LNG TRANSPORT: CURRENT vs NEW PROPULSION OPTION

Steve Allen System Integrity and Risk Management Lloyd s Register

Steve graduated in physics at Swansea University where he completed a Research Fellowship into material ageing processes. He then joined GEC Avionics and there was responsible for the management of reliability, maintainability and safety of all avionic systems. Steve transferred to GEC-Marconi Research Establishment where as Technical Development Manager he was responsible for GEC reliability related software development. He joined Lloyd s Register in 1990. As Principal Reliability Engineer he has managed many significant gas transport/process availability studies and is responsible for the development of Lloyd s Register s trade simulation software, FLEET.

Barrie E Dakers MARSPEC Lloyd s Register

Barrie Dakers Joined Shell Tankers in 1954 transferring to Shell International after serving as chief engineer on Methane Progress and Princess, from 1988 to 1993 he was site construction manager. There he had responsibility for the overall supervision of two LNG vessels built using the Moss Rosenberg system. Subsequently as Senior Project Manager with Shell International Marine Ltd. he was responsible for plan approval of LNG projects (Moss Rosenberg Systems), reactivation of LNG vessels, VLCC design development and ship condition surveys. He acted as Owner s Chief Representative on site in Japan for an LNG newbuilding project in 1994/1995 and as consultant to the Korean Register for assessment of LNG Specifications in 1996. Barrie is now a Senior Surveyor with Lloyd s Register of Shipping Marine Specification Services Department. Current major projects include preparation of tender specifications, tender review and contract negotiations for chemical tankers, container vessels and plan appraisal for LNG carriers.

Gordon C Milne System Integrity and Risk Management Lloyd s Register

Gordon graduated from Heriot-Watt University with a MSc. in Reliability Engineering and Safety Management. In 1997 he joined Lloyd s Register of Shipping s System Integrity and Risk Management department where he has worked on the various failure and risk analysis aspects used in the production of Safety Cases for a range of North Sea operators. From there he moved to the modelling of reliability and operating characteristics to be used in the simulation of vessel trade operations.

Neither Lloyds Register nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall be held responsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or omission herein. Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither Lloyds Register nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall be liable for any indirect or consequential loss including, but not limited to, loss of production, loss of product, loss of use and loss of revenue, profit or anticipated profit arising from any information, advice or inaccuracy or omission herein.
2

Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without prior permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be directed to the above address. Where Lloyd s Register has granted written permission for any part of this publication to be quoted such quotation must include appropriate acknowledgement to Lloyds Register of Shipping. Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved.

Document Ref: PP-091

INTRODUCTION Lloyd s Register (LR) has performed a comparative study into the performance of current versus new technology for marine transport of LNG. This study was performed at the request of a confidential client. The analysis took account of recent technical advances in vessel propulsion and operational systems, and focused on commercial risks of alternative LNG transport systems. The study did not take account of any questions related to vessel classification. There are many design options available for LNG ships today. Comparison of the cost effectiveness of these options provides rich ground for research. The work reported here studies a comparison of two of these options at a relatively high level. The depth of the assessment can be increased and other vessels configurations may be assessed by LR in the future. The most recent findings of LR System Integrity and Risk Management in this on-going work are reported here. This comparative study specifically examines the potential benefits to be gained by the use of: diesel-electric, Azipod propulsion with boil-off gas re-liquefaction and conventional steam turbine based propulsion, with boil-off gas being burned as fuel. This work was carried out using LR s trade simulation package Fleet Longevity Evaluation and Emulation Tool (FLEET) [1]. This is a software simulation programme which can effectively take account of all parameters and complex interactions associated with trade operations.

Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved.

Document Ref: PP-091 2

OVERVIEW The performance measures used as comparative metrics in each case were net availability (refer to Figure 1), fuel cost, and utilisation. The potential for increased cargo capacity through the use of stretchedtanks was not considered because of their applicability to both vessel types.

Net Availability = [T-Tpm-Tcm -Td]/T

Delay Time, Td

Gross Availability = [T-Tpm]/T

Un-Planned Corrective Maintenance Time, Tcm

Planned Preventative Maintenance Time, Tpm Scheduled Downtime

Net Availability Period, Tna

Unscheduled Downtime

Gross Availability Period, Tga Total Time, T

Figure 1 Representation of vessel availability The question asked in this work is whether there are indications that an operational and commercial advantage may be gained in the transport of LNG through the use of improved propulsion and cargo handling technology. Previous studies have examined the gains and losses associated with changes in LNG carrier operation and propulsion systems. Some of the previous studies are summarised here: Propulsion Plants for LNG Carriers - Comparison of Technical Properties and Economics of Various Propulsion Plants [2]. The following propulsion plants were reviewed: steam turbine plant without reheating cycle, steam turbine plant with reheating cycle, propulsion plant incorporating medium-speed diesel engines, slow speed crosshead diesel engine together with reliquefaction plant installed on board.

Conclusions: The slow speed diesel engine is a viable proposition irrespective of the average LNG tanker speed if the boil-off gas is reliquefied.
Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved. Document Ref: PP-091 3

 Energy Saving in the LNG Chain [3]. Conclusions: The use of diesel engines instead of steam turbines reduces the operating costs. Study on Propulsion Plants for Future LNG Carriers [4]. Conclusions : The steam turbine plant with contra rotating propellers is superior whilst the diesel engine with reliquefaction plant becomes the most economic when the LNG price is high compared to that of heavy fuel oil. However, the authors note that it will require some time to develop reliquefaction plants for marine use and make them commercially available. Diesel Driven LNG Carrier with Reliquefaction Plant [5]. Conclusions: The use of diesel engines with reliquefaction plant is economical compared to the use of steam turbines. The authors foresee replacement of steam turbine driven LNG carriers by diesel engine driven LNG carriers with reliquefaction plant. These and other studies of this nature have tended to conclude that changes to LNG carrier systems can be beneficial, however these conclusions frequently carry significant caveats. The aim of this work is to provide clear guidance on the cost-effectiveness of this particular new technology. This guidance takes account of the relative costs of LNG and vessel fuel and the trade distance to be travelled.

Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved.

Document Ref: PP-091 4

METHOD The major element of this comparison of the performance of the two defined vessel types over a typical charter period of 25 years was performed using LR s FLEET trade simulation software. Some may ask why use simulation? . The answer is that the two propulsion systems considered in this study are quite different in design and operation and their response to many trade factors such as delay, equipment failure and schedule catch up will all be different. Because there are so many important parameters, interacting in a complex manner, an assessment of performance of these vessels can be achieved only through simulation. The simulation model is based on identical trade requirements for each vessel type. A basic trade scenario consisting of the transport of 2.4 million metric tonnes per annum over a return voyage distance of 4000 miles was defined. Export and import terminals, although fully functioning models, have been allocated an availability of 100% so as to avoid port interaction with vessel performance parameters. Various seasonal weather conditions were included along the trade routes to evaluate the capacity of vessels to recover schedule when delayed by weather. In the development of the simulation models for each case, all data sets and operational rules used were derived from LR s Fleet Services Database and/or industry accepted data sources. Kvaerner Masa-Yards and Kvaerner Maritime have provided LR with their most recent data on propulsion and reliquefaction plant performance, design, Capex (Capital Expenditure) and Opex (Operational Expenditure). The analysis of the simulation results for the costing evaluation and graphical output was performed using spreadsheet tools. Vessel Parameters A set of characteristics was defined for both vessels assuming that systems common to both vessels, such as hull performance, cargo handling facilities etc., were identical. Thus any differences exhibited in the comparison are purely due to the difference in the two propulsion systems, power generation plant and reliquefaction plant. The cargo capacity of both vessel types was set at 141,750 m3. The Diesel-Electric Vessel The vessel used twin Azipod drives for propulsion. Boil-off gas was reliquefied by means of 3 MW reliquefaction plant and returned to the cargo tanks. No boil-off gas was used to support vessel propulsion. For the purpose of the simulation the following systems were used to model the propulsion and reliquefaction systems. five 8.4 MW diesel generators capable of being run when loaded at either 80% MCR with five engines or at 100% MCR with four;
Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved. Document Ref: PP-091 5

 two Azipod drives capable of independent operation and maintenance; dual redundant reliquefaction systems, made up of two boil-off compressors linked to a single mist separator. The refrigeration process is supplied by two nitrogen plants operating as duty and stand-by. These systems are broken down further into individual components with respective failure modes, Mean Times Between Failure (MTBF) and Mean Times to Repair (MTTR). The five diesel generators and twin Azipod drives provide significant redundancy to the propulsion system. The purpose of this design approach is to limit the probability of a vessel running at reduced capacity. The dual reliquefaction plant provides redundancy in this critical cargo processing system. The vessel configuration allows a nominal speed of 19 knots with a maximum value of 23.75 knots, giving a 25% sea margin. The Conventional Steam Turbine Vessel The vessel is modelled along the lines of conventional Moss Rosenberg LNG carriers with boil-off gas supplementing heavy fuel oil supply to the boilers. Twin steam turbines provide power through reduction gearing to the single conventional propeller system. The vessel model based on this power plant was allowed a nominal speed of 19 knots and a maximum of 21 knots, giving a 11% sea margin. As for the diesel-electric vessel, conventional cargo management and handling systems were modelled, allowance being made for the increased reliability of current electronic and electrical systems. LR in house data has been used to specify the critical systemsreliability, maintainability and operation.

Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved.

Document Ref: PP-091 6

RESULTS An effective method of comparing the benefits of each technology is to compare their availabilities. As can be seen from Figure 1, net availability is the availability remaining after planned and un-planned downtime. The planned downtime for dry-docking and other preventative maintenance of both vessels is almost identical. Therefore, it is better to compare net availability by excluding planned downtime, as shown in Figure 2.

Monthly Mean Values

100 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.6 99.5 99.4 99.3 99.2 99.1 99 Jan-98 Dec-98 Dec-99 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Dec-14 Dec-15

Availability (%)

Steam Turbine Diesel-Electric

Dec-16

Dec-17

Dec-18

Dec-19

Dec-20

Dec-21

Figure 2. Cumulative value of net availability excluding planned downtime Each drop in the two curves corresponds to a failure or delay. When the vessel passes through a failure and delay free period the cumulative net availability to date increases accordingly. The cause of each failure or delay can be ascertained by examination of FLEET s output files. As can be seen from Figure 2 the difference in unscheduled failure and delay for the two vessel types is very small. FLEET uses data from all of the runs to deduce what the overall net availability is for each vessel. The results indicate that LNG carriers based on the diesel-electric design described here, demonstrate a net availability over 25 years equivalent to that of the steam turbine vessel, i.e. 97%. The unavailability represented by this figure is predominantly due to planned downtime for dry docking and other preventative maintenance. The simulations also evaluated the comparative vessel utilisation. These indicated that the steam turbine vessel was operating at close to 96% utilisation whilst the dieselelectric vessel was operating at 86% utilisation. An indication of this can be seen in Figures 3 and 4, which are based directly on simulation output. These are based on assumed drydocking every 2 years. The effect of other drydocking intervals could be explored if required.

Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved.

Document Ref: PP-091 7

Dec-22

24 22 20 Knots 18 16 14 12 10 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-21 Jan-22 Maximum Speed Available Actual monthly mean speed and best fit curve

Figure 3. Steam turbine vessel mean monthly speed over the 25 year charter period

24 22 20 knots 18 16 14 12 10 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-21 Jan-22

Maximum speed available Actual monthly mean speed and best fit curve

Figure 4. Diesel-Electric vessel mean monthly speed over the 25 year charter period These figures illustrate the maximum speed achievable and actual speed used during the simulated 25 year charter of each vessel type. The areas between the maximum and mean speed lines represent the vessel s capacity which is not being utilised. They demonstrate that the diesel-electric vessel is not being utilised to its maximum capacity over the specified trade route. This suggests that the specification for the dieselelectrical option can be lowered. Commercial costs were investigated to provide an approximate comparison, based on the Capex and Opex for each vessel type. It was found that the Capex associated with the diesel-electric vessel is between 3 and 5 million more than that for the steam turbine vessel. With regards to Opex, it is expected that maintenance costs for the two vessel types will be approximately equal; this point is partially supported by Figure 2 which indicates that neither vessel experiences failures to a significantly greater degree than the other. Fuel costs were calculated allowing for the varying speed, as derived from the FLEET simulation, and these were found to be lower for the diesel-electric vessel. The conclusion of this preliminary analysis is that the decreased Opex associated with a diesel-electric vessel will provide sufficient return to overcome its
Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved. Document Ref: PP-091 8

higher Capex. For this trade route the additional Capex of the diesel-electric vessel over the steam-turbine vessel, is recovered within five years of continuous operation. Commercial aspects were approached with a great deal of caution. It is expected that a more detailed study would indicate an earlier recovery of costs. For example the diesel-electric vessel was modelled with excess capacity and hence optimisation could further reduce Capex and Opex. The evaluation of Opex did not attempt to estimate the potential for reduction in maintenance and crew costs. In the future, this may become more significant as steam powered ships become even less common.

Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved.

Document Ref: PP-091 9

CONCLUSION A comparison of two propulsion options for LNG vessels has been made using LR s FLEET simulation tool. These propulsion options were: diesel-electric powered Azipod propulsion with boil-off gas reliquefaction, and conventional steam turbine based propulsion, with boil-off being burnt as fuel The study showed the options to be comparable in terms of net availability. The diesel-electric vessel had a much lower utilisation suggesting that it is capable of more effective use. In terms of commercial benefit it is expected that the additional Capex associated with the diesel-electric vessel would be repaid by savings in Opex within the first 5 years of trade. It may very well be that LNG carrier configurations based on other new technologies and procedures, can provide even better return on investment.

Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved.

Document Ref: PP-091 10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Kvaerner are thanked for their support to this work. It should be noted, however, that the original requirement for this comparative study has no linkage to Kvaerner s internal development of the LNG transport trade. This study would not have been completed without the support of LR personnel, in particular Mr Gerry Brennan and Mr Richard Pocock.

Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved.

Document Ref: PP-091 11

References [1] Total Trade : Simulation as a Method to Optimise Project Performance. R. Steve Allen. Gastech 96, 1996. Propulsion Plants for LNG Carriers - Comparison of Technical Properties and Economics of Various Propulsion Plants. H.P.Gruener, H.Meyer. Seventh International Conference on Liquefied Natural Gas, 1983. Energy Saving in the LNG Chain. J.Bakke, T.Bergersen, S.Koren. Seventh International Conference of Liquefied Natural Gas, 1983. Study on Propulsion Plants for Future LNG Carriers. Junshiro Ishimaru, Yoshihiro Suetake, Hiroshi Kushiyama, Etsuo Yamasaki, Kazuhiro Ohtake. Eleventh International Conference on Liquefied Natural Gas, 1995. Diesel Driven LNG Carrier with Reliquefaction Plant. Toratoshi Watanabe, Takehiko Akiba, Yokichi Shibamura, Sannosuke Tanigaki, Mitsuo Endo, Kazuhiko Kondo. Nippon Kokan Technical Report, Overseas No. 42, 1984.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Lloyd s Register of Shipping 1998. All rights reserved.

Document Ref: PP-091 12