IFC - Final Report - A116615-RP-02-Siting Options - Ver2 PDF

FEBRUARY 2019
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC)
FSRU SITING AND

CONFIGURATION OPTIONS
REPORT
VIETNAM FSRU STUDY
FINAL REPORT
ADDRESS COWI A/S
Parallelvej 2
2800 Kongens Lyngby
Denmark
TEL +45 56 40 00 00
FAX +45 56 40 99 99
WWW cowi.com
FEBRUARY 2019
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC)
FSRU SITING AND

CONFIGURATION OPTIONS
REPORT
VIETNAM FSRU STUDY
FINAL REPORT
PROJECT NO. DOCUMENT NO.
A116615 2
VERSION DATE OF ISSUE DESCRIPTION PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED
2.0 21 Feb 2019 Final Report PFSM/JJU/RDHN RDHN/JJU JJU

VIETNAM FSRU 5
CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary 9
2 Introduction 15
2.1 Background 15
2.2 Screening of sites 15
2.3 Purpose of this document 16
2.4 Offshore pipelines in the southern Vietnam 18
3 FSRU siting options study 21

3.1 Assumptions 21
3.2 Design ships 22
3.3 Required minimum water depth at terminal 23
3.4 Positions of the terminals 25
3.5 General metocean conditions 28
4 Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga 30
4.1 Metocean conditions 30
4.2 Soil conditions 36
4.3 Navigation to/from berth 36
4.4 Configuration and Mooring Arrangement 37
4.5 Connection to shore concept 40
4.6 Cost estimates 43
4.7 Implementation Schedule 45
5 Site 3 – Long Hai 46

A116615-RP-02-Siting Options_Ver2.docx
6 VIETNAM FSRU
6 Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai 63

7 Site 5 – Vinh Chau 78

8 Site 7 – Ca Mau Area 92

9 Son My Site 109

9.1 Sheltered location 109
9.2 Exposed location 111
10 Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) 113

10.1 Power Generation Arrangements 113
10.2 Calculation Methodology 120
10.3 LCOE Results 122
10.4 Sensitivity Analysis 124
11 LNG-to-shore options 128

11.1 Potential options 129
11.2 Review of options 130
11.3 High-level concept 132
11.4 Way forward for concept development 137
VIETNAM FSRU 7
12 References 138
VIETNAM FSRU 9
1 Executive Summary
Objective The overall objective of this study is to assess if a cost effective FSRU solution
can be established in the south of Vietnam.
Five sites The study assessed feasibility in terms of site conditions, navigation, mooring
arrangement, connection to shore and likely costs of establishing an FSRU
Terminal at five site locations:
› Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga (close to shore option)
› Site 3 – Long Hai (close to Nam Com Son 1 (NCS1) pipeline)
› Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai (close to Dao Long Son island)
› Site 5 – Vinh Chau (closest to shore in this shallow water area)
› Site 7 – Ca Mau Area (close to the pipeline corridor for Ca Mau)
The locations of the five sites are shown on Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Location of evaluated sites in southern Vietnam
10 VIETNAM FSRU
Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga The site is exposed to waves from the sea including typhoon waves. The normal
wave conditions do not allow sufficiently long weather windows to enable reliable
Ship-To-Ship (STS) transfer between a LNG carrier and the FSRU.
An alternative mooring arrangement is recommended which decouple the

motions of the LNGC and FSRU. This system consists of a Spread Mooring (in
terms of Restricted Catenary Mooring (RCM)) for the FRSU and Multi-Buoy
Mooring (MBM) for the LNGC with an Aerial Transfer Tower. Connection to shore
is by a Subsea Pipeline about 1.7 km long.
The estimated CAPEX and OPEX for the marine elements are as follows:
CAPEX 112 MUSD
OPEX (including FSRU lease) 30-40 MUSD/year
Owner costs 10 MUSD/year
Site 3 – Long Hai The site is exposed to metocean conditions similar to what is found for Site 1
and thus a similar alternative mooring arrangement is recommended, i.e.
Spread Mooring (RCM) for the FRSU and Multi-Buoy Mooring (MBM) for the
LNGC with an Aerial Transfer Tower.
Two options for transferring gas to shore were considered, a high pressure (HP)
gas tap into an existing pipeline and transfer in a new 10 km long subsea
pipeline.
An initial assessment of the existing pipeline indicate that the capacity is not
sufficient for handling the additional FSRU volume and thus the estimated CAPEX
and OPEX for the marine elements are presented for the 10 km long new subsea
pipeline:
CAPEX 123 MUSD
Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai This site is located inside Vinh Ganh Rai and is thus more protected against
waves than the other sites which are all in open exposed conditions. This will
make traditional STS transfer possible using one of the following two mooring
arrangements:
VIETNAM FSRU 11
• Conventional mooring of the FSRU on a sea island berth
• Pile cluster guide pile mooring of the FSRU on sea island berth
Connection to shore is by a Subsea Pipeline with a length of 4.2 km.
The estimated CAPEX and OPEX for the marine elements are as follows:
CAPEX (conventional mooring) 122 MUSD
CAPEX (pile cluster guide pile 117 MUSD

mooring)
Site 5 – Vinh Chau Site 5 is exposed to more adverse wave conditions to what is found for Site 3 as
waves from North East reach the site and waves during the south-west monsoon
are more pronounced. The extreme wind speeds at the site is weaker than at
Site 3. A similar alternative mooring arrangement as for Site 1 and Site 3 is
recommended, i.e. Spread Mooring (RCM) for the FRSU and Multi-Buoy Mooring
(MBM) for the LNGC with an Aerial Transfer Tower.
The estimated CAPEX and OPEX for the marine elements including a 42.0 km
long new subsea pipeline are as follows:
CAPEX 146 MUSD
Site 7 – Ca Mau Area The site is located off the west coast of Vietnam where the normal wave
conditions are somewhat calmer than on the southeast coast. It is assessed that
STS transfer of LNG will be possible for the following two types of mooring
arrangement:
• Submerged Soft Yoke (SSY) mooring
• Spread mooring in terms of Restricted Catenary Mooring (RMC)
A SSY mooring will require somewhat deeper water depth than a RCM mooring.
12 VIETNAM FSRU
The transfer of gas from the FSRU could either be by a subsea pipeline
connecting to an existing subsea pipeline in the Ca Mau corridor or through a
new subsea pipeline to shore.
An initial assessment of the existing pipeline indicate that the capacity is not
sufficient for handling the additional FSRU volume and thus the estimated CAPEX
and OPEX for the marine elements are presented for a long new subsea pipeline:
SSY mooring system
The estimated CAPEX and OPEX for the marine elements, including a 59 km long
pipeline to shore are as follows:
CAPEX 158 MUSD
RCM mooring system
The estimated CAPEX and OPEX for the marine elements, including a 31 km long
pipeline to shore are as follows:
CAPEX 102 MUSD
Conclusion on Sites All sites have technically viable solutions that could offer cost-effective electricity
for Southern Vietnam. CAPEX at the five sites varies from 102 to 158 Million
USD for the assessed solutions. An FSRU using a RCM mooring system at Site 7
- Ca Mau emerges as having the lowest CAPEX, and a SSY mooring system
including a 59 km long subsea pipeline at Site 7 – Ca Mau as having the highest
CAPEX.
OPEX is a little higher for Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai due to the requirement of
maintenance dredging.
For all five sites the project implementation time is governed by the FSRU
delivery time, for a newbuild vessel 30 to 36 months and to convert an existing
LNGC 24 to 30 months.
VIETNAM FSRU 13
Levelized Cost The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) was estimated for a new combined cycle
of Electricity gas turbine (CCGT) power plant using LNG imported from each option. The
power plant characteristics (size, capacity factor, heat rate, and costs) were
assumed to be the same for each option. The differences in LCOE are primarily
the result of differences in the unit price of gas delivered by each option to the
plant boundary, as presented in the table below.
Table 1-1 Unit Price of Gas @ Plant Boundary. Figures in USD per MMBTU.
Site 1a: Site 1b: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Site 7:

Mui Ke Ga Mui Ke Ga Long Hai Vinh Vinh Ca Mau
(Son My) (Phan Thiet) Ganh Rai Chau
Gas Price 9.7 9.5 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.6
FSRU Charge 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Mooring 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1

Charge
Pipeline 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4

Charge
LNG, ex-ship 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4
While differences in CAPEX for mooring and gas pipelines do result in differences
in delivered gas prices, these variations are very small relative to the total unit
price of gas, which is primarily dependent on the ex-ship LNG price. All options
offer a similar price of gas at USD 9.5-9.7 per MMBTU at an ex-ship LNG price of
USD 8.4 per MMBTU.
At the gas prices listed above, all options offer a potentially competitive LCOE of
USD 85 per MWh, of which USD 63 per MWh is for fuel consumption.
Table 1-2 LCOE Results. Figures in USD per MWh.

Mui Ke Ga Mui Ke Ga Long Hai Vinh Vinh Chau Ca Mau
(Son My) (Phan Thiet) Ganh Rai
LCOE 85.4 84.7 85.3 84.7 85.3 85.1
Fuel Charge 63.0 61.8 62.9 62.3 62.8 62.7
Capacity 18.3 18.8 18.3 18.3 18.4 18.3

Charge
Power Plant 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1

O&M
14 VIETNAM FSRU
LNG-to-shore-options For an FSRU moored at the five identified sites, five options were identified for
the transfer of LNG to shore:
› Cryogenic pipeline on trestle from FSRU to shore
› Cryogenic subsea pipeline from FSRU to shore
› STS transfer from FSRU to small LNGC
› STS transfer from FSRU to barge with ISO containers on deck
› STS transfer from FSRU to FSB
A review of the options concluded that for an FSRU moored at any of the five
sites, transfer of LNG to shore through a cryogenic pipeline is either not
technical or economical feasible. It was concluded that STS transfer to barges
and a 7,500 m³ LNGC is not feasible at the exposed sites (Sites, 1, 3, 5 and 7).
STS transfer to a small 40,000 m³ LNGC can be done at the exposed sites
though with some seasonally unreliable supply, however, the water depth at the
smaller river harbours along the coast is not sufficient. In Vinh Ganh Rai, the
number of sites for mooring of a 40,000 m³ LNGC are limited and thus not
considered as the best option.
STS transfer to barges will be feasible in the protected Vinh Ganh Rai and a high
level concept was prepared for both a barge with ISO containers and a Floating
Storage Barge. It was found that the CAPEX including purchase of barge was
smallest for the option with STS transfer to barge with ISO containers on deck
(43.5 Million USD) and with the OPEX being about equal for the two options.
VIETNAM FSRU 15
2 Introduction
2.1 Background
The Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) in Vietnam has asked for assistance
from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to help with identification of
siting options for an floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) LNG import
terminal in southern Vietnam.
IFC has selected a consultant team consisting of COWI and K&M Advisors to
carry out the study with COWI as the lead consultant. VIPO Consulting Agency
from Hanoi is the local partner on the consultant's team. IFC has received
funding for this study from the Japan Quality Infrastructure Trust Fund, a
technical assistance facility housed within IFC.
Vietnam does not currently have any LNG terminals. Two onshore terminals
have been under development for many years. Part of the reason for the delay
in the development process is that building onshore terminals have proven to be
expensive in southern Vietnam, thus making the economics difficult to support
LNG-to-power projects.
The overall objective of the study is to assess if a cost effective FSRU solution
can be established in the south of Vietnam.
2.2 Screening of sites

Consultations with key stakeholders were carried out in the period 24 to 27
September 2018 with participation of representatives of IFC and the consultant's
team.
Initially, twelve possible site locations along the coast of southern Vietnam were
identified and presented at the consultation meetings with key stakeholders.
Nine sites considered full draft FSRUs and three sites considered draft-limited
FSRUs, see Figure 2.1.
16 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 2.1 Location of 12 possible sites assessed in the screening
Based on the consultations and the conclusions made, five full draft FSRU Sites
(1, 3, 4, 5 and 7) have been selected to be studied further. The five sites were
selected based on:
› Input from stakeholders and agencies
› Proximity to power plants and natural gas pipeline connections
› Met-ocean exposure conditions and sheltering
› Bathymetry (water depth) for navigation and mooring of FSRU and LNGC
2.3 Purpose of this document

The purpose of the study is to assess if a cost effective FSRU solution can be
established in southern Vietnam, this will include assessment of the technical
feasibility in terms of site conditions, navigation, mooring arrangement,
connection to shore and likely costs of establishing an FSRU Terminal at the five
site locations (the number refers to the original numbering of the twelve
possible site locations):
› Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga
(close to shore option)
› Site 3 – Long Hai

(close to Nam Com Son 1 (NCS1) pipeline)
VIETNAM FSRU 17
› Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai

(close to Dao Long Son island)
› Site 5 – Vinh Chau

(closest to shore in this shallow water area)
› Site 7 – Ca Mau Area

(close to the pipeline corridor for Ca Mau)
The locations of the five sites are shown in Figure 2.2.
The technical study will also include a qualitative assessment of the possibility to
establish an FSRU terminal at Son My located in between Site 1 - Mu Ke Ga and
Site 3 - Long Hai.
Figure 2.2 Location of sites in southern Vietnam
Findings of the technical study and associated costs of the marine works will
together with costs of the gas and power infrastructure be used in an analysis of
the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LOCE).
18 VIETNAM FSRU
Finally, the study also assesses the possibility to have LNG transferred to
onshore for each of the five locations. The advantage of having LNG onshore
should be considered from a development and energy management standpoint
as this solution would enable the trucking of LNG using ISO containers or LNG
tank-trucks to smaller industrial and power generating users.
2.4 Offshore pipelines in the southern Vietnam

According to Ref. /1/ the southeast region of Vietnam has three operating
subsea gas pipeline systems, as indicated in Figure 2.3:
› Bach Ho – Dinh Co gas pipeline system. According to Ref. /2/ the pipeline
diameter is 16 inches, the length is 197 km and the capacity is 2 BCMA
(200 mmcfd). The pipeline system transports gas from fields of Su Tu
Den/Su Tu Vang-Rang Dong, Phuong Dong-Bach Ho, Ca Ngu Vang in the
Cuu Long Basin onshore to provide warm gas for the Dinh Co Gas
Processing Plant (GPP) and after being processed, dry gas is provided for
the Ba Ria, Phu My power plants, Phu My Fertilizer Plant and consumers.
› Nam Con Son 1 (NCS1) gas pipeline system with 26 inch diameter, length
of 370 km and a design capacity of 7.0 BCMA (700 mmcfd). According to
Ref. /2/ the pipeline transports gas from Lan Tay gas field (Block 06.1),
Rong Doi, Rong Doi Tay field (Block 11.2) in the Nam Con Son basin
onshore at Long Hai (Long Dien district, Ba Ria-Vung Tau province) to feed
the Nam Con Son Gas Processing Plant.
› Nam Con Son 2 (NCS2) gas pipeline system with 26 inch diameter, parallel
to the existing NCS1 pipeline with length of 330 km and a design capacity
of 7.0 BCMA. NCS2’s maximum gas supply will be 4 BCMA (the first phase
is completed and the second phase will go into operation in 2020).
VIETNAM FSRU 19
Figure 2.3 Offshore gas pipeline in the southeast region of Vietnam, from Ref. /1/.
According to Ref. /1/ and Ref. /2/ the southwest region of Vietnam has two
subsea gas pipeline systems and a third one is being planned, as indicated in
Figure 2.4:
› One operating gas pipeline system from PM3 gas field to Ca Mau area to
supply natural gas to Southwest region of Vietnam. The gas supply from
PM3 source is about 1.5-2 BCMA and is expected to decline from 2027 to
below 0.5 BCM in 2030. According to Ref. /2/ the pipeline transports gas
from the overlapping sea of Vietnam and Malaysia and 46-Cai Nuoc to Ca
Mau to feed power plants of Ca Mau No.1 and No.2. The pipeline length is
298 km offshore with designed capacity of 2.0 BCM/year (200 mmcfd) and
the pipe diameter is 18 inches.
› One pipeline from Block B (production platforms) about 250 km off the
coast to power plants in Can Tho City, with offshoots supplying power and
fertiliser plants throughout the south-western region. The pipeline has a
carrying capacity of 6.4 BCM a year and the gas supply from Block B is
expected to be in the order of 5 BCMA from 2023. The pipe diameter is 28
inches and the production was expected to start in 2014.
› A new gas pipeline system approximately 80 km long, connecting to the

pipeline from Block B at KP 209, running towards north to Kien Giang and O
Mon areas is being considered and studied with expected operation time in
2021.
20 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 2.4 Offshore gas pipeline in the southwest region of Vietnam, from Ref. /1/.
An initial assessment of the existing pipelines indicate that the capacity is not
sufficient for handling the additional FSRU volume, 750 mmcf/day. The
possibility of a subsea pipeline from the FSRU tapping into an existing subsea
pipeline will require further detailed studies considering future pipeline capacity,
gas quality, costs, commercial aspects etc.
VIETNAM FSRU 21
3 FSRU siting options study

The purpose of the study is to investigate if a cost effective FSRU solution can be
established in the south of Vietnam. The three primary cost elements are the
configuration, mooring arrangement and connection to shore. The optimal
technical solutions for these depend on the metocean, berthing, transfer,
bathymetry and navigation conditions. In particular, the following attributes
have been considered in the assessment of the FSRU sites and mooring
arrangements:
› design vessels
› design water depth
› location/distance to the shore
› metocean conditions, including operational conditions (including effects

from long-period waves (swells)) and extreme conditions (including effects
from survival conditions such as typhoons)
› offloading time (typically about 24-30 hours for the specified ships)
3.1 Assumptions
The following assumptions formed the basis for the study on the siting options:
› Standard FSRU in the range of 125,000 to 180,000 m³ storage with a re-

gas and offloading capacity of 750 mmcf/day.
› The study is limited to the marine part, defined as all nearshore

infrastructure and vessels, extending to the first flange on the foreshore
area.
› Continuous supply of gas is required for larger power plants to ensure

power to southern Vietnam.
› Departure of FSRU is generally not acceptable or should occur very

infrequently (FSRU departure will stop supply for up to a week).
› Departure of FSRU connected to existing subsea pipeline can occur without

stopping the power production.
› The downtime for transfer of LNG from LNGC to FSRU should be limited to
approximately <10%.
It is assumed that the FSRU terminal will provide services with respect to
unloading of LNG from a LNGC, regasification and storage at a FSRU and
transferring of natural gas to shore by a pipeline. Hence, the FSRU terminal
comprises the following major marine elements:
22 VIETNAM FSRU
› One (1) floating regasification and storage unit (FSRU) - assuming that
storage and regasification is made on the FSRU (hence no FSUs or FRUs are
considered).
› One (1) transient LNG Carrier (LNGC) for transfer of LNG to the FSRU.
› Mooring system, selected from numerous alternatives appropriate to the

site conditions.
› Riser and PLEM for connection to pipeline
› Pipeline to shore, plus shore crossing
Construction of a breakwater to facilitate mooring of the FSRU in sheltered water

is not considered a cost effective solution due to the excessive costs of
constructing breakwaters in a water depth of 15 to 20 m.
Long dredged access channels are not considered part of a cost effective
solution due to high CAPEX and OPEX.
Conventional wharves are not considered at the exposed locations in southern

Vietnam unless it is acceptable that the FSRU departs during typhoons.
3.2 Design ships

The study considers a membrane FSRU in the range of 125,000 to 180,000 m3
storage with a re-gas & offloading capacity of 750 mmcf/d.
For the exposed Sites 1 and 3 reinforced tanks are most probably required due
to sloshing issues, but would require further vetting/sloshing studies.
Alternatively, the FSRU could be a converted Moss LNGC for sloshing resilience,
but this would likely limit storage capacity to <150,000 m³.
A Q-Flex type LNGC is considered in the present study. The capacity of a Q-Flex
ship is between 210,000 m3 and 216,000 m3.
Table 3-1 presents ship characteristics for membrane LNG carries. For the
conceptual design a FSRU with a capacity of 177.000 m³ is used in the present
study. For the case of a smaller FSRU, the ship length, breath and draft will be
slightly less but the proposed solutions will still be suitable.
It is noted, that older LNGCs can be acquired inexpensively and used as FSRU or
Floating Storage Unit (FSU), this is typically Moss LNG ships with capacities from
125.000 to 160,000 m³.
VIETNAM FSRU 23
Table 3-1 Characteristics of design ships, as defined by PIANC, Ref. /3/ (for capacity
of 177,000 m3 and 218,000 m³) and by Qatargas, Ref. /4/ (for capacity of
125,000 m 3)
FSRU LNGC
Q-Flex
Length, Loa (m) 285.3 298 315
Length, Lpp (m) 273.4 285 303
Breadth, B (m) 43.7 46 50.0
Draft, T (m) 11.5 11.8 12
Deadweight tonnage (t) 72,510 90,000 97.000
Mass disp. (t) 102,820 120,000 141.000
Capacity (m³) 125.000 177,000 218,000
3.3 Required minimum water depth at terminal

The required water depth at the terminal depends on the ship draft, water level
variations, waves and seabed characteristics. The functionality of a specific
mooring arrangement can require a larger water depth, e.g. a weather vaning
mooring system.
Following the guidelines in Ref. /3/ (PIANC Report 121, Table 2.2) the required
water depth at terminal site is assessed, as summarised in Table 3-2 and Table
3-3. It appears that for a terminal at open sea a water depth of 17.8 m is
required whereas a water depth of 13.6 m is required for a terminal in protected
water.
24 VIETNAM FSRU
Table 3-2 Required water depth for an FSRU LNG terminal at open sea for Site 1-Mui
Ke Ga, Site 3-Long Hai, Site 5-Vinh Chau and Site 7-Ca Mau Area, for a
ship draft of T=12m
Terminal at Comments
open sea (Outer
channel)
Ship related factors h_FS/T 1.4 for heavy swell

(FS) (Hs>2m)
h_FS (m) 16.8
Bottom related factors h_add (m) 1.0 for sand/rock
Water depth required h (m) 17.8
Required seabed level (mCD*) -17.8
Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga (mMSL) -18.9
Site 3 – Long Hai (mMSL) -19.2
Site 5 – Vinh Chau (mMSL) -20.6
Site 7 – Ca Mau Area (mMSL) - 18.4
(*) Chart datum (CD) is approximately equal to LAT according to sea charts
Table 3-3 Required water depth for a LNG terminal at protected sea, for Site 4-Vinh
Gahn Rai, for a ship draft of T=12m
Terminal at Comments
protected area
(Inner channel)
Ship related factors h_FS/T 1.1 for vessel speed

(FS) <10 kts
h_FS (m) 13.2
Bottom related factors h_add (m) 0.4 for sand/clay
Water depth required h (m) 13.6
Required seabed level (mCD*) -13.6
Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai (mMSL) -16.4
(*) Chart datum (CD) is approximately equal to LAT according sea charts
VIETNAM FSRU 25
3.4 Positions of the terminals

In order to have the option to apply a spread mooring solution for the
FSRU/LNGC ships a water depth of 20 m (at mean sea level) is considered for
terminals at open sea. It is known that minimum 17 m water depth is required
for applying spread moorings but ≈20 m is preferred for better efficiency of
catenary mooring lines.
Sites 1, 3, 5 and 7 are assumed to be positioned in open sea whereas Site 4 is

positioned in Ganh Rai Bay. Proposed positions of the terminals considering the
required seabed levels are given in Table 3-4 and shown in Figure 3.1 to Figure
3.5.
Site 4 is positioned east of the main channel in an anchorage area with a water
depth of approximately 10 mCD. Hence, dredging of a navigational channel to a
water depth of (1.15*12+0.4≈) 14 mCD is required in order to navigate the
LNGC to and from the terminal. The length of the dredged channel will be
around 1 km long as indicated in Figure 3.3.
Table 3-4 Positions of the terminals
Site Position Water depth Distance to Pipeline length

coast (km)
Site 1 – Mui Ke 108°0.25'E 18.9 mCD 1.7 1700 m

Ga 10°41.46'N 20 mMSL (to nearest
coast)
Site 3 – Long 107°15.52'E 18.6 mCD 7.2 ≈1050 m

Hai 10°18.98'N 20 mMSL (to nearest
pipeline)
Site 4 – Vinh 107°3.14'E ≈10 mCD 4.2 4150 m

Ganh Rai 10°24.15'N (dredging of ≈ (to nearest
1km channel coast)
with water
depth ≈14
mCD)
Site 5 – Vinh 106° 11.35'E 17.8 mCD 19.8 km 42.0 km

Chau 9° 9.95'N 20.6 mMSL (to Bac Lieu)
Site 7 – Ca 104°31.78'E 19.4 mCD 31.2 ≈4000

Mau Area 9°4.50'N (to nearest
20 mMSL pipeline)
26 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 3.1 Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga, Position at water depth 18.9 mCD (20 mMSL) and
located about 1.7 km from shore
Figure 3.2 Site 3 – Long Hai, Position at water depth 18.6 mCD (20 mMSL) and
VIETNAM FSRU 27
Figure 3.3 Site 4 – Position of Vinh Ganh Rai at water approximately 10 mCD and
Figure 3.4 Site 5 – Vinh Chau, Position at water depth 17.8mCD (20.6 mMSL) and
located about 19.8 km from shore.
28 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 3.5 Site 7 – Ca Mau Area, Position at water depth 19.4 mCD (20 mMSL) and
3.5 General metocean conditions

A detailed metocean study for the sites was carried out and reported in Ref. /5/.
A summary of the general metocean conditions is provided below and a
summary of the main results in terms of normal conditions, extreme conditions
events and weather windows (persistency) for the five sites is presented in the
assessment for each of the sites, Section 4 to Section 8.
It is noted, that the wind climate in southern Vietnam is governed by the

monsoons, which emanate from south-west during June to September and
north-east during November to March. During the monsoons the wind is
relatively persistent with a strong directionality. The northeast monsoon tends to
be stronger and tropical storms and typhoons do occur during this period.
Between the monsoons winds are generally weak with little directionality.
Extreme wind speeds are very similar between the sites, which is expected in
areas governed by large weather systems such as monsoons and typhoons. The
typhoon wind speeds govern the extreme conditions, but with the low latitudes
the sites are seldom exposed to typhoons and these have often been
VIETNAM FSRU 29
downgraded to tropical depressions or storms by the time when they reach the
sites.
The extreme wind speeds at Ca Mau are expectedly lower as typhoons rarely
reach the Gulf of Thailand since they have to cross or pass south of the
Indochinese Peninsula.
A typical ship-to-ship (STS) loading between the LNGC and FSRU takes 24-30
hours. Hence, if the normal wave conditions are too rough, in terms of Hs
exceeding 1.5-2.0 m or peak wave periods exceeding 8s for longer time periods,
then the STS loading may not work. However, if the motions of the two ships
are decoupled it may be possible to transfer using a tower/aerial system. Under
this scenario, a weather window of 2-4 hours with Hs<1.5 m is needed for tugs
to hook up the LNGC in a multi-buoy mooring (MBM). If specially designed larger
tugs are utilized this tug operational limit can be increased to Hs=2 m,
particularly if the wave periods are 8 s or less.
30 VIETNAM FSRU
4 Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga
This site is characterised by relatively deep water close to the shore which
facilitates the location of a mooring arrangement only about 1.7 km from the
shore, as indicated in Figure 3.1. This site can be used for supply to a new
power plant close to the shore or alternatively to the new power plant at Son My
located about 35 km down the coast towards the south-west.
4.1 Metocean conditions
4.1.1 Water levels

The tidal range between MHWS and MLWS is ≈0.9 m and the difference between
HAT and LAT is ≈2.1 m. Tidal levels are presented in Table 4-1 whereas high
and low water level statistics are presented in Table 4-2.
Table 4-1 Tidal levels for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga,

based on GROW-Fine hindcast data
Level mMSL mCD
HAT 0.99 2.08
MHWS 0.41 1.50
MHWN 0.18 1.27
MSL 0.00 1.09
MLWN -0.11 0.98
MLWS -0.39 0.70
MLLWS -0.45 0.64
LAT -1.09 0.00
Table 4-2 High and low extreme total water levels for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga
High/low water Low High

level (mMSL)
1 5 10 25 50 100 1 5 10 25 50 100
year year year year year year year year year year year year
Mui Ke Ga -0.96 -0.83 -0.82 -0.85 -0.87 -0.90 +1.11 +1.27 +1.33 +1.40 +1.43 +1.45
4.1.2 Current conditions

The current flow is approximately parallel to the coastline in a direction NE-SW
with normal current speeds up to 1.0 m/s, as depicted in Figure 4.1. Directional
extreme current speeds are presented in Table 4-3, the extreme currents are
VIETNAM FSRU 31
higher than at Long Hai and Vinh Chau as Mui Ke Ga falls within the main north-
east monsoon (coastal) current.
Figure 4.1 Current rose for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga (for near sea surface current speed)
based on GROW-Fine hindcast data.
Table 4-3 Directional extreme current speeds for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga
Current 1 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year

speed
(m/s)
Omni 0.99 1.20 1.40 1.78 2.13 2.55
North 0.35 0.53 0.63 0.78 0.91 1.05

(0°N)
East 0.72 0.76 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.86

(90°N)
South 0.53 0.80 1.06 1.52 1.97 2.49

(180°N)
West 0.98 1.20 1.40 1.77 2.12 2.53

(270°N)
4.1.3 Wind conditions

The main wind directions are approximately parallel to the coastline in a
direction NE-SW with wind speeds up to 15 m/s, as depicted in Figure 4.2.
The site is exposed to typhoons and 16 typhoons have been recorded within a
radius of 100 km from the site since 1961. The extreme wind statistic is
presented in Table 4-4.
32 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 4.2 Wind rose for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga based on GROW-Fine hindcast data (1 hour
average wind speed at 10 m height).
Table 4-4 Omni-directional extreme wind speeds (m/s) at Site 1-Mui Ke Ga (1 hour
average wind speed at 10 m height)
1 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year
17.4 19.0 20.6 25.2* 29.0* 32.8*
* Typhoon wind speed
4.1.4 Wave conditions

Two main wave directions are observed, from eastern directions with significant
wave heights up to 3 m (in rare cases up to 4 m) and from south westerly
directions with significant wave heights up to 2 m, as indicated in Figure 4.3 and
Figure 4.4. Peak wave periods up to 16 s, i.e. swells, can occur for both
directions, as shown in Figure 4.5
The extreme significant wave height for a return period of 100 year is
Hm0,100=4.0 m, as shown in Table 4-5.
VIETNAM FSRU 33
Figure 4.3 Wave rose for significant wave height for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga, based on
GROW-Fine hindcast data.
Figure 4.4 Scatter diagram for significant wave height and mean wave direction for
Site 1-Mui Ke Ga, based on GROW-Fine hindcast data.
34 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 4.5 Scatter diagram for peak wave period and mean wave direction for Site 1-
Mui Ke Ga, based on GROW-Fine hindcast data.
Table 4-5 Extreme significant wave height (m), for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga, based on
extreme value analysis of GROW-Fine hindcast data.
Direction 1 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year
Omni 2.49 2.90 3.11 3.43 3.70 4.00
60 ° 2.49 2.90 3.09 3.36 3.59 3.84
90 ° 2.49 2.90 3.11 3.43 3.70 4.00
120 ° 1.78 2.90 3.11 3.43 3.70 4.00
180 ° 1.09 1.47 1.68 2.00 2.26 2.55
210 ° 1.86 2.07 2.15 2.27 2.35 2.44
240 ° 1.57 1.71 1.76 1.83 1.88 1.93
The probability of a weather window of 24-30 hours where the significant wave
is less than 1.5 m and the peak wave period is less than 8 s, corresponding to a
typical STS loading situation, is 55-60% in December-January, i.e. in ≈42% of
time a slot will not be available within these months, as shown in Table 4-6.
For the case where the significant wave is less than 2.0 m and the peak wave
period is less than 8 s the probability of a weather window of 24 hours is ≈86%
in November-December, as shown in Table 4-7.
For a weather window of 24-30 hours, the probability for a peak wave period
less than 8 s is high, varies within 90-100% in each month through the year. In
October-November the probability of wave periods less than 8 s is lowest, i.e.
the long period waves most often occur in October-November.
The probability of a weather window of 4 hours where the significant wave is

less than 1.5 m, corresponding to the time period needed for tugs to hook up
VIETNAM FSRU 35
the LNGC, is 69-73% in December-January, i.e. in ≈30% of time such a time

slot will not be available within these months. The probability for a weather
window of 4 hours where the significant wave is less than 2.0 m, corresponding
to the time period needed for larger tugs to hook up the LNGC, is 92-95% in
December-January.
Table 4-6 Monthly probability of finding a single weather window starting in the given
month with a significant wave height less than 1.5 m and peak wave
period less than 8 s, for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga, based on GROW-Fine hindcast
data
Window Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2 hrs 74.9 81.3 87.8 98.4 99.6 99.7 99.1 98.0 98.9 93.2 80.5 70.8
4 hrs 73.1 79.7 86.7 98.0 99.6 99.6 99.0 97.8 98.7 92.6 79.1 68.9
6 hrs 71.5 78.2 85.6 97.7 99.5 99.6 98.8 97.6 98.5 92.0 77.8 67.1
18 hrs 63.4 71.3 80.5 96.3 99.3 99.2 98.0 96.5 97.5 88.4 71.5 58.8
24 hrs 60.4 68.7 78.9 95.8 99.2 99.0 97.6 96.0 97.1 86.7 69.1 55.5
36 hrs 54.9 64.2 75.9 94.8 99.1 98.8 96.8 95.1 96.2 83.5 64.5 50.0
period less than 8 s, for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga, based on GROW-Fine hindcast
data
2 hrs 95.6 96.9 97.8 99.5 99.7 ≈100 ≈100 ≈100 99.6 94.2 92.4 93.3
4 hrs 95.1 96.4 97.6 99.4 99.6 ≈100 ≈100 99.9 99.5 93.8 91.8 92.4
6 hrs 94.5 96.0 97.3 99.4 99.6 ≈100 ≈100 99.9 99.4 93.3 91.1 91.6
18 hrs 91.5 94.0 95.9 99.1 99.5 ≈100 99.9 99.8 99.0 90.7 87.7 87.7
24 hrs 90.2 93.2 95.4 99.0 99.4 99.9 99.9 99.8 98.8 89.4 86.1 86.0
36 hrs 87.7 91.6 94.4 98.7 99.2 99.9 99.8 99.7 98.4 86.9 83.1 83.0
≈100: Few exceedances, but less than 0.1%
36 VIETNAM FSRU
4.2 Soil conditions

According to Ref. /6/ soil investigations have been performed at location Son My
located ≈35 km southwest of Site 1-Mui Ke Ga. Based on the onshore boring
(SM01 at 10°37'50.3'', 107°41'50.0'') the following geological characteristics
exist:
› Layer 1: medium to fine sand whited grey, dense state (thickness 3.2 m)
› Layer 2: fine sand, drakish grey, bluish grey, loose state (thickness 2.2 m)
› Layer 3: completed weathering clay of granite (thickness 0.7 m)
› Layer 4: strongly weathering granite, bluish grey, darkish grey (thickness

6.6 m)
› Layer 5: lightly weathering granite, bluish grey, darkish grey (thickness 8.5
m)
Hence, based on the above and experience from previously projects in the area
it is assumed for Site 1- Mui Ke that the top layers consists of fine-medium sand
whereas the lower layers consist of light to strongly granite.
4.3 Navigation to/from berth

The proposed terminal layout configuration for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga based on the
wind, wave and current conditions is shown in Figure 4.6. The corresponding
berthing conditions are:
› The ships are berthed in a position parallel to the main wind and current
directions in order to reduce the static mooring loads. The ships are heading
45⁰N against the direction where the strongest current comes from.
› Navigation to berth will be possible when the ship arrives from NE to SW

directions. Turning can be made SE of the terminal.
› Navigation from berth to deep water is straight forward.
› Wind and current will act almost parallel to ship during berthing, transfer
and unberthing.
› Berthed ships will be exposed to head or quartering waves.
› There is sufficiently available operational area for tug assistance during

berthing and unberthing.
VIETNAM FSRU 37
Figure 4.6 Proposed terminal alignment for Site 1- Mui Ke Ga (shown for a
conventional mooring solution)
4.4 Configuration and Mooring Arrangement

The recommended configuration and mooring system for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga is:
› Spread Mooring for the FRSU and Multi-Buoy Mooring (MBM) for the LNGC
with an Aerial Transfer Tower in between, as depicted in Figure 4.7.
Explanation:
› While winds are seasonally 180° opposite, wave conditions are not
seasonally aligned. This will make a spread mooring using ship-to-ship
(STS) transfer challenging.
› A good choice when considering spread moorings for relatively aggressive

shallow water conditions is the CAN Systems Restricted Catenary Mooring
(RCM). While it is believed this mooring could be designed for the FSRU to
survive at berth under the non-aligned metocean conditions, transferring
using STS will not likely be feasible in the winter months. The typical
threshold used for screening of feasible solutions when considering STS
transfer is Hs<1.5 m. The wave period is also important and with some
solutions where the wave period is relatively short it may be possible to
conduct STS transfers in up to Hs=2 m sea states.
› Counterintuitively, the relatively short wave periods <8 s work against the
RCM system, based on model testing. Table 4-8 provides a synopsis of the
performance limits of the RCM system when conducting high level feasibility
assessments such as this.
› From Table 4-8, the limit of Hs<1.5 m will control this site, based on head-
on waves predominately <8 s and beam-on waves <14 s.
38 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 4.7 Recommended configuration/mooring system for Site 1-Mui Ke Ga
Table 4-8 Limiting significant wave height for STS operations between LNGC and
FSRU in the 138.000- 178.000 m3 range, by CAN Systems based on model
test (FRSU heading 225°).
Limiting significant
Vessel Sector Wave direction Wave peak wave height for
period offloading
[-] [° ] Tp [s] Hs [m]
Head on 180 – 270 <8 or >14 1.5
Head on 180 – 270 8 -14 2.5
Beam on 90-180, <14s 1.5

270-360
Beam on 90-180, >14s 0.5

270-360
VIETNAM FSRU 39
› For STS transfer from LNGC to FSRU, the probability of a 24-30 hour time
slot with Hs<1.5 m and Tp<8 s in the Dec - Jan period would likely be in
the 55-60% range. In Nov and Feb/Mar the probability would likely be in
the 70-80% range. Thus conducting STS transfers at this location is
deemed insufficiently reliable, so alternatives are required.
› The intent of the recommended configuration/mooring solution is to

decouple the motions of the FSRU and LNGC. The FSRU would be semi-
permanently moored using the RCM or similar in-line tension mooring
system, meaning it would depart if threatened with a direct hit from a
typhoon, necessitating a full sailing crew on standby at all times for the
operational life of the facility. The LNGC would be moored based on a multi-
buoy mooring (also referred to as conventional buoy mooring or all buoy
mooring). Transfer would be across a platform, with cryogenic hoses on
each end.
› It should be noted there are no operating FSRU berths that use spread
moorings, though such projects are under development at the time of the
writing of this report. There are also no operating terminals using the aerial
transfer tower system described here. The design of this unique system
requires special expertise to properly handle the mooring, structural and
topsides designs in a cost-effective manner.
› The mooring for the FSRU would need to be disconnectable. Though the
design typhoon conditions are within the theoretical limits of the RCM
system, this does not account for the possibility of the eye of the storm
passing directly over the terminal. In such a circumstance, the winds and
waves directions would be chaotic and the FSRU captain would likely take
the decision to protect the ship by departing the berth. Fortunately, this
would likely be a rare event. The RCM can be disconnected in a controlled
manner in about 8 hrs, but could be released in an emergency condition
within about 20 minutes.
› The FSRU could be a converted Moss LNGC for sloshing resilience, but this
would likely limit storage capacity to <150,000 m³. Alternatively, a
membrane FSRU with reinforced tanks may work, but would require further
vetting/sloshing studies.
› The LNGC could be any available vessel supply carrier in the Apr – Oct
period, but would be restricted to either a Moss LNGC or an LNGC with
reinforced tanks for the Nov – Mar period.
› Water depths in the 20 m range (measured from mean sea level) would be
appropriate. The RCM system has been tested in as little as 17m water
depths.
› Connection to shore would be via flexible riser to seafloor PLEM, then to

subsea pipeline of approximately 1.7 km length.
40 VIETNAM FSRU
4.5 Connection to shore concept

A high level conceptual study has been performed to assess the feasibility of a
gas pipeline running from the FSRU vessel to an onshore facility, including
evaluation of
› tie-in method to the FSRU
› tie-in method at facility onshore
› seabed intervention method
4.5.1 Pipeline data

The pipeline basis data are presented in Table 4-9 below.
Table 4-9 Pipeline length and tie-in method
Pipeline Length Pipeline Tie-In Method

(m) Destination
1700 Onshore Weld to onshore

pipeline
The proposed pipeline system consists of:
› One (1) 24 inch OD pipeline.
› One (1) 24 inch OD riser and spool at FSRU.
› One (1) landfall valve station at the pipeline landfall before the isolation
joint
A pipeline with outer diameter of 24 inch (610 mm) would be required for the
transportation of a flowrate of 750 mmscfd dry gas.
Pending the project material philosophy, carbon steel qualified for full sour
service (X52 or X60) will be used for the gas pipeline. In general, the material
selected shall be based on chemical and mechanical stability for the selected
design life.
No corrosion allowance is assumed for a natural gas pipeline. The cathodic

protection will be provided by bracelet anodes which will be ‘flushed’ into the
concrete weight coating. Further, external corrosion coating will be used in
terms of a classic 3-layer PP or PE according to ISO 21809-1, Ref. /7/.
Proposed characteristic and operational data for the gas pipeline are
summarized in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11.
VIETNAM FSRU 41
Table 4-10 Characteristics Data for the Gas Pipeline
Characteristics Values
Outer diameter 610.0 mm
Minimum Wall Thickness 17.5 mm
Line pipe material X60
Corrosion Allowance 0 mm
External Corrosion Coating 3LPP or 3LPE
CWC / Density 60mm / 3040 kg/m3
Table 4-11 Operational Data for the Gas Pipeline
Characteristics Values (assumed)
Design Life 20 years
Medium Dry Gas
NG Send-out Capacity 750 mmscfd
Design Temperature, Maximum 65.0°C (Assumed)
Design Temperature, Minimum -29.0°C (Assumed)
Operating Temperature 15.0°C to 20.0°C (Assumed)
Design Pressure 100 barg (Assumed)
4.5.2 Pipeline Installation

The following assumptions have been made for the pipeline installation:
› Pipelay will be initiated at the landfall and will continue towards the FSRU.
› The water depth along the offshore pipeline route varies from 0 to 20
mMSL.
› The soil conditions along the route consist in general of fine medium sand
and is suitable for ploughing and trenching.
› The seabed is relatively flat and even.
42 VIETNAM FSRU
Based on high values of the extreme current and waves it is recommended that
the pipeline is laid in an open trench and the excavated soil will protect the
pipeline at the sea bottom against current, as indicated in Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8 Open Trench Principle
The offshore pipeline will typically be installed by a shallow water lay barge, as
shown in Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.9 Typical Shallow Water Installation Vessel
The method used for the landfall section should be selected after careful
evaluation from a combination of the following methods:
› Sheet piling in the near shore zone,
› Open dredging towards shallow waters,
› Post trenching in the deeper waters.
VIETNAM FSRU 43
Pipeline Tie-In Options

The tie-in (pipeline connection) methods are as follows:
› At FSRU – site
The tie-in at FSRU will be by 2 off spools arrangement. The spools will be
connected to the end of pipeline and required PLEM riser. The spools will be
designed to accommodate pipeline installation and operational loads from
the pipeline system.
All subsea tie-in connections will be performed with divers assisted

equipment.
› Onshore – site
The tie-in will consist of an onshore welding upstream the landfall valve
station and isolation joint. This operation is comprising of a pull-in on land
combined with a shallow water S-lay barge.
4.6 Cost estimates

The cost estimates cover the following three components:
› CAPEX – capital construction cost estimate for EPIC including engineering,

project management, procurement, installation and commissioning of
mooring, riser and subsea pipeline components. The CAPEX estimates
include only the marine terminal components, extending to a foreshore
connection point. Onshore infrastructure is therefore excluded.
› OPEX – includes charter rates for FSRU vessels based on a 5 to 10 year

time charter. Charter rates are inclusive of all O&M and consider no upfront
cost for mobilization or demobilization.
› Owner Costs – project owner cost estimate to manage entire project

including FSRU and offshore EPIC supervision.
The estimates presented herein are intended to be used for concept screening
and are based on experience with similar global projects. The accuracy of the
estimates is estimated to be ±25%.
The cost estimates exclude VAT and other duties which might be added in
Vietnam.
4.6.1 CAPEX
A summary of CAPEX estimates for Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga is provided in Table 4-12.
The site is intended to be located nearshore in water depths of 20 m or more,
such that no dredging is required. All costs are presented as installed costs and
are intended to be conservative estimates.
44 VIETNAM FSRU
Table 4-12 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) estimates for

Marine Terminal at Site 1 - Mui Ke Ga
Site 1 –
Mui Ke Ga
Cost element (Million USD)
Material Supply
FSRU spread mooring (based on 17

CAN Systems RCM)
Flexible riser, PLEM and umbilical 10

material supply
Multi-buoy mooring (MBM) for 5

LNGC
Aerial transfer tower, with 25

topsides and flexible cryogenic
hoses
Pipeline and Offshore Installation
Subsea pipeline and offshore 50

installation of material supply
Owner Cost (5%) 5
Total 112
4.6.2 OPEX
OPEX estimates assume an FSRU in the 177,000 m³ storage capacity range,
with reinforced membrane tanks. A sloshing study is recommended to confirm
suitability of this vessel class semi-permanently moored and considering the
site-specific metocean conditions. Based on current market conditions, an all-
inclusive charter rate of USD 100,000/day is anticipated for a charter period of 5
to 10 years.
Considerable saving may be achieved if an FSRU converted from an existing

surplus LNGC is chartered, but would likely have a smaller storage capacity.
Such a vessel would likely be a Moss LNGC with storage <150,000 m³, thus
necessitating more frequent deliveries. These are typically older Moss LNGCs
that are no longer of optimum efficiency for service as an LNGC, but they can be
effective as storage and regasification assets. The current market conditions for
these vessels anticipate a charter rate of USD 80,000/day.
The OPEX costs for the mooring systems, transfer tower, riser and subsea
pipeline is estimated at 1% of CAPEX for the considered period of about 10
years.
Based on above, OPEX per year will be in the rage of 30 to 40 Million USD.
VIETNAM FSRU 45
4.6.3 Owner Costs

The cost for the owner is mainly related to administration and operation of the
marine LNG facility, see Table 4-13. Administration includes staff, office facilities
including services, and other administration costs. Operational costs are mainly
related to tug assistance (4 tugs assumed) and pilotage. It is at this point
assumed that these services will be based on a charter from a nearby port or
marine operation.
Table 4-13 Owners costs
Cost type MUSD/year
Administration 4
Operational 6
Total 10
It is assumed that the FSRU lease includes costs for fuel, supply vessels needed
for goods as well as crew exchange etc.
4.7 Implementation Schedule

The overall project schedule may be dictated by the availability of an
appropriate FSRU. If a newbuild vessel is required, it will likely require 30-36
months from the date of order, including lead time to secure a slot in the
shipyard. If a converted Moss LNGC is used, the refurbishment and conversion
would likely require less than 24 months from date of order.
The implementation schedule for the infrastructure associated with Site 1 is

estimated as follows:
› Pre-FEED and FEED, including site data acquisition

(metocean, geotechnical/geophysical and bathymetry) 9-12 months
› Delivery of long lead items 12-15 months
› Mobilization and construction 9-12 months
The construction schedule would be similar for the aerial transfer tower and the
subsea pipeline and will depend on the availability of a suitable pipelay vessel for
the subsea pipeline. The schedule required for the spread mooring and MBM
supply and installation should be less than 6 months.
A long lead item will be the pipeline. The delivery duration estimate from date of
order, including fabrication, for the pipeline system components (incl. coating,
concrete covers, bends, flanges, etc.) will likely be 12-15 months. However, the
delivery time may be reduced if the pipe can be sourced from worldwide stocks.
46 VIETNAM FSRU
5 Site 3 – Long Hai

Site 3 is located about 10 km from shoreline and close to the Nam Com Son
pipeline, as indicated in Figure 3.2. Two options for transferring gas to shore are
considered for an FSRU at this site.
One option is to have high pressure (HP) gas tap into this existing pipeline. Any
interruption in gas supply from the FSRU due to weather conditions will not be
critical as the supply will continue from the offshore gas fields.
Another option is to transfer the gas in a 10 km long subsea pipeline connecting

the FSRU to shore.
It is assumed that the gas via the subsea and an onshore pipeline will deliver
gas into a new power plant on the Long Son Island which will also be the case
for Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai.
5.1.1 Water levels

HAT and LAT is about ≈2.4 m. Tidal levels are presented in Table 5-1 whereas
high and low water level statistics are presented in Table 5-2.
Table 5-1 Tidal levels for Site 3-Long Hai,

Level mMSL mCD
HAT 1.04 2.40
MHWS 0.58 1.94
MHWN 0.27 1.63
MSL 0.00 1.36
MLWN -0.21 1.15
MLWS -0.56 0.80
MLLWS -0.64 0.72
LAT -1.36 0.00
Table 5-2 High and low extreme total water levels for Site 3-Long Hai

level (mMSL)
1 5 10 25 50 100 1 5 10 25 50 100
Long Hai -1.21 -1.06 -1.01 -1.04 -1.06 -1.08 +1.26 +1.38 +1.44 +1.50 +1.54 +1.57
VIETNAM FSRU 47

The current flow is approximately parallel to the coastline in a direction E-W with
normal current speeds up to 1.0 m/s, as depicted in Figure 5.1. Directional
extreme current speeds are presented in Table 5-3.
Figure 5.1 Current rose for Site 3-Long Hai (for near sea surface current speed)
Table 5-3 Directional extreme current speeds for Site 3-Long Hai

speed
(m/s)
Omni 1.01 1.07 1.12 1.21 1.30 1.40
North 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.23 0.26 0.29

(0°N)
East 1.01 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.15

(90°N)
South 0.43 0.52 0.56 0.62 0.66 0.71

(180°N)
West 0.95 1.02 1.09 1.21 1.30 1.40

(270°N)

The winds are similar or slightly weaker than at Site 1-Mui Ke Ga. The main
wind direction is NE-SW with wind speeds up to 15 m/s, as indicated in Figure
5.2.
48 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 5.2 Wind rose for Site 3-Long Hai based on GROW-Fine hindcast data (1 hour
Table 5-4 Omni-directional extreme wind speeds (m/s) at Site 3-Long Hai (1 hour
14.9 17.5 19.4 23.4* 28.3* 33.5*

Two main wave directions are observed, from eastern directions with significant
wave heights up to 2.8 m (in rare cases up to 3.7 m) and from south westerly
directions with significant wave heights up to 2 m, as depicted in Figure 5.3 and
Figure 5.4. Peak wave periods up to 16 s, i.e. swells, can occur for both
directions, as shown in Figure 5.5.

less than 1.5 m and the peak wave period is less than 8 s, corresponding to a
typical STS loading situation, is 65-70% in December-January, i.e. in ≈33% of
the time such a slot will not be available within these months, as shown in Table
5-6.
period is less than 8 s the probability of a weather window of 24-30 hours is 90-
92% in November-December, as shown in Table 5-7.
For a weather window of 24-30 hours the probability for a peak wave period less
than 8 s is high, varies within 94-100% in each month through the year. In
VIETNAM FSRU 49
October-November, the probability of wave periods less than 8 s is lowest, i.e.


less than 1.5 m, corresponding to the time period needed for tugs to hook up the
LNGC, is 78-80% in December-January, i.e. in ≈19% of time such a slot will not
be available within these months. The probability for a weather window of 4
hours where the significant wave is less than 2.0 m, corresponding to the time
period needed for larger tugs to hook up the LNGC, is 92-95% in December-
January.
Figure 5.3 Wave rose for significant wave height for Site 3-Long Hai, based on
Site 3-Long Hai, based on GROW-Fine hindcast data.
50 VIETNAM FSRU
Long Hai, based on GROW-Fine hindcast data.
Table 5-5 Extreme significant wave height (m), for Site 3-Long Hai, based on
Omni 2.35 2.73 2.97 3.34 3.67 4.05
60 ° 2.35 2.73 2.97 3.34 3.67 4.05
90 ° 2.35 2.73 2.97 3.34 3.67 4.05
120 ° 1.45 2.59 2.97 3.34 3.67 4.05
180 ° 1.03 1.31 1.45 1.66 1.83 2.01
210 ° 1.53 1.84 2.00 2.23 2.43 2.64
240 ° 1.48 1.73 1.84 1.98 2.09 2.20
VIETNAM FSRU 51
period less than 8 s, for Site 3-Long Hai, based on GROW-Fine hindcast
data
2 hrs 80.9 85.3 90.1 99.2 99.8 ≈100 ≈100 99.7 99.8 96.4 86.7 78.6
4 hrs 79.5 84.0 89.2 99.1 99.7 ≈100 ≈100 99.7 99.8 96.0 85.6 77.1
6 hrs 78.1 82.7 88.4 99.0 99.7 ≈100 ≈100 99.6 99.7 95.5 84.5 75.7
18 hrs 71.6 76.8 84.5 98.3 99.6 99.9 99.9 99.3 99.5 93.1 78.8 68.7
24 hrs 69.1 74.6 83.1 97.9 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.2 99.4 91.9 76.4 65.7
36 hrs 64.5 70.3 80.7 97.3 99.4 99.9 99.8 98.9 99.1 89.6 72.0 60.4
period less than 8 s, for Site 3-Long Hai, based on GROW-Fine hindcast
data
2 hrs 97.9 98.1 98.6 99.6 99.8 * ≈100 * 99.8 97.0 95.4 96.4
4 hrs 97.6 97.8 98.4 99.6 99.8 * ≈100 * 99.8 96.6 94.9 95.9
6 hrs 97.2 97.5 98.2 99.6 99.8 * ≈100 * 99.8 96.3 94.4 95.4
18 hrs 95.4 96.2 97.3 99.3 99.7 * ≈100 * 99.6 94.4 91.6 92.8
24 hrs 94.7 95.6 96.9 99.2 99.6 * 99.9 * 99.5 93.5 90.3 91.6
36 hrs 93.1 94.5 96.3 99.0 99.6 * 99.9 * 99.3 91.7 87.9 89.3
* No threshold exceedance, ≈100: Few exceedances, but less than 0.1%
5.2 Soil conditions

According to Ref. /6/ soil investigations have been performed at location Son My
located ≈65 km northeast of Site 3-Long Hai. Based on the onshore boring
(SM01 at 10°37'50.3'', 107°41'50.0'') the following geological characteristics
exists:
› Layer 1: medium to fine sand whited grey, dense state (thickness 3.2 m)
› Layer 2: fine sand, drakish grey, bluish grey, loose state (thickness 2.2 m)
› Layer 3: completed weathering clay of granite (thickness 0.7 m)
52 VIETNAM FSRU
› Layer 4: strongly weathering granite, bluish grey, darkish grey (thickness

6.6 m)
› Layer 5: lightly weathering granite, bluish grey, darkish grey (thickness 8.5
m)
Hence, based on the above and experience from previously projects in the area
it is assumed for Site 3-Long Hai that the top layers consists of fine-medium
sand whereas the lower layers consist of lightly to strongly granite below.

The proposed terminal layout configuration for Site 3-Long Hai is shown in
Figure 5.6. The corresponding berthing conditions are:
› The ships are berthed in a position parallel to the main wind direction, in
order to reduce the static mooring loads. The ships are heading 225⁰N
against the direction where the strongest current comes from.
› Navigation to berth will be possible when the ship arrives from NE to SW

directions. Turning can be made SE of the terminal.
› Wind will act almost parallel to ship during berthing, stay and unberthing.
› Current will act with an angle of ≈45⁰ to ship during berthing, transfer and
unberthing.

Figure 5.6 Proposed terminal alignment for Site 3-Long Hai (shown for a conventional
mooring solution)
VIETNAM FSRU 53

The recommended configuration and mooring system for Site 3 - Long Hai is:
› Spread Mooring for the FRSU and Multi-Buoy Mooring (MBM) with an Aerial
Transfer Tower and a Subsea Pipeline Tap Into Existing Subsea Pipeline, as
depicted in Figure 4.7 for Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga.
Explanation:

› The limits of the RCM system described in Table 4-8 are applicable for this
site as well. From Table 4-8, the limit of Hs<1.5 m will control this site,
based on head-on waves predominately <8 s and beam-on waves <14 s.
the 65-70%. In Nov and Feb/Mar the probability would likely be in the 75-
85% range. Thus conducting STS transfers at this location is deemed
insufficiently reliable, so alternatives are required.

permanently moored using RCM or similar in-line tension mooring system,
meaning it would depart if threatened with a direct hit from a typhoon,
necessitating a full sailing crew on standby at all times for the operational
life of the facility. The LNGC would be moored based on a multi-buoy
mooring (also referred to as conventional buoy mooring or all buoy
each end.
54 VIETNAM FSRU
› The LNGC could be any available vessel supply carrier in the Apr–Oct
appropriate. The RCM system has been tested in as little as 17 m water
depths.
› Connection to shore could be via flexible catenary riser to seafloor PLEM,

then to subsea pipeline of approximately 1 km length that would tap into
the existing subsea pipeline to shore, assuming pipeline capacity, gas
quality, costs and commercial issues are workable including the downtime
while connecting the pipeline from the FSRU to the NCS1. Connection to
shore could also be via flexible riser to seafloor PLEM, then to subsea
pipeline of approximately 10 km length.

gas pipeline running from the FSRU vessel to either a subsea connection to an
existing subsea gas pipeline or a subsea pipeline to an onshore facility, including
evaluation of
› tie-in method to the FSRU.
› tie-in method at facility onshore/subsea connection.
› seabed intervention method.
One option is to transfer the regasified gas into an existing pipeline. A pipeline
length of about 1 km is assumed between the FSRU and an existing pipeline.
Another option is to transfer the gas to a 10 km long pipeline running from the
FSRU vessel to an onshore facility, method as described for Site 1.
VIETNAM FSRU 55
5.5.1 Pipeline data

Option Pipeline Length Pipeline Tie-In Method

(m) Destination
1 1050 Subsea to Subsea Hot-Tap

Existing Gas
Pipeline
2 10000 Onshore Weld to onshore

pipeline
The proposed pipeline system will consist of:
› Subsea connection by Hot-Tap assembly and in-line PLEM
selected will be based on chemical and mechanical stability for the selected
design life.

56 VIETNAM FSRU
Medium Dry Gas
VIETNAM FSRU 57
If the gas from the FSRU is transported to the existing subsea gas pipeline, the
connection is planned to be performed by a hot-tap solution. Figure 5.7 below
shows a typical hot-tap configuration. This solution includes the following
equipment:
› Retrofit Hot-Tap Tee (RHTT)
› Hot-Tap Ball Valve (HTBV)
› Gooseneck Assembly (GOS)
In addition, the following equipment towards the pipeline will be required:
› Crossover spool
› Spool towards pipeline
› PLR for pigging operation of pipeline if required

The following assumptions have been made for the pipeline installation for the
hot-tap option:
› Pipelay may be initiated from either side, FSRU or hot-tap location.
› The tie-in method will comprise flanged spool/PLEM and hot-tap assembly.
An expansion spool will be used for connection at each end.
› The water depth along the new subsea pipeline route is approximately 18
mCD.
› The soil conditions along the route consist in general of fine medium sand
and is suitable for ploughing and trenching.
58 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 5.7 Subsea Hot Tap Configuration and Layout
VIETNAM FSRU 59

› Subsea tie-in (Hot-Tap)
The tie-in consists of hot-tap assembly and tie-in with crossover spool
towards a PLEM, as described above. Spool tie-in also between PLEM and
connecting pipeline. The size of the branch shall be decided based on the
flow requirements and the size of the existing gas pipeline.

equipment.
A description of the pipeline installation for the option with transfer in a subsea
pipeline to an onshore facility is presented in Section 4.5.2.
5.6 Cost estimates




Vietnam.
60 VIETNAM FSRU
5.6.1 CAPEX
A summary of CAPEX estimates for Site 3 – Long Hai is provided in Table 5-11.
such that no dredging is required. All costs are presented as installed costs and
are intended to be conservative estimates.

Marine Terminal at Site 3 – Long Hai
Site 3 – Long Hai

(Million USD)
Cost element
Material Supply
FSRU spread mooring (based on 17 17

CAN Systems RCM)
Flexible riser, PLEM and umbilical 10 10

material supply
Multi-buoy mooring (MBM) for 5 5

LNGC
Aerial transfer tower, with 25 25

hoses
Option 1 75
Subsea pipeline with hot-tap and
offshore installation of material
supply
Option 2 60
Subsea pipeline (10 km to shore)
and offshore installation of
material supply
Owner Cost (5%) 7 6
Total 139 123
5.6.2 OPEX
to 10 years.
VIETNAM FSRU 61

years.
5.6.3 Owner Costs

marine operation.
Cost type MUSD/year
Administration 4
Operational 6
Total 10


62 VIETNAM FSRU

(metocean, geotechnical/geophysical and bathymetry 9-12 months

(24 months for hot tap)
Long lead items will be the pipeline (incl. coating, concrete covers, bends,
flanges, etc.) and hot-tap assembly and equipment (incl. valve, gooseneck,
PLEM, spool, PLR, etc.). The delivery duration estimated from date of order,
including fabrication, for the long lead items will be up to 24 months.
VIETNAM FSRU 63
6 Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai

Site 4 is located inside the bay behind Vung Tau peninsula and is part of a river
delta, as indicated in Figure 3.3. It is assumed that the gas will be transferred to
shore via a subsea pipeline, as shown in Figure 3.3, and from there via an
onshore pipeline to a new power plant on Long Son Island which will also be the
case for Site 3–Long Hai.
6.1.1 Water levels

The tidal range between HAT and LAT is ≈4.5 m. Tidal levels are presented in
Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Tidal levels for Site 4–Vinh Ganh Rai, based on
United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, 2012
Level mMSL mCD
HAT 1,7 4,50
MHWS 1,1 3,90
MHWN 0,9 3,70
MSL 0 2,80
MLWN -0,2 2,60
MLWS -1,5 1,30
MLLWS - -
LAT -2,8 0,00
Total water level data, including surge, within Vinh Ganh Rai could not been
sourced for this high level evaluation, but surge levels will be amplified and
exceed the extreme surge levels at Long Hai.
For a critical southerly typhoon track the Vung Tau peninsular may funnel water
into the bay and possibly result in surge exceeding +1.5 m.

Data sets of current speed and direction within Vinh Ganh Rai could not be
sourced for this high level evaluation, but with the discharging rivers and inter-
tidal areas the tidal currents are expected to be relatively strong.
The site is located a short distance east of the main navigation channel
traversing through the shallow flats and close to the tip of the Vung Tau
64 VIETNAM FSRU
peninsular. The current at the site is expected to be more or less aligned with
the orientation of the main navigation channel and likely to exceed 1 m/s on a
regular basis. Following periods with heavy rainfall the current speed can be
stronger and possibly exceed 1.3 m/s.

Wind data are not available at Vinh Ganh Rai and the wind data for Long Hai is
considered for the study.

The wave conditions are less severe than at the other sites which are all in open
exposed conditions.
There are two distinct wave directions from NE-E and from SW, as indicated in
Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2. Due to the limited fetch the significant wave heights
are generally limited up to 0.6 m and in rare cases up to 1.0 m. Peak wave
periods up to 5 s generally occur, but long peak wave periods (swells) can also
occur, as depicted in Figure 6.3.
The extreme significant wave height for a return period of 100 years is
height is less than 1.5 m and peak wave period less than 8 s, corresponding to a
typical STS loading situation, is almost 100% throughout the year, as shown in
Table 6-3.
Similar, the probability of a weather window of 4 hours where the significant

wave height is less than 1.5 m, corresponding to the time period needed for
tugs to hook up the LNGC, is 100% throughout the year.
Figure 6.1 Wave rose for significant wave height for Site 4-Vinh Ganh Rai, based on
MIKE21 SW modelling of the wave conditions.
VIETNAM FSRU 65
Site 4-Vinh Ganh Rai, based on MIKE21 SW modelling of the wave
conditions.
Vinh Ganh Rai, based on MIKE21 SW modelling of the wave conditions.
Table 6-2 Omni-directional extreme significant wave height, for Site 1-Vinh Ganh
Rai, based on extreme value analysis of MIKE21 SW modelling data.
Significant wave 1 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year

height (m)
Vinh Ganh Rai 0.54 0.68 0.78 0.97 1.14 1.35
66 VIETNAM FSRU
period less than 8 s, for Site 4-Vinh Ganh Rai, based on MIKE21 SW
modelling of the wave conditions.
2 hrs * * ≈100 ≈100 99.9 * * * * 99.9 ≈100 ≈100
4 hrs * * ≈100 ≈100 99.9 * * * * 99.8 99.9 ≈100
6 hrs * * ≈100 ≈100 99.9 * * * * 99.8 99.9 ≈100
18 hrs * * 99.9 99.9 99.8 * * * * 99.5 99.7 99.9
24 hrs * * 99.9 99.9 99.8 * * * * 99.4 99.6 99.9
36 hrs * * 99.8 99.8 99.7 * * * * 99.1 99.4 99.8
* No threshold exceedance,
6.2 Soil conditions

The geological characteristics at Thi Vai – Ba Ria Vung Tau (within the Cai Mep
Industrial Zone and close to the port of PETEC petroleum company), located
≈13.5 km north of Site 4-Vinh Ganh Rai is given by Ref. /1/:
› Layer 1: Silty clay, bluish grey. This layer appears in all boreholes with
thickness varies from 19.7m to 23.0m
› Layer 2: Medium sand with clay or gravel at some places, yellowish grey,
bluish grey; medium dense to dense state. Thickness of this layer varies
from 21.3m to 23.7m.
› Layer 3: Clay, clay with sand, bluish grey, reddish brown, whitish grey,
yellowish brown, very stiff to hard state.
According to Ref. /8/ soil investigations have been performed at location Phu
Long Island, Ba Ria – Vung Tau Provice, located ≈10 km northwest of Site 4-
Vinh Ganh Rai. Based on the offshore boring (SM01 at 10°29'02.4'',
107°00'16.3'') the following geological characteristics exists:
› Layer 1: clayey sand with organic matter, very loose state (thickness 2.0
m)
› Layer 2: soft clay, lightly grey, (thickness 7.5 m)
› Layer 3: medium stiff to stiff clay, lightly grey, (thickness 35.1 m)
For Site 4-Vinh Ganh Rai, it is assumed that the top layer consists of fine
materials in terms of clay, silt and clayey sand whereas the lower layers consist
of sand with clay or soft to stiff clay.
VIETNAM FSRU 67

The proposed terminal layout configuration for Site 4-Vinh Ganh Rai is shown in
order to reduce the static mooring loads.
› The moored ships are heading 225⁰N against the direction of the dredged
channel.
› Navigation to berth will be possible when the ship arrives in the dredged
channel from SW to NE and makes a turn in the turning basin.
› Navigation from berth to deep water will be straight forward through the
dredged channel from NE to SW.
› Current is expected to act almost quartering to the moored ships, as the

current is expected to be more or less aligned with the orientation of the
main navigation channel running approximately N-S.
› Berthed ships will be exposed to head or quartering waves

berthing and unberthing, as undredged water depth in the area is about 5-
10m.
The sketch in Figure 6.4 shows the turning basin for Site 4 placed towards the
north of the berth. It appears from the master plan for the "TUYẾN LUỒNG TÀU
BIỂN CÁI MÉP - THỊ VẢI" project, as indicated in Figure 6.5, that a new
reclamation is planned south of the proposed Site 4 and a new dredged channel
is planned north of the site.
It is assessed that the turning basin placed north of the site will be acceptable as
it will be part of the future new dredged channel, hence the dredging work will
not be wasted. At the time of establishing the new dredged channel it should be
decided if the turning basin should be moved further north or turning of ships
can be done in the new turning basin planned east of the new dredged channel.
Further, it is assessed that a turning basin placed south of the site would be too
close to the future reclamation.
68 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 6.4 Proposed terminal alignment for Site 4-Vinh Ganh Rai (shown for a
Figure 6.5 Extract of Master plan for "TUYẾN LUỒNG TÀU BIỂN CÁI MÉP - THỊ VẢI"
(the proposed Site 4-Vinh Ganh Rai is marked with a red star)
VIETNAM FSRU 69

There are two alternative configuration/mooring solutions recommended for
consideration at Site 4 – Vinh Gahn Rai:
› Conventional (or Enhanced Conventional) Mooring of the FSRU on a Sea

Island Berth with the LNGC moored alongside and with STS Transfer from
LNGC, as depicted in Figure 6.6.
› This mooring would use conventional mooring lines and quick release
hooks.
› The berth consists of breasting dolphins, mooring dolphins and an

unloading platform with rigid riser connection to the subsea pipeline.
› The FSRU is semi-permanently moored, but would have to depart for

safe waters if threatened by typhoon conditions, necessitating a full
sailing crew on standby at all times for the operational life of the
facility.
Figure 6.6 Conventional Mooring on Sea Island Berth
› Pile Cluster Guide Pile Mooring of the FSRU with the LNGC moored alongside
and with STS Transfer from LNGC, as depicted in Figure 6.7.
› This mooring system uses large diameter piles as guide piles, clustered
fore and aft to handle pitch motion. The guide piles use donut fenders
that are retained within a bracket, welded to the FSRU hull.
› The large diameter guide piles negate the need for breasting and
mooring dolphins.
› The FSRU is permanently moored and cannot readily depart the berth,
thus requiring the berth to withstand extreme events with the FSRU at
berth.
70 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 6.7 Pile Cluster Guide Pile Mooring
Explanation:
› This site is expected to have relatively benign operating conditions. The

extreme conditions of concern will include winds and storm surge.
Sustained typhoon winds in the range of 35-40 m/s will control the design,
if survival at berth is a requirement.
› The other controlling aspect of this site is the shallow water. The navigation
channel shall be dredged to ≈14 mCD and the turning basin and berth area
for the subject terminal would need to be dredged to the same depth.
› The conventional mooring system is recommended if a "proven" system is

required. The FSRU would need to depart ahead of a typhoon as a
conventionally moored FSRU would not likely survive the design typhoon
conditions. An Enhanced Conventional Mooring may be feasible, but would
require further study to prove feasibility. While a conventional mooring
would have 16 mooring lines, an enhanced conventional mooring could
have, for example, 22 mooring lines of 200 MT each. This would require
FSRU modification for adding larger winches, chain stoppers, fairleads,
constant tensioning devices, etc.
VIETNAM FSRU 71
› It should be noted that even with an enhanced conventional mooring, if the

captain has the option to depart when threatened by an approaching
typhoon, it is possible or even likely that the captain will exercise that
option to protect the ship, regardless of how robust the mooring system
design is and regardless of the desires of the owner or offtaker.
› A cheaper alternative to the conventional mooring system would be a

spread mooring, but such a mooring would require approximately 17 m
water depth and is therefore not feasible in this shallow bay.
› A viable alternative to the conventional mooring system would be a pile

cluster guide pile mooring. This system uses large diameter piles as guide
piles on one side of the vessel only. Several large diameter piles are
clustered at the fore and aft of the ship to handle pitch motions. Donut
fenders are provided around each pile. A bracket, welded to the hull, retains
the pile and donut fender. This is a relatively simple and passive mooring
system. The advantages of this alternative include a) potential CAPEX
savings due to elimination of breasting and mooring dolphins, replacing with
guide piles with donut fenders, b) potential OPEX savings due to elimination
of the sailing crew, c) continuous gas supply even during extreme events.
› It should be noted that there are no operating FSRU berths that use guide
pile moorings, though such projects are under development at the time of
the writing of this report. The design of this unique system requires special
expertise to properly handle the unique mooring and structural aspects in a
cost-effective manner. The design is under development or consideration
for current projects, but would likely require physical modeling to satisfy
class and ensure bankability. The principle advantage of this system is the
vessel would be permanently moored and designed to withstand a direct hit
from the design typhoon. The vessel could potentially be classed as a
marine installation vs a ship.
› The sea island berth will be connected to shore via a HP gas subsea
pipeline.
› The FSRU could be either a membrane LNGC with reinforced tanks, or a

converted Moss LNGC.
› The LNGC could be any available vessel supply carrier year-round.
› Connection to shore would be via rigid riser to subsea pipeline of

approximately 4 km length.
72 VIETNAM FSRU

evaluation of
› tie-in method at facility onshore
6.5.1 Pipeline data


(m) Destination
4150 Onshore Weld to onshore

Pipeline
joint.
design life.

VIETNAM FSRU 73
Medium Dry Gas

› The water depth along the offshore pipeline route varies from 0 to 10 mCD.
› The soil conditions along the route consist in general of soft silty clay and
sand and is suitable for ploughing and trenching.
74 VIETNAM FSRU
Based on high values of the extreme current it is recommended that the pipeline
is laid in an open trench and the excavated soil will protect the pipeline at the
sea bottom against current, as indicated in Figure 4.8.
The method used for the landfall section should be selected after careful
evaluation from a combination of the following methods:
› Sheet piling in the near shore zone,
› Open dredging towards shallow waters,
› Post trenching in the deeper waters.


equipment.
6.6 Cost estimates



VIETNAM FSRU 75

Vietnam.
6.6.1 CAPEX
A summary of CAPEX estimates for Site 4 – Vinh Gan Rai is provided in Table
6-7. The site is currently used as an anchorage area, and this anchorage area
would need to be relocated. Dredging to -14 m will be necessary in the
approach, turning basin and berth area. All costs are presented as installed costs
and are intended to be conservative estimates, including 1 m overdredging
depth covering dredge tolerance and to delay the time of the first maintenance
dredging.
The cost for dredging is based on a unit price of 8 USD/m³, including transport
and disposal within 10 km, normally in Vietnam.

Marine Terminal at Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai
Site 4 –
Vinh Ganh Rai
(Million USD)
Conventional Pile Cluster Guide

Cost element Mooring Pile Mooring
Material Supply
Capital dredging, including approach, 31 31

turning basin and berth vicinity
FSRU breasting and mooring dolphins 40 --
FSRU pile cluster guide pile mooring, -- 35

including modifications to FSRU hull
Unloading platform with rigid riser, 15 15

including loading arms, topsides and
umbilical material supply
Subsea pipeline and offshore 30 30

Owner Cost (5%) 6 6
Total 122 117
76 VIETNAM FSRU
6.6.2 OPEX
to 10 years.

The approach, turning basin and berth area are to be dredged to approximately
-14mCD. The seabed is expected to consist of fine materials in terms of clay, silt
and clayey sand. Hence, due to the current flow, expected to be more or less
aligned with the orientation of the main channel and likely to exceed 1 m/s, it is
expected that the dredged areas will be filled with sediments on a regular basis
and there will be a need for maintenance dredging. For this reason a
maintenance dredging of approximately 3.1 million USD (taken as 10% of the
CAPEX dredging works) is assumed in this study.
years.
6.6.3 Owner Costs

marine operation.
Cost type MUSD/year
Administration 4
Operational 6
Total 10
VIETNAM FSRU 77

would likely require less than 24 months from date of order, including any
modifications necessary to accept the pile cluster guide pile system.


The critical path for the construction of the infrastructure would be the
procurement, fabrication, delivery and installation of the marine piling for either
the conventional mooring or the guide pile mooring alternative. It is expected
that certain long-lead procurement items such as the marine loading arms,
gangway, fenders and quick release hook systems would require 9-12 months,
depending on market conditions at the time of order.
The delivery duration estimate from date of order, including fabrication, for the
pipeline system components (incl. coating, concrete covers, bends, flanges, etc.)
will likely be 12-15 months. However, the delivery time may be reduced if the
pipe can be sourced from worldwide stocks.
The subsea pipeline installation and burial will likely require 3-6 months,
depending on the availability of a suitable pipelay vessel. The dredging of
approach, turning basin and berth areas will likely require about 6 months.
78 VIETNAM FSRU
7 Site 5 – Vinh Chau

Site 5 is located about 20 km from the coastline of the Soc Trang Province, and
about 42 km from the coastline in the neighbouring Bac Lieu province. The
island Con Son is located about 70 km further offshore.
It is assumed that the gas will be transferred to shore at Bac Lieu via a subsea
pipeline, as shown in Figure 3.4, and from there via an onshore pipeline to a
new power plant located about 15 km inland.
7.1.1 Water levels

HAT and LAT is about ≈4.5 m. Tidal levels are presented in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1 Tidal levels for Site 5-Vinh Chau, based on tidal constituents
obtained from the DTU10 global ocean tide model
Level mMSL mCD
HAT 1.67 4.49
MHWS 1.37 4.20
MHWN 0.69 3.52
MSL 0.00 2.82
MLWN -0.61 2.21
MLWS -1.31 1.51
MLLWS -1.42 1.41
LAT -2.82 0.00
Data on total water levels including storm surge for the Vinh Chau area could
not be sourced for this high level evaluation, but extreme storm surge levels are
expected to be similar, if not slightly lower, compared to the levels at Site 3-
Long Hai due to weaker extreme wind speeds.

Total current data in Vinh Chau could not be sourced for this high level
evaluation, but the current flow is expected to be approximately parallel to the
coastline in a direction NE-SW. However, large-scale gyres tend to form around
Con Son island and large variation in the current direction is to be expected.
Extreme current speeds are expected to be in the range estimated for Site 1-Mui
Ke Ga and Site 3-Long Hai.
VIETNAM FSRU 79

The winds are similar or slightly weaker than at Site 3-Long Hai. The main wind
direction is NE-SW with wind speeds up to 15 m/s, as indicated in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1 Wind rose for Site 5-Vinh Chau based on GROW-Fine hindcast data
(1 hour average wind speed at 10 m height).
Table 7-2 Omni-directional extreme wind speeds (m/s) at Site 5-Vinh Chau
(1 hour average wind speed at 10 m height).
15.7 16.7 17.6 22.1* 25.0* 27.9*

Three main wave directions are observed, from north easterly and easterly
directions with significant wave heights up to 3.4 m (in rare cases up to 4.0 m)
and from south westerly directions with significant wave heights up to 2 m, as
depicted in Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3. Peak wave periods up to 16 s, i.e. swells,
can occur for all three main directions, as shown in Figure 7.4.
is less than 1.5 m and the peak wave period is less than 8 s, corresponding to a
80 VIETNAM FSRU
typical STS loading situation, is approx. 45% in December-January, i.e. in ≈55%

of the time such a slot will not be available within these months, as shown in
Table 7-4.
period is less than 8 s the probability of a weather window of 24-30 hours is
approx. 75% in December-January, as shown in Table 7-5.
For a weather window of 24-30 hours the probability for a peak wave period less
than 8 s is high, varies within 98-100% in each month through the year. In
October-November, the probability of wave periods less than 8 s is lowest, i.e.

be available within these months. The probability for a weather window of 4
hours where the significant wave is less than 2.0 m, corresponding to the time
period needed for larger tugs to hook up the LNGC, is about 86% in December-
January.
Figure 7.2 Wave rose for significant wave height for Site 5-Vinh Chau, based on
VIETNAM FSRU 81
Site 5-Vinh Chau, based on GROW-Fine hindcast data.
Vinh Chau, based on GROW-Fine hindcast data.
82 VIETNAM FSRU
Table 7-3 Extreme significant wave height (m), for Site 5-Vinh Chau, based on
Omni 2.92 3.23 3.40 3.68 3.92 4.18
60 ° 2.92 3.23 3.40 3.68 3.92 4.18
90 ° 2.92 3.23 3.40 3.60 3.73 3.86
120 ° 1.44 2.29 2.74 3.43 3.92 4.18
180 ° 1.12 1.69 2.03 2.55 3.01 3.51
210 ° 1.71 2.01 2.15 2.34 2.50 2.65
240 ° 1.81 2.04 2.16 2.31 2.44 2.57
period less than 8 s, for Site 5-Vinh Chau, based on GROW-Fine hindcast
data
2 hrs 64.4 72.5 81.7 98.1 99.8 99.8 99.5 98.8 99.4 97.9 81.2 61.0
4 hrs 62.0 70.6 80.6 97.9 99.8 99.7 99.4 98.7 99.2 97.6 79.8 58.7
6 hrs 59.7 68.8 79.6 97.7 99.8 99.7 99.3 98.5 99.1 97.3 78.4 56.5
18 hrs 49.8 61.0 74.9 96.7 99.6 99.5 98.7 97.7 98.4 95.8 72.2 46.6
24 hrs 46.4 58.5 73.0 96.3 99.5 99.4 98.4 97.4 98.1 95.1 69.7 43.4
36 hrs 40.6 54.0 69.8 95.5 99.4 99.1 97.9 96.7 97.4 93.7 65.3 37.7
period less than 8 s, for Site 5-Vinh Chau, based on GROW-Fine hindcast
data
2 hrs 87.9 91.1 93.4 99.8 99.9 * * 99.9 * 99.4 93.3 86.3
4 hrs 86.6 90.0 92.7 99.7 99.9 * * 99.9 * 99.4 92.5 85.1
6 hrs 85.3 89.0 92.1 99.7 99.9 * * 99.9 * 99.3 91.8 83.9
18 hrs 79.1 84.3 89.0 99.5 99.8 * * 99.8 * 98.8 88.1 77.8
24 hrs 76.7 82.6 87.8 99.4 99.7 * * 99.8 * 98.6 86.6 75.4
36 hrs 72.6 79.7 85.7 99.2 99.7 * * 99.8 * 98.1 83.8 70.9
VIETNAM FSRU 83
7.2 Soil conditions

Specific soil data within Vinh Chau area could not been sourced.
According to Ref. /9/ soft soil with silty and clayey material is present along the
coastline of the Soc Trang province (the region east of Bac Lieu).

Sea charts show that the bathymetry in the area west of Con Son Island is
complex, dominated by outcrops and areas with shallow water, see Figure 7.5.
Location of an FSRU terminal in such an area will be associated with
uncertainties related to the safe navigation of an LNGC to a specific mooring
location in a water depth of approximately 20 m. Since the potential for
dredging may be required for safe navigation to the site, more definitive
bathymetric data are required to accurately make an assessment in the next
phase of a possible project in this area.
Figure 7.5 Sea chart of the area between Con Son Island and shore (C-map)
The proposed terminal layout configuration for Site 5-Vinh Chau is shown in
› The ships are berthed in a position parallel to the main wind direction in
order to reduce the static mooring loads.
› Navigation to berth should be possible when the ship arrives from an

easterly direction, also turning should be possible. Requirements for
dredging to be investigated in the next phase of the project.
84 VIETNAM FSRU
› Navigation from berth to deep water should also be possible.
› Wind will act almost parallel to ship during berthing, stay and unberthing.
› Current is expected to act almost parallel to ship during berthing, transfer

and unberthing.

Figure 7.6 Proposed terminal alignment for Site 5-Vinh Chau (shown for a
conventional mooring solution).

The recommended configuration and mooring system for Site 5 – Vinh Chau is:
› Spread Mooring for the FRSU and Multi-Buoy Mooring (MBM) for the LNGC
with an Aerial Transfer Tower in between, as depicted in Figure 4.7 for Site
1 – Mui Ke Ga.
Explanation:

VIETNAM FSRU 85
based on head-on waves predominately <8 s and beam-on waves <14 s.
slot with Hs<1.5 m and Tp<8 s in the Dec - Jan period would likely be
approx. 45%. In Nov and Feb/Mar the probability would likely be in the 60-
70% range. Thus conducting STS transfers at this location is deemed
insufficiently reliable, so alternatives are required.

permanently moored using RCM or similar in-line tension mooring system,
meaning it would depart if threatened with a direct hit from a typhoon,
necessitating a full sailing crew on standby at all times for the operational
life of the facility. The LNGC would be moored based on a multi-buoy
mooring (also referred to as conventional buoy mooring or all buoy
each end.
86 VIETNAM FSRU
› The LNGC could be any available vessel supply carrier in the Apr–Oct
appropriate. The RCM system has been tested in as little as 17 m water
depths.
› Connection to shore would be via flexible catenary riser to seafloor PLEM,

then to subsea pipeline of approximately 42 km length to the Bac Lieu
Province (close to the border between Bac Lieu and Soc Trang provinces).
Alternatively, a subsea pipeline to Soc Trang Province will only require a
subsea pipeline of 20 km length.

evaluation of
› tie-in method at facility onshore.
7.5.1 Pipeline data


(m) Destination
42,000 Onshore Weld to onshore

pipeline
joint.
VIETNAM FSRU 87
design life. No corrosion allowance is assumed for a natural gas pipeline. The
cathodic protection will be provided by bracelet anodes which will be ‘flushed’
into the concrete weight coating. Further, external corrosion coating will be used
in terms of a classic 3-layer PP or PE according to ISO 21809-1, Ref. /7/.
Medium Dry Gas
88 VIETNAM FSRU

› The water depth along the offshore pipeline route varies from 0 to 21
mMSL.
› The soil conditions along the route consist in general of soft soil with silty
and clayey material and is suitable for ploughing and trenching.


equipment.
7.6 Cost estimates


VIETNAM FSRU 89


Vietnam.
7.6.1 CAPEX
A summary of CAPEX estimates for Site 5 – Vinh Chau is provided in Table 7-9.
such that no dredging is required. Costs for dredging of a possibly required
approach channel to Site 5 are not included. All costs are presented as installed
costs and are intended to be conservative estimates.

Marine Terminal at Site 5 – Vinh Chau
Site 5 –
Vinh Chau
Material Supply
FSRU spread mooring (based on 17

CAN Systems RCM)
Flexible riser, PLEM and umbilical 10

material supply
Multi-buoy mooring (MBM) for 5

LNGC
Aerial transfer tower, with 25

hoses
Subsea pipeline and offshore 82

Owner Cost (5%) 7
Total 146
90 VIETNAM FSRU
7.6.2 OPEX
to 10 years.

years.
7.6.3 Owner Costs

marine operation.
Cost type MUSD/year
Administration 4
Operational 6
Total 10
VIETNAM FSRU 91



A long lead item will be the pipeline. The delivery duration estimate from date of
order, including fabrication, for the pipeline system components (incl. coating,
concrete covers, bends, flanges, etc.) will likely be 12-15 months. However, the
delivery time may be reduced if the pipe can be sourced from worldwide stocks.
92 VIETNAM FSRU
8 Site 7 – Ca Mau Area

Site 7 is located about 30 km from shoreline and close to the pipeline corridor to
Ca Mau, as indicated in Figure 3.5. Two options for transferring gas to shore are
considered for an FSRU at this site.
One option is to transfer the regasified gas into a pipeline inside the Ca Mau
pipeline corridor. Any interruption in gas supply from the FSRU due to weather
conditions will not be critical as the supply will continue from offshore. Another
option is to transfer the gas in a 30-60 km long subsea pipeline connecting the
FSRU to shore.
The gas is targeted for Ca Mau (but it could also be for O Mon if in the future a
Ca Mau - O Mon LNG link will be constructed).
8.1.1 Water levels

HAT and LAT is ≈1.1 m, i.e. the tidal range is less than at Site 1 and 3. Tidal
levels are presented in Table 8-1, whereas high and low water level statistics are
Table 8-1 Tidal levels for Site 7-Ca Mau Area,

Level mMSL mCD
HAT 0.53 1.11
MHWS 0.33 0.91
MHWN 0.12 0.70
MSL 0.00 0.58
MLWN -0.11 0.47
MLWS -0.34 0.24
MLLWS -0.40 0.18
LAT -0.58 0.00
Table 8-2 High and low extreme total water levels for Site 7-Ca Mau Area

level (mMSL)
1 5 10 25 50 100 1 5 10 25 50 100
Ca Mau Area -0.76 -0.74 -0.75 -0.76 -0.77 -0.78 +0.93 +0.98 +1.00 +1.04 +1.08 +1.13
VIETNAM FSRU 93

The current flow is mainly in a direction N-S with current speeds up to 0.6 m/s,
as indicted in Figure 8.1. Note that current speeds are less than at Sites 1 and
3. Directional extreme current speeds are presented in Table 8-3.
Figure 8.1 Current rose for Site 7-Ca Mau Area (for near sea surface current speed)
Table 8-3 Directional extreme current speeds for Site 7-Ca Mau Area

speed
(m/s)
Omni 0.61 0.81 0.93 1.12 1.29 1.49
North 0.55 0.80 0.93 1.12 1.29 1.49

(0°N)
East 0.32 0.48 0.63 0.90 1.16 1.46

(90°N)
South 0.61 0.69 0.75 0.86 0.97 1.09

(180°N)
West 0.42 0.54 0.66 0.87 1.07 1.31

(270°N)

The wind conditions are generally less severe than at Sites 1 and 3.
There are two main wind directions, from eastern directions (within NE-SE) and
south western directions (within SW-W), as indicated in Figure 8.2. Normal wind
speeds can be up to 12 m/s.
94 VIETNAM FSRU
The site is less exposed to typhoons than Sites 1 and 3. Seven typhoons have
been recorded within a radius of 100 km from the site since 1961. The extreme
wind statistics are presented in Table 8-4.
Figure 8.2 Wind rose for Site 7-Ca Mau based on GROW-Fine hindcast data (1 hour
Table 8-4 Omni-directional extreme wind speeds (m/s) for Site 7-Ca Mau Area (1
hour average wind speed at 10 m height).
13.9 15.9 17.4 20.2* 25.8* 31.8*

Waves can generally occur from any direction, except NW-N, where the main
wave direction is from SW, as indicated in Figure 8.3 and Figure 8.4. The
significant wave heights can generally be up to 2.3 m, but in rare cases up to 4
m. Peak wave periods up to 8 s generally occur, whereas long peak wave
periods (swells) generally do not occur, as depicted in Figure 8.5.
Hm0,100=4.3 m, as indicated in Table 8-5.

less than 1.5 m and peak wave period less than 8 s, corresponding to a typical
STS loading situation, is 85-90% in December-January, i.e. in ≈12% of time
such a slot will not be available within these months, as indicted in Table 8-6.
VIETNAM FSRU 95
period is less than 8 s the probability of a weather window of 24 hours is ≈99%
in October-December, as shown in Table 8-7
Further, for a weather window of 24 hours the probability for a peak wave period
less than 8 s is ≈100% in each month through the year.

be available within these months. Similar, for a weather window of 4 hours
where the significant wave is less than 2.0 m, corresponding to the time period
needed for larger tugs to hook up the LNGC, ≈99% in December-January.
Figure 8.3 Wave rose for significant wave height for Site 7-Ca Mau Area, based on
Site 7-Ca Mau Area, based on GROW-Fine hindcast data.
96 VIETNAM FSRU
Ca Mau Area, based on GROW-Fine hindcast data.
Table 8-5 Extreme significant wave height (m), for Site 7-Ca Mau Area, based on
Omni 2.03 2.43 2.73 3.25 3.75 4.29
60 ° 2.03 2.43 2.73 3.25 3.68 4.13
90 ° 1.91 2.39 2.67 3.12 3.51 3.95
120 ° 1.74 2.18 2.42 2.78 3.08 3.41
210 ° 1.42 2.13 2.56 3.23 3.73 4.29
240 ° 2.03 2.43 2.73 3.25 3.73 4.29
VIETNAM FSRU 97
period less than 8 s, for Site 7-Ca Mau Area, based on GROW-Fine hindcast
data
2 hrs 97.3 98.0 98.6 99.7 99.7 99.3 98.9 97.2 98.4 97.8 97.6 95.7
4 hrs 96.5 97.4 98.2 99.6 99.7 99.2 98.7 96.9 98.2 97.6 97.1 94.8
6 hrs 95.6 96.8 97.7 99.5 99.6 99.1 98.6 96.6 98.0 97.4 96.6 93.9
18 hrs 90.9 93.3 95.1 98.8 99.5 98.5 97.7 95.1 96.8 96.4 93.7 88.8
24 hrs 89.1 92.0 94.1 98.5 99.4 98.3 97.3 94.4 96.3 95.9 92.5 86.8
36 hrs 86.0 89.9 92.6 98.1 99.3 97.7 96.6 93.2 95.1 95.0 90.1 83.4
period less than 8 s, for Site 7-Ca Mau Area, based on GROW-Fine hindcast
data
2 hrs ≈100 ≈100 * * * 99.9 99.9 99.6 ≈100 99.5 99.8 99.6
4 hrs ≈100 ≈100 ≈100 * * 99.9 99.9 99.6 99.9 99.4 99.8 99.5
6 hrs ≈100 ≈100 ≈100 * * 99.9 99.9 99.6 99.9 99.4 99.7 99.5
18 hrs 99.9 99.9 ≈100 * * 99.8 99.8 99.4 99.8 99.1 99.4 99.1
24 hrs 99.9 99.8 ≈100 * * 99.7 99.8 99.4 99.8 99.0 99.2 99.0
36 hrs 99.8 99.7 99.9 * * 99.6 99.7 99.2 99.7 98.7 98.9 98.7
8.2 Soil conditions

Soil data within Ca Mau Area could not been sourced.
Based on experience from previously projects in the area it is assumed that the
top layer consists of fine materials in terms of silt and clay.

The proposed terminal layout configuration for Site 7-Ca Mau is shown in Figure
8.6. The corresponding berthing conditions are:
98 VIETNAM FSRU
order to reduce the static mooring loads. The ships are heading 45⁰N
against the direction where the strongest current comes from.
› Navigation to berth will be possible when the ship arrives from N to S

directions. Turning can be made W of the terminal.
› Wind will act almost parallel to ship during berthing, transfer and
unberthing.
› Current will act with an angle of ≈45⁰ to ship during berthing, transfer and
unberthing.
› Berthed ships will be exposed to head, quartering and beam waves,

however, the largest waves will be acting head-on.

Figure 8.6 Proposed terminal alignment for Site 7-Ca Mau Area (shown for a

There are two alternative configuration/mooring solutions recommended for
consideration at Site 7 – Ca Mau:
› Submerged Soft Yoke (SSY) Mooring of the FSRU with the LNGC moored
alongside with STS transfer from LNGC, and subsea pipeline will tap into
existing subsea pipeline in the Ca Mau corridor or new pipeline to shore, as
depicted in Figure 8.7
› This is a weathervaning mooring system that according to NOV-APL

can withstand the 100-year extreme typhoon design event, provided
that the associated peak wave period is less than 10s and the water
VIETNAM FSRU 99
depth is 22mLAT or more. Lesser water depths would require further

study and evaluation.
› According to NOV-APL, the SSY is disconnectable and the FSRU can be

permanently moored, i.e. the FSRU does not have to depart for safe
waters if threatened by typhoon conditions and no sailing crew on
standby is required.
Figure 8.7 Submerged Soft Yoke (SSY) Mooring (image from NOV-APL)
› Restricted Catenary Mooring (RCM) of the FSRU with the LNGC moored
alongside with STS transfer and subsea pipeline will tap into existing subsea
pipeline in the Ca Mau corridor or new pipeline to shore, as depicted in
Figure 8.8.
› This is a spread mooring system with high resilience to moderate to

aggressive metocean conditions
› The mooring lines fore and aft are pushed downward prior to extending
laterally to their catenary configuration, to allow for berthing of the
LNGC in a nested configuration without compromising the mooring
system
› The FSRU is semi-permanently moored, meaning it would remain at

berth during moderate storm conditions, but depart ahead of typhoon
conditions
100 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 8.8 Restricted Catenary Mooring System (image from CAN Systems)
Explanation:
› Winds and waves are seasonally 180° opposite and aligned, making this site
a good candidate for STS transfer and thus a cost-effective solution.
based on waves predominately <8 s.
the 85-90% range. In Nov and Feb/Mar the probability would likely be in
the 90-95% range. Thus conducting STS transfers at this location is
deemed reliable using the RCM system.
› A good choice when considering a weathervaning mooring system for

aggressive metocean conditions in shallow waters is the NOV APL SSY
system. This solution was recently implemented for an LNG export terminal
in Cameroon and is in the development process for the Sergipe project in
Brazil. The SSY system can work in water depths as low as 20 m, but for
the relatively aggressive extreme conditions for Site 7, 22 m water depths
is required by NOV-APL. The SSY system would be intended for a
permanently moored FSRU to survive the extreme typhoon event, even if
the eye of the typhoon passed directly over the terminal.
› A spread mooring system can also be considered for Site 7 as a semi-

permanent mooring solution. The CAN Systems Restricted Catenary
Mooring (RCM) can be designed to survive moderate metocean conditions,
but would depart ahead of a typhoon event, necessitating a full sailing crew
on standby at all times for the operational life of the facility.
moorings such as RCM, though such projects are under development at the
VIETNAM FSRU 101
time of the writing of this report. The design of this unique system requires
special expertise to properly handle the mooring issues in a cost-effective
manner.
› For the RCM system, the mooring for the FSRU would need to be
disconnectable. Though the design typhoon conditions are within the
theoretical limits of the RCM system, this does not account for the
possibility of the eye of the storm passing directly over the terminal. In
such a circumstance the winds and waves directions would be chaotic and
the FSRU captain would likely take the decision to protect the ship by
departing the berth. Fortunately, this would likely be a rare event. The RCM
can be disconnected in a controlled manner in about 8 hrs, but could be
released in an emergency condition within about 20 minutes.
› The LNGC could likely be any available vessel supply carrier year-round with
minimal sloshing concerns, though precautions may be required during the
winter months.
› Water depths in the 20 m range would be appropriate for the RCM System.
The RCM system has been tested in as little as 17m water depths. But for
the SSY weathervaning system, water depths of 22-23 m are
recommended.
› Connection to shore would be via riser to seafloor PLEM, then to subsea

pipeline of approximately 4 km length that would tap into the existing
subsea pipeline to shore assuming pipeline capacity, gas quality, costs and
commercial issues are workable, otherwise a separate pipeline with a length
of at least 30 km to transfer gas to shore. Connection to shore could also be
via flexible riser to seafloor PLEM, then to subsea pipeline of 30-60 km
length depending on the FSRU mooring arrangement.

gas pipeline running from the FSRU vessel to either a subsea connection to an
existing subsea gas pipeline or a subsea pipeline to an onshore facility, including
evaluation of
› tie-in method at facility onshore/subsea connection.
102 VIETNAM FSRU
One option is to transfer the regasified gas into a pipeline inside the Ca Mau
pipeline corridor. A pipeline length of 4 km is assumed between the FSRU and an
existing pipeline (for both options of a RCM or SSY moored FSRU).
Another option is to transfer the gas to a pipeline running from the FSRU vessel
to an onshore facility. A pipeline length of 31 km has been considered for a RCM
moored FRSU at a position with water depth 19.4mCD (20 mMSL), whereas a
pipeline length of 59 km has been considered for a SSY moored FRSU at a
position with water depth 22.0 mCD, as indicated in Figure 8.9. Method as
described for Site 1.
Figure 8.9 Pipeline lengths for Site 7- Cau Mau for the case where a gas pipeline is
running from the FSRU vessel to an onshore facility.
8.5.1 Pipeline data

Option Pipeline Length Pipeline Tie-In Method

(m) Destination
1 4000 Subsea to Subsea Hot-Tap

Existing Gas
Pipeline
2, Alt. 1 31000 Onshore Weld to onshore

Pipeline
2, Alt. 2 59000 Onshore Weld to onshore

Pipeline
VIETNAM FSRU 103
› Subsea connection by Hot-Tap assembly and in-line PLEM
design life.

Route Length 4000/31000/59000m
104 VIETNAM FSRU
Medium Dry Gas
The gas from the FSRU is transported to an existing subsea gas pipeline. The
connection is planned to be performed by a hot-tap solution as described in
section 5.5.1 and shown in Figure 5.7.

The following assumptions have been made for the pipeline installation for the
hot-tap option:
› Pipelay may be initiated from either side, FSRU or hot-tap location.
› The tie-in method will comprise flanged spool/PLEM and hot-tap assembly.
An expansion spool will be used for connection at each end.
› The water depth along the new subsea pipeline route varies from 18 to 19.5
mCD.
› The soil conditions along the route consist in general of fine materials in
terms of silt and sand and is suitable for ploughing and trenching.
VIETNAM FSRU 105

The tie-in at FSRU will be by 2 off spools arrangement. The spools will
› Subsea tie-in (Hot-Tap)
The tie-in consists of a hot-tap assembly and tie-in with crossover spool
towards a PLEM, as described in section 5.5.1. Spool tie-in also between
PLEM and connecting pipeline. The size of the branch shall be decided based
on the flow requirements and the size of the existing gas pipeline.

equipment.
A description of the pipeline installation for the option with transfer in a subsea
pipeline to an onshore facility is presented in Section 4.5.2.
8.6 Cost estimates




Vietnam.
106 VIETNAM FSRU
8.6.1 CAPEX
A summary of CAPEX estimates for Site 7 – Ca Mau is provided in Table 8-11.
The site is intended to be located nearshore in water depths of 20-25 m or
more, such that no dredging is required. All costs are presented as installed
costs and are intended to be conservative estimates.

Marine Terminal at Site 7 – Ca Mau
Site 7 – Ca Mau
(Million USD)
NOV APL SSY Weathervaning CAN Systems Spread Mooring

Mooring System System (RCM)
Cost element
Material Supply
SSY FSRU Mooring System 40 40
CAN Systems FSRU spread mooring 17 17
Flexible riser 10 10 10 10
Option 1 77 72
Subsea pipeline, with hot-tap and 4
km pipeline
Option 2, Alt. 1 70
Subsea pipeline, 31 km to shore from
20 m depth, including shore crossing
Option 2, Alt. 2 100

Subsea pipeline, 59 km to shore from
22-23 m depth, including shore
crossing
Owner Cost (5%) 6 8 5 5
Total 133 158 104 102
8.6.2 OPEX
to 10 years.
VIETNAM FSRU 107

years.
8.6.3 Owner Costs

marine operation.
Cost type MUSD/year
Administration 4
Operational 6
Total 10

would likely require less than 24 months from date of order, including any
modifications necessary to accept the pile cluster guide pile system.

108 VIETNAM FSRU

(metocean, geotechnical/geophysical and bathymetry)
depending on the selected solution 12-15 months

(24 months for hot tap)
Long lead items will be the SSY mooring system, pipeline (incl. coating, concrete
covers, bends, flanges, etc.) and hot-tap assembly and equipment (incl. valve,
gooseneck, PLEM, spool, PLR, etc.).
The RCM mooring system by CAN Systems could potentially save 6 months of
the schedule for delivery of SSY mooring system.
pipeline will likely be 12-18 months. The subsea pipeline installation and burial
will likely require 6-9 months, depending on the availability of a suitable pipelay
vessel.
hot-tap assembly and equipment will likely be up to 24 months.
VIETNAM FSRU 109
9 Son My Site
Son My was not selected as one of the optimum locations for siting an LNG
import terminal. The primary reason is the water depths offshore Son My are
shallow compared to Site 1–Mui Ke Ga, so Site 1 is deemed preferable due to
the shorter subsea pipeline required. However, this brief assessment of the Son
My site is included herein to assess the potential site at a high level, without
cost estimates.
This section contains a qualitative assessment of the possibility to establish an

FSRU/LNG terminal at Son My which is located between Site 1–Mui Ke Ga and
Site 3–Long Hai, as indicated in Figure 9.1. The metocean and soil conditions at
Son My will most likely be similar to what are found for Site 1.
Figure 9.1 Indicative position of Son My site
Six power plants (Son My I #1-3 and Son My II #1-3) are being planned in the
Bình Thuận province on the southern coast of Vietnam, each with a capacity of
750 MW using imported LNG (according to Ref. /1/, Table 3.4). If about 22,000
m³ LNG/day is required, an LNG delivery has to be scheduled about once a
week. Son My does not have a pipeline connection to the existing network and
would thus be reliant on continuous supply from a FSRU or onshore storage
tanks.
LNG terminal alternatives with a LNGC moored behind a breakwater (sheltered

location) or an FSRU moored offshore in about 20 m of water (exposed location)
are outlined in the following sections.
9.1 Sheltered location

For import of the LNG an offshore Son My LNG Terminal has been planned, Ref.
/1/. The site of the proposed Son My terminal is located in an area with
relatively shallow water of approximately 8 m water depth, as indicated in Figure
9.2.
110 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 9.2 Location of proposed LNG terminal at Son My, including bathymetric data,
from Ref. /1/.
The LNG terminal is proposed to consist of a 3 km long trestle (access bridge), a

6 km long dredged access channel and mooring of a LNGC in a sheltered
location behind a ≈1.4 km long breakwater, as indicated in Figure 9.3. The
solution implies substantial dredging in the order of 7,500,000 m³ for berthing
basin (to -13 mCD), turning basin (to -13.5 mCD) and navigation channel (to
13.5 mCD), According to Ref. /1/.
A dredge depth of -13.5 mCD is insufficient for a typical LNGC of around

170,000 m³ capacity. The typical dredge depth for such a vessel is at least -15
m. In this case, the dredged channel would have to be approximately 13 km
long, i.e. more than twice as long as stated in Ref. /1/.
VIETNAM FSRU 111
Figure 9.3 General layout of Son My LNG Terminal as proposed by Ref. /1/.
The CAPEX of constructing the planned trestle, breakwater and dredged channel
would be very high – much higher than the FSRU alternatives considered for
Sites 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
9.2 Exposed location

A solution with an FSRU moored in a water depth of about 19 m CD will be
possible using the same mooring arrangement proposed for Site 1–Mui Ke Ga,
i.e. Spread Mooring/MBM with an Aerial Transfer Tower and a subsea pipeline to
shore. A water depth of 19 mCD can be found about 18 km off the coast, as
indicated in Figure 9.4.
112 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 9.4 Location of possible FSRU in a water depth of 19 mCD
If Son My is the location of the planned power plant, the cost of an FSRU
moored off Son My should be comparable to the costs of an FSRU at Site 1 – Mui
Ke Ga. An FSRU at Son My would require a longer subsea pipeline than Site 1,
but the need for an onshore pipeline from Site 1 to Son My would be eliminated.
The following conclusions can be reached with regard to LNG import at Son My:
• An FSRU solution off the coast of Son My as described above is feasible
• An FSRU terminal located off the coast of Son My would likely be

substantially less expensive than an sheltered terminal at shallow water
that would require substantial dredging and a new breakwater
• If the power plant could be sited near Site 1 rather than Son My, the
cost would be lower due to the shorter subsea pipeline required
• If the power plant must be located at Son My, an FSRU solution could
still be feasible and likely cost-effective under two scenarios: a) FSRU off
the coast at Son My or b) FSRU off the coast of Site 1 with onshore
pipeline to Son My.
VIETNAM FSRU 113
10 Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is a measure of the lifetime average cost
of producing one unit of electricity from a given power generator, and it includes
all costs associated with development, financing, construction, operations, and
maintenance. LCOE is commonly used as a benchmark for comparing new power
generation options for system planning. To evaluate the potential economic
competitiveness of LNG-to-power in the south of Vietnam, we have estimated
the LCOE from a greenfield combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant
using LNG imported from each of the five FSRU options in this study.
10.1 Power Generation Arrangements

The sections below describe the assumed power generation arrangements for
each of the FSRU sites. Section 10.1.1 presents the size, performance
characteristics, and costs assumed for the new CCGT power plant using
imported LNG. Section 10.1.2 describes the power plant sites, gas pipeline, and
grid connection assumed for each option.
10.1.1 Power Plant Performance and Cost

All FSRU options are assumed to provide a dedicated gas supply to a greenfield
CCGT power plant. The table below lists the plant’s assumed costs and technical
performance parameters, which are the same for all options. Additional CAPEX
for an onshore gas pipeline or transmission line is added to each option as
needed. These additional costs are presented in section 10.1.2 below.
Table 10-1 Power Plant Performance and Cost Assumptions.
Parameter Units Values
Technical
Capacity (net) MW 1,500
Capacity Factor % 70%
Annual Output GWh 9,198
Heat Rate (HHV, net) BTU per kWh 6,516
Annual Fuel Consumption trillion BTU 60
CAPEX
Unit CAPEX USD per kW 750
Owner’s Costs + % of CAPEX 12%

Financing (including IDC)
Transmission Line, USD million 30/6

Site 1/Site 5
Total CAPEX USD million 1,260
114 VIETNAM FSRU
Parameter Units Values
O&M
Annual Fixed O&M USD million 34.8
Variable O&M USD per MWh 0.13
Cost per start USD per MW per start 80
Starts per year # 12
Plant Performance
All options are assumed to supply a greenfield 1,500 MW CCGT power plant
running at base load, which presents the most favourable technical case for the
economic competitiveness of LNG-to-power in Vietnam. Such a plant could
achieve a net heat rate of 6,516 BTU per kWh (HHV) at an annual capacity
factor of 70%, consistent with the performance of existing CCGT plants in
Vietnam.1 The power plant would consume approximately 60 trillion BTU per
year of natural gas.
CAPEX
For all FSRU options, the power plant EPC cost is estimated at USD 750 USD per
kW, or USD 1,125 million for a 1,500 MW plant. The EPC cost includes all major
components, including interconnection with the grid at a nearby location. Project
development and financing costs are estimated at 12% of the EPC costs,
comprising Owner’s costs (5%) and financing expenses, including interest during
construction (IDC) (7%). Owner’s costs include advisory fees, environmental
and site studies, permitting and application fees, and developer’s fees.
The cost of land for the power plant and associated facilities is not included in
the cost estimates.
The costs of gas pipelines (onshore and offshore) from the FSRU to the plant
sites have been included in the delivered cost of gas, and these are included in
the fuel charge component of the LCOE.
O&M
Annual fixed O&M is estimated at USD 23,200 per MW per year,2 equal to
approximately USD 34.8 million annually for a 1,500 MW plant. Variable O&M is
estimated to be USD 0.13 per MWh,3 equal to USD 1.2 million annually. The
1
Based on an estimated 60% thermal efficiency (LHV) for CCGT with a 6%
penalty for 70% load factor, converted to HHV at 1.1 to 1 for natural gas.
2
Danish Energy Agency, “Technology Catalogue for the Vietnamese Power
Sector,” 12 September 2018, 21-24.
3
Danish Energy Agency, 21-24.
VIETNAM FSRU 115
costs of starts are estimated to be USD 1.4 million annually, based on 12 starts
per year at a cost of USD 80 per MW per start.4
10.1.2 Power Plant Siting, Gas Pipeline, and Grid Connection
Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga
Site 1 is not located near any major existing power plants or substations. We
present two potential power plant options for Site 1:
• Option 1a: CCGT plant is located at Son My, and gas is supplied by an
onshore pipeline which runs 37 km to the site.
• Option 1b: CCGT plant is located on vacant land approximately 1 km

from the onshore landing of the subsea pipeline. A 35 km transmission
line is required to evacuate power to the nearest 220 kV substation
located at Phan Thiet.
Option 1a
In this option, the power plant would be located at Son My, requiring a new gas
pipeline of 37 km at a cost of USD 74 million.
Figure 10.1 Site 1a: Power Plant Location and Gas Pipeline
Option 1b
The power plant would be located in undeveloped land near to the shore,
requiring a short onshore gas pipeline (1 km) and a new 220 kV transmission
line connecting the site to the nearest substation at Phan Thiet (35 km).
The offshore pipeline (in yellow below) would run 1,700 m and cost USD 50
million. The onshore pipeline (in orange) would run 1,000 m and cost USD 2
million. The blue outline represents the area of consideration for locating the
new CCGT plant.
4
Danish Energy Agency, 21-24.
116 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 10.2 Site 1b: Power Plant Location and Gas Pipeline
The figure below illustrates the potential transmission line route from the site to
the Phan Thiet substation. The cost of the transmission line is estimated to be
USD 30 million based on a unit cost of USD 850,000 per km of 220 kV line (incl.
rights-of-way).
Figure 10.3 Site 1b: Potential Transmission Line Route
VIETNAM FSRU 117
Site 3 – Long Hai

Similar to Site 1, Site 3 is located some distance away from the nearest major
high voltage substation, and the land nearest to the onshore landing of the gas
pipeline is generally more densely populated and developed compared to Site 1.
We have considered Long Son Island to be a good site for the power plant for
FSRU options at Site 3 and Site 4. Long Son Island is geographically accessible
to both sites, has adequate undeveloped land, and is already a candidate for
potential capacity additions in the region.
The development of a new power plant on Long Son Island will require a new
onshore gas pipeline of approximately 29.5 km at a cost of USD 59 million. The
pipeline will need to bypass waterways and dense residential areas as much as
possible, which increases the required distance, as shown in the figure below.
The grid interconnection for Long Son Island is assumed to fall within the CAPEX
budget of USD 750 per kW without requiring any additional transmission costs.
Figure 10.4 Site 3: Power Plant Location and Gas Pipeline
Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai

Similar to Site 3, Long Son Island offers a potentially viable location for a new
power plant to take LNG imported from Site 4. Site 4 is much closer to the island
than Site 3, and the required onshore pipeline is much shorter at only 2.9 km.
The Site 4 pipeline will add USD 5.8 million in CAPEX.
Similar to Site 3, the grid interconnection for Long Son Island is assumed to fall
within the CAPEX budget of USD 750 per kW without requiring any additional
transmission costs.
118 VIETNAM FSRU
Site 5 – Vinh Chau

Site 5 is also not located near any major power stations, and a new power plant
would need to be developed near to the onshore gas delivery point from the
FSRU subsea pipeline. We have identified a potential site 15 km inland, requiring
a new onshore pipeline at a cost of USD 30 million.
The figure below presents a possible pipeline route from Site 5 to the power
plant. The subsea pipeline (yellow) runs 42 km to the shore, where it connects
to the onshore pipeline (orange) which runs 15 km to the power plant.
Site 5 requires a new transmission line to connect the power plant to the nearest
220 kV substation in Bac Lieu. The line would run approximately 6.8 km and
cost USD 6 million.
VIETNAM FSRU 119
Figure 10.7 Site 5: Power Plant Transmission Line
Site 7 – Ca Mau Area

Site 7 is located near an existing offshore pipeline which supplies the Ca Mau
industrial complex and power plant. The existing Ca Mau power and industrial
complex offers the best location for a greenfield CCGT because of the presence
of support infrastructure (roads, water, and grid interconnection) and expected
ease of permitting for a new facility.
A new power plant at Ca Mau would require an onshore gas pipeline of 33 km at

a cost of USD 66 million, which would connect to an offshore pipeline of 31 km
costing approximately USD 70 million.
120 VIETNAM FSRU
10.2 Calculation Methodology

The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) for LNG-to-power at each of the sites is
the sum of three components, as follows:
LCOE (USD/MWh) = Fuel Charge (USD/MWh) + Capacity Charge (USD/MWh) +

O&M Charge (USD/MWh)
Each of these components is described below.
10.2.1 Fuel Charge

The fuel charge is the cost of fuel (natural gas) consumed by the plant to
produce one unit of electricity (MWh).
Fuel Charge (USD/MWh) = Unit Price of Gas (USD/MMBTU) *

Heat Rate (BTU/kWh) * 1 MMBTU / 10^6 BTU *
1,000 kWh / 1 MWh
The Heat Rate is estimated to be 6,516 BTU per kWh.
The Unit Price of Gas is the lifetime average cost of LNG from the FSRU
delivered to the plant boundary as dry pipeline gas. The Unit Price of Gas is the
sum of four components:
VIETNAM FSRU 121
Unit Price of Gas (USD/MMBTU) = FSRU Charge (USD/MMBTU) +

Mooring Charge (USD/MMBTU) +
Pipeline Charge (USD/MMBTU) +
LNG ex-ship Price (USD/MMBTU)
Each of these is calculated as follows:
FSRU Charge (USD/MMBTU) = [ (FSRU Charter Rate (USD/day) * 365 days) +

Owner’s Costs (USD) ] /
Gas Demand (MMBTU/year)
As described in previous sections for each option, the FSRU Charter Rate is
estimated to be 80,000 USD/day for a converted FSRU and 100,000 USD/day for
a new FSRU. The LCOE estimates presented herein assume the use of a
converted FSRU. Owner’s costs are estimated to be USD 10 million per year.
As stated above, annual gas demand for the power plant is estimated to be 60
trillion BTU per year.
Mooring Charge (USD/MMBTU) = [ Capital Recovery, Mooring (USD) +

OPEX, Mooring (USD) ] /
The capital recovery cost per year is estimated using an annuity of the total
CAPEX (mooring + dredging + riser and topsides + LNG transfer + 12% soft
costs) over an expected gas supply period of 20 years at a 12% cost of capital.
The OPEX for the mooring component is estimated as 1% of the CAPEX per year
plus any annual dredging costs (annual dredging applicable to Site 4 only).
Pipeline Charge (USD/MMBTU) = [ Capital Recovery, Pipeline (USD) +

OPEX, Pipeline (USD) ] /
The capital recovery cost per year is estimated using an annuity of the total
CAPEX (offshore pipeline + onshore pipeline + 12% soft costs) over an expected
gas supply period of 20 years at a 12% cost of capital.
The OPEX for the pipeline component is estimated as 1% of the CAPEX per year.
The LNG ex-ship price is assumed to be indexed to oil with a slope-price index
formula and no intercept. Based on current market dynamics in East Asia, LNG
supplied to Vietnam would most likely be sourced from Qatar or Australia. From
current market conditions and informal consultations with potential suppliers,
the ex-ship price is estimated as follows:
LNG ex-ship Price (USD/MMBTU) = 12% * Brent (USD/bbl)
Brent is assumed to be USD 70 per bbl in the figures presented.
122 VIETNAM FSRU
10.2.2 Capacity Charge

The Capacity Charge for the power plant is estimated using an annuity of the
total CAPEX (power plant + transmission + 12% soft costs) over an assumed
PPA period of 20 years at a 12% cost of capital. The annual payments divided by
annual power generation yield the capacity charge in terms of USD per MWh.
10.2.3 O&M
The O&M Charge is estimated as the sum of Fixed O&M and Variable O&M. Fixed
O&M is estimated to be USD 34.8 million per year using a unit cost of USD
23,200 per MW per year. Variable O&M is assumed to be USD 0.13 per MWh.
The cost of starts is estimated to be USD 1.4 million per year at USD 80 per MW
per start and with 12 starts per year.
10.3 LCOE Results

The LCOE for each option is summarized below.
Table 10-2 LCOE Results. Figures in USD per MWh.

Mui Ke Ga Mui Ke Ga Long Hai Vinh Vinh Chau Ca Mau
(Son My) (Phan Thiet) Ganh Rai
LCOE 85.4 84.7 85.3 84.7 85.3 85.1
Fuel Charge 63.0 61.8 62.9 62.3 62.8 62.7
Capacity 18.3 18.8 18.3 18.3 18.4 18.3

Charge
Power Plant 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1

O&M
Figure 10.9 LCOE Breakdown by Generation Component for FSRU Options
VIETNAM FSRU 123
By far, the fuel charge is the most significant driver of the LCOE, being
approximately 3.5 times larger than the capacity charge and 15 times larger
than the O&M charge. This is a typical cost breakdown for a CCGT power plant.
All sites have comparable LCOE figures, although Sites 1b and 4 have the lowest
electricity prices. Site 1b and Site 5 demonstrate a common trade-off of power
plant siting: power transmission is often cheaper than gas pipeline, making it
more cost-effective to locate a power plant close to the gas source, rather than
building a long pipeline to a distant site. Site 1b and Site 5 each have higher
transmission costs (USD 30 million and USD 6 million), resulting in higher
capacity charges compared with other sites. These capacity charges, however,
are more than offset by lower delivered gas prices at the plant boundary. Site 4
benefits from a short gas pipeline and no additional transmission costs.
The table below presents a breakdown of delivered gas prices by cost

component for each site.
Table 10-3 Unit Price of Gas @ Plant Boundary. Figures in USD per MMBTU.

Mui Ke Ga Mui Ke Ga Long Hai Vinh Vinh Ca Mau
(Son My) (Phan Thiet) Ganh Rai Chau
Gas Price 9.7 9.5 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.6
FSRU Charge 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Mooring 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1

Charge
Pipeline 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4

Charge
LNG, ex-ship 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4
Site 7 has the lowest mooring charge due to its lower CAPEX requirement. This
cost advantage is partially offset, however, by a significant pipeline cost (both
subsea and onshore). Site 1b and Site 4 have shorter gas pipelines, resulting in
a cost savings of USD 0.20 per MMBTU in the delivered gas price. Sites 1a and 3
have slightly higher expected costs compared to the other two options.
124 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 10.10 Unit Price of Gas by Component for FSRU Options
While Site 1b appears to offer the lowest unit price for gas (and lowest LCOE
along with Site 4), all six sites are very close in unit cost, and LCOE differences
among all sites are well within the margin of error in this estimate. Thus, all five
sites appear to have similar economic viability, and a more detailed cost
estimate and analysis of implementation risks (particularly regarding power
plant siting, pipeline routing, and grid interconnection) would be required in
order to identify a preferred site for an LNG-to-power project.
10.4 Sensitivity Analysis

Under base case assumptions, all six sites offer competitive prices for electricity
in southern Vietnam (USD 85 per MWh), making each of these sites potentially
viable from a technical and economic perspective. The price of power is
inherently dependent upon a number of factors, and we present sensitivity
analysis of each option based on three key variables:
• Dispatch of the power plant
• Ex-ship LNG price (based on the price of crude oil)
• CAPEX for i) the power plant; and ii) terminal and gas pipelines.
10.4.1 Power Plant Dispatch

Due to high energy requirements in liquefaction and high fixed costs for terminal
infrastructure and shipping, LNG benefits significantly from economies of scale.
As a result, LNG to power projects tend to be most cost-competitive with high
generation achieved from base load power plants, consistent with our base case
assumption of a new CCGT operating at 70% capacity factor in southern
Vietnam.
The LNG supply market is changing, however, and LNG suppliers are offering
greater flexibility and competitive pricing at smaller supply quantities. A number
of LNG projects are operational or planned which would provide gas for seasonal
consumption, or for mid-merit power plants. One prominent example of such a
project is the LNG import terminal operated by SPEC in Cartagena, Colombia.
VIETNAM FSRU 125
In addition to base load generation, LNG could also offer an economically

competitive option for mid-merit generation in Vietnam. A CCGT operating in
mid-merit could perform load-following to allow for higher intermittent and
variable generation from renewable energy sources, in addition to offering
flexible, rapid-response capacity to meet afternoon and evening peaks.
We have estimated the LCOE for a CCGT operating in mid-merit with the
following assumptions:
• Capacity factor of 40% per year (down from 70% at base load)
• Heat rate of 6,655 BTU per kWh (up from 6,516 BTU per kWh due to an
additional 2% penalty for lower load factor)
• 365 starts per year (assuming one start per day vs. one start per month
if operating at base load).
The results are presented in the figure below.
Figure 10.11 Unit Price of Gas by Component for FSRU Options
The LCOE increases from USD 85 per MWh to USD 117 per MWh from base load
to mid-merit. At USD 117 per MWh, the CCGT operating on LNG is still cost-
effective compared to mid-merit diesel generation.
The reduction in capacity factor results in a 75% increase in the capacity charge
compared to base load generation, while the increase from monthly to daily
starts results in a 370% increase in O&M charges. The heat rate penalty (and
lower gas demand through the LNG terminal) results in an 11% increase in the
fuel charge compared to base load operations.
126 VIETNAM FSRU
10.4.2 Ex-Ship LNG Price (Oil Price)

The ex-ship LNG price is linked to oil prices, as is common market practice in
Asia. Oil prices thus have a significant effect on delivered gas prices and LCOE.
We have considered a range of potential oil prices from USD 50-100 per bbl. The
resulting LCOE and delivered gas prices are presented below. The base case
prices (oil at USD 70 per bbl) are highlighted. Figures correspond to base load
CCGT generation.
Table 10-4 Oil Prices vs. LCOE (USD per MWh)
Oil Price Site 1a: Site 1b: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Site 7:
(USD / bbl) Mui Ke Ga Mui Ke Ga Long Hai Vinh Ganh Vinh Chau Ca Mau
(Son My) (Phan Thiet) Rai
50 69.5 68.8 69.4 68.8 69.4 69.2
60 77.5 76.7 77.4 76.8 77.4 77.2
70 85.4 84.7 85.3 84.7 85.3 85.1
80 93.4 92.6 93.3 92.7 93.2 93.0
90 101.3 100.5 101.2 100.6 101.2 101.0
100 109.2 108.5 109.2 108.5 109.1 108.9
Table 10-5 Oil Prices vs. Unit Gas Price @ Plant Boundary (USD per MMBTU)
Oil Price Site 1a: Site 1b: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Site 7:
(USD / bbl) Mui Ke Ga Mui Ke Ga Long Hai Vinh Ganh Vinh Chau Ca Mau
50 7.2 7.0 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2
60 8.5 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.4
70 9.7 9.5 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.6
80 10.9 10.7 10.9 10.8 10.9 10.8
90 12.1 11.9 12.1 12.0 12.1 12.1
100 13.3 13.1 13.3 13.2 13.3 13.3
As expected, LNG to power becomes very attractive at low oil prices, and less
competitive with high oil prices. If operating in mid-merit, LNG-fired power
plants would likely maintain competitiveness against diesel, as diesel prices
would also rise and fall with oil prices. At base load, LNG-fired power plants
would vary in competitiveness against non-petroleum sources such as coal and
hydropower.
VIETNAM FSRU 127
10.4.3 Changes in CAPEX

Fuel price is the most significant driver of the LCOE from LNG-fired power plants,
but changes in CAPEX can also affect electricity prices. We have considered the
effects of variations in CAPEX of +/- 25%, consistent with the estimation error of
the figures in this study.
Table 10-6 Changes in Power Plant CAPEX vs. LCOE (USD per MWh)
% change Site 1a: Site 1b: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Site 7:

in CAPEX Mui Ke Ga Mui Ke Ga Long Hai Vinh Ganh Vinh Chau Ca Mau
+25% 90.0 89.4 89.9 89.3 89.9 89.7
- 85.4 84.7 85.3 84.7 85.3 85.1
-25% 80.8 79.9 80.7 80.1 80.7 80.5
Table 10-7 Changes in LNG Terminal + Pipeline CAPEX vs. LCOE (USD per MWh)
% change Site 1a: Site 1b: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Site 7:

in CAPEX Mui Ke Ga Mui Ke Ga Long Hai Vinh Ganh Vinh Chau Ca Mau
+25% 86.2 85.1 86.0 85.2 86.0 85.8
- 85.4 84.7 85.3 84.7 85.3 85.1
-25% 84.7 84.2 84.6 84.2 84.6 84.4
Changes in CAPEX result in only moderate changes in LCOE. Power plant CAPEX
has a much larger impact on LCOE compared to the CAPEX for the LNG terminal
and gas pipeline.
128 VIETNAM FSRU
11 LNG-to-shore options
This section focuses on assessing the possibility to have LNG transferred to
onshore for each of the five locations studied for mooring of an FSRU in southern
Vietnam. The premise for this initiative is that major part of the LNG is
regasified and a smaller part transferred as LNG to shore for distribution to
industrial users.
The assessment covers the following:
› Potential options
› Review of options
› High-level concept for best options including CAPEX and OPEX
› Suggested path forward for concept development
The advantage of transferring LNG to onshore should be considered from a

development and energy management standpoint as this solution would enable
the trucking of LNG using ISO containers or LNG tank-trucks, see Figure 11.1
and Figure 11.2, to smaller industrial and power generating users.
Figure 11.1 ISO containers with LNG
Figure 11.2 Truck with LNG
VIETNAM FSRU 129
11.1 Potential options

This section contains a brief presentation of identified options for transfer of LNG
from the FSRU (before regasification process) to onshore.
The identified options for getting LNG onshore are described in the following for
two main principles, one being through pipeline at the location of the FSRU and
one transporting the LNG to a site with a receiving terminal where LNG can be
transferred onshore.
11.1.1 Pipeline to shore

Transferring LNG from an offshore moored FSRU to onshore could be made
through either subsea pipeline or pipeline on a trestle. A cryogenic pipeline
would be required for the transfer of LNG to shore.
Cryogenic pipeline on trestle from FSRU to shore

Though a pipeline is efficient for transport of LNG, the costs of trestle and
cryogenic pipe will be high considering the transfer of smaller volumes of LNG.
Generally, this option is not considered feasible for sites where an FSRU is
moored off the shore.
Cryogenic subsea pipeline from FSRU to shore

The cost of a cryogenic pipe will be very high considering the long distances
offshore and the transfer of smaller volumes of LNG. Further, cryogenic pipe-in-
pipe subsea pipelines are an unproven technology and will be associated with
high technology risks. This option is not considered feasible and is not
considered further in this report.
11.1.2 Receiving terminal

Three options for transporting LNG from an FSRU to a receiving terminal located
in a protected area are briefly described. The receiving terminal could either be
a jetty or a spread mooring with floating transfer system. The receiving terminal
should be within a reasonable distance (i.e., around 100 km) from the FSRU
location.
The ship-to-ship (STS) transfer from the FSRU to a smaller vessel, as discussed
in the options below, will be the limiting factor for operation. STS may not be
feasible at exposed locations as they will be seasonally unreliable.
STS transfer from FSRU to small LNGC

The small LNGC could then offload at either an at-shore jetty or at an MBM with
transfer via floating transfer system.
A floating transfer system could, for example, be the Connect LNG UTS system,
the Houlder Marine/Wartsila system, or the 7Seas ATS solution. All options can
be applied in sheltered water and over shorter distances. The Universal Transfer
System (UTS) is shown in Figure 11.3.
130 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 11.3 Universal Transfer System (UTS)
If a small LNGC of <40,000 m³ storage is used for the transfer to shore,

onshore bullet tanks may be required for storage, along with a truck loading
station, which will increase the costs.
STS transfer from FSRU to barge with ISO containers on deck

If a barge with ISO containers is used, the ISO containers could be loaded
directly onto container trucks. This will require a port facility with suitable lifting
equipment for handling the ISO containers. This option will require many
transfer operations at sea to fill the containers.
STS transfer from FSRU to FSB

A Floating Storage Barge (C-type tanks on deck) could be used instead of a
small LNGC for the transport of LNG to a receiving terminal. Trucks or ISO
containers could be filled directly from the FSB. Offloading can best be made at
a harbour quay with easy truck access.
11.2 Review of options

The five sites for mooring of an FSRU in southern Vietnam can be divided into
two categories which are governing the options to be considered:
› FSRU moored in exposed conditions
› FSRU moored in protected harbour
The identified options are reviewed on a qualitative basis as presented in the

following for an FSRU moored in exposed conditions and in protected harbour,
respectively.
11.2.1 Options for exposed Sites 1, 3, 5 and 7

Four of the sites considered for mooring of an FSRU involve mooring off the
coast in open and exposed metocean conditions, i.e. Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga, Site 3 –
Long Hai, Site 5 – Vinh Chau and Site 7 – Ca Mau.
VIETNAM FSRU 131
Pipeline to shore
The FSRU for Site 3, Site 5 and Site 7 is moored too far offshore for considering
a pipeline solution on a trestle. For Site 1, it could be technically feasible but it is
a too expensive solution for a small volume of LNG to be supplied to industrial
customers.
It is concluded that for an FSRU moored at any of the four exposed sites,
transfer of LNG to shore through a cryogenic pipeline is not feasible.
STS transfer from FSRU to small LNGC

A small LNGC of <40,000 m³ storage is considered for the transfer of LNG from
the FSRU to shore. Using STS for transfer from the FSRU to a small LNGC will be
a limiting factor for this type of operation at the exposed sites. As a
consequence, the supply of LNG to shore will be seasonally unreliable, i.e.
during the winter season from November to February.
If the seasonally unreliable supply can be dealt with, this option might be
possible for the four exposed sites. This will require a potential at-shore location
for a jetty or an MBM mooring system with floating transfer system within a
reasonable distance (i.e. around 100 km) from the moored FSRU.
Transfer of LNG to onshore bullet tanks/truck loading station can be conducted

via a specially-equipped transfer system. Onward transport to smaller
consumers will take place by trucks.
STS transfer from FSRU to barge with ISO containers on deck

Using STS for transfer from the FSRU to a barge with ISO containers will be a
limiting factor for this type of operation at the exposed sites. Barges are more
sensitive to waves than ships and thus the limit for STS more restrictive for
barges. Consequently, the supply of LNG to shore will be unreliable all year
round and is not considered a feasible option for the exposed sites.
STS transfer from FSRU to FSB

Using STS for transfer from the FSRU to a Floating Storage Barge (FSB) will be a
limiting factor for this type of operation at the exposed sites. Barges are more
sensitive to waves than ships and thus the limit for STS is stricter for barges.
Consequently, the supply of LNG to shore will be unreliable all year round and is
not considered a feasible option for the exposed sites.
11.2.2 Options for protected Site 4

Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai is located inside a bay and is therefore protected against
the waves found at the four exposed sites. Generally, the significant wave height
at Site 4 is limited and less than 0.6 m.
Pipeline to shore
Transfer from an FSRU moored about 4 km off the shore using a cryogenic
pipeline on a trestle would not be economical feasible.
132 VIETNAM FSRU
Receiving terminal
The three previously outlined options using STS transfer from an FSRU to either
a small LNGC or a barge would be feasible in the protected harbour where Site 4
is located:
• STS transfer from FSRU to small LNGC
• STS transfer from FSRU to barge with ISO containers on deck
• STS transfer from FSRU to FSB
Vinh Ganh Rai is an industrial area and thus will be suited for LNG to shore to
industrial users.
11.3 High-level concept

High level concepts are developed for the best options identified in the above
review of options for both exposed sites and protected harbour site.
11.3.1 Exposed Sites 1, 3, 5 and 7

The only option which might be feasible is STS transfer from FSRU to small
LNGC. Two sizes of a LNGC are considered in the concept development, i.e.
40,000 m³ and 7,500 m³ storage capacity.
LNGC data
Table 11-1 Characteristics of LNGC
Small-Scale LNGC
Length, Loa (m) 208 115
Breadth, B (m) 29.3 18.6
Draft, T (m) 9.2 6.0
Capacity (m³) 40,000(*) 7,500(**)
*: as defined by PIANC, Ref. /3/, for a prismatic LNG carrier
**: technical specification for WSD50 from Wärtsilä
Locations
Considering an LNGC with a capacity of 40,000 m³, the water depth at the jetty
should be at least 11 m and the water depth for a MBM system at least 11 m in
a distance 500 to 600 m from shore.
Considering an LNGC with a capacity of 7,500 m³ the water depth at the jetty
should be at least 7 m and the water depth for a MBM system at least 7 m at a
VIETNAM FSRU 133
distance 500 to 600 m from shore. For the four offshore sites it is assessed that
STS transfer to a small 7,500 m³ LNGC will be unreliable and is not considered
further.
For an FSRU moored at Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga, a receiving terminal could be located
at Phan Thiet which already has a small port. The port is too small and shallow
to accommodate a 40,000 m³ LNGC.
For an FSRU moored at Site 3 – Long Hai, a receiving terminal could be located
in one of the small ports along the southern coastline. However, also for these
sites the water is too shallow and it is concluded that this option is not feasible
for a 40,000 m³ LNGC. Serving a receiving terminal inside Vinh Ganh Rai could
be possible, however, the number of sites for mooring of a 40,000 m³ LNGC are
limited and not considered further in this study.
For an FSRU moored at Site 5 – Vinh Chau, a receiving terminal could be located
inside the rivers along the southern coastline. However, also for these sites the
water is too shallow and it is concluded that this option is not feasible for a
40,000 m³ LNGC.
For an FSRU moored at Site 7 – Ca Mau Area, all port facilities in the vicinity are
located inside rivers. The limited water depths in the rivers will not be able to
accommodate a 40,000 m³ LNGC.
It is concluded that no optimal option is found for transfer of LNG to shore from
an FSRU moored at any of the exposed sites.
11.3.2 Protected harbour Site 4

At Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai, the three options involving STS transfer from FSRU to
either small LNGC or barge will be considered in the concept development.
Barge data
A typical Floating Storage Barge is shown in Figure 11.4 and characteristics of a
typical FSB is given in Table 11-2.
134 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 11.4 Floating Storage Barge (Houlder LNG, 1500 m³)
Table 11-2 Characteristics of typical FSB (1500 m³)

as shown in Figure 11.4
FSB
Length, Loa (m) 62
Breadth, B (m) 16
Draft, T (m) 2.5
Capacity (m³) 1,500
The dimension of a barge for ISO containers could have about the same
dimensions as indicated above for a FSB.
Locations
Two LNGC sizes are considered as previously described for the exposed sites,
and the restrictions to the water depths will be 11 m for the 40,000 m³ LNGC
and 7 m for the 7,500 m³ LNG.
Costs of a jetty or a MBM with a floating transfer system for mooring of a LNGC
will be higher than using a barge with ISO containers or a floating storage
barge. Further, the number of possible locations for mooring of an LNGC will be
less than for the barges with limited draft. Therefore, the small-scale LNGC
option will not be considered further in this study.
VIETNAM FSRU 135
Barges with a draft of about 2.5m can be accommodated at many locations

inside the bay and will even be able to go into the smaller rivers found off the
bay.
An existing quay structure can be used for offloading LNG from the FSB to trucks
or containers. Alternatively, a new quay or small platform can be constructed at
a suitable site for delivery to industrial customers.
Concept
The barge with ISO containers or a storage tank can be moored along the FSRU
in periods without the LNGC, or alternative it can be moored on the other side of
the platform. Transfer of LNG from the FSRU to ISO containers or storage tank
will take place via flexible cryogenic hoses connecting to a piping and manifold
system on the barge.
Figure 11.5 Barge moored along FSRU (2 different positions)
The barge has a length of about 60m and the required quay length for handling
of ISO containers will depend on the mooring arrangement at the site. A quay
length of 100 m is considered to be adequate, as shown in below figure showing
a harbour facility for offloading of ISO containers. Each barge can carry 30
containers (40 ft) in one layer, it is assumed that another 90 containers will be
required to optimise the transport to shore. Each container has a volume of
about 41 m³. Reach stacker, mobile crane or a barge crane on rails can be used
for handling of the ISO containers.
A FSB will only require a small mooring platform (15*20m) and a couple of
mooring dolphins. A truck loading station will be required at the mooring
platform.
136 VIETNAM FSRU
Figure 11.6 Barge moored at quay with container crane
Cost estimates
An high level estimate of the CAPEX for the two concepts was prepared. The
costs cover LNG to shore without allowance for storage facilities or trucking to
possible industrial users.
Table 11-3 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) estimates for option

with barge and ISO containers
Barge with ISO

containers
Barge for ISO containers incl. STS 20

and tug
ISO containers (90 nos, 40 ft) 13.5
Quay 5
Container crane 5
Total 43.5
Table 11-4 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) estimates for option

with floating storage barge
Floating storage
barge
Floating storage barge incl. STS 40

and tug
Platform incl. transfer system 10
Truck loading station 5
Total 55
VIETNAM FSRU 137
This assumes the barge is purchased and thus considered as CAPEX. It is also
possible to treat the barge as OPEX under a charter arrangement.
Owner's annual costs for operation of the facility will be about 3 MUSD.
The maintenance costs for the mooring arrangement and quay including transfer
systems is estimated at 1% of CAPEX for the considered period of about 10
years where the maintenance requirements will be limited.
11.4 Way forward for concept development

In the following, the way forward for developing the above high level concepts is
outlined in bullet point format.
• Location of potential industrial customers
• Consumption by potential customers
• Location of receiving terminals
• Concept design of receiving terminal
• Transport from receiving terminal to customers
• Number of barges, containers, trucks etc.
• Navigational issues
• Safety in handling and transport of LNG
• Limit of met-ocean conditions for STS transfer
• Required duration of STS transfer
• Design of STS transfer system
• Detailed cost calculations including supply chain
Establishing the basis for the concept development is important, i.e. data on
customers and their consumption of LNG.
138 VIETNAM FSRU
12 References
/1/ Petrovietnam Engineering J.S.C, Port and Waterway
Engineering Consultant J.S.C
Data Collection Survey on Natural Gas, Development and LNG Import
To Vietnam, Final Report
.
/2/ EnergyQuest
Vietnam Natural Gas Profile
February 2011.
/3/ PIANC
Report no. 121, Harbour Approach Channels, Design Guidelines
2014.
/4/ Qatargas Operating Company Limited
Ship/Shore Interface Document, Vessel Data , 204000028100016th
edition
Sept. 2006.
/5/ COWI
Vietnam FSRU Study. Metocean study
Nov. 2018.
/6/ IC & C – BENC – DAINAM JOINT VENTURE
LNG Terminal Selection Study, Son My, Binh Thuan, Vietnam.
Geotechnical Survey. March-April 2011.
Draft of Geotechnical report, April 2011.
/7/ ISO 21809-1
Petroleum, External coating for buried or submerged pipelines used in
pipeline transportation systems
.
/8/ IC & C – BENC – DAI NAM JOINT VENTURE
LNG Terminal Selection Study, Phu Long, Ba Ria – Vung Tau,
Vietnam, Geotectnical Survey March–April 2011
Geotechnical Report Rev.1.
/9/ GIZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit GmbH
Integrated Coastal Protection and Mangrove Belt Rehabilitation in the
Mekong Delta. Pre-feasibility study for investments in coastal
protection along 480 kilometers in the Mekong Delta
.
/10/ DNVGL
ST-F101, Submarine Pipeline Systems,
October 2017 (Amended Dec 2017).
/11/ ISO 21457
Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries Materials
selection and corrosion control for oil and gas production systems
September 2010.

IFC - Final Report - A116615-RP-02-Siting Options - Ver2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IFC - Final Report - A116615-RP-02-Siting Options - Ver2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEBRUARY 2019

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC)

FSRU SITING AND

FSRU SITING AND

PROJECT NO. DOCUMENT NO.

VERSION DATE OF ISSUE DESCRIPTION PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED

2.0 21 Feb 2019 Final Report PFSM/JJU/RDHN RDHN/JJU JJU

3 FSRU siting options study 21

5 Site 3 – Long Hai 46

5.7 Implementation Schedule 61

6 Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai 63

7 Site 5 – Vinh Chau 78

8 Site 7 – Ca Mau Area 92

9 Son My Site 109

10 Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) 113

11 LNG-to-shore options 128

› Site 1 – Mui Ke Ga (close to shore option)

› Site 3 – Long Hai (close to Nam Com Son 1 (NCS1) pipeline)

› Site 4 – Vinh Ganh Rai (close to Dao Long Son island)

› Site 5 – Vinh Chau (closest to shore in this shallow water area)

› Site 7 – Ca Mau Area (close to the pipeline corridor for Ca Mau)

The locations of the five sites are shown on Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Location of evaluated sites in southern Vietnam

An alternative mooring arrangement is recommended which decouple the

CAPEX 112 MUSD

OPEX (including FSRU lease) 30-40 MUSD/year

Owner costs 10 MUSD/year

CAPEX 123 MUSD

OPEX (including FSRU lease) 30-40 MUSD/year

Owner costs 10 MUSD/year

• Conventional mooring of the FSRU on a sea island berth

Connection to shore is by a Subsea Pipeline with a length of 4.2 km.

CAPEX (conventional mooring) 122 MUSD

CAPEX (pile cluster guide pile 117 MUSD

OPEX (including FSRU lease) 35-40 MUSD/year

Owner costs 10 MUSD/year

CAPEX 146 MUSD

OPEX (including FSRU lease) 30-40 MUSD/year

Owner costs 10 MUSD/year

• Submerged Soft Yoke (SSY) mooring

• Spread mooring in terms of Restricted Catenary Mooring (RMC)

SSY mooring system

CAPEX 158 MUSD

OPEX (including FSRU lease) 30-40 MUSD/year

Owner costs 10 MUSD/year

RCM mooring system

CAPEX 102 MUSD

OPEX (including FSRU lease) 30-40 MUSD/year

Owner costs 10 MUSD/year

Site 1a: Site 1b: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Site 7:

Gas Price 9.7 9.5 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.6

FSRU Charge 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Mooring 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1

Pipeline 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4

LNG, ex-ship 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4

Table 1-2 LCOE Results. Figures in USD per MWh.

Site 1a: Site 1b: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Site 7:

LCOE 85.4 84.7 85.3 84.7 85.3 85.1

Fuel Charge 63.0 61.8 62.9 62.3 62.8 62.7

Capacity 18.3 18.8 18.3 18.3 18.4 18.3

Power Plant 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1

› Cryogenic pipeline on trestle from FSRU to shore

› Cryogenic subsea pipeline from FSRU to shore