You are on page 1of 26

Offshore LNG receiving terminals,

new architectures

Gastech 2005
March 15th, Bilbao

Nicolas Jestin, Saipem SA


Andreas Kyriacou, SN Technigaz

15/03/2005
Presentation overview

Gravity Base Structures: new architectures

Large capacity FSRU an alternate to onshore


receiving terminals

15/03/2005
Presentation overview

Gravity Base Structures: new architectures

15/03/2005
LNG receiving terminal: main functions at a glance

LNG carriers berthing


and unloading

LNG regasification plant


& utilities

Metering and export to


the grid

LNG buffer storage


Bilbao LNG receiving
terminal

15/03/2005
Terminal design basis

Functional requirements
Net storage volume 250,000 m3
Design throughput 0.8 bcfd
Peak throughput 1 bcfd

Site characteristics
Area Gulf of Mexico
Water depth 20m (MSL)
100-yr wave Hs = 7.0 m, Tp = 11.2 s

Constructability
Tow out draft (max.) 13.0m
Concrete grade C60 (60 MPa cube strength)

15/03/2005
The prismatic GBS receiving terminal design

Process equipment LQ & Utilities

Prismatic storage tanks


& Containment system

Berthing / Loading
Concrete structure
& Foundations

Terminals functions are integrated Reference design


One single support structure
One single offshore installation operation Footprint - 2xGBS 197 x 68 x 37 m
A long shelter is provided to LNG carriers berthing LNG storage tank 160 x 40 x 28.5m
Concrete structure is: Double slab height 8m
Repetitive Concrete volume 115,000 m3
Modular
15/03/2005
Topside design & reference case layout

Main equipment
Power
Nb x % Total Unit capacity Gas return Fuel gas generation
NG

LNG unloading arms 3 x 33% 100% 4,030 m3/hr Export /


Boil-off Metering
NG return arm 1 x 100% 100% compressors

In-tank pumps 6 x 33% 200% 550 m3/hr


Recondenser
BOG compressor 1 x 100% 100% 12,000 m3/hr
In-tank HP
Recondenser 1 x 100% 100% Storage pumps pumps Vaporisers

HP pumps 6 x 20% 120% 320 m3/hr


Unloading Seawater
ORV Vaporizers 6 x 20% 120% 150 t/hr Seawater pumps

Seawater pumps 6 x 20% 120% 4500 m3/hr


LNG
Gas turbines 3 x 50% 150%

Reference design
deck layout principles

15/03/2005
Re-thinking the GBS architecture

LNG containment system


Self-supporting: 9%Ni Full Containment,
Overall terminal layout
SPB
Integrate functions (one support)
Membrane-type
Spread functions on multiple elements

Topsides arrangement Evaluate combinations: LNG storage tanks


Technically Prismatic with flat deck
Stick-built
Cost wise Cylindrical with domes
Module-type

Foundations
Skirts
Piling/soil preparation Offloading + Elements not varying
Topsides equipment selection
Need of long breakwater
Unloading system (arms)

15/03/2005
LNG storage tanks & Containment systems

Cylindrical tanks enable to take the best of onshore LNG experience

Full Containment tank Membrane tank

Technologies are in use


today

Optimal in terms of
surface / volume ratio

Well known cost-wise


15/03/2005
Solution #1 outline

Tanks on a rectangular slab with independent topsides

Nb of (main) structures 4

Footprint 170 x 97m (GBS)


63 x 47m (topsides)
LNG storage tank = 36m, H = 40m

Bottom caisson height 8m

Concrete volume 73,000 m3

Additional structural steel * 7,000 T

Tanks are protected from environment


by a concrete belt
97m
Provides smaller sheltering to LNGC
Requires offshore hook-up and
50m 170m
interconnecting
50m

100m

15/03/2005
* Compared to reference case
Solution #1 topsides arrangement
Two-leveled compact arrangement
Distinct areas are segregated:
Equipment dealing with gas on one side of the deck,
Separated by a blast & fire wall from utilities equipment (in
particular Power Generation),

Emergency equipment and living quarters are installed


away from the process platform, on separate structures.

15/03/2005
Solution #2 outline

Independent tanks with independent topsides

Nb of (main) structures 6

Footprint = 100m (tanks)


63 x 47m (topsides)
30m x 20m (unloading)
LNG storage tank = 37m, H = 37.5m

Bottom caisson height 6m

Concrete volume 69,000 m3

Additional structural steel * 7,500 T


80m
Further segregation of functions
120m
Reduced protection of LNGC
Increased offshore hook-up
50m
60m
Diameter = 100m

100m
50m

15/03/2005
* Compared to reference case
Solution #3:Going one step further

Tanks on a rectangular slab with integrated topsides

Enhanced bill of quantities


compared to #1 and #2

Reduced offshore hook-up

Needs further refinements in


terms of safety analyses

100m

50m

200m

15/03/2005
Comparison of solutions

Cost estimate have been performed, in terms of delta with reference case

Main cost elements impacted: Reference Solution #1 Solution #2


Civil works
115,000 m3 73,000 m3 69,000 m3
Concrete volume
Structural complexity Cylindrical tanks => Lower volume & easier construction methods
Construction site development Slightly enhanced due to smaller GBS
Graving docks dimensions
Containment system Enhanced BoQ - FC and
membrane are possible
Structural steel:
5,000 T 12,000 T 12,500 T
Decks, jackets, bridges
Offshore installation & hook-up Fully integrated & Requires offshore deck installation
precom. onshore + marine structures (dolphins, etc)
Other parameters evaluated:
Fully acceptable Enhanced due to increased
Safety separation between functions

Schedule Offshore installation yields schedule risks

Operational downtime Effective sheltering if Can be acceptable if small day-to-


directional environment day environment 15/03/2005
Presentation overview

Large capacity FSRU an alternate to onshore


receiving terminals

15/03/2005
Terminal capacities are scaling up
Nominal throughput
MTPA

12 Fos Cavaou, 2007 (prev.)


Freeport

10 Cameron

South Hook
8 Costa Azul
Fos Cavaou
Bilbao final
6 expansion *
Bilbao, 2003

Hazira
4 Dragon Guangdong
Altamira

2 Bilbao
Revithoussa

0
100 200 300 400 500
15/03/2005
Storage capacities (103 m3)
hence the large size FSRU design
Nominal throughput
MTPA
FSRU 320 K
12

10

0
100 200 300 400 500
15/03/2005
Storage capacities (103 m3)
Design basis

Functional requirements
Buffer storage equivalent to 5.3 days of
Net storage volume 320,000 m3 average sendout
Design throughput 1.35 bcfd (10.5 MTPA) Uses one 140,000 m3 LNGC every 2.3
Peak throughput 1.5 bcfd (11.8 MTPA) days
Availability > 99%

350000

storage volume (m^3)


300000
Site characteristics 250000
Area Gulf of Mexico 200000 Autonomy
150000 Volume variation
100000
Wave data 10 yr 100 yr
50000
Hs (m) 8 12.6 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Tp (s) 12.8 14.6
days

15/03/2005
Hull general arrangement

Loa Length overall m 345

B Breadth m 56
C Depth m 27
Displacement - full load condition T 222,000
Draft - full load condition m 12.3
Displacement - full ballast condition T 203,000
Draft full ballast condition m 11.1

15/03/2005
LNG storage and containment system

6 membrane storage tanks


Length m 44
Breadth m 44
Height m 32
Upper chamfer m 10.5
Lower chamfer m 3.5
Membrane surface m2 8500

INVAR membrane NO 96 Corrugated Membrane Mark III


Invar primary barrier Stainless steel corrugated primary barrier
Plywood boxes filled with perlite Sandwich panels with reinforced PU Foam
Invar secondary barrier Triplex secondary barrier

15/03/2005
GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ
FSRU large capacity Hull design

Draft, GM, GZ curve for identified loading cases Hull structure 36 700 t
Checking of IGC rules for all cases Secondary structure 2 000 t
Intact and damaged stability Marine equipment 1 600 t
Preliminary longitudinal analysis Painting 400 t
Midship section outline Contengencies 4070 t
Preliminary hydrodynamic study Total floater part weight 44 770 t

Process 9 400 t
Turret 1 500 t
Power generation 870 t
Accommodation 900 t

Light ship total weight 57 140 t

Weight report

15/03/2005
Seakeeping analysis

Cross influence cargo / motion behavior expected


RAO curves computed with code DIODORE V3R3 (developed by Principia)
Two filling configurations studied:
97% of LNG in each tank (0 tons of ballast)
30% of LNG in each tank (47000 tons of ballast)
Main influenced motions
At 30% filling ratio: surge, sway and roll
At 97% filling ratio: roll

Surge RAO - 30% loaded tanks Roll RAO - 97% loaded tanks

2 2

1.5 1.5
ampl. (m/m)

ampl. (/m)

1 1

0.5 0.5
0, without coupling effect
0 0 0, with coupling effect
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T (s) T (s) 45 without coupling effect
Roll RAO - 30% loaded tanks Sway RAO - 30% loaded tanks
45 with coupling effect

3 1.5 90 without coupling effect


2.5
90 with coupling effect
ampl. (m/m)
ampl. (/m)

2 1

1.5
Damping coefficient: 10% of
1 0.5
the critical damping
0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
15/03/2005
T (s) T (s)
Topsides layout principles

Safety philosophy

Level of risk
Living Quarter
Utilities

Power Generation Process Flare and gas export lines

Living quarter and emergency power generator in a safe area (not above a tank of LNG)
Power generator and utilities above tanks between living quarters and process
Process and all HP natural gas lines located in the fore half of the FSRU
Export lines on the turret at the bow
15/03/2005
Large capacity FSRU Topsides layout

HP pumps

Electric station Gas recovery module


(recondender, BOG
compressor, fuel gas Flare system
LQ system)

Vaporizers modules Send-out &


Utilities module
Offloading platform metering
Emergency diesel (diesel oil, air
generator plant & air
instrument, N2)
Power generation
module 15/03/2005
FSRU mooring and gas export

FSRU is turret moored


Six mooring lines maintain the FSRU
Export lines
Two gas risers transfer gas from FSRU through the turret
Subsea gas pipeline exports the gas to onshore facilities
Risers and pipeline connected in a riser base

15/03/2005
Conclusion

Offshore receiving facilities are close to reality

Final selection of a configuration is to be done according to:


Some key design / engineering parameters
Required throughput
Storage capacity
Terminal availability
Terminal flexibility
No absolute best solution exists
Site constraints A case by case best compromise can
Water depth
be found out when mixing:
Soil characteristics
Customer needs
Execution capabilities
Civil works costs Design capabilities
Offshore operations cost
Construction solutions

15/03/2005