Diversifying the Zeebrugge LNG terminal into a hub for small-scale LNG
Flemish LNG study
Dirk Nous – LNG Projects Manager Fluxys
IHMA
Bunkering and Infrastructure for LNG fuelled vessels
26th of May, 2014
2 2
01 Fluxys and role of LNG Terminal Zeebrugge
02 Development of 2nd Jetty
03 Safety and Risk studies
04 LNG Truck Loading & LNG as fuel for trucks
05 Conclusions
AGENDA
FLUXYS: GAS INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY IN NW
EUROPE
3
Activities in Belgium
HP gas pipelines
Gas storage
LNG activities
Activities outside Belgium
HP gas pipelines
LNG terminal in Dunkirk (under construction)
Main shareholders: Publigas (group venture of Belgian municipalities) and Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
SOURCES OF NATURAL GAS (mld. m³)
Bron: Cedigaz Natural Gas In The World 2012 Edition
Noord-Amerika
10 965
Latijns-Amerika
7 527
Azië – Oceanië
16 789
Europa
4 994
Afrika
14 689
Iran
33 620 Qatar
25 110 Saudi- Arabië + VAE
14 241
Rusland
48 676 G.O.S.
16 012
4
TRANSPORT OF LNG
Cooling down to -162°C Natural gas gets liquid and
volume reduced by factor 600
Heated back to +3°C Volume x 600
Liquefaction
Transport
Natural gas fields LNG
Storage
Regasification
Transport through pipeline
Storage
5
Sagunto Izmir
Fos (2) Bilbao
Montoir
Sines
Huelva
Barcelona
Cartagena
La Spezia
Revithoussa
Ereglisi
Isle of Grain
Mugardos
Rovigo
MilfordHaven
Brindisi (opgeschort)
Świnoujście
Trieste
Krk
Shannon LNG
Rosignano
Wilhelmshaven
Livorno
Taranto
Le Havre (opgeschort)
Vasiliko
El Musel
Porto Empedocle
Priolo - Augusta - Melilli
Gioia Tauro
Falconara
Zeebrugge
Rotterdam
Nynäshamn
(opgeschort)
Klaipéda
Riga
Paldiski
Existing LNG-terminals
Under construction
Planned or announced
Duinkerke
LNG-TERMINALS IN EUROPE
6 Fluxys 01.2014
LNG: world wide dynamics
7
United States
Shale gas : world wide impact
Massive switch to natural gas for electricity production
Massive export of cheap coal
Europe
Decreasing demand for natural gas
Power plants : competition with coal
LNG-re-export
Asia
Impact Fukushima: great demand for LNG
Industrial development South-Korea, China, India: great demand for LNG
Oil price Natural gas price Coal price
VERENIGDE STATEN EUROPA AZIË
8
LNG TERMINAL ZEEBRUGGE ANNO 2014
Storage capacity : 380.000 m³ LNG in 4
semi-burried “full containment” tanks
Unloading and loading of LNG
vessels 7.500 m³ to 266.000 m³ LNG)
More than1350 LNG-ships received
since 1987
Regas and send-out in
the transport grid
1.700.000 m³(n)/h
Truck loading
station
Since 2008 also reloading of LNG ships
9
37
78 71 70
46 37
6 4 6 10
25 21
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Losbeurten LaadbeurtenUnloadings Loadings
10
KEY ROLE OF THE ZEEBRUGGE AREA
INTERCONNECTOR 1998
ZEEBRUGGE HUB ¨SPOT MARKET
1998
LNG TERMINAL 1987
ZEEPIPE TERMINAL
1993 Landing capacity Zeebrugge area:
approximately 10% of border capacity needed to supply Europe
Zeebrugge Hub spot market: established liquid trading place connected to the UK, The Netherlands, France and Germany
Interconnector pipeline ⇆ United Kingdom
Zeepipe from Norwegian gas fields
At first: regas terminal for the Belgian market …
11
1987
2008
During initial supply contract:
Regas terminal as security of supply
instrument for Belgian market
1 terminal user
Throughput capacity: 3.4 mt/y
Facility acts as attractor for new gas
infrastructure investments
2008
12
LONG TERM CONTRACTUAL SITUATION
Shipper Duration
(years)
Quantity
(mt) Slots As from
Qatar Petroleum / ExxonMobil
(full assignment to EDFT) 20 3.3 55 01/04/2008
Distrigas 20 2.0 33 01/04/2007
GDF SUEZ (agreement with
ConocoPhillips) 15 1.4 22 01/10/2008
TOTAL 6.7 mt 110
3 Long term capacity contracts for ‘throughput slots’
Long term capacity (200 slots) sold from 2015 for loading
of small LNG vessels
New sulphur emission standards important driver for
shipping industry to switch to LNG
13
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
Max % sulphur in ship fuel
Sulphur content ship fuel: 0.1% as of
2015 in Sulphur Emission Control Areas
Global norm
SECA norm
LNG: the most sustainable alternative for
Heavy Fuel Oil in shipping
LNG: sulphur negligible + highest
reduction of other emissions
20% less CO2
90% less NOx
99% less Particulate Matter
ready for even stricter emission
standards in the future
Satellite photo: European Space Agency – Nitrogen oxide levels over Europe
The case for Zeebrugge: optimum location
to further diversify into hub for small-scale LNG
14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2015 2020 2030
mt/y
(Source: ‘North European LNG Infrastructure Project’,
Danish Maritime Authority, 2012)
Setting out the way forward:
LNG study by Flemish government and ports
Agreement ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and
Singapore: best practices LNG bunkering
Le Havre
Dunkirk Zeebrugge
London
Bremerhaven Hamburg
Antwerp Rotterdam
Amsterdam
SECA zone
NW Europe
Zeebrugge
Fluxys LNG
terminal
LNG demand for shipping in
NW European SECA area
expected to rise to 7 mt/y in 2030
The switch to LNG as fuel for shipping is happening – some
examples
AGA - Sea Gas in Stockholm – bunkering on daily basis
Brittany Ferries announcing early 2014 to have ordered a dual fuel driven ferry (+/- 2500 passengers) + conversion of existing ships
Skangass (Gasum) – Risavika plant Direct filling line from LNG terminal to Fjord Line berth
UECC announced to order first car carriers on LNG
15
Favourable gas price is an advantage as well
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Marine DieselOil
Natural gas(Zeebrugge
price)
Heavy Fuel Oil
€/M
Wh
1. Heavy Fuel Oil + scrubbers
scrubbers require capex
and cause higher fuel
consumption
need for waste treatment
2. Marine Diesel Oil
very expensive
3. LNG
requires capex as well
favourable gas price
pays back investment
Delta price to cover for:
• LNG versus gas price
• Berthing rights LNG terminal
• Costs related to bunker or feeder
ship
• Intermediate storage (if any)
• Local bunker ship (if any)
• Conversion / additional cost of LNG
fuelled vessel
Fluxys Zeebrugge LNG terminal: hub for small-scale LNG
17
Second jetty under construction
Reception of LNG carriers with capacity from 2 000 to 217 000 m³ LNG as from 2015
> Unloading and loading
> Ship-to-ship transfers
As from 2008: creating an LNG hub for NW Europe
18
2008
2008 Optimum take away capacity:
security of supply instrument for
NW Europe
Developing the terminal as a
versatile tool for our clients
Optimum
LNG reception
flexibility Optimum destination
flexibility: take away
capacity to all
neighbouring countries
Reload LNG:
ships and
tanker trucks
Pipe gas
throughout
NW Europe
19 19
01 Fluxys and role of LNG Terminal Zeebrugge
02 Development of 2nd Jetty
03 Safety and Risk studies
04 LNG Truck Loading & LNG as fuel for trucks
05 Conclusions
AGENDA
Gastech 2014 04 26 20
2nd jetty under construction: commissioning 2015
Reception of LNG carriers with capacity from 2 000 to 217 000 m³ LNG (including LNG bunker carriers)
Long-term market for bunker vessel loading developing: ca. 200 berthing slots already sold under long-term contracts
Multi-Purpose Jetty
21
Fender panels to reach
down to Mean Low Low
Water Level zero
Dedicated unloading arms
for the smallest ships: any
bunker vessel can be
reached from the main jetty
structure 9 m above
MLLWS
Quick Release Hook layout
in order to be as flexible as
reasonably possible for
widest range of LNG ships
Status of the 2nd Jetty Project – April 2014
Project :
- Maritime Structure : built by Port Authority of Zeebrugge with MBG
- EPC Contract : awarded to TSLNG on April 18th, 2013
- Status
> Engineering : +/- 80% achieved
> Procurement activities : all long lead items ordered
> Construction activities : civil works ongoing, piping work starting june
- Operational 2nd half 2015
23
24
25
26 26
01 Fluxys and role of LNG Terminal Zeebrugge
02 Development of 2nd Jetty
03 Safety and Risk studies
04 LNG Truck Loading & LNG as fuel for trucks
05 Conclusions
AGENDA
Flemish LNG Safety and Risk study
27
PERFORMED BY :
Logistical study
Regulatory study
Risk and Safety study
see also www.flanderslogistics.be
Objectives of the study
■ Assessing the external human risks associated
with the supply of LNG as a marine fuel in Flemish
ports
■ To get an idea of the minimum safety distances that must be
maintained
between LNG activities and vulnerable objects in the vicinity
■ To evaluate the compatibility between future LNG activities and
existing activities
at a particular location in the port
■ To get an idea of the required land use of LNG activities and
installations
Analysis of the LNG supply chain
■ Supply routes and bunker methods Flemish ports
road truck
(50 m³)
bunker ship
(3.000 m³)
LNG fuelled
ships
Gas grid
Bunker terminal
(40.000 m³)
Bunkering station
(3.500 m³)
Liquefaction plant
fixed bunker
installation
LNG import terminal
(380.000 m³)
feeder ship
(20.000 m³)
Bunker ship
(7.500 m³) E.G. REALISTIC SUPPLY ROUTES FOR A FLEMISH PORT
Risk Analysis method
■ Quantitative risk assessment (QRA)
■ Evaluated against the risk criteria imposed by the regional authorities
■ Plant border: IR ≤ 10-5/y
■ Residential areas: IR ≤ 10-6/y
■ Vulnerable locations: IR ≤ 10-7/y
Hazard identification
and scenario definition
consequence analysis frequency analysis
calculation and evaluation
of the external human risk
calculated according to the Flemish guidelines
(e.g. Handbook of Failure Frequencies 2009)
!
Risk Analysis – LNG incidents
■ Event tree for a release of LNG
pool fire
wolkbrand
plasbrand cryogene
effecten
plasbrand
gaswolkexplosie
plasbrand
wolkbrand
plasbrand
cryogene
effecten
LNG at -160°C,
atm. pressure
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
continuous
instantaneous
LNG conditions failure type confinement incidents ignition ignition
explosion (VCE),
pool fire
flash fire,
pool fire
cryogenic
damage/injury
pool fire
explosion (VCE),
pool fire
flash fire,
pool fire
cryogenic
damage/injury
*
* Thermally induced BLEVE is possible if the cold LNG is stored in a pressure vessel
delayed direct
fireball, (pool fire)
wolkbrand
plasbrand cryogene
effecten
plasbrand
gaswolkexplosie
plasbrand
wolkbrand
plasbrand
cryogene
effecten
LNG at -138°C
and 4 barg
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
continuous
instantaneous explosion (VCE),
(pool fire)
flash fire,
(pool fire )
cryogenic
damage/injury
jet fire, (pool fire)
explosion (VCE),
jet fire, (pool fire)
flash fire,
jet fire, (pool fire)
cryogenic
damage/injury
BLEVE
LNG conditions failure type confinement incidents ignition ignition
delayed direct
COLD LNG (-160°C, 150 mbarg) WARM LNG (-138°C, 4 barg)
Risk Analysis Results – LNG storage
■ Vacuum-insulated pressure vessels
■ Consequence analysis: maximum effect distances for a 500 m³ tank
Installation Failure case Incident outcome Max. effect distance
Double wall,
vacuum-insulated tank
(capacity: 500 m³)
LNG conditions: -138°C, 4
barg
with/ without bund
Catastrophic rupture
(3.2 10-7/y)
BLEVE 255 m
fireball 460 m
flash fire 595 m
pool fire 90 m / 290 m
Relase of content in 10 min.
(3.2 10-7/y)
jet fire 165 m
flash fire 610 m
pool fire 90 m / 160 m
Large leak – 150 mm
(1.1 10-6/y)
jet fire 100 m
flash fire 260 m
pool fire 90 m / 120 m
Moderate leak – 25 mm
(1.1 10-6/y)
jet fire 32 m
flash fire 52 m
pool fire 32 m / 32 m
Small leak – 10 mm
(1.2 10-5/y)
jet fire 16 m
flash fire 18 m
pool fire 16 m / 16 m
Risk Analysis Results – LNG storage
■ Vacuum-insulated pressure vessels
■ Calculated individual risk distances
Storage capacity
Tank(s) without a bund Tank(s) in a bund
dist. to 10-
5/y
dist. to 10-
6/y
dist. to 10-
7/y
dist. to 10-
5/y
dist. to 10-
6/y
dist. to 10-
7/y
250 m³ - 4 m 134 m - 4 m 98 m
500 m³ (2x 250 m³) - 36 m 178 m - 32 m 174 m
750 m³ (3x 250 m³) - 60 m 214 m - 60 m 214 m
500 m³ - 4 m 164 m - 4 m 122 m
1.000 m³ (2x 500 m³) - 44 m 228 m - 40 m 222 m
1.500 m³ (3x 500 m³) - 72 m 282 m - 70 m 282 m
700 m³ - 6 m 196 m - 6 m 142 m
2.100 m³ (3x 700 m³) - 102 m 326 m - 90 m 326 m
3.500 m³ (5x 700 m³) - 148 m 376 m - 114 m 376 m
reduction due to containment
is small in case of warm LNG
Risk Analysis Results – LNG transfer
■ Ship unloading operations with fixed arms
■ Calculated individual risk distances
Transfer rate and
usage time
Without emergency shutdown system Automatic emergency shutdown system
dist. to 10-
5/y
dist. to 10-
6/y
dist. to 10-
7/y
dist. to 10-
5/y
dist. to 10-
6/y
dist. to 10-
7/y
6” arm (500 m³/h)
250 h/y - 24 m 86 m - 24 m 84 m
500 h/y 4 m 46 m 106 m 4 m 42 m 100 m
1.000 h/y 12 m 64 m 146 m 12 m 64 m 120 m
2.000 h/y 20 m 80 m 206 m 20 m 80 m 132 m
8” arm (1.000 m³/h)
250 h/y - 66 m 164 m - 64 m 136 m
500 h/y 10 m 90 m 216 m 10 m 90 m 162 m
1.000 h/y 24 m 110 m 318 m 24 m 110 m 214 m
2.000 h/y 58 m 154 m 430 m 54 m 132 m 282 m
12” arm (2.000 m³/h)
250 h/y 10 m 92 m 240 m 10 m 90 m 186 m
500 h/y 20 m 122 m 298 m 20 m 122 m 218 m
1.000 h/y 34 m 148 m 468 m 34 m 148 m 316 m
2.000 h/y 80 m 224 m 596 m 78 m 176 m 432 m
reduction due to ESD
Risk Analysis Results – LNG transfer
■ Bunkering operations with flexible hoses
■ Calculated individual risk distances
Transfer rate and
usage time
Without emergency shutdown system Manual emergency shutdown system
dist. to 10-
5/y
dist. to 10-
6/y
dist. to 10-
7/y
dist. to 10-
5/y
dist. to 10-
6/y
dist. to 10-
7/y
2x 2” hoses (50 m³/h)
250 h/y 16 m 42 m 72 m 14 m 30 m 46 m
500 h/y 20 m 50 m 74 m 18 m 36 m 50 m
1.000 h/y 28 m 56 m 76 m 24 m 40 m 56 m
2.000 h/y 38 m 66 m 96 m 30 m 44 m 66 m
2x 6” hoses (500 m³/h)
250 h/y 48 m 98 m 258 m 46 m 86 m 120 m
500 h/y 60 m 134 m 260 m 60 m 98 m 144 m
1.000 h/y 72 m 170 m 262 m 72 m 108 m 170 m
2.000 h/y 86 m 256 m 264 m 84 m 118 m 256 m
2x 8” hoses (1.000 m³/h)
250 h/y 64 m 136 m 348 m 60 m 118 m 198 m
500 h/y 78 m 194 m 352 m 78 m 132 m 234 m
1.000 h/y 98 m 246 m 356 m 94 m 150 m 246 m
2.000 h/y 120 m 348 m 358 m 112 m 182 m 348 m
reduction due to ESD
Risk Analysis Results – cases
■ Case 1: bunkering station for service vessels
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200 10-6/j
10-7/jstorage tanks
5 x 700 m³ (bunded)
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200 10-6/j
10-7/jship unloading via 6” arm
200h at 500 m³/h (man. ESD)
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200 10-6/j
10-7/jLNG ship (capacity: 3.000 m³)
200h at an unprotected jetty
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200 10-5/j
10-6/j
10-7/jcomplete bunkering station
Individual Risk contours
37
Group Risk analysis
Specific criteria exist with regard to group risk, taking into account presence of people in the neighborhood of the installations
38
39 39
01 Fluxys and role of LNG Terminal Zeebrugge
02 Development of 2nd Jetty
03 Safety and Risk studies
04 LNG Truck Loading & LNG as fuel for trucks
05 Conclusions
AGENDA
40
LNG tanker truck loading service since 2010
Capacity of 4 000 loadings/year
Destinations: Belgium, The Netherlands, UK, Germany, Poland
> Industrial sites without pipe gas supply
> LNG fuelling stations for trucks
> Truck-to-ship bunkering
Construction of second truck loading station under consideration
5 65
315
819
1847
2010 2011 2012 2013 Booked2014
Booming number of truck loadings
Ports of Zeebrugge and Antwerp: first truck-to-ship bunkering
operations from Fluxys terminal successfully executed
41
Bunkering of
first LNG-fuelled tugboat
M/T Borgøy in the port of
Zeebrugge
Bunkering of
Argonon in Port of Antwerp
42 42
01 Fluxys and role of LNG Terminal Zeebrugge
02 Development of 2nd Jetty
03 Safety and Risk studies
04 LNG Truck Loading & LNG as fuel for trucks
05 Conclusions
AGENDA
43
CONCLUSIONS
The switch to LNG as fuel is happening
Zeebrugge LNG terminal: successful metamorphosis into versatile LNG hub
> Multi-shipper operation
> Optimum reception flexibility
> Optimum destination flexibility: pipe gas and LNG
LNG as fuel for ships and trucks: cutting through the chicken-and-egg
situation
> Booming LNG truck loading scheme and first truck-to-ship bunkering
operations successfully executed
> 2nd jetty enabling small bunker vessels to load as from 2015
> First LNG fuelling station: pilot project to roll out other stations
44
