STC-NMU Masterclass LNG in shipping - moving towards a paradigm shift?

2,273 views

Published on

The use liquefied natural gas (LNG) as ship fuel has raised the interests of many shipping and shipbuilding companies around the world. There are three important drivers which make LNG as ship fuel one of the proactive future technologies for shipping lines: reduction of considerable emissions (SOx, partially CO2), perceived costs benefits of LNG compared to heavy fuels. However, the shipping industry seems to be reluctant to broadly embrace LNG and make investments in their fleets. At this Master Class experts from Damen Shipyards, Anthony Veder, Port of Rotterdam, and STC-Group will explore the latest developments on ship technology, finance,regulations and facilities.

Published in: Engineering, Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,273
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
109
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
136
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

STC-NMU Masterclass LNG in shipping - moving towards a paradigm shift?

  1. 1. Master Class April 3, 2014 The use liquefied natural gas (LNG) as ship fuel has raised the interests of many shipping and shipbuilding companies around the world. There are three important drivers which make LNG as ship fuel one of the proactive future technologies for shipping lines: reduction of considerable emissions (SOx, partially CO2), perceived costs benefits of LNG compared to heavy fuels. However, the shipping industry seems to be reluctant to broadly embrace LNG and make investments in their fleets. At this Master Class experts from Damen Shipyards, Anthony Veder, Port of Rotterdam, and STC-Group will explore the latest developments on ship technology, finance, regulations and facilities. LNG in Shipping Moving towards a paradigm shift? Venue: STC-Group, Lloydstraat 300, ROTTERDAM, Thursday April 3, 2014 from 17:00 to 19:30 Free entrance, but sign-up is compulsory. To sign up, please send your contact details to Masterclass@stc-nmu.eu This Masterclass is an activity of ‘HBO in de Haven’ Master Class
  2. 2. Platform for knowledge exchange between education, business community and association of young port professionals Master Class Knowledge platform for young port professionals
  3. 3. Aat Hoorn April 3, 2014 LNG as an alternative fuel for shipping - the big picture
  4. 4. Lloyd’s List, 2 September, 2013 UASC may choose gas to power 18,000 teu vessels. UASC: new vessels will be some of the most technologically advanced and environmentally friendly boxships yet built. • UNITED Arab Shipping Co may power the 18,000 teu ships it has ordered with liquefied natural gas, an industry first. • All will be built by Hyundai Heavy Industries. • The ships will be classed by DNV.
  5. 5. Emissions Source: Pounder’s Marine Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines
  6. 6. The legislation gear
  7. 7. Marpol Annex VI Sulphur regulations General Requirements (Resolution MEPC.176(58), 2008) • The sulphur content of any fuel oil used on board ships shall not exceed the following limits: – 1 4.50% m/m prior to 1 January 2012; – 3.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2012; and – 0.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2020. • While ships are operating within an Emission Control Area, the sulphur content of fuel oil used on board ships shall not exceed the following limits: – 1.50% m/m prior to 1 July 2010; – 1.00% m/m on and after 1 July 2010; and – 0.10% m/m on and after 1 January 2015.
  8. 8. Results • For any fuel used on board, global sulphur must be reduced to 0.5% from January 1, 2020. • Reducing environmental harm caused by ship emissions imposes large costs on ships, particularly when operating in emission control areas. Source: Jiang, Kronbak, & Christensen, 2014
  9. 9. Emission Control Area’s Source: Lloyds Register
  10. 10. The need for regulations • As the sulphur in fuels burn, it will form SOx, which is one of the pollutants to the environment especially in the formation of acid rain. Continued exposure over a long time changes the natural variety of plants and animals in an ecosystem. Also the sulphur content in fuel oil has a large impact on the particle level in the exhaust gas. • Ships have options to reduce sulphur emissions in the ECA’s. Source: Notteboom, 2010
  11. 11. Low sulphur fuels • Switch to low sulphur fuel oil or destillates  No capital costs  High price (+30 – 50%)  Not attractive for charterer/cargo owner  Blending needs to be done carefully • ‘Loss of power’ incidents • Change-over between HFO and MDO / MGO (Compatibility, thermal shocks, gassing of hot gas oil)
  12. 12. > 2 Cst < 2 oC/min Source: JOWA Source: MAN < 2 Cst
  13. 13. ‘End of tail’ scrubbers • Use of scrubbers.  Effective  High capital costs  Space  Disposal of waste streams  Additional fuel consumption conflicts with CO2 reduction Source: Alfa Laval
  14. 14. Liquified natural gas • Use LNG as fuel  Low Nox for lean burn engines, low particles  Methane slip  Offers potential cost savings (Acciaro, 2014)  Expensive retrofit needed, engine, fuel tanks, piping, safety (IGF code)  Price difference LNG and other marine fuels  Availability
  15. 15. Life cycle impact Source: Brynolf, Magnusson, Fridell & Andersson, 2013
  16. 16. Life cycle impact 1 = HFO 2 = HFO + Scrubber (SOx) + SCR (Nox) 3 = MGO + SCR (Nox) 4 = LNG •Potential impact on climate change 1 ≅ 2 ≅ 3 ≅ 4 •Potential impact on particulate matter 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 •Potential impact on ozone formation 1 > 2 ≅ 3 > 4 •Potential impact on acification 1 > 2 ≅ 3 > 4 •Potential impact on terrestial euthrophication 1 > 2 ≅ 3 > 4 Source: Brynolf, Magnusson, Fridell & Andersson, 2013
  17. 17. Example 1: four stroke engine Anthony Veder Source: Anthony Veder
  18. 18. Wärtsilä 50DF • P = 7.800 kW • n = 514 rpm • Duel fuel • Otto process – Low pressure gas – Lean burn principle – High efficiency Source: Hoorn
  19. 19. Source: Wärtsilä Source: Wärtsilä
  20. 20. Example 2: two-stroke engine Tote Shipholding Source: MAN
  21. 21. MAN 8L70ME-GI • P = 25,191 kW • n = 104.0 rpm • Duel fuel • Diesel process – High pressure gas – High efficiency Source: MAN
  22. 22. • NOx emission levels lower (approx. 25%) • SFOC tuning IMO tier II levels 1 – 3% improvement • Near zero PM levels • Greenhouse Gas Impact 20% lower due to C/H ratio of methane Source: MAN
  23. 23. Thank you!
  24. 24. Establishing an analytical model for conversion from HFO to a dual-fuel engine fleet Mohammad Vaferi Mohammad_vaferi@yahoo.com
  25. 25. Establishing an analytical model for conversion from HFO to a dual-fuel engine fleet Comparison of various abatement technologies to meet emission level to comply with IMO conventions Mohammad_vaferi@yahoo.com
  26. 26. Partners in the project are: • Damen shipyard co. • Anthony Veder gas carrier shipping co. • MAN B&W engine manufacturer co • Sea-leaders ship management co • Iran Land&Sea Co. Partners in study
  27. 27. Timetable for new limits to sulphur content 2008 amendment to MARPOL Annex VI : Mapping emission limits in time Worldwide development ECAs Complying with IMO regulations on emission caps Finding most attractive and feasible solutions A review in 2018 will determine whether emission cap is achievable. Problem Statement:
  28. 28. Objective of research • financial attractiveness • technical feasibility • the right option will depend on the ship owner’s time horizon • to be dynamic and applicable to specific ships and operational patterns  A wrong technical choice may be severely detrimental to competitiveness. Develop a decision support tool in order to assess:
  29. 29. Trade route and technical assumption Assumption: The vessels do not call Mediterranean ports but they will spend more time in between European ports and Chinese ports. Total length of voyage : 44 days Average ECA operation: 19 days Maximum 44% ECA operation for one vessel in half round trip
  30. 30. Two owned existing vessels : (MAN B&W)..... 3300 teu: 8S 70 MC-C8/ME-C8 6500 teu: 10k98MC.C6 /ME-C6 14,000 teu: Planning for ECA implementation MAN B&W SMCR power demand modeling
  31. 31. Technical modelling assumptions 3,300 TEU 6,500 TEUShip size MAN B&W 8S 70 MC-C8 MAN B&W 10k98MC.C6 26,160 kW at 91 rpm 54180 kW at 104 rpm Propulsion power (SMCR) Type of engine 16.6 19.5 1,270 818 Investments Operating costs 132/165.7 consumption 132.3 / 168,2 consumption Fuel /gas consumption 14,000 Engine Propulsion power 21 522 132.2/167 consumption Newbuilding
  32. 32. Selecting efficient engine for 14,000 teu 14000teu: 12k98MC-C6/ME-C6  For all calculation 15% sea margin and 10% engine margin have been assumed.  A service rating of 90% SMCR, including a 15% sea margin.  MAN B&W ME: ME-C, ME-B engine can be delivered/Converted to the GI system  MAN B&W ME: ME-C, ME-B engine can be delivered/Converted to the GI Sys. 8S70ME-C8.2-GI-TII 10G95ME-C9.2-GI-TII 12G95ME-C9.2-GI-TII Alternative ship propulsion for existing / new vessel
  33. 33. Operational data  Strategy : Slow steaming • The fleet are run with ~ 60% Pb. Except 6500 teu. It is not economical to run over 56% Newer engines are available and more efficient engines. The conversion to LNG as fuel require some larger changes most importantly: • Main Engine Conversion of MC-C to ME-GI • LNG / Inert Gas System • LNG Storage Tanks • Fuel Supply Systems • Removal of Existing Piping and Equipment • Tank Specification
  34. 34. Partners in the project are: • 8S70ME-C8.2-GI-TII • 10G95ME-C9.2-GI-TII • 12G95ME-C9.2-GI-TII • The information is for only be used in the initial stages of projects. The final design values are always to be confirmed by MAN Diesel & Turbo Engineroom and performance data MAN-Diesel&Turbo-ceas-Software
  35. 35. Main Engines specification Technical determinants for the financial model Installed Main Engine 3,300 teu 6,500 teu 14,000 teu Supplier MAN B&W Model 8S 70 MC-C8 10k98MC.C6 12K98MC7/ME7 Specific Maximum Continuous Rating (SMCR) 26,160 kW at 91 rpm 54180 kW at 104 rpm 72,240kw at 104 rpm Normal Continuous rating 18,312 Kw at 80.8 RPM 33110 kw at 86.1 rpm 50568 kw at 92.3 rpm Specific fuel oil consumption 165 gr/kwh 168,2 gr/kwh 167.8 gr/kwhr Specific gas consumption 132 gr/kwh 132 gr/kwh 132 gr/kwh
  36. 36. Capital expenditure and Operation Cost SOx Scrubber consumption at 70% M/E Max SMCR 3300 teu 6500 teu 14000 teu price Fuel 3,5% ton/year 22423.02 42079.83 62969.83 640 $/ton Elc Power, MW/year 650 2200 3292.16 220 $/MW NaOH m3/year 187.00 660.00 987.65 306 $/m3 Sludge m3/year 235.00 810.00 1212 30 $/m3 Capex for scrubber installing Estimating for each type of vessel 3300teu 5,527,110.96 For retrofitting& large installation 300 $/kw 6500teu 10,175,292.96 For new Ship 250 $/kw 14000teu 12,719,116.20 Scrubber installation Operating cost cost per slot per annum total opex 3300 (Panamax) 1.270,91 4.194.000 6500(New- Panamax) 818,46 5.320.000 14000(Mega- Panamax) 522.50 7,315,000
  37. 37. Capital expenditure and Operating Cost Operating Cost 3,300t teu 6,500teu 14,000 teu Manning 950,000.00 1,020,000.00 1,020,000.00 Repair and maintenance 1.044.000,00 1.100.000,00 1.150.000,00 Insurance 550,000.00 850,000.00 1,100,000.00 Stores and lubes 275,000.00 275,000.00 350,000.00 Administration 175,000.00 175,000.00 175,000.00 Port charges 1,200,000.00 1,900,000.00 3,520,000.00 Tot operating costs per annum 4.194.000,00 5.320.000,00 7.315.000,00 Tot cost per slot per annum 1.270,91 818,46 522,50 LNG dual Fuel Engine Capex for DF engine Conversion (mil US$) 3,300 teu 6,500 teu 14,000 teu Main Engine Increase (incl. EGR) 3 4 5 FGS System 3 3 3 LNG Fuel Tank (incl. construction cost) 5.5 6 8 Additional Equipment 1 2 3 Total 12.5 15 19 15% additional investment for conversion 16.67 19.55 21
  38. 38. Synthesis data Key message … 14 - 2 4 6 8 10 2013-2015 2015-2019 2020-2025 MilUS$ 3300 teu MGO 6500 teu MGO 14000 teu MGO 3300 teu LNG 6500 teu LNG 14000 teu LNG Benefit from LNG vs MGO (US$, ml) - 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 3300 teu 6500 teu 14000 teu Mil$ 2015-2020 2020-2025 Benefit scrubber vs. HFO during 10 years • The financial benefit of the LNG alternative will depend on the cost spread between HFO and MGO.
  39. 39. Conclusion Net present Value and IRR 15 Internal return ration of dual fuel Engine vs. Scrubber installation 43 95 138 10 26 43 - 50 100 150 200 3300 6500 14000 NPVMillions LNG Scrubber Comparing NPV, LNG vs. Scrubber 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 3300 6500 14000 IRR LNG Scrubber Basic assumptions: • Discount rate : 11% • Inflation rate : 4% • The period is 10 years (2015 – 2024) NPV and IRR for a period of 10 years are more positive for LNG
  40. 40. Contrasting advantages and disadvantages Option Pros Cons Distillate fuel No more little modifications and investment Well known and tested Higher fuel cost Prices likely to increase Fuel availability uncertain Wear and tear Scrubber Can use cheaper Higher sulphur fuel Fuel availability Take up space Significant investment cost No significant reduction of NOx Requires additional energy during operation Costly to deliver produced sludge LNG SOx content of virtually 0% Currently cheaper fuel , but future price development is uncertain Reduces NOx and CO2 remarkably Retrofit difficult Requires larger fuel tanks Fuel availability uncertain Infrastructure currently limited
  41. 41. Partners in the project are: Net present value and pay back time Base Case -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPVMil$ 3300 SCR 3300 LNG 10.00- 5.00- - 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPVMIL$ 14000 LNG 14000 SCR 3300 teu 6500teu 14000 teu • The pay back period is about 2,5 years and for more large vessels event is less . • The payback time is more sensitive to HFO price if the vessel operates longer inside ECA’s. • DF sys. shows sensitivity to global cap enforcement at 2020 when differential price between LNG and HFO-MGO will boom by increasing demand over MGO. (Inelasticity of demand and supply) -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPVMIL$ 6500 LNG 6500 SCR
  42. 42. 10.00- 5.00- - 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPVMIL$ 14000 LNG 14000 SCR -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPV Mil$ 3300 SCR 3300 LNG -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPVMIL$ 6500 LNG 6500 SCR Partners in the project are: Synthetic data creation on NPV & PBT What if global sulphur cap is postponed for 5 years 3300 teu 6500 teu 14000 teu The scrubber option is not very sensitive to changes in absolute HFO price Both systems are not very sensitive as much as base case at 2020 .
  43. 43. Partners in the project are: NPV & PBT 2. LNG price set at price parity of average price 3300 teu 6500 teu 14000 teu -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPVMil$ 3300 SCR 3300 LNG -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPVMIL$ 6500 LNG 6500 SCR (15.00) (5.00) 5.00 15.00 25.00 35.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPV MIL$ 14000 LNG 14000 SCR • The payback period of the scrubber is primarily sensitive to the price HFO and MGO and no less sensitive to capex and the absolute HFO price.
  44. 44. Partners in the project are: -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPVMIL$ 6500 LNG 6500 SCR -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPVMIL$ 6500 LNG 6500 SCR (15.00) (5.00) 5.00 15.00 25.00 35.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 NPV MIL$ 14000 LNG 14000 SCR NPV & PBT 3. If the Capex for conversion to DF increase 10 $mil 3300 teu 6500 teu 14000 teu • Payback for the larger vessels shows a stronger dependency on the investment than for the smaller vessels • payback for all vessels shows at higher rate of cash out but payback time is shorter for DF sys.
  45. 45. Conclusion • Using LNG promises less emission and less fuel costs. LNG Vs scrubber systems for the fleet in the trade rout of Fareast to north of Europe • With 44% ECA exposure, LNG system payback time below three years. • The dual fuel system is attractive as long as differences of LNG price (delivered on board) to HFO is less than 150 $/ton. • For larger vessels , Eca exposure with higher than 44% , is expected to show the shortest payback times . • Use of scrubber system reduces payback time and is more attractive than MGO
  46. 46. Conclusion • An dual-fuel offers lower fuel costs, maintenance cost and better chartering potential . • ECA exposure is a crucial factor while the Capex plays important role in payback time & feasibility • An LNG price of up to 550$/ton provides a competitive advantage for dual-fuel engine vs scrubbers in terms of payback in this study • It may lead to a higher Capex but a longer period of economic depreciation. It makes economic sense for banks to confront with less risk by financing on dual fuel engine vessels.
  47. 47. Recommendation • For all type references vessels , dual fuel engine has higher financial attractiveness and technically is more feasible. • If the global sulphur cap enters into force after 2025, the payback time increases by about 1 year. • Higher 44% presence at ECA gives a less payback period when the engines need to burn more 0.1% MGO, assuming an HFO-MGO spread of ~780$/ton. • The LNG solution is more expensive than the scrubber solution. If LNG is also used outside ECA after 2020, the business case becomes more interesting with a payback period of less than 2.5 years with 44% ECA exposure. • As for the scrubber solution, the payback period is most sensitive to the HFO-MGO spread. Referring to chapter predicting a limitation of price difference is difficult as the LNG infrastructure is also unknown
  48. 48. Thank you for your attention Master in Shipping and Transport © STC-Group April 3rd , 2014 Rotterdam Mohammad_vaferi@yahoo.com
  49. 49. Certification and legislation Existing convention, regulations and codes: • IMO Marpol Annex VI, CCNR/ EPA/EU/ IVW/SIGTO/OCIMF • Bunkering legislation still under development by BLG; • IGC COD for small LNG carrier and IGF COD for receiving ship Guidelines: • Society of International Gas Tanker & Terminal operators Ltd • Oil Companies International Marine Forum • DNV, GL,BV possible, guidelines available Gas Fuelled Ships
  50. 50. LNG from a shipbuilder’s perspective Pieter Huyskens Programme Manager Sustainability pieter.huyskens@damen.com
  51. 51. DAMEN SHIPYARDS GROUP L I Q U E F I E D N AT U R AL G AS Rotterdam 2014-04-03
  52. 52. * EGR = Exhaustgas Recirculation System, removes another 40% of NOx emissions. These NOx regulations might be postponed till 2021 Source: Adapted from DNV Why LNG? LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  53. 53. Impact PM Lead SOx NOx VOC CO CH4 CO2 N2O CFC Local Health and welfare X X X X X X Regional Acidification X X Photochemical Oxidants X X X Global Indirect greenhouse effect X X X X X Direct Greenhouse effect X X X X X Stratospheric Ozone depletion X X X [Fiaz A., World Bank (1991)] Diesel LNG Harmful emissions related to transport LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  54. 54. Methane Pioneer °1957 LNG IN SHIPBUILDING Long track record for LNG and shipping FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  55. 55. Methane = CH4 LNG components Ethane = C2H6 Propane = C3H8 LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  56. 56. LNG infosessie Source: GIIGNL
  57. 57. To remember 1. Upcoming regulations force us to take action 2. LNG offers a clear environmental benefit 3. LNG is the fastest growing prime fuel/energy source 4. LNG is a mixture of different components 5. The mixture varies geographically 6. This reflects in different energy contents => fuel consumption 7. There are big uncertainties about price, but given the ample resources of NG and the foreseen price increase of diesel fuel due to de- sulphurization, LNG seems promising LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  58. 58. Logistic chain LNG truck Bulk Terminal Break Bulk Terminal LNG Carrier Small LNG Carrier LNG bunker vessel LNG propelled vessel LNG power plant Electricity grid LNG fueling stationLNG transport truck FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES LNG IN SHIPBUILDING
  59. 59.  The energy content of LNG is 1.8 time < diesel fuels ⇒ Need +/- 2 times the fuel for the same work → 2 times bigger fuels storage tanks OR 2 times higher bunkering frequency  Storage tanks contain LNG at -162°C and withstand +/- 10 bar pressure ⇒ Insulated cylindrical storage tanks → Hard to fit in ship design → Lots of “lost” space  Rule of thumb: 4-5 times the space required for LNG for equal bunkering intervals The need to make a compromise LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  60. 60. LNG IN SHIPBUILDING Bunker connection LNG storage tank Fuel conditioning (cold box) Gas Engine Master gas valve Additional systems required: - Fuel heating system (start from dead ship?) - Inerting system - Ventilation - Safety systems - Automation & control LNG fuel system Source: Adapted from TGE FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES No standard => What to choose?????
  61. 61. Pressurized LNG supply system - Vacuum insulated cylindrical tank - Vaporizers, valves, etc… in “cold box” - Bottom outlet for “tank vaporizer” - High pressure tank (6-8 bar) - Design pressure 8-10 bar Source: Adapted from TGE LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  62. 62. Pumped LNG supply system Source: Adapted from TGE - Bilobe or conical shape possible - Cryogenic pump inside tank - All outlets on top - Low pressure (0-3 bar) - Design pressure 4 bar - Equipment in ventilated processing room (more flexible) LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  63. 63. To remember 1. Need for additional space for fuel storage (4-5 x) of higher bunker frequencies => Compromise… => Loss of cargo space => Hydrodynamic implications (VCG) 2. Start from dead ship can be a challenge for 100% gas propelled vessels 3. Fuel can be supplied by pressure or by volume LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  64. 64.  Lean burn - Pure Gas – Dual Fuel – Pilot Injection – Emergency Diesel  Many different names for equal/similar technologies ⇒ Creates uncertainty in the market  Most technologies have their own specific advantages  Limited suppliers and limited power ranges  Ship performance is determined by engine availability in stead of functional requirements only  Engine behaviour  Engine power output depends on NG quality (geographically)  De-rating at high temperatures (due to engine knock)  Maintenance intervals and cost → some parts are expensive and need regular maintenance, fouling of the engine itself is much less  Dynamic load response LNG IN SHIPBUILDING Engine demystification FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  65. 65. Engine technologies Lean Burn Diesel principle Otto principle Ordinary Diesel Dual fuel Emergency Diesel Pure Gas • Intake: Air enters the engine • Combustion: Diesel is injected in the hot air and auto- ignites • Intake: Air and gaseous fuel enter the engine • Combustion: A substantial amount of diesel is injected and auto-ignites, thereby igniting the air gas mixture • Intake: Air and gaseous fuel enter the engine • Combustion: A small amount of diesel is injected and auto-ignites, thereby igniting the air gas mixture • Intake: Air and gaseous fuel enter the engine • Combustion: A small pre- combustion chamber, filled with a stoichio-metric air- gas mixture is ignited by a spark LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  66. 66. To remember 1. Different engine types create uncertainty 2. Limited power ranges for NG engines make ship design difficult 3. NG engines have specific characteristics • Dynamic behaviour • De-rating • Maintenance LNG IN SHIPBUILDING FUEL SYSTEMBACKGROUND ENGINES
  67. 67. The LNG safety onion model Source: SEA Consulting / GIIGNL LNG IN SHIPBUILDING
  68. 68. Safety rules 1. Prevent leak of vapour and liquid to the atmosphere 2. In case of a leak, use protection (cryogenic materials, drip trays, water curtains) 3. In case of a leak, prevent ignition (EX equipment, safety, security and exclusion zones) LNG IN SHIPBUILDING
  69. 69. GST2013 Life Cycle Cost DAMEN E3 Ferry Time, i.e. fuel consumption Cost CAPEX DD CAPEX LNG Three parameters influence the economical feasability: (1) Add. investment cost LNG system, (2) Price difference LNG and fuel oil, (3) Operational profile of the vessel. CAPEX DD + SCR+ DPF IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
  70. 70. DAMEN SHIPYARDS GROUP 2013 WORLDWIDE COMPANY Committed/proud Entrepreneurial Development /R&D Ship repair Building on-site Ambitious Partnership Achieving clients’ goals Family business/values Fantastic company Ship building Best ship builder Total solution provider Reliability/trust Customer oriented Vessels & Services Dutch Standardization Best quality D AME N
  71. 71. LNG bunkering at Port of Rotterdam Cees Boon Sector Coordinator JC.boon@portofrotterdam.com
  72. 72. 2© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 LNG 2015 A successful port of the future cannot do without a successful region and vice versa. The port needs a region that people like to live, work and recreate in. The Port of Rotterdam Authority views LNG small scale as an important element in achieving a sustainable shipping and a sustainable Port. The Port of Rotterdam Authority remains a key discussion partner in this respect and a connecting factor between science, government organizations and the business sector.
  73. 73. LogoLogo 2-4-2014 3
  74. 74. 4© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 20122-4-2014 4 Integral Safety Program for small scale LNG supply chain
  75. 75. LogoLogo Consensus on draft: Jan./Feb. 2014 External consultation: Feb. /March 2014 Final draft : April 2014 Approval June 2014 Draft Port Bye Laws 2014 Ship To Ship LNG bunkeringDraft Port Bye Laws 2014 Ship To Ship LNG bunkering LNG fuelled ships will bring LNG closer to people
  76. 76. 6© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 LNG safety policy: We have no special nautical traffic rules for LNG carriers We have no special regulations for LNG fuelled ships. We have regulations for LNG bunkering. We consider an LNG tanker as a “normal” tanker carrying dangerous goods and of course we have regulations for ships carrying Dangerous Goods. • See our admission policy An LNG fuelled ship is considered to be a “normal” ship • Of course we must be aware of the LNG bunker tank on board LNG bunkering is a transfer of dangerous goods. In the Port of Rotterdam we have regulations for-, and enforcement on the transfer of dangerous goods.
  77. 77. 7© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 LNG bunkering in the Port Bye Laws To get this stuff on board is very demanding • Spatial planning • Environmental restrictions • Safety requirements for LNG bunkering • Checklists • Safety distances • Minimum passing distances for other vessels • Simultaneous activities • Accreditation of LNG bunker vessels • Accreditation for power supply vessels • Safety requirements for repairs • Operational reports
  78. 78. 8© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 LNG bunkering in the Port of Rotterdam • At a location with an environmental permit • (Shore to ship, truck to ship) • Environmental permit based on PGS 33-2 • From a accredited LNG bunker vessel • (ship to ship) • With an exemption of the competent authority
  79. 79. 9© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 Emission policy: • No release of LNG, or emission of NG during: • Bunkering • Cooling down • Purging • De-bunkering or gas freeing • No release of LNG during the disconnecting of the LNG bunker line A white cloud around the ventstack is not desirable
  80. 80. 10© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 Tankers with DG on board only in designated area’s LNG-NG free and inerted
  81. 81. 11© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 LNG bunker areas LNG bunkering outside Petrol harbors or LNG harbors only with permission Spatial planning: Designated areas for LNG bunkering: Prinses Amaliahaven, Prinses Alexiahaven Prinses Arianehaven With permission Europahaven Amazonehaven Mississippihaven With permission Other locations After a local (positive) risk assessment and with permission Petroleum harbors and en LNG harbors Allowed
  82. 82. 12© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 Accreditation
  83. 83. 13© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 Simultaneous operations (SIMOPS – SIMBOPS) • The risk of falling containers
  84. 84. 14© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 Mooring alongside, passing distances and signaling • During LNG bunkering no vessels alongside accept (only one) LNG bunker vessel • During LNG bunkering of an inland vessel: • LNG fuelled inland vessel: Special Sign • Passing and mooring distances for other vessels: 25 m • During LNG bunkering of a seagoing vessel: • LNG fuelled seagoing vessel: Red light or B flag • Passing and mooring distances for other vessels: 50 m
  85. 85. 15© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 • Requirements for repairs on LNG / NG installations on board of ships For LNG Only specialized repair crew
  86. 86. 16© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 • Operational reports of STS LNG bunkering
  87. 87. 17© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 Ship to Ship LNG bunker checklist • LNG bunker checklists: • truck to ship • shore facility to ship • ship to ship • based on IAPH / WPCI developed LNG bunker checklists
  88. 88. 18© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 LNG bunkering in the Port of Rotterdam 2015 LNG AMBITION 2015 Allowed (procedures in place) Possible (infrastructure available) Encouraged (financial incentives offered) Prepared (Informed, educated trained)
  89. 89. 19© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012 Future
  90. 90. LogoLogo Thank you for your attentionThank you for your attention © Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2013 20 Cees Boon JC.Boon@portofrotterdam.com Questions?Questions?
  91. 91. LNG bunkering challenges at North of EU, latest technical developments in small scale LNG Pieter Wijkstra Business developer pwijkstra@anthonyveder.com Presentation cannot be made public via this medium, if you’re interested please contact the speaker directly
  92. 92. Master Shipping and Transport Full speed ahead with your career! Maurice Jansen Senior Manager Innovation, Research & Development M.jansen@stc-r.nl
  93. 93. Maritime knowledge infrastructure Highly specialised and experienced staff Main supplier of skilled labour force to port of Rotterdam and Dutch maritime cluster Focussed on the business with vertical education model Largest maritime simulator park in Europe STC-Group within the Dutch maritime cluster
  94. 94. Education and training for all professionals in the transport chain The shipping and transport world of the STC-Group: a global approach, one-stop-shop for the transport chain “We educate from door to door”
  95. 95. Profile Master Shipping and Transport • A Master Shipping in Transport is a manager who is mainly involved in directing, coordinating and managing shipping, port and transport related activities and the relevant infrastructure. • He / she is a competent professional who has knowledge of the industry and is excellently equipped with the right skills to occupy a management position within the shipping and logistics sector. • In their work, graduates must be able to say the following. “I know my facts (content), I am competent (competency), I know when and how to apply my knowledge and skills in specific situations (judgement) and I understand the implications relating to social and ecological well-being (ethics).”
  96. 96. Target Group
  97. 97. Bachelor Degree in relevant subject Preferably 2 years working experience The Master Program is open to people who have excellent English proficiency AND have: Bachelor Degree Preferably 2 years working experience in shipping, transport, logistics or related Admission conditions
  98. 98. Thesis Research and management skills Port Case Shipping Case Courses: AQT; CMS; HRM Domain: Maritime management Domain: Logistics Courses: SCM; COM; HIN, ILO, PDM Domain: Finance and economics Courses: ECO S; ECO P; FCM-I; FCM- II; FCM-III Domain: Shipping management Courses: SBC; FLM; SBP, ISM, ENG Domain: Law and Policies Courses: LAW; POL; OCM; SEC Curriculum Master Shipping and Transport
  99. 99. Master follows a study approach Source: Skills sheets Challenge students to work on problem-driven cases. Let them identify their knowledge gaps, how to analyse and diagnose the problems, before coming up with the answer / solution Skills development framework Problem driven approach
  100. 100. ‘I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand’ (Confucius) Didactical model
  101. 101. Academic year (60 credits) followed by thesis project (21 credits) Intensive course
  102. 102. All lecturers are maritime experts
  103. 103. Simulations Management games, Full mission simulators
  104. 104. Field Trips: Logistics center, Container terminal, vessel visit, ship yard etc.
  105. 105. Course Assignments Group projects, Individual assignments
  106. 106. Presentation and Role Play Business proposal, Pleading session, etc. Didactical approach
  107. 107. Presentation and Role Play Business proposal, Pleading session, etc. Didactical approach
  108. 108. International study trip Didactical approach Oman 2014, full-time students
  109. 109. • Accredited by Dutch Flemish Accreditation Organisation (NVAO) • ISO-9001-2008 Certified by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) • Investor in People Certified
  110. 110. Keep up-to-date via Flipboard
  111. 111. @STCGroupNL Netherlands Maritime University www.stc-nmu.eu info@stc-nmu.eu How to stay in contact?
  112. 112. full speed ahead… with your career!

×