Preliminary Feasibility Study Co2 Carrier Ship Based Ccs Unmanned Offshore Facility

FINAL REPORT
Preliminary Feasibility Study
on
CO2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS
（Phase-2 – unmanned offshore facility）

）
<0> Issued for Approval A.O. K.H. K.H. 30-NOV.-12
<B1> Issued for Review A.O. K.H. K.H. 27-NOV.-12
MARK DESCRIPTION BY CHKD APVD DATE
REVISIONS
COMPANY : Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd. (GCCSI) APVD K.Hattori
PROJECT TITLE : Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS (Phase-2) CHKD K.Hattori
JOB NO. : Chiyoda:21508 / GCCSI:EPA026 MADE A. Omata
DOC NO. : CCSC-RPT-00-002 DATE 30 NOV. 2012
This document is published on the Global CCS Institute’s website in the interest of information exchange. The Global CCS
Institute does not give any representation or warranty as to the reliability, accuracy or completeness of the information, nor does
it accept any responsibility arising in any way (including by negligence) for errors in, or omissions from, the information.
Executive Summary
The current study considers the transport of CO2 using shuttle ships. It follows
on from an earlier study completed by Chiyoda Corporation for the Global CCS
Institute. In this study, the CO2 is stored and transported at different conditions
and the injection site has been relocated meaning that different ocean conditions
needs to be considered. The viability of an unmanned injection buoy, instead of a
platform, was also considered in this study.
Earlier study Current study

(Phase--1)
(Phase (Phase--2)
(Phase
CO2 conditions 2.65 MPa 1.97 MPa
-10°C -20°C
Injection site Southwest of Japan Northeast of Japan
Ocean conditions 1.46 knots 1.94 knots
19°C 8°C
Injection infrastructure Unmanned injection Unmanned injection buoy
platform
Table ES-1: Shipping transport study conditions.
The impact of the changes to the CO2 conditions and the injection site on the tank
and ship design, the loading and unloading equipment and the flexible riser pipe
is studied in this report. An economic evaluation is also completed to assess the
cost of CO2 transport for a nominal injection volume of 1 million tonnes per year
with the transport distance ranging from 200 to 1,600 km. The shuttle ship’s
capacity is approximately 3,000 tonnes CO2 and to reach the nominal injection
volume requires a shuttle ship to inject its cargo on a daily basis.
The change in CO2 conditions requires a change in the design and manufacturing
of the ship storage tank. Two manufacturing options are available, either to
subject the tank to a heat treatment process after manufacturing or to construct
the tank from a nickel alloy steel. The heat treatment of a tank of this size is
impractical so it was decided to use a nickel alloy steel as the construction
material. These tanks were the same size as in Phase-1 so the design of the ship
did not have to be changed.
Page i
The change of injection site resulted in different ocean currents, wave heights
and water temperature. A dynamic positioning system simulation was carried out
to determine whether the thrusters and propellers from the ship would be
sufficient to maintain its position during injection. The simulation allowed for the
change in ocean conditions and considered the wave heights, periods, currents,
wind speed, etc. It was found that the use of 2*1,150 kW side thrusters and a
3,000 kW propeller was sufficient to maintain the ship within a 20 m distance
from its initial injection position.
A more detailed study of the equipment on board the ship, the injection riser and
the pickup method was also completed. A loading arm using a flexible swivel joint
was considered appropriate due to its successful operation in other liquefied gas
processes.
The CO2 needs to be heated prior to injection. This can be done using seawater
but additional energy was required in this case because the CO2 is colder and
because the seawater at the new injection site is also colder. It was determined
that a waste heat boiler could be installed to use the waste heat from the diesel
generator’s exhaust gases and that this, combined with the heating using the
seawater, was sufficient to heat the CO2 to the injection temperature.
The cable design was the same as in Phase-1 but the tension and bending radius
of the cable were re-examined to account for the new ocean conditions. A separate
fatigue analysis was completed that showed that the fatigue life reduces from
36.2 years down to 17.5 years when the ocean depth reduces from 500m down to
100m.
The pick-up procedure for the flexible riser pipe was also described.
An economic evaluation was completed to assess the costs of CO2 transport via
shipping. These results are shown in Table ES-2. The average system cost for
transport ranges from 1.93 to 5.24 ¥/kg CO2 for transport distances ranging from
200 to 1,600 km, respectively.
Page ii
Case-
Case-1 Case-
Case-2 Case-
Case-3
No of tankers in operation 2 4 7
Transport distance (km) 200 800 1600
Total time of round trip (days) 2 4 7
Net transport system cost
First 10 years (Yen/ kg CO2) 2.47 4.15 6.35
First 10 year (AUD/ t CO2) 28.5 47.9 73.3
Average in system life (Yen/ kg CO2) 1.93 3.36 5.24
Average in system life (AUD/t CO2) 22.3 38.8 60.5
Table ES-2: Summary of the CO2 transport system cost.
Page iii
Table of Content
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... i
Table of Content ....................................................................................................... iv
Tables and Figures .................................................................................................. vii
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Proposal of CO2 carrier ship equipped with onboard injection facilities ...... 1
1.1.1 Scope of works and design bases ............................................................. 3
1.1.2 Assumptions ............................................................................................. 5
1.1.3 Shuttle tanker .......................................................................................... 5
1.1.4 Pickup buoy system .................................................................................. 6
1.1.5 Storage site location ................................................................................. 6
1.1.6 Organization of project ............................................................................. 6
2. Ship Design (Liquid CO2 Carrier and Cargo Tank) ............................................. 8
2.1 Ship design ...................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Cargo tank design ......................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Heat treatment of cargo tank ................................................................ 12
2.2.2 Manufacturability .................................................................................. 12
2.3 Dynamic Positioning System........................................................................ 13
2.3.1 Study methodology ................................................................................. 14
2.3.2 Study results .......................................................................................... 16
2.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 32
3. Loading System, Ship Equipment and Injection Method .................................. 33
Page iv
3.1 Loading system of liquefied CO2 .................................................................. 34
3.1.1 Loading arm ........................................................................................... 35
3.1.2 Compression and liquefaction facilities ................................................ 37
3.2 Offshore delivery and injection .................................................................... 38
3.2.1 Heating of CO2........................................................................................ 38
3.2.2 Ship-based pump and heating equipment ............................................ 39
3.3 Flexible riser pipe design ............................................................................. 42
3.3.1 Basic design of flexible pipe ................................................................... 42
3.3.2 Static analysis ........................................................................................ 43
3.3.3 Dynamic analysis ................................................................................... 46
3.3.4 Fatigue analysis ..................................................................................... 52
3.4 Flexible riser pipe pickup operation ............................................................ 57
3.4.1 Components of the pickup buoy system ................................................ 57
3.4.2 Shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup ....................... 59
3.4.3 Flexible riser pipe pickup operation ...................................................... 60
3.4.4 Future work ............................................................................................ 63
4. Economic analysis of the proposed transport system ........................................ 65
4.1 Case study of economic analysis .................................................................. 66
4.2 Basis of economic analysis............................................................................ 66
4.3 Method for evaluating transport system cost .............................................. 67
4.3.1 Capital costs ........................................................................................... 67
4.3.2 Management cost ................................................................................... 71
Page v
4.3.3 Operating Cost ....................................................................................... 71
4.4 Transport system cost ................................................................................... 72
4.5 Sensitivy Analysis ......................................................................................... 83
4.5.1 Effect of Distance ................................................................................... 83
4.5.2 Effect of project size ............................................................................... 83
4.5.3 Effect of CO2 pressure and sea conditions of injection point ................ 84
4.6 Comparison of Phase-1 and Phase-2 results ............................................... 86
4.6.1 Cost Estimates ....................................................................................... 88
Appendix A: Dynamic position system simulation results .................................... 92
Appendix B: Dynamic analysis results................................................................... 98
Appendix C: Operation cost of CO2 Compression & Liquifaction facility ........... 110
Page vi
Tables and Figures
Table ES-1: Shipping transport study conditions. .................................................... i
Table ES-2: Summary of the CO2 transport system cost. ....................................... iii
Figure 1-1: Shuttle transportation of CO2. ............................................................... 2
Figure 1-2: Scope of works. ....................................................................................... 4
Table 1-1: Design bases and conditions for "ship-based CCS"................................. 5
Figure1-3: Organization Chart of the Project .......................................................... 7
Table 2-1: Summary of Chapter 2. ............................................................................ 8
Table 2-2: General characteristics of the liquid CO2 carrier. .................................. 9
Figure 2-1: General arrangement plan .................................................................. 10
Table 2-3: Dimensions of cargo tanks ..................................................................... 10
Figure 2-2: Shape of liquid CO2 tank. .................................................................... 11
Table 2-4: Plate thickness of cargo tanks. .............................................................. 12
Figure 2-3: Components of the combination of external forces. ............................ 13
Table 2-5: Ship design basis for the DPS simulation. ............................................ 14
Table 2-6: Ocean conditions for the thruster capacity study. ................................ 14
Figure 2-4: Study conditions and simulation cases. .............................................. 15
Table 2-7: Numerical conditions of the six simulation cases. ................................ 16
Figure 2-5: DPS simulation results in time series –Case-06................................. 17
Table 2-8: Statistical results of the DPS simulations for Cases 1 to 3. ................. 18
Table 2-9: Statistical results of the DPS simulations for Cases 4 to 6. ................. 19
Figure 3-1: CO2 Loading System. ........................................................................... 34
Page vii
Figure 3-2: Structure of Swivel. .............................................................................. 36
Table 3-1:. Comparison of typical liquefied gas transportation by swivel joint type
loading/un-loading. ................................................................................................ 37
Figure 3-3: CO2 compression and heating process. ................................................ 40
Figure 3-4: Equipment layout example on the CO2 shuttle tanker. ..................... 41
Table 3-2: Construction of flexible riser pipe. ........................................................ 42
Table 3-3: Main properties of flexible riser pipe. ................................................... 43
Figure 3-5: Construction of Flexible Riser Pipe. .................................................... 43
Table 3-4: Case-01 (Water depth:100m, Current direction:0deg). ......................... 44
Table 3-5: Case-02 (Water depth:100m, Current direction:180deg). ..................... 45
Figure 3-6: Static Configuration of Riser (Current direction: 0 deg) .................... 45
Figure 3-7: Static Configuration of Riser (Current direction: 180 deg) ................ 46
Figure 3-8: CP of Riser Top. .................................................................................... 47
Table 3-6: Response amplitude operator (ROA) of CO2 carrier. ............................ 48
Figure 3-9: Surge Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). ......................... 49
Figure 3-10: Sway Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). ........................ 49
Figure 3-11: Heave Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec)........................ 50
Figure 3-12: Roll Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). .......................... 50
Figure 3-13: Pitch Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). ........................ 51
Figure 3-14: Yaw Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). .......................... 51
Table 3-7: Maximum tension & Minimum bending radius. .................................. 52
Table 3-8: Wave Scatter Diagram (Offshore Miyazaki). ........................................ 53
Figure 3-15: Fatigue Analysis Flow Diagram. ....................................................... 54
Page viii
Table 3-9: Estimated Fatigue Life. ......................................................................... 56
Table 3-10: Design conditions of the flexible riser pipe pickup operation. ........... 58
Figure 3-16: Components of the pickup buoy system. ........................................... 59
Figure 3-17: Shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup. .................. 60
Figure 3-18: Schematic drawing showing the pickup operation of the buoy. ....... 61
Figure 3-19: Schematic of the roll up arm.............................................................. 62
Figure 3-20: Schematic of the shipboard equipment and the sinker pickup
operation. ............................................................................................................... 63
Figure 3-21: Details of the A-frame and coupling system. .................................... 64
Table 4-1: Transportation times.............................................................................. 66
Table 4-2:. Capital cost of CO2 shuttle tanker. ....................................................... 68
Table 4-3: Capital cost of Case-1. ............................................................................ 68
Table 4-6: Capital payments for the facilities. ....................................................... 71
Table 4-7: Consumption of fuel oil of shuttle tanker. ............................................. 73
Table 4-8: Summary of CO2 discharge (Unit: tons/year). ...................................... 74
Table 4-9: Net transport cost (Yen/ kg CO2 or AUD/ tone CO2). ............................ 74
Figure 4-1: Case-1 Transition of CO2 Transport system cost. ............................... 75
Figure 4-2: Case-2 Transition of CO2 Transport system cost. ............................... 75
Figure 4-3 Case-3 Transition of CO2 transport system cost. ................................. 76
Table 4-10: Case-1 - 200 km distance (First 10 years). .......................................... 77
Table 4-11: Case-1 - 200 km distance (average over 30 years). ............................. 78
Page ix
Table 4-12: Case-2 - 800 km distance (first 10 years). ........................................... 79
Table 4-13: Case-2 - 800 km distance (average over 30 years). ............................. 80
Table 4-14: Case-3 - 1,600 km distance (First 10 years). ....................................... 81
Table 4-15: Case-3 - 1,600 km distance (average over 30 years). .......................... 82
Figure 4-4: Effect of Distance. ................................................................................ 83
Figure 4-5: Schematic of the effect of project size. ................................................. 84
Table 4-16: Effect of different shipping conditions for Case-2. .............................. 85
Table 4-17: Economic basis of Phase-1 and Phase-2 studies. ................................ 86
Table 4-18: Capital cost parameters. ...................................................................... 87
Table 4-19: Management cost parameters. ............................................................ 87
Table 4-20: Operating cost parameters. ................................................................. 88
Table 4-21: Estimated construction cost of individual facilities............................ 88
Table 4-22: Total system estimated construction costs for the difference cases. .. 89
Table 4-23: Capital cost payment schedule. ........................................................... 90
Table 4-24: CO2 discharge comparisons. ................................................................ 91
Table 4-25: Net transport system cost. ................................................................... 91
Figure A-1: DPS simulation results for Case-01. ................................................... 92
Page x
Figure B-1: Time history of Tension at CP (Neutral position,6sec)....................... 98
Figure B-2: Time history of Curvature at CP( Neutral position,6sec). ................. 98
Figure B-3: Time history of Tension at TDP (Neutral position,6sec). ................... 99
Figure B-4: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Neutral position,6sec)................ 99
Figure B-5: Time history of Tension at CP (Near position,6sec). ........................ 100
Figure B-6: Time history of Curvature at CP (Near position,6sec). .................... 100
Figure B-7: Time history of Tension at TDP (Near position,6sec). ...................... 101
Figure B-8: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Near position,6sec). ................. 101
Figure B-9: Time history of Tension at CP (Far position,6sec)............................ 102
Figure B-10: Time history of Curvature at CP (Far position,6sec). .................... 102
Figure B-11: Time history of Tension at TDP (Far position,6sec). ...................... 103
Figure B-12: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Far position,6sec)................... 103
Figure B-13: Time history of Tension at CP (Neutral position,12sec)................. 104
Figure B-14: Time history of Curvature at CP (Neutral position,16sec). ........... 104
Figure B-15: Time history of Tension at TDP (Neutral position,12sec). ............. 105
Figure B-16: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Neutral position,12sec).......... 105
Figure B-17: Time history of Tension at CP (Near position,12sec). .................... 106
Figure B-18: Time history of Curvature at CP (Near position,12sec). ................ 106
Figure B-19: Time history of Tension at TDP (Near position,12sec). .................. 107
Figure B-20: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Near position,12sec). ............. 107
Figure B-21: Time history of Tension at CP (Far position,12sec)........................ 108
Figure B-22: Time history of Curvature at CP (Far position,12sec). .................. 108
Page xi
Figure B-23: Time history of Tension at TDP (Far position,12sec). .................... 109
Figure B-24: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Far position,12sec)................. 109
Table C-1: Compression and Liquifaction facility costs. ...................................... 110
Table C-1 (cont): Compression and Liquifaction facility costs. ............................ 111
Page xii
1. Introduction
There is not a lot of work dedicated to the transport of CO2 via ships. This is in
part because there is a certain level of understanding and familiarity with
pipeline transport of CO2 with, dedicated pipelines in North America as part of
the infrastructure for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Even in Europe, building on the
experience of the existing gas and oil pipeline networks is considered to be the
way forward to transport CO2. Hence, ship-based CO2 transportation has not been
a major consideration for many CCS and CCUS projects in these regions.
However, if an emitter industry identifies that the potential storage capacity for
CO2 in the neighboring area is unsuitable then transportation of CO2 by ship
provides an opportunity to access distant storage sites. Countries dependent on
overseas resources are familiar with transporting bulk raw materials and fossil
fuels by ships, and transportation of CO2 by ocean-going vessels provides an
attractive and viable alternative to overcome the limitations imposed by the
“sink-source matching condition” in carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS).
Ship-based CCS provides flexibility in changing capture sites, storage sites and
the transportation routes for CCS. The flexible selection of project components,
such as time, place and size in a CCS chain, can assist in bringing about a smooth
introduction of CCS scheme to a society.
The cost of transportation of CO2 by ship has so far only been examined in generic
comparisons with pipeline transportation under the “sink-source matching”
conditions. The effect of scale and flexibility on ship-based CCS have not yet been
carefully investigated and considered in detail.
In the previous Phase-1 study of “Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO2 Carrier

for Ship-based CCS”, a CO2 shuttle ship equipped with injection facilities was
proposed. The study showed that the proposed shuttle transport using a
medium-sized vessel has the merit of flexibility in changing the capture site, the
transport route and storage site in a CCS project.
Shipping of liquified gases is a well-practiced technology and is economically

feasible. However, the novel configuration of a CO2 shipping system requires that
further study is needed to examine the parameters that effect the specific design
of the proposed system.
1.1
1.1 Proposal of CO2 carrier ship equipped with onboard injection facilities
The proposed ship transportation of CO2 has the key component as illustrated in
Figure 1-1. The system features:
• A cargo tank for storing liquid CO2,
Page 1
• A shuttle ship with onboard injection pump to deliver pressurized CO2
directly from ship to the seafloor wellhead of the injection well,
• A flexible riser, and
• Seafloor injection wells.
Capture & Liquefac on Shu le transport

Buffer storage
Loading Shu le transport
Shu le transport
CO2 injection via flexible riser pipe and wells

CO2 storage
below deep-sea floor
Figure 1-1: Shuttle transportation of CO2.
The figure also illustrates that shuttle transportation enables CCS from multiple
capture sites to be matched to multiple storage sites. Merits of shuttle
transportation include:
• Relaxation of the "single source vs. single sink matching" requirement,
• Unmanned offshore facilities which might reduce the project cost,
• Elimination of the offshore buffer storage tanks, and
• Flexibility in changing the CCS project plan.
The objectives of the study are to examine the technical and economic feasibility of
a CO2 shuttle tanker equipped with injection facilities combined with an
unmanned offshore injection facility.
Page 2
1.1
1.1.1 Scope of works and design bases
The present study follows up from the “Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO2
Carrier for Ship-based CCS (Phase-1)” conducted by the University of Tokyo and
Chiyoda Corporation (CHIYODA). This Phase-2 study is based on the proposed
design and cost analysis from the Phase-1 report but considers the impact of the
following scope changes:
• changing the liquid CO2 cargo condition from -10OC and 2.65MPa to -20OC
and 1.97MPa, because the conventional condition of liquid CO2 treatment
in industries is -20 OC and 1.97MPa,
• rougher sea conditions found in the northern sea area where the Japanese
national CCS demonstration project is being proposed instead of the site
selected for the Phase 1 study,
• the effect of the sea water temperature on the on-board heating
requirements of the CO2,
• the use of an unmanned buoy with a flexible riser and the associated
equipment required on board,
• the detailed handling procedure to pick-up, connect and operate the flexible
riser pipe and its implications to the general arrangement of the vessel's
operation deck,
• the availability of the loading arms onshore for the proposed transport
system,
• the durability of the flexible riser, and
• onboard heating of the CO2 to prevent the avoidance of the hydrate
formation in the flexible riser.
An economic evaluation is carried out on the transport and injection of the CO2
using these shipping specifications.
Figure.1-2 illustrates the scope of the work and the design bases and conditions
are shown in Table 1-1.
Page 3
Figure 1-2: Scope of works.
Page 4
Phase-
Phase-1 Phase-
Phase-2
General Shuttle type transport
Unmanned offshore facility
Shuttle Cargo Tank -10°C, 2.65 MPa -20°C, 1.97 MPa
Tanker Capacity – 3000m3 Capacity – 3000m3
Injection Outlet pressure, 2 to 10 MPa
Pump Flowrate – 3000m3/ 22h
Heater From -10°C to above 0°C From -20°C to 5°C
Buoy Pickup Study of the applicability Detailed study of pickup
System buoy of TLPs and the selection buoy system
system of Pickup buoy system
Flexible Water depth of 200 and Water depth of 500m but
riser pipe 500m fatigue study carried out
for a 100m depth.
Site Location Southwest of Japan Northeast of Japan
(offshore Sakata)
Table 1-1: Design bases and conditions for "ship-based CCS".
1.1
1.1.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this study:
• Shuttle-type transportation is to be used.
• An un-manned offshore facility is to be installed to avoid the expected large
expense associated with the construction and operation of a manned
offshore platform.
1.1
1.1.3 Shuttle tanker
The following items are examined in the Phase-2 study; some items are changed
from those in the Phase-1 study.
1) Cargo tank. The size of shuttle ship remains the same as in the Phase-1 study.
A volume of 3000m3 of liquid CO2 is assumed for the shuttle ship, which is
equipped with two cargo tanks, each holding approximately 1500m3. The case of
CO2 transported in liquid phase under the conventional industrial conditions at
-20°C and 1.97MPa is examined in contrast to the conditions of Phase 1.
2) Injection pump. The CO2 injection rate remains as the same in the Phase-1
study, to be 3000m3 over a 22h period. This injection rate equals 1 million tonnes
per year which is used as an international standard. The liquid CO2 is to be
pressurized from the cargo tank pressure of 1.97MPa to 10MPa required for
injection.
Page 5
3) Heater. Prior to injection, the liquid CO2 needs to be heated from -20°C to 5°C. A
temperature of 5°C is to be used as a safe value to prevent the formation of
hydrates. After being heated, the CO2 is to be injected through a flexible riser
pipe into the injection wells on the seafloor.
1.1
1.1.4 Pickup buoy system
This work focusses on procedures for the operation of an unmanned offshore
facility, together with the necessary onboard facilities and their arrangement on
the deck of the vessel.
1.1
1.1.5 Storage site location
In the Phase-1 study, we adopted a 500 m water depth as a representative depth
for examination. In addition, we selected Site M in southern Japan where the sea
condition is relatively moderate.
For Phase-2, the sea area offshore Sakata, Yamagata Prefecture is selected, which
is where a national CCS project, the RITE’ Japanese CO2 underground storage
R&D sponsored by METI (2000 – 2007), is proposed.
This site is within Japanese EEZ sea area where the seawater temperatures are
lower and the sea/weather conditions are more severe compared to Phase-1. This
impacts on the heating of the CO2 and dynamic positioning system of the ship to
maintain it in a stable position during injection operations. The effect of the ocean
conditions also needs to be considered in the design of the flexible riser.
Details of the site and an assessment of the storage potential of the site is
provided in Volume-2 of this report titled “Storage Site Identification beyond the
Japanese Continental Shelf.”
1.1
1.1.6 Organization of project
An organizational chart of the project is provided in Figure 1-3.
Page 6
Figure1-3: Organization Chart of the Project
Page 7
2. Ship Design (Liquid CO2 Carrier and Cargo Tank)
Tank)
In this chapter, the effects of the ship design due to changes between the Phase-1
and Phase-2 assumptions are studied. These changes include the change in
storage conditions in the ships tanks of the CO2 and also the changes in the ocean
and weather conditions to account for selecting an alternate offshore site in the
Northeast of Japan.
The chapter presents:

2.1 Ship Design,
2.2 Cargo Tank Design, and
2.3 Dynamic Positioning System.
The overall results are shown in Table 2-1.
Item Sub item Phase-

Phase-1 Phase-
Phase-2
CO2 conditions -10°C -20°C
2.65 MPa 1.97 MPa
Ship Design Same ship design as per Fig
2.1-1 but alternate locations of
heater and cranes as shown in
Chapter 3
Cargo Tank Thickness of shell 39.7 mm 30.9 mm
Design
Thickness of end shell 20.4 mm 15.9 mm
Material of construction Carbon steel Ni steel
Dynamic Injection site SW of Japan - NE of Japan -
Positioning offshore offshore
System
Wind speed 15 m/s 15 m/s
Significant wave height 3.0 m 3.0 m
Current speed 1.46 knots 1.94 knots
Side thruster 2 * 1,150 kW
Azimuth propeller 3,000 kW
Table 2-1: Summary of Chapter 2.
Page 8
2.1 Ship design
The ship was designed in Phase-1 with the general characteristics and general
arrangement plan shown in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-1 respectively. In Phase-2, the
design temperature of liquid CO2 is changed from -10°C to -20°C and this
impacted on the design of the cargo tanks.
Ship equipment Specification Notes

Hull
L (overall) 94,200 mm
L (pp) 89,600 mm
B (mould) 14,600 mm
D (mould) 6,900 mm
d (design) 5,600 mm
Machinery
Side thruster (variable 1,150 kW 2 sets
pitch)
Azimuth propeller 3,000 kW 1 set (main propulsion)
Power generator 3,500 kW 1 set (diesel driven)
Ship speed (90% NSR) 15.0 knot
Table 2-2: General characteristics of the liquid CO2 carrier.
Apart from cargo tanks, the following parts of the ship are modified;
1) Crane for riser pipe pickup. An arch type crane is adopted at the middle of
the ship instead of a forward pick up crane. Since this crane is associated
with the operation of the flexible riser, it is further described in Chapter 3.
2) Accommodation. A large gas heater is required for the injection system,

requiring increased accommodation to install this heater. The heater is also
described in Chapter 3.
3) Dynamic Positioning System. The DPS system is evaluated against its

capacity to maintain the ship in a stable location under more severe sea
and weather conditions compared to the Phase-1 study. This is described
later in this chapter.
All other ship particulars, including gas handling, were the same as in Phase-1.
Page 9
Figure 2-1: General arrangement plan
2.2
2.2 Cargo tank design
In the Phase-2 study, the effect of changing the design temperature and pressure
of the cargo tank is investigated. The dimensions of the cargo tank remain the
same as those in the Phase-1 study, shown in Table 2-3.
Number of cargo tanks 2

Volume of cargo tanks Approximately 1,500 m3 each
Total volume of cargo tanks Approximately 3,000 m3
Radius of single cylinder 3.50 m
Total length of tank 26.96 m
Table 2-3: Dimensions of cargo tanks
Page 10
The tank will be constructed as a bi-lobe tank with heads at both ends, the outline
being of torispherical shape, as illustrated in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2: Shape of liquid CO2 tank.

The plate thickness of the cargo tank can be calculated by using standard
equations for pressure vessels, which are authorized by ASME, JIS and so on. The
plate thickness is shown in Table 2-4 for both Phase-1 and Phase-2 conditions.
This shows the influence of the liquid pressure, which is related to cargo
temperature, on the required thickness of the cargo tank. It was assumed that the
minimum tensile strength at room temperature was 720.0N/mm2 and that the
minimum yield strength at room temperature was 620.0 N/mm2.
Page 11
Phase-
Phase-1 Phase-
Phase-2
Temperature -10°C -20°C
Pressure 2.65 MPa 1.97 MPa
Thickness of shell 39.7 mm 30.9 mm
Thickness of end
20.4 mm 15.9 mm
shell
Table 2-4: Plate thickness of cargo tanks.
Due to the lower pressure used in Phase-2, a thinner plate can be used resulting
in the tank weight for the Phase-2 study being approximately 23% lighter than
that for the Phase-1 study.
2.2.1 Heat treatment of cargo tank

The welds of pressure vessels need to undergo heat treatment after
manufacturing the pressure vessel. Post-welding heat treatment is required for
relieving stress at all fittings, such as flanges, nozzles and reinforcement plates
that have been welded in place. The guidelines require that heat treatment is
required when the plate thickness is over 40 mm. Additionally, the gas code
requires that post-welding heat treatment is to be performed for carbon and
carbon manganese steel tanks after welding if the design temperature is below
-10°C.
Considering the rule requirements above, the design temperature of above -10°C
and a plate thickness less than 40mm have advantages in avoiding the need for
post heat treatment if carbon steel or carbon manganese steels is used to
construct the tank. However, if the design temperature is lower than -10°C,
alternate materials such as 9% Ni steel, 5% Ni steel or aluminium alloy 5083-0
can be used, for which heat treatment is not required.
But the price of 9% Ni steel is more than 6 times that of carbon steel. Although
the total price of tank using 9% Ni steel becomes more than 4 times compared to
that made of carbon steel, we adopted the carbon steel tank in the economic
analysis considering the additional cost of heat treatment.
2.2.2 Manufacturability
The chosen shape of the tank is of Bi-lobe type. This shape is more complicated to
fabricate compared to cylindrical tanks, but has advantages in terms of ship
stability because it provides a lower center of gravity of the tank, good occupation
percentage in the ship’s hold and smaller gross tonnage of the ship. The
fabrication cost is also dependent on whether heat treatment is required. If the
Page 12
size of the cargo tank is small enough for heat treatment in a heating furnace then
design temperatures below -10°C may be preferable from a total cost point of view.
However, if the size of cargo tank exceeds the size of available heating furnace a
design temperature above -10°C will be required. To avoid heat treatment
problems, Ni steel can be used but this steel is more expensive compared to carbon
steel.
We believe the heat treatment facilities might be available and there is no

barriers to manufacture the tanks.
2.3
2.3 Dynamic Positioning System
A simulation study was conducted to assess whether the Dynamic Positioning
System (DPS) of the ship was sufficient to maintain the ship within a 20m
horizontal movement range during injection.
The ship is equipped with two side thrusters and an azimuth propeller as
described in Table 2-5 and shown in Figure 2-3. The ocean conditions are shown in
Table 2-6. This indicates that the current speed of 1.94 knots in the Phase-2 study
is higher than the current speed of 1.46 knots as used in the Phase-1 study. This is
the major change since the wind speed and wave heights are kept the same.
Azimuth Side
H 1/ 3 = 3.0 m
T 1 /3 = 9, 13, 17 s
X μ = 180 deg
U W = 15.0 m/s
μ μ W = 180 deg
Y
U W = 15.0 m/s
μ W = 135 deg
V C = 1.0 m/s
μ C = 90 deg
Figure 2-3: Components of the combination of external forces.
Page 13
Design criteria Dimension
Major items for tanker
Length between perpendiculars (Lpp) 89.60 m
Ship’s beam (B_MID) 14.60 m
Molded depth (D_MID) 6.90 m
Draft (d_BL) 5.60 m
Displacement (△a) 6,000 tons
Height of gravitational center (KG) 5.00 m
Transverse metacentric height (KMT) 7.50 m
Longitudinal metacentric height
120.00 m
(KML)
Radius of gyration (κxx/B) 0.320
Water depth and thruster
Water depth 500.0m
Side thruster of 1,150 kW x 2 sets
Bow thruster
(an initial value for calculation)
Azimuth propeller of 3,000 kW
Stern thruster
(an initial value for calculation)
Table 2-5: Ship design basis for the DPS simulation.
Design criteria Phase-

Phase-1 Phase-
Phase-2
Wind speed 15.0 m/sec 15.0 m/sec
Significant wave height 3.0 m 3.0 m
Current speed 1.46 knot 1.94 knot
Table 2-6: Ocean conditions for the thruster capacity study.
2.3.
2.3.1 Study methodology
The methodology used in the DPS simulation study is illustrated in Figure 2-4.
Firstly, the wind drag force, wave drift force and hydrodynamic manoeuvring are
obtained by computation and laboratory testings. These forces are then applied to
the ship. A thruster capacity is estimated and the manoeuvring of the ship is
calculated using motion time series. The position of the ship is compared to the
DPS requirement of horizontal movement within 20 m. If this requirement is met,
no further thruster capacity is added. On the other hand, if the requirement is not
met, additional thruster capacity is added and the manoeuvre motion calculations
Page 14
are repeated until the DPS conditions are met. The process was then repeated
over a period of time to obtain a time series of how the DPS would respond to
changes in conditions.
Figure 2-4: Study conditions and simulation cases.
A total of 6 cases were simulated. The conditions of those cases are shown in Table
2-7.
Page 15
Wind Wind Significant Significa Wave Ocean Ocean
velocity direction wave nt wave direction current current
Case U10(m/s) μ w(deg) height period μ (deg) speed direction
H1/3(m) T1/3(s) VC(m/s) μ C(deg)
Case01 9.0
Case02 135 13.0
Case03 17.0
15.0 3.0 180 1.0 90
Case04 9.0
Case05 180 13.0
Case06 17.0
Table 2-7: Numerical conditions of the six simulation cases.

2.3.
2.3.2 Study results
The statistical simulation results are shown in Table 2-8 and Table 2-9. These
results show the maximum, minimum and average values of the ships movement
and the associated output from the thrusters and propellers for the time interval
between 300 and 1000 seconds. These results show that the maximum movement
of the ship in all six cases is within the horizontal movement criteria.
A time series of the simulation results for Case06 is shown in Figure 2-5. This
shows the time series computation results of turn angle of the ship, front-back
movement, side-to-side movement, revolution, thrust force of propeller, etc.
The charts of ship movement at every 100 s for 6 cases are shown in Appendix A,
where the initial position of the ship is shown by the red outline and the alternate
positions over time show the effectiveness of the DPS to counteract the external
forces on the ship.
Page 16
Figure 2-5: DPS simulation results in time series –Case-06.
Abbreviations, e.g. PSI, RATE, u, v, x, etc. on the left side in this diagram, are shown in Table 2-8
Page 17
Case-
Case-01 Case-
Case-02 Case-
Case-03
Criteria Unit
Ave. Min. Max. Ave. Min. Max. Ave. Min. Max.
PSI Turn angle (DEG) 49.1 36.8 59.8 49.3 32.6 64.7 49.6 31.5 67.7
R Rate of turn (DEG/S) 0.0 -1.0 1.5 0.0 -1.3 1.5 0.0 -1.3 1.7
U Speed of front-back movement (M/S) 0.8 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.2 1.1
V Speed of side-to-side movement (M/S) 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.9
X Front-back movement (M) 4.0 -1.4 7.0 5.0 0.2 10.0 4.9 -0.6 11.8
Y Side-to-side movement (M) -3.8 -12.3 -1.3 -4.1 -8.4 -2.2 -4.0 -10.2 -2.2
AZP1_THT Rudder angle of azimuth propeller (DEG) -9.8 -171.7 54.3 -10.4 -145.5 138.4 -12.5 -165.7 154.4
AZP1_NP Revolution of azimuth propeller (RPS) 1.2 0.6 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.9
AZP1_TT Thrust force of azimuth propeller (TON) 11.6 2.6 31.9 10.8 6.8 30.1 11.4 6.7 30.2
Perpendicular force on azimuth -0.9 -18.1 19.1 -1.6 -17.9 19.5 -1.5 -18.4 20.8
AZP1_FN (TON)
propeller
NS.1 Revolution of side thruster (RPS) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
TS1 Thrust force of side thruster (TON) 2.5 -11.0 12.8 2.6 -13.5 16.6 2.3 -16.1 16.7
Table 2-8: Statistical results of the DPS simulations for Cases 1 to 3.
Page 18
Case-
Case-04 Case-
Case-05 Case-
Case-06
Criteria Unit
Ave. Min. Max. Ave. Min. Max. Ave. Min. Max.
PSI Turn angle (DEG) 48.1 32.9 58.3 48.4 30.4 66.0 48.5 30.4 66.1
R Rate of turn (DEG/S) 0.0 -1.1 1.6 0.0 -1.3 1.6 0.0 -1.3 1.6
U Speed of front-back movement (M/S) 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.8 0.2 1.0
V Speed of side-to-side movement (M/S) 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.9
X Front-back movement (M) 7.8 0.6 11.8 9.2 2.4 17.3 9.3 1.1 17.4
Y Side-to-side movement (M) -7.2 -10.4 -4.3 -7.9 -14.9 -6.8 -8.0 -15.6 -5.5
AZP1_THT Rudder angle of azimuth propeller (DEG) -9.5 -171.8 103.2 -12.1 -170.0 155.2 -12.5 -171.5 152.8
AZP1_NP Revolution of azimuth propeller (RPS) 1.2 0.6 1.9 1.2 0.5 1.9 1.2 0.6 1.9
AZP1_TT Thrust force of azimuth propeller (TON) 11.4 2.7 31.3 11.1 1.7 30.0 12.4 2.6 30.1
Perpendicular force on azimuth -1.7 -18.5 20.3 -2.4 -18.4 19.5 -2.5 -18.4 19.6
AZP1_FN (TON)
propeller
Table 2-9: Statistical results of the DPS simulations for Cases 4 to 6.
Page 19
2.4
2.4 Conclusion
The statistical results of the DPS simulation studies show that:

• an average ship turn angle is around 50°,
• the maximum front-back movement is 17.4 m, and
• the maximum side-to-side movement is 15.6 m.
The simulation showed that the 2 x 1,150kW sets for the side thruster and 3,000
kW for the azimuth propeller is sufficient to maintain the ship within a 20 m
limit for the sea and weather conditions of Phase-2.
Page 32
3. Loading System, Ship Equipment and Injection Method
Design conditions for handling liquid CO2 onboard and onshore are changed
from -10°C, 2.65MPa (in Phase-1) to -20oC, 1.97MPa (in Phase-2). When the
pressure of liquid CO2 becomes lower, larger CO2 tanks onshore are available
and the total cost of CO2 tanks accordingly becomes cheaper than those found in
the Phase-1 study. However, the specification of the other major equipment,
such as CO 2 loading pumps, CO2 tank, boil off gas coolers and loading arms and
so forth are the same as those in the Phase-1 study.
Due to the change in the temperature of liquid CO2 and the injection site, the
capacity of the onboard heater should be increased. In the Phase-1 condition at
the Southwest sea in Japan, the available seawater has enough heat content to
heat up liquid CO2, but under the Phase-2 conditions at the Northeast sea in
Japan, the emission gas from diesel generation and fuel combustion is
additionally needed as heat sources.
For the flexible riser pipe operation, the Phase-1 study only revealed the
conceptual feasibility. We examined detailed onboard operation in the Phase-2
study.
Fatigue life of the flexible riser pipe at a 500m water depth condition (Phase-1)
was 36.2 year. At a 100-m water depth condition, the fatigue life decreases to
half (17.5year). It was pointed out that a bend stiffener and/or a free coupling of
the pipe to the ship should be examined to attain a longer fatigue life.
This chapter shows the followings:

• Design of the loading system of liquefied CO2 and available loading arms,
• Design of the offshore liquefied CO2 delivery/injection facilities, on-board
pump and heating,
• Design of the flexible riser pipe and the pickup operation, and
• Comparison of the Phase-1 and Phase-2 results.
Page 33
3.1 Loading system of liquefied CO
CO 2
The CO2 loading system is almost the same as in the Phase-1 study, except for
the change in temperature and pressure of CO2. The CO 2 loading system is
shown in Figure 3-1. CO2 captured from power plants, chemical plants, etc. is
fed to the CO 2 compression & liquefier facility, where CO 2 is compressed up to
1.97MPa, dehydrated, liquefied at -20ºC, and then stored in the CO2 tank. When
a CO2 shuttle tanker arrives at the berth, CO 2 is pumped from the tank and
loaded through the loading arm installed at the berth into the CO 2 cargo tanks
on the tanker stored at 1.97MPa and -20ºC. The CO2 is then transported by the
CO2 shuttle tanker to the injection point off the Japanese coast.
Figure 3-1: CO 2 Loading System.
The scope of the proposed CO 2 transportation system includes:

• Loading facilities: CO2 tank, CO 2 loading pump, CO2 tank, Boil Off Gas
cooler, loading arm and related equipment.
• The CO2 compression & liquefier facilities, berth, CO2 capture facilities
and CO2 gathering pipelines are out of scope. The information about the
compressions and liquefier facilities is provided for reference.
The study assumes the following loading capacity metrics:

• CO2 nominal loading capacity of 1 million tons per year (or 3,000 tons per
day for 334 days per year)
• Annual operation days: 334 day (operation factor of 91.5%)
• Non injection days cause by sea conditions: 31 days per annum
Page 34
Maintenance will be completed on individual equipment when not in use. Hence,
there is no need to provide an additional scheduled shut-down period to comply
with maintenance requirement according to Japanese regulation.
The major equipment required includes:
1) CO2 tanks: operating condition -20ºC, 1.97MPa

[430m3 tank x 14 sets, total capacity of 6,000 tons; 2 days’ stock]
2) CO2 loading pump: capacity of 250 ton/hr, 2 sets + 1 standby
3) CO2 tank boil off gas cooler: utilizes cooling properties of compressed CO2
4) Loading arm: 500 ton/hr, 1 set
The estimated area for the loading facility is 55 m wide by 75 m long for an area
of 4,125m2.
The estimated construction cost is 3,000 million Japanese yen or approximately

37.0 million AUD 1.
Two operators will be required for the loading facility, consisting of 0.5 operators
per team over 4 teams across 3 shifts.
The electricity consumed by the loading facility is estimated at

309,000kWh/year, which will produce 173 tons of CO2 per year2.
3.1.
3.1.1
1.1 Loading
L oading arm
Most of loading / unloading facilities used to transfer large amount of liquid
1 exchange rate of 81.12 Yen/AUD TTM rate of 28, Sept., 2012 Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ
2 0.561kg-CO2/kWh based on data from the Japanese Ministry of Environment
Page 35
such as crude oil, petroleum products (including LPG) or petrochemical products
use swivel-type loading/un-loading arms that consist of pipes and rotating free
(swivel) joints.
As shown in Figure 3-2, a swivel-type loading/un-loading arm has a simple

structure that is a combination of a crane, pipes and swivel joints. It has been
used more than 50 years and is well-established in terms of technology and cost.
It has over 30 years of track record from being applied to LPG and LNG that are
refrigerated liquids (liquefied gases).
Swivel joint
Figure 3-2: Structure of Swivel.
Table 3-1 shows the transport conditions of LNG, LPG and CO2 respectively.
Page 36
Temp. Pressure Construction Leak
Property
( °C) (MPaA) Record Protection
-150 to Many, Over

LNG 0.1 Flammable
-165 30 years “O” ring,
Many Over Purge gas
LPG 0 to -40 0.1-0.6 Flammable
50 years system
CO2 -10 to -50 0.7-2.7 Incombustible -
Table 3-1:. Comparison of typical liquefied gas transportation by swivel joint

type loading/un-loading.
A swivel type loading arm is also acceptable for CO2 loading in terms of safety
considerations that take into account the temperature and pressure levels of the
CO2.
Although a flexible pipe – similar to the CO2 injection riser - could be used as a
substitute of a swivel joint, it is unfavorable as a transfer loading arm between a
pier and a moored tanker due to the following reasons:
• the high price of the flexible pipe,
• the high price of the loading dock and/or ship based crane structures
required to tolerate the maximum curvature of a pipe, and
• numerous elements, such as the strength and flexibility of flexible pipe,
the structure of crane, operation system and etc. to be developed.
3.1.
3.1.2
1.2 Compression
ompression and liquefaction
liquefaction facilities
The basis and design details for the compression and liquefaction facilities are
provided in Appendix C for reference only.
Page 37
3.2 Offshore delivery and injection
3.2.1 Heating of CO2
The CO 2 needs to be heated from the storage conditions of -20°C on ship to 5°C
prior to injecting to prevent the formation of hydrates in the injection riser and
the reservoir.
There are three heat sources that are available onboard the ship to heat the
CO2.
1) Sea water is the most convenient heat source and is the first priority for
utilization. However, in order to avoid the seawater freezing in a heat
exchanger it is difficult to use seawater that is 6°C or less. A
specially-structured heat exchanger can be used with antifreeze and this
allows seawater temperatures of approximately 3°C to be used to heat the
CO2.
2) Heat recovery from the exhaust gas of the diesel generator is another heat
source available on board and is the second priority for utilization. The
heat is recovered from the exhaust gases in a water heater and this water
is then used to heat the CO2 liquid. The assumed diesel generator
operation conditions indicates that the maximum usage of heat recovery
from the exhaust gases is 2.5GJ/hr.
3) Additional fuel can also be burned to provide additional heat although

this is the last choice for utilization. To utilize this heat source, a hot
water boiler needs to be installed and the heated water is used to heat the
liquid CO2 and is then recycled. If one-third of the required heat input is
provided by this method, the additional annual cost is estimated to be 180
million Yen3. Therefore, this method should be used only when no other
choices are available.
3 assumption of ¥70,300/kL as fuel price
Page 38
The type of heat resources described above and how they are combined to
provide the heat required needs to be examined based on the temperature of the
seawater available.
If the lowest seawater temperature is high, such as in the Phase-1 study (i.e.
19 °C), CO2 could be heated sufficiently using only sea water. However, the
average seawater temperature in the Phase-2 study is much lower at 8°C so the
CO2 needs to be heated using a combination of the heat utilization methods
described above.
A combination of the sea water and exhaust gas from the diesel generation was
selected in the present study. First, CO2 is heated from -20°C to -4°C by a
specially-structured heat exchanger (open rack heater) where the heat is
recovered from seawater with the temperature range between 8 to 3 °C
Following this, the CO2 is heated to 5 °C using water heated by the exhaust
gases of the diesel generator.
3.2.2 Ship-
Ship-based pump and heating equipment
The process for compressing and heating the CO2 up to injection conditions is
shown in Figure 3-3.
The loading arm of CO2 shuttle tanker is connected to the CO2 injection riser at
the injection point. The CO2 stored in the two cargo tanks is pressurized to the
injection pressure (10MPa) by the CO 2 injection pump. The CO 2 is then heated to
the injection temperature (5ºC) as described above.
The pressurized and heated CO 2 is sent through the CO2 injection riser to the
wellhead equipment installed on the seabed at the injection point. The CO 2 is
then injected into the underground formations at the scheduled injection rate
set for individual wells with the injection rate controlled by a flow control valve
(electrically controlled) installed at the wellhead. Data signals measuring the
flow rate are sent from the wellhead to the injection control system on the CO2
shuttle tanker to monitor and control the injection conditions.
Injection operation data and the conditions of the injection wells are
Page 39
transmitted through satellite communication from the communication buoy and
the CO 2 shuttle tanker to the injection control center.
Figure 3-3: CO 2 compression and heating process.
The ship based equipment for injection include:
1) CO2 injection pump: 150m3/hr, 550kW, 1set

2) Sea water pump: 450m3/hr, 75kW, 1set,
3) CO2 heater:
a. - CO 2 OR heater 6.6 GJ/hr 1set (5 blocks)
b. - CO2 heater: 2.4 GJ/hr 1set
4) Injection control system :
a. - Start up sequence control CO2 injection pump and system
b. - Switching sequence control on 4(four) parts of the CO2 cargo
c. - Flow rate, pressure and temperature control of CO2
d. - Flow rate control of each injection well
e. - Shut down sequence control CO2 injection pump and system
The estimated cost of this equipment is 490 million Japanese yen4.
4 AUD6.0 million using an exchange rate of 81.12 Yen/AUD (TTM rate of 28, Sept., 2012 Bank
of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ)
Page 40
The electrical energy used in this facility is 545kWh/hr (11,990kWh/day), which
represents 123L/hr (2.705kL/day) of diesel. The CO2 associated with the
consumption of this diesel is 7.3 tons/day5. The equipment layout in the hold of
CO2 shuttle tanker is shown in Figure 3-4.
15 m
CO 2 OR heater 12 m
4.5 CO 2 OR heater
CO 2 heater
“X” “X”
CO 2 heater
15 m
View “X” － ”X”
8m
3m
CO 2 Injection Pump Sea Water Pump
Figure 3-4: Equipment layout example on the CO2 shuttle tanker.
5 2.71 kg-CO2 /kL-Fuel Oil (based on Japanese Ministry of Environment)
Page 41
3.3
3.3 Flexible riser pipe design
In this section, we examine the design of the flexible rise pipe, the tension and
bending radius under static and dynamic conditions, and complete a fatigue
analysis of the pipe during injection operations.
3.3
3.3.1 Basic design of flexible pipe
1) Specification
• Flow rate (q) of 3000m3/16hr, the same condition as in the Phase 1 study
• Flow velocity (v) of 3m/sec
• Inner diameter (D) of 0.16m
• Design pressure of 20MPa (Working pressure 10MPa)
2) Pipe construction and properties
Construction and main properties of the flexible pipe are shown in Table 3-2,
Table 3-3 and Figure 3-5.
Layer Function Thickness Outer

Outer Material
Diameter
mm mm
Interlock carcass Collapse resitance 5.5 163 Stainless steel
Inner pipe Liquid tight 6.7 176.4 High density PE
Pressure armor Reinforcement of 2* 2.0 184.4 Carbon steel
internal pressure
Tensile armor Reinforcement of 2* 2.0 192.4 Carbon steel
tension
Buoyant later Weight reduction 51.8 295 Plastic tape
Outer sheath Waterproofing 7.0 309 High density PE
Table 3-2: Construction of flexible riser pipe.
Page 42
Property Value Notes
Weight in air 79.0 kg/m Empty in inner pipe
Weight in seawater 20.0 kg/m Filled with CO 2
Burst pressure 76.7 MPa
Axial stiffness (EA) 1.05E+05 kN
Bending stiffness (EI) 94,300 Nm2
Torsional stiffness (GJ) 8,500 Nm2/deg
Minimum bending radius 2.5m 3.75 m for reel winding
(MBR)
Allowable tensile force 820 kN
Table 3-3: Main properties of flexible riser pipe.
Outer
Buoyant Tensile Pressure Inner Pipe
Interlock Cracass
Figure 3-5: Construction of Flexible Riser Pipe.
3.3
3.3.2 Static analysis
1) Assumption
• Water depth: 100m(It was determined from MBR)
• Riser configuration: Free hanging
• Excursion of DPS tanker: ±15m
Page 43
• Surface current: 0.75 m/sec (declines by 1/7 law)
• Sea water density: 1025kg/ m3
• Drag coefficient: 1.0
• Added mass coefficient: 1.0
2) Applied software: OrcaFlex Dynamics(Ver 9.4)
3) Results
The results of 2D static analysis are shown in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5.
Maximum tension load at TOP of the riser is lower enough for the allowable
tensile force in each case.
Bending radius at TOP of the riser (Far position) is nearly equal to the
minimum bending radius. Bending radius at TDP is kept larger than minimum
bending radius.
TOP：Riser Top(=Connecting Point of the Riser) TDP：Touch Down Point
Tanker Position Near Neutral Far

[ ]：
]： Excursion [0m] [15m] [30m]
(Horizontal Movement)
TOP Tension [kN] 19 22.5 30.0
Bending Radius [m] 6.8 4.9 2.9
TDP Bending Radius [m] 44.5 168 230
Arc length of Riser [m] 112 130 167
Table 3-4: Case-01 (Water depth:100m, Current direction:0deg).
Page 44
[ ]：
TOP Tension [kN] 25.8 30.5 38.4
Bending Radius [m] 573.1 8.8 3.3
TDP Bending Radius [m] 143.4 232.4 286.7
Arc length of Riser [m] 125 143 178
Table 3-5: Case-02 (Water depth:100m, Current direction:180deg).
静的挙動解析　0deg
Horizontal Length
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0
-20
0deg near 0m
-40 0deg neutral 15m
0deg far 30m
W a te r D e p th (m )
潮流0deg
)m
(深 -60
水
Current direction:0 deg
-80
-100
-120
長手(m)
Figure 3-6: Static Configuration of Riser (Current direction: 0 deg)
Page 45
静的挙動解析　180deg
Horizontal Length
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0
-20
180deg near 0m
-40 180deg neutral 15m
180deg far 30m
潮流180deg
W a te r D e p th (m )
)m
(深 -60
水
Current direction:180 deg
-80
-100
-120
長手(m)
Figure 3-7: Static Configuration of Riser (Current direction: 180 deg)
3.3
3.3.3 Dynamic analysis
1) Assumption
• Water depth: 100m
• Significant wave height: 3.0m
• Significant wave period: 6sec & 12sec
• Significant wave period: 6sec & 12sec
• Water spectrum: Bretschneider
• Response amplitude operator: refer to Table 3-6
• Connecting point (CP) of riser top: refer to Figure 3-8
Page 46
2.73m
CP
yaw
Z(heave 6.4m
pitch
heave
X(surge sway
Center surge
roll
Current
Wave
9.3m
CP ： Connecting Point (= Riser Top)

Far Neutral Near
15 m 15 m
CP CP CP
Figure 3-8: CP of Riser Top.
Page 47
Wave dir.=180
SURGE SWAY HEAVE ROLL PITCH YAW
TW AMP PHASE AMP PHASE AMP PHASE AMP PHASE AMP PHASE AMP PHASE
(SEC (M/M) (deg) (M/M) (deg) (M/M) (deg) (D/M) (deg) (D/M) (deg) (D/M) (deg)
) 2 1.89E-0 1.75E+0 1.18E-1 0.0E+0 1.13E-0 3.56E+0 6.71E-1 0.0E+0 2.56E-0 3.29E+0 2.28E-1 0.0E+00
3 3.54E+0
2.5 3.04E-0 2 1.80E-1
2 0 1.08E-0
0.0E+0 3 3.26E+0
2 6.24E-1
2 0.0E+0
0 4.84E-0
3 2 2.42E-1
1.15E+0 2 0.0E+00
3 2
3 8.14E-0 2.12E+0 3.46E-13 0 3 2 3 0 3
0.0E+0 1.85E-0 1.73E+0 5.04E-1 0.0E+0 4.11E-0 1 3 0.0E+00
2.75E+0 7.89E-1
3 2.73E+0
3.5 1.68E-0 2 3 0 3 2 2 0 3
2.91E-1 0.0E+0 5.03E-0 2.16E+0 1.61E-1 0.0E+0 1.26E-0 2 6.27E-1
4.87E+0 4 0.0E+00
2 7.93E+0
4 2.82E-0 2 7 0.0E+0
2.36E-1 0 7.04E-0
3 6.19E+0
2 1.32E-1
6 0.0E+0
0 3.06E-0
2 1 5.74E-1
2.08E+0 7 0.0E+00
2 1 1.64E-1
4.5 4.42E-0 3.18E+0 8 0.0E+0
0 3.43E-0
3 2.64E+0
1 1.14E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 2 2 7 0.0E+00
5.88E-0 1.29E+0 6.85E-1
2 2.19E+0
5 5.85E-0 2 4.16E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 3.28E-0
2 2.32E+0
2 4.16E-1
5 0.0E+0
0 2 3.52E+0
1.75E-0 2 7.96E-1
7 0.0E+00
2 2 7 0 2 2 5 0
5.5 8.61E-0 1.58E+0 2.48E-1 0.0E+0 1.18E-0 9.57E+0 6.06E-1 0.0E+0 1 3.34E+0
3.64E-0 2 5.30E-1
7 0.0E+00
2 2 7 0 1 1 5 0
6 1.09E-0 1.20E+0 1.69E-1 0.0E+0 2.91E-0 1.08E+0 3.46E-1 0.0E+0 1 2 7 0.0E+00
3.12E-0 2.84E+0 1.82E-1
1 1.03E+0
6.5 1.00E-0 2 4.70E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 2.59E-0
1 1.18E+0
2 5
1.19E-1 0 8.52E-0
0.0E+0 1 2.36E+0
2 3.73E-1
6 0.0E+00
1 2 7 0 1 2
7 3.80E-0 9.81E+0 3.00E-1 0.0E+0 1.65E-0 9.12E+0 5
1.04E-1 0 1 2 7 0.0E+00
0.0E+0 1.57E+0 2.38E+0 2.03E-1
2 2.72E+0
7.5 7.10E-0 1 3.95E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 1.87E-0
1 4.39E+0
1 5 0.0E+0
2.57E-1 0 2.06E+0
0 2.45E+0
2 1.12E-1
6 0.0E+00
2 2 7 0 1 1
8 2.00E-0 2.75E+0 4.04E-1 0.0E+0 2.83E-0 2.10E+0 6 0 0 2 6 0.0E+00
4.73E-1 0.0E+0 2.29E+0 2.52E+0 1.26E-1
1 2.77E+0
8.5 3.22E-0 2 2.75E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 3.90E-0
1 1 6 0 0 2 6 0.0E+00
1.15E+0 2.70E-1 0.0E+0 2.31E+0 2.57E+0 9.04E-1
1 2.78E+0
9 4.26E-0 2 2.64E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 4.89E-0
1 1 2.95E-1
7.10E+0 6 0.0E+0
0 2.22E+0
0 2.61E+0
2 6.94E-1
7 0.0E+00
1 2 7 0 1 4.81E+0
9.5 5.11E-0 2.78E+0 9.23E-1 0.0E+0 5.74E-0 0 1.60E-1
6 0.0E+0
0 2.09E+0
0 2.63E+0
2 2.11E-1
7 0.0E+00
1 2.78E+0
10 5.80E-0 2 1.52E-1
8 0.0E+0
0 6.46E-0
1 3.57E+0
0 1.71E-1
6 0.0E+0
0 1.95E+0
0 2.64E+0
2 1.23E-1
6 0.0E+00
1 2 7 0 1 0 6 0 0 2 6 0.0E+00
10.5 6.36E-0 2.78E+0 4.25E-1 0.0E+0 7.05E-0 2.87E+0 2.32E-1 0.0E+0 1.81E+0 2.65E+0 1.74E-1
1 2 7 0 1 0 7 0 0 2 6 0.0E+00
11 6.83E-0 2.77E+0 2.01E-1 0.0E+0 7.53E-0 2.44E+0 1.49E-1 0.0E+0 1.68E+0 2.65E+0 1.16E-1
1 2.77E+0
11.5 7.22E-0 2 6.42E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 7.92E-0
1 2.16E+0
0 6 0.0E+0
2.44E-1 0 1.55E+0
0 2.65E+0
2 1.70E-1
6 0.0E+00
1 2 7 0 1 0
12 7.55E-0 2.76E+0 8.25E-1 0.0E+0 8.24E-0 1.95E+0 6 0 0 2 6 0.0E+00
3.38E-1 0.0E+0 1.44E+0 2.65E+0 1.86E-1
1 2.76E+0
12.5 7.84E-0 2 2.89E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 8.50E-0
1 1.79E+0
0 6 0.0E+0
1.36E-1 0 1.34E+0
0 2.65E+0
2 6.02E-1
6 0.0E+00
1 2 7 0 1 0
13 8.08E-0 2.75E+0 7.66E-1 0.0E+0 8.71E-0 1.66E+0 6 0 0 2 7 0.0E+00
8.32E-1 0.0E+0 1.25E+0 2.65E+0 2.93E-1
1 2.75E+0
13.5 8.29E-0 2 6.01E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 8.89E-0
1 1.54E+0
0 7 0.0E+0
9.95E-1 0 1.16E+0
0 2.64E+0
2 4.54E-1
7 0.0E+00
1 2.75E+0
14 8.47E-0 2 4.11E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 9.04E-0
1 1.44E+0
0 7 0.0E+0
3.27E-1 0 1.09E+0
0 2.64E+0
2 7.72E-1
7 0.0E+00
1 2 7 0 1 0
14.5 8.62E-0 2.74E+0 5.78E-1 0.0E+0 9.16E-0 1.34E+0 7 0 0 2 7 0.0E+00
1.78E-1 0.0E+0 1.02E+0 2.64E+0 2.60E-1
1 2.74E+0
15 8.76E-0 2 1.11E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 9.26E-0
1 1.26E+0
0 6 0.0E+0
1.36E-1 0 9.55E-0
0 2.63E+0
2 2.21E-1
7 0.0E+00
1 2.73E+0
16 8.98E-0 2 3.81E-1
6 0.0E+0
0 9.43E-0
1 1.11E+00 6 0.0E+0
1.07E-1 0 8.45E-0
1 2.62E+0
2 1.29E-1
6 0.0E+00
1 2 7 0 1 0
17 9.15E-0 2.73E+0 4.59E-1 0.0E+0 9.55E-0 9.84E-01 6 0 1 2 6 0.0E+00
2.25E-1 0.0E+0 7.52E-0 2.61E+0 2.37E-1
1 2.73E+0
18 9.28E-0 2 7.72E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 9.64E-0
1 8.77E-01 6 0.0E+0
1.06E-1 0 6.74E-0
1 2.60E+0
2 1.31E-1
6 0.0E+00
1 2 7 0 1 7.86E-01
19 9.39E-0 2.72E+0 5.65E-1 0.0E+0 9.71E-0 6 0 1 2 6 0.0E+00
1.03E-1 0.0E+0 6.08E-0 2.59E+0 3.04E-1
1 2.72E+0
20 9.47E-0 2 1.19E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 9.76E-0
1 7.08E-01 6 0.0E+0
2.63E-1 0 5.51E-0
1 2.58E+0
2 1.17E-1
6 0.0E+00
1 2 6 0 1 6.41E-01
21 9.54E-0 2.72E+0 2.18E-1 0.0E+0 9.80E-0 6 0 1 2 6 0.0E+00
1.55E-1 0.0E+0 5.03E-0 2.57E+0 1.16E-1
1 2 6 0 1 5.83E-01
22 9.60E-0 2.72E+0 9.02E-1 0.0E+0 9.83E-0 6 0 1 2 6 0.0E+00
7.08E-1 0.0E+0 4.61E-0 2.55E+0 4.11E-1
1 2.71E+0
23 9.65E-0 2 7.05E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 9.86E-0
1 5.33E-01 7 0.0E+0
1.70E-1 0 4.25E-0
1 2.54E+0
2 7.75E-1
7 0.0E+00
1 2.71E+0
24 9.70E-0 2 1.62E-1
7 0.0E+0
0 9.88E-0
1 4.89E-01 2.50E-1
6 0.0E+0
0 3.93E-0
1 2.53E+0
2 2.71E-1
7 0.0E+00
1 2 6 0 1 6 0 1 2 6
Table 3-6: Response amplitude operator (ROA) of CO 2 carrier.
Page 48
Surge
0.3
0.2
) 0.1
m
(
eg 0.0
ru
S-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (sec)
Figure 3-9: Surge Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec).
Sway
6E-13
4E-13
) 2E-13
m
(
ya 0
w-2E-13
S
-4E-13
-6E-13
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (sec)
Figure 3-10: Sway Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec).
Page 49
Heave
0.4
0.3
) 0.2
m
( 0.1
ev 0.0
ae -0.1
H-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (sec)
Figure 3-11: Heave Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec).
Roll
4E-12
3E-12
)g 2E-12
ed 1E-12
( 0
lo
R -1E-12
-2E-12
-3E-12
-4E-12
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (sec)
Figure 3-12: Roll Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec).
Page 50
Pitch
3.0
2.0
)g
ed 1.0
( 0.0
hc
itP-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (sec)
Figure 3-13: Pitch Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec).
Yaw
8E-13
6E-13
)g 4E-13
ed 2E-13
( 0
w
aY-2E-13
-4E-13
-6E-13
-8E-13
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (sec)
Figure 3-14: Yaw Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec).
2) Results
The dynamic analysis results are shown in Figure 3-9 to Figure 3-14. The
results of the maximum tension load and the minimum bending radius
calculated from dynamic analysis are shown in Table 3-7 and the detailed time
histories are provided in Appendix B.
The maximum tension load at TOP(Riser Top, CP) of the riser is low enough for
the allowable tensile force in each case.
Page 51
The bending radius at CP(Far position) is equal to the minimum bending
radius(2.5mR). Bending radius at TDP(Touch Down Point) is kept larger than
minimum bending radius. CP：Connecting Point (= Riser Top)

[ ]：
CP Tension [kN] 32.1(6sec) 39.3(6sec) 53.5(6sec)
TOP 34.5(12sec) 47.1(12sec) 73.2(12sec)
Bending Radius [m] 15.4(6sec) 6.7(6sec) 2.8(6sec)
35.5(12sec) 6.6(12sec) 2.5(12sec)
TDP Tension [kN] 8.8(6sec) 16.6(6sec) 34.9(6sec)
13.7(12sec) 27.2(12sec) 60.8(12sec)
Bending Radius [m] 54.2(6sec) 74.8(6sec) 83.8(6sec)
34.0(12sec) 36.3(12sec) 33.5(12sec)
Table 3-7: Maximum tension & Minimum bending radius.

Note: wave height of 3m and wave period of 6sec/12sec.
3.3
3.3.4 Fatigue analysis
1) Assumptions
• Water depth: 100m
• Specified fatigue stress: Curvature change of CP
• Wave spectrum: Bretschneider
• Response amplitude operator: refer to Table 3-6

• CP(Connecting point) of riser top refer to Figure 3-8
• Wave scatter diagram: refer to Table 3-8
Page 52
Wave time (sec)
Wave Height (m) 0 to 5.0 5.0 to 8.0 8.0 to 11.0 to 14.0 to 17.0+
17.0+
11.0 14.0 17.0
2.0 to 3.0 0 3.02 5.91 1.29 0.14 0
1.5 to 2.0 0.02 6.40 3.64 0.91 0.06 0
1.0 to 1.5 0.63 15.05 7.50 1.13 0.02 0
0.5 to 1.0 5.20 31.04 11.33 0.45 0 0
0.0 to 0.5 0.55 4.26 1.45 0 0 0
Table 3-8: Wave Scatter Diagram (Offshore Miyazaki).
Wave heights above 3 m were not included in the study as it was assumed that
the injection operation could not proceed under those conditions.
2) Procedure
The bending fatigue property (S-N curve) of the riser was derived from FEC
in-house data (OTC6876) as follows.
• Log(N)=A-B･Log(⊿k)
• Where N is failure number
• ⊿k is theCurvature change of riser top(1/m)
⊿k=kmax －kmin k:Curvature
• A is a coefficient from S-N curve (4.0)
• B is a coefficient from S-N curve (1.912)
The fatigue analysis was carried out as shown in the flow diagram in Figure
3-15.
Page 53
End
Figure 3-15: Fatigue Analysis Flow Diagram.
3) Results
The results of fatigue analysis are shown in Table 3-9. These results only show
the analysis of the flexible riser pipe when attached to the ship and does not
consider possible failure events in the coupling. The estimated frequency of
flexible riser pipe damage is 0.08562 per year. The fatigue life (P) was calculated
as follow.
Page 54
= 1/0.08562 × 3/2
= 17.5 year
Where k is the operation rate, which is 2/3 as the injection riser is used 16 hours
per day for CO2 injection. (k = 16hr/24hr = 2/3)
4) Conclusions
Fatigue life of the flexible riser pipe at a 500-m water depth condition (Phase-1)
was 36.2 year. At a 100-m water depth condition, the fatigue life decreases to
half (17.5 year) because of large curvature change in the pipe. A bend stiffener
and/or a free coupling of the pipe to the ship should be examined to attain a
longer fatigue life.
Page 55
Curvature Number of Failure Frequency of
change(1/m
change(1/m）
1/m ） occurrence Number damage
Min Max In one year (n) (N) in one year
(n/N)
0 0.008 2.78E+06 3.84E+08 0.00722
0.008 0.016 1.32E+06 4.71E+07 0.02800
0.016 0.024 3.87E+05 1.77E+07 0.02183
0.024 0.032 1.33E+05 9.31E+06 0.01425
0.032 0.04 4.74E+04 5.76E+06 0.00822
0.04 0.048 1.56E+04 3.92E+06 0.00398
0.048 0.056 4.36E+03 2.85E+06 0.00153
0.056 0.064 9.90E+02 2.17E+06 0.00046
0.064 0.072 1.80E+02 1.71E+06 0.00011
0.072 0.08 2.62E+01 1.38E+06 0.00002
0.08 0.088 3.04E+00 1.14E+06 0.00000
0.088 ∞ 3.48E-01 1.04E+06 0.00000
Σ(n/N) 0.08562
Table 3-9: Estimated Fatigue Life.
Page 56
3.4
3.4 Flexible riser pipe pickup operation
The previous study on the LCO2 injection system at an ocean injection site
concluded that the pickup buoy system had the following advantages over a
stationary surface structure:
• no buoy system necessary for ship mooring,
• less stringent ship handling requirements than mooring at stationary
surface structures, especially in rougher sea conditions, and
• the flexible riser pipe remains on the seabed in rough seas.
The specification for the flexible riser pipe were calculated in the previous
section. This section outlines the shipboard equipment required and the process
for the flexible riser pickup operation.
3.4
3.4.1 Components of the pickup buoy system
The design conditions for the flexible riser pipe pickup system, detailed in Table
3-10, can be explained as follows:
• the buoy pickup operation can be carried out in sea conditions up to a
significant wave height (H1/3) of 2.5 to 3.0 m, according to a survey of ship
operators,
• the pickup buoy and float must be stable in heavy weather conditions and
have no kinetic influence on the flexible pipe on the seabed,
• the specification of the pickup wire rope is determined by the pickup
conditions listed in Table 3-10, and
• the specifications of the messenger line, sinker, and pickup float are
determined by the storm conditions listed in Table 3-10.
Page 57
Pickup Storm
Design criteria
operation condition
Sea water depth 500 m 500 m
Significant wave height (H1/3 ) 3m 12 m
Significant wave period 17 sec 15 sec
Wind speed (10 min. mean) 15 m/sec 50 m/sec
Tidal current (at 100 m depth) 1.5 knot 1.5 knot
Safety factor of lifting apparatus 6 6
Flexible riser pipe weight in water 20 kg/m 20 kg/m
Flexible riser pipe (outer diameter) 309 mm 309 mm
Table 3-10: Design conditions of the flexible riser pipe pickup operation.
The components of the pickup buoy system are shown in Figure 3-16. These
components are:
• a pickup float and pickup bouy so that the ship can locate the injection
site,
• a messenger line that connects the float to a sinker at the seabed,
• a sinker for keeping the pickup wire rope on the seabed,
• a pick up wire rope of sufficient strength to lift up the flexible riser pipe,
and
• the flexible rise pipe, which is used to inject the CO2 from the ship into the
reservoir.
The pickup buoy is picked up first, followed by the pickup float, which is
connected to the flexible riser pipe through the messenger line and the pickup
wire rope. The junction of the messenger line and the pickup wire rope is kept on
the seabed, using an attached sinker, except during CO2 delivery. This system
isolates the flexible riser pipe from any pickup float motions caused by waves.
The pickup float, with an attached light, serves as a dan buoy (marker) for the
LCO2 carrier ship.
The length of the pickup wire rope is 750 m, 1.5 times the water depth. The 550
Page 58
m (1.1 times the water depth) messenger line is designed with sufficient
mechanical strength to draw both the sinker and the pickup wire rope up to the
LCO2 carrier. The pickup float is designed with 10 kN buoyancy to sustain the
combined weight of the messenger line and the buoy light and radar reflector.
Pickup float
LCO 2 carrier ship Waves
Pickup buoy
Floating synthetic rope
Messenger line
(φ18 mm, Water depth 500m
Pickup wire rope

Sinker (φ32 mm, L=750m ) Flexible riser pipe (outer diameter, 309
Injection well
Figure 3-16: Components of the pickup buoy system.
3.4.
3.4.2 Shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup
The LCO 2 carrier requires the following equipment for the riser pickup
operation:
• a coupling valve to connect the flexible riser pipe to the ship,
• a crane to hoist the pickup float onto the ship,
• winches to reel in the messenger line and the pickup wire rope, and
• an A-frame for deployment and recovery of the float and pickup wire.
This shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup operation is shown
in Figure 3-17.
Page 59
A-fra me Coupling
valve
Crane
Picked up riser
Pickup wire winch

Messenger line winch
Figure 3-17: Shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup.
3.4.3
4.3 Flexible
Flexible riser pipe pickup operation
1) Pickup buoy
When the LCO 2 carrier ship arrives at the ocean injection site, the ship
approaches the pickup buoy parallel to the pickup-buoy/pickup-float line. A hook
bar is thrown toward the floating synthetic rope by a compressed air gun and
the pickup buoy is hoisted on board the ship by retrieving the hook bar. The
pickup buoy is made of plastic with a few hundred millimeters diameter. Figure
3-18 illustrates the pickup buoy picking up operation.
2) Floating synthetic rope
The floating synthetic rope connects the pickup buoy to the messenger line at
the rope joint. The rope joint is hoisted up to the deck by rolling up the floating
synthetic rope using a shipboard equipped capstan. The floating synthetic rope
requires the tensile strength more than 8 kN to pull up the messenger line
which is 550 m in length. The floating synthetic rope rolling up operation is
shown in Figure 3-19.
The pickup float is designed with 10 kN buoyancy to sustain the combined

weight of the messenger line and the buoy light and radar reflector. The pickup
float is filled with urethane form to obtain enough buoyancy and its weight
becomes hundreds of kilogram or nearly 1 ton if made of FRP or SUS (steel
special use stainless) thin sheet, respectively. The pickup float is pulled up onto
Page 60
the ship in calm sea condition or remains on the sea surface, attached to the ship
by a rope, in rougher sea conditions.
LCO2 carrier ship
Pickup buoy
Figure 3-18: Schematic drawing showing the pickup operation of the buoy.
Page 61
LCO2 cargo tank
LCO2 carrier
Figure 3-19: Schematic of the roll up arm
3) Messenger line, pickup wire rope, and flexible riser pipe
The messenger line, 550 m in length connected to the pickup wire rope via a
1-ton sinker, is reeled in by the winch. The sinker is pulled up onto the ship
using the A-frame. The pickup wire rope is then reeled in, which lifts the flexible
riser pipe to the ship. Finally the flexible riser pipe is connected to the coupling
valve. The shipboard equipment, the sinker pickup operation, and details of the
A-frame and the coupling operation are shown in Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21,
respectively.
Page 62
Figure 3-20: Schematic of the shipboard equipment and the sinker pickup
operation.
3.4
3.4.4 Future work
Further work is required for the pickup operation, including:

• Development of a remotely-actuated quick-release coupling valve of inner
diameter 160 mm that can withstand an LCO2 pressure of up to 10 MPa,
• Design of a quick-release connector for the umbilical cable, which is
bundled with the flexible riser pipe, to supply electricity from the ship to
both the seabed manifold valve and the communication buoy, and
• Development of a slide-movable work floor that can project ocean-ward
from the deck when needed for maintenance/inspection of the flexible
riser pipe head.
Page 63
Pickup wire rope
Coupling valve
A-frame
Flexible riser pipe
Figure 3-21: Details of the A-frame and coupling system.
Page 64
4. Economic analysis of the proposed transport system
The cost of shuttle ship transportation is estimated on the following three cases.
• Case-1: 200 km distance and 2 (two) tankers operation case,
• Case-2: 800 km distance and 4 (four) tankers operation, and
• Case-3: 1,600 km distance and 7 (seven) tankers operation
This chapter describes:

• The basis for economic analysis,
• The method for evaluating the transport system cost,
• The net cost of the transport system,
• A sensitivity analysis on distance, project size and sea condtions, and
• A comparison between the current study and the Phase-1 study.
These costs are indicated using Japanese yen and also Australian dollar.
Page 65
4.1 Case study of economic analysis
The economic analysis of the proposed CO2 transportation system is evaluated

by the following three cases.
Case-
Case -1 Case
Case -2 Case-
Case -3
No of tankers in operation 2 4 7
Transport distance (km) 200 800 1600
Loading time (days) ⅓ ⅓ ⅓
Shuttle time (days) 3 2⅔ 5⅔
Injection time (days) 1 1 1
Total time of round trip (days) 2 4 7
Table 4-1: Transportation times.
4.2 Basis of economic analysis
The scope of the proposed CO2 transportation system was previously described
in Section 2. This includes:
• Onshore plant: loading section (CO2 tank, CO2 loading pump, loading arm
and related equipments),
• CO2 shuttle tanker including on-board CO2 injection pump, sea water
pump, CO2 heater, Injection control system and riser winch, and
• Offshore facilities: CO2 injection riser and buoy.
The followings are out of scope for the economic analysis:

• CO2 capture facilities,
• CO2 gathering pipelines,
• CO2 compression & liquefier facility (the information of the facility is
reported as references),
• Berth onshore,
• CO2 well head equipment,
• Pipelines between well head equipment and injection well, and
• CO2 injection wells.
Page 66
The following assumptions are made for the economic analysis:
• Nominal injection capacity of 1,000,000 tons/year
• Operation days per year: 334
• Transport capacity per CO2 shuttle tanker (effective volume) of
2,916 m3 (or 3,003 tons)
• Actual injection capacity of 1,003,121 tons/year
• The well head depth is at 500 m below the ocean surface.
• Total system life of 30 years from the start of injection.
• Expected life of facilities as follows;
- Onshore plant: 30 years
- CO2 shuttle tanker: 15 years, CO 2 shuttle tanker will be replaced
with new tankers after 15 years of service.
- Offshore facilities: 30 years
• Standby period for CO2 shuttle tanker: 25% of the period number for
Case-1 and Case-2, 1 (one) ship for Case-3.
The Net injection capacity is calculated as the actual injection minus the
discharged emissions arising from the electricity use at the onshore facility and
the fuel consumption onboard during shuttle and injection operations. The
Japanese Ministry of Environment indices are used:
• Electricity: 0.561 kg-CO2/kWh
• Fuel oil: 2.71 kg-CO2/kL-oil
4.3 Method for evaluating transport system cost
The total transport system cost is the sum of three separate cost items:
• Capital costs,
• Management costs and
• Operating costs.
4.3.1 Capital costs
The capital costs covers interest payments and the repayment of the capital
used to purchase the infrastructure.
Page 67
The estimated construction cost of major capital items are:
(1) Onshore CO 2 Loading facilities: 3,000 Million Yen
(2) CO2 shuttle tanker, as shown in Table 4-2
(3) CO2 injection riser: 900 Million Yen (assuming water depth of 500
m)
Main Pump, HE &

Pick-
Pick-up
body & control Subtotal
Winch
tanks system
Estimated
cost 2,200 490 141 2,831
(Million Yen)
Table 4-2:. Capital cost of CO2 shuttle tanker.
The estimated total capital costs for each case are shown in Tables 4-3 to 4-5.
The number of shuttle tankers in each case is more than the number in
operation to allow for maintenance and servicing of the shuttle tanker.
Loading Shuttle Injection

Total
facilities tanker riser
Number 1 2.5 1 1
Estimated
cost 3,000 7,078 900 10,978
(Million Yen)
(Million AU$) 34.6 81.7 10.4 126.7
Table 4-3: Capital cost of Case-1.
Page 68
Total
Number 1 5 1 1
Estimated
cost 3,000 14,155 900 18,055
(Million Yen)
(Million AU$) 34.6 163.4 10.4 208.4

Total
Number 1 8 1 1
Estimated
cost 3,000 22,648 900 26,548
(Million Yen)
(Million AU$) 34.6 261.4 10.4 306.4
The total annual payment is indicated as follows.

yS(1.0+y)n
P =
(1.0+y)n 1.0 ―
The annual payment of capital cost is indicated S/n.
The annual interest payable, R, on capital expenses is indicated using:
R=P ― S/n
Where S is the loan amount (capital cost), n is the term of the loan in years and y
is the interest rate. The interest rate is taken to be 1.25% which is the Japanese
long term prime rate on September 2012. For a loan period of 10 years and the
Japanese long term prime interest rate, the above equation simplifies to:
R = 0.700% * S
For a facility with an expected life of 30 years, the annual interest payable is as
Page 69
follows:
• 0.700% * S for the first 10 years,
• Nil for years 11 to 30.
The average over the life of the system is 0.233 %* S.
For a facility with an expected life of 15 years, the annual interest payable is as
follows:
• 0.700% * S for the first 10 years and during years 16 to 25,
• Nil for years 11 to 15 and 26 to 30.
The average over the life of the system is 0.467% * S.
The capital will be paid off over a period of 10 years and it is assumed that there
will be no salvage value associated with the facilities after 10 years. The
depreciation cost, D, is estimated as:
(‫ ݐݏ݋ܿ ݈ܽݐ݅݌ܽܥ‬− ݈ܵܽ‫)݁ݑ݈ܽݒ ݁݃ܽݒ‬

‫=ܦ‬
‫݀݋݅ݎ݁݌ ݊݋݅ݐܽ݅ܿ݁ݎ݌݁ܦ‬
For a facility with an expected life of 30 years, the depreciation costs is as
follows:
• First 10 years: 10% *S
• Years 11 to 30: nil
For a facility with an expected life of 15 years, the depreciation cost is as follows:
• First 10 years and years 16 to 25: 10%* S,
• Years 11 to 15 and 26 to 30: nil.
Working capital is not taken into account in these calculations.
The capital payments for the facilities are shown in Table 4-6. These payments
are for capital assets only and do not include the interest charges on the capital,
which are considered in a later section.
Page 70
Case-
Case -1 Case-
Case -2 Case-
Case -3
Initial payment prior to injection 10,978/ 126.7 18,055/ 208.4 26,548/ 306.4
(m Yen/ m AUD)
Payments of new capital 7,078/ 81.7 14,155/ 163.4 22,648/ 261.4
equipment after 15 years (m Yen/
m AUD
Total capital payments (m Yen/ m 18,056/ 208.4 30,210/ 371.8 49,196/ 567.8
AUD)
Table 4-6: Capital payments for the facilities.
4.3.2 Management cost
The management costs includes the following:

• Maintenance cost based on Japanese chemical plants and set as 3.0% per
annum of the initial capital cost for all facilities except the injection riser
which is set at 1.0%.
• An insurance premium of 0.35% of the initial capital cost per annum
based on Japanese general chemical plants.
• An annual Property Tax of 1.4% of the initial capital cost based on
Japanese general chemical plants.
• Satellite communication cost using the charges of Inmarsat.
• An annual administration cost for the facilities:
o Loading plants at 150% of operators’ wages,
o Shuttle CO 2 Tanker at 100% of operators’ wages, and
o Injection at 100% of operators’ wages.
4.3.3 Operating Cost
The operating costs are labour and the use of utilities. Labour wages are
estimated as:
• Operators for onshore Plants are ¥8,000,000 per year based on Japanese
operators’ average wages.
Page 71
• Crew for CO2 shuttle tanker are ¥9,000,000 per year based on Japanese
crews’ average wages making allowances for the ships’ captain.
• Crew for CO2 Injection at ¥8,000,000 per year, the same as operators’
wages for onshore plants.
Utilities are costed at the following rates

• Electric power of onshore plants: ¥10/kWh based on Japanese general
chemical plants.
• Cooling water of onshore plants: ¥8.0/ton based on Japanesegeneral
chemical plants.
• Treatment cost of waste water from onshore plants: ¥80/ton based on
Japanese general chemical plants.
• Fuel oil cost of CO2 shuttle tanker engine: ¥70,300/kL based on Japanese
market average price from Oct., 2011 to Sept., 2012.
4.4 Transport system cost
The total transport system cost is the sum of the capital costs, the management
costs and the operating costs. This requires a better understanding of the
number of operators and crew required as well as an estimate of the amount of
utilities required.
The onshore plant will require 2 operators.
Each ship requires two team consisting of 3 crew members each. The total
number of crew per ship is 6. Each ship also requires two teams for injection
consisting of 3 crew members each. So 6 crew members are also required for
each ship for the injection of CO2.
The onshore CO 2 loading plants facilities uses 309,000 kWh per year.
(1) The CO 2 shuttle tanker uses fuel oil to generate electricity on board and
during the different stages of loading, shuttle and injection as shown in
Table 4-7 below.
Page 72
Navigation
Case Item Loading Shuttle Total
Injection
Time h 8h 8hx2 24 h 48 h
Elec./Injection kWh/I - 7,568 46,174 53,742

Case-1
F.O./Injection kg/I - 1,762 9,751 11,513
F.O./year kL/y - 684 3,787 4,471
Injection time h 8h 32 h x 2 24 h 96 h

Case-2
F.O./Injection kg/I - 7,047 9,751 16,799
F.O./year kL/y - 2,737 3,787 6,524
Injection time h 8h 64 h x 2 24 h 160 h

Case-3
F.O./Injection kg/I - 14,095 9,751 16,799
F.O./year kL/y - 5,474 3,787 9,261
Table 4-7: Consumption of fuel oil of shuttle tanker.

Note: FO is fuel oil.
CO2 is produced from the utilization of electricity at the onshore facilities and
also from the combustion of fuel oil on board the ship. The emissions of CO 2 per
annum are shown in Table 4-8. These total volume injected needs to be adjusted
for the CO2 discharges so that a cost per tonne of CO2 stored can be calculated.
Page 73
Case-
Case -1 Case-
Case -2 Case-
Case -3
Loading 173 173 173
Shuttle 1,854 7,432 14,897
Navigation injection 10,263 10,263 10,263
Subtotal 12,290 17,868 25,333
Gross injection 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121
Net injection 990,831 985,253 977,788
Table 4-8: Summary of CO2 discharge (Unit: tons/year).
Note: Shuttle of Case-2 and Case-3 include the emissions from the boil off gas
during the shuttle voyage.
The annual costs for each of the three cases are shown in Figures 4-1 to Figure
4-3 for the whole 30 year life span of the shuttle project.
The net transport costs details are shown in Table 4-10 to 4-15 and summarise
in Table 4-9 below.
Case-
Case -1 Case-
Case -2 Case-
Case -3
First 10 year ( Yen/ AUD) 2.47/ 28.5 4.15/ 47.9 6.35/73.3
Average over 30 year life (Yen/ 1.93/ 23.0 3.36/ 38.8 5.24/60.5
AUD)
Table 4-9: Net transport cost (Yen/ kg CO2 or AUD/ tone CO2).
Page 74
year
3.0 Capital related cost
injection cost average
Management cost
2.5 in system life
Operation cost
Injection cost (yen/kg-CO2)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
year
Figure 4-1: Case-1 Transition of CO2 Transport system cost.
year Capital related cost

4.5 Management cost
Operation cost in system life
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
year
Figure 4-2: Case-2 Transition of CO2 Transport system cost.
Page 75
year Capital related cost
7.0 Management cost
Operation cost in system life
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
year
Figure 4-3 Case-3 Transition of CO2 transport system cost.
The operation cost of the CO 2 compression & liquefaction facility is indicated to

the Appendix C for reference purposes only.
Page 76
Items Unit Loading Shuttle Injection Total
System capacity tons/year 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Operating factor days/year 334 334 334 334
System life years 30 15 30 30
Number of Facilities set 1 2.5 1 1
Capital cost Mill. yen 3,000 7,078 900 10,978
Mill. AUD 34.6 81.7 10.4 126.7
Electric power kWh/y 309,000 - - 309,000
Utilities
Fuel kL/year - 684 3,787 4,471
Number of personnel man 2 6 per ship 6 per ship 26
Gross injection capacity tons/year 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121

Discharged CO2 tons/year 173 1,854 10,263 12,290
Net injection capacity tons/year 1,002,948 1,001,267 992,858 990,831
Interest Mill. yen/year 21.00 49.54 6.30 76.84
Capital related Depreciation Mill. yen/year 300.00 707.75 90.00 1,097.75
cost subtotal Mill. yen/year 321.00 757.29 96.30 1,174.59
¥/kg-CO2 0.320 0.756 0.097 1.185
Maintenance Mill. yen/year 90.00 212.33 9.00 311.33
Insurance Mill. yen/year 10.50 24.77 3.15 38.42
Management Property tax Mill. yen/year 42.00 99.09 12.60 153.69
Communication Mill. yen/year - - 1.60 1.60
cost
Administration Mill. yen/year 24.00 108.00 96.00 228.00
subtotal Mill. yen/year 166.50 444.18 122.35 733.03
¥/kg-CO2 0.166 0.444 0.123 0.740
Wages:
LoadingMill. yen/year 16.00 16.00
Tanker crewMill. yen/year - 108.00 108.00
Injection CrewMill. yen/year 96.00 96.00
Operation cost
Electric power Mill. yen/year 3.09 - - 3.09
Fuel Mill. yen/year - 48.09 266.23 314.31
¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.156 0.365 0.542
Mill. yen/year 506.59 1,357.56 580.88 2,445.03
Total transport system cost
¥ /kg-
/kg- CO2 0.505 1.356 0.585 2.468
AUD/ton-
AUD/ton- CO 2 5.8 15.7 6.7 28.5
Table 4-10: Case-1 - 200 km distance (First 10 years).
Page 77
Mill. AUD 34.6 81.7 10.4 126.7
Utilities Electric power kWh/y 309,000 - - 309,000
Fuel kL/year - 684 3,787 4,471
Number of personnel man 2 6 6 per ship 26
Injection capacity tons/year 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121

Net injection capacity tons/year 1,002,948 1,001,267 992,858 990,831
Capital
Depreciation Mill. yen/year 99.90 472.07 29.97 601.94
related cost
¥/kg-CO2 0.107 0.504 0.032 0.650
cost Communication Mill. yen/year - - 1.60 1.60
¥/kg-CO2 0.166 0.444 0.123 0.740
Wages:
Operation
cost
¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.156 0.365 0.542
Total transport system cost Mill. yen/year 292.48 1,105.39 516.64 1,914.51
¥ /kg-
/kg- CO2 0.292 1.104 0.520 1.932
AUD/ton-
AUD/ton- CO 2 3.4 12.7 6.0 22.3
Table 4-11: Case-1 - 200 km distance (average over 30 years).
Page 78
Mill. AUD 34.6 163.4 10.4 208.4
Fuel kL/year - 2,737 3,787 6,524

Net injection capacity tons/year 1,002,948 995,689 992,858 985,253
Capital
Depreciation Mill. yen/year 300.00 1,415.50 90.00 1,805.50
related cost
subtotal Mill. yen/year 321.00 1,514.59 96.30 1,931.89
¥/kg-CO2 0.320 1.521 0.097 1.961
subtotal Mill. yen/year 166.50 888.36 218.35 1,273.21
¥/kg-CO2 0.166 0.892 0.220 1.292
Wages:
Operation
cost
¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.410 0.462 0.899
Mill. yen/year 506.59 2,811.36 772.88 4,090.82
¥ /kg-
/kg- CO2 0.505 2.824 0.778 4.152
AUD/ton-
AUD/ton- CO 2 5.8 32.6 9.0 47.9
Table 4-12: Case-2 - 800 km distance (first 10 years).
Page 79
Mill. AUD 34.6 163.4 10.4 208.4
Fuel kL/year - 2,868 3,969 6,837
Number of personnel man 2 6 6 per ship 50
Injection capacity tons/year 309,000 - - 309,000

Discharged CO2 tons/year - 2,737 3,787 6,524
Net injection capacity tons/year 309,000 - - 309,000
Capital related
Depreciation Mill. yen/year 99.90 944.14 29.97 1,074.01
cost
¥/kg-CO2 0.107 1.015 0.032 1.166
¥/kg-CO2 0.166 0.892 0.220 1.292
Wages:
Operation cost Injection CrewMill. yen/year 192.00 192.00
¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.410 0.462 0.899
Mill. yen/year 292.48 2,307.02 708.64 3,308.14
¥ /kg-
/kg- CO2 0.292 2.317 0.714 3.358
AUD/ton-
AUD/ton- CO 2 3.4 26.7 8.3 38.8
Table 4-13: Case-2 - 800 km distance (average over 30 years).
Page 80
Mill. AUD 34.6 261.4 10.4 306.4
Fuel kL/year - 5,474 3,787 9,261

Capital related
cost
¥/kg-CO2 0.320 2.452 0.097 2.905
¥/kg-CO2 0.166 1.471 0.365 2.028
Wages:
¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.772 0.607 1.416
Mill. yen/year 506.59 4,639.94 1,060.88 6,207.40
¥ /kg-
/kg- CO2 0.505 4.695 1.069 6.348
AUD/ton-
AUD/ton- CO 2 5.8 54.2 12.3 73.3
Table 4-14: Case-3 - 1,600 km distance (First 10 years).
Page 81
System life year 30 15 30 30
Mill. AU$ 34.6 261.4 10.4 306.4
Fuel kL/year - 2,868 3,969 6,837

Capital related
cost
¥/kg-CO2 0.107 1.636 0.032 1.795
¥/kg-CO2 0.166 1.471 0.365 2.028
Wages:
¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.772 0.607 1.416
Mill. yen/year 292.48 3,832.99 996.64 5,122.11
¥ /kg-
/kg- CO2 0.292 3.879 1.004 5.238
AUD/ton-
AUD/ton- CO 2 3.4 44.8 11.6 60.5
Table 4-15: Case-3 - 1,600 km distance (average over 30 years).
Page 82
4.5 Sensitivy Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was completed to compare the total transport system costs.
The variables assessed include the distance of transport, the size of the project
and the effect of transport conditions.
4.5
4.5.1 Effect of Distance
The effect of transport distance on the total transport system cost is shown in
Figure 4-4. This indicates that the cost increases linearly with distance.
6.00 Operation Cost

Management Cost
Total Transport System Cost
5.00 Capital related Cost
4.00
(¥/kg-CO2)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Distance (km)
Figure 4-4: Effect of Distance.
4.5
4.5.2 Effect of project size
This study is premised on a nominal annual injection capacity of 1 million

tonnes of CO2. The shuttle-ship transportation volume of 3,000 tons per ship is
based on a daily injection to achieve the nominal annual injection capacity.
There are two approaches to increase the size of the project. The first approach
is to increase the size of the tanks on the shuttle ships. This approach is beyond
the scope of the current project as it would require redesign of the shuttle-ship.
A second approach is to increase the number of shuttle ships so that more than
Page 83
one injection per day can be achieved.
In this case, the total transport system cost changes as illustrated in Figure 4-5.
The cyclic nature reflects that the cost decreases as the capacity of the shuttle
ships is used up, but then increases at certain points where additional ships are
required. Overall, the cost decreases as more CO2 is transported and injected.
Relative transport cost (Yen/kg CO2)
Benefit of
increasing scale
Effect of additional
infrastructure
required for
additional capacity
1 2 3 4 5 6
Nominal CO2 transport capacity (Mt pa)
Figure 4-5: Schematic of the effect of project size.
4.5.3 Effect of CO 2 pressure and sea conditions

conditions of injection point
Two cases of CO2 pressure and two cases of sea condition at the injection point
are examined through the Phase-1 and Phase-2 studies. A summary of the costs
for Case-2 are shown in Table 4-16.
Page 84
Capital Transport
Climate CO 2 Injection Facilities Operat’
Operat’n
related system
conditions
conditions conditions capacity cost cost
cost cost
Unit: ¥/kg-CO2
Operating
2.65MPa, 1,000,147 18,241
days: 1.137 2.231 3.368
-10ºC Tons/year Mil.¥
350 days pa
Sea water: 1.97MPa, 1,051,175 16,940
1.035 2.038 3.073
Min. 19ºC -20ºC Tons/year Mil.¥
Operating
2.65MPa 954,426 19,355
days: 1.278 2.397 3.674
-10ºC Tons/year Mil.¥
334 days pa
Sea water: 1.97MPa, 1,003,121 18,055
1.166 2.191 3.368
Min. 8ºC -20ºC Tons/year Mil.¥
Table 4-16: Effect of different shipping conditions for Case-2.
This data shows that the cost increases when the CO 2 is transported at a higher
pressure and temperature but that the cost decreases when warmer seawater is
available. Hence transporting CO2 at a pressure of 1.97 MPa and temperature of
-20°C is more economical than transporting CO2 at a pressure of 2.65 MPa and a
temperature of -10°C.
Page 85
4.6 Comparison of Phase-
Phase -1 and Phase-
Phase-2 results
In this section of the report, the results from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies
are compared to identify the changes in cost due to the different transport
conditions and ocean conditions.
1) A total of 3 cases were studied in Phase 2 but only 2 cases were studied in
Phase 1. Case-3 was recalculated in the Phase-1 conditions.
2) The basis for the economic analysis are shown in Table 4-17. The actual
injection capacity in the Phase-2 study was slightly larger than in the
Phase-1 study because of the change in transport conditions of liquefied
CO2 compared to the Phase-1 study.
Items Phase-
Phase -1 Phase-
Phase -2
Scope Same
Condition of liquefied
1.97MPa, -10ºC 2.65MPaA, -20ºC
CO2
Liquid density 0.98 kg/kL 1,03 kg/kL
Nominal injection
1,000,000 tons/year
capacity
Actual injection
1,000,147 tons/year 1,003,121 tons/year
capacity
Annual operation days 350 days(95.9%) 334 days(91.5%)
Transport capacity of 2,916 m3/shuttle Same
shuttle ship 3,003 tons/shuttle 2,858 tons/shuttle
System life 30 years (Shuttle ship: 15years)
Standby period for Case-1 & 2: 25% of ships
shuttle ship - Case-3:one ship
Exchange rate 86.65 yen/AUD 81.12 yen/AUD
Table 4-17: Economic basis of Phase-1 and Phase-2 studies.
The same method as described in this chapter was used in both studies. The
parameters for the capital, management and operating costs are shown in Table
Page 86
4-18 to Table 4-20.
Items Phase-
Phase -1 Phase-
Phase -2
Interest cost Same formula
- Payment schedule 10 years
- Interest rate 1.50% 1.25%
- Interest per year Capital x 0.843% Capital x 0.700%
11-15year Capital x 0.281% Capital x 0.233%
Average in system life Capital x 0.281% Capital x 0.233%
Depreciation cost Same structure
- Depreciation period 10 years
- Salvage value 10 % or 0% 0%
Items Phase-1 Phase-2
- Depreciation cost Capital x 9 % Capital x 10 %
Average in system Capital x 3 % Capital x 3.33 %
Working Capital Not taking into account
Table 4-18: Capital cost parameters.
The interest cost decreased in Phase-2 because of the reduction in the Japanese
prime rate, and depreciation cost increased in Phase-2 because no salvage value
after 10 years was used.
Items Phase-
Phase -1 Phase-
Phase -2
Maintenance cost Capital x 3 %
Riser: Capital x 1 %
Insurance premium Capital x 0.35 %
Property tax Capital x 1.4 %
Satellite communication Charge of the Inmelsat
Administration cost % of operators’ wages
Loading plant 150%
Shuttle ship 100%
Injection facilities 100%
Table 4-19: Management cost parameters.
Page 87
Items Phase-
Phase -1 Phase-
Phase -2
Operators’ wage onshore ¥8,000,000/year
Crew for shuttle ¥9,000,000/year
Crew for Injection ¥8,000,000/year
Utility cost Capital x 1.4 %
- Electric power of onshore ¥10/kWh
- Cooling water of onshore ¥8.0/ton
- Treatment cost of waste ¥80/ton
- fuel oil cost of Shuttle ¥63,540/kL ¥70,300/kL
Table 4-20: Operating cost parameters.
The price of fuel oil increased in the Phase-2 study.
4.6.1
4.6.1 Cost Estimates
1) Capital cost
The estimated total capital cost of the Phase-2 study decreased by about 1%
for Case-1, however it increased by about 3% for Case-2 and by about 5% for
Case-2, compared with Phase-1. The following tables show the estimated
construction costs, the capital costs and net transport costs.
Items Phase-
Phase -1 Phase-
Phase -2
Onshore CO2 loading 4,300 Million Yen 3,000 Million
CO2 shuttle tanker 2,608 Million Yen 2,831 Million
- Man body & tanks 2,200 Million Yen
- Pump, HE & control 300 Million Yen 490 Million Yen
- Pick-up winch 108 Million Yen 141 Million Yen
CO2 injection riser 900 Million Yen
Table 4-21: Estimated construction cost of individual facilities.
Page 88
Items Phase-
Phase -1 Phase-
Phase -2
Onshore CO2 loading 4,300 Million Yen 3,000 Million yen
facilities 49.6 Million AUD 34.6 Million AUD
6,520 Million Yen 7,078 Million Yen
CO2 shuttle tanker
Case--1
75.2 Million AUD 81.7 Million AUD

Case
900 Million Yen

CO2 injection riser
10.4 Million AUD
Total capital cost
135.3 Million AUD
AUD 126.7 Million AUD
AUD
CO2 shuttle tanker
Case--2

Case
900 Million Yen

CO2 injection riser
10.4 Million AUD
Total capital cost
210.5 Million AUD
AUD
CO2 shuttle tanker
Case--3
Case
900 Million Yen

CO2 injection riser
10.4 Million AUD
Total capital cost
300.8 Million AUD
AUD
Table 4-22: Total system estimated construction costs for the difference cases.
Page 89
Case Items Phase-
Phase -1 Phase-
Phase -2
Initial payment

Case-
Case - 1 15 years after payment

Total payment

Initial payment

Case-

Total payment

Initial payment

Case-

Total payment
Table 4-23: Capital cost payment schedule.
Page 90
2) Utilities consumption
Annual consumption of fuel oil in the Phase-2 study is decreased by effect of
operation days compared with the Phase-1 study.
Items Phase-
Phase -1 Phase-
Phase -2
Elec. Power (onshore facilities) 294,000 kWh/y 309,000kWh/y
Fuel oil (shuttle ship) Case-1 4,686 kL/y 4,471 kL/y
Case-2 6,837 kL/y 6,524 kL/y
Case-3 9,705 kL/y 9,261 kL/y
Total CO2 discharge Case-1 12,863 tons/y 12,290 tons/y
Case-2 18,693 tons/y 17,868 tons/y
Case-3 26,530 tons/y 25,333 tons/y
Table 4-24: CO2 discharge comparisons.
3) The net transport system costs of the Phase-2 study are a little smaller for
Case-1, and Case-2, and slightly higher for Case-3 compared with the
Phase-1 study. Results of the Phase-1 study are recalculated same conditions
as in the Phase-2 study (Interest rate, depreciation method, unit price of fuel
oil, exchange rate) for comparison of same basis.
Case Items Phase-

Phase-1 Phase-
Phase-2
2.61 Yen/kg-CO 2 2.47 Yen/kg-CO 2
First 10 years
Case-
ase-1 30.1 AUD/ton 28.5 AUD/ton
Average in system 2.00 Yen/kg-CO 2 1.93 Yen/kg-CO 2
life 23.0 AUD/ton 22.3 AUD/ton
First 10 years
Case-
First 10 years
Case-
Table 4-25: Net transport system cost.
Page 91
Appendix A: Dynamic position system simulation results
Figure A-1: DPS simulation results for Case-01.
Page 92
Wind Wind Significa Significant Wave Ocean Ocean
nt wave current current
Case velocity direction height wave period direction speed direction
U10 (m/s) µ w(deg) T 1/3(s) µ(deg)
H1/3 (m) V C(m/s) µ C(deg)
Case02 15.0 135 3.0 13.0 180 1.0 90

Page 93
Wind Wind Significant Significant Wave Ocean Ocean

Case velocity direction wave wave period direction current current
height speed direction
U10 (m/s) µ w(deg) H1/3 (m) T 1/3(s) µ(deg) V C(m/s) µ C(deg)
Case03 15.0 135 3.0 17.0 180 1.0 90
Page 94

Case velocity direction nt wave wave period direction current current
Case04 15.0 180 3.0 9.0 180 1.0 90
Page 95

Case05 15.0 180 3.0 13.0 180 1.0 90
Figure A-5: DPS simulation results for Case-05

Page 96

Case06 15.0 180 3.0 17.0 180 1.0 90
Page 97
Appendix B: Dynamic analysis results
Time History: Line1 Effective Tension at End A

40
Line1 Effective Tension (kN) at End A
35
30
25
20
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-1: Time history of Tension at CP (Neutral position,6sec).

Time History: Line1 Curvature at End A
Figure B-2: Time history of Curvature at CP( Neutral position,6sec).

Page 98
Time History: Line1 Effective Tension at Touchdown
18
16
Line1 Effective Tension (kN) at Touchdown
14
12
10
6
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-3: Time history of Tension at TDP (Neutral position,6sec).

Time History: Line1 Curvature at Touchdown
0.014
0.012
Line1 Curvature (rad/m) at Touchdown
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-4: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Neutral position,6sec).
Page 99
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-5: Time history of Tension at CP (Near position,6sec).

0.07
0.06
Line1 Curvature (rad/m) at End A
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-6: Time history of Curvature at CP (Near position,6sec).
Page 100
9
8
3
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-7: Time history of Tension at TDP (Near position,6sec).

0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-8: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Near position,6sec).
Page 101
Figure B-9: Time history of Tension at CP (Far position,6sec).
Figure B-10: Time history of Curvature at CP (Far position,6sec).
Page 102
35
30
25
20
15
10
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-11: Time history of Tension at TDP (Far position,6sec).

0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-12: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Far position,6sec)
Page 103
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-13: Time history of Tension at CP (Neutral position,12sec).

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-14: Time history of Curvature at CP (Neutral position,16sec).
Page 104
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-15: Time history of Tension at TDP (Neutral position,12sec).

0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-16: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Neutral position,12sec).
Page 105
35
30
25
20
15
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-17: Time history of Tension at CP (Near position,12sec).

0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-18: Time history of Curvature at CP (Near position,12sec).
Page 106
14
12
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-19: Time history of Tension at TDP (Near position,12sec).

0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0 100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)
Figure B-20: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Near position,12sec).
Page 107
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-21: Time history of Tension at CP (Far position,12sec).

0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)
Figure B-22: Time history of Curvature at CP (Far position,12sec).
Page 108
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-23: Time history of Tension at TDP (Far position,12sec).

0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
Figure B-24: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Far position,12sec).
Page 109
Appendix C: Operation cost of CO
CO2 Compression & Lique
Liquefaction
facility
Compress & Compress &

Items Unit Liq. Liq.
Phase-
Phase -2 Phase-
Phase -1
System capacity tons/year 1,002,000 1,050,000
Operating factor days/year 334 350
Facility Life years 30 30
Capital cost Mill. yen 4,560 4,560
Mill. AUD 56.2 56.2
Utilities Electric power kWh/year

154,000,000 166,000,000
consumption
Cooling water tons/year 24,000,000 19,600,000
Waste water treatment tons/year 23,300 24,700
Number of personnel man 6 6
Injection capacity tons/year 1,002,000 1,050,000
Discharged CO2 tons/year 86,300 92,800
Net injection capacity tons/year 915,700 957,200
Interest Mill. yen/year 10.6 10.6

Capital Depreciation Mill. yen/year 151.8 151.8
related cost subtotal Mill. yen/year 162.5 162.5
¥/kg-CO2 0.2 0.2
Table C-1: Compression and Liquefaction facility costs.
Page 110
Compress & Compress &
Items Unit Liq. Liq.
Phase-
Phase -2 Phase-
Phase -1
Maintenance Mill. yen/year 136.8 136.8
Insurance Mill. yen/year 16.0 16.0
Injection
Property tax Mill. yen/year 63.8 63.8
management
Administration Mill. yen/year 72.0 72.0
cost
subtotal Mill. yen/year 288.6 288.6
¥/kg-CO2 0.3 0.3
Personnel Mill. yen/year 48.0 48.0
Electric power Mill. yen/year 1,540.0 1,660.0
Operation Cooling water Mill. yen/year 192.0 156.8
cost Waste water Mill. yen/year 1.9 2.0
subtotal Mill. yen/year 1,781.9 1,866.8
¥/kg-CO2 1.9 2.0
Mill.
ill. yen/year 2,232.9 2,317.8
Compression & Liquefy
¥/kg-
/kg-CO 2 2.439 2.421
cost total
AUD
AUD/ton-
/ton-CO2 28.1 28.0
Table C-1 (cont): Compression and Liquefaction facility costs.
Page 111

Preliminary Feasibility Study Co2 Carrier Ship Based Ccs Unmanned Offshore Facility

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Preliminary Feasibility Study Co2 Carrier Ship Based Ccs Unmanned Offshore Facility

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FINAL REPORT

Preliminary Feasibility Study

CO2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS

（Phase-2 – unmanned offshore facility）

<0> Issued for Approval A.O. K.H. K.H. 30-NOV.-12

<B1> Issued for Review A.O. K.H. K.H. 27-NOV.-12

MARK DESCRIPTION BY CHKD APVD DATE

JOB NO. : Chiyoda:21508 / GCCSI:EPA026 MADE A. Omata

DOC NO. : CCSC-RPT-00-002 DATE 30 NOV. 2012

Earlier study Current study

Executive Summary ................................................................................................... i

Table of Content ....................................................................................................... iv

Tables and Figures .................................................................................................. vii

1.1.1 Scope of works and design bases ............................................................. 3

1.1.2 Assumptions ............................................................................................. 5

1.1.3 Shuttle tanker .......................................................................................... 5

1.1.4 Pickup buoy system .................................................................................. 6

1.1.5 Storage site location ................................................................................. 6

1.1.6 Organization of project ............................................................................. 6

2. Ship Design (Liquid CO2 Carrier and Cargo Tank) ............................................. 8

2.1 Ship design ...................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Cargo tank design ......................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Heat treatment of cargo tank ................................................................ 12

2.2.2 Manufacturability .................................................................................. 12

2.3 Dynamic Positioning System........................................................................ 13

2.3.1 Study methodology ................................................................................. 14

2.3.2 Study results .......................................................................................... 16

2.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 32

3. Loading System, Ship Equipment and Injection Method .................................. 33

3.1.1 Loading arm ........................................................................................... 35

3.1.2 Compression and liquefaction facilities ................................................ 37

3.2 Offshore delivery and injection .................................................................... 38

3.2.1 Heating of CO2........................................................................................ 38

3.2.2 Ship-based pump and heating equipment ............................................ 39

3.3 Flexible riser pipe design ............................................................................. 42

3.3.1 Basic design of flexible pipe ................................................................... 42

3.3.2 Static analysis ........................................................................................ 43

3.3.3 Dynamic analysis ................................................................................... 46

3.3.4 Fatigue analysis ..................................................................................... 52

3.4 Flexible riser pipe pickup operation ............................................................ 57

3.4.1 Components of the pickup buoy system ................................................ 57

3.4.3 Flexible riser pipe pickup operation ...................................................... 60

3.4.4 Future work ............................................................................................ 63

4. Economic analysis of the proposed transport system ........................................ 65

4.1 Case study of economic analysis .................................................................. 66

4.2 Basis of economic analysis............................................................................ 66

4.3 Method for evaluating transport system cost .............................................. 67

4.3.1 Capital costs ........................................................................................... 67

4.3.2 Management cost ................................................................................... 71

4.4 Transport system cost ................................................................................... 72

4.5 Sensitivy Analysis ......................................................................................... 83

4.5.1 Effect of Distance ................................................................................... 83

4.5.2 Effect of project size ............................................................................... 83

4.6 Comparison of Phase-1 and Phase-2 results ............................................... 86

4.6.1 Cost Estimates ....................................................................................... 88

Appendix A: Dynamic position system simulation results .................................... 92

Appendix B: Dynamic analysis results................................................................... 98

Table ES-1: Shipping transport study conditions. .................................................... i

Figure 1-1: Shuttle transportation of CO2. ............................................................... 2

Figure 1-2: Scope of works. ....................................................................................... 4

Table 1-1: Design bases and conditions for "ship-based CCS"................................. 5

Figure1-3: Organization Chart of the Project .......................................................... 7

Table 2-1: Summary of Chapter 2. ............................................................................ 8

Table 2-2: General characteristics of the liquid CO2 carrier. .................................. 9