Home > Documents > Ronen Hadash

Ronen Hadash

Date post: 04-Jun-2018
Category:
Author: long-nguyen
View: 218 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Embed Size (px)

of 13

Transcript
  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    1/13

    LNG Pipeline - CNG

    Comparison

    NG Export project to Turkey

    An Interactive WorkshopRonen Hadash

    Amirim Management

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    2/13

    CNG vs. LNG

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    3/13

    Marine CNG new application to proven technology

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    4/13

    Marine CNG

    Technology mature, not yet deployed in marine applications.

    Ready for construction.

    Backed by serious companies.

    Difficulty & footprint low. Time to market fast.

    Drawback - no one had the balls to implement (so far)

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    5/13

    Target

    To compare alternative supply chain costs:

    Minimum supply chain cost =max netback to supplier=

    min price to offtaker / market Information from 3

    rd

    parties Project fundamentals:

    Distance ~ 600km

    Capacity ~ 6-8 BCM / annum or ~5-6 MTPA

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    6/13

    The Model

    Pipeline / LNG - 8 BCM CNG - 6 BCM

    8 Annual quantity 285,714,286 mmBTU 6 214,285,714 mmBTU

    Distance: 600 km 600 km

    Cost of Capital 12% 12%

    Ammortization 20 Years 15 years

    CAPEX -$ TPA -$ inch/meter -$ Ship

    6.00 MTPA 24.00 inch 5.00 Ships

    - m' $/km

    -$ -$ -$

    Load / Discharging existing NA -$

    Capex Return -$ -$ -$

    OPEX -$ -$ -$

    Total Costs (annual) -$ -$ -$$ / MMbtu -$ -$ -$

    Shipping -$ NA Included

    Discharging fee -$ NA Included

    Total supply chain -$ -$ -$

    market price 15.00$ 10.00$ 10.00$

    netback 15.00$ 10.00$ 10.00$

    LNG Pipeline CNG

    Comparison: LNG / Pipeline / CNG

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    7/13

    LNG cost of TPA liquefaction capacity

    $????/ton per annum

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    8/13

    LNG OPEX

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    9/13

    Pipeline CAPEX (1)

    Project

    Length

    (KM)

    Capacity

    (BCM)

    Diameter

    (inch)

    Depth

    (Meter)

    Cost

    (m' US$)

    Unit Cost

    (US$/Inch/m)

    Unit Cost

    (US$ m'/km)

    Medgaz 210 8 24 2,165 806 160 3.8

    South Stream 925 63 4x32 2,200 12,800 108 13.8

    Nord Stream 1222 55 2x48 210 11,264 96 9.2

    ITGI 217 10 32 1,800 640 92 2.9

    Blue Stream 396 16 2x24 2,200 1,700 89 4.3Europipe 1 670 18 40 3,750 140 5.6

    Europipe 2 642 24 42 1,690 63 2.6

    Franpipe 840 19 42 1,866 53 2.2

    Langeled 1166 25.5 44 2,720 53 2.3

    Average 95 5

    Selected subsea pipeline projects

    Source: Turcas presentation Paphos Sep 11th2013

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    10/13

    CNG

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    11/13

    CNG 2

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    12/13

    Conclusions

    Need to assess the three delivery solution, Pipeline, CNG,and LNG. Results surprising.

    Footprint for loading/unloading facilities is a consideration

    Flexibility and scalability which are difficult with alternativesolutions.

    Time to market !!!

    Size and method of investment (how much, who isinvesting)

    Pipelines and CNG work best for regional markets, while

    LNG works best for global reach. CNG provides flexibility to redeploy the assets (smaller

    reserves or geopolitical issues)

    CNG complement LNG projects.

  • 8/13/2019 Ronen Hadash

    13/13

    Ronen Hadash

    Amirim Management LTD+972 54 682 7772

    [email protected]


Recommended