VERY ROUGH DRAFT for Review Purposes Only

OFFSHORE LNG RECEIVING TERMINALS

A Briefing Paper from the

GUIDE TO COMMERCIAL FRAMEWORKS FOR LNG
IN NORTH AMERICA
A Research and Public Education Consortium

Center for Energy Economics

Bureau of Economic Geology
The University of Texas at Austin
www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon

Summer 2005 (FINAL RELEASE DATE)

Center for Energy Economics, Bureau of Economic Geology,
The University of Texas at Austin. No reproduction, distribution,
or attribution without permission of the CEE.

VERY ROUGH DRAFT for Review Purposes Only

OFFSHORE LNG RECEIVING TERMINALS1

INTRODUCTION
Although offshore deepwater ports exist and have been widely used for
loading crude oil and oil products for many years, to date no offshore
receiving terminals for imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) have been built.
Several different designs of offshore terminals are under development in
North American and worldwide. These borrow from plans and technologies
tested over time in both crude oil applications and onshore LNG receiving
terminals. If engineering and economic feasibilities are met, offshore LNG
terminals can add diversity to how imported LNG is received and handled.
Apart

from

operating

considerations,

range

of

concerns

surround

development of offshore LNG receiving facilities, including marine safety for

LNG shipping and LNG tanker berthing; environmental impacts associated
with construction and deployment of offshore facilities; and environmental
impacts associated with LNG re-gasification.

In the case of LNG re-

gasification, plans for proposed offshore terminals mainly incorporate either

flow-through or "open-rack" vaporizers using ambient seawater as the heat
medium, or gas-fueled vaporizers which have significantly higher emissions.
Our objective in this report is to review available information and knowledge
on types of offshore LNG receiving and re-gasification terminals that are
being developed, planned, or proposed. We discuss key components, identify
technical issues relating to each type, and evaluate potential solution options
where possible. We also identify the role of offshore terminals in the U.S.
natural gas supply chain.
This briefing paper was prepared by Mr. Fisoye Delano, Group Head of Corporate Planning,
Nigeria National Petroleum Corp. and Dr. Michelle Michot Foss, Chief Economist and Head,
CEE-BEG-UT Austin, with assistance from Ms. Elvira Irady, _____, and Mr. Dmitry Volkov,
_______, CEE-BEG-UT Austin. Sponsors of the consortium are: BG LNG Services; BP
Americas-Global LNG; Cheniere Energy; Chevron Global Gas Group; ConocoPhillips Worldwide
LNG; Dominion Energy; El Paso Corporation; ExxonMobil Gas & Power Marketing Company;
Freeport LNG; Sempra Energy Global Enterprises; Shell Gas & Power; and Tractebel LNG North
America/Distrigas of Massachusetts. The U.S. Department of Energy/Office of Fossil Energy
helps to coordinate peer reviews with other federal agencies and commissions. Technical
advisors to the consortium are: ABS, CHIV, DNV, Lloyds Register, PTL, SIGTTO, the Ministry of
Energy and Industries of Trinidad & Tobago, and Nigeria National Petroleum Corp. Other
briefing papers that are part of the Guide to Commercial Frameworks for LNG in North America
can be found on the CEE web site, www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon.
1

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 2

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

KEY CONCLUSIONS HERE

OVERVIEW OF LNG MARINE IMPORT TERMINALS IN NORTH

AMERICA
Currently, there are four operating onshore LNG import terminals in North
America with a total peak sendout capacity of 2.88 billion cubic feet per day
(Bcf/d). Planned expansions, when completed, will account for another 2.33
Bcf/d of sendout capacity. Roughly 46 new LNG import terminals including
both onshore and offshore designs, with a potential total peak sendout
capacity of more than 45 Bcf/d, have been planned or proposed for North
America alone.2
At this time of writing, of the roughly 46 potential new terminals in North
America, five projects had received final regulatory approvals in the U.S. for
an aggregate peak sendout capacity of 5.1 Bcf/ d. Three of these projects are
onshore terminals: Quintana Island, Texas operated by Freeport LNG; Sabine
Pass, Louisiana operated by Cheniere Energy; and Hackberry in Louisiana
operated by Sempra Global Energy Enterprise. Construction at both onshore
locations has been approved, ground has been broken in Freeport (CHECK
STATUS OF SABINE) and contracts for the available storage capacity have
been finalized (the Freeport LNG project is already over-committed and
discussion is underway regarding adding storage capacity to the original,
two-tank design).
Two of the five approved terminals in the U.S. would be located in offshore
waters and comprise a total peak sendout capacity of 2.5 Bcf/d: Port Pelican,
operated by Chevron, to be located about 40 miles from the southwestern
Louisiana coastline; and Energy Bridge, a combined shipping and regasification technology that discharges through a submerged sea buoy about
116 miles offshore Louisiana. Table 1 provides a summary of the approved
offshore projects in the U.S.
Five other offshore projects are in various stages of the regulatory approval
process with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and another five LNG offshore
2

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), http://www.ferc.gov/.

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 3

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

projects remain in the planning stages (see Table 2 for a summary of
offshore LNG projects that are pending approvals or that are proposed). The
total average send out capacity of all seven offshore terminals that are
approved or under regulatory review is 9.4 Bcf/d or 3.45 Tcf per year; the
peak send out capacity is 14.8 Bcf/d or 5.4 Tcf per year. All of the seven
offshore terminals are proposed to be constructed and to start operations
between 2005 and 2009. If all seven of these offshore facilities were to be
built and placed into service, the send out capacity would be adequate to
meet most of the projected LNG import volumes required for the U.S. by
2025, 13.1 Bcf/d or 4.8 Tcf a year (see Error: Reference source not found).
If all seven facilities were to be built along with the two onshore terminals
already approved for construction, the U.S. market could actually be
oversupplied.

All new LNG receiving terminals, even those that have

regulatory approvals, are subject to market conditions.

The competitive,

market driven process for new LNG import terminals in the U.S. is intensely
competitive. Given the number of onshore import terminals that are planned
or proposed, it is unlikely that all of the potential offshore capacity will be
developed.

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 4

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Figure 1 Estimated Additional Capacity from the Nine Proposed

Offshore LNG Terminals (CHECK EIA OUTLOOK FOR UPDATE)

The Deepwater Port Act (DPA) authorized the U.S. Maritime Administration
(MARAD) to serve as the licensing authority responsible for permitting new
offshore LNG terminals in U.S. waters, in coordination with the USCG. 3. By
law, MARAD has only one year in which to issue a license to an offshore LNG
applicant and then it can only issue a license with approvals from the
Governors of all adjacent coastal states. Along with MARAD and the USCG,
other regulatory approvals must come from:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act and
the Clean Water Act;

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval for onshore

interstate natural gas pipelines;

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) approval for importats of natural

gas;

The USCG retained its non-administrative duties under DPA even though USCG was moved to
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from the U.S. Department of Transportation, where
MARAD is based. USCG duties include staffing the determination of completeness, preparation
of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and other duties. Information for this and the
following paragraphs on regulatory reviews and approvals was taken from Licensing of
Offshore Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal Facilities by Monica Schwebs, for the 12 th Section Fall
Meeting, Section on Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association, October
6-10, 2004, San Antonio, Texas.
3

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 5

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

U.S. Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Research and Special

Projects Administration approval concerning pipeline safety;

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) Minerals Management Service

(MMS) determination of fair market rental;

National

Oceanic

and

Atmospheric

Administration

(NOAA)

approval

concerning fisheries impacts;

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), depending upon the location of the species, for
consultation concerning the Endangered Species Act;

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits.

Under the DPA, and in addition to executive approval, the States have certain
rights and responsibilities.

They must determine the consistency of the

offshore LNG facility with state coastal zone management plans made under
the Coastal Zone Management Act; issue leases for any use of state
submerged lands for natural gas pipeline purposes; approve any new
intrastate natural gas pipelines that must be developed; and be involved
through their State environmental agencies in the Endangered Species Act
consultation process.

Finally, certain local land use approvals must be

obtained by offshore LNG project developers for any onshore facilities.

LNG currently accounts for about two percent of U.S. natural gas supply. The
Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy
(U.S. DOE) forecasts a shortfall in U.S. natural gas supply of about 7.5 trillion
cubic feet (Tcf) by 2025.4 LNG imports are projected to reach about 13.1
billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) or 4.8 Tcf a year by 2025 and would account
for about 15 percent of total U.S. consumption (pipeline imports of natural
gas from Canada would comprise the remainder of total natural gas imports
required to balance the U.S. market).

A level of LNG imports of 4.8 Tcf

would be almost ten times the volume of LNG imported in 2003. Growing
demand for natural gas as well as challenges in maintaining and replacing
4

See U.S. EIA annual long term outlook, December 2004, www.eia.doe.gov.

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 6

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

domestic production of natural gas are the major factors driving U.S. EIA,
and other, outlooks for U.S. LNG imports.
In addition to the U.S., LNG is expected to play an important role in Mexicos
energy supply portfolio.

A new LNG onshore receiving terminal is under

construction in Altamira, Tamaulipas state. Additional onshore projects are

under discussion for both the east and west coasts of Mexico. Two offshore
projects are proposed on Mexicos Pacific coast (see Table 3). LNG facilities
also are under review in the Atlantic Canada provinces. Disappointing results
from offshore natural gas exploration coupled with supply-demand signals in
the northeastern U.S. have stimulated considerable discussion and effort to
locate LNG receiving capacity in eastern Canada.

An onshore receiving

terminal will soon be under construction in New Brunswick and other onshore
projects are under regulatory review.5

No offshore LNG receiving facilities

are being contemplated for Atlantic Canada.

The UH IELE has conducted a major review of natural gas supply demand balances and the
role of LNG. This report can be obtained at www.energy.uh.edu/lng.
5

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 7

Table 1 Approved U.S. Offshore LNG Import Terminals6

Name /Location

Technology

Anticipated
startup
date

Estimated
Cost
$millions

Storage
Tanks
Capacity

Vaporizer
Type

# of tanks x
bcm of LNG

Vermilion Block 140. 40

miles offshore
Louisiana

Gravity Base
Structure
Water Depth
83ft

2007

800

2x165000
m3
330000
m3

Comments

Sendout
Capacity
Avg/Peak
MMcfd

(Bcf of NG)

1. Port Pelican
Chevron

Baseload

Open Rack
Vaporizing
(ORV)

(7 Bcf)

Phase 1:
800/1000
Phase 2:
1600/2000

USCG approved November

2003, DOT Docket #
14134. Chevron awarded
major contracts to Aker
Kvaerner and Fluor, for
front-end engineering
design (FEED) and to
perform engineering,
procurement and
construction management
(EPCM).
Draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) for
proposed fabrication site
submitted on July 27,
2004. The EA for the

fabrication of the
Chevron Port Pelican
Gravity Based Structure
(GBS) is being prepared
by the USCG.

Updates from various industry trade publications including Natural Gas Intelligence (NGI), Status of Proposed and Existing Facilities.
http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng/terminals/lng_terminals.html, November 2004 why only mention this one??
6

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 8

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Name /Location

Technology

Anticipated
startup
date

Estimated
Cost
$millions

Storage
Tanks
Capacity

Vaporizer
Type

# of tanks x
bcm of LNG

Excelerate Energy & El

Paso Corp.
West Cameron Block
603 Gulf of Mexico, 116
miles offshore
Louisiana.

Submerged
Turret
Loading
(STL) Buoy
System

Jan. 2005

700

138,000
m3

(2.9 Bcf)

Comments

Sendout
Capacity
Avg/Peak
MMcfd

(Bcf of NG)

2. Louisiana Energy
Bridge Deepwater
Port

Baseload

Shell and
Tube
Vaporizers
(STV)

Water Depth

500

USCG approved Jan, 2004.

3 specialized 138,000 cu.
meter LNG ships were
being built in South Korea
scheduled to be delivered
in Nov. 2004, April 2005 &
Dec 2006.
DOT Docket # 14294

298ft

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 9

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Table 2 - Other Pending or Proposed Offshore U.S. LNG Import Terminals7,8

Name /Location

Technology

Anticipated
Startup
Date

Estimated
Cost
$millions

Storage
Tanks
Capacity

Vaporizer
Type

Baseload
Sendout
Capacity

Comments

Avg/Peak

# of tanks x
bcm of LNG

MMcfd

(Bcf of NG)

Pending with USCG

3. Main Pass
Energy Hub.
Offshore
FreeportMcMoRan Energy
LLC

Salt caverns

2007

440

145000m3
Water Depth

(3.1 Bcf)
surface LNG
storage

210ft.

Open Rack
Vaporizing
(ORV)

1000/3000

and

Gulf of Mexico 16
miles southeast
Louisiana.9

4. Cabrillo
Deepwater Port,
BHP Billiton.

6x24660m3

DOT Docket # 17696

28 Bcf salt
dome
natural gas
storage
facility
FSRU
(Floating
Storage and

2008

550

3x91000m3
273000 m3

Application for a deepwater

port license was submitted
Mar. 2004. Regulatory clock
stopped on 09/17/04 due to
lack of necessary information

Submerged
combustion
vaporizers

800/1500

Application for a deepwater

port license was submitted
Sept. 2003. Regulatory clock

Updates from various industry trade publications including Natural Gas Intelligence (NGI), Status of Proposed and Existing Facilities.
http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng/terminals/lng_terminals.html, November 2004.
7

California Energy Commission Staff report, West Coast LNG Projects, September 24, 2004.

http://www.mpeh.com check site and reconfirm

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 10

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Name /Location

Technology

Anticipated
Startup
Date

Estimated
Cost

Storage
Tanks
Capacity

$millions

Vaporizer
Type

MMcfd

(Bcf of NG)

Regasification
Unit)

(6 Bcf)

Comments

Avg/Peak

# of tanks x
bcm of LNG

21 miles offshore
Port Hueneme,
California10.

Baseload
Sendout
Capacity

(SCV)

stopped on 04/16/04 due to

data gaps/EPA permitting.
Clock was restarted 09/03/04.

Water Depth
DOT Docket # 16877

2900ft.
5. Pearl Crossing
ExxonMobil
Gulf of Mexico, 41
miles off of
Cameron

Gravity Base
Structure

2008

2x125000
m3

(5.3Bcf)

Open Rack
Vaporizing
(ORV)

2000/2800

Water Depth:

Application for a deepwater

port license was submitted
7/21/2004 in May 2004.
DOT Docket # 18474

62ft

Parish, La.,
6. Gulf Landing
Shell Gas & Power

Gravity Base
Structure

38 miles offshore
Louisiana. West
Cameron Block 213.

Water Depth:

7. Crystal
Clearwater Port,
Crystal Energy

Platform
based
(Converting

10

2008

370

2x90000m3

180000m3

Open Rack
Vaporizing
(ORV)

1000/1200

Application submitted. Public

hearings and comments till
1/3/2005.
DOT Docket # 16860

(3.8Bcf)

54ft
2007

300

http://lngsolutions.bhpbilliton.com

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 11

800/1200

Application filed as an offshore

natural gas project with USCG
on 1/28/04.

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Name /Location

Technology

Anticipated
Startup
Date

Estimated
Cost
$millions

Storage
Tanks
Capacity

Vaporizer
Type

# of tanks x
bcm of LNG
(Bcf of NG)

LLC.
13 miles west of
Oxnard, California11.

Baseload
Sendout
Capacity
Avg/Peak
MMcfd

an existing
offshore,
Platform
Grace.)

Crystal also is working on an

LNG supply agreement with
the Alaska Gasline Port
Authority.

Water Depth

Application re-filed with USCG

on 7/27/04.

318ft.

DOT Docket # (TBD)

Proposed
8. Northeast
Gateway
Energy Bridge
Deepwater Port,
Excelerate Energy
Offshore Gloucester
MA.

Submerged
Turret
Loading
(STL) Buoy
System

2007

200

2010

700

Water Depth
300ft

9. Broadwater
Energy
TransCanada
Corporation/ Shell
US Gas & Power LLC
11

Comments

FSRU
(Floating
Storage and
Regasification

http://www.crystalenergyllc.com

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 12

400/800

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Name /Location

Technology

Anticipated
Startup
Date

Estimated
Cost
$millions

Storage
Tanks
Capacity

Vaporizer
Type

# of tanks x
bcm of LNG
(Bcf of NG)

Baseload
Sendout
Capacity

Comments

Avg/Peak
MMcfd

Unit)
Water Depth
75 - 100ft
10. Port Penguin
LNG Chevron

USCG, Chevron has discussed

the project publicly but has
not proposed a specific site

11. Freedom LNG

Salt Cavern

HNG Storage

Bishops
Process

12. Offshore
California

750

Chevron

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 13

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Table 3 - Proposed Offshore LNG Import Terminals in Mexico

Name /Location

Technology

Anticipated
startup
date

Estimated
Cost
$millions
$millions

Terminal GNL Mar Adentro

de Baja California12 Chevron
8 miles off the coast of
Tijuana, Northern Baja
California, Mexico.

Gravity Base
Structure

2007

650

Storage
Tanks
Capacity

Vaporizer
Type

# of tanks x
bcm of LNG

Sendout
Capacity
MMcfd
Avg/Peak

(Bcf of NG)

MMcfd

250000m3

750/1400

(5.3 Bcf)

Water Depth
65ft.

Comments

Chevron was awarded

authorization from the
Environment and
Natural Resources
Secretariat (SEMARNAT)
for its Environmental
Impact Assessment
(Manifestacin de
Impacto Ambiental, or
MIA) and Risk
Assessment for a
proposed natural gas
receiving and
regasification terminal
off the coast of Baja
California, Mexico on
17th of September,
2004.

Planned
Conversion Gas Imports
Bay of Campeche, Mexico

12

Bishops
Process.
Salt caverns

Studying feasibility

http://www.Chevron.com/gnlbaja/about/

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 14

OFFSHORE LNG TERMINALS

Table 4 - Summary of Proposed Offshore LNG Terminals in North America
Type of Operation

# of Terminals

Mode of Operation

Continuous

Intermittent

Water Depth

Shallow water (<200ft)

Deepwater (>200ft)

Distance from Shore

0 20 miles

20 50 miles

More than 50 miles

Location

Gulf of Mexico

West Coast

Vaporization Method

Open Rack Vaporizer (ORV)

Submerged Combustion Vaporizer (SCV)

Shell and Tube Vaporizer (STV)

Modes of Operation of Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals

Offshore LNG terminals can be generally divided into two groups based on the
operational models: continuous baseload operations or intermittent operations.
Continuous base load operations require LNG terminals to have storage capacity
for LNG or vaporized natural gas.

Terminals that do not include storage for LNG

would generally be used for intermittent operations. Five of the seven approved
or pending offshore terminals are continuous baseload operations as depicted in
Table 4. All the types of LNG terminals would include systems for docking and
unloading of LNG vessels and systems for vaporization of the LNG for delivery to

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 15

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

onshore markets via undersea pipelines. NOTE This table needs to be checke for
the correct number of terminals see tables 1-2.

Continuous Baseload Operations

Since continuous baseload operations mean constant send out of natural gas from
an LNG import facility, a typical conventional onshore tank-based LNG receiving
facility must have sufficient tank storage capacity to receive two to three ship
cargoes.

This implies storage capacity of between 250,000 and 380,000 cubic

meters (cm) of LNG or about 5 to 8 Bcf of natural gas at standard conditions. A

standard cubic foot (scf) is the natural gas volume measured at standard conditions
(60F and 1 atmosphere or 14.7 pounds per square inch, psi, of pressure). With
LNG storage on site, the terminal will always have LNG reserves in its storage tanks
to keep the pipelines cooled down. The high-pressure pumps and vaporizers
determine the send-out capacity of the facility. A typical onshore LNG import facility
can receive a cargo in about 24 hours but takes from three to six days to vaporize
and discharge that volume to the natural gas pipeline system.
This same process is used offshore.

To facilitate continuous baseload operations

from offshore LNG import terminals, cryogenic storage tanks would be fitted on
floating vessels, as part of shipboard re-gasification units (FSRU), in gravity based
structures (GBS), or on platforms supported by pilings.

Intermittent Operations
At offshore LNG receiving facilities using intermittent operations, the LNG would not
be stored at the receiving terminals but immediately converted to natural gas for
delivery through a subsea pipeline (with likely storage in conventional underground
natural gas storage facilities).

In this case, the offshore terminal can be either

stationary or floating. Stationary mooring and delivery methods would be much like
those required for continuously operating facilities, but without storage.

Floating

moorings typically involve a buoy with associated anchoring systems to connect a

pipeline to the LNG vessel as in the Shuttle and LNG Regasification System (Energy
Bridge, see Table 1). Floating mooring and delivery methods would generally

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 16

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

require water depths greater than 160 feet to accommodate the flexible pipeline
connection between the unit and the seafloor pipeline.

Water Depth, Distance from Shore, and Location

When considering siting of LNG offshore terminals, a wide range of possible
locations present themselves. LNG offshore terminals must be located in waters of
at least 40 feet (approximately 13 meters) in depth. LNG vessels typically have a

draft of 38 feet and require an additional two feet of depth to provide sufficient
clearance from the sea bottom for safe maneuvering.

This means that the

minimum water depth for siting LNG offshore terminals will be determined by the
minimum depth of water required for the safe maneuvering of the LNG vessels,
which is about 40 feet. At present, there is no maximum depth of water that would
limit the location of an offshore LNG terminal, but ultimate water depths for safe,
economic operation are also determined by geometry of the sea floor, wave action,
distance from shore, and other factors.
GBS and platform-based offshore facilities would sit on the seabed and thus be
depth restricted. These facilities would be located closer to land and hence be more
visible from the beach. Deepwater locations would be farther offshore and would
require longer subsea pipelines at higher incremental cost, but would be
significantly less visible.13
Some of the advantages of offshore LNG terminals include the possibility of locating
the terminal in deeper water thereby eliminating the need for dredging inland
waterways and increased availability, safety and reduced voyage time as LNG
carriers need not enter and maneuver in congested waters.
In the U.S., the Deepwater Port Act (DWPA) of 1974 14, as amended, specifies the
regulations concerning offshore oil and gas terminals. The DWPA established a
licensing process for ownership, construction and operation of manmade structures
beyond the U.S. territorial waters. The limit of the US EEZ (Exclusive Economic
Zone) sets the maximum limit for siting LNG offshore terminals. In concept, this
Said, Mike and Joram Meijerink, Shell Global Solutions International B.V., LNG Import Terminals:
Offshore vs Onshore - A Site & Concept Screening Methodology, 14th International Conference on
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG-14), Doha, Qatar. March, 2004.
13

14

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 17

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

would include any location along the maritime coastline of the U.S. in the Atlantic
Ocean, Pacific Ocean, or Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in the U.S. EEZ, and that is at least
12 miles offshore. Since the DWPA was passed it has been modified twice to
streamline the application process and to promote the offshore importation of
natural gas in addition to oil. The last modification was in November 2002 when the
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) was signed, which formally
amended the DWPA to extend the definition of deepwater ports to include natural
gas facilities and implement measures to improve vessel and facility security. Ports
must not be sited in areas specially designated as vessel navigation routes, cargo
operations areas, or environmental protection and conservation areas.
The DWPA allows the deepwater ports to be operated for exclusive use, thereby
dedicating the entire capacity of the facility for its own purposes, without being
subject to the requirements of open access or common carriage. Since the passage
of the DWPA of 1974, the only operational deepwater port in existence today is the
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP).
The USCG has established a 500m Safety Zone surrounding the offshore LNG
terminal to exclude ship traffic not related to the port operations. The requirement
of this safety zone necessitates that the offshore LNG terminal be located away
from shipping fairways, existing oil or gas platforms, other deepwater ports, and
other areas of activity on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to avoid interference
with those activities. Other considerations of location, such as proximity to existing
offshore and onshore pipeline distribution systems and support infrastructure, will
also influence the cost effectiveness of a deepwater port. 15
Six of the proposed LNG offshore terminals are in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Error:
Reference source not found. The GOM provides many favorable conditions for the
development of offshore LNG terminals. Extensive existing onshore support
infrastructure and the general economy of the Gulf area strongly support
development of offshore LNG terminals. In addition to onshore resources, the GOM
offers access to an extensive existing offshore pipeline infrastructure with direct
access to major onshore distribution points.
US Coast Guard: Maritime Administration Final Environmental Assessment of the El Faso Energy
Bridge Deepwater Port License Application, Nov. 2003
15

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 18

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Type of Regasification Process

The LNG regasification process starts with the offloading of LNG from ocean-going
LNG ships into storage tanks, pumping the LNG from storage tanks through
vaporizers (heat exchanger) at pipeline pressure and finally sending out the
product, natural gas, through custody transfer metering to the gas pipeline
network, see Error: Reference source not found.
Figure 2 General LNG Receiving Terminal Operation

Use this graphic? If so, need source

The types of vaporizers applicable to offshore LNG terminals include:

The open rack vaporizer (ORV);

Submerged combustion vaporizer (SCV); and

Shell and tube vaporizer (STV) using either once-through heating seawater
(open-loop) or a steam heated (closed-loop) system.

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 19

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Of the nine proposed offshore terminals in North America six plan to use the ORV
and one each plan to use the SCV and STV. Safety during operations, commercial
viability, operability and maintainability, space requirements and suitability for
offshore use and environmental impacts are some of the parameters considered in
selecting the appropriate vaporizers.

Open Rack Vaporizer (ORV) Systems

Figure 3 - Schematic Drawing of ORV
ORV systems use seawater flowing over
a series of panel coils to warm the LNG
which is flowing countercurrent within
the

panels,

Reference

as

source

shown

in

not

found.

Error:
The

ambient seawater is the sole source of

heat. Seawater

would

flow through

intake screens, which eliminate debris,

and then pumped to the ORVs through
strainers.

Intake screens would be

designed with mesh sizes and operated

at

intake

velocities

impingement

and

that

minimize

entrainment

of

marine organisms (see Error: Reference

Source: KOBELCO :
www.kobelco.co.jp/eneka/p01/orve.ht
m

source not found). Impingement can

occur when larger aquatic organisms
are pinned against screens or other

structures and killed or injured. Entrainment can occur when eggs, larvae, young
juveniles, and smaller aquatic organisms are drawn into cooling systems and killed
or injured by thermal, chemical, or physical stresses. The cooled seawater would
be collected and discharged to the ocean after one pass through the system.
Depending on the send-out capacity the discharge line can be up to 5 7 feet in
diameter, Error: Reference source not found. The seawater is chlorinated to protect
the surface of the tube panel against biofouling and to prevent marine growth

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 20

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

inside the piping. Biofouling (biological fouling) is the undesirable accumulation of
microorganisms, plants and animals on artificial surfaces. This occurs on artificial
surfaces submerged in seawater (marine biofouling), such as ships hulls, seaside
piers and sea defenses, as well as on other surfaces in continuous contact with
water, such as air conditioning systems and water pipes. The once-through warming
water discharges must meet environmental permits requirements.
Figure 4 - Picture of Installed ORV

Source: KOBELCO : www.kobelco.co.jp/eneka/p01/orve.htm

Submerged Combustion Vaporizers (SCV)

SCV systems burn natural gas as their source of heat. The process will superheat
the natural gas to a temperature of about 41 oF at a pressure of about 1,500 psig.
The LNG and natural gas flow are contained within process piping submerged in the
water bath. Neither LNG nor natural gas is directly released into the water bath,
but combustion exhaust gas does bubble through the water bath.

Water for the

bath is fresh water generated by collection of condensed water formed from the
natural gas fuel burned in the SCV. Moisture in the exhaust gas will condense on
cold LNG piping. Potable water for the terminal can be supplied from the
condensation of moisture out of the air at the SCV units. The water bath provides
stable heat transfer to the LNG and natural gas. The water bath is cooled as the
natural gas absorbs heat from it.

No circulating seawater is required for the

submerged combustion vaporization process. There are NO x and CO2 emissions due
the burning of natural gas to fire the burners.

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 21

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Figure 5 - Submerged Combustion Vaporizer. Source: Cheniere

Shell and Tube Vaporizer (STV) can be operated in an open-loop, closed-loop, or

combined mode. In the open-loop configuration, relatively warm seawater is
pumped from fixed intakes and passed through the shell-and-tube vaporizer to
provide the heat necessary to change the LNG to its natural gas phase. In this
configuration the STV is similar to the ORV except that the seawater is pumped
through the shell and tube exchangers. STV come in smaller sizes than ORVs,
therefore more STVs are required for a given vaporization system. In the closedloop configuration, a boiler would heat the water circulated in a closed-loop through
the shell-and-tube vaporizer. Natural gas would be the fuel for the boiler and there
will be some level of NOx and CO2 emissions.
[insert picture of STV]
Cost Comparison: The ConocoPhillips LNG Vaporizer Options Study presented a
detailed cost analysis of the vaporization options applicable to offshore LNG
terminals. The study concluded that the ORV system has a higher capital cost than

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 22

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

SCV system, but the ORV system has a lower operating cost and requires less fuel.
The cost of the STV for seawater application will be generally higher although the
installed cost is lower than that of ORVs.

TYPES OF OFFSHORE LNG RECEIVING TERMINALS IN NORTH

AMERICA
There are five main types of offshore LNG terminal:
Gravity Based Structure (GBS)
Floating, Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) Concept
Shuttle and LNG Regasification System (Energy Bridge)
Cavern Based LNG Receiving Facilities
Platform Based Import Terminal
The different types of LNG offshore terminal will be examined and the components
will be discussed and the technical issues would be highlighted. An example taken
from the proposed projects will then be presented to further illustrate the key
component of each type. A complete list of the proposed projects is provided in
Table 1 - Error: Reference source not found.

Gravity Based Structure (GBS)

GBSs have been used to support offshore facilities for more than 30 years. The
concrete construction is adaptable to extreme cold temperatures and would be
designed to tolerate contact with LNG where applicable. GBS supported production
facilities are typically considered for shallow water offshore locations, with water
depths typically limited to the range of 40 ft 100ft. The lower limit is to
accommodate the minimum draft requirements for LNG ships as discussed above.
All the proposed LNG terminals fall in this water depth range, see -Table 1- Error:
Reference source not found. GBS structures must also be located in areas where

the seafloor is relatively level or gently sloping, lacking in geologic hazards, and
with satisfactory sediments to support the foundation and weight of the
structure. If there is a significant thickness of soft clays, the most effective means

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 23

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

of founding the GBS is by constructing concrete skirts. A concrete skirt is a vertical
structure that cuts through the solid foundation to harder material below.
Figure 6 - Offshore LNG GBS Production, Storage and Offloading Terminals

Source:
[Get a picture of showing GBS layout]
The GBS concept is particularly well suited to phased expansion, additional GBS
units may be constructed and installed adjacent to existing facilities and linked to
the existing GBS by a shallow water jackets and a bridge. Significant synergies can
arise due to the sharing of production utilities, storage and offloading facilities for
the phased expansion of the facility. The size of the GBS is defined by the storage
volume or topside area required for the support of facilities or a combination of both
requirements.

GBS Components and Configuration

The LNG terminal usually consists of two reinforced concrete, rectilinear GBSs. Each
GBS would be about 200 ft wide, 500 ft long, and 150 ft tall. One GBS unit, the
Utility GBS, would support the control and maintenance buildings and utilities. The
other GBS, the Process GBS, would support the regasification facilities on its top
deck. The two GBSs would be positioned end to end, separated by about 100ft and
connected by a jacket and bridge. High-strength cement technology and steel
reinforcing would be used to design the GBSs to safely withstand extreme loads like

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 24

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

severe wave loads caused by hurricanes force similar to what is experience in the
Gulf of Mexico and other energy-imparting events, including vessel impact. 16 If the
GBS is sitting in about 80ft of water, there will be about 70 ft of freeboard above
the seawater level.

Offloading LNG Ships

The berthing and unloading facilities for LNG ships would include one or two LNG
ship berths and a berthing control tower to manage all berthing operations and
procedures. The mooring system would allow one or two LNG ships to be moored
alongside the GBS. LNG ships would berth anytime of the day or night, subject to
suitable weather conditions. The LNG GBS offloading facilities would be designed to
accommodate LNG ships ranging in capacity from 100,000 m3 to 160,000 m3 or
more depending on the water depth at location.
[insert picture of offloading arms]
Ship cargo transfer would use a loading arm package per berth. The loading arm
package consists of four 16-in diameter loading arms. The loading arms would be
similar to those used at existing onshore LNG facilities; however, the specific
configuration would be designed to accommodate offshore ship movements at
berth. LNG ships would offload through three of the four loading arms. Typical
offloading rates would be about 10,000 - 12,000 cubic meters per hour (m/hr)
(353,000 to 423,600 cubic feet per hour (ft 3/hr]) of LNG. The fourth loading arm
would be dedicated to vapor return from the terminal to equalize pressure between
LNG ship and terminal storage tanks. One of the three arms used for liquid could be
used for vapor if the vapor arm is damaged, but offloading rates would be reduced.
During the absence of LNG ships at either berth, LNG from the GBS storage tanks
would be re-circulated in the terminal offloading piping network to maintain cold
temperatures for the next ship cycle, minimizing the need for cool down the pipes
when the next ship arrived. The time LNG ship spend at berth would be
approximately 24 hours (hr), including berthing, hookup, offloading, disconnect,
and un-berthing.
US Coast Guard: Maritime Administration: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port
Pelican Llc Deepwater Port License Application. August 2003.
16

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 25

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

LNG Storage on the GBS

The LNG is stored within the GBS hull in a double containment tank with membrane
liner. Each GBS would have an integrated LNG tank. The substructure is made up of
flat concrete walls and slabs for ease of construction. Concrete is particularly well
suited to the storage of cryogenic liquids like LNG if suitable insulation, heating or
liquid barriers are provided to limit the exposure of the concrete to large areas of
extreme cold. Submerged LNG cargo pumps are placed inside the tanks to transfer
LNG from storage tanks to LNG sendout pumps mounted on the GBS deck 17.
[insert picture showing tank cross-section from Conocophillips]
LNG storage tanks are fitted with thermal insulation both to prevent heat flow into
the cargo tank to reduce boil-off of the LNG and also to protect the ships structure
from cryogenic temperatures that would cause brittle fracture. The insulation is
either "sandwiched" between the inner hull and primary membrane, or in the case
of Moss tanks applied externally. The insulation is protected from external sources
of ignition by the steelwork of the ships structure. 18 However, some LNG is
vaporized in the tank by heat picked up from the surroundings and changes in the
fluid composition when LNG is offloaded into the tank from LNG ships. This vapor is
referred to as boil-off gas (BOG). The boil-off of natural gas from the LNG
provides evaporative cooling that keeps the remaining liquid at the low storage
temperature. This process is comparable to water boiling in an open pan, except
the temperature is much lower. Regardless of the amount of heat transferred from
a stove burner to a pan of boiling water, as long as the pan is open to the
atmosphere to allow steam to disperse, the temperature of boiling water will remain
at approximately 212 F (100 oC). If the pan were covered and sealed, the steam
pressure would build and then the temperature of the water would increase. Boiling
water at atmospheric pressure will remain at 212 F while steam boils off, similarly
LNG at atmospheric pressure will remain at approximately -260 F while natural gas
boils off.

Raine, B., Kaplan, A.; Concrete-based offshore LNG production in Nigeria, LNG journal
September/October 2003.
17

18

See UH IELE FAQ Understanding LNG Cargo Tank Insulation www.energy.uh.edu/lng.. Dec. 2004

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 26

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Boil-off gas can be used to supply vapor to the LNG ship to fill the void left when
LNG is pumped out or as fuel gas or compressed, condensed, and recombined with
the LNG for vaporization.

LNG Sendout Vaporization

The LNG sendout pumps discharges LNG into the ORVs where it would be warmed.
The GBS may have more than one parallel vaporization trains to warm up and
convert the LNG to natural gas and deliver the gas to the pipeline at the required
pipeline pressure of about 1450psi. Each vaporization train would consist of smaller
trains, each with an LNG sendout pump, a vaporizer, most likely an ORV, and a
seawater lift pump. For example a 1 billion standard cubic feet per day (scfd) train
would consist of six 200-million scfd trains. Five of the six trains would be in
operation during peak sendout rate (1.0 billion scfd), and one would be used as a
spare.

Gas Metering
The gas then would pass through a custody transfer meter system before entering
the pipeline. Metering capacity for the pipeline would match the peak discharge
capacity from the LNG sendout pumps.

Utility Services
All services not in direct contact with the delivered LNG are considered utility rather
than process services. Utility services take place on the Utility GBS. Utility services
include power generation, instrument and utility air, open drains and oily water
treatment, fuel gas, utility water, the hypochlorite system, potable water, wash
down, nitrogen generation and high pressure storage, wastewater treatment, diesel
fuel, aviation fuel, the emergency flare system, and fire and safety systems.

The electrical power for the terminal would be generated by natural-gas-powered

turbine generators. Gas would be supplied by the fuel gas system from boil-off gas
with emergency diesel generators. The emergency diesel generators would allow
operation during the absence of natural gas or during emergency situations

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 27

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

involving the turbine generators. The facility would receive bulk diesel from supply
vessels.

Emergency Flare System

To meet applicable safety standards, an emergency gas flare would be installed on
a separate support structure adjacent to the end of the Process GBS. The flare
would be oriented such that the prevailing winds would direct its plume away from
the GBS. The flare platform would be accessed using an extended gangway. A flare
header system would collect hydrocarbon flows from relief valves, tank blankets (air
spaces around the tank with nitrogen and natural gas sensors), and miscellaneous
sources and send them to a flare drum and then to the flare. The flare would be
equipped with multiple pilots and electronic igniters.

Living Quarters and Helideck

Crew quarters would be placed on a free-standing platform a short distance from
the Utility GBS, at the end farthest from the Process GBS and emergency flare in
order to meet the requirements for safety setbacks from the LNG tanks. The
building

would

accommodate

about

50

personnel,

offices,

recreation,

communications, and a galley.

Mooring System
Mooring of LNG ships at the GBS Terminal would be carried out through a
combination of both breasting and mooring dolphins. Breasting and mooring
dolphins are clusters of piles driven and bound together at the top (or a large
diameter pile) used to moor, anchor, breast or turn a vessel and also to protect
bridge piers and docks. Tugs would be required to assist in berthing and unberthing the LNG ships.
[insert picture of dolphins from Bluewater]

Fabrication
GBS fabrication and installation of the majority of the LNG tanks and regasification
equipment would be performed at a shore-based facility. The GBS needs to be

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 28

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

constructed inside an unflooded dry-dock and the operating equipment is installed
and tested. The dock would then be flooded in order to float the GBS to the
installation site. The GBSs would then be towed to the terminal site and fixed to the
seabed. The installation procedures generally involve gradually lowering each GBS
to the seafloor using ballast tanks around the perimeter of the GBS. The skirts on
the bottom of the GBS would require jetting away the softer sediments so that the
GBS skirts can be drawn into the seafloor to firmly anchor the GBS at the site. Once
the GBSs are in place, the remaining operating equipment would be installed and
connections made between the GBSs, quarters platform, offloading platforms. Lift
barges would be used to install some aspects of the Terminal. The pipeline would
also have been fabricated and installed. The LNG terminal would then be placed in
service after a series of final testing and inspections.

Decommissioning
GBS Terminals may be designed for up to 40 years of service. The decommissioning
involves removing all underwater structures and leaving facilities in place below
ground. The decommissioning procedure is a reverse of the installation procedure.

An Example of Gravity Based Structure (GBS)

The Port Pelican Deepwater Port

19

proposed by Chevron consists of two GBSs

with LNG storage, process equipment, and ancillary facilities. The terminal would be
located approximately 36 statute miles (mi) south southwest of Freshwater City,
Louisiana in Vermilion Block 140 in the GOM. The proposed terminal site is to be
located in approximately 83 ft of water.
The facilities are to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with
applicable Federal, state, and local codes and standards. The Project would be
implemented in two phases. Phase I of the Project would include construction of a
terminal consisting of two GBSs. The terminal would initially have an average
sendout capacity of 800 million scfd and a peak sendout capacity of 1.0 billion scfd.

US Coast Guard: Maritime Administration: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port
Pelican Llc Deepwater Port License Application. August 2003.
19

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 29

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Additional equipment to increase the average capacity to 1.6 billion scfd (peak 2.0
billion scfd) would be installed as supply and demand warrant.
Each GBS would be a large concrete structure specially designed and fabricated to
provide a safe and secure foundation for the LNG tanks and a supportive deck for
vaporizing equipment. The terminal would contain two LNG storage tanks with a
total capacity of 330,000 cubic meters of LNG. The ORV technology is proposed
regasify the LNG. The GBSs would rest upon the seafloor. Berthing facilities
(mooring and breasting dolphins and unloading platforms) would accommodate two
LNG ships, one on either side of the terminal. Crew quarters would be installed on a
platform off one end of the terminal GBSs, and an emergency flare would be
installed on a platform off the other end of the Terminal.

Figure 7 - Proposed Chevron Port Pelican Project, offshore Louisiana - Gravity-based

structure
Source - Chevron
The Project would also include the Pelican Interconnector Pipeline (pipeline), a new
37 nautical miles (NM), 42-inch (in) diameter subsea pipeline to deliver the gas to
the existing Tiger Shoal A platform in South Marsh Island Block 217 and
subsequently to the existing onshore natural gas pipeline infrastructure. This
pipeline would have a capacity of 2.0 billion scfd. The pipeline would generally be
buried at least 3 ft below the seabed in waters ranging in depth from approximately

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 30

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

83 ft at the Terminal to 20 ft at the Tiger Shoal A platform. The pipeline would
support gas delivery for the life of the Project.
In January 2004 the USCG issued a license for the construction and operation of the
terminal. A condition of the license was the preparation of a supplemental study of
onshore construction activities necessary to fabricate the Port Pelican Deepwater
Port. Fabrication of the deepwater port is proposed to be carried out in one of two
existing fabrication sites. Onshore fabrication would include the installation of LNG
tanks and the installation of topsides.20 The two gravity based structures would be
towed

from

the

fabrication

site

to

the

approved

location

offshore.

The

Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared by USCG. Installation of the

terminal and the associated pipeline would take approximately 2.5 years after the
start of GBS fabrication. Installation is scheduled to be completed in 2008.

Floating, Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) 21

FSRU LNG import terminal concept comprises of a purpose built permanently
moored ship with several LNG ships shuttling between the export facility and the
import site. The FSRU ship is typically between 350 to 400 meters long by up to 70
meters wide and normally does not have a propulsion system. (It will be towed
from the shipyard and installed at its operational site). Floating structures with

storage capacity generally require an anchoring system and sufficient water

depth (generally greater than 160 ft) to accommodate a flexible pipeline
connection between the unit and the seafloor pipeline.

FRSU Components and Configuration

The FSRU consists of a double-hulled ship designed using normal shipbuilding
blueprints and standards and can be constructed in a wide range of conventional
ship yards worldwide. The regasification facilities are located on the main deck of
the ship and are typically tailored to suit the specified gas send-out conditions.

Topsides equipments would be placed on top of the GBSs, such as offices, crew quarters, electric
generators, regasification equipment and utilities.
20

Said ,Mike ; Meijerink, Joram Shell Global Solutions International B.V.: LNG Import Terminals:
Offshore vs Onshore A Site & Concept Screening Methodology, 14th International Conference on
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG-14),Doha, Qatar. March, 2004
21

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 31

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Since the FSRU is part ship, part storage tank, and part re-gasification unit, three
separate design standards, guidance, and regulations must be satisfied. The vessel
portion of the FSRU is subject to marine codes, the LNG storage tanks are subject
to LNG storage and transfer rules, and the LNG re-gasification and send out
processes are subject to process standards and codes. Utilities and systems
associated

with

FSRU

operations,

including

electric

power

generation

and

distribution, instrumentation and controls, and fire and safety systems.

LNG Carrier Offloading

LNG offloading is typically achieved using a modified version of conventional LNG
loading arms similar to those used on the GBS LNG terminals. LNG ships will be
berthed and unloaded on the starboard side of the FSRU which is the right side of
the FSRU as you are facing forward. The starboard side will have four loading arms
packages. LNG carriers typically will be offloaded and the LNG stored in the LNG
storage tanks. During offloading operations, all the cargo will be discharged except
for retained heel required for tank cooling during the return voyage. The resulting
change in draft as a result of offloading of cargo is typically very small.

LNG Storage
The LNG storage system is based on standard designs for ship cargo containment
systems; using spherical tanks, membrane or prismatic freestanding tanks 22.

LNG Sendout Vaporization

The available vaporization options are discussed above and selection would be
based on required send out capacity, space available, operating efficiency, safety,
impact on the environment and cost.

Boil Off Gas

As discussed above in order to control the boil off rate the LNG tanks on the FSRU
are insulated. The boiled off natural gas will be sent out through the natural gas
sendout line or recovered and used as fuel for FSRU electric power generation.

22

See UH IELE briefing paper, LNG Safety and Security. www.energy.uh.edu/lng. Oct 2003

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 32

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Fiscal Metering
The LNG storage tanks will be fitted with a radar type gauging system. This system
is used for custody transfer application and is fitted with a separate monitor in the
control room. For metering of send-out gas two ultrasonic in-line gas flow meters
will be used. One unit will handle the peak gas flow with the other unit as a standby. Flow, temperature and pressure signals will be transmitted to a flow computer
with display and printer located in the control room, which can transmit to shore if
desired. The system will be supplied with a certificate for fiscal accuracy and be
periodically re-evaluated for accuracy.

Utility Services
Similar to the GBS, the power generation for the ship services are normally
provided by gas turbines with dual fuel diesel engines as back up (sized according
to the requirements of the regasification equipment).

Living Quarters and Helideck

The crew quarters are generally located at the stern so as to provide the maximum
distance between the turret and accommodation unit. An accommodation deck
house with all facilities for a permanent crew of up to 30 persons with temporary
accommodations for another 20 persons in fold-down bunks, and a helideck will be
fitted at the aft end in a non-gas dangerous zone. One free-fall lifeboat and two
large life rafts complete with escape chutes will be fitted at the stern of the terminal
for evacuation during an emergency. The supply vessel from shore for provisions
and crew changes will also be berthing/de-berthing at the aft section of the
terminal. A multipurpose control room will be installed in the accommodations to
control and monitor all aspects of the terminals operations, and will utilize remote
monitoring of the normally unmanned process area and utility equipment.

Mooring System
The vessel is a turret moored floating receiving unit designed for loading LNG from
a side-by-side moored LNG tanker in a relatively benign range of environmental

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 33

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

conditions. The LNG carrier is moored alongside the FSRU with both vessels
weathervaning around the FSRUs turret mooring.
[insert schematic of side to side from bluewater]
In the event the FSRU is required to be located in harsher metocean conditions then
the Stern to Bow or Tandem configuration can be used. Whilst this tandem
technology is still considered developmental several leading industry equipment
suppliers are actively progressing it. A key advantage of the FSRU concept is that it
can be moored in a wide range of water depths. In shallow waters (approximately
65 to 100 feet), a jacket based, soft yoke system can be used, in greater water
depths a catenary based, turret mooring system can be employed. Both of these
systems are weathervaning, allowing the FSRU ships heading to rotate according to
the direction and force of the wind.
[insert schematic of tandem]

Example of a Floating, Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU)

The Cabrillo Deepwater Port23 proposed by BHP Billiton consists of an FSRU. It
will receive, store and re-gasify LNG. It will be located approximately 13.9 miles off
the Coast of Ventura County in Southern California, in 2,900 feet of water and
would only be visible from elevated locations. 24 The Project will include a 21.1-mile
long, 30-inch diameter send out pipeline that will transport natural gas from the
offshore facilities to a pipeline interconnection onshore at Ormond Beach (near
Oxnard, California) with the existing intrastate pipeline system of SoCalGas for
ultimate distribution throughout the Southern California region.
Figure 8 - Proposed Cabrillo Port FSRU (Floating Storage and Re-gasification Unit)

Cabrillo Port Application for Deepwater Port License, Submitted to Commandant, United States
Coast Guard Washington, D.C.; Submitted by BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. Houston, Texas.
23

24

California Energy Commission Staff Report: West Coast LNG Projects, Sept. 24, 2004

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 34

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Source: BHP
The FSRU will be a ship-shaped double sided, double bottomed LNG storage and regasification facility. The FSRU will have a length of 286 m and breadth of 65 m,
with a displacement of approximately 190,000 dead weight tonnage (dwt). The
FSRU will store LNG in three Moss spherical tanks. Each tank will have a 91,000
m3 LNG storage capacity and the total FSRU LNG storage capacity will be 273,000
m3. The internal tank shell is aluminum, surrounded by insulating layers and clad in
an external steel shell. Each Moss spherical tank is supported on a steel skirt ring
that is braced inside the double hull of the vessel.

Each tank is located in a

separate cargo hold with the tank skirt mounted directly on the foundation deck.
The spherical design reduces sloshing forces that can build up and cause damage in
non-symmetrical tanks. This allows the Moss tanks to be used without any filling
restrictions, allowing loading and unloading operations on the open seas.

The

entire internal and external shells of Moss type tanks can be inspected, and if
necessary readily repaired, as contrasted with membrane lined tank systems, where
access and repair requires significant downtime. Moss tanks have a normal fatigue
based life expectancy of 100-years.

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 35

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

LNG carriers will transport LNG from LNG export terminals throughout the Pacific
Basin. The LNG tankers to be accommodated at the FSRU will be on average about
276 meters in length, by 65 meters in width and 27 meters in depth, with
approximately 68,000 to 120,000 dwt.

Their cargo tanks would typically have

about 100,000 m3 to 220,000 m3 storage capacity.

The LNG is pumped, as liquid, up to the 1,500 psig natural gas send out pressure
and maintained at that pressure through the vaporization process. The vaporization
portion of the process re-gasifies the LNG. The process will consist of eight Kaldair
TX180 submerged combustion vaporizers (SCVs).

Each will have a maximum

capacity of 198 short tons per hour of LNG vaporized. The SCVs will superheat the
resultant natural gas to a temperature of about 41 oF at a pressure of about 1,500
psig. The project will have a capability of re-gasifying up to 1.5 billion cubic feet per
day (Bcf/d), with an anticipated average rate of 0.6 to 0.9 Bcf/d. The connection
from the FSRU to the send out pipeline will consist of a fixed turret style mooring
point, three flexible riser pipes, and a Pipeline Ending Manifold (PLEM) on the
seabed. The send out pipeline will run from the PLEM, through a shore crossing,
and on shore to the tie-in with the SoCalGas system. The only onshore component
of the project is a subsurface 0.65-mile segment of the send out pipeline, which
interconnects with the SoCalGas distribution system.
Three natural gas-fired generator sets, one dual fuel diesel/gas generating set and
one diesel emergency generator set will generate the onboard electric power. Each
of the three primary gas fired units will have power output of 7,400 kilowatts (kW)
at 6.6 kilovolts (kV), and the dual fuel unit an output of 5,700 kW, for a total power
plant generating capacity of approximately 28 megawatts. The diesel fuel unit used
for emergency duty will have a power output of 4,000 kW at 6.6 kV.

Shuttle and Onboard LNG Regasification Systems

Some LNG ships are designed with onboard regasification equipment to transport
and degasify LNG. They are double-hulled ships with double-containment cargo

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 36

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

tanks. The LNG storage tanks are designed to withstand any potential degree of
sloshing during transportation and unloading as a result of partially loaded tanks.
El Paso Energy Bridge, Offshore Louisiana)25 is proposed by Excelerate Energy,
LLC and El Paso Corporation. El Paso Energy Bridge Vessels (EPEBVs) would be used
to transport and convert LNG to natural gas. When an EPEBV reaches the port, it
would retrieve and connect to the STL buoy and the integrated mooring system.
When not in use, the STL buoy would remain submerged approximately 80 feet (ft)
(24.4 meters [m]) below the sea surface in approximately 298 ft (91 m) of water.
The deepwater port is located 116 miles south of the Louisiana shoreline.
When an Energy Bridge ship reaches the offshore LNG terminal it would retrieve
and connect to a submerged turret loading (STL) buoy. A winch located on the ship
would raise the submerged buoy from its subsurface location. The STL buoy would
be drawn into an opening in the hull of the ship. After it is secured, the STL buoy
would serve both as the mooring system for the vessel and as the offloading
mechanism for transferring the natural gas. After the STL buoy has been attached
to the vessel and all mooring and start-up prerequisites have been satisfied, the
ship onboard LNG regasification process would commence. The ship would vaporize
the LNG with its onboard regasification equipment. Natural gas would be
transferred from the ship through the STL buoy. The submerged STL buoy would be
connected to a flexible riser leading to a seabed pipeline that would convey the
natural gas to a metering platform. From the metering platform, the natural gas
would be fed into seabed pipelines.
Figure 9 - Energy Bridge General System Layout.

US Coast Guard:/ Maritime Administration Final Environmental Assessment of the El Faso Energy
Bridge Deepwater Port License Application, Nov. 2003
25

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 37

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Source: El Paso Energy Corp.

The Energy Bridge System takes advantage of an existing STL buoy deepwater port
technology.

It limits the need for new pipeline and onshore infrastructure by

exploiting excess capacity in the existing infrastructure and has the flexibility to
easily adapt to shifting or volatile LNG supplies. Once delivered into the existing
natural gas transmission infrastructure, the gas would then be redelivered by
shippers into the national gas pipeline grid through connections with other major
interstate and intrastate pipelines.

The principal components of the Energy Bridge System would include:

A Submerged Turret Loading (STL) buoy receiving system to receive natural gas
from delivery vessels, with a mooring system of cables lines, chains and
permanent anchors.

A flexible riser pipe to carry the natural gas from the STL buoy to a sub sea
manifold.

Natural gas pipeline connecting the sub sea manifold to a metering platform.

A metering platform to direct and regulate the natural gas flows into
downstream pipelines.

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 38

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Figure 10 Energy Bridge System Source: Excelerate
The

two

EPEBVs

are

under

construction in South Korea and

they

would

be

dedicated

to

delivering natural gas to the Port.

Each

EPEBV

would

transport

capacity

approximately
meters

have

138,000

(m3)

of

a
of

cubic

LNG

or

approximately 3 billion cubic feet

(Bcf) of natural gas. Under optimal
operating conditions, each EPEBV
would
degasify

have
and

the

capability

unload

up

to

to
a

maximum of 690 million cubic feet

of natural gas per day (MMcf/d).
The LNG storage tanks have been
designed to withstand 100-year storms in the GOM and North Atlantic voyage
sloshing conditions.
Figure 11 - El Paso Energy Bridge Vessels (EPEBVs)

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 39

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Source: El Paso Energy Corp.
The onboard regasification would use a shell-and-tube vaporizer system. The
regasification system would be operated in an open-loop (once through, noncontact warming water) mode and can produce a maximum of approximately 690
MMcf/d of natural gas. Restrictions on the receiving rate of the downstream
pipelines would limit the average annual regasification rate to approximately 500
MMcf/d. The regasification system would have the capability to operate in a closedloop (recirculating warming water) mode or in a combined mode. The closed-loop
boiler would be operated using natural gas. It is estimated that approximately
7,117 MBTU/d (7.117 MMcf/d) of gas would be required to operate the boiler in the
closed-loop configuration. The closed-loop capabilities were designed into the
onboard regasification system primarily to allow LNG regasification when sea
conditions prohibit use of the open-loop configuration.
Figure 12 Shell and Tube Vaporizer Arrangement on the EPEBV Deck

Source Excelerate

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 40

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

One of these downstream seabed pipelines would travel through WC 600 and tie
into the existing offshore Bluewater Pipeline in WC 601. The other downstream
pipeline would travel from the metering platform through WC 602 and WC 601, and
tie into an existing Sea Robin pipeline in East Cameron Area, South Addition, OCS
Lease Block 335 (EC 335).The project was approved on January 15, 2004 and is
expected to start operations early 2005.

Cavern Based LNG Receiving Facilities

The salt cavern storage based LNG Receiving Facilities consists of a marine
terminal, which will receive LNG from the tanker. The LNG may be delivered into
LNG storage tanks at the terminal and then re-gasified or re-gasified immediately
and injected in the salt storage cavern as natural gas. The major critical elements
of this concept are:

Salt formations suitable for cavern development;

A method to moor and offload an LNG carrier;

Adequate LNG storage tanks or a method to immediately vaporize the LNG at

volumes that allows acceptable ship discharge times; and

A pipeline infrastructure sufficient to carry large volumes of natural gas to

market.

According to Conversion Gas Imports (CGI) 26, salt caverns can be solution mined in
far less time and at about one fifth of the cost of constructing cryogenic tanks
resulting in significantly lower investment and a shorter construction schedule. The
permitting schedule will also be significantly shorter. These advantages result in a
lower capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) than for
conventional terminals.
Salt cavern storage is a well-known technology and is well developed, acceptable to
the community and low cost. Salt caverns, thousands of feet below the Earths
surface, have been used to store hydrocarbons for more than 60 years. Salt
caverns provide about 5% of the natural gas storage capacity in the United States
McCall, Michael M., Conversion Gas Imports: Critical Components of Salt Cavern-Based Liquefied
Natural Gas Receiving Terminal Undergo Field Tests, GasTIPS. Summer 2004
26

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 41

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

but about 15% of the deliverability of natural gas into the gas grid. Salt cavern gas
storage facilities have very high deliverability instantaneously available to the
pipeline system, far higher than LNG vaporization capacities in conventional LNG
terminals. Salt caverns are central to U.S. energy infrastructure. The entire
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, totaling more than 650 million bbl of crude oil, is
stored in salt caverns on the Gulf Coast. In addition, there are more than 600
million bbl of products owned by private industries including hydrogen, natural gas,
natural gas liquids, olefins, refined products and crude oil stored in salt caverns in
the United States and Canada.

Example of a Cavern Based Offshore LNG Receiving Facilities

The Main Pass Energy Hub (MPEH)27 was proposed by Freeport-McMoran
Energy LLC as a deepwater port to receive, vaporize, condition, store, and
transport liquefied natural gas (LNG) and constituent liquids derived from the
processing. The proposed offshore LNG terminal will be located in the Gulf of
Mexico (GOM) on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) approximately 16 miles
(25.7 kilometers [km]) offshore southeast Louisiana at Main Pass Block 299 (MP
299). It will be located in approximately 210 feet (64 meters) of water depth
and will be designed to accommodate LNG carriers up to 160,000 cubic meters
(m3). The proposed location is a former sulfur mining facility and the project
will utilize four existing platforms along with associated bridges and support
structures with appropriate modifications and additions as part of the offshore
LNG terminal.

Freeport-McMoRan Energy LLC: Deepwater Port License Application for the Main Pass Energy Hub
Project, Volume I, General (Public) February 2004 Submitted to USCG.
27

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 42

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Figure 13 MPEH Conceptual View

Source: Freeport-McMoran Energy LLC

Two new platforms will be constructed to carry the LNG storage tanks and a
patent-pending Soft Berth System will be used to berth LNG carriers. Three
LNG storage tanks will be located on each platform, see Error: Reference source
not found and Error: Reference source not found. The LNG storage tanks will
each have a capacity of approximately 24,660 m3 with prismatic [SPB],
spherical [Moss] type, or any other acceptable containment system. The total
net capacity of the LNG storage tanks is approximately 145,000 m3. The two
LNG storage platforms will be connected to the processing facilities by a bridge.

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 43

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Figure 14 MPEH Soft Berth - Conceptual Design of LNG Ship Offloading

Source: Freeport-McMoran Energy LLC

Living quarters to routinely accommodate 50 personnel will be provided. The

offshore LNG terminal is designed to deliver an average of 1.0 billion standard
cubic feet per day (bscfd) and deliver a peak of 3.0 bscfd of pipeline-quality
natural gas, and a peak of 85,000 barrels per day (bbls/d) of natural gas liquids
(NGL).
The proposed action includes the installation of approximately 192 miles (309
km) of natural gas and NGL transmission pipelines. The offshore LNG terminal
and the majority of the pipeline components will be located on the OCS. A 36inch (91.4-centimeter [cm]) diameter natural gas pipeline will originate at the
offshore LNG terminal and extend northeast for approximately 92.7 miles
(149.2 km) to connect the offshore LNG terminal to existing gas distribution
pipelines near Coden, Alabama. Approximately 5 miles (8 km) of this pipeline
segment is proposed for construction onshore in Alabama (above the mean high
water line). A proposed metering platform to be installed at Main Pass 164 (MP
164) will be located on this 36- inch (91.4-cm) pipeline route and will provide a
CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 44

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

tie -in location for two lateral transmission lines. These laterals will be 16 inches
(40.6 cm) in diameter and approximately 300 feet (91.4 meters) long
extending to proposed subsea tie -ins to existing natural gas transmission lines.
A 16-inch (40.6-cm) diameter natural gas pipeline will originate at the offshore
LNG terminal and extend east for 2.5 miles (4.0 km) to Main Pass 298 (MP
298), and tie into an existing natural gas transmission pipeline. A 20-inch (50.8cm)

diameter

natural

gas

pipeline

will

extend

south-southwest

for

approximately 51.5 miles (82.9 km) connecting to existing natural gas

transmission pipelines at South Pass 55 (SP 55). A 12-inch (30.5-cm) diameter
pipeline will carry NGL derived from natural gas conditioning at the offshore LNG
terminal. This pipeline will originate at the offshore LNG terminal, extend 45.7
miles (73.5 km) westerly into Louisiana inland waters, and make a connection
with an existing NGL facility near Venice, Louisiana. MP 299 will sit atop a salt
dome approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) in diameter. An on-site total gas storage
capacity of 28 billion cubic feet (Bcf) will be provided in three salt caverns
underlying the offshore LNG terminal. This storage capacity will allow the
offshore LNG terminal to provide a more measured and consistent delivery of
natural gas volumes into the pipeline system, thereby relieving pipeline
operators from the difficulty of managing alternating periods of very low and
very high throughput. The ability to deliver consistent volumes of natural gas
into the connected transmission pipeline(s) was identified as a key technical and
economic requirement for the project.
Commissioning of the offshore LNG terminal is scheduled for December 2007.
Construction is expected to take approximately 34 months. The terminal will
have an expected service life of approximately 30 years.
The Bishop Process LNG import terminal is another example of the cavern
based offshore LNG receiving terminal. The LNG cargo discharge from the ship is
the inlet to a series of high-pressure LNG pumps, which receive the LNG at
relatively low pressures from the ship and achieve cavern injection pressures (up to
2000 psi) at their discharge. The heat exchanger receives the LNG at high rates,

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 45

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

high pressures and low temperatures and then warms it to 40 F with a novel, lowcost seawater heat exchanger vaporizer. The vaporizer uses a simple pipe in pipe
co-axial flow arrangement running approximately 2,500 feet along the ocean floor.
Vaporized gas at 2000 psi exits the Bishop vaporizer at a design temperature
compatible with the cavern structure in a range between 20-40 oF.28 The resulting
dense phase natural gas (DPNG) can then be fed directly into the pipeline for
distribution or injected into the underground salt caverns for storage. This one-step
process converts the cold LNG into natural gas. The ship can be turned around in
the same amount of time as at a conventional cryogenic tank-based receiving
terminal, but when it leaves, there is little LNG stored at the site only enough to
keep the cryogenic equipment cold between ship arrivals.
Technical validations through field tests of the critical components of a salt cavernbased LNG receiving terminal are part of a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
cooperative research project commissioned by the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL)29 with cost sharing participants from an array of energy industry
companies. Field tests of the mooring system; the high-pressure pumps; and a
high-capacity,

high-efficiency,

water-warmed

heat

exchanger

have

been

successfully completed. It is estimated that with permits in hand, construction could

be accomplished in about two years. 30

28

Conversion Gas Imports L.P. (CGI) : http://www.conversiongas.com/html/heat_exchanger.html

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL):
www.netl.doe.gov
29

McCall, Michael M., Conversion Gas Imports: Critical Components of Salt Cavern-Based Liquefied
Natural Gas Receiving Terminal Undergo Field Tests, GasTIPS. Summer 2004
30

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 46

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Figure 15 - The Bishop Process - re-gasification of LNG directly from

ocean tankers for storage in underground salt caverns

Source:

Example of a Bishop Process LNG Import Terminal

Freedom LNG Terminal was announced by HNG Storage, in October 2004 as a new
offshore LNG import facility in the Gulf of Mexico based on the patented Bishop
Process vaporization technology combined with gas storage in underground, manmade salt caverns. The project is the first proposed commercial application of the
Bishop Process for an LNG terminal. Freedom LNG is intended to have an initial
send-out capacity of 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day. HNG plans to file a permit
application by July 2005. Following government approval, construction could begin
by August 2006. The terminal could then be in service by September 2008.

31

Platform Based LNG Import Terminal

The regasification facilities are located on the offshore platform. LNG would be
delivered by ships and converted to natural gas on the platform and immediately
flowed through the pipeline to shore. The carriers will still be required to remain in
berth for a longer period than the normal 12 - 24 hour offloading period hence
incurring additional demurrage costs. 32 Since there is no storage capacity on the
31

Conversion Gas Imports L.P. (CGI) : www.conversiongas.com

Said ,Mike ; Meijerink, Joram Shell Global Solutions International B.V.: LNG Import Terminals:
Offshore vs Onshore A Site & Concept Screening Methodology, 14th International Conference on
32

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 47

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

platform for the LNG or vaporized natural gas, the gas grid has to be able to absorb
large amounts of gas in a short period, in addition to the market allowing for an
interrupted supply of gas. Table 5 shows a comparison of duration times for
different types of offshore LNG facilities. The MPEH and the proposed Freedom LNG
are also examples of Platform based LNG import terminals but with significant
storage capacity for the vaporized natural gas.
Table 5 - Vessel Berthing Duration Estimate
Facility

Vessel Berthing Duration Estimate

Onshore

35 days/year.
(70 vessels @ 12hrs each to unload)

FSRU

130 days/year
(3 times a week @ 20hrs each to berth, unload and deberth)

Platform with no storage

Up to 280 days/year
(80 vessels @ 2.5- 3.5 days each to unload)

Source: Chan, A. et al: Evaluation Of Liquefied Natural Gas Receiving Terminals For
Southern California, 2003-2004 Group Project Thesis, University of California,
Santa Barbara. April 2004.

Example of a Platform Based LNG Import Terminal

Crystal Energy Clearwater Port would use an existing oil platform located 11
miles offshore Oxnard California, Platform Grace, to import LNG.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG-14),Doha, Qatar. March, 2004

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 48

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Figure 16 - Platform Grace

Reconfiguration of the platform would
involve

installing

an

LNG

transfer

system, a cool down system, six LNG

pumps,

six

reinstalling

LNG
and

vaporizers,

and

upgrading

the

platforms power-production capability.

LNG would be transported by ship to
Platform Grace, where it would be
converted back into natural gas. A new
Satellite Service Platform (SPP) floating
dock would be installed adjacent to the
platform to safely moor LNG vessels
during transfer. No on-site storage of
LNG or natural gas is expected.
Source: MMS
Figure 17 - Platform Grace with moored LNG Ship
The conversion of the existing
platform, the construction of the
mooring system, and pipeline and
the

installation

regasification

of

the

equipment

would

take about 2 years. The natural

gas would be delivered from the
platform to shore in a new, 13mile, 32 subsea pipeline, using
an existing pipeline corridor to
minimize disturbance to the marine environment. The natural gas would come
onshore by pipeline to a landing at an existing industrial site, the Mandalay Power
Generating Station in Oxnard. From the landfall at Mandalay, a new 12-mile

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 49

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

underground pipeline would tie into an existing 30 Southern California Gas
Company pipeline at their preferred pipeline tie-in point near Camarillo.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR OFFSHORE LNG

As outlined in this report, a number of critical issues impact offshore LNG projects,
ranging from technical feasibility and thus cost to the intense competitive process
for permitting and siting these projects. The projects are attractive for presenting
solutions to a number of other challenges, such as public acceptance of safety and
security associated with onshore LNG import terminal operations; reduced impacts
to sensitive coastal wetlands ecosystems; redeployment of offshore natural gas
pipeline systems that are underutilized as a result of maturing fields and depleting
production on the continental shelf of the U.S.

Offshore LNG projects also add

flexibility to the North American natural gas supply portfolio. One issue that has
been raised for Gulf of Mexico projects is potential marine impacts from ORV
systems.

Are Potential Environmental Impacts with ORV Systems

Manageable?
Because they use seawater to warm and convert LNG back to a gaseous phase,
ORV and open-loop STV systems have triggered concerns about potential
environmental impacts to marine ecosystems.

These systems can be used for

either onshore or offshore LNG terminal operations.

Details of ORV systems for

proposed offshore LNG facilities are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Approved and Proposed Offshore LNG Facilities with ORV and
Open-loop STV Designs
LNG Facility

Location

Expected
Flow Rate
(million
gal/day)

Water Area
Intake Intake
Depth filtered screen flow rate
(ft)
(km2/
Size
(ft/sec)
year)
(mm)

Gulf Landing
Shell
(Approved)

35 miles S of
Lake Charles,
LA

136

55

11.2

6.35

0.5

Compass Port
ConocoPhillips

11 miles S of
Mobile Bay
Inlet

156

72

12.6

6.35

0.5

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 50

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Port Pelican
Chevron

36 miles S/SW
of Freshwater
City, LA
17 miles E of
Pass a Loutre,
LA

176

83

9.7

6.35

0.5

100

210

2.2

6.35

0.5

STV Open116 miles S of

loop
Cameron, LA
El Paso Energy
Bridge

133

285

2.1

21

1.0

Main Pass
FreeportMcMoran
Energy

Source: Davy, Kay: NOAA Fisheries. Habitat Conservation Division Proposed LNG Facilities in
the Gulf of Mexico, Workshop on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities. April 28, 2004

The U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 requires that the location, design, construction,
and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available
for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated that the ORV systems would be

drawing between 100 176 million gallons of seawater every day 34 and that billions
of fish eggs, larvae and other zooplanktons will be destroyed each year through
impingement and entrainment35.

However, the NOAA analysis assumes that all

proposed offshore LNG projects will be built and put into service (see Figure 1 for
discussion on the competition among offshore LNG projects and LNG import
terminals in general).

In addition, NOAAs own analysis, as shown in Figure 18

suggests that the impact of LNG projects is such that proper and vigorous
mitigation measures could easily offset any reductions in fishery reproductivities.
The amount of water that would be affected via ORV operations is miniscule in the
overall Gulf of Mexico environment.

Finally, concerted efforts to prevent further

deterioration and to replenish and expand nearshore and wetlands environments,

essential to the reproductive cycles of Gulf sports and commercial fish populations,
are likely to yield substantial offsetting benefits.

33

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act www.epa.gov

34

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): www.noaa.gov

Davy, Kay: NOAA Fisheries. Habitat Conservation Division, Proposed LNG Facilities in the Gulf of
Mexico, Workshop on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities. April 28, 2004
35

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 51

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

Figure 18 NOAA Red Drum Cumulative Impacts to Recovery Curve

Source: NOAA Fisheries SFSC 11 Jan 05 Summary of Gulf Landing Entrainment

Mortality Analysis
According to the ConocoPhillips LNG Vaporizer Options Study,36 the ORV is easy to
operate and maintain because of its simple structure. The condition of the panels
can easily be checked from the outside during operation. The falling water film
system provides stability in the heat transfer mechanism. Although the noise levels
are slightly higher than submerged combustion vaporizer (SCV), it is still within
acceptable industrial limits. Some methods of reducing impingement include
installing screen systems with fish returns, passive intake systems, fish diversion
and avoidance systems (e.g., barrier nets, lights, sound, and bubble jets) and low
velocity intakes.37

Foster Wheeler USA Corp: LNG Vaporizer Options Study for ConocoPhillips Compass Port GBS LNG
Receiving Terminal Pre-FEED. October 2003.
36

Allen, Ashley. EPA Office of Water: Quantifying Potential Environmental and Economic Impacts,
Workshop on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities. April 28, 2004
37

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 52

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

The following mitigations are incorporated into the design and operation of the ORV
system to avoid and minimize the impact of entrainment/impingement. 38

The center of the seawater intake array should be sited at 60 ft below mean sea
level

A maximum seawater through-screen intake velocity of 0.5 ft/s should be

maintained, see Error: Reference source not found.

A monitoring plan, approved by NOAA Fisheries, should be established and

implemented, to measure the levels of mortality to marine fisheries species
associated with the operation of the ORV seawater intake.

The ORV technology requires a stable platform environment to prevent sloshing

of heating water and LNG and would not be acceptable for use on a moored
ship.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

[Still working on this]
The El Paso Energy Bridge project may be the first new LNG receiving terminal to
be built and operated in the U.S. in more than 20 years and the first offshore LNG
receiving terminal in the world. Three Energy Bridge LNG ships are being built in
South Korea and the first is scheduled to be delivered before the end of 2004,
whilst the second ship is scheduled for April 2005. The third ship is scheduled for
2006. According to Excelerate Energy, the Energy Bridge Terminal is expected to be
in operations by January 200539. Excelerate has also announced a second project,
the Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge to be located in Gloucester, Massachusetts
which is expected to be operational in 2007. With respect to fixed structures, the
ExxonMobil GBS project offshore of Venice, Italy is providing a lesson in emerging
technologies as well as engineering design and implementation.
There are several different options for siting offshore LNG regasification namely
shallow water or deepwater locations, near shore or deep offshore locations. The
US Coast Guard/Maritime Administration: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Pelican
Llc Deepwater Port License Application. August 2003.
38

39

Excelerate Energy: www.excelerateenergy.com

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 53

DRAFT For Review Purposes Only

choice depends on regional geographical and socioeconomic conditions and also
available pipeline infrastructure. The offshore LNG terminal may be a continuous
baseload with significant storage of LNG or natural gas on site or the terminal may
operate as an intermittent supplier where the LNG on delivery from the LNG ship is
immediately vaporized and feed as natural into the pipeline and there is no LNG or
natural gas storage facility on site.
An issue facing the different types of LNG offshore terminals that use open loop
vaporizers, like ORV and open-loop STVs is impingement and entrainment of marine
organisms at the intake. Various mitigation methods have been proposed in with
NOAA involvement.
Offshore LNG regasification provides a means of meeting U.S. natural gas demands.
The total average send out capacity of the proposed offshore terminals is 9.4 Bcf/d
or 3.45 Tcf a year and the peak send out capacity is 14.8 Bcf/d or 5.4 Tcf per year.
Most of the projected LNG imports required to meet the deficit in natural gas supply
by 2025 of 4.8 Tcf per year could be met by the nine proposed offshore terminals, if
all the terminals are built.

CEE-BEG-UT Austin, Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals, 54