north european lng infrastructure project: draft ... · pdf filedraft feasibility report...

Draft Feasibility Report Appendix A Ship Cost Analysis

A

North European LNG Infrastructure Project: A feasibility study for an LNG filling station infrastructure and test of recommendations.

Date: 2011-11-21

ÅF Industry AB & SSPA Sweden AB

Erik Lindfeldt

Table of contents

A. Appendix A Ship cost analysis ................................................................................................. 6

A.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6

A.2. Description of technical solutions..................................................................................... 6 A.2.1 Exhaust gas scrubber (and SCR) ........................................................................... 6

A.2.2 MGO ..................................................................................................................... 7

A.2.3 LNG ....................................................................................................................... 7

A.3. Studied ship types ................................................................................................................... 8 A.3.1 RoPax / RoRo Vessels ........................................................................................... 8

A.3.2 Coastal Tankers/Chemical tankers/Bulk Carriers ................................................. 9

A.3.3 Container Ship (700-800 TEU) ............................................................................ 11

A.3.4 Fishing Vessels .................................................................................................... 12

A.4. General assumptions ........................................................................................................... 13 A.4.1 Fuel prices .......................................................................................................... 13

A.5. Cost components included in analysis ........................................................................... 14 A.5.1 Investment costs ................................................................................................ 14

A.5.2 Operational and other costs ............................................................................... 14

A.6. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 15

A.7. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 15

List of Figures Figure 1. RoPax vessel .............................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2. Bulk carrier ................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3. Dual fuel Retrofit of Chemical Tanker BIT VIKING................................................... 10 Figure 4. Container ship ......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5. Fishing Vessel .......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6. Costs per GJ fuel used ............................................................................................. 16

List of Tables Table 1. RoPax RoRo Vessel properties .................................................................................... 8 Table 2. Example of orders of RoPax vessels with LNG propulsion ......................................... 9 Table 3. Coastal Tankers/Bulk Carriers properties ................................................................. 10 Table 4. Example of orders with LNG propulsion .................................................................. 11 Table 5. Container ship properties ......................................................................................... 11 Table 6. Example of orders for a Container vessel with LNG auxiliary power ....................... 12 Table 7. Fishing Vessel properties .......................................................................................... 12 Table 8. Fuel prices used in the different scenarios *€/GJ+ .................................................... 14 Table 9. Investment costs (in thousand €) ............................................................................. 15 Table 10. NPV in the Central scenario (total costs in million €) ............................................. 15 Table 11. NPV for the High80 scenario (total costs in million €) ........................................... 16 Table 12. Illustration of pay-back times in the fuel price scenarios compared to MGO ....... 17

ÅF & SSPA PROJECT TEAM

6 (16) Appendix A: Draft Feasibility Report

A. Appendix A Ship cost analysis

A.1. Introduction

In order to describe and assess different compliance strategies a cost analysis of a few possible technical ship solutions has been carried out. This appendix describes the studied technical solutions (scrubber (including SCR), MGO, LNG, DF), the studied type ships (RoRo, Coastal tanker, container ship, fishing boat), general calculation assumptions as well as a description of each cost component that has been included in the analysis. Both retrofits and building of new vessels have been considered. After stating the input assumptions the methodology is described before the results (net present value and pay back times). Also, the impact of different fuel prices is studied by assuming four different fuel prices scenarios.

A.2. Description of technical solutions

Four technical solutions have been studied as compliance strategies: continuing using HFO but add an exhaust gas scrubber and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) equipment, use the low sulphur fuel Marine Gas Oil (MGO), use LNG or use a dual fuelled (DF) engine that can be run on both fuel oil and gas.

A.2.1 Exhaust gas scrubber (and SCR)

It would be possible to comply with the SECA requirements by applying an ‘end of pipe’ solution and use scrubbers for SOX (and PM) removal in combination with either Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) or Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) for NOX cleaning. This combination is a strong candidate to fulfil the requirements in SECA 2015 and ECA Tier III. MAN Diesel & Turbo claim to be close to fulfilling Tier III by use of EGR technology alone. Once successful, SCR is not needed in order to fulfil Tier III, but future stricter requirements might require SCRs later on. The advantages of the scrubber technology are that readily available HFO can be used also in the future. The infrastructure, and hence the availability, of HFO is also good and the ship owners do not need to retrofit or replace their engines. Scrubber tests show that the sulphur emissions are reduced to almost zero and the PM content in the exhaust gases is significantly reduced. The disadvantages include the required capital investments in scrubbers as well as the wastes produced by the scrubbers. Other disadvantages with the scrubbers are that the share of CO2 in the exhaust gases is not reduced and that any scrubbers used to fulfil the SECA requirements must be IMO certified. This certification and Port Authorities’ controls increase the administrative work. The infrastructure for scrubber waste deposition in ports is not yet in place and there is no praxis or regulations in place that regulate the ports responsibility to handle such waste. In July 2011 the IMO issued a resolution that states guidelines for reception facilities under the Marpol Annex VI. This may become a service that can be charged for. Scrubbers also occupy space and in some cases cargo capacity might be reduced (depending on if space otherwise used for cargo needs to be claimed or not).



A.2.2 MGO

Conventional marine fuels are commonly divided into two categories: residual fuel oil and distillates. Residual fuel oil, often referred to as Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), is the heaviest marine fuel with respect to viscosity and sulphur content. Distillate fuels can be further divided into two categories, Marine Gas Oil (MGO) and Marine Diesel Oil (MDO). It is possible to produce HFO with 0.1% sulphur content, however, that will not be done by refineries since they will produce higher priced products, such as MGO, to the same production price. MGO with 0.1% sulphur or less is readily available and share about the same properties as the diesel fuel used for high speed diesel engines. Using MGO gives low sulphur emissions matching the SECA demands. Particulate matter in exhaust gases is also reduced. NOX and green house gases will remain at the same level as when using HFO. To comply with NOX Tier III SCR or EGR is needed when operating on MGO. MGO does not require extra volume for storage tanks, and retrofitting of the engine gives only small or no investments costs. However, fuel prices are already at a rather high level and are in general believed to continue to rise, to some extent due to limited refinery capacity.

A.2.3 LNG

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is natural gas stored as liquid at -162oC. The predominant component is methane with some ethane and small amounts of heavy hydrocarbons. Due to the low temperature, LNG has to be stored in cryogenic tanks. LNG has a high auto ignition temperature and therefore needs an additional ignition source, i.e. a pilot fuel, to ignite in combustion engines. Natural gas is lighter than air and has a narrow flammability interval. It can be combusted in two stroke engines or in four stroke Otto engines. LNG storage tanks require much more space than traditional fuel oil tanks. This may reduce the cargo capacity, depending on type of vessel, type of fuel tank and potential of adequate location of the LNG tanks on-board. LNG is assumed to be available at competitive cost and the price will be varied in the cost analysis (see below). The gas engines have been proven to be reliable and it is a clean and low-sulphur fuel. Exhaust gas emissions such as SOX and PM are negligible. NOX can be reduced by approximately 80 – 90 % for Otto cycle processes, and 10-20% for Diesel cycle processes. LNG contains less carbon than fuel oils, reducing the CO2 emissions first and foremost from tank to propeller1. Natural gas can also be combusted in dual fuel engines, which have the advantage of being able to run on either liquid fuel oils or gaseous fuel. They can be either four stroke Otto engines or two stroke diesel engines. For the four stroke engine, the working principle is based on the Otto cycle when operating on natural gas, and the Diesel cycle is the basis for operation on fuel oils. The ignition source is a small amount of fuel oil which is injected and ignited by the compression heat; the burning oil ignites the gas. The two stroke engine applies high pressure gas injection together with pilot diesel oil and the fuel oil that ignites

1 However, for Otto cycle process operation in dual fuel engines, methane slip is a problem. Methane is an aggressive greenhouse gas and when including both CO2 and methane emissions, LNG does not always give a reduction in greenhouse gases emissions compared to fuel oils. Methane slip is however not a problem for engines operating on gas in the Diesel cycle. (Litehauz et al, 2010)



first, and the gas is ignited by the burning fuel oil. This engine can run on fuel oil only or on a mixture of gas and fuel oil. The engine has no or almost no methane slip, but cannot meet Tier III NOx regulation without further countermeasures such as EGR or SCR.

A.3. Studied ship types

Four different type vessels are chosen to illustrate the costs for retrofitting and building new ships complying with the future SECA regulations. The vessel types are to be seen as examples for each type category but huge variations exist for all categories, in all respects. The four type vessels are a RoPax/RoRo vessel, a Coastal tanker/Chemical tanker/Bulk carrier, a container ship (700-800 TEU) and a Fishing vessel. The type ships have been selected to be representative for the traffic in SECA and since they are possible LNG adopters.

A.3.1 RoPax / RoRo Vessels

Figure 1. RoPax vessel Source, DNV, 2011

Table 1. RoPax RoRo Vessel properties

Dimensions Energy demand

Approx length 165 m Estimated main engine power 2 x 2,700 kW

Approx breadth 24 m Estimated bunkering volume 65-125 m3LNG

Deadweight 4,200 tonnes Bunkering Frequency 2-3 days

Available bunkering time 1-2 hours Amount LNG /year (and vessel) 4,000 tonnes

Available bunkering positions: At quay by dedicated bunker vessel Bunker stations on both sides of vessel Parallel activities: Embarkment / disembarkment of passengers on

quay side Loading/unloading of vehicles Oil bunkering Stores loading

Notes As these types of vessels often are a combined passenger/cargo vessels they handle both passengers as well as rolling cargoes such as trailers, trucks and cars. The berth is often made in city ports hence this type of vessel is suitable for improving environmental status



in coastal areas. Also, because the routes are clearly defined, the amount of fuel to bunker is easy to estimate making it possible to optimize fuel tanks. Issues to be considered are:

Short bunkering time;

Passengers embarking / disembarking at the same time as bunkering;

The engines may be either dual-fuel type or pure gas type.;

Use LNG cryogenic properties in HVAC process.

Bunkering of a RoPax or RoRo vessel will most likely be done by a type of bunkering barge/vessel (STS). A ship of this type has dedicated berths along their routes therefore the possibility of a fixed bunkering system could be feasible. It should be noted that special safety precautions are necessary since parallel activities such as cargo and passenger handling is likely to be performed simultaneously during bunkering operations. STS bunkering solutions have some benefits since the bunkering can be carried out on the opposite side of cargo handling which reduces risks of interference between the cargo handling and the bunkering operation. Table 2. Example of orders of RoPax vessels with LNG propulsion

Company Country Type of vessel Delivery

INCAT Australia High-speed catamaran ferry 2012

Torghatten Nord Norway Express ferries 2012 (first)

Viking Line Sweden Cruise ferry 2013

Although these vessels are more costly, the environmental profile can be a strong reason for longer pay-off time compared to other ship types.

A.3.2 Coastal Tankers/Chemical tankers/Bulk Carriers

Figure 2. Bulk carrier Source: DNV, 2011



Figure 3. Dual fuel Retrofit of Chemical Tanker BIT VIKING Source: GL/Wärtsilä

Table 3. Coastal Tankers/Bulk Carriers properties


Approx length 125-180 m Estimated main engine power 8,500 kW

Approx breadth 20-27 m Estimated bunkering volume 500-1,000 m3 LNG

Deadweight 10,000-25,000 tonnes

Bunkering Frequency Every 10- 14 days


Available bunkering positions: At quay by dedicated bunker vessel Parallel activities: Loading/unloading of cargo Oil bunkering Stores loading

Notes Operations over short and medium distances are most common. As each bunker moment will require 500 – 1,000 m3 LNG a bunker vessel would probably be the most practicable and effective bunker solution for these kinds of vessels. Points to be considered are:

Range requirements;

Trading pattern;

The requirements for parallel activities such as cargo handling;

Placement of LNG tank(s);

The engine(s) will probably be dual-fuel type.

The coastal tankers may also be retrofitted since the tanks preferably are located on open deck to avoid limitations in cargo capacity. The available space on deck is however often very limited for bulk carriers. The Bit Viking is still in conversion and will be running with a dual-fuel engine. Both tanks are located on open deck to avoid limitations in cargo capacity. The seatrial is proposed for October 2011.



Table 4. Example of orders with LNG propulsion


NSK Shipping Norway General cargo vessel 2012

Tarbit Shipping Sweden Chemical Tanker Bit Viking (Retrofit) 2011

A.3.3 Container Ship (700-800 TEU)

Figure 4. Container ship Source: DNV, 2011

Table 5. Container ship properties


Approx length 135 m Estimated main engine power 8,000 kW

Approx breadth 20 m Estimated bunkering volume 500-700 m3 LNG

Deadweight 9,000 tonnes Bunkering Frequency Every 10 days


Available bunkering positions: At quay by dedicated bunker vessel Parallel activities: Loading / unloading of cargo Oil bunkering Stores loading

Notes Shipping along coast lines and for short sea routes motivates this type of vessel. Although, mainly fuel price will affect decisions on LNG propulsion. Fixed timetables contribute to regular port visits but due to cargo, different berths in the container port. Depending on container capacity of the vessel, turnaround times while in port could be a bottleneck for the bunker operation. A bunker vessel solution is the most likely solution regarding flexibility and capacity reasons. Points to be considered are:

Short bunkering time due to short turnaround time in port;

The requirements for parallel activities such as cargo handling;

Range requirements;



Trading pattern;

Placement of LNG tank(s) preferably on open deck, but cargo space can be considered;

The engine(s) will probably be dual-fuel type.

One option could be using a number of LNG tanks placed in containers instead of fixed storage tanks. The bunkering process would then consist of replacing empty tank containers during loading/unloading of cargo, hence solving the problem with the location of tanks. However, this limits the load carrying capacity.

This type of vessel has substantial auxiliary power engines which can be interesting to run on LNG. Table 6. Example of orders for a Container vessel with LNG auxiliary power


Stefan Patjens Germany 5.000 TEU Containership (retrofit) On hold

There are also a number of concept designs developed for this type of vessel, like DNV with their Quantum design and GL with theis retrofit CV Neptun 1200 design.

A.3.4 Fishing Vessels

Figure 5. Fishing Vessel Source: DNV, 2011

Table 7. Fishing Vessel properties


Approx length 70 m Estimated main engine power 5.000 kW

Approx breadth 15 m Estimated bunkering volume 800 m3 LNG

Deadweight 1,200 tonnes Bunkering Frequency 21-25 days


Available bunkering positions: From land based LNG terminal or by bunker vessel. Parallel activities: Cargo unloading, Oil bunkering



Notes As fishing vessels usually have long sea passages the frequency of bunkering is low. Depending on what facilities they utilize in the harbor for landing their cargo the best solutions ought to be a pipeline/intermediate tank solution or bunkering via a bunker vessel. For smaller fishing vessels tank trucks are probably the most suitable solution. Points to be considered are:

The range requirements;

Availability of LNG close to normal operations area/home port;

Tank placement;

Using LNG as cooling media for cargo storage;

The engine will probably be dual-fuel type. These vessels will most likely be new builds, but some cases may promote retrofitting. One interesting aspect is whether the cold LNG can be used for cooling or freezing the cargo in connection with using it as fuel. This could lower the total power consumption which further enhances economic reasons for investments. At the time of writing, there are a no known fishing vessels with LNG propulsion in operation or on order. According to DNV first order for LNG powered fishing vessel will be placed soon.

A.4. General assumptions

The following general assumptions were used in the calculations:

Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC): 10%;

Inflation: 3 %;

Economic life time 25 years;

Rest values were neglected;

1 EUR = 1.35 USD;

Auxiliary power: 20 % of main engine;

The auxiliary engine is a four stroke engine. The main engine is a two stroke engine except for the LNG only case where both engines are four stroke spark ignition engines. Both engines operate on the fuel given in that respective alternative;

Time of use at sea for respective type ship: 5 700; 5 200; 6 000; 3 500 hours/year;

Share of fuel inside SECA (for DF) for respective type ship: 100 %; 70 %; 70 %; 100 %. Only inside SECA the ship uses LNG.

A.4.1 Fuel prices

The assumed future fuel prices are decisive parameters for assessing the profitability of the respective compliance strategies. The topic of forecasting fuel prices is covered in Appendix C. Since the fuel price forecasts are so uncertain, four different scenarios are used and Table 8 shows a summary of the scenarios.



Table 8. Fuel prices used in the different scenarios *€/GJ+

Low Central High High80

HFO 11 12 13 13

MGO 16 17 18 18

LNG 6.5 8.7 11 15

A.5. Cost components included in analysis

For each of the four “technical solutions” and four type ships described above in this appendix, a number of costs were estimated (for both retrofit and newbuildings) and used as input to the cost analysis.

A.5.1 Investment costs

The investment costs (including installation costs) for scrubbers, SCR, engines, generators and electric system were estimated based on the main engine power, using “rules of thumb” provided by MAN Diesel & Turbo for the relation between investment and engine power (€/kW).

A.5.2 Operational and other costs

Operational costs for scrubbers, SCR and maintenance were estimated based on energy (main engine power [kW] * time at sea [hours/year]). Personnel costs were collected from Drewry report2 and indirect costs for education was added by scaling an assumed education cost of 50 000 $/year for a ship operating 6 000 hours. Also, a port/terminal fee for bunkering of 8 €/tonne fuel oil or 65 €/tonne (1.4 €/GJ) LNG was assumed. The motivation for the higher cost for bunkering LNG is that the building of new LNG infrastructure has to be paid. In Appendix B, this cost for LNG infrastructure is estimated, and in this appendix it is assumed that that cost is transferred to the buyer of LNG. Also, costs for port fees/licenses etc were estimated based on an assumed number of calling ports per year. The operational costs are hard to estimate since they vary very much from case to case depending on ship type, where bunkering is done etc, but Lauritzen Kosan assisted the project team in doing rough generalizations. The costs for waste disposal for the alternative with scrubber was neglected, as were cost associated with decreased cargo capacity due to space requirements for scrubber or LNG tank. The reduction of cargo space was examined within a GL study of the retrofit from HFO to LNG of the CV Neptun 1200 design. Due to the LNG tank dimensions the container capacity of 1,284 TEU would be reduced by 48 TEU to 1,236 TEU3 (a reduction of 4 %). Lost cargo space is probably extra relevant for container vessels – in the other ship types studied it may be easier to find “free” space to use for LNG-tanks. Another example is shown by the first retrofit worldwide of a seagoing vessel, the tanker Bit Viking. The two LNG fuel tanks with a capacity of each 500 m3 LNG are located on deck

2 Drewry: Ship Operating Costs Annual Review and Forecast (2011) 3 GL Scholz & Plump



with no actual reduction of the cargo capacity. Due to the properties of LNG and natural gas, special requirements for the tanks and the fuel supply system need to be fulfilled.

A.6. Methodology

Two methods were used to evaluate the different investment alternatives is net present value and pay-back method. In the net present value method future costs (incomes) are transformed to present value by using WACC plus inflation. Also, all future costs are assumed to increase by the inflation rate. The net present value method includes (in these cases) only costs, hence the preferable investment will be the one with the smallest net present value. The second method, pay back, shows how many years of lower fuel costs that is needed to offset the higher investment cost4. Since the HFO&scrubber and LNG/DF strategies have higher investment costs but lower fuel costs than the MGO strategy, MGO is chosen as reference. I.e. the calculated pay-back times are compared to investing in the MGO compliance strategy.

A.7. Results

The investment costs for each compliance strategy and each type ship can be seen in Table 9 below for both retrofit and newbuildings. The investment costs (including installation costs) are the same for all fuel price scenarios and include (if applicable) scrubber, SCR, engine, generators, electric system, propulsion, steering, motor conversion and LNG fuel system including tank, as described above. Table 9. Investment costs (in thousand €)

k€ Retrofit Newbuildings

RoRo C. tank5 C. ship Fish.b. RoRo C. tank C. ship Fish.b.

HFO 2 900 4 500 4 300 2 700 3 700 5 800 5 500 3 400

MGO 500 700 700 500 1 600 2 400 2 300 1 500

LNG 4 100 6 500 6 100 3 800 3 200 5 000 4 700 2 900

DF 4 000 6 200 5 900 3 700 3 000 4 800 4 500 2 800

The net present value of the investment throughout its lifetime includes capital costs and operating costs (e.g fuel costs) operating costs (e.g fuel costs) and is hence dependent on fuel price scenario. The NPV of the total costs for the Central and the total costs for the Central and High80 cases are shown in Table 10 and

Table 11 below, respectively. Table 10. NPV in the Central scenario (total costs in million €)

M€ Retrofit Newbuildings

RoRo C. tank C. ship Fish.b. RoRo C. tank C. ship Fish.b.

HFO 53 67 80 29 53 69 81 30

MGO 58 76 89 32 59 77 91 33

LNG 46 57 68 25 45 56 67 24

DF 48 62 74 26 47 61 73 25

4 Differences in operational costs are also considered. 5 C.tank = costal tanker/chemical tanker/bulk carrier; C.ship = container ship; Fish.b. = fishing boat



Table 11. NPV for the High80 scenario (total costs in million €)

M€ Retrofit Newbuildings

RoRo C. tank C. ship Fish.b. RoRo C. tank C. ship Fish.b.

HFO 55 71 84 30 56 72 85 31

MGO 61 79 93 33 62 81 95 34

LNG 57 75 87 32 56 73 86 31

DF 59 75 88 33 58 74 87 33

For HFO and MGO strategies, the differences are not so big between the studied cases. This is due to the relatively small difference in assumed fuel oil prices. For LNG and DF where the LNG price difference is much higher in e.g. the High80 than in the Central case, there are big differences in total NPV costs. As can be seen when comparing the tables above, the HFO/scrubber compliance strategy has lower NPV costs than the LNG strategy for retrofitting, but only in the High80 scenario. When it comes to newbuildings, costs are about the same for HFO and LNG in the High80 scenario. In the Central scenario costs are lower for LNG than HFO strategy for both retrofitting and newbuildings. In both cases shown here, the MGO strategy is the most expensive due to its high fuel costs. This can also be seen in the figure below, where the cost per GJ fuel used is shown. (The figure shows newbuildings of type ship 3, but is essentially the same for all studied type ships.)

Figure 6. Costs per GJ fuel used

The choice of fuel price scenario affects the pay-pack times only to a limited extent. The pay-back times for HFO/scrubber, LNG and DF are calculated using the MGO strategy as reference.

0

10

20

HFO

MG

OLN

G

HFO

MG

OLN

G

HFO

MG

OLN

G

HFO

MG

OLN

G

€/G

J

Additional cost, smallscale LNG infrastructure

Infrastructure

Capex machinery related costs

Additional operational cost relative LNG

Fuel cost at hub

High80HighCentralScenario: Low



Table 12. Illustration of pay-back times in the fuel price scenarios compared to MGO (Green: 1-2 years; yellow: 2-3 years; red: 3-4 years and blue: more than four years.) Retrofit New buildings

Low RoRo C. tank C. ship Fish.b. RoRo C. tank C. ship Fish.b.

-Scrubber

-LNG

-DF

Central

-Scrubber

-LNG

-DF

High

-Scrubber

-LNG

-DF

High80

-Scrubber

-LNG

-DF

Legend 1-2 yr 2-3 yr 3-4 yr 4+ yr 1-2 yr

north european lng infrastructure project: draft ... · pdf filedraft feasibility report...

Documents