Vermilion Block 140 in the GOM. The proposed terminal site is to be located in approximately 83 ft of water. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 30 The facilities are to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local codes and standards. The Project would be implemented in two phases. Phase I of the Project would include construction of a terminal consisting of two GBSs. The terminal would initially have an average sendout capacity of 800 million scfd and a peak sendout capacity of 1.0 billion scfd. Additional equipment to increase the average capacity to 1.6 billion scfd (peak 2.0 billion scfd) would be installed as supply and demand warrant. Each GBS would be a large concrete structure specially designed and fabricated to provide a safe and secure foundation for the LNG tanks and a supportive deck for vaporizing equipment. The terminal would contain two LNG storage tanks with a total capacity of 330,000 cubic meters of LNG. The ORV technology is proposed regasify the LNG. The GBSs would rest upon the seafloor. Berthing facilities (mooring and breasting dolphins and unloading platforms) would accommodate two LNG ships, one on either side of the terminal. Crew quarters would be installed on a platform off one end of the terminal GBSs, and an emergency flare would be installed on a platform off the other end of the Terminal.
Figure 7 - Proposed Chevron Port Pelican Project, offshore Louisiana - Gravity- based structure Source - Chevron
The Project would also include the Pelican Interconnector Pipeline (pipeline), a new 37 nautical miles (NM), 42-inch (in) diameter subsea pipeline to deliver the gas to DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 31 the existing Tiger Shoal A platform in South Marsh Island Block 217 and subsequently to the existing onshore natural gas pipeline infrastructure. This pipeline would have a capacity of 2.0 billion scfd. The pipeline would generally be buried at least 3 ft below the seabed in waters ranging in depth from approximately 83 ft at the Terminal to 20 ft at the Tiger Shoal A platform. The pipeline would support gas delivery for the life of the Project. In January 2004 the USCG issued a license for the construction and operation of the terminal. A condition of the license was the preparation of a supplemental study of onshore construction activities necessary to fabricate the Port Pelican Deepwater Port. Fabrication of the deepwater port is proposed to be carried out in one of two existing fabrication sites. Onshore fabrication would include the installation of LNG tanks and the installation of topsides. 20 Floating, Storage and Regasification Unit ( FSRU) The two gravity based structures would be towed from the fabrication site to the approved location offshore. The Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared by USCG. Installation of the terminal and the associated pipeline would take approximately 2.5 years after the start of GBS fabrication. Installation is scheduled to be completed in 2008. 21 FSRU LNG import terminal concept comprises of a purpose built permanently moored ship with several LNG ships shuttling between the export facility and the import site. The FSRU ship is typically between 350 to 400 meters long by up to 70 meters wide and normally does not have a propulsion system. (It will be towed from the shipyard and installed at its operational site). Floating structures with storage capacity generally require an anchoring system and sufficient water depth (generally greater than 160 ft) to accommodate a flexible pipeline connection between the unit and the seafloor pipeline.
20 Topsides equipments would be placed on top of the GBSs, such as offices, crew quarters, electric generators, regasification equipment and utilities. 21 Said ,Mike ; Meijerink, Joram Shell Global Solutions International B.V.: LNG Import Terminals: Offshore vs Onshore A Site & Concept Screening Methodology, 14th International Conference on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG-14),Doha, Qatar. March, 2004 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 32 FRSU Components and Configuration The FSRU consists of a double-hulled ship designed using normal shipbuilding blueprints and standards and can be constructed in a wide range of conventional ship yards worldwide. The regasification facilities are located on the main deck of the ship and are typically tailored to suit the specified gas send-out conditions. Since the FSRU is part ship, part storage tank, and part re-gasification unit, three separate design standards, guidance, and regulations must be satisfied. The vessel portion of the FSRU is subject to marine codes, the LNG storage tanks are subject to LNG storage and transfer rules, and the LNG re-gasification and send out processes are subject to process standards and codes. Utilities and systems associated with FSRU operations, including electric power generation and distribution, instrumentation and controls, and fire and safety systems. LNG Carrier Offloading LNG offloading is typically achieved using a modified version of conventional LNG loading arms similar to those used on the GBS LNG terminals. LNG ships will be berthed and unloaded on the starboard side of the FSRU which is the right side of the FSRU as you are facing forward. The starboard side will have four loading arms packages. LNG carriers typically will be offloaded and the LNG stored in the LNG storage tanks. During offloading operations, all the cargo will be discharged except for retained heel required for tank cooling during the return voyage. The resulting change in draft as a result of offloading of cargo is typically very small. LNG Storage The LNG storage system is based on standard designs for ship cargo containment systems; using spherical tanks, membrane or prismatic freestanding tanks 22
22 See UH IELE briefing paper, LNG Safety and Security. . www.energy.uh.edu/lng. Oct 2003 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 33 LNG Sendout Vaporization The available vaporization options are discussed above and selection would be based on required send out capacity, space available, operating efficiency, safety, impact on the environment and cost. Boil Off Gas As discussed above in order to control the boil off rate the LNG tanks on the FSRU are insulated. The boiled off natural gas will be sent out through the natural gas sendout line or recovered and used as fuel for FSRU electric power generation. Fiscal Metering The LNG storage tanks will be fitted with a radar type gauging system. This system is used for custody transfer application and is fitted with a separate monitor in the control room. For metering of send-out gas two ultrasonic in-line gas flow meters will be used. One unit will handle the peak gas flow with the other unit as a stand- by. Flow, temperature and pressure signals will be transmitted to a flow computer with display and printer located in the control room, which can transmit to shore if desired. The system will be supplied with a certificate for fiscal accuracy and be periodically re-evaluated for accuracy. Utility Services Similar to the GBS, the power generation for the ship services are normally provided by gas turbines with dual fuel diesel engines as back up (sized according to the requirements of the regasification equipment). Living Quarters and Helideck The crew quarters are generally located at the stern so as to provide the maximum distance between the turret and accommodation unit. An accommodation deck house with all facilities for a permanent crew of up to 30 persons with temporary accommodations for another 20 persons in fold-down bunks, and a helideck will be fitted at the aft end in a non-gas dangerous zone. One free-fall lifeboat and two large life rafts complete with escape chutes will be fitted at the stern of the terminal for evacuation during an emergency. The supply vessel from shore for provisions DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 34 and crew changes will also be berthing/de-berthing at the aft section of the terminal. A multipurpose control room will be installed in the accommodations to control and monitor all aspects of the terminals operations, and will utilize remote monitoring of the normally unmanned process area and utility equipment. Mooring System The vessel is a turret moored floating receiving unit designed for loading LNG from a side-by-side moored LNG tanker in a relatively benign range of environmental conditions. The LNG carrier is moored alongside the FSRU with both vessels weathervaning around the FSRUs turret mooring. [insert schematic of side to side from bluewater] In the event the FSRU is required to be located in harsher metocean conditions then the Stern to Bow or Tandem configuration can be used. Whilst this tandem technology is still considered developmental several leading industry equipment suppliers are actively progressing it. A key advantage of the FSRU concept is that it can be moored in a wide range of water depths. In shallow waters (approximately 65 to 100 feet), a jacket based, soft yoke system can be used, in greater water depths a catenary based, turret mooring system can be employed. Both of these systems are weathervaning, allowing the FSRU ships heading to rotate according to the direction and force of the wind. [insert schematic of tandem] Example of a Floating, Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) The Cabrillo Deepwater Port 23 proposed by BHP Billiton consists of an FSRU. It will receive, store and re-gasify LNG. It will be located approximately 13.9 miles off the Coast of Ventura County in Southern California, in 2,900 feet of water and would only be visible from elevated locations. 24
23 Cabrillo Port Application for Deepwater Port License, Submitted to Commandant, United States Coast Guard Washington, D.C.; Submitted by BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. Houston, Texas. The Project will include a 21.1-mile long, 30-inch diameter send out pipeline that will transport natural gas from the 24 California Energy Commission Staff Report: West Coast LNG Projects, Sept. 24, 2004 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 35 offshore facilities to a pipeline interconnection onshore at Ormond Beach (near Oxnard, California) with the existing intrastate pipeline system of SoCalGas for ultimate distribution throughout the Southern California region. Figure 8 - Proposed Cabrillo Port FSRU (Floating Storage and Re-gasification Unit)
Source: BHP The FSRU will be a ship-shaped double sided, double bottomed LNG storage and re- gasification facility. The FSRU will have a length of 286 m and breadth of 65 m, with a displacement of approximately 190,000 dead weight tonnage (dwt). The FSRU will store LNG in three Moss spherical tanks. Each tank will have a 91,000 m3 LNG storage capacity and the total FSRU LNG storage capacity will be 273,000 m3. The internal tank shell is aluminum, surrounded by insulating layers and clad in an external steel shell. Each Moss spherical tank is supported on a steel skirt ring that is braced inside the double hull of the vessel. Each tank is located in a separate cargo hold with the tank skirt mounted directly on the foundation deck. The spherical design reduces sloshing forces that can build up and cause damage in non-symmetrical tanks. This allows the Moss tanks to be used without any filling restrictions, allowing loading and unloading operations on the open seas. The entire internal and external shells of Moss type tanks can be inspected, and if DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 36 necessary readily repaired, as contrasted with membrane lined tank systems, where access and repair requires significant downtime. Moss tanks have a normal fatigue based life expectancy of 100-years. LNG carriers will transport LNG from LNG export terminals throughout the Pacific Basin. The LNG tankers to be accommodated at the FSRU will be on average about 276 meters in length, by 65 meters in width and 27 meters in depth, with approximately 68,000 to 120,000 dwt. Their cargo tanks would typically have about 100,000 m3 to 220,000 m3 storage capacity. The LNG is pumped, as liquid, up to the 1,500 psig natural gas send out pressure and maintained at that pressure through the vaporization process. The vaporization portion of the process re-gasifies the LNG. The process will consist of eight Kaldair TX180 submerged combustion vaporizers (SCVs). Each will have a maximum capacity of 198 short tons per hour of LNG vaporized. The SCVs will superheat the resultant natural gas to a temperature of about 41 o F at a pressure of about 1,500 psig. The project will have a capability of re-gasifying up to 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), with an anticipated average rate of 0.6 to 0.9 Bcf/d. The connection from the FSRU to the send out pipeline will consist of a fixed turret style mooring point, three flexible riser pipes, and a Pipeline Ending Manifold (PLEM) on the seabed. The send out pipeline will run from the PLEM, through a shore crossing, and on shore to the tie-in with the SoCalGas system. The only onshore component of the project is a subsurface 0.65-mile segment of the send out pipeline, which interconnects with the SoCalGas distribution system. Three natural gas-fired generator sets, one dual fuel diesel/gas generating set and one diesel emergency generator set will generate the onboard electric power. Each of the three primary gas fired units will have power output of 7,400 kilowatts (kW) at 6.6 kilovolts (kV), and the dual fuel unit an output of 5,700 kW, for a total power plant generating capacity of approximately 28 megawatts. The diesel fuel unit used for emergency duty will have a power output of 4,000 kW at 6.6 kV. Shuttle and Onboard LNG Regasification Systems Some LNG ships are designed with onboard regasification equipment to transport and degasify LNG. They are double-hulled ships with double-containment cargo DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 37 tanks. The LNG storage tanks are designed to withstand any potential degree of sloshing during transportation and unloading as a result of partially loaded tanks. El Paso Energy Bridge, Offshore Louisiana) 25 When an Energy Bridge ship reaches the offshore LNG terminal it would retrieve and connect to a submerged turret loading (STL) buoy. A winch located on the ship would raise the submerged buoy from its subsurface location. The STL buoy would be drawn into an opening in the hull of the ship. After it is secured, the STL buoy would serve both as the mooring system for the vessel and as the offloading mechanism for transferring the natural gas. After the STL buoy has been attached to the vessel and all mooring and start-up prerequisites have been satisfied, the ship onboard LNG regasification process would commence. The ship would vaporize the LNG with its onboard regasification equipment. Natural gas would be transferred from the ship through the STL buoy. The submerged STL buoy would be connected to a flexible riser leading to a seabed pipeline that would convey the natural gas to a metering platform. From the metering platform, the natural gas would be fed into seabed pipelines. is proposed by Excelerate Energy, LLC and El Paso Corporation. El Paso Energy Bridge Vessels (EPEBVs) would be used to transport and convert LNG to natural gas. When an EPEBV reaches the port, it would retrieve and connect to the STL buoy and the integrated mooring system. When not in use, the STL buoy would remain submerged approximately 80 feet (ft) (24.4 meters [m]) below the sea surface in approximately 298 ft (91 m) of water. The deepwater port is located 116 miles south of the Louisiana shoreline. Figure 9 - Energy Bridge General System Layout.
25 US Coast Guard:/ Maritime Administration Final Environmental Assessment of the El Faso Energy Bridge Deepwater Port License Application, Nov. 2003 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 38
Source: El Paso Energy Corp. The Energy Bridge System takes advantage of an existing STL buoy deepwater port technology. It limits the need for new pipeline and onshore infrastructure by exploiting excess capacity in the existing infrastructure and has the flexibility to easily adapt to shifting or volatile LNG supplies. Once delivered into the existing natural gas transmission infrastructure, the gas would then be redelivered by shippers into the national gas pipeline grid through connections with other major interstate and intrastate pipelines. The principal components of the Energy Bridge System would include: A Submerged Turret Loading (STL) buoy receiving system to receive natural gas from delivery vessels, with a mooring system of cables lines, chains and permanent anchors. A flexible riser pipe to carry the natural gas from the STL buoy to a sub sea manifold. Natural gas pipeline connecting the sub sea manifold to a metering platform. A metering platform to direct and regulate the natural gas flows into downstream pipelines. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 39 Figure 10 Energy Bridge System Source: Excelerate The two EPEBVs are under construction in South Korea and they would be dedicated to delivering natural gas to the Port. Each EPEBV would have a transport capacity of approximately 138,000 cubic meters (m3) of LNG or approximately 3 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas. Under optimal operating conditions, each EPEBV would have the capability to degasify and unload up to a maximum of 690 million cubic feet of natural gas per day (MMcf/d). The LNG storage tanks have been designed to withstand 100-year storms in the GOM and North Atlantic voyage sloshing conditions. Figure 11 - El Paso Energy Bridge Vessels (EPEBVs)
DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 40 Source: El Paso Energy Corp. The onboard regasification would use a shell-and-tube vaporizer system. The regasification system would be operated in an open-loop (once through, non- contact warming water) mode and can produce a maximum of approximately 690 MMcf/d of natural gas. Restrictions on the receiving rate of the downstream pipelines would limit the average annual regasification rate to approximately 500 MMcf/d. The regasification system would have the capability to operate in a closed- loop (recirculating warming water) mode or in a combined mode. The closed-loop boiler would be operated using natural gas. It is estimated that approximately 7,117 MBTU/d (7.117 MMcf/d) of gas would be required to operate the boiler in the closed-loop configuration. The closed-loop capabilities were designed into the onboard regasification system primarily to allow LNG regasification when sea conditions prohibit use of the open-loop configuration. Figure 12 Shell and Tube Vaporizer Arrangement on the EPEBV Deck
Source Excelerate DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 41 One of these downstream seabed pipelines would travel through WC 600 and tie into the existing offshore Bluewater Pipeline in WC 601. The other downstream pipeline would travel from the metering platform through WC 602 and WC 601, and tie into an existing Sea Robin pipeline in East Cameron Area, South Addition, OCS Lease Block 335 (EC 335).The project was approved on January 15, 2004 and is expected to start operations early 2005. Cavern Based LNG Receiving Facilities The salt cavern storage based LNG Receiving Facilities consists of a marine terminal, which will receive LNG from the tanker. The LNG may be delivered into LNG storage tanks at the terminal and then re-gasified or re-gasified immediately and injected in the salt storage cavern as natural gas. The major critical elements of this concept are: Salt formations suitable for cavern development; A method to moor and offload an LNG carrier; Adequate LNG storage tanks or a method to immediately vaporize the LNG at volumes that allows acceptable ship discharge times; and A pipeline infrastructure sufficient to carry large volumes of natural gas to market. According to Conversion Gas Imports (CGI) 26 Salt cavern storage is a well-known technology and is well developed, acceptable to the community and low cost. Salt caverns, thousands of feet below the Earths surface, have been used to store hydrocarbons for more than 60 years. Salt , salt caverns can be solution mined in far less time and at about one fifth of the cost of constructing cryogenic tanks resulting in significantly lower investment and a shorter construction schedule. The permitting schedule will also be significantly shorter. These advantages result in a lower capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) than for conventional terminals.
26 McCall, Michael M., Conversion Gas Imports: Critical Components of Salt Cavern-Based Liquefied Natural Gas Receiving Terminal Undergo Field Tests, GasTIPS. Summer 2004 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 42 caverns provide about 5% of the natural gas storage capacity in the United States but about 15% of the deliverability of natural gas into the gas grid. Salt cavern gas storage facilities have very high deliverability instantaneously available to the pipeline system, far higher than LNG vaporization capacities in conventional LNG terminals. Salt caverns are central to U.S. energy infrastructure. The entire Strategic Petroleum Reserve, totaling more than 650 million bbl of crude oil, is stored in salt caverns on the Gulf Coast. In addition, there are more than 600 million bbl of products owned by private industries including hydrogen, natural gas, natural gas liquids, olefins, refined products and crude oil stored in salt caverns in the United States and Canada. Example of a Cavern Based Offshore LNG Receiving Facilities The Main Pass Energy Hub (MPEH) 27
27 Freeport-McMoRan Energy LLC: Deepwater Port License Application for the Main Pass Energy Hub Project, Volume I, General (Public) February 2004 Submitted to USCG. was proposed by Freeport-McMoran Energy LLC as a deepwater port to receive, vaporize, condition, store, and transport liquefied natural gas (LNG) and constituent liquids derived from the processing. The proposed offshore LNG terminal will be located in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) approximately 16 miles (25.7 kilometers [km]) offshore southeast Louisiana at Main Pass Block 299 (MP 299). It will be located in approximately 210 feet (64 meters) of water depth and will be designed to accommodate LNG carriers up to 160,000 cubic meters (m3). The proposed location is a former sulfur mining facility and the project will utilize four existing platforms along with associated bridges and support structures with appropriate modifications and additions as part of the offshore LNG terminal. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 43 Figure 13 MPEH Conceptual View
Source: Freeport-McMoran Energy LLC Two new platforms will be constructed to carry the LNG storage tanks and a patent-pending Soft Berth System will be used to berth LNG carriers. Three LNG storage tanks will be located on each platform, see Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found.. The LNG storage tanks will each have a capacity of approximately 24,660 m3 with prismatic [SPB], spherical [Moss] type, or any other acceptable containment system. The total net capacity of the LNG storage tanks is approximately 145,000 m3. The two LNG storage platforms will be connected to the processing facilities by a bridge. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 44 Figure 14 MPEH Soft Berth - Conceptual Design of LNG Ship Offloading
Source: Freeport-McMoran Energy LLC Living quarters to routinely accommodate 50 personnel will be provided. The offshore LNG terminal is designed to deliver an average of 1.0 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscfd) and deliver a peak of 3.0 bscfd of pipeline-quality natural gas, and a peak of 85,000 barrels per day (bbls/d) of natural gas liquids (NGL). The proposed action includes the installation of approximately 192 miles (309 km) of natural gas and NGL transmission pipelines. The offshore LNG terminal and the majority of the pipeline components will be located on the OCS. A 36- inch (91.4-centimeter [cm]) diameter natural gas pipeline will originate at the offshore LNG terminal and extend northeast for approximately 92.7 miles (149.2 km) to connect the offshore LNG terminal to existing gas distribution pipelines near Coden, Alabama. Approximately 5 miles (8 km) of this pipeline segment is proposed for construction onshore in Alabama (above the mean high water line). A proposed metering platform to be installed at Main Pass 164 (MP 164) will be located on this 36- inch (91.4-cm) pipeline route and will provide a DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 45 tie -in location for two lateral transmission lines. These laterals will be 16 inches (40.6 cm) in diameter and approximately 300 feet (91.4 meters) long extending to proposed subsea tie -ins to existing natural gas transmission lines. A 16-inch (40.6-cm) diameter natural gas pipeline will originate at the offshore LNG terminal and extend east for 2.5 miles (4.0 km) to Main Pass 298 (MP 298), and tie into an existing natural gas transmission pipeline. A 20-inch (50.8-cm) diameter natural gas pipeline will extend south-southwest for approximately 51.5 miles (82.9 km) connecting to existing natural gas transmission pipelines at South Pass 55 (SP 55). A 12-inch (30.5-cm) diameter pipeline will carry NGL derived from natural gas conditioning at the offshore LNG terminal. This pipeline will originate at the offshore LNG terminal, extend 45.7 miles (73.5 km) westerly into Louisiana inland waters, and make a connection with an existing NGL facility near Venice, Louisiana. MP 299 will sit atop a salt dome approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) in diameter. An on-site total gas storage capacity of 28 billion cubic feet (Bcf) will be provided in three salt caverns underlying the offshore LNG terminal. This storage capacity will allow the offshore LNG terminal to provide a more measured and consistent delivery of natural gas volumes into the pipeline system, thereby relieving pipeline operators from the difficulty of managing alternating periods of very low and very high throughput. The ability to deliver consistent volumes of natural gas into the connected transmission pipeline(s) was identified as a key technical and economic requirement for the project. Commissioning of the offshore LNG terminal is scheduled for December 2007. Construction is expected to take approximately 34 months. The terminal will have an expected service life of approximately 30 years. The Bishop Process LNG import terminal is another example of the cavern based offshore LNG receiving terminal. The LNG cargo discharge from the ship is the inlet to a series of high-pressure LNG pumps, which receive the LNG at relatively low pressures from the ship and achieve cavern injection pressures (up to 2000 psi) at their discharge. The heat exchanger receives the LNG at high rates, DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 46 high pressures and low temperatures and then warms it to 40 F with a novel, low- cost seawater heat exchanger vaporizer. The vaporizer uses a simple pipe in pipe co-axial flow arrangement running approximately 2,500 feet along the ocean floor. Vaporized gas at 2000 psi exits the Bishop vaporizer at a design temperature compatible with the cavern structure in a range between 20-40 o F. 28 Technical validations through field tests of the critical components of a salt cavern- based LNG receiving terminal are part of a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) cooperative research project commissioned by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) The resulting dense phase natural gas (DPNG) can then be fed directly into the pipeline for distribution or injected into the underground salt caverns for storage. This one-step process converts the cold LNG into natural gas. The ship can be turned around in the same amount of time as at a conventional cryogenic tank-based receiving terminal, but when it leaves, there is little LNG stored at the site only enough to keep the cryogenic equipment cold between ship arrivals. 29 with cost sharing participants from an array of energy industry companies. Field tests of the mooring system; the high-pressure pumps; and a high-capacity, high-efficiency, water-warmed heat exchanger have been successfully completed. It is estimated that with permits in hand, construction could be accomplished in about two years. 30
28 Conversion Gas Imports L.P. (CGI) :
http://www.conversiongas.com/html/heat_exchanger.html 29 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL): www.netl.doe.gov 30 McCall, Michael M., Conversion Gas Imports: Critical Components of Salt Cavern-Based Liquefied Natural Gas Receiving Terminal Undergo Field Tests, GasTIPS. Summer 2004 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 47 Figure 15 - The Bishop Process - re-gasification of LNG directly from ocean tankers for storage in underground salt caverns
Source: Example of a Bishop Process LNG Import Terminal Freedom LNG Terminal was announced by HNG Storage, in October 2004 as a new offshore LNG import facility in the Gulf of Mexico based on the patented Bishop Process vaporization technology combined with gas storage in underground, man- made salt caverns. The project is the first proposed commercial application of the Bishop Process for an LNG terminal. Freedom LNG is intended to have an initial send-out capacity of 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day. HNG plans to file a permit application by July 2005. Following government approval, construction could begin by August 2006. The terminal could then be in service by September 2008. 31 Platform Based LNG Import Terminal . The regasification facilities are located on the offshore platform. LNG would be delivered by ships and converted to natural gas on the platform and immediately flowed through the pipeline to shore. The carriers will still be required to remain in berth for a longer period than the normal 12 - 24 hour offloading period hence
31 Conversion Gas Imports L.P. (CGI) : www.conversiongas.com DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 48 incurring additional demurrage costs. 32 Table 5 Since there is no storage capacity on the platform for the LNG or vaporized natural gas, the gas grid has to be able to absorb large amounts of gas in a short period, in addition to the market allowing for an interrupted supply of gas. shows a comparison of duration times for different types of offshore LNG facilities. The MPEH and the proposed Freedom LNG are also examples of Platform based LNG import terminals but with significant storage capacity for the vaporized natural gas. Table 5 - Vessel Berthing Duration Estimate Facility Vessel Berthing Duration Estimate Onshore 35 days/year. (70 vessels @ 12hrs each to unload) FSRU 130 days/year (3 times a week @ 20hrs each to berth, unload and de- berth) Platform with no storage Up to 280 days/year (80 vessels @ 2.5- 3.5 days each to unload) Source: Chan, A. et al: Evaluation Of Liquefied Natural Gas Receiving Terminals For Southern California, 2003-2004 Group Project Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. April 2004.
Example of a Platform Based LNG Import Terminal Crystal Energy Clearwater Port would use an existing oil platform located 11 miles offshore Oxnard California, Platform Grace, to import LNG.
32 Said ,Mike ; Meijerink, Joram Shell Global Solutions International B.V.: LNG Import Terminals: Offshore vs Onshore A Site & Concept Screening Methodology, 14th International Conference on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG-14),Doha, Qatar. March, 2004 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 49 Figure 16 - Platform Grace Reconfiguration of the platform would involve installing an LNG transfer system, a cool down system, six LNG pumps, six LNG vaporizers, and reinstalling and upgrading the platforms power-production capability. LNG would be transported by ship to Platform Grace, where it would be converted back into natural gas. A new Satellite Service Platform (SPP) floating dock would be installed adjacent to the platform to safely moor LNG vessels during transfer. No on-site storage of LNG or natural gas is expected. Source: MMS Figure 17 - Platform Grace with moored LNG Ship The conversion of the existing platform, the construction of the mooring system, and pipeline and the installation of the regasification equipment would take about 2 years. The natural gas would be delivered from the platform to shore in a new, 13- mile, 32 subsea pipeline, using an existing pipeline corridor to minimize disturbance to the marine environment. The natural gas would come onshore by pipeline to a landing at an existing industrial site, the Mandalay Power Generating Station in Oxnard. From the landfall at Mandalay, a new 12-mile underground pipeline would tie into an existing 30 Southern California Gas Company pipeline at their preferred pipeline tie-in point near Camarillo. Comentario [m7]: Need source DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 50 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR OFFSHORE LNG As outlined in this report, a number of critical issues impact offshore LNG projects, ranging from technical feasibility and thus cost to the intense competitive process for permitting and siting these projects. The projects are attractive for presenting solutions to a number of other challenges, such as public acceptance of safety and security associated with onshore LNG import terminal operations; reduced impacts to sensitive coastal wetlands ecosystems; redeployment of offshore natural gas pipeline systems that are underutilized as a result of maturing fields and depleting production on the continental shelf of the U.S. Offshore LNG projects also add flexibility to the North American natural gas supply portfolio. One issue that has been raised for Gulf of Mexico projects is potential marine impacts from ORV systems. Are Potential Environmental I mpacts with ORV Systems Manageable? Because they use seawater to warm and convert LNG back to a gaseous phase, ORV and open-loop STV systems have triggered concerns about potential environmental impacts to marine ecosystems. These systems can be used for either onshore or offshore LNG terminal operations. Details of ORV systems for proposed offshore LNG facilities are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Approved and Proposed Offshore LNG Facilities with ORV and Open-loop STV Designs LNG Facility Location Expected Flow Rate (million gal/day) Water Depth (ft) Area filtered (km2/ year) Intake screen Size (mm) Intake flow rate (ft/sec) Gulf Landing Shell (Approved) 35 miles S of Lake Charles, LA 136 55 11.2 6.35 0.5 Compass Port ConocoPhillips 11 miles S of Mobile Bay Inlet 156 72 12.6 6.35 0.5 Port Pelican Chevron 36 miles S/SW of Freshwater City, LA 176 83 9.7 6.35 0.5 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 51 Main Pass Freeport- McMoran Energy 17 miles E of Pass a Loutre, LA 100 210 2.2 6.35 0.5
STV Open- loop El Paso Energy Bridge 116 miles S of Cameron, LA 133 285 2.1 21 1.0 Source: Davy, Kay: NOAA Fisheries. Habitat Conservation Division Proposed LNG Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, Workshop on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities. April 28, 2004
The U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated that the ORV systems would be drawing between 100 176 million gallons of seawater every day 34 and that billions of fish eggs, larvae and other zooplanktons will be destroyed each year through impingement and entrainment 35 Figure 1 . However, the NOAA analysis assumes that all proposed offshore LNG projects will be built and put into service (see for discussion on the competition among offshore LNG projects and LNG import terminals in general). In addition, NOAAs own analysis, as shown in Figure 18 suggests that the impact of LNG projects is such that proper and vigorous mitigation measures could easily offset any reductions in fishery reproductivities. The amount of water that would be affected via ORV operations is miniscule in the overall Gulf of Mexico environment. Finally, concerted efforts to prevent further deterioration and to replenish and expand nearshore and wetlands environments, essential to the reproductive cycles of Gulf sports and commercial fish populations, are likely to yield substantial offsetting benefits.
33 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act www.epa.gov 34 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): www.noaa.gov 35 Davy, Kay: NOAA Fisheries. Habitat Conservation Division, Proposed LNG Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, Workshop on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities. April 28, 2004 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 52 Figure 18 NOAA Red Drum Cumulative Impacts to Recovery Curve Source: NOAA Fisheries SFSC 11 Jan 05 Summary of Gulf Landing Entrainment Mortality Analysis According to the ConocoPhillips LNG Vaporizer Options Study, 36 the ORV is easy to operate and maintain because of its simple structure. The condition of the panels can easily be checked from the outside during operation. The falling water film system provides stability in the heat transfer mechanism. Although the noise levels are slightly higher than submerged combustion vaporizer (SCV), it is still within acceptable industrial limits. Some methods of reducing impingement include installing screen systems with fish returns, passive intake systems, fish diversion and avoidance systems (e.g., barrier nets, lights, sound, and bubble jets) and low velocity intakes. 37
36 Foster Wheeler USA Corp: LNG Vaporizer Options Study for ConocoPhillips Compass Port GBS LNG Receiving Terminal Pre-FEED. October 2003.
37 Allen, Ashley. EPA Office of Water: Quantifying Potential Environmental and Economic Impacts, Workshop on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities. April 28, 2004 DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 53 The following mitigations are incorporated into the design and operation of the ORV system to avoid and minimize the impact of entrainment/impingement. 38 The center of the seawater intake array should be sited at 60 ft below mean sea level
A maximum seawater through-screen intake velocity of 0.5 ft/s should be maintained, see Error! Reference source not found.. A monitoring plan, approved by NOAA Fisheries, should be established and implemented, to measure the levels of mortality to marine fisheries species associated with the operation of the ORV seawater intake. The ORV technology requires a stable platform environment to prevent sloshing of heating water and LNG and would not be acceptable for use on a moored ship. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS [Still working on this] The El Paso Energy Bridge project may be the first new LNG receiving terminal to be built and operated in the U.S. in more than 20 years and the first offshore LNG receiving terminal in the world. Three Energy Bridge LNG ships are being built in South Korea and the first is scheduled to be delivered before the end of 2004, whilst the second ship is scheduled for April 2005. The third ship is scheduled for 2006. According to Excelerate Energy, the Energy Bridge Terminal is expected to be in operations by January 2005 39
38 US Coast Guard/Maritime Administration: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Pelican Llc Deepwater Port License Application. August 2003. . Excelerate has also announced a second project, the Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge to be located in Gloucester, Massachusetts which is expected to be operational in 2007. With respect to fixed structures, the ExxonMobil GBS project offshore of Venice, Italy is providing a lesson in emerging technologies as well as engineering design and implementation. 39 Excelerate Energy: www.excelerateenergy.com Comentario [m8]: Need source and details. DRAFT For Review Purposes Only CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 54 There are several different options for siting offshore LNG regasification namely shallow water or deepwater locations, near shore or deep offshore locations. The choice depends on regional geographical and socioeconomic conditions and also available pipeline infrastructure. The offshore LNG terminal may be a continuous baseload with significant storage of LNG or natural gas on site or the terminal may operate as an intermittent supplier where the LNG on delivery from the LNG ship is immediately vaporized and feed as natural into the pipeline and there is no LNG or natural gas storage facility on site. An issue facing the different types of LNG offshore terminals that use open loop vaporizers, like ORV and open-loop STVs is impingement and entrainment of marine organisms at the intake. Various mitigation methods have been proposed in with NOAA involvement. Offshore LNG regasification provides a means of meeting U.S. natural gas demands. The total average send out capacity of the proposed offshore terminals is 9.4 Bcf/d or 3.45 Tcf a year and the peak send out capacity is 14.8 Bcf/d or 5.4 Tcf per year. Most of the projected LNG imports required to meet the deficit in natural gas supply by 2025 of 4.8 Tcf per year could be met by the nine proposed offshore terminals, if all the terminals are built.