Sustainable LNG regasification terminals

A technical feasibility study for constructing a sustainable

LNG regasification terminal in Yuzhny, Ukraine

Delft

Univ

rsity o

f Tech

nolo

gy

Sebastiaan Quirijns 1387472

Delft Unive rsity of Technology

Witteveen+Bos The Hague

September 15, 2015

ii

Cover figure:

LNG regasification terminals worldwide

S. Quirijns

i

Sustainable LNG regasification terminals

A technical feasibility study for constructing a sustainable

LNG regasification terminal in Yuzhny, Ukraine

By

Sebastiaan Quirijns 1387472

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

in Civil Engineering, Hydraulic Engineering

at the Delft University of Technology,

to be defended publicly on September 30, 2015 at 15:30.

Supervisor: Prof. ir. T. Vellinga Delft University of Technology

Thesis committee: ir. P. Quist Delft University of Technology Witteveen+Bos

Prof. dr. A. Metrikine Delft University of Technology

An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/.

S. Quirijns

ii

Preface This report presents the results of a study into the feasibility of constructing a sustainable LNG

regasification terminal in Yuzhny. The graduation project was carried out at ‘Witteveen + Bos’ in

cooperation with Delft University of Technology. This project was performed to obtain the Master’s

degree in Hydraulic Engineering at Delft University of Technology.

The committee members are listed below:

Prof. Ir. Tiedo Vellinga (Chair)

Ir. Peter Quist

Prof. dr. Andrei Metrikine

I want to express my gratitude to ‘Witteveen + Bos’ for providing me with the resources to

work on my thesis. I would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues for the enjoyable

atmosphere during my graduation time, with a special thanks to Peter Quist for the advice and

motivation.

On a personal note, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents and friends for their

confidence and support during all those years.

S. Quirijns

The Hague, September 2015

S. Quirijns

iii

S. Quirijns

iv

Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Context ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem description of the case study ................................................................... 3

1.3 Research objective ............................................................................................... 4

1.4 Research description ............................................................................................ 5

Required analysis of system ............................................................................. 5 1.4.1

Scope ............................................................................................................. 5 1.4.2

Boundary limits ................................................................................................ 6 1.4.3

1.5 Outline of thesis report ........................................................................................ 8

Reading guide ................................................................................................. 9 1.5.1

2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 10

3 LNG industry in general .......................................................................................................... 12

3.1 System description of regasification process .........................................................12

3.2 LNG regasification terminals ................................................................................13

3.3 Safety Analysis ...................................................................................................16

3.4 Conclusion .........................................................................................................19

4 Transport study for Yuzhny .................................................................................................... 20

4.1 Major LNG export locations .................................................................................20

4.2 Main transport routes to Yuzhny ..........................................................................21

4.3 Carrier dimensions ..............................................................................................22

4.4 Bottlenecks along the transport routes .................................................................22

4.5 Conclusion .........................................................................................................23

5 Programme of requirements for project Yuzhny ....................................................................... 24

5.1 Introduction of Yuzhny ........................................................................................24

5.2 Functional requirements ......................................................................................24

5.3 Boundary conditions for siting study ....................................................................26

Safety ............................................................................................................26 5.3.1

Equipment......................................................................................................28 5.3.2

5.4 Environmental conditions ....................................................................................29

Hydrological design values ..............................................................................29 5.4.1

Meteorological design values ...........................................................................32 5.4.2

Morphological and soil conditions .....................................................................33 5.4.3

5.5 Conclusion .........................................................................................................34

6 LNG Unloading concepts ........................................................................................................ 35

6.1 Current layout of port Yuzhny ..............................................................................35

6.2 Conventional terminal .........................................................................................36

S. Quirijns

v

Technicality, functionality and operability .........................................................36 6.2.1

Feasibility of terminal locations ........................................................................37 6.2.2

6.3 Floating Storage and Regasification Unit ..............................................................41

Terminal design ..............................................................................................41 6.3.1

Design of an FSRU ..........................................................................................43 6.3.2

Feasibility of terminal locations ........................................................................43 6.3.3

Conclusion .....................................................................................................45 6.3.4

6.4 Gravity Based Structure ......................................................................................46

Metocean conditions .......................................................................................47 6.4.1

Soil conditions ...............................................................................................48 6.4.2

LNG handling ..................................................................................................49 6.4.3

Sustainability ..................................................................................................49 6.4.4

Conclusion .....................................................................................................49 6.4.5

6.5 Conclusion for LNG unloading concepts ................................................................50

7 Concept Selection .................................................................................................................. 51

7.1 Multi Criteria Analysis ..........................................................................................51

Criteria ...........................................................................................................51 7.1.1

Weight factors ................................................................................................52 7.1.2

Results ...........................................................................................................52 7.1.3

7.2 Cost benefit analysis ...........................................................................................53

7.3 Conclusion .........................................................................................................55

8 Preliminary design of FSRU concept ........................................................................................ 56

8.1 Setup of preliminary study ..................................................................................57

8.2 Berthing energy and fenders ...............................................................................58

8.3 Carrier hydrodynamics ........................................................................................61

Motions ..........................................................................................................61 8.3.1

Environmental forces on moored carriers.........................................................63 8.3.2

8.4 Technical feasibility of mooring structures ............................................................64

Single Point Mooring structure .........................................................................65 8.4.1

Mooring structure Fixed Side by Side ...............................................................68 8.4.2

Central Loading Platform mooring structure ......................................................71 8.4.3

Tower Yoke Mooring Structure ........................................................................73 8.4.4

Pile displacements ..........................................................................................74 8.4.5

8.5 Project realization ...............................................................................................75

8.6 Terminal operability ............................................................................................79

8.7 Conclusion of preliminary design..........................................................................80

9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 83

S. Quirijns

vi

10 Discussion & Recommendation ............................................................................................ 86

10.1 Discussion ..........................................................................................................86

10.2 Recommendations ..............................................................................................88

11 References ......................................................................................................................... 89

11.1 List of terms .......................................................................................................89

11.2 List of abbreviations ............................................................................................90

11.3 Units ..................................................................................................................91

11.4 Conversion factors ..............................................................................................91

12 Registry ............................................................................................................................. 92

12.1 Bibliography .......................................................................................................92

12.2 List of figures .....................................................................................................95

12.3 List of tables.......................................................................................................98

12.4 List of applied equations ................................................................................... 101

13 Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 102

13.1 Additional figures .............................................................................................. 104

13.2 Methodology .................................................................................................... 114

13.3 Transport analysis for port Yuzhny ..................................................................... 118

13.4 Verification of Functional requirements .............................................................. 126

13.5 Area analysis .................................................................................................... 127

13.6 Hydrological conditions ..................................................................................... 134

13.7 Soil classification............................................................................................... 143

13.8 Environmental boundary conditions ................................................................... 148

13.9 Sustainability analysis ....................................................................................... 157

13.10 Power generation components in combination with LNG receiving facilities ....... 158

13.11 LNG unloading concepts ................................................................................ 159

13.12 Concept selection .......................................................................................... 166

13.13 Preliminary Design of FSRU ........................................................................... 169

13.14 Interview at LNG GATE Terminal .................................................................... 191

S. Quirijns

vii

S. Quirijns

viii

Abstract This thesis report contains the technical feasibility study to construct an LNG regasification

terminal in the port of Yuzhny, Ukraine. An initial issue raised by the Ukrainian government is their

energy dependency regarding the natural gas supply from a single supplier. By diversifying their

natural gas import it is realized to increase their energy independence. Consequently a project is

issued to construct an LNG regasification terminal that has a yearly throughput of 5 billion m3 of

natural gas per year in order to diversify their energy import. The resulting research objective is:

‘Study which LNG unloading concept is most optimal for the planned LNG regasification

terminal in the port of Yuzhny’

A feasibility study is performed to compare three different LNG unloading concepts for the

Yuzhny project. The scope of the feasibility study is based upon key factors for technicality,

functionality, transport capacity, sustainability, operability, and financial aspects. Differences between

short (25yrs. or less) and long term planning (more than 25yrs.) are determined with a sensitivity

analysis of the key factors, sustainability and financial aspects. With a Multi Criteria Analysis and Cost

Benefit analysis, it is verified which type of planning per LNG unloading concept provides the most

value for the Ukrainian government. The end result is a preliminary design of an LNG regasification

terminal in Yuzhny. Since this feasibility study is in the preliminary phase, the dimensions are

determined by quasi static calculations for ULS load cases.

The processes of the LNG ‘chain’ in chronicle order are production, liquefaction & storage,

transport, and storage & regasification. The last phase of this chain is the basis for this project. For

storage and regasification of LNG, three types of LNG unloading concepts are compared:

1. Conventional terminal:

An onshore terminal that contains a yard with storage tanks, unloading jetty and

regasification system. Since it is located near the port, it is available for potential

sustainable synergies, such as:

i. Power generation.

ii. Cold energy extraction.

2. Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU)

A conversed LNG carrier that is able to store small volumes of LNG that includes an

on-board LNG regasification system.

3. Gravity Based Structure (GBS)

An offshore structure constructed with caissons. These caissons contain full

cryogenic modular LNG storage tanks that can store large amounts of LNG, and also

act as a breakwater for moored carriers.

Results and corresponding motivations of the technical feasibility study are based upon

boundary conditions and functional requirements. Boundary conditions are determined by analyses for

the aspects safety, transport, equipment, and local environmental conditions. Boundary limits for

safety resulted in a site selection for the LNG unloading concepts. The transport study showed that

Yuzhny is accessible for all classes LNG carriers. LNG supply is diversified by importing from multiple

production plants, such as Algeria and Middle Eastern countries, in order to maintain a steady import.

Neither measurements nor any data on the local vertical soil structure classification, or local

wave climate were available. Therefore the vertical soil structure is based upon local reference soil

conditions and wave climate is modelled with the linear wave transformation formulas for offshore

wave data. Data on meteorological conditions is assessed for maximum values for a return period of

50 yrs. with probabilistic approximations.

S. Quirijns

ix

Highlighted for the local environmental conditions in the Yuzhny region are the mild metocean

conditions and the weak vertical soil layers. Design water level consists of local bathymetry, design

water level for a return period of 100 years at MSL+1m, and modelled design wave height of waves in

the direction to Yuzhny (≈1.8m). The vertical soil cross-section underneath the Black Sea consists of a

loamy clay layer from MSL-18m to MSL-35m and a sandy clay layer from MSL-35 and lower.

A seismological activity analysis showed that there is a little seismic activity in the Yuzhny

region with very little to no damage to onshore structures. Consequently, the seismic loads are

incorporated within the quasi static Ultimate Limit State load cases for the resulting environmental

conditions.

For short term planning the FSRU provides the most value for it has the lowest investment

costs, quick construction time, and is energy efficient, sustainable, flexible, and easily

decommissioned when the economical lifespan of the project is exceeded. Considering long term

planning the conventional terminal provides the most value, because of its sustainable local synergies,

power generation, and potential to become an internal transport hub. Because of the weak soil

conditions, the Gravity Based Structure is not technically feasible without a significant increase in

investment costs. The current situation in Ukraine favours short term planning, consequently the FSRU

is selected to elaborate further.

The constructability of the FSRU terminal depends on stable mooring conditions. For which,

the most significant influence is hydrodynamic carrier motions, due to environmental forces. When

these environmental forces are expressed in longitudinal(X), transverse(Y) and rotational components,

the dimensions for the preliminary design of mooring structure can be calculated for ULS load cases.

The technical feasibility study of the preliminary design is checked for four types of mooring

structures, these are selected for their performances in reference cases:

1. Single Point Mooring (SPM) structure

2. Side-by-Side mooring structure

3. Central Platform mooring structure

4. Tower Yoke Mooring structure

Technical feasibility determined for constructability and operability per mooring structure

proved that the Single Point Mooring structure is the most optimal solution for the Yuzhny case. Since

the SPM requires the shortest construction time and least resources compared to the other mooring

structures, its technical lifespan is most in line with the FSRU’s economical lifespan. The SPM applies

the FSRU as mooring point, and consists of a single mooring chain with a length (19.9m) that is

connected to a single monopile(L=34m;Ø2.5m). The monopile is driven into the seabed at MSL-18m

up to a depth of MSL-52.5m, with a ‘StabFrame’ pile driving system. Dimensions of the monopile are

based upon the failure mechanisms for soil instability and buckling.

By applying the FSRU in combination with a SPM and a Head to Stern mooring layout, the

moored carriers have a semi fixed positioning, which allows the parallel moored carriers to

weathervane in the dominant wave force direction. Stability of the moored combination of FSRU and

LNG Carrier during (un)berthing and (un)loading is provided with the help tugs and dynamic

positioning system of the LNGC and FSRU. The LNG is transferred from FSRU to shore via a natural

gas hose that has a fixed position, due to gravity anchors. At shore is the location of a measurement

and a booster station that pumps the LNG towards the hinterland. It is not expected that the

operational mooring limits, based upon ULS conditions, are exceeded during Serviceable Limit State

conditions.

Keywords: LNG, Regasification Terminals, Technical Feasible Study, Sustainability

S. Quirijns

1

1 Introduction In this thesis report a feasibility study is performed into the feasibility of a Liquid Natural Gas

(LNG) regasification plant within the port of Yuzhny. Through this report the required studies and

processes are treated, ultimately resulting in a preliminary design for the most optimal LNG unloading

for the case study in Yuzhny. Additional information, necessary studies, calculations are referenced to

throughout this report and are included within the literature study or within the appendix of this

report. Large EXCEL and Matlab files are included within the Appendix CD. An interview at LNG GATE

terminal in Rotterdam is included within Appendix 13.14. The interview is applied as background

information for a better understanding of the LNG industry and terminals in general.

The introduction treats the following aspects. First the context of Liquid Natural Gas is treated,

second a problem description of the case study for the port of Yuzhny is performed, third a description

of the research and finalised with the outline of this thesis report.

1.1 Context

Natural gas (NG) is a renewable fossil fuel with low emission rates compared to other fossil

fuels i.e. oil or coals. Natural gas consists mostly out of methane, when cooled to cryogenic

temperatures (T=-162 °C) it will transform from gas into liquid. Associated with this form change is a

reduction in volume, with a factor of about 600 times smaller than to the initial volume. In a transport

technical point of view, this has made LNG transport overseas very efficient despite the high

investment costs of the facilities. These two reasons have had a major positive influence on the

demand for natural gas.

Table 1 Densities of natural gas and LNG

100 kg Natural gas = 140.45 m³

100 kg LNG = 0.22 m³

Liquefaction plants are constructed at exporting LNG terminals and regasification plants at

import terminals. Nowadays, some terminals have both, where the LNG is re-exported i.e. at Port of

Zeebrugge or ‘Gate LNG terminal’ in Rotterdam. Before regasification the LNG is stored within full

cryogenic storage tanks, which allows peak shaving of the NG demand. After regasification process,

the natural gas is transported into the hinterland distribution network. Overseas the transport is done

by LNG carriers (LNGC), where recent developments for small scale LNG carriers resulted in a major

increase in accessibility of various locations at shallow seas.

S. Quirijns

2

Figure 1 LNG proces chain

Figure 1 shows the chronological lifespan of LNG transport from production of NG, to storage

and liquefaction, to transportation by LNG carriers, and the last phase storage of LNG and

regasification into NG. The last phase of this process chain is the main focus of this thesis report,

which is indicated in red.

Production

•First natural gas is extracted from onshore or offshore wells

•Second natural gas is pumped towards liquefaction plants

Storage and Liquefaction

•First all inpurities are removed from the gas

•Afterwards the natural gas(NG) is cooled, so it will be liquified

Transportation

•Transportation is done by LNG Carriers, which are specially designed ships with cryogenic storage tank with double hulls on board in order to keep temperature nearly constant and prevent leaking

or spillage.

Storage and Regasification

•LNG is first stored in storage tanks with cryogenic temperatures

•At regasification plants the LNG is transformed back into natural gas. Afterwards it will be transported towards the distribution network.

S. Quirijns

3

1.2 Problem description of the case study

The case study is the construction of an LNG import terminal located in Yuzhny (Ukraine).

Currently, Ukraine has been one of the largest importers of natural gas via pipelines of Russian gas

company GAZPROM. Since the Ukrainian conflict with Russia, the total amount gas available for

Ukraine has decreased significantly. The Ukrainian government aims at increasing their country’s

energy independence by diversifying their NG import. This is realized by constructing an LNG import

terminal as an expansion of the port of Yuzhny.

Figure 2 Map of Ukraine, adapted from Shipyard Liman location, retrieved February 2015 from http://liman.ua/eng/images/stories/liman/map_eng.jpg © 2014, shipyard Liman, reprinted with permission

Port of Yuzhny is located on the coast of the Black Sea, and indicated with a black arrow and

red dot in figure 2. Over time the port has merged with the adjacent ports of Odessa and Llyichevsk

into a single industrial area. To access the port of Yuzhny the Black Sea, Sea of Marmara and Aegean

Sea have to be crossed, also two crowded channels, which are the Bosphorus strait and the

Dardanelle strait.

Ukrainian Government’s political motivations for constructing an LNG receiving terminal at the

port of Yuzhny have been validated within the literature study (Ch.4.1). Their main motivation is

Russia’s decision to act hard against the Ukrainian government by increasing the price of NG, which

was not expected by everyone. However, it did show the (too) large energy dependence of Europe on

a single natural gas supplier. Consequently, constructing an LNG import terminal in order to diversify

their NG import is a logical response by the Ukrainian government. These motivations result in the

overall topic of this thesis report:

‘A technical feasibility study for constructing a sustainable LNG regasification terminal in

Yuzhny, Ukraine’

Since the Kyoto agreement, terminal designs are required to be sustainable and have as low

as possible environmental and ecological footprints. LNG regasification terminals are a heavy load on

sustainability, thus opportunities to construct sustainable solutions have to be implemented within the

design.

S. Quirijns

4

1.3 Research objective

As a consequence of the energy shortage in Ukraine and in order to increase their energy

independence, an adequate reaction by Ukrainian government is imminent. Since 64% of the total

Ukrainian domestic natural gas demand is imported from the Russian Oil and Gas Company Gazprom,

they have to diversify their import of LNG. The Ukrainian government have set up a project in Yuzhny

on the coast of the Black Sea. A new LNG import terminal will be designed and constructed at this

location. Due to the political conflicts at hand the short term design factors are time, costs and

efficiency, however for long term planning other factors become important, such as long term

sustainable solutions and expansion opportunities. So a consideration has to be made about the two

different approaches, which results in the following research objective:

‘Study which LNG unloading concept is most optimal for the planned LNG regasification

terminal in the port of Yuzhny’

Sub questions are defined for a better understanding of the research objective:

1. How is the regasification chain of LNG defined for:

a. required processes? b. required components?

c. bounded differences per LNG unloading concept

2. What defines sustainability? 3. What are the key factors for selecting a concept?

4. What defines feasibility: a. in a technical sense?

b. in a sustainable sense? c. in a financial sense?

5. What are limiting factors or boundary conditions regarding the preliminary design?

6. Construction method per LNG unloading concept? a. Is there a universal approach.

b. What are the decisive elements? 7. What affects downtime of an operational LNG unloading terminal the most?

a. How is this minimized?

8. Are there limitations naval for transport towards Yuzhny

The sub questions are the basis for this study are answered and referenced to throughout

this report. A summarised list of the specific answers for these sub questions is included within

Appendix 13.2.3.

Within the feasibility study three significantly different types of LNG unloading concepts are

compared for the LNG regasification terminal. These concepts are an onshore conventional terminal

and two offshore terminals namely the Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) and the

Gravity Based Structure (GBS). A recent development is small scale LNG (SSLNG) distribution via

trucks or Small Scale LNG Carriers (SSLNGC). Small Scale LNG terminals are built at locations, where

local NG demand is small or the local bathymetry does not allow large LNGC. In this case the SSLNG is

referred to as LNG distribution into SSLNGC in order to supply small cities along the coast of Ukraine.

So the three concepts must be able to moor and (un)load small scale carriers in order to become a

small hub in the area. The three potential LNG unloading concepts are compared with a Multi Criteria

Analysis (MCA), which focusses on the key factors functionality, transport capacity, technicality,

safety, operability, sustainability and financial aspects. Subsequently a cost benefit analysis is done to

compare the ratios for total costs over the additional value per LNG unloading concept. Where total

costs are expressed as investment costs and operational costs and additional value described for short

or long term value. Ultimately a preliminary design is made for the most optimal LNG unloading

concept.

S. Quirijns

5

1.4 Research description

A brief summary of the required analyses, applied scope and boundary limits of the research.

As a basis for the whole design study the report ‘Port Masterplan’ by (World Association for

Waterborne Transport and Infrastructure, 2014) is applied. The research questions issued in the

‘Research Proposal’ are included in Appendix 13.2.1 for a better understanding of the underlying

motivations of the research description.

Required analysis of system 1.4.1

The preliminary design for the regasification terminal is determined by boundary conditions

and the Terms of Reference set by the Ukrainian Government. Adjustable boundary conditions are

defined by guidelines and standards, which provides a certain bandwidth for interpretation. Usually

these interpretable boundary conditions are issued by international or national advisory instances for

safety, risk management and port management. Environmental conditions are referred to as non-

adjustable boundary conditions. The studies enlisted underneath are required to define both type of

boundary conditions for the feasibility study, these studies reflect some of the sub-questions raised

earlier:

1. LNG overall analyses

2. transport analyses

3. area analyses of Yuzhny

4. safety analyses

5. sustainability

6. local environmental boundary conditions

Scope 1.4.2

As mentioned within the introduction the technical feasibility study focusses on key factors

technicality, functionality, sustainability, transport capacity, operability, and financial aspects. These

factors are verified for value based upon short and long term planning, where short term planning

refers to 25 years or less and long term planning to more than 25 years. Technicality is described as

structural stability, construction method, and construction time. Functionality is explained as the

primary function, which is regasification output, and secondary functions of the regasification terminal.

E.G. Cold energy extraction is a secondary function, which is one of the sustainable solutions.

Sustainability is described by the factors: Planet, Profit, and People. Transport capacity of the terminal

is determined by accessibility, carrier calls per year and carrier dimensions. Operability is defined by

downtime, service time, (un)loading capacity and number of berths. Financial aspects are valued for

investment cost, additional value by expanding to a large scale import/export hub, and cost benefit

analysis.

The previously mentioned topics are treated either quantitatively- or qualitatively. LNG

unloading concepts, safety, constructability, operability and naval transport are treated quantitatively.

Financial aspects, such as investment costs, additional value and cost-benefit ratio per concept are

treated in a qualitative sense. Similarly, mechanical and chemical processes of the LNG regasification

chain and sustainability are treated in a qualitative sense. Assumptions made with respect to the case

study in Yuzhny, are ‘Ceteris Paribus’ assumptions for:

Natural gas continues having a positive public opinion.

Other fossil fuels continue having a negative impact on the climate.

Europe’s incentive to become more energy independent remains the same.

S. Quirijns

6

Other assumptions made:

Design water level at Yuzhny is similar to that of Taman.

Lines between moored carriers are assumed infinitely stiff as a result moored carriers

act as a single carrier.

Vertical soil structure is based upon reference studies.

2nd order wave response between the Side-by-Side moored carriers is only estimated

with a rule of thumb.

Wave climate is computationally modelled without verification

Due to the current situation in Ukraine, there is little time available for construction and a low

budget. Thus time and investment costs are highly valued within the actual project in Yuzhny. The

Ukrainian government have set their preferences for the Floating Storage and Regasification Unit

(FSRU) concept. An FSRU has the shortest required construction time and lowest cost compared to all

three LNG unloading concepts, as is discussed in the literature study (Ch.4).

Eventually, in the future the unloading capacity has to increase in order to increase their

energy independence even more. Additional value is raised via opportunities to become an import and

export hub for the Ukrainian Black Sea region or more sustainable designs and realizing synergies with

adjacent port facilities. This results in a dilemma between the short or long-term designs. Within this

technical feasibility study, the most optimal LNG unloading concept is defined objectively, evaluating

both short-term value and long term value, thus without any preferences. The latter issue is

expressed as a sensitivity analysis within the MCA and the cost-benefit analysis. A Qualitative Risk

Assessment (QRA) is not included in this feasibility study since the project is still in a preliminary

phase.

Boundary limits 1.4.3

Boundary limits are introduced to limit the extent of this thesis design study. Within the scope

some boundary limits were already introduced. Table 2 is an indication of the in-depth for each of the

treated topics required to set up the feasibility study.

Table 2 Indication of in-depth of various research topics

Extensive Concisely

LNG regasification processes and components Mechanical processes

LNG unloading concepts Chemical processes Safety Financial aspects

Transport study Quantitatively Risk Assessment Preliminary design

Metocean conditions Sustainability

Port management

Constructability

Metocean conditions are explained as meteorological data and oceanographic data. These

conditions are regarded as non-adjustable boundary conditions for the preliminary design. Boundary

limits are separated in physical and non-physical limits. Physical limits indicate the area of interest and

are set by nature or distance. Figure 3 shows the area of interest for project Yuzhny port and

associated physical boundary limits. Within figure 3 the area of interest is indicated in red and the

black circle surrounds port Yuzhny’s location.

S. Quirijns

7

Figure 3 Area of interest

Non-physical limits are associated with topics as transport, safety, port management, these

limits or design criteria are set by governmental instances or the LNG industry. Since it is a preliminary

design, simplifications were made e.g. a full quantitative risk assessment is during the preliminary

design a too specialised tool, which is normally conducted by risk assessment experts. Table 3 is a list

of the applied boundary limits and associated ideology.

Table 3 Ideology of boundary limits for this design study

Type of boundary Location/area Ideology

Hydrological Conditions Measurements of buoy at Black Sea

Offshore significant wave height, direction and wave period are applied to model wave conditions at Yuzhny.

Stability of soil and piles Project Computations with D-Piles are accurate in this phase.

,, Measurements at Taman, Russia

Design water level at Taman is representative for those of Yuzhny.

Linear wave theory Black Sea Linear wave theory is applied for calculations, excluding all non-linear wave responses.

Quasi-static calculations with dominant load cases

Project -The absence of accurate data -Preliminary phase

Transport to hinterland via pipeline distribution

Hinterland NG transport towards pump station is seen as the outer limit for transport into hinterland.

Port and risk management Ports Detailed risk management and a qualitative risk assessment are outside the preliminary phase.

Offshore carrier hydrodynamics At terminal Motions of offshore moored carrier are calculated with carrier hydrodynamics for sailing carriers.

Limitation of ‘D-Piles’ program Berthing Energy Horizontal force on the head of breasting dolphin does not reduce for an increasing horizontal displacement, due to the soil-pile interaction. Thus full ULS reaction force works on the pile causing a too large displacement.

,, ,, D-piles is not able to increase the frequency of the berthing loads on the breasting dolphin.

Due to these boundaries and assumptions a certain bandwidth is introduced, which results in

an acceptable loss of accuracy. Assumptions that potentially alter the end result are discussed in

chapter 10 Discussion.

Northern limit: 49.0° N Eastern limit: 42.3° E

Western limit: 23.3° E

Southern limit: 34.2° N

S. Quirijns

8

1.5 Outline of thesis report

Outline of this thesis report consists of preliminary chapters, core of the report and closing

chapters, these chapters are highlighted briefly. Core of the report is separated in three classes,

where class I contains report specific information (Chapters: 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12). Class II contains

more general information about the LNG industry (Chapter 3). Class III treats the case specific

information (Chapters: 4 to 10 and 13).

Preliminary chapters. These sections of the report contain the cover page, title page, preface,

abstract and the table of contents and are numbered with Roman numbering.

Chapter 1: Introduction. Introductions about the research are treated. These introductions contain

the problem analysis, research objective and research description. In the research description is a

summary of the required analysis, scope and the boundary limits of the design study.

Chapter 2: Methodology. In the methodology section the applied methods or approaches are

briefly discussed given. The main focus is on the phases of the design method for this technical

feasibility study.

Chapter 3: Initial information about LNG. General information about LNG industry is treated in

this chapter. A study is done into a process analysis and a component description per regasification

plant. Safety, port management, risk management and sustainability are described in in what manner

these are included within the concepts.

Chapter 4: Transport study for Yuzhny. A chapter that treats specific transport studies for the

Yuzhny project. A study is done to select rational export locations based upon the corresponding

transport routes from export location to Yuzhny. The transport routes are verified with standardized

dimensions of LNG carrier classes and potential bottlenecks.

Chapter 5: Programme of Requirement. First the functional requirements set by the Ukrainian

government are described. Second the boundary conditions based upon design criteria regarding

safety, limitations in equipment, and environmental conditions.

Chapter 6: LNG unloading concepts Setup of the three LNG unloading concepts, that are designed

with certain values and criteria based upon global standards and local conditions.

Chapter 7: Concept selection. Concept selection is based upon two methods, first the multi criteria

analysis (MCA) and second cost benefit analysis. The results of both methods are compared in order

to determine the most feasible concept for further elaboration. The multi criteria analysis is an

objective method to select the most optimal concept regarding several case study specific criteria. In

this case the simplified cost-benefit analysis enlists all relevant benefit and compares the initial

investment costs per concept.

Chapter 8: Preliminary design of concept. This chapter contains a preliminary design of the most

suitable unloading concept. Berthing energy, carrier hydrodynamics, structural stability, project

realization, and operational mooring plan define the preliminary design.

Chapter 9: Conclusion Case study specific conclusions about the performed design study and

preliminary design are included in this chapter.

S. Quirijns

9

Chapter 10: Discussion and Recommendation Throughout this feasibility study assumptions

have been made that influenced the decisive motivations. Within this section these assumptions and

associated motivations are discussed for expected results if these assumptions potentially alter the

end result. Since the required studies were outside the scope, or the unavailability of required data,

assumptions are based upon boundary limits for the research. Consequently, recommendations are

made for more specific studies that are required further elaboration of the design study.

Closing chapters 11, 12 & 13: Last chapters contain the, references, registry and appendices.

Within the references are included the list of terms, applied abbreviations, units and conversion

factors. Registry includes the bibliography and lists of figures, tables and equations.

Reading guide 1.5.1

The main report contains the main motivations and conclusions for the technical feasibility

study. Additional background information, interview with LNG terminal of Rotterdam, intermediate

steps and calculations, large scale figures and tables are included within the appendix of the main

report. A literature study is included as an additional report, which is referenced throughout the main

report. The literature study contains the basics of the LNG industry regarding safety, necessity,

sustainability and reference projects.

S. Quirijns

10

2 Methodology Methodology of this thesis report is a pyramid shaped design method. Figure 4 shows the

pyramid design method for the feasibility study of the regasification terminal. Each phase narrows the

extent of the initial design study. A brief description per phase is treated in this section.

Figure 4 Pyramid shaped design method

The goal of this design study is to determine the feasibility of an LNG regasification plant

within the port of Yuzhny. Initially a widely ranged set of analysis are performed for the case study.

From these analyses boundary conditions are derived to compute the technical feasibility per

regasification unloading concept. As mentioned in the scope the feasibility focusses on functionality,

technicality, transport capacity, sustainability, operability, and financial aspects. The Multi Criteria

Analysis (MCA) and a cost benefit analysis are applied to define the most feasible concept. Thereafter

the most optimal concept and boundary conditions are converted into a preliminary design. The end

result is potentially altered by made assumptions during the preliminary design. These threads are

discussed first, if considered relevant, than these are recommended for further elaboration.

Initially the safety regulations of LNG handling and the port Yuzhny transport considerations

are verified. Safety regulations set by the industry and governments are treated more in general,

while the transport study is case specific. These safety standards are incorporated as boundary

conditions for setting up a siting analysis, in order to determine potential terminal locations.

Subsequently other case specific boundary conditions regarding environmental conditions and

sustainability are analysed within the main report, but more extensively treated in the appendices

13.5 and 13.6, and in the literature report (Ch.4). The latter two types of boundary conditions are

non-adjustable. Meteorological boundary conditions are determined for annual minima or maximum

values based upon probabilistic approximations fitted on ten years of measured meteorological data.

In the second phase each of the unloading concepts is allocated to potential terminal

locations. These potential terminal locations are the result of the siting study. Per concept the most

optimal terminal location is determined for which it is expected to give the best representation of the

LNG unloading concept’s characteristics.

Preliminary

Design of selected concept

Concept selection

Unloading concepts

Initial

analyses

S. Quirijns

11

In the third phase the unloading concepts with corresponding terminal location are compared

with a multi criteria analysis and cost benefit analysis. This MCA is set up with seven primary criteria

that are based upon the key factors of this technical feasibility, and several secondary conditions. The

secondary conditions are enlisted in Appendix 13.2. The seven primary criteria are:

functionality

transport capacity

operability

safety

financial aspects

sustainability

technicality

The seven prime criteria are valued with weighting factors. The goal is to compare the

concepts objectively. The cost benefit analysis gives a simplified indication of the expected investment

costs and benefits per concept.

In the fourth phase the most optimal LNG unloading concept is elaborated in a preliminary

design. A technical feasibility is done to compute stable mooring and unloading conditions for the

moored carriers. This phase is concluded with a construction plan and operational plan.

Afterwards a reflection of the whole project is given. If there are any uncertainties due to

made assumptions, these are discussed and if necessary further recommendations on these threads

are given. Ultimately a advice is given towards the client for an LNG unloading concept that can

elaborated in a final design.

S. Quirijns

12

3 LNG industry in general In this chapter the main aspects for the LNG regasification process are treated, which were

issued within the sub questions.

3.1 System description of regasification process

The LNG ‘Receiving Chain’ contains five phases, which have the following characteristic

processes. In Appendix 13.1 includes an enlarged image of this system diagram of these phases.

Figure 5 clearly shows the flows of LNG and NG between the different processes at a regasification

terminal. Additional information about this LNG ‘Receiving chain is treated in the literature study

(Ch.4.3.2 & Ch.4.3.3.).

1. Transportation proces a. LNG is deliverd by LNG Carriers (LNGC) towards the receiving facility.

b. (Un)loading process c. The pipeline is connected to the LNGC by (un)loading arms. Loading lines deliver the

LNG to the storage tanks, return displaced vapour and Boil Off Gasses (BOG’s) to the

carrriers. These lines and arms have an continious cryogenic requirement. 2. Storage

a. LNG is stored in large full containment tanks, with a contineous cryogninic temperature requirement. This can be constructed above or underground, yet very

dependable on the site location.`

b. Within the storage tank LNG is either pumped by low pressure pumps towards the recondenser or BOG’s are formed, because of heating up LNG, until it reaches the

vapor limit. c. These BOG’s are captured within a BOG-compressor, where the gas is re-used for

stabilizing the LNGC, reinjected into the recondensor or it will be burned. The latter is only applied if the capacity is reached of the first two.

3. BOG handling and recondenser

a. The primary pump system allows for the conduction of LNG towards the recondenser that functions as a collector of liquid for the secondary pumps. Simultaneously it

allows for the recuperation of the BOGS incorporating it in the gas. 4. Regasification of LNG

a. Secondary pumps require a high pressure to pump the LNG from the condenser

towards the vaporisers. Within the vaporisers the LNG is heated up to T=0 °C, this causes the LNG to vaporise.

5. Distribution into pipeline network a. Natural gas is driven through a container with regulation, measuring and odorizing

systems, before it flows into the general network of gas pipelines.

However, not mentioned as processes, yet facilities as process controll, safeguarding systems

and general facilties are required for the design of an LNG receiving terminal.

This is a brief introduction for sustainable opportunities during the regasification process. For

the combustion of LNG a flammability range exists in which LNG concentrations or vapours form a

flammable mixture. This mixture is required to ignite the combustion within the vaporizer. If the upper

limit is exceeded this will not ignite, because of the high concentration of methane in the mixture and

low concentration of oxygen. The lower limit is vice versa, now a too low concentration of methane

results in no ignition of the mixture. So methane-oxygen mixture will only ignite within this upper and

lower range. By increasing the amount of fuel induces a larger combustion within the vaporizer, thus

an increased overpressure is realised. Subsequently this pressure is transformed from kinetic energy

into electric energy, which is done via a turbine generator positioned at the outlet of the vaporizer.

Additional information is within the literature study (Ch. 4.1.2)

S. Quirijns

13

Figure 5 Scheme of LNG regasification processes adapted from Hazard identification for innovative LNG regasification technologies retrieved March 2015 from Reliability Engineering and system safety © 2014, Elsevier, reprinted with permission

During the regasification of LNG process vapours are released. If not managed properly, these

vapours can become flammable and explosive. To avoid hazardous situations safety and security

measures are contained within the engineering design. Safety measures are defined with certain

safety levels, which are treated in chapter 3.3. of this main report.

3.2 LNG regasification terminals

Three LNG regasification terminals are compared for this design study. These are the onshore

conventional terminal and two offshore terminals, namely the FSRU and the Gravity Based Structure

(GBS). One of the more recent developments is the application of small scale LNG (SSLNG)

distribution. Regasification terminals with less than 1 MTPA are considered as SSLNG (International

Gas Union, 2014). SSLNG is interpreted in two ways, first as a small scale receiving terminal and

unloading terminal. Second is the reloading of LNG into Small Scale LNG carriers (SSLNGC) or trucks.

With this technology small scale LNG carriers and trucks are applied to access shallow areas or inland

areas and improve energy efficiency of the LNG distribution. SSLNG distribution is available for all

three LNG unloading concepts.

Additional information about these concepts is included in the literature study (Ch4.3). A brief

summary of the treated LNG unloading concepts is enlisted below.

1. Conventional terminal

An onshore regasification facility combined with an unloading jetty or quay and trestle

connecting pipes to shore. LNG is stored within full containment cryogenic tanks onshore. This

concept is able to receive and reload small scale fleet and load the LNG or NG into trucks or

pipelines. E.g. break bulk terminal at LNG gate terminal, Rotterdam Netherlands.

2. Floating Storage and Regasification terminal

The FSRU is a conversed LNG carrier, which is now able to store a small amount of

LNG, before it regasifies the LNG into natural gas and pumps it to shore. The FSRU can be

located near shore or offshore, where it is fixed to a position with a mooring structure to

unload LNGC. Thus the main connections are from ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore.

3. Gravity Based Structure

An offshore GBS is located at sea or ocean. It is constructed as a row of multiple

caissons (usually two), which are floated towards and sunk at the desired location. Due to the

caissons, the moored LNGC are sheltered from wave impact, resulting in a high operability in

restless water bodies. E.g. Adriatic LNG project, Italy.

S. Quirijns

14

Figures 6, 7 and 8 show the necessary combinations of components to design each of the

three LNG unloading concepts. Components for small scale LNG (SSLNG) receiving terminals are

similar to those of the conventional terminal and the FSRU receving terminal. SSLNG receiving

terminals can re-export LNG transferred into small scalle LNG distribution into small scale carriers and

trucks. SSLNG is introduced within a conventional terminal by constructing it on a quay wall, an

example is the LNG Breakbulk terminal Rotterdam. Since the draft /depth ratio is lower than 1.25

within the port, this does not result in any issues for SSLNGC.

Figure 6 Components of conventional terminal

S. Quirijns

15

Figure 7 Components of FSRU

Figure 8 Components of GBS

AND, OR and XOR gates are used in the three component tree’s, where the AND gate

represents if all subcomponents are required. The OR gate is applied when a selection has to be made

and XOR-gates are for explicit selections. The latter means that if one of the subcomponents is

selected, the other subcomponents are excluded.

Primary pumps deliver a pressure up to 25 bar to pump the LNG and BOGs into the liquefier.

Where secondary pumps deliver up to 80 bar to pump only LNG into the vaporizers. Brief information

about vaporizers is treated n the literature study (Ch.4.3). Table 5 shows the most common

technology applied for the three LNG unloading concepts.

S. Quirijns

16

Table 4 Current state of technology for the three receiving concepts

Description Onshore FSRU GBS

Design stage Operational Operational Operational Unloading capacity [x

109 | m3/y]

3 to 20 4 to 5 8 to 14

Storage capability [x 103 m3]

100 to 800 125 to 170 250 to 330

Storage tank technology Double containment Kvaerner/Moss- Rosenberg

Self-supporting Prismatic

Most applied vaporizer SCV IFV ORV

Selection of pipeline technology is dependable if LNG or NG is transported. NG and LNG can

both be transported over land or subsea, but LNG must be kept at cryogenic temperatures, which is

obviously expensive per meter, thus the length has to be limited. Applicable pipeline technology is

described in the literature study in chapter 4.2.2. Natural gas transportation by pipeline can be done

in large distances and under high pressures. Characteristically the under pressure is about 80 bars

with a pipeline of about Ø500 mm. Compressor stations combined with measurement stations and

regulation stations along the pipeline are in order to initiate flow, measure and regulate flow through

the pipes.

Figure 9 Costs of gas pipeline vs LNG carrier costs over naval transporting distance adapted from LNG: Fuel of the future, retrieved February 2015 from Delft University of Technology © 2014, TU Delft, reprinted with permission

In figure 9 it is shown that for short naval transport distances below 2500 miles (4023.4 km)

or below 1000 miles (1609.3 km), it is more cost efficient to have an onshore pipeline or a subsea

pipeline, respectively. Transporting LNG by sea is expensive, due to the maintaining of cryogenic

temperature and the full containment requirement. So, transporting more LNG volume with a single

LNGC over the same increases the cost efficiency. Similarly, cost efficiency is increased, if the total

cost of naval transport is reduced, this is realized using small scale carriers and transport of demand

based volumes of NG in adjacent countries.

3.3 Safety Analysis

LNG industry maintains a good record for disaster prevention. The low disaster rate for the

LNG industry is credited to the applied safety regulations. According to (Foss, 2006) safety regulations

are associated with:

1. LNG industry has evolved technically and operationally to ensure safe and secure

operations.

2. Risks and hazards of LNG properties are well understood and implemented in the

technology and operations.

3. Standards, codes and regulations to ensure the safety issued by the LNG industry.

S. Quirijns

17

Safety in the LNG industry is assured by a so called four layers of protection scheme for

safeguarding the LNG industry workers and adjacent communities. Figure 10 shows this scheme four

layers for safeguarding the terminal.

Figure 10 Critical safety conditions adapted from Energy Economics research, retrieved February 2015

from LNG Safety and Security © 2006 ,Center of Energy Economics, reprinted with permission

Primary containment is the first requirement for containing LNG. This involves the use of

appropriate materials at LNG regasification terminals and similar for engineering design of storage

tanks unloading equipment, pipes and regasification equipment.

Secondary containment ensures that if leaks or spills occur at an LNG facility, the LNG is fully

contained and isolated from the public.

Safeguard systems minimize the frequency and size of LNG releases and prevent damage

from potential hazards. Multiple measurement emergency systems are applied within the port, such as

fire or methane detection, Emergency Shutdown systems and back-up generators.

Separation distances are applied to ensure safety for adjacent communities.

These four layers of protection are ensured by industry standards, regulatory compliances and

risk management within the port are applied as design criteria during the design of the three LNG

unloading concepts. Safety standards and guidelines incorporated within the feasibility study are the

International British Standards (IBS), Oil Companies International Marine Forum, and the PIANC Port

Masterplan for the preliminary design. Regarding safety, port, and risk management guidelines in ‘Risk

Management for Port Approach’ by (Wright Marine Technology, 1997) is applied within this study.

Additional information is treated in the literature report (Ch.4.1.7) and is referenced to during the

design of the LNG unloading concepts.

Hazard Identification Analysis

Normal events are explained as normal weather conditions, yet atypical events are hazards

described by an external study by (Cozzani, et al., 2011), which indicates that hazard identification

analysis focusses on critical events associated with the LNG unloading concepts. All these critical

events have been deducted with methods such as MIMAH and DyPASI. MIMAH and DyPASI are

explained within the literature study (Ch.4.1). Atypical events/hazards are explained as events with a

low probability and high consequences. Atypical hazards and their corresponding build-up of singular

events that do not necessarily have to be atypical, as is shown in figure 11.

S. Quirijns

18

1 Figure 11 Cause consequence chains describing the atypical incident scenarios identified adapted from

Hazard identification for innovative LNG regasification technologies retrieved March 2015 from Reliability engineering and system safety © 2014, Elsevier, reprinted with permission

Equation 1 is the risk formula it shows that by lowering either probability of failure or

consequences, risk, i.e. fatalities, is reduced.

Equation 1 Risk formula

𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 ∗ 𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠

A Qualitative Risk Assessment (QRA) values the costs of risk against various probabilities of

failure with the cost of damages. Consequently, risk management is introduced as risk aversion or risk

bearers. Damages and probability of failure can be reduced by taking measures or prevention.

Logically, safety measures require additional investment and/or operational costs. With a Cost-Benefit

Analysis it is possible to compare beneficiary safety aspects and the investment cost per safety

measure. After the QRA in combination with a Cost-Benefit analysis, it is verified which risks for

atypical hazards should be prevented. Similar to normal events, safety measures are usually

expressed in operational limits without losing a significant amount of potential service time.

E.G. Management actions for reducing the probability of failure for normal events are

introduced as operational/mooring limits for environmental conditions or by including safety factors

during the preliminary design. Damage control is implemented within the applied safety distances.

1 Rapid Phase Transition: See List of Terms

S. Quirijns

19

3.4 Conclusion

This chapter treated general information about LNG receiving terminals. The LNG

regasification ‘chain’ is separated in required processes and the corresponding components. Study of

the LNG unloading methods indicated that processes for regasification are the same for the three

concepts. Component trees per LNG unloading concept gave an indication how these processes are

handled either offshore or onshore. Component analysis also indicated that some of the vaporizers

which are most common have negative side effects such as high emissions of greenhouse gasses. If

NG is transported via pipelines over land instead of LNG overseas there is a boundary limit with

respect to cost/transport distance efficiency. Over 4023 km it is more cost efficient to transport LNG

per carrier. If subsea pipelines are required, this transition point is lower at a distance of 1609.3 km.

Safety is one of the major aspects within the LNG industry. So, every concept is designed with

all safety regulations considering risk reduction or damage control. Management decisions regarding

safety must be taken in order to reduce risk, which is done by evaluating normal and atypical events

with a QRA in combination with a Cost-Benefit Analyses. Consequences of failure are separated in

technical failure, social or ecological consequences. Technical failure results in instability of the

structure due to e.g. collisions or soil settlements. Social consequences are identified as atypical

events, damages to the community or loss of life. Ecological consequences are defined as

environmental footprint, e.g. waste water and greenhouse gas emissions. In order to reduce risk,

safety measures are introduced for normal events and atypical hazards, for instance setting safety

distances and/or operational mooring limits.

S. Quirijns

20

4 Transport study for Yuzhny The research goal describes the required increase for the Ukrainian energy independence, by

diversifying the NG import. Consequently, a study is performed to identify potential LNG export

locations. Selection of the LNG export locations is based upon the naval transport to this location,

availability of gas supply, and geological political stability of the country.

4.1 Major LNG export locations

Table 5 is an index of the largest LNG export or re-exporting hubs sorted by sailing distance

between the particular port and port Yuzhny/Odessa. Total export volumes of 2014 are obtained from

(International Gas Union, 2014). Within table 5 only the additional bottlenecks are shown that are

associated with a certain naval transport route. The bottlenecks that are undependable of the export

location are the Bosphorus Strait, and the Dardanelles, because of topography and identical

Governmental safety regulations these are called Turkish Straits. Between the two straits is the Sea of

Marmara, but this has no boundaries regarding naval transport. Additional information is in the

literature study (Ch.4.2) and Appendix 13.3.

Table 5 Largest LNG exporting hubs sorted by sailing distance in reference to Yuzhny

Index Country Name Port Total Export [MT/annum]

Sailing distance to

Yuzhny [km]

Additional bottlenecks along

the route

1 Egypt Elng Idco 2.8 1971 NA

2 Algeria Arzew 10.9 3523 NA 3 Yemen Balhaf 7.2 5174 Suez canal

4 Oman Qalhat 8.6 6889 Suez canal 5 U.A.E. Das island 5.4 7649 Suez canal

6 Qatar Ras Laffan 77.2 7773 Suez canal 7 Norway Hammerfest 3 8799 Strait of Gibraltar

8 Nigeria Bonny 16.9 10095 Strait of Gibraltar

9 Trinidad Atlantic 14.6 10284 Strait of Gibraltar 10 Malaysia Tanjung

Kidurong

24.7 12340 Suez canal

11 Indonesia Bontang 17 13255 Suez canal

12 Australia Karratha 22.2 13392 Suez canal

Figure 9 showed for sailing distances over than 4023.4 km it is more cost efficient to transfer

LNG by carrier compared to transporting NG via onshore pipelines. For subsea pipeline transport this

transition is at 1609.3 km. The cost-transport efficiency must be positive for selecting a rational export

location. It is stated that for an increased carrier capacity, larger distances can be travelled for the

same cost benefit efficiency. This is similar for smaller carriers with less capacity over short distances.

Whether Egypt or Norway, have enough available NG to increase their exporting capacity is

unsure, therefore these two locations are not considered as adequate solutions. Another relevant

criterion is the geopolitical stability of the country. The performed study in the literature report

(Ch.4.1), into the energy (in)dependence of Europe is a good example of this latter criterion.

So, one or more motivations are of interest when selecting an LNG exporting terminal. Algeria

and the Middle Eastern countries are currently the most suitable LNG exporting terminals. According

to a journal publication by (South Online, 2015), it is stated that: When Qatar is selected as export

hub, consequences are that the port in Yuzhny must be able to receive Q-Flex and Q-max sized

carriers. However, it is noted that the usage of Qatar class LNGC is not limited to solely the Qatar

Fleet.

S. Quirijns

21

4.2 Main transport routes to Yuzhny

The two most plausible export locations are described. Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates

and Qatar are grouped together as the Middle Eastern conglomeration. Because of similarity of the

main naval transport routes, this does not lead to any conflicts. Main difference between the naval

route to Algeria and the Middle Eastern countries, next to sailing distance, is the necessity to sail

through the Suez Canal. Figure 12 shows the two most optimal naval transport routes.

Figure 12 Two main transport routes, adapted from Google maps, retrieved May 2015 from Marine vessel traffic © 2013 - 2015 www.marinevesseltraffic.com

In figure 12 locations A and B are Arzew in Algeria and Qalhat in Oman, respectively.

However, location B is arbitrarily selected, to give a clear indication of the transport route towards the

Middle Eastern conglomeration. LNG Carriers larger than 150000 m3 have a design speed of 20kn

(MAN Diesel & Turbo, 2013). In order to reach destination A or B it will take up 3 days 23 hours or 7

days 18 hours respectively.

S. Quirijns

22

4.3 Carrier dimensions

The LNG carrier fleet is classified in multiple sizes and cargo capacity. Most of these classes

are linked to bottlenecks along naval transport routes. Table 6 shows the different LNG carrier classes.

For additional information about the comparison for vessel sizes and bottlenecks, such as Suez-max,

this is included in Appendix 13.3.

Table 6 LNGC dimensions and classes

LNG carrier classes Dimensions Ship size

[m]

LNG capacity in

thousands [m3]

Small Beam ≤ 40 ≥90

LOA ≤ 250

Small conventional Beam 41-49 120 - 149,999

LOA 270 - 298

Large conventional Draft ≤12 150-180

Beam 43 - 46

LOA 285 - 295

Q-flex Draft ≤ 12 200-220

Beam ≈ 50

LOA ≈ 315

Q-max Draft ≤ 12 ≥260

B 53 - 56

LOA ≈ 345

SSLNG Carrier Skaugen Draft ≈ 6.5 ≈ 10

Beam ≈ 19.8

LOA ≈ 137.1

Currently the most commonly applied LNG carrier is the Large Conventional class, yet the

number of ports accessible for the Qflex class carriers or larger is increasing. The data for SSLNG

carriers are based upon the carrier made by Skaugen.

4.4 Bottlenecks along the transport routes

A bottleneck is defined as a location where the capacity is exceeded. Capacity overload is

explained in three ways:

1. Demand of passing carriers is higher than the annual throughput for carriers.

2. Carrier dimensions exceed the allowable dimensions of the canals.

3. Hazardous cargo which results in passage restrictions and safety regimes

Naval transport routes A and B have in common that for both naval routes the passing LGNC

are required to pass the Bosphorus Strait, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelle Strait. These

bottlenecks are located in Turkey, and are called the Turkish Straits by the Turkish government. A

detailed study about the regime of the Turkish Straits is included in Appendix 13.3. In comparison

with naval transport route A, Naval transport route B also passes the Suez Canal.

Turkish Straits

Because of similar geography the Bosphorus strait, Dardanelle straits and Sea of Marmara in

between are called the Turkish Straits. According the performed analyses in Appendix 13.3.3, no

limitations occur due to bathymetry, hydrology or dimensions of the vessels. However, due to the

congestions, strong upper layer currents and hazardous cargo, a safety regime is introduced. This

resulted in limited accessibility for LNG Carriers in the Turkish Straits, but no limitations in different

carrier classes exist.

S. Quirijns

23

Suez Canal

Qmax dimensions exceed the dimensions of the first Suez-max. However, at present a

secondary canal is finished with larger dimensions, so the Suez Canal is fully operational and is

accessible for Qmax class carriers.

4.5 Conclusion

Both of the bottlenecks do not introduce limitations regarding carrier’s dimensions. Differences

between route A and B are transit routes, resulting in a longer sailing period for B. Cost efficiency is

higher for LNG carriers with larger capacities that transport more in a single trip over a longer distance

compared to smaller carriers over the same distance. When LNG carriers of the Qatar series are

applied, as a consequence the design of the LNG unloading concept is adapted to only nearshore or

offshore, because of the port dimensions.

Because of the NG spot price market, it does not really matter where the carrier is coming

from. However a geopolitical stable country with associated export location that contains as few as

possible bottlenecks along the naval transport route is favourable to setup a continuous supply of

LNG. Therefore the exporting terminals in Algeria and the Middle Eastern countries are considered to

be most favourable in order to diversify the Ukrainian LNG demand. By setting up a long term contract

with a production plant, it is realized to have a continuous and stable supply of LNG for a fixed price.

The NG spot price market and geopolitical stability are introduced in the Literature report (Ch.4.2)

S. Quirijns

24

5 Programme of requirements for

project Yuzhny The programme of requirements contains the functional requirements set by the Ukrainian

government and the required boundary conditions for the feasibility study and associated preliminary

design are determined within this section. Analyses are performed to determine these boundary

conditions. The subjects of the performed analysis are based upon the issued sub questions about the

decisive factors for feasibility, concept selection and preliminary design.

5.1 Introduction of Yuzhny

Motivation of the case study is by the Ukrainian government to increase their energy

independence by constructing an LNG regasification terminal in the port of Yuzhny (Belousov, 2015).

Port of Yuzhny is the third largest port in Ukraine and is defined as a multipurpose port, including a

container, dry bulk, liquid bulk and general cargo terminals. The oil terminal is the primary

specialisation of the port. Figure 13 shows the location of port Yuzhny. Within the figure Yuzhny is

indicated with the red dot and black arrow.

Figure 13 Map of Ukraine, adapted from Shipyard Liman location, retrieved February 2015 from http://liman.ua/eng/images/stories/liman/map_eng.jpg © 2014, shipyard Liman, reprinted with permission

Yuzhny is a small city near Odessa along the coast of the Black Sea. It has about 50 thousand

inhabitants. The port is located in the Adjalykskiy Liman2, which is one of the many Limans located

along the shores of the Black Sea. Additional background information about the topography of Yuzhny

is treated in Appendix 13.5 Similar for all analysis performed to determine the environmental

boundary conditions are in Appendix 13.6.

5.2 Functional requirements

For the Yuzhny project the Functional requirements is primarily set up by the Ukrainian

Government. However additional value is created with long term planning for improved sustainability,

accessibility and expandability of LNG transfer capacity.

2 See List of Terms

S. Quirijns

25

Functional requirements are either hard demands that have a direct impact on the design, or

requirements that are obligatory operational limits. Optional requirements are opportunities issued to

increase the additional value of the regasification terminal. The functional requirements are:

1) Hard demands

a) Design

i) LNG receiving terminal location is fixed within the port of Yuzhny and adjacent areas.

ii) At least 10% of the total Ukrainian NG demand, approximately 5 bcm of NG, has to be

imported via the newly developed import terminal.

iii) The LNG terminal must have potential area’s allocated to expansion, in order to:

(1) increase storage volume

(2) export shale gas in 2020 (Marocchi & Fedirko, 2013)

iv) Supply of natural gas into pipeline system must be included within design.

v) Metering station will transport NG towards hinterland.

vi) Living quarters and relevant infrastructure shall be provided for the crew of the terminal

and carriers.

vii) Security and safeguarding systems must be provided at all times.

viii) Obligatory safety aspects described by:

(1) PIANC

(2) LNG Industry

(3) European standards

b) Transport capacity

i) The terminal must be at least accessible to Large Conventional LNG class carriers

ii) The terminal must be accessible for small scale LNG distribution.

c) Operability

i) Port must be operational 24/7 year-round.

ii) Maximum of 24 hrs for cargo handling operations for a single carrier.

iii) Expected economic lifespan is 25 years.

iv) Maintenance and planned repairs only on scheduled basis.

v) Downtime due to environmental conditions as limited as possible.

vi) Berthing and mooring must be in safe conditions:

(1) Limited to no berthing during ice-regime.

(2) Limited berthing during storms.

(3) Limited berthing with low visibility.

d) Miscellaneous

i) Maintenance costs and actions is terminal’s responsibility.

ii) Main power supply of terminal should be provided from an onshore power grid.

2) Optional requirements

a) Transport

i) Accessibility of port Yuzhny up to Qflex or Qmax LNGC classes (~210000 & 265000 m3) is

a request by Qatar Investment Group.

b) Sustainability

i) Engaging synergies within the port of Yuzhny

ii) Develop cold thermal energy extraction for power generation

c) Economic value

i) Development of regasification terminal into an international import/export hub

The functional requirements are verified for consistency with rational opportunities and

reference cases in the literature study (Ch.4.1 & Ch.4.3 & Ch.5) and Appendix 13.4. Most relevant

statement is the required annual 5 billion cubic meters demand for NG by the Ukrainian government.

This is equal to a transport volume demand of about 8.3 million cubic meters for LNG.

S. Quirijns

26

5.3 Boundary conditions for siting study

Boundary conditions consist of design criteria set by the Ukrainian Government, international

standards and European regulations for safety. Also limitations due to regasification equipment are

included as boundary conditions. The siting study of the port Yuzhny district is determined with these

boundary conditions.

Safety 5.3.1

Design criteria are boundary conditions that are based upon guidelines and standards for

safety, which are set by European Norms, PIANC, British Standards Institution (BS), the Oil

Companies International Marine forum (OCIMF), and the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA),

such as the safety standards EN1473, EN1160 and NFPA59A. Table 7 shows the safety distances

based upon these standards with an additional note that the last column is added as a rough

estimation. Safety levels are allocated to a certain amount of significance of civil objects and described

as a safety distance perimeter around the LNG terminal. Due to the forming of vapour clouds that are

carried by the wind a certain bandwidth is introduced in the safety distances. If the common wind

direction is for instance towards a village or small city, than the highest safety distance is required.

Table 7 Safety distances around objects and carriers

Safety

level

Minimal safety

distance radius [m]

Allowed civil objects within range Population range

[nr. of people per object]

I < 300 Only empty industrial or port areas with no

population

0

II 300 -500 Industrial or port areas with only a small

amount of port workers. No inhabitants of

any kind.

0 up to 500

III > 1000 Only areas that are sparsely populated, such

as first housing line

500 up to 1000

IV > 1500 to 2000 Moderate densely populated areas, such as

small villages with schools and churches etc.

1000 or more

Inner

port

Radius [m] Limitations within port Yuzhny

200m Safety exclusion zone around centre of LNGC

Banned Passing traffic being an uncontrolled source of ignition during unloading of LNGC

Figure 14 is the result of the siting analysis of the identified civil objects within port Yuzhny

and adjacent areas. In figure 14 the safety distances are applied as boundary conditions. The civil

objects are classified and assigned a corresponding safety level. A detailed area analysis of the Yuzhny

region is included within Appendix 13.5. Around these civil objects the safety perimeter, with

minimum safety distance as radius, is set. Minimal safety circumferences corresponding to safety

levels II and III are drawn in red. If the civil object is classified as safety level IV, than the additional

safety circumference is indicated in yellow.

Primary wind directions during summer and winter are between ENE and WNW, except during

summer the wind turns and in southern directions. Additional information about the environmental

conditions e.g. wind velocities with corresponding directions, are treated in appendix 13.8. Table 8 is a

list of the identified objects from A to G and the corresponding population.

S. Quirijns

27

Figure 14 Potential terminal locations for LNG unloading concepts based upon safety level boundary conditions

In figure 14 the potential terminal locations are indicated in green and numbered one to six.

Civil objects are numbered A to F and the corresponding safety levels III or IV. The civil objects

indicated as safety level III correspond to a small group of houses (less than approximately 1000

people). Port objects are identified as safety level II and corresponding safety distances are

dependable on the hazardousness of the cargo of the specific terminal. Table 8 shows the identified

civil objects within the siting study of the Odessa region. An enlarged view of figure 14 is included in

Appendix 13.1.

E.G. City of Yuzhny is classified as safety level IV, so the red perimeter is 1 km and the

additional safety distance in the range of 500 m to 1 km is indicated in yellow. Due to the primary

wind direction to the NNW direction, therefore the additional safety distance is one km in the parallel

direction. Perpendicular to the primary wind direction a safety distance of 500 m is applied.

Light blue: Cities and villages

Dark blue: Port terminals

Green: Potential terminal locations for LNG

unloading concept Red: Required distance

safety level II and III

Yellow: Additional required distance safety

level IV

Cyan: Village & cities Dark Blue: Existing port terminals Green: Potential terminal locations Red: Minimal safety distance for port (II) or small villages (III) Yellow: Safety distance (IV) for larger

vllages

S. Quirijns

28

Table 8 Objects within siting study Odessa region

Object Safety

level

Description Population

(approx. in thousands)

A.IV Yuzhny 29

B.IV Vyzyrka 1.2

C.IV Chornomors’ke 1.4 D.IV Novo Dofininivka 1.4

E.III Hvardiis’ke 0.8 F.III Novo Bilyari 0.8

G.II Port objects NA

The port district is separated in four by north, south, west and east. The northern port area

contains the container terminal and dry bulk terminals. The western port district refers to the Odessa

Chemical Plant terminal, where Ammonia is kept in cryogenic state within storage tanks. On the

eastern side the oil terminal is located. Located on the southern side are three additional coal berths

and the Vessel Traffic Control service is located just after the entrance of the port. Table 9 represents

the characteristics of the potential terminal locations, one to six, also shown in the table is the

potential terminal allocation per LNG unloading concept.

Table 9 Description of terminal locations and opportunity to realize an LNG unloading concept

Terminal Location

Approx. Area

[km2]

Available berth length

[km]

Conventional terminal

FSRU GBS

1 2.1 1.2 Y Y N 2 0.25 0.5 N Y N

3 1.9 1.3 Y Y Y*

4 1.6 3.1 Y Y Y* 5 NR NR N Y Y

6 NR NR N Y Y

Since the required area and berth length of the GBS are much smaller than the available berth length and area of the potential location, this is indicated as not relevant in table 10.

* Possible, but not a rational solution this is explained in 6.5 Gravity Based Structure. ** NR = Not Required

Some of the terminal locations and corresponding LNG unloading methods are possible to

realize, but it is not relevant to construct such a structure. E.G. Due to high investment cost and loss

of functionality of the GBS, it is not rational to construct a GBS along the coast at terminal locations

three and four.

Equipment 5.3.2

Horizontal movement of an operational (un)loading arm is equal to 1m up to 1.5m, which

allows an LNG carrier to stay moored up to significant wave heights equal to 1.5 to 2.5m (Huisman,

2014). If the movement of the carrier is more than allowed movement in any direction the (un)loading

arm will uncouple by an Emergency Shut Down (ESD)-system. Logically, considering the third law of

Newton, larger carriers require more energy to move compared to smaller carriers. So when an LNGC

is unloaded at an unsheltered location, this potentially results in loss of operational time or downtime.,

Because terminal locations three up to six are outside the port and do not have breakwaters, these

are considered to be unsheltered. Rule of thumb for the unsheltered condition is that significant wave

height is smaller than 0.6m.

S. Quirijns

29

5.4 Environmental conditions

Non-adjustable boundary conditions determined for the local environmental conditions in the

Yuzhny region. The environmental conditions that are analysed for boundary conditions are

hydrological, meteorological, and morphological and soil conditions.

Hydrological design values 5.4.1

Significant wave height

According to the wave analysis of the Black Sea in Appendix 13.6, the Black Sea’s wave

climate is described as mild and consists mostly of short wind waves caused by local storms. In ten

years of multidirectional significant wave height simulations at an offshore location approximately

91% of all significant wave heights are less than or equal to 1.5m. Significant wave heights during

storm conditions are in the range of 1.5m and 2.5m and have a probability to occur of approximately

7% in 10 years. Extreme storm conditions result in a significant wave height larger than 2.5m, but it is

stated that these are negligible with respect to loss of operational service time. Waves towards

Yuzhny come in from a simplified angle of 160° indicated with a red dot. Storm events are mostly in

north-eastern direction during winter, and south-western direction during spring, which is reflected in

the wave rose in figure 15.

Figure 15 Wave rose for offshore significant wave height at offshore location [46.75:31.5]

Nearshore wave transformation

Since there are no measured data available on the near shore wave climate, the wave

transformation from offshore to shore is modelled. The offshore data provided by ‘Witteveen and Bos’

are modified to a near shore wave height data set at Yuzhny. This nearshore wave transformation is

treated more extensively in Appendix 13.6.4. Reference is made to the lecture notes for ‘Coastal

Dynamics1’ by (Bosboom & Stive, 2013).

Wave fronts in the range of 335° to 345° are normalized into a single wave front of 340°,

which is shown in figure 15 with red segments. Wave transformation is based upon the linear wave

theory, which is defined by the combined effects for shoaling, refraction, and energy dissipation.

These effects are verified for the bathymetry of a single cross-section from the centre of the wave

rose (45.75:31.5) to the port of Yuzhny, this cross-section is shown in figure 16. Within this figure the

locations of the terminal locations are shown. A detailed analysis of the local bathymetry is included in

Appendix 13.5.3 Linear wave theory divides the waves in deep (h/L>0.5), shallow (h/L<1/20) and

intermediate (0.05<h/L<0.5), which is approximately for deep 92.5 km to 500m off the coast, shallow

is 500 m of the coast to the coastline and intermediate is between 5.5 km to 300m of the coast, thus

overlapping on either sides.

S. Quirijns

30

Figure 16 Bathymetry of single cross-section from the offshore location to Yuzhny’s coast

Linear wave transformation equation is based upon the energy balance, in which there is no

energy dissipation. Shoaling is described as an increase or decrease in wave height, due to a

difference in wave group velocity. Since the waves are normal incident, the refraction factor based

upon ‘Snell’s Law’ is equal to one. Therefore the initial wave height is the offshore data set at H0 and

the next wave height is calculated with equation 2.

Equation 2 Energy balance at arbitrary selected locations 1 and 2

𝐻2𝐻1

⁄ = 𝐾𝑅𝐾𝑆ℎ = √𝑏1

𝑏2√

𝑐𝑔1

𝑐𝑔2

= √𝑐𝑔1

𝑐𝑔2

Ksh Shoaling factor [-] Kr Refraction factor [-]

Cg1 , 2 wave group propagation [m/s]

speed at arbitrarily selected locations 1 and 2.

b1,2 Width of the wavefront at [m] the same arbitrarily selected

locations.

Wave energy dissipation by white capping and wave breaking is introduced via the ‘Miche

Criterion’ and ‘Breaker Index’. When the ‘Miche criterion’ is exceeded, this results in a too high deep

wave steepness that forces the wave to dissipate energy by white capping.

Equation 3 Miche Criterion

[𝐻

𝐿]

𝑚𝑎𝑥= 0.142tanh (𝑘ℎ)

H wave height [m] L Wavelength [m]

k wavenumber [1/m] h water level [m]

The ‘Breaker index’ shown in equation 3 is only valid for shallow waves. The incoming wave

height increases up to height that becomes greater than a certain amount of water level that forces

the waves to break, which is called depth-induced breaking.

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

De

pth

[m

]

Distance [km]

Bed level relative to MSL

Terminal Locations three

and four

Terminal Locations five and

six

Bedlevel

MSL

S. Quirijns

31

At Yuzhny the waves start to break at the start of the shallow areas at 500m with a

corresponding depth of 3m. From the offshore starting point, with the initial data set, the wave height

increases distance due to the shoaling effect. Due to the local bathymetry in combination with a

normally incident wave angle, no refraction occurs. Waves that reach the shore are in the range of 0m

to 0.25m wave height, so there is little to no setup nearshore. At ‘offshore’ terminal locations five and

six the wave height is approximately equal to 1.83m, which is based on the average of the twenty

highest waves.

Currents

Cross-shore currents are in onshore and offshore directions varying per season. Yet average

or maximum values are not too significant with a value of 0.3m/s in onshore direction. A longshore

current from east to west is equal to 0.1m/s.

Design water level

Black Sea has a mild wave climate, with only locally generated waves due to storms and

density differences. A study by ‘Witteveen + Bos’ modelled the water level variations of the Black Sea

near Taman. It is assumed that these conditions are sufficiently accurate to represent the water level

variations at Yuzhny. Water level variations of the Black Sea are influenced by [relative to Baltic Sea

level (BS) which is associated with Mean Sea level (MSL=-0.19 BS)]:

tidal amplitude variation is approximately ±0.1 m

seasonal variation in water level at Yuzhny is ±0.1m

nearshore wave set up:

o Slope of bed is low

o low set up

o offshore significant wave height (Hs) and wave period (Tp)

storm surge (wind setup) is approx. +0.6 - 1 m

global sea level rise of the Black Sea is approximately +3.9mm/year

seiches are not developed within the Black Sea

Table 10 shows the design water levels of the Black Sea near Taman determined by

‘Witteveen + Bos’, these values are assumed to be representative for the design water level nearshore

at Yuzhny.

Table 10 High design water levels for certain return periods (RP) at Taman Basin

100 yr. RP 20 yr. RP 10 yr. RP

MSL [m] relative to BS -0.19 -0.19 -0.19

Tidal Variations [m] 0.05 0.05 0.05 Seasonal variations [m] 0.10 0.10 0.10

Nearshore wave set-up [m] 0.20 0.13 0.10

Storm surge[m] 0.57 0.43 0.37

Global Sea Level Rise [m] 0.25 0.25 0.25

Design Water Level [m] +1.0 +0.8 +0.7

Considering the Yuzhny case, design water level is defined for the local bathymetry and the

design water level (=+1.0m) for a return period of 100 years at MSL+1m. After nearshore wave

transformation, it is noted that most waves dissipate approximately 500m of the shore. Consequently

for terminal locations three and four the design water level is the sum of the design wave amplitude

and still water design level, which is in the range of +1m MSL to +1.125m MSL. In the case of

terminal locations five and six, which are approximately 3km of the coast, the mooring depth is

approximately -18m MSL. Including design wave amplitude and design water level this results in a

maximum water level for the preliminary design equal to 19.9m (=MSL +1.9m).

S. Quirijns

32

Meteorological design values 5.4.2

Meteorological data are collected at the Odessa Airport Measurement station. Reference is

made towards the detailed study about meteorological boundary conditions treated in Appendix

13.8.3. Table 11 indicates the distribution applied to assess the expected annual minimum or

maximum environmental value for a certain return period. These values in table 11 are interpreted as

a maximum or minimum value that has occurred at least once within a certain return period.

Table 11 Distribution of meteorological design values

Annual Min/Max value for certain return period

Factor Max. until Return periods [yrs.] Environmental Distribution 2015 25 50 75 100 Temperature [°C] Gumbel -13.4 -23.04 -25.16 -26.39 -27.27 Wind speed [m/s] Gumbel 18 19.9 21.44 22.27 22.87 Visibility [km] Uniform 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Precipitation [mm/day] Gumbel 59 67.92 74.21 77.86 80.45 Snowfall [cm/day] Gumbel 118 32.75 37.26 39.88 41.74

Table 11 shows a maximum value for snowfall of 118 cm/day, which is considered a freak

event. Therefore this event is excluded in the Gumbel approximation for determining the annual max

value for a certain return period. However, it can still occur during a strict winter. If there is a strict

winter, this occurs late in December until late in January, so approximately 30 days. Yet, usually

winters are not that severe.

Environmental factors in table 11 directly influence the operational limits for safety and port

management. Wind force also directly influences the design of the unloading concepts. Wind velocity

and direction are measured for the last decade. The wind data are merged in monthly and seasonal

wind roses (Appendix 13.1.3) in which a strong seasonal variance is recognised at Yuzhny. Main

directions of the prevailing wind during winter and autumn are:

1. West-Northwest 9% 5 to 10 m/s

2. Northeast 9% 10 to 15m/s or +15m/s during storms

3. North-Northwest 8% 5 to 10 m/s

In spring the prevailing wind directions are:

1. South 9% 2 to 5 m/s

2. Southwest 8% 2 to5 m/s

3. South-Southwest 8% 2 to5 m/s

Last during summer the prevailing wind directions are:

1. North-Northwest 11% 5 to 10 m/s

2. Northwest 10% 5 to 10 m/s

3. West-Northwest 9% 5 to 10 m/s

When seasonal and yearly averaged wind roses are compared with the wave rose there is

little correspondence for the onshore directed waves during summer and winter. The lower velocity

ranges for waves and direction can be associated with the lower significant wave heights, since both

similarly scattered. But the smaller wave heights can be forced a variety of factors, such as density

differences or vessel induced waves.

S. Quirijns

33

Morphological and soil conditions 5.4.3

Since no measurements are available for the vertical soil structure underneath the Black sea,

it is deducted from two local reference cases. First reference case is a sounding measurement

performed at Odessa. Second reference case contains measurements performed for the vertical soil

structure at the Yuzhny port.

Vertical soil structure at Yuzhny and adjacent areas

In the Yuzhny region the soil layers mostly contain out of clay, loam and alkaline earth metals.

Vertical structure of the soil is identified as a mixture of clay and loess3 layers. Similarly the Black

Sea’s vertical structure contains soil layers classified as a mixture of loam and clay. So the erosion of

Pleistocene loess sediments does not settle below water level. Yuzhny is located within the area of the

sediment discharge by the Dnieper, which is approximately equal to 2.1m3/day of a mixture of silt and

clayish sediment. It is concluded that Yuzhny has a sediment starving regime. Table 12 shows the

vertical soil structure at Odessa derived from a reference study for landslides in Odessa, in which the

start depth is interpreted as the surface level.

Table 12 Vertical soil structure at Odessa

Soil classification Simplified schematically soil depth per soil class

id Description Start Depth [m]

End Depth [m]

Difference to surface level [m]

1 Pleistocene Loess 0 10 10 2 Pleistocene Loess-like loam 10 20 20 3 Upper Pliocene red clay 20 25 25 4 Alluvial sediment on Pontian

limestone 25 27 27

5 Pontian clay 27 35 35 6 Meotian clay with sand 35 45 45

According to a geological study (Freiberg, Bellendir, Fedchun, Elkin, Bich, & Cherkez) at

Odessa Port Plant, which is located in the Port of Yuzhny, consists of rather strong soils, such as the

Meotian clay layer with sand and limestone with stratified loess-loam of quaternary sediments. The

foundation layer for heavy port structures is the combination of Meotian clay and sand layer located at

35m below ground level. Figure 17 shows the result of the reference geological survey at Odessa Port

plant within the port district of Yuzhny. Both table 12 and figure 17 show the combinations of weak

soil layers containing clay, loam and loess.

Figure 17 Cross-section of the Odessa Port plant, adapted from Assessment of rock mass deformation

and slope stability predictions of Odessa Port plant, retrieved June 2015 from The second half century of rock mechanics © 2007, Taylor & Francis, reprinted with permission

3 See list of Terms

Legend Figure 17 1: Clay Loam and red clay 2: Limestone and shelly ground 3: Meotian clay 4: Sand clay with clay and lam interlayers 5: Ammonia tanks 6: SPA Tanks 7: Pile coast protection 8: terminals

S. Quirijns

34

North Shelf

The North Shelf is a shallow water body in the Northwest of the Black Sea. Yuzhny and

Odessa are located along the edge of this North Shelf. For the vertical soil structure of the shallow

area an assumption is derived from the reference conditions. Design water level is at MSL+1m,

regarding the vertical soil structure at the North Shelf the seabed is at MSL-18m, the first weak soil

layer is from MSL– 18m to -27m, second moderately stiff layer is from MSL-27m to -35m and MSL-

35m or lower contains the most stiff sandy clay layer.

Density of vertical soil structure at North Shelf

Soil classification of the North shelf within the Black Sea varies from loamy clay soils to sandy

clay soil combinations. The vertical soil characteristics at Yuzhny and adjacent areas are determined

with norms set by (Nederlandse Normalisatie Instituut, 2012). These values are copyright protected,

but are applied during the preliminary design. ‘Witteveen + Bos’ provided a license to acquire the soil

characteristics.

Seismic activity

At Yuzhny the seismological activity is magnitude 4 to 5 on Richter’s scale. Which is described

as, felt by all inhabitants and little damage to structures. A well designed structure is able to balance

the incoming forcing of this magnitude. Epicentres of these earthquakes are located to the east of

Odessa. Consequently, additional safety measures are implemented within the preliminary design via

safety factors. Secondary public awareness must be raised for increased wave impact on shores and

coastal structures.

Little damages along the coast of Odessa are for instance landslides and settlements.

Horizontal landslides of the banks occur at the Odessa port plant, because of:

Moving ground massif towards seashore due to sea erosion.

Presence of Meotian clay at the base of the slope, that becomes weak during

watering.

Slope base undercutting/excavation as a result of the construction deep water berths.

Removal of ground massif during flattening.

Man-caused impact, as periodical preloading of soil.

The effect of land sliding along coastal banks can be lowered by nourishments and jetties,

grading landslide-prone slopes to reduce the gradient, drainage of groundwater using vertical drains

and constructing surface storm drain system, and planting vegetation. The Pontian aquifer is drained

by using horizontal galleries and passages.

5.5 Conclusion

Now the required boundary conditions to set up the LNG unloading concepts are known. Most

relevant aspects of the boundary conditions are the applicable safety standards, which apply for the

site selection of the LNG unloading concepts. The most relevant environmental conditions for the

Yuzhny project are the rather mild metocean climate, and the little to none seismic activity within the

Yuzhny region.

S. Quirijns

35

6 LNG Unloading concepts Initially the current layout of port Yuzhny is described, and the most relevant aspects are

briefly highlighted. Afterwards the possible terminal locations are verified per LNG unloading concept.

It was shown in table 9 that not all terminal locations can be assigned to the LNG unloading concepts.

Per LNG unloading concept the terminal location, that is expected to give the best match the concept’s

characteristics, is selected to represent the concept during the ‘Concept selection’ phase.

Design values for the terminal are determined by boundary conditions for design carrier

dimensions, environmental conditions, and safety regulations. The design carrier is the Qmax class,

while the most common LNG carrier is the Large conventional class. Data on the LNG unloading

concepts and carrier specifics are included in appendices 13.11.1 and 13.11.2.

6.1 Current layout of port Yuzhny

Figure 18 shows the schematic current layout of port Yuzhny. The most relevant terminals

and berths are the Odessa Port plant, oil terminals, general cargo terminal and container terminal.

Along the western quay indicated with orange is the Odessa Port plant, which is a potential synergy

partner. Relevant highlights about the Odessa port plant is that it produces ammonia, which is stored

at cold temperatures. To the north indicated with green is Vyzyrka, this is the current location of the

existing high pressure pump of NG towards the hinterland.

Figure 18 Schematic view of current layout Port Yuzhny adapted from marine Port Yuzhny, retrieved

June 2015 from marine.odessa.ua/uni/index/yuzhniy © 2014, Marine Odessa, reprinted with permission

The bathymetry of the inner port and dimensions of the approach channels is accessible up to

the already existing berth locations 5 and 6 for carriers with non-hazardous cargo and laden drafts up

to 18.5 m. Pre-existing berths 5 and 6 are halfway down the southern port area in figure 18. Circled in

red is the recently dredged area (Amelin, 2015).

As mentioned in the functional requirements, the most relevant demands are the 5 billion m3

of NG per annum (≈8.3 million m3/yr. of LNG) and a minimal design life of at least 25 years. Safety

and sustainability are keywords within the design of the LNG unloading concepts. Safety is maintained

within the terminal layout via port management, risk management and safety standards. Sustainability

is described as Planet, People, and Profit. E.G. of sustainable opportunities are to engage a local

synergy with the port district or power generation via thermal energy extraction. Appendix 13.11.3

shows the key factors for a sustainable port design based upon an Environmental Impact Assessment.

S. Quirijns

36

6.2 Conventional terminal

Technicality, functionality and operability 6.2.1

An onshore facility typically consists of two or three full containment cryogenic storage tanks

(≈180000 m3 per tank), regasification plant, a single berth containing an (un)loading jetty or quay

with unloading arms, and last feature is the connecting pipeline grid with compressor and

measurement station. Potential terminal location one, three and four are available to allocate the LNG

conventional terminal.

Concept related requirements are defined with standards and demands for the port and

characteristics of a single object of the port. Overall requirement for all terminal locations is to

construct a technical feasible LNG conventional onshore terminal. A list of required characteristics and

demands are enlisted in Appendix 13.11.4.

Soil conditions

Soil improvement of both of the upper silt layers and lower clay layers are required to prevent

settlements of the heavy LNG storage tanks. Additional seismologic measurements are implemented

to measure and maintain the consequences of seismological activity. Since the magnitude is below

level 5, measuring for weak spots and leakages of the primary containment provides enough

protection. Jetty, quay and LNG storage tanks are designed and constructed according to the seismic

design guidelines for port structures (World Association for Waterborne Transport and Infrastructure,

2001).

Productivity

Peak shaving at storage tanks is applied to adjust the capacity of storage tanks based upon

the country’s demand. During winter NG demand of the Ukrainian people is higher compared to the

NG demand during summer. During summer LNG is accumulated in the storage tanks, so it can be

regasified and pumped into the distribution grid during winter.

Table 13 Description of annual LNG unloading for the conventional terminal

Description LC Qflex Qmax

Productivity per berth [m3/yr.] 8460000 8360000 8580000

Productivity per unloading arms [m3/hr] 4000 4000 4000

Nr. of unloading arms per carrier 3 3 3

Nr. Of operational hours per year [hrs/yr.] 705 697 715

Berth occupancy factor [-] 0.08 0.08 0.08

Number of berth 0.99 1.00 0.97

Required throughput per year [m3/yr] 8.33E+06 8.33E+06 8.33E+06

Productivity per year [m3/yr] 8.46E+06 8.36E+06 8.58E+06

Table 13 shows the total annual unloading capacity for the unloading of LNG. A single berth is

designed to unload the maximum capacity of the Qmax in a single day, with an unloading capacity of

4000 m3/hr for a single unloading hose. In total there are four cryogenic arms, three unloading LNG

and one for vapour release to compensate the pressure difference within the tank of the LNGC.

S. Quirijns

37

Productivity in table 13 is calculated with equation 4:

Equation 4 Productivity per berth

𝐶𝑏 = 𝑃 ∗ 𝑁 ∗ 𝑛ℎ𝑦 ∗ 𝑚𝑏

Where: Cb Productivity per berth [m3/year] P Productivity per unloading entity [m3/hour]

N Nr. of unloading arms per carrier [-] nhy Nr. of operational hours per year [hours/year]

mb Berth occupancy factor [-]

Equation 5 calculates the number of berths that are required to unload the incoming carriers.

Results are included in table 13.

Equation 5 Number of berths equation

𝑛 = 𝐶/𝐶𝑏

Where: n number of berths [-] C required throughput trough the terminal [m3/year]

CB productivity per berth [m3/year]

Feasibility of terminal locations 6.2.2

Terminal location one, three and four are verified for technical feasibility with the focus as

mentioned in the scope. Sustainable port design is included via synergies for power generation or cold

energy extraction. Cold energy can also be applied locally within the regasification terminal to increase

energy efficiency. Additional information about sustainable solutions is included in Appendix 13.9.

Literature about cold energy integration is included in the literature study (Ch.4.3).

Terminal location 1: Inner port

The terminal location and potential layout are shown in figure 19. Due to the safety regime of

hazardous cargo, and limited space for turning and navigation within the port, the Large conventional

class is applied as design carriers. In order to achieve the necessary annual demand for NG a minimal

amount of 47 ship calls per year is required. Because the terminal is located within the port, there is

sheltered berthing and terminal is nearby other port facilities. A single berth is equipped with four 16

inch cryogenic full bore arms of which three are for unloading and one for vapour return to

compensate the pressure difference in the tank of the LNGC. The original approach channel is applied

for the LGNC to arrive at the inner port.

S. Quirijns

38

Figure 19 Layout for the conventional terminal at Terminal Location 1

Figure 19 shows the conventional terminal layout at terminal location 1. Cut and fill is required

to develop the required space within the port, along the shore an L-Jetty is constructed with a column

structure foundation and a connecting trestle over the pier. SSLNG is realised by transferring LNG into

trucks. A recent Kickstarter ‘LNGTainer’ is founded for transporting LNG by trains where modularized

storage tanks are designed within re-used TUE containers (LNGTainer, 2014). This method is still

unavailable, but provides an additional opportunity for future development of SSLNG distribution via

trains.

A secondary potential layout is a conventional berth, where an insertion is made into the quay

wall. Since the LNGC is now berthed perpendicular to the original access route, safety regulations

during berthing and (un)loading are reduced. However, this still only allows a large conventional class

carrier and there is an increased amount of dredging.

Potential Synergy applicable at location 1 is thermal energy exchange via water to supply the

port district with chilled water and cold water available for district cooling. Required components for

thermal energy extraction via an intermediate fluid require a closed loop system integrated with a

refrigerant circuit. With this method chilled water and district cooling within the port district is

realized, without any difficult constructions for underground pipes.

Another applicable potential synergy is with the substation/transformer to the north of

Yuzhny. Power generation is done by constructing an Inlet Air Cooling (AIC) system and Gas Turbines

Generators (GTG), with this method up to 110 MW can be generated, but costs additional fuel for the

increased combustion. Both synergies cannot be applied at the same time, so the most valuable must

be selected.

I Red: Required area to be dredged II Blue: Potentail location unloading berth III Green: SSLNG Transfer to trains IV Orange: SSLNG transfer to trucks V Turning circle D=596m VI : Port area VII Pink Line: naval route through terminal

S. Quirijns

39

Terminal locations 3 and 4

Locations three and four show similarity, both locations are located along the shore. Due to a

mild wave climate and negligible small amount of sediment transport, no breakwaters are required.

The significant wave height remains within the workable ranges of the equipment. Terminals are

designed for the Qmax class dimension. Dependable on the carrier size, 33 or more carrier calls per

year are required to import the annual NG demand.

Figure 20 Layout for conventional terminal at Terminal locations 3 and 4

Figure 20 represents the potential layout of both terminal locations three or four. Both

locations have enough available space to develop the required facilities, also for expansion of the

terminal. SSLNG is available with potential transfers into small scale carriers or trucks. Qmax class

carriers berth at an L-Jetty with a column structure foundation and trestle. Four unloading arms

realize an unloading time for a Qmax carrier within 22 hours and 15 hours for a Large Conventional

sized carrier. Behind the approach channels the areas remain empty and serve as safety margins for

LNGC that potentially run aground on a soft bank. For similar conditions, terminal locations three and

four are applied for the FSRU concept. At the berth for SSLNG, small scale carriers can be reloaded

with LNG via a double 12 inch full bore cryogenic arm, one for unloading and one for vapour return.

This is constructed along the quay with a T-jetty with one or two berths dependable on the demand.

The quay is constructed as a cantilever, which is monolithic and soil retaining. Since there is little

loading on the quay, a cantilever provides a stable quay structure for berthing of small scale carriers.

Potential synergy for location three is with Odessa Port plant, which is located along the west

quay within the port of Yuzhny. Adaptations within the regasification plant are Integrated Air

Separation Units, via this method the internal power consumption is lowered up to 50% and side

products are liquid nitrogen, oxygen and argon, which can be supplied to the Odessa Port plant via a

closed connection above ground. Odessa Port plant applies the cooled intermediate fluid within their

cooling ammonia storage tanks. Potential synergy at location four is power generation for the

substation/transformer at Yuzhny. Adaptations to the design are an Inlet Air Cooling (AIC) system and

Gas Turbines Generators (GTG) for power generation, with this method up to 110 MW can be

generated, but costs additional fuel for combustion.

I Red: Required area to be dredged II Blue: Potentail location unloading berth III Green: SSLNG Transfer to trains IV Orange: SSLNG transfer to trucks V Turning circle D=596m VI : Port area VII Pink Line: naval route through terminal

S. Quirijns

40

Conclusion

The decisive factors are (1) technicality, (2) functionality, (3) operability, (4) sustainability, (5)

transport capacity and (6) financial aspects. Data Comparison per terminal location is included in

Appendix 13.11.5.

1. a) Terminal location four requires the most expensive dredging works, thereafter terminal

location three and terminal location one demands the least amount of dredging. However for

terminal location one the dredging project is within a narrow and operational port, so hard to

operate with Cutter Suction Dredgers.

b) For all three terminal locations it is required to improve the soil conditions for allocating

heavy storage tanks on the weak soil. Otherwise the probability of failure by settlements of

the clay and loess soil layers is too large.

2. a) Terminal locations three and four both have three full containment storage tanks, which

results in more peak shaving of the NG supply.

b) All four safety layers are implemented in all port designs. However, it is safer to maintain

LNGC and unloading equipment outside the port. Where location three is still quite near a

village in the Northwest, which is directly in the main wind direction. Location four is close the

Oil terminal at a distance of 2km, which is just outside of the safety restrictions.

3. Approach channels of location three are more in line with incoming wind and waves. But the

lower wind speed ranges are associated with the onshore directed winds. Similarly the wave

climate is not a dominant forcing for the LNG carriers during approach at the channel and

during berthing. So approach channel of location three is better situated regarding the forces

induced by wind and waves, therefore the environmental are of little influence with respect to

the carrier’s hydrodynamics.

4. Considering sustainability as the three P’s: Planet, People and Profit. Than the fumes of

additional combustion required for power generation decreases the environmental value. So

other sustainable design synergy such as improving energy efficiency is more favourable.

People’s aspect is included as social integration and consequences, i.e. the applied internal

safety distances around the terminal or decrease in ‘NIMBY’ effect. Profit aspect is gained with

re-using side products of the Inlet Air Cooling system for cooling the Ammonia at Odessa Port

Plant. Ultimately, location three is the most sustainable location compared to the terminal

locations one and four.

5. The imposed safety regime within the port for LNG makes location one is the least accessible.

Locations three and four are similar with respect to these criteria. Both are accessible for

Qmax class LNGC, SSLNG carriers and trucks. Location three is separated by a street, which

results in an advantage in port operability within terminal location four.

6. Due to the increased accessibility of the port, applied safety levels and best sustainable

opportunities, location three has the highest cost benefit ratio. Aforementioned benefits are

valued more than the investment cost of dredging and the synergy with Odessa Port Plant.

It is expected that location three is the most suitable to allocate the conventional terminal.

Differences between locations three and four are small, yet the decisive aspect is sustainability for the

potential synergy with the Odessa Port plant. Transfer of the liquid nitrogen, oxygen and argon over a

short distance with a refrigerant circuit over land and halving the regasification plants power

consumption are decisive compared to terminal locations one and four.

S. Quirijns

41

6.3 Floating Storage and Regasification Unit

The FSRU concept is a converted LNG carrier or a newly built standardised unit, which results

in similarities for classification of LNGC’s and FSRU’s. At nearshore locations the FSRU is connected to

a jetty and trestle, in which the LNGC is moored Side-by-Side (SBS) with the FSRU. Offshore the FSRU

is connected to the coast via a subsea pipeline and offshore fixed positioning of the moored carriers is

provided with Single Point Mooring or any other mooring structures. Maximum allowable service time

required for the berthing-loading cycle is approximately 24 hrs. The maximum technical lifespan of an

FSRU is around 25 years. Thereafter the FSRU is relocated or decommissioned. Because the FSRU and

LNGC have different dimensions, the moored carriers react differently to external forcing.

Consequently other criteria are important during the berthing and (un)loading cycle compared to the

conventional jetty. From now on the moored combination of FSRU and LNGC is referred to as moored

carriers.

Terminal design 6.3.1

Beneficial aspects of the FSRU are the short conversion period LNGC, quick installation of

FSRU, high mobility and low investment cost. As well, for the implemented safety distances and the

reduced ‘Not In My Backyard’ (NIMBY) effect for the nearshore and offshore allocation. Appendix

13.11.6 includes a list of potential standardised FSRU’s. Significant selection criteria are the annual

regasification capacity and storage capacity. Required terminal facilities at an onshore terminal:

jetty:

o Berthing and Mooring dolphins

o Catwalks between facilities

o High pressure gas platform (HGPS)

o service platform

connecting high pressure pipeline

o Gas transfer to shore through high pressure loading arms fixed to the jetty.

gas metering station

Figure 21 Schematic layout of an FRSU jetty terminal, adapted from Regulations for use of the LNG terminal, retrieved June 2015 from Klaipedos Nafta © 2014, Klaipedos Nafta, reprinted with permission

Figure 21 shows a schematic layout for an onshore FSRU along a jetty or quay with six

mooring and three berthing dolphins. Standards and guidelines for mooring operations and terminal

design are published by (Oil Companies International Marine Forum, 2008) and (World Association for

Waterborne Transport and Infrastructure, 2012).

S. Quirijns

42

Boundary conditions for berthing and unloading cycle

FSRU’s are able to (un)load any LNGC, on the conditions that the LNGC can reach the location

of the FSRU, and that the vertical movements between the LNGC and FSRU and FSRU and mooring

structure are not too large. This is achieved by selecting FSRU’s that have a larger natural frequency

compared to the local wave frequency or by dissipation of wave energy in a sheltered berthing

location. Berthing of an LNGC is done with tugs and VTMS and unloading between ship to ship is

performed with unloading arms and an LNG hose. Because of the independent movement of the two

carriers, these loading arms need to have a higher workability range compared to the conventional

jetty. Maximum allowable trim of an LNGC unloading at an FSRU is equal to 2.0 to 3.0 m significant

wave height (Sc KLaipeda Nafta, 2014), dependable on the limitations of the applied unloading

equipment and berthing equipment. If this limit is exceeded the unloading hoses must come to an

immediately stop. Responses of a moored carrier to the action of the waves, wind and current are:

Mean offset due to wind, current and mean wave drift force.

Slow varying oscillations around the mean offset induced by second order wave drift

forces with periods associated with the wave groups occurring in irregular waves.

Wave frequency component caused by the first order wave induced vessel motions

with periods in the range of 5 to 20 seconds.

If the Single Point Mooring structure (SPM) is considered, than the catenary anchor legs or

mooring chain must provide the restoring capability to maintain the carrier in the field within a limited

radius from its rest position in order to ensure the feasibility of the underwater fluid transfer system.

With respect to the weak soil conditions, this method definitely needs to be verified for stability.

FSRU’s positioning can be fixed and stabilized with mono piles about 4 to 6 piles up to lengths

of approximately 60m. The mooring layout of the FSRU and LNGC is side-by-side for a fixed structure.

Another method to provide a semi-fixed and stable situation for the offshore FSRU terminal

location is a Tower Yoke Mooring structure. The structure contains a rotatable head with a yoke that

is able to adjust the moored carriers’ position such that incoming waves are always in aft. This

rotation by environmental forces is called weathervaning, which reduces the transverse loads on the

moored carriers. The Ship-to-Ship mooring layout is parallel and head to stern (HTS).

Figure 22 Tower Yoke Mooring Structure adapted from Mooring Systems- Tower Yoke, retrieved July

2015 from SOFEC Mooring Solution Specialists © 2012, Sofec, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

43

Design of an FSRU 6.3.2

There are three methods for regasification:

Closed-loop mode, in which steam from the FSRU boilers is used to heat fresh water circulated through the shell-and-tube vaporizers in the regasification plant. This results in minimal usage of seawater by the FSRU;

Open-loop mode, in which relatively warm seawater is drawn in through the FSRU’s sea chests. This warm seawater is used as a heat source and passed through the shell of the shell-and-tube vaporizers, causing the vaporization of the LNG. During this process, the temperature of the seawater is lowered by approximately 7 degrees Celsius. For this reason, the open-loop mode is not applicable for water temperatures below 7.2 degrees Celsius;

Combined mode, in which seawater at temperatures between 7.2 and 14.4 degrees Celsius can be used when heated by steam from the FSRU boilers to provide sufficient heat for the vaporization of the LNG.

The conversed FSRU storage capacity is determined by the capacity the LNGC had before the

conversion. Nowadays FSRU with standardised storages are custom build for projects. Approximately

98% of the total storage is applied for net storage in the tanks. FSRU’s are designed with either a

membrane tank, MOSS cylindrical tank or containment No. 96 tank. Usually FSRU’s with membrane

tanks have advanced propulsion, which is more attractive if the incentive is to continue applying the

carrier to trade LNG. An FSRU with a MOSS type tank has a strong structural integrity and does not

have operational cargo filling restrictions. Containment type No. 96 contains a primary and secondary

membrane made of Invar, which is a Nickel-steel alloy with no thermal compaction. The primary

membrane contains the LNG and second membrane is the secondary containment.

Additional safety measures are required due to sloshing of LNG in the storage tank. This

inclines an increased risk of failure for vapour release or leakages. The membrane type and the

containment No. 96 are most often applied LNG storage tanks at an offshore FSRU location, because

these two storage tanks are best against sloshing. An FSRU is equipped with several safeguarding

systems, measurement systems and emergency shutdown systems. These are compared to

safeguarding systems applied at conventional terminal much more advanced, because of safety

standards for offshore LNG regasification set by the industry.

Due to the offshore location of an FSRU, sustainable energy such as cold energy extraction is

not possible for the FSRU concept. The incoming LNG is shortly stored within the cryogenic storage

tanks. Subsequently the LNG is regasified and pumped to shore via a high pressure pump.

Sustainability is realised with a Waste Heat Recovery Vaporizers that is linked to the dual engines of

the FSRU. Resulting sustainable options for the FSRU are the high mobility, high energy efficiency for

fuel consumption and re-usability or conversion of unused LNG carriers. By reversing the flow in the

loading hoses, the FSRU can re-export the stored LNG into SSLNGC.

Feasibility of terminal locations 6.3.3

In figure 14 (also in appendix 13.1 an enlarged version is shown), and table 10 the available

terminal locations for the FSRU concept are treated. Locations 1 to 6 are all available to allocate the

FSRU concept. An FSRU terminal requires little space and berthing length. For the FSRU concept the

fleet of ‘Golar’ and ‘Excellerate Energy’ are compared, and two of these FSRU’s resulted in the most

suitable fit.

S. Quirijns

44

Table 14 Terminal locations with FSRU berth locations

Terminal location

Area [km2]

Berth length [km]

FSRU type Connection to shore

Accessible LNGC

1 2.1 1.2 Excelerate Explorer

Pipeline Large Conventional

2 0.25 0.5 Excelerate Explorer

Pipeline Large Conventional

3 1.9 1.3 Golar Igloo trestle pipeline All 4 1.6 3.1 Golar Igloo trestle pipeline All 5 NA NA Golar Igloo subsea pipeline All

6 NA NA Golar Igloo Subsea pipeline All

Table 14 shows the terminal locations and its specifics. Selection criteria for the FSRU are

unloading capacity, storage capacity and FSRU dimensions. During (un)loading the maximum

significant wave height is equal to 2m up to 3m, this means that 97% of all waves in 10 years is

lower, so sheltered berthing is not required to maintain a 24/7 operational time. Berthing and

unberthing process require VTMS and Tugs for the LNGC in order to assure safety, manoeuvrability

and accessibility of the LNGC towards the FSRU.

Table 15 Carrier dimensions

Carrier type Excelerate Explorer Golar Igloo

Capacity [m3] 150900 170000 Containment type No 96 Membrane LOA [m] 290 292.5 Beam[m] 43.4 43.4 Laden draft [m] 11.6 12.3 Regasification capacity [bcm/yr] 5.2 up to 7.5 Regasification system Closed loop Open loop SPM Y Y Jetty Y Y Side by side Y Y

Design

Minimal dredging depth 13.6 14.25 Ljetty [m] 239 239 Turning circle within port [m] 554 580

Accessibility

Minimal Ship calls per year 56 50 Operational time hours /year 1344 1200

Table 15 shows the characteristics based upon the FSRU dimensions. Since the maximum

capacity of FSRU’s is exceeded by the LNGC capacity of the classes Large conventional and larger, the

unloading capacity of the FSRU decisive for service time of both LNGC classes. Limitation in

accessibility within the port for the Qmax class does not matter. However, including the safety

regulations of LNGC within the port limits other vessels. Therefore terminal location one and two are

not fully accessible, and would induce a time window for operability for FRSU’s, compared to the other

terminal locations.

S. Quirijns

45

Locations three and four are fully accessible and no breakwaters are required, so a jetty with

trestle provides stable mooring conditions for the FSRU. Safety regulations and distances are identical

to those of the conventional jetty at this location. The LNG is pumped via high pressure pumps

towards shore over a trestle, where it is pumped to a measuring and booster station. This station is

located just east of Vyzyrka, the distance from location three and four is approximately 10 km and

8.5km, respectively. Both locations consist of a nearshore berthing jetty, so no subsea pipelines are

required. The jetty is located about 450 m off the coast to reduce the amount of dredging. Area’s that

are necessary to dredge are the approach channel and nearshore terminal area. Area of the nearshore

berth locations has approximately a length of 1km and width of 435m. This is equal to the diameter of

the turn circle. Required minimal depth is a depth of approximately 14.3m.

Locations five and six are located further of the coast with distances of approximately 3 km

and 3.3 km, respectively. If offshore locations five or six are applied, than the measurement and

compressor stations are located at locations three or four. Minimum distance over land from the

shore is identical to the terminal locations three and four, which results in a minimum total distance

for locations five and six of approximately 13km and 11.8m. Both locations are fully accessible for any

LNGC class and connected to shore via a subsea pipeline and offshore mooring structure. Maximum

allowable vertical movement for unloading arms is in the range of 2 to 3m significant wave height

during the unloading and berthing processes is not exceeded, so a 24h operational window is realized.

Since the local bathymetry exceeds the design draft of the LNGC at both locations, no dredging is

required with respect to depth. The NG hose to shore is positioned with gravity anchors along the

seabed.

Conclusion 6.3.4

The terminal locations are compared for technicality, functionality, sustainability, operability,

transport capacity and financial aspects. Safe operability of the FSRU is maintained for workable

ranges of the equipment, regarding environmental load conditions. A significant benefit for applying

an FSRU terminal is that it does not allocate heavy storage facilities on the weak soil, but the FSRU is

susceptible for hydrodynamics forces. Due to the dimensions of the FSRU types allocated at terminal

location one and two, the bathymetry is only sufficiently deep for smaller FSRUs with a lower storage

capacity. At terminal location three to six, there is no limitation regarding terminal bathymetry, so

these locations are accessible for larger FSRUs.

Safety regulations within the port, limit the planned FSRU concepts at location one and two

for accessibility of LNGC. Due the distance from the jetty to the coast of 450m, locations three and

four have improved safety distances, but are closer to the breaker line for incoming waves. Locations

three and four are approximately 3km or further off the coast, therefore an autonomous increase in

safety level is induced by selecting a more offshore location.

Accessibility of location one and two is limited, but the other terminal locations are accessible

for any class LNGC. Terminal location one and two require 56 Large conventional class carriers per

year, while the other terminal locations require a minimum of 50 ship calls per year to meet the

required quota. Since the capacity of the FSRU is decisive for the total output, it does not matter

which LNGC class berths at terminal locations three to six.

With respect to the people’s aspect, the difference in capacity allows terminal locations three

to six to have little peak shaving capacity. The larger distance off the coast for terminal locations three

to six, not only induces additional safety for vapour clouds, but also decreases the ‘NIMBY’-effect.

Environmentally seen, the ‘Excellerate Explorer’ applies a closed loop for regasification, which uses

less seawater during the regasification process compared to the open loop regasification system

applied in the ‘Golar Igloo”. Currently, the ‘Golar Igloo’ is not operational at full capacity, because the

quote for annual NG production is 5 bcm, but can be increased to 7.5 bcmpa.

S. Quirijns

46

Since the differences between terminal locations three to six are only minor, costs are

included with a qualitative method by comparing the total costs for onshore, and offshore pipe laying

and dredging costs. The cost of dredging for hydraulic dredging with a Cutter Suction Dredger or

Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger is in the range of 3$ to 6$ per m3 (Owen & Park, 2011) and compare

to the cost for subsea pipes 1.6M$/km (Resource center for energy economics and regulation, 2007).

Table 16 Qualitative cost per terminal location comparison

Locations Distance onshore [km]

Distance offshore [km]

Pipe laying Cost [$]

Dredged Volume [m3]

Cost per volume [$/m3]

Dredging cost [$]

Total Cost [$]

3 10 0 1.1E+07 3.11E+06 6 1.87E+07 2.9E+07

4 8.5 0 9.1E+06 3.11E+06 6 1.87E+07 2.8E+07

5 10 3 1.7E+07 0 6 0.00E+00 1.7E+07

6 8.5 3.3 1.6E+07 0 6 0.00E+00 1.6E+07

Table 16 clearly shows that investment cost of laying a subsea pipe is significantly lower

compared to costs of dredging. However, it is stated that the prices for laying a pipe of onshore and

subsea pipes are based upon the prices in 2001. Thus an indexation factor of 2% per year is applied

to calculate the expected pipe laying costs in 2015.

All decisive factors have been evaluated and terminal location six represents the FSRU’s

characteristics the most, so this terminal location is included during the concept selection.

6.4 Gravity Based Structure

A gravity based structure is an offshore regasification terminal, accessible for all classes LNGC.

The LNG is stored within full containment storage tanks included in the caissons, with enough storage

available for peak shaving of the LNG supply. The gas is regasified at the facility and is pumped to

shore via a high pressure subsea pipeline. Additional information about the Characteristics of the GBS

is included within the Appendix 13.11.7 and literature report (Ch.4.3). A brief list of the GBS aspects:

functionality:

o offshore sheltered berthing

o regasification process at GBS

o peak shaving capabilities

high accessibility:

o offshore thus no restraints for bathymetry

o SSLNG distribution

high operability:

o many operational hours per year

o high service time

o little influence by metocean climate

high safety levels within design sustainability

o decreased NIMBY effect

o sustainable opportunities

technicality

o technical lifespan of +50yrs

o little dredging works required

Due to the required accessibility of the Qmax class, these dimensions are applied as design

values. The GBS consists of two offshore caissons up to a total length of approximately 345+15m.

Both caissons include a single full containment modularized LNG storage tank.

S. Quirijns

47

A caisson is the most vulnerable during transport and after installation the most relevant

failing mechanisms are toppling over, sliding and settlements. Caisson’s dimensions are determined by

horizontal stability, vertical stability and zero momentum. Since the caisson is floated for transport,

buoyancy requirements are imminent, which limits the dimensions of a caisson.

Table 17 shows the preliminary dimensions of a GBS based upon the dimensions of a Qmax

carrier. GBS contains per caisson two (~125000 m3) modularized storage tank. Within this phase the

dimensions for the GBS are simplified. Tow tests at the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands

(MARIN) showed that for manoeuvrability of a single caisson, a length/width ratio of 3 to 1 is

favourable. An advantage for limiting the number of caissons is the reduction in the number of joints

or shear-keys to be constructed (Voorendt, Molenaar, & Bezuyen, 2011).

Table 17 Dimensions of the GBS and of a single caisson

Description GBS Caisson

Height [m] 32 32

LGBS [m] 360 180 Width [m] 60 60

Ratio L/W 6 3

Width walls[m] 2 2 Width of longitudinal

wall compartments [m]

6.0 6.0

Table 18 shows the dimensions of a 125000m3 modularized storage tank. These tanks are box

shaped instead of circular, which corresponds better to the shape of a single caisson. These

modularized tanks are also applied at the Adriatic LNG terminal, the first GBS ever built. The Adriatic

LNG terminal is one of the discussed references in the Literature report (Ch4.3).

Table 18 Dimensions of the modularized storage tanks constructed by Ulsan Korea

Modularized storage tanks

Nr. of tanks 2 Storage capacity [m3] 125000 Height [m] 28 Length [m] 155 Width [m] 33 Mass [mt] 4500

For allocating the GBS, terminal locations three, four, five and six are shown in figure 14. If

terminal locations three and four are applied, than the GBS loses its functionality. So these are

excluded as potential terminal locations. A GBS is very susceptible to metocean and especially soil

conditions, these are verified next.

Metocean conditions 6.4.1

The GBS functions as a breakwater for berthing LNGC, which inclines that the long side is

oriented perpendicular to primary wave and wind direction. Due to the offshore berthing two

conditions have to be verified, which are storm and normal conditions. Figure 23 shows the terminal

locations, as well as the primary wave and wind direction. The cross shore and alongshore currents

are 0.3 m/s and 0.1 m/s, thus negligible small. Waves come normally incident to the shore, which is

equal to 160° to the North. The average significant wave height is equal to 1.25m and onshore storm

conditions are in the range 2m to 3.5m. Due to a decrease in significant wave height of approx. 50%

(Bosboom & Stive, 2013) at the lee side of the GBS, no operational limits exist during berthing and

(un)berthing. In the case of significant wave height in the range of 2-3 m tug assistance is required.

S. Quirijns

48

Figure 23 Terminal locations five (left) and six (right) for the GBS concepts

Figure 23 shows terminal location five in the west and terminal location six in the east, both

with corresponding naval routes. Because the local bathymetry is exceeds the minimum required draft

of the Qmax class carriers, no dredging is required. For stability of the GBS a flatbed is required at an

averaged water level of approximately 19 m. The area that needs to be flattened requires little

dredging, which is shown in figure 23. Table 19 shows the design height of the GBS. The freeboard of

the GBS is assumed to be equal to half of the Qmax carrier’s freeboard.

Table 19 Design height GBS based upon local bathymetry relative to MSL

Bathymetry Terminal location five

Terminal location six

Depth [m] 19 19

Design Significant wave

height [m]

1.25 1.25

Design Water Level [m] +1 +1

Free board [m] 11.35 11.35

Design height of GBS [m] 31.6 31.6

In Appendix 13.8 the environmental study for wind shows that the primary wind directions are

in the range of WNW to NNW with corresponding velocities of 5m/s to 10m/s. Due to seasonal climate

variations, a stormy wind condition during winter is towards the NE with velocities above 15m/s.

During spring there is a low wind velocity towards the S and SSW.

Soil conditions 6.4.2

The GBS consists of concrete caissons and steel containment tanks, these two elements of the

GBS are the heaviest loads on the soil underneath. The vertical soil layers at Yuzhny within the Black

Sea contain mostly out of clay and loam. When loaded with a heavy structure, such as the GBS, this

results in a high probability of failure for severe settlements. A layer containing sandy sediment is at

MSL-35m. In order to prevent settlements the soil stiffness has to be improved, this is achieved by

removing the clay and loamy soils to the first clay layer containing sand. The last mentioned method

requires a significant investment and is time consuming.

I Red: Terminal locations five and six ; Required area to be dredged II Turning circle D=690m III Pink Line: naval route to terminal

S. Quirijns

49

So other methods are required, such as soil improvement or a foundation structure on piles.

Soil improvement is done by inserting grouts into clay layers, this way the soil is stiffened. It is not

known if this will work in a highly anoxic climate. Therefore a foundation structure on piles driven

deep into the sandy clay layer is the most suitable solution to construct a GBS, which is realized with

two methods. First driving the piles into the sandy clay layer and later the caissons are lowered over

these piles onto the channel bed and/or sill. The piles should fit into recesses of a caisson, where a

structural joint can be constructed. Second method is to drive the piles through intermediate walls in

already immersed caissons. This allows visual inspection, but the extra walls are a disadvantage

because of the extra load and reduction of the wet cross-section (Voorendt, Molenaar, & Bezuyen,

2011).

Seismic activity of magnitude 4 to 5 on Richter’s scale has no direct effect on the caissons or

the cryogenic storage tanks. Due to the natural frequency of such an immense structure, safety

containment of the storage tanks, strength of the outer caisson, the LNG or NG does not leak easily

into the open air. Seismologic measurements and methane detection systems are necessary safety

measures. Indirectly settlements will occur within the vertical soil structure, which will become

weaker over time and increased frequency of earthquakes. Therefore countermeasures are required.

LNG handling 6.4.3

The GBS includes two modularizes storage tanks up to a volume of 250000 m3. One of the

functional requirements is an unloading time of a Qmax class carrier (260000 m3) within 24

operational hours, this equals an unloading capacity of 12000 m3/s by four 16 inches cryogenic arms

(three unloading and one vapour service), similar to the conventional terminal. Send out is via the

four in-tanks pumps of the storage tanks towards the regasification unit must be equal or larger

(approximately ≥12000 m3/s). Regasification process is done with four vaporizers (Three ORV’s), four

high pressure send-outs, two Boil off Gas compressors. One of each serves as spare equipment.

During normal operation the regasification output is 5bcmpa, but this can be expanded to full capacity

at 8bcmpa by applying the spare equipment.

Sustainability 6.4.4

The distance to shore is too far to maintain thermal energy efficiency. Thus the sustainable

solutions are applied locally on the GBS. Three sustainable implementations are available:

1. Cold power generation method is realized by the expansion of a working fluid across a

gas turbine linked to a generator. This method generates up to 35 MW, which can be

applied locally at the GBS.

2. Single Waste Heat Recovery Vaporizer (WHRV) uses heat from the turbine generators

3. Integrating closed water systems with cold energy extraction via an intermediate

refrigerant circuit, with this method cooled water is applied for cooling on-board

machinery.

Conclusion 6.4.5

Differences are very little between the two compared terminal locations. Because of the weak

soil layers, technical feasibility for both terminal locations is very low. By constructing a pile foundation

it is possible to realize the GBS, but it will be a very difficult construction method and really expensive.

Since there is no definite difference between the terminal locations five and six, other decisive

factors are necessary, such as the investment costs for onshore and subsea pipe laying to the

measuring and booster station at Vyzyrka. Due to the easier manoeuvrability for LNGC in the

approach channel, a more evened bed level, and shorter distance to Vyzyrka, terminal location six is

preferable over terminal location five.

S. Quirijns

50

6.5 Conclusion for LNG unloading concepts The results for the site selection per LNG unloading terminal are determined. For the

conventional terminal location three is applied, because of the high potential for long term planning by

engaging in synergies with the Odessa power plant within the port of Yuzhny. Other long term

planning criteria are the reduced energy consumption by 50%, and there is potential to become an

international import and export hub for the region.

For the FSRU terminal location six is applied, because this location has the lowest investment

cost by avoiding expensive dredging, and most cost effective ratio between subsea pipeline and

normal pipeline.

The GBS is considered as technically unfeasible, because of instability of the GBS and the

weak soil conditions. Nevertheless, it could be constructed on a series of piles to overcome instability

of the GBS and the expected settlements of the seabed soil, but this is associated with a significant

increase in construction costs.

S. Quirijns

51

7 Concept Selection Multi Criteria Analysis and cost benefit analysis are the applied methods to select one of the

concepts to elaborate further into a preliminary design. Because the MCA gives inaccurate results,

because concepts can score evenly for primary criteria, while there are many differences. Therefore a

more accurate cost-benefit analysis is performed to value potential benefits with corresponding total

costs. So both methods are applied to determine the differences between short and long term

planning. The ideology of these concept selection methods is a reflection of the issued sub-questions.

The value of the concepts is compared for short and long term planning, which is expressed

as value of benefits, additional total costs and additional value. Short term planning is defined as a

lifespan of 25 years or less, long term planning is defined as more than 25 years. Short term value

focusses on constructability, technical feasibility, and reduced total costs. Long term value focusses on

long term benefits, such as a long economical lifespan and sustainability. Thereafter an LNG unloading

concept is selected for the preliminary design phase, whereby selection is based upon the results of

both methods. Appendix 13.12 includes the data for both methods.

7.1 Multi Criteria Analysis

The MCA is an objective method to compare the three LNG unloading concepts. First the

primary criteria are briefly described, second the weighing factors per criterion are determined.

Finally, the LNG unloading concepts are valued based upon scores for primary criteria. The MCA is

extended with a sensitivity analysis for long term value.

Criteria 7.1.1

MCA compares the LNG unloading concepts for primary factors that are similar to the key

factors of the feasibility study, which are functionality, technicality, sustainability, operability, transport

capacity and financial aspects. Safety is included as a primary criterion within the MCA, because it is

expected that it makes a difference. A list of all these secondary criteria, with corresponding

motivation per concept is included in appendix 13.12.1. , and are highlighted briefly:

Functionality covers general requirements, such as the functional requirements, send out of

natural gas, site selection and the capability for peak shaving of LNG supply. Because the

send out of natural gas and other hard demands are identical for all LNG unloading concepts,

these secondary criteria are excluded for comparison.

Transport capacity describes the accessibility of each regasification terminal for all LNGC

classes, required time for (un)berthing and unloading, and berth occupancy.

Safety is composed of regulatory components, hazard containment, port management and

risk management. Regulatory components are obligatory for all concepts, so there is little

difference regarding this criterion. More relevant differences are seen in the hazard

containment and management of risks or ports.

Financial aspects are included in the MCA via economic feasibility and economical lifespan of

the project. Also additional value created for an LNG unloading concept that has potential to

be an international import/export hub in the region.

Sustainability is divided in synergies, energy efficiency, durability, environmental integration

with corresponding consequences and last social integration with consequences.

Technicality includes the secondary criteria regarding the technical feasibility of the LNG

unloading concept, such as the construction site, construction time, construction method,

feasibility, expandability, and re-usability/flexibility.

Operability is determined by secondary criteria considering the unloading capacity, available

storage, potential downtime, required maintenance and stability of LNGC during berthing-

(un)loading cycle .

S. Quirijns

52

Weight factors 7.1.2

Ideology of the MCA is that criteria are compared for mutual dependency. If two criteria are

fully dependable than the value is one and if there is no dependency than the score is zero. The

determined weight factors are shown in table 20. A more detailed list of tables including the

determination of the weight factors per concept is included in Appendix 13.12.1.

Table 20 Weight factors

Primary criteria Short term

Weight factor

Long term

Weight factor

Functionality 0.14 0.11

Transport Capacity

0.11 0.09

Safety aspects 0.14 0.11 Financial aspects 0.11 0.17

Sustainability 0.14 0.23

Technicality 0.18 0.14 Operability 0.18 0.14

Check 1.00 1.00

The weight factors reflect the scope of this feasibility study. To verify long term planning for

the sensitivity of the sustainability and financial aspects criteria, therefore the associated scores are

doubled. Although, this is not clearly visible in the weight factors in table 20. By adjusting the

sensitivity for sustainability and financial aspects it is possible to compare short term value with long

term value per LNG unloading concept.

Results 7.1.3

The MCA is applied to identify the differences in the results based upon the primary factors.

Table 21 shows the three concepts with corresponding scores per primary criteria, and total scores for

the short and long term value. Due to doubling of two factors in the sensitivity analyses, it seems that

a distortion is formed for the remaining factors. However this does not influence the results, because

the distortion is similar for all concepts.

Table 21 results of the MCA

Short term weight

factors

Long term Weight

factors

Conventional

terminal FSRU GBS

Short Long Short Long Short Long

Functionality 0.14 0.11 1.12 0.91 0.84 0.69 0.84 0.69

Transport Capacity

0.11 0.09 1.43 1.11 1.21 0.94 1.43 1.11

Safety aspects 0.14 0.11 1.26 1.03 2.10 1.71 1.54 1.26

Financial aspects 0.11 0.17 1.65 2.57 0.99 1.54 0.99 1.54

Sustainability 0.14 0.23 2.38 3.89 2.38 3.89 1.54 2.51

Technicality 0.18 0.14 3.24 2.57 5.04 4.00 1.44 1.14

Operability 0.18 0.14 3.78 3.00 2.70 2.14 3.42 2.71

Total 1.00 1.00 14.86 15.09 15.26 14.91 11.20 10.97

In the results of the MCA it is acknowledged that the FSRU obtained the highest score for

short term planning. Regarding the long term planning highest score is for the Conventional terminal.

The FSRU scored equal or higher compared to the others for a technicality, safety and sustainability.

Since sustainability and financial aspects are valued higher, the highest score is now realised

by the Conventional Terminal compared to the resulting concepts. The largest differences between

the concepts are in the factors financial aspects, operability, and functionality.

S. Quirijns

53

7.2 Cost benefit analysis

Since this feasibility study is a preliminary design, the cost benefit analysis is performed

quantitatively. The data are based upon reference cases for LNG projects with short term or long term

value, which are treated in the literature report (Ch.4.3). Short and long term value is expressed in

the cost benefit analysis as benefits and estimated total costs. Total costs are explained as capital

expenditure4 (CAPEX), and operational expenditure4 (OPEX), and life cycle costs. However, within this

analysis the life cycle costs are included within the OPEX. Table 23 shows the short term values of the

concepts. The benefit weight factors are valued [1 3 5], which are based upon the relevance for the

project. ‘Benefit weight factors’ and ‘expected change in total costs’ are fictional guesstimated values,

purely applied for indication of the expected effect.

Table 22 Short term costs and benefits

Benefits effect Conventional terminal

FSRU GBS Expected change in

total costs [%]

Benefit weight

factor [1 to 5]

Experience Reduced CAPEX 1 1 0 -20% 5

Sheltered

berthing

Increased operability 0 0 1 0% 3

Mobility Increased

sustainability

0 1 0 0% 5

Quick

installation

Reduced CAPEX 0 1 0 -5% 5

Easy

fabrication

Reduced CAPEX 0 1 0 -5% 3

Energy

efficient

Reduced OPEX &

increased Sustainability

0 1 1 -15% 5

Peak shave

capacity

Increased operability

& functionality

1 0 1 0% 5

Social Integration

Increased sustainability & safety

0 1 1 0% 3

Environmental integration

Increased sustainability & safety

0 1 1 0% 3

Little to no

dredging

Reduced CAPEX 0 1 1 -10% 1

Implemented

SSLNG

Distribution within design

Increased operability,

functionality &

financial value

0 1 1 0% 5

Total Benefits 23% 81% 58% 43

Reference Total cost

[$]

8.93E+08 1.28E+08 1.00E+09

Expected relative cost 89% 13% 100%

Relative change in cost w.r.t. initial cost

[CAPEX + OPEX]

-20% -55% -25%

Estimated cost

compared to initial 100%

71.1% 5.7% 75.0%

Estimated total cost [$]

7.14E+08 5.76E+07 7.53E+08

4 See List of Terms

S. Quirijns

54

Table 22 shows that for planning an LNG terminal for 25 yrs. or less, the FSRU has the lowest

Cost-Benefit ratio. The lowest investment costs, yet also the most short term value for a good

constructability expressed in a short construction period, no difficult construction and many

experienced construction workers. Ideology behind the made motivations are included in Appendix

13.12.2. Table 23 shows the long term value of the concepts. The benefit weight factors are valued [1

3 5], which are based upon the relevance for the project. ‘Benefit weight factors’ and ‘expected

change in total costs’ are fictional guesstimated values, purely applied for indication of the expected

effect.

Table 23 Long term Cost Benefit Analysis

Benefits Effect Conventional terminal

FSRU GBS Additional investment

costs [%]

Benefit weight

factor [1 to 5]

Long technical

lifespan

Increased

functionality

1 0 1 0% 3

Expandability of storage

Increased functionality

1 0 0 25% 3

Large scale Import-Export

hub

Increased Financial Aspects

1 0 1 20% 5

Synergy

opportunities

Increased

Sustainability

1 0 0 5% 5

Re-usabilty Increased Financial aspects and

sustainability

0 1 0 0% 5

Expandability of

Regasification

capacity

Increased

operability

1 0 1 10% 3

Expandability

number of berths

Increased

operability

1 0 0 15% 3

Benefits 81% 19% 41% 27

Reference Total cost [$]

8.93E+08 1.28E+08 1.00E+09

Expected relative cost

89% 13% 100%

Relative change in

cost w.r.t. initial cost [CAPEX +

OPEX]

75% 0% 30%

Estimated cost compared to initial

100%

151.1% 12.7% 130.0%

Estimated total cost [$]

1.56E+09 1.28E+08 1.31E+09

The results of the long term cost benefit analysis show that for increased investment more

additional value can be realized with the Conventional Terminal for an economical and technical

lifespan more than 25 years. The Conventional Terminal excels in additional value raised for

sustainability by generation of power and providing a continuous inflow of cooled intermediate fluid

for the Odessa Chemical Plant. Financial value is raised via ability to become an international import

and export hub, also the generated power and intermediate cooled side products can be sold.

S. Quirijns

55

7.3 Conclusion

For short term planning the FSRU distinguished itself by having the highest score for the MCA

and the lowest ratio for the Cost Benefit Analysis with many benefits that reduced the estimated total

costs of the project. Key factors for the selection of the FSRU are an excellent constructability, and

sustainability. Sustainability is described within the sub-questions as People, Planet and Profit.

Regarding the FSRU the offshore location increases safety for atypical hazards, its energy efficiency

reduces the required fuel and limits the emissions, and last Profit is expressed as the quick installation

and easy decommissioning of the FSRU when the economical lifespan is exceeded.

When long term planning is considered, the conventional terminal provides the most value.

The requirements for long term planning are that technical and economical lifespan of the project

exceeds 25 years. Long term economical and sustainable value is realised for the Conventional

terminal, because the terminal has sufficient space to expand and become an international

import/export hub of NG for the region. Sustainable profit is realised with power generation, and

engaging local synergies with the Odessa Port plant. Requirements for expandability of the terminal

are that the port is accessible for all types of terminals, and provides additional space to allocate

additional berths, storage tanks and increase the regasification output. Within terminal location three

all these aspects are available.

The GBS is not technically feasible for the weak soil conditions. Construction would have been

possible by applying piles and transport of caissons is limited by horizontal and vertical stability

provided by the buoyancy of the caissons. So the GBS is realizable, but this would result in a

significant cost escalation of the project, which is not balanced by a similar increase for short or long

term value.

Since the functional requirements, in chapter 5.2, indicate a preference for short term

planning expressed as a quick solution and low total costs, the FSRU is selected to elaborate further.

As a result of the MCA and Cost-benefit analysis, the FSRU proved to be most in line with the

Ukrainian preferences. The FSRU scored better than other concepts for constructability and energy

efficiency. The offshore location provides additional safety for atypical hazards, also the NIMBY effect

is decreased for the local population.

S. Quirijns

56

8 Preliminary design of FSRU

concept Within this section the preliminary design of the FSRU concept is further elaborated. Appendix

13.13.1 includes the necessary parameters for the selected design FSRU, which is the ‘Golar Igloo’.

During the preliminary design of the mooring structure the Ultimate limit state (ULS) environmental

boundary conditions are applied, which are determined in the Ch5.4. The applied methodology of the

preliminary design is: introduction about mooring structures, setup of the adjusted reference system

and coordinates, berthing energy carrier hydrodynamics, technical feasibility of mooring structures,

project realisation/constructability of mooring structures, terminal operability.

After a reference study for existing types of mooring structures applied at FSRU terminal, four

types of mooring structures are selected for their performance to maintain stability of the moored

carriers (Poldervaart & Ellis, 2007) & (Bluewater, 2015). These structures are applied with either a

Side-by-Side (SBS) mooring layout or Head-to-stern (HTS) mooring layout or both. Table 24 shows

the potential mooring structures in combination with layouts that are verified for technical feasibility.

Single Point Mooring and Tower Yoke Mooring structure allow weathervaning of the moored carriers

around the centre of gravity of the structure. Due to weathervaning of the moored carriers, the

transverse forces and yawing momentum on the moored carriers are reduced.

Table 24 Possible combinations for mooring structures and mooring layout

index Type of mooring structure Mooring layout Fixed positioning

1 Single Point Mooring (SPM) SBS & HTS Semi

2 Fixed Side-by-Side mooring structure (FSBS) SBS Yes

3 Centre Loading Platform SBS Yes

4 Tower Yoke Mooring Structure (TYMS) SBS & HTS Semi

Mooring structure types and mooring layouts are treated more specific further in this chapter.

The environmental forces cause dynamic behaviour of the moored carriers. The hydrodynamics of

moored carriers are applied to calculate the environmental forces of the moored carriers. These

environmental forces working on the moored carriers are expressed in dominant load cases in

longitudinal force (X), transverse force (Y), and momentum. The reference system for these

environmental forces is shown in figure 25. Subsequently the ULS load cases are applied to determine

the dimensions and technical feasibility of the mooring structure.

Figure 24 Possible FSRU terminal mooring structures adapted from The transfer of LNG in offshore

conditions, retrieved July 2015 from Leender Poldervaart James Ellis Single Point Moorings © 2007, NTNU, reprinted with permission

Figure 24 shows the potential mooring structures. Mooring structure Fixes Side-By-Side is not

clearly shown, but for this structure the carriers are moored SBS on the same side of the mooring

structure and without central platform.

S. Quirijns

57

8.1 Setup of preliminary study

Mooring layouts

Moored carriers have two possible layouts, which are either the Side-by-Side layout or the

Head-to-Stern layout. When the FSRU and LNGC are moored parallel in transverse direction with

mooring lines, this is expressed as the SBS mooring layout. For the protection of the hull of both

carriers, floatable fenders are applied between the two carriers.

HTS layout is defined as parallel mooring of the FSRU and LNGC in longitudinal direction.

Since HTS layout is limited to the semi fixed moored carriers that are allowed to weathervane, limited

movement is realised with mooring lines between the HTS moored carriers.

For both mooring layouts it is assumed that the carriers are moored infinitely stiff, and are

considered as a single carrier. This single carrier’s dimensions are based upon the dimensions of the

FSRU or LNGC with dominant parameters determined by the largest values per carrier. Mostly the

dimensions of the LNGC are dominant compared with the dimensions of the FSRU. Appendix 13.13.1

contains a table for the dimensions for all single and combined carriers.

Coordinate and reference systems.

Figure 25 (Appendix 13.1.5 shows an enlarged version of this figure) shows the fixed

reference system applied during calculations. All applied parameters in a positive direction are

indicated as such in figure 25. From now on the moored FSRU and LNGC are referred to as combined

carriers.

Figure 25 Carrier’s reference coordinate system

For the mooring structures that provide a fixed positioning for the moored carriers, the

orientation of the carrier is 70° to the north. Because of the new orientation, an adjusted coordinate

system is applied. Figure 26 shows this new orientation. The blue line indicates the longitudinal

centreline of the carrier, in which WSW is stern side and ENE is bow side.

The initial wind and wave directions are transformed to adjusted angles of attack with respect

to the new reference centreline. The environmental boundary conditions show that the new adjusted

angle of wave attack is now perpendicular to the longitudinal centreline. Dominant angle of wind

attack is to the Northeast and in the range of West-Northwest to North-Northwest. These adjusted

angles of wind attack are applied in table 28.

S. Quirijns

58

Figure 26 Initial coordinates system in combination with new reference centreline

Because HTS moored carriers always are in line with the dominant environmental force figure

25 is the reference system. Angle of wind attack is than always in the range [0° to 180°] in absolute

form.

8.2 Berthing energy and fenders

Very large LNGC have a great mass resulting in difficult situations for berthing. The procedure

is that a carrier is brought alongside the berth with no forward speed and then pushed toward the

berth via bow thrusters or use of tugs. A spreadsheet supplied by ‘Witteveen + Bos’ is applied to

calculate the berthing energy of the carriers. Table 25 shows the results of this spreadsheet. Appendix

13.13.3 contains the required input list and berthing energy formula.

Table 25 Berthing energy of the LNGC

Output Unit LC Qmax SSLNG FSRU

Normal Energy [kNm] 912 1062 428 961

Load factor - 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25

Abnormal Energy

[kNm] 1140.0 1327.5 535.0 1201

The ULS berthing energy is determined for similar berthing conditions of the LNGC. The Qmax

class carrier has the largest berthing energy. The berthing energy is absorbed by fenders, which

causes reaction energy. These fenders can be floating alongside the FSRU or the fender is fixed to a

breasting dolphin for more horizontal stability. For LNG carriers the maximum hull pressure is equal to

200 kN/m2. A guide by ‘Trelleborg’ provides a process tree for selecting fender products:

1) Ship-to-Ship Transfer

a) Foam Seacushion®

b) Pneumatic fender

2) Dock fender

a) Pressure hull limit below 300kN/m2

i) Breasting Dolphin

(1) SCK Cell Fender

(2) Super Cone fender

00.20.40.60.8

1N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSES

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

New coordinate system

Adjusted

longitudinalcentreline of LNGC

and FSRU

S. Quirijns

59

The fenders are selected for abnormal berthing energy of Qmax class carriers that is equal to

the 60% absorbable energy of the fender, and the maximum allowable hull pressure of 200kN/m2 for

LNG carriers. Reaction force differs per fender, for the Seacushion® and the Super Cone fender this is

equal to 97% or 100%, respectively. Figure 27 shows the force-deflection and energy-absorption

curves for both fenders. Fender characteristics are compared for energy absorption, deflection and

reaction force, which are shown in table 26. Additional information about the selection process of the

fender types is given at (Trelleborg, 2015).

Table 26 Characteristics of applied fenders for design carrier Qmax class

Mooring

structure

Layout Fender type Size

(OD x L) [mm]

Diameter

[m]

60%

Absorbable Energy [kNm]

Reaction force

in transverse (Y) direction

[kN]

SPM SBS Foam Seacushion®

3.3 x 4.5 3.8 1367 -1850.8

Fixed Side By Side

SBS 1 Foam Seacushion®

2 Super Cone fender

.. .. .. ..

Center loading platform

SBS Super Cone fender

Appendix 13.13.3

1330 -1916

Tower Yoke SBS Foam Seacushion®

3.3 x 4.5 3.8 1367 -1850.8

The relations between deflection, absorption energy and reaction force are shown with a

tolerance of the fender performance for a 15% tolerance for the Seacushion® fenders applied in

between the side by side moored carrier, are shown in the left side of figure 27. Right side of figure

27 shows these relations for the Super Cone fender with a 10% tolerance in fender performance.

Figure 27 Performance graphs for the interaction of the Seacushion® (left) and SuperCone Fender (right), adapted from Floating fenders retrieved July 2015 from Trelleborg Marine Fenders © 2015, Trelleborg Marine Fenders systems, reprinted with permission

Figures 28 & 29 show the applied fender types for the side-by-side mooring layout or for the

fenders constructed on breasting dolphins. Because the HTS mooring layout positions the carriers in

line, this type of mooring layout does not apply any fenders, but during berthing additional tugs and

dynamic positioning system is applied. Dynamic positioning is a system within carriers that minimizes

movement.

S. Quirijns

60

Figure 28 Foam Fender SeaCushion® adapted from Floating Fenders, retrieved July 2015 from Trelleborg Marine Fender Systems © 2015, Trelleborg, reprinted with permission

Note: “Text right in figure 28 states “Fender to Fender Mooring and other variations possible”.

Figure 29 Super Cone Fender adapted from Fender System v1-2, retrieved July 2015 from Trelleborg Marine Fender Systems © 2015, Trelleborg, reprinted with permission

Both fender types are advised by ‘Trelleborg’ as best operational fit for application at LNG

terminal and carriers, with a low hull pressure and high energy absorbance. The fenders are selected

for the berthing energy of a Qmax class carrier that is equal to the 60% absorbable energy by the

fender. This deflection of the fender causes a horizontal reaction force into the breasting dolphin.

Subsequently, the reaction force induces a horizontal displacement on the head of the breasting

dolphin.

Normally the berthing energy is absorbed by the interaction between the displacement of the

fender and displacement of the breasting dolphin, but for a first approximation this effect is included

as the reaction force on top of the breasting dolphin that causes a maximum horizontal deflection for

the infinitely stiff monopile.

When the horizontal displacement increases, the interaction between monopile and soil

actually reduces the load. However this interaction with the soil causes a diminishing of the soil

stability for an increasing load frequency, which was a limitation in D-Piles. In the D-Piles calculations

the monopiles are tested for multiple failure mechanisms, such as soil instability and buckling.

Reference is made towards chapter 8.4, and Appendix 13.13.3 that includes the study into the

technical feasibility of the mooring structures with corresponding graphs for displacements,

momentum, and shear force within the monopiles.

S. Quirijns

61

8.3 Carrier hydrodynamics

A study about the hydrodynamics is included in the main report. Appendix 13.13.4 contains

quasi-static calculations of the environmental forces. An exemplary calculation of the acting forces on

a single Qmax class carrier is included within Appendix 13.13.5. Applied guidelines for quasi static

calculations are issued by (Oil Companies International Marine Forum, 2008) and by (Goda &

Yoshimura, 1972) for wave forcing, and the book written by (Ligteringen & Velsink, 2012).

Motions 8.3.1

As mentioned in chapter 8.1 the carrier’s hydrodynamics depend on the carrier’s dimensions

and forcing by waves, wind and currents. Figure 30 shows the carrier’s response in six motions of

freedom.

Figure 30 Six motions of freedom

The carrier hydrodynamics of the moored carriers are verified for all motions:

Maximum pitch moment is forced by waves that come in at bow or aft direction. Since

the waves come in perpendicular to the longitudinal centreline for the moored carriers

with fixed positioning, no pitching is expected to occur. For the moored carriers that

are allowed to weathervane the waves come in at the bow, pitching occurs for

wavelengths longer than two times the ship’s length. Since the waves are short

compared to ship’s length, thus no to little pitching is expected.

The Eigen period or natural period of a carrier for roll depends on its size, metacentric

height and mass distribution. It is verified in Figure 31, that occurring wave periods

are not close to the natural period in order to avoid resonance. Largest occurring

wave periods are in the range of 5-7 seconds. While in comparison a roll period of

10000 t tanker is in the range of 7-8 seconds. Since the design carriers are in the

range of 90000-125000t, only little rolling is expected.

Figure 31 Graph of wave heigth versus wave period at terminal location six

S. Quirijns

62

Heaving of a carrier is caused by the vertical force induced by waves. When the

wavelength is equal to the carrier’s length, than the resultant vertical force is zero.

However, if the wave period increases, thus the wave length, than incident force and

heave response also increase. Similarly for a decreasing wave period, the heave

response will decrease. In figure 32, it is shown that the maximum occurring

wavelength is approximately 70m, which is approximately 1/4th of the smallest design

carrier’s (FSRU) length.

Figure 32 Graph of wave height versus wavelength at terminal location six

The remaining motions surge, sway and yaw are applied to calculate the reaction forces in

mooring lines and fenders. Moored Very large LNGC are sensitive for second-order or sub-harmonic

wave forces, due to high resonance periods for surge and yaw of the system. Non-linear

computational models are required to model the carrier’s motions and second-order wave forces. Yet,

a first empirical estimate of wave, current, and wind forces on a moored carrier is based upon model

tests and simplified computer tests, is done to construct a preliminary design of the mooring

structure. A rule of thumb for side-by-side moored carriers, that are perpendicular to the angle of

wave attack, to estimate resonance that occurs for second order wave responses, in which half a

wavelength must be smaller than the distance between the carriers to avoid resonance. Figure 32

shows boxplots for the original and one-half of wavelength. So a safe assessment of the applied

distance between SBS moored carriers is in the range of 16 to 22 m.

Figure 33 Boxplot of wavelengths at terminal location six

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

L0

0,5*L0

Wave length [m]

Boxplot of wave length at terminal location six

S. Quirijns

63

Environmental forces on moored carriers 8.3.2

As mentioned earlier the forces on the moored carriers are calculated for the ULS

environmental boundary conditions. Wave force is calculated by taking the average of the twenty

highest waves. Wind force is calculated for a maximum wind velocity that has occurred at least once

for a return period of 50 years. Current force is similarly calculated for the maximum onshore current

velocity. Reference is made towards the environmental boundary conditions study in Appendix

Ch.13.13.4.

Table 27 Sum of all forces working on combinations of moored carriers without safety factors

Fully loaded Ballasted tanker

Reference wind directions NE NNW NW WNW NE NNW NW WNW

Mooring layout/ Description

Adjusted angle of wind attack [°]

25 92.5 115 137.5 25 92.5 115 137.5

SBS/ Golar Igloo & LC Perpendicular to Dominant wave angle of attack

Fx [kN] 264.1 13.8 -109.5 -221.5 239.5 15.4 -22.0 -96.7

Fy [kN] 1744.3 2220.7 2161.1 1982.5 1524.3 2298.5 2238.9 2000.7

Fxy [kN] 1764.2 2220.7 2163.9 1994.8 1543.0 2298.5 2239.0 2003.1

Mxy [kNm] -46564.2 -39775.6 -32987.0 -19409.8 -45320.8 -14772.1 15776.6 19170.9

SBS/ Golar Igloo & Qmax

Perpendicular to Dominant wave angle of attack

Fx [kN] 445.1 22.0 -186.4 -375.9 392.5 13.6 -49.6 -175.9

Fy [kN] 2270.9 3136.3 3028.2 2703.6 2013.9 3420.2 3312.0 2879.3

Fxy [kN] 2314.1 3136.4 3033.9 2729.6 2051.8 3420.3 3312.4 2884.7

Mxy [kNm] -96100.7 -81691.1 -67281.5 -38462.3 -93901.4 -29058.2 35785.0 42989.8

Adjusted angle of wind attack [°]

0 90 180 0 90 180

SBS / Golar Igloo & Qmax Parallel to Dominant wave angle of attack

Fx [kN] 173.43 -268.64 -900.18 204.27 -269.38 -806.19

Fy [kN] 292.89 1807.41 292.89 89.71 2145.13 89.71

Fxy [kN] 340.39 1827.27 946.63 223.10 2161.98 811.17

Mxy [kNm] -2438.3 -81691.1 -2438.3 -597.4 -29416.6 -597.4

HTS/ Golar Igloo & Qmax Parallel to Dominant wave angle of attack

Fx [kN] 186.79 -57.89 -407.45 206.16 -56.00 -353.12

Fy [kN] 540.0 3332.6 540.0 165.4 3955.3 165.4

Fxy [kN] 571.44 3333.09 676.51 264.32 3955.68 389.94

Mxy [kNm] -8289.7 -277730.2 -8289.7 -2031.2 -100009.5 -2031.2

Table 27 shows the sum of the environmental forces in longitudinal (X) direction, lateral(Y)

direction and rotating (XY) component, which are indicated in the reference orientation within figure

25. The environmental study showed that wave force is dominant over the wind or current forces. The

SBS mooring layout is applied for moored carriers that either have a fixed or semi fixed positioning. A

requirement for the HTS mooring layout is that it is only relevant when the carriers are allowed to

weathervane. For the moored carriers that are fixed, it is easy to determine the adjusted wind angles

for the largest wind vectors. Considering the semi fixed carriers, it is more difficult to assess these

angles of wind attack because the orientation is ever-changing. However, it is known that the absolute

value of the angle of wind attack is in the range of 0° to 180° with a maximum value for 90°. Yet the

latter maximum load for the HTS layout will never be reached for the wind will not blow evenly

against the longitudinal area of the HTS moored carriers. Because the carrier dimensions differ,

individual carrier responses are not the same.

S. Quirijns

64

For the SPM structure and the Tower Yoke Mooring structure, the dominancy of the

environmental conditions is explained as such: During storm conditions wind vectors change to the

northeast. Due to the dominant wind force, the semi fixed moored carriers start to rotate along to

become parallel with the wind. Simultaneously the wave angle of attack increases, which results in a

larger length over which the waves ‘work’ thus wave force becomes dominant once again over wind

force. So during storms conditions the wave force responds to the wind force and becomes dominant

again.

8.4 Technical feasibility of mooring structures

A construction plan is made, which includes technical feasibility of the mooring layout and

structure, construction method, and operational limits. Reference is made towards guidelines by (Oil

Companies International Marine Forum, 2008) and (The British Standards Institution, 2014). In this

section only the results are shown, additional information about motivations is covered within

Appendix 14.13.6.

The mooring structures are verified for technical feasibility considering the factors stability,

mooring lines and soil stability. Forces are based upon ULS loads induced by environmental conditions

and berthing conditions. The seismologic analysis showed little activity, but this was negligible small

compared to the resulting environmental forces. Therefore seismologic force is included within the

quasi static safety factors applied to compute the dominant quasi static load cases. The semi fixed

positioning of the moored carriers at the SPM structure and Tower Yoke mooring structure, the wind

induced yawing momentum determines the angles of attack for waves and wind. Because these

conditions require second order differentials, which can be solved with computational modelling, but

this is outside the scope of the current study. Therefore the dimensions of these mooring structures

are computed with quasi-static calculations for ULS load cases.

Table 28 Soil characteristics at Yuzhny described with NEN 9997-1+C1 © 2012, Nederlandse Normalisatie Instituut

Layer description Layer level w.r.t. MSL [m]

Water +1 to -18

Weak Clean Clay -18 to -27 Moderate Clean Clay -27 to -35

Clayish Sand -35 and lower

Soil and monopile stability are computed with the program D-Piles by ‘Deltares’ for all mooring

structures and associated dominant load cases (LC). Subsequently an iterative process is started for

verifying the failure mechanisms with unity checks for soil instability, buckling and internal shear

strength. The latter process is done via a confidential spreadsheet supplied by the geological

department of ‘Witteveen + Bos’. Input per load case is enlisted with a set of tables in Appendix

13.13.6. Soil characteristics are defined with (Nederlandse Normalisatie Instituut, 2012) as shown in

table 28. Additional soil information is copyright protected, but are included within the calculations.

An additional load on the monopiles is the pressure by waves and current that force against

the monopile below MSL. Above MSL the wind force induces a pressure on the monopile. Because the

monopiles of the other mooring structure are too slender for a relevant wind force, thus wind force is

only included for dimensioning of the Tower Yoke Mooring Structure.

The wave and current force on the monopile depends on the slenderness of the structure.

Morrison’s equation (See Appendix I.6) is valid for slender piles (Lwave/Diameter pile>5). ‘Mc Camy and

Fuchs’ is valid for large volume structures (Lwave/D<5). Morrison’s is applied for mooring structure SBS

and Central Platform. ‘Mc Camy and Fuchs’ (see Appendix 13.13.6) is applied for Tower Yoke mooring

structure (USFOS, 2010).

S. Quirijns

65

Single Point Mooring structure 8.4.1

The SPM structure consists of an FSRU that serves as a mooring point and interconnect LNGC

to unload LNG. The FSRU contains an on-board pump to transfer the LNG to shore. At shore the NG is

measured and pumped into the pipeline distribution grid. The SPM exists of four main parts: FSRU as

single mooring point, mooring and anchoring elements, NG transfer hose. Horizontal movement of the

FSRU is limited by the mooring and anchoring elements. Therefore the positioning of the moored

carriers is semi fixed, and the moored carriers are able to weathervane in the primary environmental

force.

Layout of SPM

The NG hose is connected to the FSRU via an internal turret that is incorporated within the

design of the FSRU. The internal turret in combination with a single mooring chain allows the moored

carriers to fully rotate while being moored to the SPM. A schematic cross-section of the internal turret

is shown in Appendix 13.13.6. The mooring lines between the moored carriers are infinitely stiff, thus

the mooring carriers act as a single floating body. The hydrodynamics responses of the moored

carriers are sway, surge and yaw. The SPM with an SBS mooring layout is shown on the left side of

figure 34. A secondary mooring layout for the SPM is the HTS layout, which is shown on the right side

of figure 34. Appendix 13.13.6 includes the required input data for the quasi static calculations to

determine the ULS load cases on either of the moored carriers.

Figure 34 SPM structure with a Side-by-Side mooring layout (left) or with HTS mooring layout (right) adapted from Mooring Equipment Guidelines, retrieved July 2015

Figure 35 Schematic cross section of an FSRU moored at the SPM structure

A schematic overview of a cross-section of the FSRU is shown in figure 35. Within this figure

water level is indicated as MSL+1m, this consist of a local bathymetry of 18m + 1m design water level

for a 100 yr. return period. The mooring chain also includes an additional length of 0.92m for vertical

wave movements. The design water level has been determined in chapter 5.4.1.

S. Quirijns

66

Construction

For the basics of the technical feasibility of the SPM structure and product characteristics,

reference is made towards (Wichers, 2013). Hydrodynamics of the moored carriers, due to

environmental conditions, causes the moored carriers to move freely in horizontal lateral and

longitudinal directions. Vertical motions of the moored carriers have been treated in Ch.8.3. Due to

wind and current induced momentum, moored carriers start to yaw around their centre of gravity,

which results in ever-changing incoming angles of attack for wind, waves and currents. Regarding the

latter issue, it is proven that wave forces are dominant over wind forces and current forces. During

berthing the yaw momentum is increased or reduced by the momentum induced by berthing energy

of mooring LNG carriers. Because the FSRU is able to rotate 360° around the centre anchor point, the

yawing moment due to berthing LNGCs and environmental conditions is excluded from the quasi-static

computations.

Moored carriers’ hydrodynamics are limited by a mooring chain that contains two connections.

First connection is ship-to-chain, where the (un)loading hose is connected via an internal turret within

the FSRU. Second is the chain-to-anchor connection, this is where the anchor is fixed to the soil,

which is done with a dead weight (gravity anchor), drag anchors, piles or plate anchors. Table 29

shows the Maximum Load Conditions (MLC) of the applied chain for the Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

load cases by the moored carriers. The applied dominant load cases are:

1. SBS mooring layout for waves coming in perpendicular to the moored carriers for:

a. Large Conventional Sized carrier.

b. Qmax sized carrier.

2. SBS mooring layout for the Qmax sized carrier with waves coming in from head or

stern side (0° or 180°).

3. HTS mooring layout for the Qmax sized carrier with waves coming in from head or

stern side (0° or 180°).

The two load cases 1a and 1b are extraordinary conditions just for indication. Load cases 2

and 3 are based upon normal conditions where the moored carriers weathervane in the primary wave

force, which reduces the longitudinal force on the moored carriers.

Table 29 represents the quasi static computations for the design length of the single mooring

chain. Stiffness of the chain is verified for these loading conditions. A list of chain characteristics is

issued by (Wichers, 2013). From this list a chain is selected based upon breaking strength and

stiffness. Consequently the maximum horizontal displacement is determined.

Table 29 Results of SPM computations for the SPM Mooring structure

SBS HTS

Beam waves (90°) Head waves (180°)

Description Units GI& LC GI & Qmax GI & Qmax GI & Qmax

Force within chain W [kN] 4597.0 6840.5 1893.3 1003.6

Vertical force Fsoil [kN] 657.1 977.7 270.6 143.4

Horizontal force Fb,h [kN] 4549.8 6770.3 1873.8 993.3

Spring constant K [kN/m] 25026 36676 9169 6257

Stiffness EA [kN] 498400 730400 182600 124600 Diameter D [m] 0.076 0.092 0.046 0.038

length L [m] 19.92 19.92 19.92 19.92

Hor. displacement X [m] 2.71 2.73 2.88 2.53

Extended length L+ΔL [m] 20.10 20.10 20.12 20.08

Extension of wire ΔL [m] 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.16

S. Quirijns

67

For load cases 2 and 3 stability of the SPM can be maintained with two methods, first method

is applying drag anchors. It requires three drag anchors within the weak loam-clay layer to maintain a

stable and safe positioning. These drag anchors are the type ‘Stavmante VLA’ produced by ‘Vryhof

Anchors’. When the soil-soil connection within the clay layer is simplified into a cylindrical-shaped

volume with a depth of three meters and a radius 20m, the upper loam combined with clay layer is

stiff enough to take the force for normal conditions. When the moored carriers start yawing and

waves start to come in from more oblique to the moored carriers, the ULS is exceeded for these drag

anchors. In order to maintain safety of the carriers other measures are required, such as more strict

operational limits for environmental conditions or only allow Large Conventional class carriers.

The second method is to apply a single monopile, which provides more stability for the

occurring forces. Table 30 shows the loads and dimensions for a single subsea pile and associated

load cases. The monopile is fully driven into the seabed and the pile tip (50cm) is above seabed level.

The pile tip functions as a connection with the mooring chain. Applied dominant load cases are 1a, 2

and 3. In Appendix 13.13.6 is an exemplary figure of the schematic vertical cross-section of the

applied SPM monopiles for the extraordinary

Table 30 Monopile computational results for the ULS load cases

Single Point Mooring Structure

Beam waves (90°)

Head waves (180°)

Load cases for specific mooring

layout

LC1 SBS LC2 SBS LC3 HTS

Length L [m] 50 34 34

Diameter D [m] 3.5 2.5 2.5

wall thickness t [mm] 30 25 25

Young’s modulus E [kN/ m2] 2.10E+08 2.10E+08 2.10E+08

Flexural stiffness EI [kNm2] 1.03E+08 3.13E+07 3.13E+07

Longitudinal

stiffness

EA [kN] 6.87E+07 4.08E+07 4.08E+07

Vertical force Fv [kN] 977.7 270.6 143.4

Horizontal force Fh [kN] 6770.3 1873.8 993.3

First load case is an indication for extreme conditions and shows that it is possible to construct

an SPM structure that is stable for such extreme events.

Second and third load cases are more plausible conditions for realizing the SPM structure.

However a consideration is required regarding standard conditions, some relevant issues have been

simplified for the quasi-static calculations that will alter the results drastically. Due to weathervaning

of the SPM structure, waves come in parallel to the moored carriers. This induces 2nd order waves

responses between the two SBS moored carriers. Another relevant issue is the connection between

the two HTS moored carriers that is assumed to be infinitely stiff. There is a factor two to three with

respect to the individual yaw moments of the moored carriers for the same force. Therefore the

carriers will rotate with different rotational speeds, which results in issues for the mooring wires

between the carriers.

When the SPM is applied as mooring structure, the applied mooring layout should be the

Head-to-stern. This way the longitudinal force is reduced, and the risk of nonlinear wave responses

for waves coming in between the moored carriers is avoided. In addition, it is very unlikely that the

ULS load cases are exceeded for the next 50 years by the current metocean climate at the FSRU

terminal location, so a 24/7 operability is realized with a SPM structure in combination with a HTS

mooring layout.

S. Quirijns

68

Mooring structure Fixed Side by Side 8.4.2

Layout

Figure 36 shows the layout for the FSBS mooring structure. The FSBS structure is a four-point

mooring structure combined with four breasting dolphins. The positioning of the structure and moored

carriers are fixed, thus the dominant wave direction is also fixed. Seasonality is noticeable for wind

velocity and direction, which induces a maximum yawing moment. In this layout the moored carriers

are on a single side and perpendicular to the dominant wave force, which induces tension in the

breast lines. Due to the perpendicular incoming wave force two effects occur, first the nonlinear wave

responses are avoided. Second is the shielding effect, where the LNGC is shielded by the FSRU, this

diminishes the longitudinal force on the shielded LNG carrier, thus the tension in the breast lines in

between the Side-by-Side moored carriers is reduced. Because the moored carriers are modelled as a

single floating body, only the mooring lines from FSRU to mooring dolphin are computed. A range for

the width in between the moored carrier is to avoid resonance between the carriers, as determined in

Ch.8.3.

Figure 36 Left: FSBS mooring structure adapted from Mooring Equipment Guidelines, retrieved July

2015

Between the carriers are floating Seacushion® fenders and between FSRU and Breasting

dolphin are Super Cone fenders as mentioned in Ch.8.2. The berthing energy of a single LGNC is

directly transferred towards the breasting dolphin. In principle the FSRU never leaves the mooring

structure.

S. Quirijns

69

Construction

In figure 36 shows the mooring layout of the Fixed Side by Side mooring structure, and in

figure 37 shows the maximum angles for mooring and spring lines in transverse, longitudinal direction

and vertical angle. Mooring and spring lines are applied to stabilize the moored carriers.

Figure 37 Generic mooring conditions adapted from Mooring Equipment Guidelines, retrieved July 2015

from OCIMF © 2008, OCIMF, reprinted with permission

Within these mooring lines the maximum allowed tension determines the size of the wires.

These maximum values are described within guidelines for design of mooring structures, so reference

is made towards (Oil Companies International Marine Forum, 2008) and (The British Standards

Institution, 2014). Maximum Load Condition is described as 55% of the Minimum Break Load (MBL).

This is the maximum applicable tension in mooring lines. Stability of the moored carrier is maintained

with mooring lines and unloading arms between the FSRU and LNGC. As mentioned in the boundary

limits that the mooring lines are infinitely stiff, thus the hydrodynamic response of the moored carriers

is similar to the response of a single carrier.

The British Standard 6349-4 describes the ‘Simple shared Loads method’ as, that longitudinal

force is assumed to be resisted by the spring line mooring points. Transverse load is taken by in this

case four mooring points, than the total force per mooring point is one-half of the transverse force on

the mooring vessel. Because of the over-dimensioning of the total force per wire, the maximum

yawing moment and berthing energy are contained within the maximum limits for tension and

deflection of the breasting dolphins. Maximum distance between mooring dolphins along the FSRU is

taken as a quart of the FRSU’s length.

Since the moored carriers are on a single side of the mooring dolphins, the transverse

environmental force is taken solely by the four mooring dolphins. Similarly the force in longitudinal

directions is taken by the spring lines. Berthing energy of LNGC is transferred as a reaction force via

the Seacushion® fenders alongside the FSRU into the one of the four breasting dolphins fitted with

Super Cone Fenders on the opposite side of the FSRU, also causing shear force in longitudinal

direction because of sliding of the normal force along the fender.

S. Quirijns

70

For the quasi-static calculations of the mooring dimensions two ULS load cases are

considered. These load cases are:

1. During north-eastern storm conditions for a maximum longitudinal force on the

moored carriers.

2. Parallel wind and wave force directions for a maximum transverse force on the

moored carriers.

These forces are shown in tables 102, 103 and 104 within Appendix 13.13.6. In table 31 the

end results regarding material selection are shown. In this table the safety factor is determined by the

applied material. Safe Working Load (SWL) is described as a load less than the yield or failure load by

a safety factor by a code, standard or good engineering practice.

Table 31 Material selection for wires within mooring structure SBS

Design loads Characteristics of selected material

Safety

Factor

SWL

[kN]

MBL

[kN]

0,55*MBL

[kN]

Diameter

[mm]

Weight

[kg/100m]

MBL[kN]

Mooring Wire 1.82 1953.46 3555.31 1955.42 76 2400 3800

Mooring tail 2.5 1953.46 4883.66 2197.65

Spring line 2.22 86.60 192.26 105.74 193

Per breast line from FSRU to mooring dolphin, as shown in figure 37, a double steel wire rope

6x36class with a 1960 steel core is applied. Because the steel wire ropes can individually resist the

total load in case of failure of a single rope, the safety is increased. Regarding the mooring tail there

exists a standard for terminals with exposed berths, it states that a nylon tail length of 22 m is

required, which is considered as an 'Exposed Berth Standard'. For the spring lines, two higher strength

double breaded polyamide wires (reference (EN14685)) are applied with a similar motivation of the

double breast lines. Other design requirements for the structure are bollards and monopile calculation.

Regarding the mooring bollards the Pillar type is applied and for spring bollards this is the T-head

type, which is based upon on the loading conditions on the bollards.

Monopiles are applied for breasting dolphins and mooring dolphins. These are computed with

ULS load cases in horizontal and vertical directions. The computational results of the program ‘D-Piles’

by Deltares, are applied for dimensioning of the monopiles, and are shown in table 32. Reference is

made towards chapter 8.4.5, where the failure mechanisms are treated. These dimensions are based

upon the dominant load case and are applied for all monopiles assigned as mooring dolphins or

breasting dolphins, as is shown in the layout in figure 36.

Table 32 Results for dimensioning of the monopiles for Side-by-Side mooring structure.

Description Units Mooring

Dolphin

Breasting

dolphin

Length L [m] 58 60

Diameter D [m] 3.5 3.5

Wall thickness t [mm] 35 35

Young’s modulus E [kN/m2] 2.10E+08 2.10E+08

Flexural stiffness EI [kNm2] 1.20E+08 1.20E+08

Longitudinal stiffness

EA [kN] 8.00E+07 8.00E+07

Vertical load Fv [kN] 825.6 36.6

Horizontal load Fh [kN] -1841.6 2305.6

S. Quirijns

71

Central Loading Platform mooring structure 8.4.3

Layout

Central loading platform mooring structure is a six point mooring structure of which four

points are mooring dolphins and the resulting two breast lines are connected to the FSRU. The

mooring structure contains a central platform with four breasting dolphins on each side with Super

Cone fenders. The central platform in the middle is floating and has enough buoyancy to carry four

(un)loading arms, two a side. The inner set of breasting dolphins prevents horizontal movement of the

central platform. Figure 38 shows the layout of the mooring structure with a central loading platform.

Maximum angles applied for the mooring and spring lines are identical as shown in figure 35. The NG

is pumped via a hose from unloading platform to shore. Unloading arms on both sides and head/stern

lines maintain the stability of the carriers. Within the design the breasting dolphins are divided in two,

namely inner set and outer set. The inner set has a heart to heart distance of 0.4*LOA, Large Conventional

and for the outer set, this is equal to 0.4*Loa,Qmax.

Figure 38 Central loading platform mooring structure, adapted from Mooring Equipment Guidelines,

retrieved July 2015

Construction

Because of the loading platform, the forces on the mooring structure are calculated for forces

induced by individual carriers. For computations regarding the mooring structure, the forces induced

by single LNG carriers are included in Appendix 13.13.6. The shielding effect is in effect for the Central

loading Platform mooring structure. In the preliminary phase the shielding reduction factor is

unknown, therefore the breast lines connected to the LNGC are dimensioned for a zero shielding

effect.

S. Quirijns

72

Similar to the previous structure, the loading conditions are primary wave force, and a varying

wind vector. If these are aligned, than the combined force is the first load case for a maximum

transverse (Y) force. Second load case is for North-eastern storm conditions, which results in a

maximum longitudinal (X) directed force. Forces on the FSRU are by the longitudinal force of LNGC

pulling the FSRU and wave force that pressures the FSRU against the four breasting dolphins.

According to the ‘Simple Shared Method’ each breasting dolphin on the FSRU side takes up one-half of

the total transverse force. For the mooring dolphins the force per breast line is equal to one-third of

the total transverse force. Spring lines take up the longitudinal force. Appendix 13.13.6 contains the

intermediate steps and motivations and table 103 that shows the results of these computations.

Table 33 shows the material based safety factors for steel or synthetic. SWL is the load in the

wires, with corresponding MBL value. The mooring line is determined for its MBL, which is in this case

a double steel wire rope with steel core for breast lines. For the spring lines a double polyamide wire

(EN ISO 1140) is selected. Because the mooring lines can individually resist the total load in case of

failure of a single mooring line, the safety is increased. Dimensions of the mooring lines are based

upon the Qmax class carrier. So these mooring line dimensions are applied for all LNGC and FSRU.

Table 33 Material selection for wires within mooring structure Central Platform

Design Load Characteristics of selected material

Description Safety

factor

SWL[kN] MBL

[kN]

0,55*MBL Diameter

[mm]

Weight

[kg/100m]

MBL[kN]

Breast line 1.82 1302.31 2370.20 1303.61 60 1470 2510

Mooring

tail

2.5 1302.31 3255.77 1465.10

Spring line 2.22 48.20 107.00 58.85 112

Monopiles applied as breasting dolphins and mooring dolphins are computed for ULS load

cases in a horizontal plane and vertical plane. During berthing an additional longitudinal shear force

works on the breasting dolphin due to normal force of an incoming carrier sliding along the fender.

Monopile dimensions computed with the program ‘D-Piles’ are shown in table 34. The failure

mechanisms of the monopile are verified in chapter 8.4.5.

Table 34 Results for dimensioning of Central platform structure.

Description Units Mooring

Dolphin

Breasting

Dolphin LNGC

side

Breasting

dolphin FSRU side

Length L [m] 53 60 60

Diameter D [m] 3 3.75 3.75

Wall

thickness

t [mm] 30 40 40

Young’s modulus

E [kN/m2] 2.10E+08 2.10E+08 2.10E+08

Flexural stiffness

EI [kNm2] 6.48E+08 1.69E+08 1.69E+08

Longitudinal

stiffness

EA [kN] 5.88E+07 9.79E+07 9.79E+07

Vertical load Fv [kN] 551.5 20.4 10.4

Horizontal

load

Fh [kN] -1253.9 2234.4 2605.7

S. Quirijns

73

Tower Yoke Mooring Structure 8.4.4

Layout

Figure 39 shows the Tower Yoke Mooring structure with a HTS mooring layout. The rotating

head allows weathervaning of the moored carriers in the parallel direction of the dominant force.

Vertical motions of the moored FSRU are absorbed by the yoke that has a vertical workable range.

Because of this the only force is in longitudinal direction. Due to assumptions for the infinitely stiff

mooring lines in the HTS mooring layout, the carriers respond differently. Normally it would have

resulted in independent yawing of the carriers, but now the moored carriers act as a single very large

single carrier. However, this does not make a significant difference, because the primary force is

against the transverse area of the moored carriers. For the HTS mooring layout there is no berthing

force, because of tugs assistance and dynamic positioning. At the Tower Yoke Mooring structure the

SBS mooring layout can also be applied, but reduces the weathervaning effect compared to the HTS

layout. In Appendix 13.13.6 are the quasi static calculations for the Tower Yoke mooring structure in

combination with an SBS or HTS mooring layout.

Figure 39 Schematic layout of Tower Yoke Mooring Structure with HTS Layout, adapted from Mooring

Equipment Guidelines, retrieved July 2015

Dimensions of the tower and yoke are determined as:

height above MSL = (Fb,FSRU, ballasted - Fb,FSRU,fully loaded)+ Fb,FSRU,fully loaded= 18m

Design seabed level = 19m

length (Y) = 0.5*BFSRU = 21.7m

W (X) = 0.5*BFSRU = 21.7m

Thickness trusses and ribs of the main structure= 1m

Vyoke (L*B*H)= 10*21.7*1=217m3

Specific weight stainless steel = 8000 kg/m3

Figure 40 Schematic cross-section of the Tower Yoke mooring structure with HTS moored carriers

A schematic cross-section for the tower yoke mooring structure based upon the above

mentioned dimensions is shown in figure 40.

S. Quirijns

74

Construction

The Tower Yoke structure consists of a main structure and a jointed yoke. Over the total

height are three elevations with trusses, these trusses provide structural stability and prevent rotation.

The horizontal and vertical loads are divided over the eight foundation monopiles. A new coordinate

system that includes a longitudinal (X) axis and vertical (Z) axes is required. This can be done without

issues, because the yoke is able to rotate along with the yawing of the carriers. Forces acting on the

Tower Yoke mooring structure:

horizontal forces:

o horizontal force by carrier hydrodynamics

o wind load on Tower Yoke Structure above MSL

o wave and current load on the subsea part of the structure

vertical forces are:

o Weight of Yoke

o Weight of tower

Surface weight above MSL

Submerged weight below MSL

o Buoyancy force

The resultant vertical force is the submerged weight. Stability of the structure is maintained

with trusses and eight mono piles. Decisive factor in this case is the weight of the structure, a single

pile takes up at least one-eighth of the structure’s weight (=53500kN) plus varying loads by the other

forces. It is stated this is too much for the weak soil to carry, even for increased piling depths or

number of piles. Another option is to apply a different steel-sort or alloy with corrosion protections.

Pile displacements 8.4.5

Within this section the failure mechanisms of the soil conditions and monopiles for the ULS

load cases are verified. The included failure mechanisms are settlements and instability of the seabed

soil layers, where preloaded settlements, load frequency and fatigue of the soil layers are excluded.

Failure mechanisms that are included for the monopile are buckling for meridional stress and shear

stress, also the Eurocode verification for elasticity is included. Excluded from this assessment are

fatigue and corrosion of the monopile. Table 35 shows the displacement and the unity check for the

decisive failure mechanism of the monopiles. One of the results is that the Tower Yoke Mooring

Structure is not technically feasible, because the weight of structure exceeds the upward lifting force

provided by the monopile-soil combination. Therefore this mooring structure is not taken into further

consideration.

Table 35 results for monopile displacements, settlements and decisive buckling failure unity check computed with D-piles

Results D-Piles

computations

SPM Side by side Central Platform

LC1

SBS

LC2

SBS

LC3

HTS

LC1

MD

LC2

BD

LC1

MD

LC2

BD

LC3

BD

Horizontal displacement at MSL +2,5m [m]

NA NA NA 0.35 0.46 0.38 0.33 0.4

Horizontal displacement

at bed level MSL -18 m [m]

0.28 0.118 0.044 0.12 0.16 0.108 0.109 0.134

Vertical settlement at MSL +2,5[m]

NA NA NA 1.85E-3 8.47E-4 1.61E-3 4.00E-4 2.72E-4

Vertical settlement at MSL-18m [m]

1.52E-3 8.20E-4 4.20E-4 1.60E-3 7.28E-4 1.41E-3 3.50E-4 2.72E-4

S. Quirijns

75

Empty piles according to

Eurocode (EN1993-5, EN1993-1-1 and

EN1993-1-6)

0.87 0.35 0.15 0.4 0.51 0.42 0.37 0.44

The ‘Empty piles according to Eurocode’ selects the decisive unity check for the dominant

failure mechanism. The verified unity checks that are compared are for buckling strength, stresses

and elasticity by Eurocode (EN1993-1-1). For most cases the failure mechanism buckling due to

meridional stress is dominant. Graphs for occurring displacements, momentum and shear forces

working on the monopiles per concept and per load case are included within Appendix 13.1.6.

A small reminder is the applied design water level (≈19m) at MSL+1m, which is defined as

the local bathymetry (≈18m) and an additional design water level for a return period of 100 yrs.

(=1m), reference is made to Ch. 5.4.1. The average of the twenty highest wave heights results in a

design wave amplitude of 0.9m, thus maximum wave amplitude is defined at MSL+1.9m.

Consequently the pile head at MSL +2.5m is not exceeded by the wave height for at least the next 50

yrs.

Since the load cases are maximum values based upon the most unfavourable conditions, the

deflections in horizontal and vertical direction are maximum as well. Not including accidental loads, by

collisions or explosions. A consideration is for increasing the load frequency, than the stiffness of the

soil has been reduced, so the displacements of the seabed are described as quasi-permanent.

Because of this little recovery by the displaced loamy-clay soil, the maximum displacements for these

unfavourable conditions must be kept as low as possible. For the current Yuzhny case the mooring

structures SPM and central platform are for these criteria the most optimal mooring structures.

8.5 Project realization

The project preparation is divided into several phases:

1. Screening

2. Feasibility

a. Technical

b. Financial

3. Preparation

a. Permitting

b. Site options

c. Investments

d. Tariff regulations

4. EPC Tender

5. Basic Design

6. Engineering/Procurements/Construction

7. Pre-Commissioning

8. Commissioning

9. Operational

Phases are either independent or dependable on certain previous phases or milestones for

decision making. In this section construction phase 6 is treated. The mooring structures are compared

for construction time and applicable methods. Constructability is one of the sub questions issued in

Ch.1.3, the sub questions covered the existence of a universal approach and the decisive components

for feasibility. Answers to these questions are included within Appendix 13.2.3.

S. Quirijns

76

First intermediate process is site selection. At the onshore site, there is an area for the

combined measuring and pumping station and a storage area for equipment, personnel and

(pre)fabrication of main structure elements. At the offshore site the main mooring structure is

allocated. Gravity blocks are positioned from the SPM to shore to maintain a fixed position for the NG

hose to shore. Table 36 shows the intermediate steps of the construction phase and the amount of

time required to undertake the operation. Site preparation and fabrication actions can be started

simultaneously, except for the last two aspects.

Table 36 Details for construction phase

Construction

requirements

Description SPM FSBS Central

Platform

Tower Yoke

Mooring Structure

Site

preparation

Dredging of upper mud layer

[months]

0 2 2 2

Fabrication Ordering materials [months] 2 2 2 4

Prefab elements [months] 2 2 2 3

Ordering

tools/equipment/personnel

[months]

1 1 1 1

Prefab components of main

structure [moths]

1 1 2 6

Corrosive coating protection of

structure elements [months]

0 1 1 3

Constructability is described as a project management technique to review construction

processes from start to finish during pre-construction phase. It is to identify obstacles before a project

is actually built to reduce or prevent errors, delays, and cost escalation.

Already available within the port of Yuzhny are tug support and VTMS. Universal

constructability aspects for all mooring structures are:

1. The onshore construction for the measurement and booster station with

corresponding pipeline connection towards the hinterland.

2. The NG hose is connected to gravity based anchors, which are positioned on the

seabed from shore to the offshore site. Positioning is done with a vessel capable to

dump these anchors accurately. These gravity anchors are applied to safeguard the

position of the NG hose on the seabed.

3. The monopiles are driven through the weak loamy clay soil at MSL -18m into the

underlying stronger clay-sandy sediment soil layer that starts at MSL -35m. This is

realized with a monopile driving tool called the ‘VibroHammer’ or with the ‘Stabframe’

subsea pile driving machine. These two methods have been selected because of their

performances in reference cases. Monopile corrosion is prevented by closing the upper

side with a lid.

S. Quirijns

77

1. Orderable universal resources:

a. FSRU ‘Golar Igloo’ with integrated on-board pump and Waste heat recovery

Vaporizers, and unloading connection in the middle or at the head of the FSRU.

b. nylon mooring tail

c. NG unloading hose

d. gravity anchors

e. Natural gas measurement device

f. Booster pump

g. Resources to construct housing for measure and booster station

h. hazard measurement systems

2. Other resources:

a. material

b. tools

c. vessels able to dump gravity anchors

d. trained personnel

Constructability of the SPM structure

SPM specific resources are a single prefabricated monopile, two mooring lines for HTS moored

carriers, one LNG unloading hose, one mooring chain, and one anchor pile tip joint. These materials

are ordered locally or are delivered by container vessel oversea.

Construction methodology of the SPM with a single monopile anchor with a diameter of 2.5m

and a length of 34m is described next. The monopile is driven in to the seabed soil layer from MSL-

17.50m up to a depth of MSL-52.5 m, only an anchor joint (0.50m) remains above the seabed soil

level. This anchor joint serves as a connection for the mooring chain that is connected to the FSRU.

The monopile is driven to this depth below the water surface, thus the subsea pile driving machine

‘Stabframe’ is applied. The FSRU is connected via raising the NG hose into the internal turret. Other

safety devices are integrated within the design FSRU ‘Golar Igloo’.

The expected construction period is approximately 6 months after initiation. External factors

that cause delay are, for instance environmental conditions. These are discussed within the end of this

chapter.

Constructability of the FSBS mooring structure

FSBS specific resources are eight prefabricated monopiles, eight steel wire ropes for ship-to-

ship and eight steel wire ropes for ship-to-shore connection, four higher strength double breasted

polyamide wires, four Super Cone Fenders, six Seacushion® fenders, two T-Head bollards, four Pillar

bollards, and six walkways. These resources are ordered locally if possible, it will be delivered via a

container tanker.

Construction methodology for the FSBS mooring structure is described next. The

‘VibroHammer’ is applied to drive the monopiles into the ground, which is possible because the pile tip

of the monopile remains at MSL+2.5 m. Four of these monopiles are driven up to a depth of MSL-56.5

m, which is equal to 37.5m in to the seabed soil. These monopiles are constructed as breasting

dolphins with Super Cone fenders. On the outer set of breasting dolphins (h.t.h 0.4*Loa,FSRU) bollards

T-Heads are positioned. The resulting four monopiles are applied as mooring dolphins implemented

with pillar type bollards. The mooring dolphins are driven up to a depth of -58.5m MSL, which is

approximately equal to 39.5 m in to the sea bed soil. Between the monopiles walkways are

constructed.

S. Quirijns

78

Before the construction is finished, first the required safety measures are installed, such as

Quick Release Hooks, Emergency Shutdown Systems and measure systems. Subsequently the FSRU

berths on the mooring structure and is fixed via four sets of breast lines (8x Steel wire rope) with a

tethered mooring tail (Nylon Fibre 22m) and via two sets of spring lines (4x Polyamide High Strength

wire). Afterwards the NG hose is connected to the FSRU and at the opposite side of the FSRU the

floating SuperCushion® fenders are installed.

The construction phase is expected to be finished in 9 months. External factors that

potentially cause delay are for instance environmental conditions. These are discussed at the end of

this chapter.

Constructability of the Central loading platform mooring structure

Central loading platform specific resources are twelve prefabricated monopiles, four steel wire

ropes for the ship-to-ship connection and eight steel wire ropes for the ship-to-shore connection, eight

polyamide wires, eight SuperCone Fenders, four T-Head bollards, four Pillar bollards, eight walkways,

and four buoys, four corrosive protected steel beams, corrosive protected metal plates, four cryogenic

unloading arms and steel joints for the central platform. These resources are ordered locally if

possible, it will be delivered via a container tanker.

Construction methodology for the central Loading platform is treated next. The monopiles are

driven with the VibroHammer. Eight of the monopiles are applied as breasting dolphins with Super

Cone fenders. There are four breasting dolphins on each side. While the outer set of breasting

dolphins (h.t.h = h 0.4*Loa,Qmax) are implemented with T-Heads for the spring lines, the inner set of

breasting dolphins (h.t.h = h 0.4*Loa,Large Conventional) are used to hold the floating central platform. Only

allowable movement of the floating central platform is in the vertical direction. The central platform is

prefabricated with sufficient buoyancy to carry four cryogenic (un)loading arms (two on each side)

and an additional pump. Resulting monopiles are applied as mooring dolphins with integrated pillar

type bollards. The inner two mooring dolphins are fitted for breast lines from both sides. Walkways

are constructed between the monopiles as shown in the layout in figure 36.

Finalising aspects of the construction phase is the installation of the required safety measures,

such as Quick Release Hooks, Emergency Shutdown Systems and measure systems. Subsequently the

FSRU berths at the mooring structure and is fixed via two sets of breast lines (4x Steel wire rope) with

a tethered mooring tail (Nylon Fibre 22 m) and via two sets of spring lines (4x Polyamide wire).

Afterwards the NG hose is connected to the FSRU. When the LNGC is moored an additional six sets of

breast lines (12 x Steel wire rope) and two sets of spring lines (4x Polyamide wire) are applied.

The construction phase is expected to be finished in 10 months. External factors that

potentially cause delay are, for instance environmental conditions. These are discussed at the end of

this chapter.

Constructability of tower yoke mooring structure

The computed results for dimensioning of the monopiles incorporated in the tower yoke

mooring structure proved that the Tower Yoke Structure will fail in these conditions. So this type of

mooring structure is not elaborated further.

S. Quirijns

79

Delay in construction time

Delay during the construction phase can be dedicated to many errors, but some external

factors are inevitable, such as the environmental conditions. Table 37 shows potential delay due to

the environmental conditions for the worst case scenarios.

Table 37 Potential delay time window due to environmental conditions

Description Potential delay in

construction time [months]

Ice regime for strong winters 1

Storm (vwind>10m/s) 0.6

Visibility (Vis<500m) 0.2 Temperature (T<-15) 0.1

As mentioned these environmental conditions are the worst case scenarios for heavy winters,

strict storm conditions and other safety regulations. In total the maximum delay due to environmental

conditions is less than two months during the construction phase. Other reasons for additional delay

are issues with permitting, lack of investors, loss of material due to climate exposure or theft. In order

to restrict material loss by theft or exposure the process handling method ‘Just-in-Time’ is applied. For

this method to work a strict schedule is required. Materials and prefabricated elements are ordered

such that it can be placed immediately. This way the material is as short as possible within the

storage yard.

8.6 Terminal operability

Terminal operability treats the sub-question for decisive dominant external factors for

downtime, and in which manner this factor is minimized. Terminal operability is described as terminal

management for hazard identification, which is a combination of risk management and (sustainable)

port management for operating limits and mooring limits/operating guidelines for normal and atypical

events. A list of atypical hazards with suggested safety measures is included in Appendix 13.13.7.

Since a QRA is outside the scope, it is not included within this study, but it is of significant importance

for management decisions regarding normal hazards or atypical hazards. Especially regarding the

current conflict in Ukraine.

Table 38 is a list of relevant operational limits for environmental conditions and its

implementation within the Yuzhny FSRU terminal. Reference is made towards OCIMF MEG 3th edition

section 1.7, where guidelines for terminal mooring system management are discussed.

Table 38 Terminal procedures defined by OCIMF and SIGTTO

Terminal procedures Implemented in at Yuzhny FSRU Terminal

Terminal procedures Implemented in at Yuzhny FSRU Terminal

Set limits on the mooring system for wind speed, wave height and current

Max Vwind See table 39 Max Hs=2.5m Max vcurrent =no restrictions

Establish ignition free offshore zones.

Safety levels

Set wind limits for cargo stoppage, (Un)loa ding arm disconnection and unberthing.

18 to 21 m/s Disallow simultaneous LNG operations and ship movements and adjacent jetties

Not necessary

Restrict speeds of passing vessels.

Not necessary Warning systems with weather forecasts.

Implemented within FSRU and Odessa Measurement Airport

Control visitors and vehicles in safety zone.

Not necessary Pilots and tugs available for emergencies.

VTMS and navigation aids

S. Quirijns

80

Guidelines by (World Association for Waterborne Transport and Infrastructure, 2012) indicate

that operability of the terminal is limited for certain environmental conditions. Table 39 shows the

operational limits for occurring environmental conditions. A certain bandwidth is introduced for the

strictness of the compliance of these operational limits. Due to the mild metocean climate at the Black

Sea and Yuzhny, it is not expected that the Serviceable Limit State (SLS) metocean conditions will

result in downtime causing significant losses of service time.

Table 39 Proposed operational limits for the local environmental conditions based upon PIANC

Port procedures Weather limits

set by PIANC

Local probability exceeding weater limits,

based upon values with a return period of 10

years Set up weather limits for terminal closure.

vwind > 10 to 15 m/s Visibility<1.6 km Ice Regime

2% probability of occurrence year-round Average of 2% year-round Maximum of 15% Risk of ice forming from late December to late January for severe winters.

Set up port controls for approach channels.

vwind > 10 m/s 2% probability of occurrence year-round

Set up port controls for tugs and escort draft.

vwind > 10 m/s 2% probability of occurrence year-round

Set up procedures and systems regarding loading/unloading

Port assistance if vwind>15 m/s

Mostly during March, December and November

Stop transfer if vwind>18 m/s

Only during March exceeded

Drain, purge and disconnect if vwind> 21 m/s

Expected maximum wind speed in 50yrs is 21,4 m/s, probably during March, December and November

8.7 Conclusion of preliminary design

The options for constructing an FSRU terminal in Yuzhny are determined for their

performances in reference cases. The four mooring structures provide stability for the FSRU are SPM,

FSBS, Central Loading Platform and the Tower Yoke mooring structure. These mooring structures

either have an SBS or HTS mooring layout. The methodology of the performed technical feasibility for

the preliminary design:

berthing energy

hydrodynamic responses of the (moored) carriers due to environmental forcing

dimensioning of the mooring structures

monopile failure mechanisms

project realization, which focusses on the constructability of the mooring structures

terminal operability

These aspects provided an insight in the construction opportunities and limitations for the

Yuzhny project. Now a brief reflection per mooring structure is treated, thereafter the chapter is

closed with a brief final conclusion.

S. Quirijns

81

The Single Point Mooring structure allows the moored carriers to weathervane in line with the

direction of the dominant environmental force, which reduces the force working on the moored

carriers. Consequently, the SPM chain allows a certain range of horizontal and vertical movement,

therefore the positioning of the moored carriers is semi fixed. The SPM is applicable for two types of

mooring layouts Side-by-Side or Head-to-Stern. However the HTS mooring layout is favourable,

because of the reduced transverse load on the moored carriers, and second order wave responses

between the SBS moored carriers are avoided. The mooring structure contains a single monopile

(D=MSL-52.5m ∅=2.5m) that is driven deep into the soil bed with a subsea ‘Stabframe’ driving

machine. It is expected that the first weak clay layer is easily penetrated. Subsequently the pile is

driven in the deeper and stiffer sandy clay layer to obtain the required stability. The Single Point

Mooring structure has the shortest required construction time of approximately 6 months. During SLS

conditions no issues are expected for exceeding the operational limits. For the quasi-static calculations

simplifications have been made, these threads are discussed within chapter 10.

The Fixed Side-by-Side mooring structure maintains a fixed orientation for the SBS moored

carriers, which is perpendicular to the dominant wave force. When waves come in perpendicular, than

the FSRU shields the LNGC behind it from transverse wave and wind forces, also nonlinear wave

response between the moored carriers is avoided, such as resonance, is avoided. Horizontal stability is

realised with breast lines and spring lines, which provides a fixed positioning for the SBS moored

carriers. Berthing force is taken up by fenders and breasting dolphins. The mooring structure is

constructed with eight monopiles of which there are four breasting dolphins (D=SL-58.5 ∅=23.5m)

and four mooring dolphins (D=MSL-56.5 ∅=3.5m). Since the pile tips of these monopiles remain

above water level (MSL+2.5), a ‘VibroHammer’ is applied to drive the monopiles into the seabed. The

dimensions of the monopiles are verified for failure mechanisms for buckling and soil instability, yet

this mooring structure had the highest displacements. Construction time is estimated to be 9 months

without any external factors that cause delay. Because the moored carriers or single FSRU are fixed to

the mooring structure, operational limits can be interpreted more lenient.

Central loading platform mooring structure has a similar orientation as the Side-by-Side

mooring structure, where dominant wave force comes in normally incident to the moored carriers

orientation. Because the moored carriers are separated by the length of the loading platform, there is

no risk of resonance in between the moored carriers. The shielding effect is in effect, where the

difference in length of the moored LNGC and FSRU determines the transverse wave and wind force by

the LNGC that pulls the FSRU against the breasting dolphins. Horizontal stability of the moored LNGC

is provided by breast lines and spring lines, where two of these breast lines are connected to the

FSRU on the opposite side of the central platform. The mooring structure contains eight breasting

dolphins (D=MSL-59.5 ∅=3.75m) and four mooring dolphins (D=MSL-53.5 ∅=3m). These piles are

driven into the sandy soil layer resulting in the lowest displacements of the pile tips. It is estimated

that the construction is finished in 10 months without any external factors that cause delay. Because

the moored carriers or single FSRU are fixed to the mooring structure, operational limits can be

interpreted more lenient.

It was the goal of the Central Loading Platform mooring structure to reduce the loads on a

single monopile compared to the FSBS mooring structure, yet this partially succeeded. For the

mooring dolphins the loads are reduced, because the load is divided over six mooring points instead

of four and the carrier hydrodynamics are taken individually for the FSRU and LNGC. Because two

mooring points are positioned on the FSRU, the breasting dolphins have an additional pulling

transverse force by the moored LNGC. Consequently the loads on the breasting dolphins are nearly

the same for both mooring structures.

S. Quirijns

82

Table 40 Technical comparison of the mooring structures

SPM FSBS CP TYMS

Design phase Site selection + + + 0

Construction

phase

Construction site + 0 0 -

Fabrication + 0 0 -

Integration + 0 0 -

Transport + + 0 -

Site preparation + + + -

Installation + 0 0 -

Construction time + 0 0 -

Technical lifespan 0 + + -

Construction method + 0 0 -

Resources + 0 0 -

Techninal feasibility + 0 + -

Operational

phase

Berthing and Mooring + + + 0

Downtime + + + 0

Maintenance 0 + + 0

Mooring Stability 0 0 + +

Operability 0 + + 0

Future phases Decommissioning + 0 0 0

Total 14 8 9 1

Ultimately, a consideration is required between the mooring structures. Table 40 shows the

evaluation of the technical feasibility per mooring structure. Due to the applied ULS load cases, some

of the environmental forces result in too high dimensions of the mooring structures, these forces are

very unlikely to occur within the next 25 years or more. In addition the SPM requires the shortest

construction time, and least resources, thus probably the lowest investment costs. When the

economical lifespan is exceeded of the FSRU terminal, the FSRU and the SPM structure are both easily

decommissioned.

However, when a long term technical lifespan is required, the Central Platform mooring

structure is a good alternative. Since it is currently unknown how the HTS moored carriers will react to

an increased loading frequency of the monopile anchor. Also the ship-to-ship interaction due to

environmental loads, for the HTS moored carriers is unknown. These aspects potentially alter the end

results and are issued as a thread in chapter 10.1. The Central loading platform provides more

security for larger investment costs, because it has the lowest displacements of the compared

mooring structures. Similarly for the Central platform mooring structure, it is currently unknown how

the soil-monopile interaction will be for an increased loading rate, but additional safety is provided by

the large amount of monopiles that are able to compensate the failure of a monopile.

Since the design of the SPM is made with ULS load cases, it is expected that for SLS

conditions the mooring limits are not exceeded by the mild metocean conditions at the FSRU terminal.

The SPM in combination with a HTS mooring layout provides a quick construction, and has the lowest

investment costs. Therefore, it is the most technically feasible mooring structure. These aspects are

consistent with the functional requirements and preferences by the Ukrainian government.

S. Quirijns

83

9 Conclusion Since 64% of the total Ukrainian domestic natural gas demand is imported from a single

supplier, the Ukrainian government initiated a project to diversify their natural gas import. The

construction of an LNG regasification terminal expansion in the port of Yuzhny increases their energy

independence. From this issue the research objective is derived:

‘Study which LNG unloading concept is most optimal for the planned LNG regasification

terminal in the port of Yuzhny’

A technical feasibility study is performed to compare three different LNG unloading concepts

for the Yuzhny project. These LNG unloading concepts are derived from the performed literature study

in order to provide an adequate solution for the Yuzhny case. The scope of the feasibility study is

based upon key factors for technicality, functionality, transport capacity, sustainability, operability, and

financial aspects. These factors vary in value for short or long term planning. Within this study it is

verified which type of planning provides the most value for the Ukrainian government.

The applied methodology of the feasibility study starts with analyses performed to acquire

general knowledge about LNG, and to determine the boundary conditions of transport, safety,

equipment, and environmental conditions. Subsequently the three LNG unloading are developed with

the analyses boundary conditions. Long term planning is defined by a sensitivity analysis for the

factors, sustainability and financial aspects. A Multi Criteria Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis are

applied to select the most optimal LNG unloading concept, which is elaborated into a preliminary

design. The preliminary design of the FSRU is done for four mooring structures, which are computed

for technical feasibility and operability. During the preliminary design, dimensions are calculated with

Ultimate Limit State load cases that are based upon local environmental conditions.

The phases of the LNG process ‘chain’ are: 1. production of natural gas

2. NG is cooled to cryogenic temperatures (T=-162°C) in order to transform the natural gas into LNG

3. the LNG is transported to a regasification plant, where it is: a. stored as LNG

b. regasified into natural gas

4. the NG is cleaned and transported towards the hinterland

Phase 4 is the main focus of the feasibility study phase. The regasification terminal is required

to have a total throughput of 5 bcmpa of natural gas. In order to realize this throughput 33 Qmax

class carriers or more calls per year for smaller sized carriers. Within port Yuzhny the available

services for incoming LNGC are to secure safe berthing, unberthing, loading, and unloading, e.g.

VTMS and tug-support. A functional requirement for the preliminary design is sustainability, which is

expressed with the factors Planet, Profit, People.

By diversifying the LNG export locations, it is realized to increase Ukraine’s energy

independence. The transport study showed that the most rational export locations for natural gas

(NG) are Algeria and the Middle Eastern Conglomeration, from which naval transport routes are

accessible for Qmax class carriers.

The environmental boundary conditions study indicated that the design water level at Yuzhny

is defined at MSL+1m, which is equal to the local bathymetry plus the design water level for a 100yrs.

return period(=1m). The wave climate at Yuzhny is defined by 10 years of data expressed in a wind

rose at an offshore location, where the wave fronts towards Yuzhny are simulated with nearshore

wave transformation formulas.

S. Quirijns

84

The wind rose showed a high seasonality, yet the most dominant wind vectors for the last ten

years are towards the NE, WNW, NW, and NNW. Associated dominant wind velocities are in the range

of 10 to 15m/s, which are expressed in the annual maximum wind velocity for a return period of 50yrs

(21.4m/s). Seismologic activity is scaled in the range 4 to 5 on Richter’s scale, which indicates little

damage, so non-dominant seismological activity is included within safety factors.

The Multi Criteria Analysis and cost-benefit analysis proved that the FSRU concept is the most

technically feasible for the current state of Ukraine, because the:

1. Gravity Based Structure (GBS) proved to be technically infeasible without a significant cost

increase, because of instability of the GBS during transport and the weak soil conditions.

2. Conventional terminal provides more additional value for long term planning associated

with additional investments and operational costs, such as potential local synergy with the

Odessa Power Plant, reduced power consumption due to power generation with cold

energy extraction, and the potential to become an international LNG transfer hub for the

region.

3. Floating Storage & Regasification Unit’s (FSRU) short value is expressed by its quick

installation, constructability, energy efficiency, sustainability and low investment costs of

the FSRU. FSRU’s sustainability is defined by its mobility, increased safety for its offshore

location, operability conversion of un-used LNG carrier, re-usability, and quick

decommissioning when the economical lifespan is exceeded.

For the preliminary design of the FSRU four mooring structures are evaluated, these are

selected for their performances at reference cases for ‘Bluewater’ and ‘SBM’. These mooring structures

are a Single Point Mooring (SPM) structure, Fixed Side by Side mooring structure, Central Loading

Platform mooring structure, and the Tower Yoke mooring structure. After technically feasibility

verification, it showed that the SPM structure is the most optimal solution for it provides a solution

which is most in line with the FSRU concept and functional requirements, because of the short

construction time, required the least resources, and showed little displacements for the ULS load

cases. The single monopile dimensions are verified for failure mechanisms with unity checks for

buckling and displacements with the program D-Piles by ‘Deltares’

Figure 41 Preliminary layout of FSRU with SPM structure and HTS layout

The preliminary layout is shown in figure 41(Enlarged version in Appendix 13.1). Because the

SPM structure is applied in combination with the Head-to-Stern (HTS) mooring layout, the carriers are

able to weathervane in the primary environmental wave direction, which reduces the longitudinal

force on the carriers significantly. The SPM chain provides a range of freedom in movements of the

moored carriers to rotate and move vertically, but horizontal movement is restricted.

S. Quirijns

85

The carrier motions induced by environmental forces are sway, surge and yaw. These forces

are applied to calculate the dimensions of the SPM structure for ULS load cases. The remaining

nonlinear hydrodynamic carrier motions are verified for resonance with rules of thumb, it showed that

there is little risk of resonance that causes an increased force on the moored LNG carrier and FSRU.

Functional requirements for a high terminal operability and little downtime are secured by

stable mooring conditions. During (un)berthing and (un)loading of the LNG carriers a semi fixed

positioning is provided by the Single Point Mooring structure, therefore the LNG carriers berth at the

FSRU with the help of tugs and maintain a stable positioning with dynamic positioning. The HTS

mooring layout for the LNG carrier during (un)loading is shown in figure 42.

Figure 42 Schematic preliminary layout of the SPM structure with a HTS mooring layout, not on scale

The schematic SPM cross-section is shown in figure 43. The SPM structure contains of four

parts: FSRU as (un)loading point, mooring chain, anchoring components and the NG hose to shore.

The monopile (34m) is applied as anchor and is driven up to a depth of MSL-52.5m, which is verified

for failure mechanisms with unity checks for buckling, and soil and pile displacements. Safety

measures such as Quick Release Hooks, Emergency Shutdown Devices and hazard measurement

devices are incorporated within the FSRU to safeguard the carriers during the whole process of

unloading, (un)berthing, mooring and (un)loading. At shore an NG measurement and pump station is

located from where the NG is transferred towards the hinterland. The FSRU has a built in internal

turret that connects the NG Hose from FSRU to shore. This NG hose is positioned along the seabed

and is stabilized with several sunken deadweight anchors, as is shown in figure 43.

Figure 43 Schematic cross-section of the SPM structure with HTS mooring Layout

Because of the mild metocean climate at Yuzhny, and the FSRU terminal is dimensioned for

ULS load cases, it is not expected that the operational mooring limits will result in much operational

downtime for the SPM structure. So, an operational time of 24 hours is realised with little risk of

potential delay during winter. Since the FSRU has the highest cost-benefit ratio in combination with

the lowest investment and reduced operational costs, and quick decommissioning of the FSRU when

the lifespan of the project is exceeded for an economical and a technical lifespan for 25 years or less,

the FSRU in combination with a SPM structure provides the most value based upon the functional

requirements set by the Ukrainian Government.

S. Quirijns

86

10 Discussion & Recommendation

10.1 Discussion

During the technical feasibility study several assumptions have been made. Assumptions that

potentially have severe influence for made motivations, are discussed within this section and are

finalised with an associated recommendation for a more detailed elaboration of the topic.

1. The lack of measured soil and hydrological data.

It is expected that the hydrological simulations are sufficiently accurate without

verification data.

Since there were no available sounding measurements at the subsea location of the

terminal, the soil classification is based upon studies done for adjacent areas. If the

results differ much, this will affect most of the motivations made within this feasibility

study.

Nevertheless, it is expected that the vertical cross-section consisting of various clay layers is

sufficiently accurate to back up the current study. In which the Gravity Based Structure and Tower

Yoke Mooring Structure have been excluded for instability and settlements within the clay soils. If the

seabed consists of a small upper sand layer, this would endorse the SPM structure.

2. For the Head-to-Stern mooring layout the mooring lines between the carriers are assumed

infinitely stiff. The HTS mooring layout is applied within the SPM mooring structure and the Tower

Yoke Mooring structure. Because of ULS conditions, the wave force remains dominant and only causes

longitudinal displacement (surge), and the transverse wind force and momentum will cause the

carriers to react individually. These wind induced carrier motions are the yaw momentum and

swaying. Differences between Qmax class LNGC and FSRU for yaw momentum and sway are a factor

two and a factor 1.5, respectively. Quasi-static calculations are based upon the ULS load cases, it

should be verified, what the individual carriers responses are for Serviceable limit state load cases.

Due to the differences in carrier motions forced by ULS load cases, it is possible that stricter

operational limits are required to improve the operability of the Single Point Mooring structure. Strict

mooring limits can be realised with these potential actions if necessary:

Accessibility restrictions for carriers exceeding the Large Conventional class.

Increase strictness for operational weather limits:

o vwind <5 m/s

o Disallow mooring for wind direction with maximum transverse conditions, these

directions are Northwest, North-Northwest and West-Northwest

If the points mentioned above are verified, then the SPM structure combined with a Head to

Stern mooring layout remains the most optimal solution. However, if the computational modelling

results indicate that the individual motions of the carriers are too severe and the MBL of the mooring

chain is exceeded, than the Central Loading Platform is a better solution. This structure provides a

fixed positioning for the moored carriers.

S. Quirijns

87

3. During calculations for the preliminary design the moored carriers have been assumed as a

single floating body, thus the mooring wires in between the SBS mooring layout have been included

as infinitely stiff. While actually the wind pressures the continuously FSRU and simultaneously the

LNGC behind the FSRU. The difference in longitudinal areas between the FSRU and LNGC is pressured

by wind. This longitudinal area of the LNGC behind the FSRU varies for the angle of wind attack.

These differences in the transverse wind induced force and momentum cause the FSRU to

move faster than ‘shielded’ LNGC. Since the SBS mooring layout is applied for two mooring structure

a brief discussion of the expected consequences per mooring structure:

Regarding the SPM structure with a side by side mooring layout, it is expected that the

wind in transverse direction causes the FSRU will collide with the ‘shielded’ LNGC.

Regarding the FSBS mooring structure, the position is fixed and the varying angle of wind

attack causes an ‘infinite’ amount of load combinations in longitudinal and transverse

directions. Yet it is not expected that these load combinations within the operational

weather limits will exceed the real stiffness of the mooring lines.

4. Second order nonlinear wave responses have been estimated with rules of thumb between

the SBS moored carriers during the preliminary design. The quick estimation made in the report gives

a fair reflection of the risk of resonance, due to second order wave responses. Since waves come in

normally incident with respect to the carriers’ orientation for the Fixed Side-By-Side mooring structure,

it will not make a large difference regarding the stiffness and loads on the mooring lines. Because of

weathervaning of the SPM structure or similarly the Tower Yoke mooring structure with a Side-by-Side

mooring layout, waves come in aft and between the moored carriers inducing second order nonlinear

wave responses, which results in an increased force in the mooring lines in between the carriers. So a

simulation should be made, wherein this situation is included within the model. It is expected that for

SBS mooring layout, where waves come in parallel to the longitudinal centreline of the moored layout,

will cause resonance in between the carriers.

5. Due to limitations of the program ‘D-piles’ two simplifications probably altered the end result:

The ULS horizontal reaction force induced by the berthing energy that works on the

breasting dolphin head is included within the calculations without any reduction. While

normally the deflection of the pile and the pile-soil interaction reduces the force over an

increasing horizontal displacement.

The monopile is only loaded a single time, which causes a horizontal displacement within

the soil. But for an increased loading frequency, it is expected that the weak clay layer

has distortions due to earlier loads.

Both aspects alter the dimensions of the monopiles and should be verified. For the second

conditions this has the effect that these distortions cause a significant decrease in soil stiffness, which

potentially results in a release of the monopile. The SPM has a single monopile, so if these failure

mechanisms prove to be more relevant, than a more stable mooring structure as the Central platform

is advised. This mooring structure has more monopiles to divide the load, thus it provides additional

safety this way.

6. If the Ukrainian Government changes their preferences to long term value, thus additional

value over investment costs, than the conventional terminal will provide the most potential.

Because of the locally engaged synergies within the port area, reduce in energy consumption

by generation of power with cold energy extraction and also the potential to become an

international LNG transfer hub within the region, the central unloading platform provides the

most value for long term planning.

S. Quirijns

88

10.2 Recommendations

Recommendations for further elaboration:

Detailed soil investigation.

Second order nonlinear wave response simulation for side-by-side moored carriers.

Computational modelling of the hydrodynamic carrier responses for the head to stern

mooring layout.

Computational modelling of soil-pile interaction also for an increased load frequency.

Detailed quantitative risk assessment.

Accurate measurements for hydrology for verification of the simulations at Yuzhny.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Detailed Cost-Benefits analysis

After the discussed threads the FSRU in combination with a Single Point Mooring structure and

head to stern layout is still considered, as the most optimal solution to elaborate further into a final

design.

S. Quirijns

89

11 References

11.1 List of terms Table 41 List of applied terms in report

Term Description (Wikipedia, various)

Asphyxiation Formation of vapour clouds.

Chernozems A fertile black soil rich in humus, with a lighter lime-rich layer beneath. Such soils typically occur in temperate grasslands such as the Russian steppes and North American prairies.

Cryogenic burns Phenomenon where LNG corrodes metals after spills Gleyed A sticky clay soil or soil layer formed under the surface of waterlogged soil.

Kurtosis Kurtosis represents the relative concentration of the data in the centre versus in the tails of the frequency distribution when is compared with the normal distribution.

Liman A liman is formed at the widening mouth of a river, where flow is blocked by a bar of sediments. Liman can be maritime (the bar being created by the current of a sea) or fluvial (the bar being created by the flow of a bigger river at the confluence). Water in a liman is brackish with a variable salinity: during periods of low fresh water intake it may become significantly more saline as a result of evaporation and inflow of sea water

Loess Loess is an Aeolian sediment formed by the accumulation of wind-blown silt, typically in the 20–50 micro meter size range, twenty percent or less clay and the balance equal parts sand and silt that are loosely cemented by calcium

carbonate. It is usually homogeneous and highly porous and is traversed by vertical capillaries that permit the sediment to fracture and form vertical bluffs.

Marginal Sea A marginal sea is a sea partially closed by geographical ridges, islands, archipelagos or peninsulas

Meromictic Basin A meromictic basin has layers of water that do not intermix. Meromictic basins are divided into three layers with constant density and salinity. Chemoclines are the areas between the layers.

Quantiles Quantiles are values taken at regular intervals from the inverse of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of a random variable. Dividing ordered data into q essentially equal-sized data subsets is the motivation for q-quantiles.

Rankine Cycle The Rankine cycle closely describes the process by which steam-operated heat engines commonly found in thermal power generation plants generate power. The heat sources used in these power plants are usually nuclear fission or the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil.

Rapid phase transition (RPT)

A phenomenon that occurs when the temperature difference is between a hot liquid and a cold liquid is sufficiently large to drive the cold liquid rapidly to its super heat limit, resulting in spontaneous and explosive boiling of the cold liquid.

Salt Wedge Estuary For this type of estuary, river output greatly exceeds marine input and tidal effects have a minor importance. Fresh water floats on top of the seawater in a layer that gradually thins as it moves seaward. The denser seawater moves landward along the bottom of the estuary, forming a wedge-shaped layer that is thinner as it approaches land. As a velocity difference develops between the two layers, shear forces generate internal waves at the interface, mixing the seawater upward with the freshwater

Skewness In probability theory and statistics, skewness is a measure of the symmetry distribution in a certain data set.

Capital Expenditure Expenditures altering the future of the business. A capital expenditure is incurred when a business spends money either to buy fixed assets or to add to the value of an existing fixed asset with a useful life extending beyond the taxable year.

Operational Expenditure Operational expenditure or OPEX is an ongoing cost for running a product, business, or system.

S. Quirijns

90

11.2 List of abbreviations Table 42 List of abbreviations

Abbreviation full

AAV Ambient Air Vaporizer boe Barrel of oil equivalent BOG Boil Off Gas BSI British Standards Institute DyPASI Dynamic Procedure of Atypical Scenarios Identification EMODnet European Marine Observation and Data Network FID Final Investment Decision FSRU Floating Storage and Regasification Unit FSU Former Soviet Union GBS Gravity Based Structure GI FSRU ‘Golar Igloo’ GTG Gas Turbine Generators h.t.h. heart to heart distance HTS Head-to-Stern HTS Head to Stern IAC Inlet Air Cooling IFV Intermediate Fluid Vaporizer LC Large Conventional class carrier LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LNGC Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier LOA Length overall of carrier LPG Liquid Pressurized Gas MBL Minimum Breaking Load MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis

MIMAH Methodology for the identification of Major accidents NEN Nederlandse Norm NG Natural Gas OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine Forum ORV Open Rack Vaporizer PIANC Permanent International Association of navigational

congresses (now the World Association for waterborne Transport Infrastructure)

PoR Program of Requirements QRA Qualitative Risk Assessment SBS Side-By-Side SCV Submerged Combustion Vaporizer SLS Serviceable Limit State SPM Single Point Mooring SSLNG Small-scale LNG SSLNGC Small-scale LNG Management STS Site to Side STV Shell and Tube Vaporizer SWL Safe Working Load Tor Terms of Reference ULS Ultimate Limit state VTMS Vessel traffic Management System WHRV Heat Recovery Vaporizer

S. Quirijns

91

11.3 Units Table 43 Applied units within main report

Unit Full

bcm billion cubic meters bcmpa billion cubic meters per annum cm cubic meters k kilo- °C degree Celsius m meter mcm thousand cubic meters mmBtu million British thermal units mmcm million cubic meters MT million tonnes MTPA million tonnes per annum tcf trillion cubic feet tcm trillion cubic meters N Newton t tonnes Fx,y,e kN Mxy,e kNm ρ kg/ m3

v m/s w kN/ m3

11.4 Conversion factors Table 44 Conversion factors

Multiply

by

Tonnes LNG cm LNG cm gas cf gas mmBtu boe

Tonnes LNG 2.222 1.3 45.909 53.38 9.203

cm LNG 0.45 585 20.659 24.02 4.141

cm gas 7.69E+04 0.0017 35.31 0.411 0.0071

cf gas 2.18E+05 4.80E-05 0.0283 0.0012 2.01E-04

mmBtu 0.0187 0.0416 24.36 860.1 0.1724

boe 0.1087 0.2415 141.3 4.989 5.8

Table 45 Conversion factors 2

Unit Alternative

1 mile 1.609 km 1 km 0.621 miles

1 km 0.540 nautical miles

1 nautical miles 1.852 km 1 tons 1000 kg

10 kN 1 ton-force (metric)

S. Quirijns

92

12 Registry

12.1 Bibliography

Amelin, A. (2015, 03 20). Ukranian ports gear up for dredging projects. Retrieved 03 2015, 30, from

Dredging Today: http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2015/03/20/ukrainian-ports-gear-up-for-

dredging-projects/

Andrieu, C. (2013). Small scale LNG import terminal: Not as simple as reduced one. Brussels:

Tractebel Engineering.

Belousov, A. (2015, 1 15). Ukraine’s energy sector: seeking new sources. Retrieved 3 23, 2015, from

UNIAN: http://www.unian.info/politics/1029050-ukraines-energy-sector-seeking-new-

sources.html

Bluewater. (2015). Products and technology. Retrieved 07 15, 2015, from Bluewater:

http://www.bluewater.com/products-technology/

Bosboom, J., & Stive, M. J. (2013). Coastal Dynamics 1. Delft: VSSD.

Bosphorus Strait News. (2015, 05 06). Passage Restrictions. Retrieved 6 5, 2015, from Bosphorus

Strait News: http://www.bosphorusstrait.com/the-bosporus-strait/passage-restrictions/

Cherkez, E., Dragomyretska, O., & Gororhovich, Y. (2006). Landslide Protection of the historical

heritage in Odessa. Springer-Verlag.

Cozzani, V., Rota, R., Tugnoli, A., Busini, V., Bubbico, R., Salzano, E., et al. (2011). Safety of LNG

Regasification Terminals: the Blue Book Approach. Servizi S.r.L: AIDIC .

Ehrhardt, M., Mathews, W., Rymer, D., & Wilson, W. (2007). Patent No. US20070095427 A1. United

States of America.

Foss, M. M. (2006). LNG Safety and Security. Sugar Land: Energy Economics Research.

Freiberg, E., Bellendir, E., Fedchun, A., Elkin, A., Bich, G., & Cherkez, E. (n.d.). Assessment of rock

mass deformation and slope stability predictions od Odessa Port Plant.

Goda, Y., & Yoshimura, T. (1972). Wave force on a vessel tied at offshore dolphins. In Y. Goda, & T.

Yoshimura, Coastal Engineering (pp. 1723-1742). Nagase: Marine Hydronamics Division, Port

and Harbour Research Institute, Ministry of Transport.

GoLNG Indonesia. (2014). Small Scale FSRU. Retrieved 03 11, 2015, from GoLNG :

http://golngindonesia.com/small-scale-fsru/

Hudig, P., & Kuipers, K. (2015, 3 25). Interview at Gate terminal. (S. Quriijns, Interviewer)

Huisman, J. (2014). LNG Terminals fuel the future. Delft: Delft University of Technology.

International Gas Union. (2014). World LNG Report 2014. Sandvika: IGU.

Jones, S. (2011, April 27). Istanbul's new Bosphorus canal 'to surpass Suez or Panama'. Retrieved May

6, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/27/istanbul-new-

bosphorus-canal

S. Quirijns

93

Kendzera, A., Yegupov, K., & Yegupov, V. (2014). Seismic Monitoring Of The Southwestern Areas Of

The Ukraine And Adjecent Areas. Istanbul: European Conference On Earthquake Engineering

and Seismology.

Ligteringen, H., & Velsink, H. (2012). Ports and Terminals. Delft: VSSD.

LNGTainer. (2014). LNG tainer Green Energy Logistics. Retrieved 7 2, 2015, from

http://www.lngtainer.com/

MAN Diesel & Turbo. (2013, August). Propulsion trends in LNG Carriers. Retrieved 6 4, 2015, from

Marine MAN Technical Papers: http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-

papers/propulsion-trends-in-lng-carriers.pdf?sfvrsn=16

Marine Agency and Crewing Company. (2015). Yuzhny Sea port. Retrieved 5 20, 2015, from Sif

service: http://www.sifservice.com/index.php/en/directory/ports-ukraine/sea-ports/item/154-

yuzhny-sea-port

Marocchi, T., & Fedirko, T. (2013, may). Shale gas in Poland and Ukraine: a great potential and an

uncertain future. Retrieved 23 23, 2015, from Portal on central Eastern and Balkan Europe:

http://www.pecob.eu/shale-gas-pl-ua

Nederlandse Normalisatie Instituut. (2012). NEN 9997-1+C1:Geotechnical design of structures –Part

1: General rules. Delft: NEN.

Oguz, & Besiktepe. (2002). Circulation. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from International Marine Sciences, :

http://www.ims.metu.edu.tr/cv/oguz/circulation.htm

Oguz, T. (2007). State of the Environment of the Black Sea. Istanbul: Referans Çeviri Hizmetleri,

Yazılım ve Yayıncılık Ltd.

Oil Companies International Marine Forum. (2008). Mooring Equipment Guidelines (third ed.).

Bermuda: OCIMF.

Oil Companines International Marine Forum. (2007). Turkish Straits. London: OCIMF.

Owen, T., & Park, k. (2011). Dredging. Colorado: Colorado State university.

Pixon, F. (2006, 04 02). Turkish Straits Vessel Traffic Service. Retrieved may 19, 2015, from

Association Francaise Des Capitaines de Navires:

http://www.afcan.org/dossiers_techniques/tsvts_gb.html

Poldervaart, L., & Ellis, J. (2007). The transfer of LNG in offshore conditions. Trondheim: NTNU.

Raspisaniye Pogodi Ltd. (2015, 4 16). Weather archive in Odessa. Retrieved 16 4, 2015, from Reliable

Prognosis: http://rp5.ua/Weather_archive_in_Odesa

Resource center for energy economics and regulation. (2007). What makes a natural gas

markertplace . Texas: University of Texas.

Sc KLaipeda Nafta. (2014). REGULATIONS FOR USE OF THE LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINAL.

Klaipeda: Sc Klaipeda Nafta.

South Online. (2015). Ukraine wants to attract to the regions of the South Investment Arab Monarchy.

South Online.

S. Quirijns

94

Staneva, J. V., Dietrich, D. E., Stanev, E. V., & Bowman, M. J. (2001). Rim current and coastal eddy

mechanisms in an eddy-resolving Black Sea general circulation model. Amsterdam: Elsevier

Science B.V.

Suez Canal Authority. (2015, May 6). New Suez Canal. Retrieved May 6, 2015, from Suez Canal

Authorty: http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=69

The British Standards Institution. (2014). Maritime works pt.4- Code of practice for design and

fendering and mooring systems. London: BSI Standards limited 2014.

Toderascu, R., & Rusu, E. (2013, September). Evaluation of the Circulation Patterns in the Black Sea

Using Remotely Sensed and in Situ Measurements. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from Scientific

Research: http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg

Trelleborg. (2015, 8 10). Marine Fenders. Retrieved 8 10, 2015, from Product Solutions and services:

http://www.trelleborg.com/en/marine-systems/Products--Solutions--and--Services/Marine--

Fenders

U.S. Energy Information Administration . (2014, March). Ukraine. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from

Independent Statistics & Analysis: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=up

USFOS. (2010). Hydrodynamics Theor Description of use Verification. Trondheim: Norwegian

Unifversity of Technology.

Voorendt, M. Z., Molenaar, W. F., & Bezuyen, K. G. (2011). Hydraulics strutures: Caissons. Delft: TU

Delft.

Wichers, D. i. (2013). Guide to Single Point Moorings. Houston: WMooring.

World Association for Waterborne Transport and Infrastructure. (2001). Seismic design guidelines for

port structures. Brussels: PIANC.

World Association for Waterborne Transport and Infrastructure. (2012). Safety Aspects Affecting The

Berthing Operations Of Tankers To Oil And Gas Terminals . Brussels: PIANC.

World Association for Waterborne Transport and Infrastructure. (2014). Masterplans for the

development of existing ports no 158. Brussels: PIANC.

Wright Marine Technology. (1997). Site selection and design for LNG ports and jetties (Vol. 14).

Hawarden, Wales: Society of International Gas tanker and termminal operators Ltd.

S. Quirijns

95

12.2 List of figures

Figure 1 LNG proces chain ................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2 Map of Ukraine, adapted from Shipyard Liman location, retrieved February 2015 from

http://liman.ua/eng/images/stories/liman/map_eng.jpg © 2014, shipyard Liman, reprinted with

permission .................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3 Area of interest .................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4 Pyramid shaped design method ............................................................................10

Figure 5 Scheme of LNG regasification processes adapted from Hazard identification for

innovative LNG regasification technologies retrieved March 2015 from Reliability Engineering and

system safety © 2014, Elsevier, reprinted with permission .............................................................13

Figure 6 Components of conventional terminal ...................................................................14

Figure 7 Components of FSRU ...........................................................................................15

Figure 8 Components of GBS .............................................................................................15

Figure 9 Costs of gas pipeline vs LNG carrier costs over naval transporting distance adapted

from LNG: Fuel of the future, retrieved February 2015 from Delft University of Technology © 2014,

TU Delft, reprinted with permission ...............................................................................................16

Figure 10 Critical safety conditions adapted from Energy Economics research, retrieved

February 2015 from LNG Safety and Security © 2006 ,Center of Energy Economics, reprinted with

permission ...................................................................................................................................17

Figure 11 Cause consequence chains describing the atypical incident scenarios identified

adapted from Hazard identification for innovative LNG regasification technologies retrieved March

2015 from Reliability engineering and system safety © 2014, Elsevier, reprinted with permission .....18

Figure 12 Two main transport routes, adapted from Google maps, retrieved May 2015 from

Marine vessel traffic © 2013 - 2015 www.marinevesseltraffic.com ..................................................21

Figure 13 Map of Ukraine, adapted from Shipyard Liman location, retrieved February 2015

from http://liman.ua/eng/images/stories/liman/map_eng.jpg © 2014, shipyard Liman, reprinted with

permission ...................................................................................................................................24

Figure 14 Potential terminal locations for LNG unloading concepts based upon safety level

boundary conditions .....................................................................................................................27

Figure 15 Wave rose for offshore significant wave height at offshore location [46.75:31.5] ...29

Figure 16 Bathymetry of single cross-section from the offshore location to Yuzhny’s coast ....30

Figure 17 Cross-section of the Odessa Port plant, adapted from Assessment of rock mass

deformation and slope stability predictions of Odessa Port plant, retrieved June 2015 from The second

half century of rock mechanics © 2007, Taylor & Francis, reprinted with permission ........................33

Figure 18 Schematic view of current layout Port Yuzhny adapted from marine Port Yuzhny,

retrieved June 2015 from marine.odessa.ua/uni/index/yuzhniy © 2014, Marine Odessa, reprinted

with permission ............................................................................................................................35

Figure 19 Layout for the conventional terminal at Terminal Location 1 .................................38

Figure 20 Layout for conventional terminal at Terminal locations 3 and 4 .............................39

Figure 21 Schematic layout of an FRSU jetty terminal, adapted from Regulations for use of the

LNG terminal, retrieved June 2015 from Klaipedos Nafta © 2014, Klaipedos Nafta, reprinted with

permission ...................................................................................................................................41

Figure 22 Tower Yoke Mooring Structure adapted from Mooring Systems- Tower Yoke,

retrieved July 2015 from SOFEC Mooring Solution Specialists © 2012, Sofec, reprinted with permission

...................................................................................................................................................42

Figure 23 Terminal locations five (left) and six (right) for the GBS concepts .........................48

Figure 24 Possible FSRU terminal mooring structures adapted from The transfer of LNG in

offshore conditions, retrieved July 2015 from Leender Poldervaart James Ellis Single Point Moorings ©

2007, NTNU, reprinted with permission..........................................................................................56

Figure 25 Carrier’s reference coordinate system .................................................................57

Figure 26 Initial coordinates system in combination with new reference centreline ...............58

S. Quirijns

96

Figure 27 Performance graphs for the interaction of the Seacushion® (left) and SuperCone

Fender (right), adapted from Floating fenders retrieved July 2015 from Trelleborg Marine Fenders ©

2015, Trelleborg Marine Fenders systems, reprinted with permission ...............................................59

Figure 28 Foam Fender SeaCushion® adapted from Floating Fenders, retrieved July 2015 from

Trelleborg Marine Fender Systems © 2015, Trelleborg, reprinted with permission ..........................60

Figure 29 Super Cone Fender adapted from Fender System v1-2, retrieved July 2015 from

Trelleborg Marine Fender Systems © 2015, Trelleborg, reprinted with permission ............................60

Figure 30 Six motions of freedom ......................................................................................61

Figure 31 Graph of wave heigth versus wave period at terminal location six .........................61

Figure 32 Graph of wave height versus wavelength at terminal location six ..........................62

Figure 33 Boxplot of wavelengths at terminal location six ....................................................62

Figure 34 SPM structure with a Side-by-Side mooring layout (left) or with HTS mooring layout

(right) adapted from Mooring Equipment Guidelines, retrieved July 2015 .........................................65

Figure 35 Schematic cross section of an FSRU moored at the SPM structure ........................65

Figure 36 Left: FSBS mooring structure adapted from Mooring Equipment Guidelines, retrieved

July 2015 .....................................................................................................................................68

Figure 37 Generic mooring conditions adapted from Mooring Equipment Guidelines, retrieved

July 2015 from OCIMF © 2008, OCIMF, reprinted with permission ..................................................69

Figure 38 Central loading platform mooring structure, adapted from Mooring Equipment

Guidelines, retrieved July 2015 ......................................................................................................71

Figure 39 Schematic layout of Tower Yoke Mooring Structure with HTS Layout, adapted from

Mooring Equipment Guidelines, retrieved July 2015 ........................................................................73

Figure 40 Schematic cross-section of the Tower Yoke mooring structure with HTS moored

carriers ........................................................................................................................................73

Figure 41 Preliminary layout of FSRU with SPM structure and HTS layout .............................84

Figure 42 Schematic preliminary layout of the SPM structure with a HTS mooring layout, not

on scale .......................................................................................................................................85

Figure 43 Schematic cross-section of the SPM structure with HTS mooring Layout ................85

Figure 44 System diagram of LNG receiving chain ............................................................ 104

Figure 45 Map with Bathymetry of the Black sea, adapted from Navionics, retrieved march

2015 from webapp.navigations.com © 2015, Navionics, reprinted with permission......................... 105

Figure 46 Monthly averaged wind roses January to April ................................................... 106

Figure 47 Monthly averaged wind roses May to August ..................................................... 106

Figure 48 monthly averaged wind roses September to December ...................................... 107

Figure 49 Siting analysis for port of Yuzhny ...................................................................... 108

Figure 50 Reference carrier orientation adapted from Mooring Equipment Guidelines, retrieved

July 2015 from Mooring Equipment guidelines 3th edition © 2013, OCIMG, reprinted with permission

................................................................................................................................................. 109

Figure 51 SPM load case 1 .............................................................................................. 110

Figure 52 SPM load case 2 .............................................................................................. 110

Figure 53 SPM load case 3 .............................................................................................. 111

Figure 54 FSBS Load case Breasting Dolphin .................................................................... 111

Figure 55 FSBS load case Mooring Dolphin ....................................................................... 112

Figure 56 Central Platform Breasting Dolphin LC1 ............................................................. 112

Figure 57 Central platform breasting dolphin load case 2 .................................................. 113

Figure 58 Central Platform Mooring dolphin ...................................................................... 113

Figure 59 Two main transport routes, adapted from Google maps, retrieved May 2015 from

Marine vessel traffic © 2013 - 2015 www.marinevesseltraffic.com ................................................ 118

Figure 60 currents in Bosphorus strait

http://www.afcan.org/dossiers_techniques/tsvts_gb.html ............................................................. 120

S. Quirijns

97

Figure 61 Bosphorus strait passage restrictions

http://ocimf.org/media/8922/Turkist%20Straits.pdf ..................................................................... 121

Figure 62 Dardanelle Strait passage restrictions. ............................................................... 122

Figure 63Bosphorus strait map www.europeanmaritime.com/ist.html ............................... 123

Figure 64 Dardanelle Strait http://www.europeanmaritime.com/canakkale.html ................. 124

Figure 65 Schematic view of Suez Canal map ................................................................... 125

Figure 66 Volumes of NG consumption, production and demand ....................................... 126

Figure 67 Map of Ukraine, adapted from Shipyard Liman location, retrieved February 2015

from http://liman.ua/eng/images/stories/liman/map_eng.jpg © 2014, shipyard Liman, reprinted with

permission ................................................................................................................................. 127

Figure 68 Map of ports in southern Ukraine, adapted from Searates LP, retrieved march 2015

from http://www.searates.com/maritime/ukraine.html © 2015, Basarsoft, Google, reprinted with

permission ................................................................................................................................. 128

Figure 69 Schematic image of current layout of Yuzhny port ............................................. 129

Figure 70 Bathymetry of north shelf and approach channel, adapted from Navionics, retrieved

march 2015 from webapp.navionics.com © 2015, opencyclemap.com, reprinted with permission ... 130

Figure 71 Bathymetry and layout at port of Yuzhny and adjacent coastline, adapted from

Navionics, retrieved march 2015 from webapp.navionics.com © 2015, opencyclemap.com, reprinted

with permission .......................................................................................................................... 131

Figure 72 Bathymetry of Bosphorus strait and depth profile adapted from EMODnet, retrieved

march 2015 from Portal for Bathymetry© 2015, EMODnet, reprinted with permission .................... 132

Figure 73 Bathymetry of Dardanelle strait and depth profile adapted from EMODnet, retrieved

march 2015 from Portal for Bathymetry© 2015, EMODnet, reprinted with permission .................... 133

Figure 74 Map of water bodies and rivers at the Black sea, adapted from Worldatlas, retrieved

march 2015 from http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/blacksea.htm © 2015,

GraphicMaps.com, reprinted with permission ............................................................................... 134

Figure 75 Snapshot of sea level (cm) and surface streamlines at the Black sea, adapted from

(Staneva, Dietrich, Stanev, & Bowman, 2001), retrieved march 2015 from http://www.uni-

oldenburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/icbm/ag/physoz/download/sebastian/JMS_sdsb_01.pdf © 2001,

Elsevier Science B.V. , reprinted with permission .......................................................................... 135

Figure 76 Currents within Black Sea, adapted from Institute of Marine Sciences, retrieved April

2015 from http://www.ims.metu.edu.tr/cv/oguz/circulation.htm © 2015, opencyclemap.com,

reprinted with permission ........................................................................................................... 136

Figure 77 Locations of both measurement stations at Black Sea, adapted from Google M aps,

retrieved April 2015 from http://www.latlong.net/ © 2012-2015 www.LatLong.net, reprinted with

permission ................................................................................................................................. 137

Figure 78 Wave rose at location (lat. 45.75; lon. 31.5) for 10 years of data........................ 138

Figure 79 Wave characteristics at location (lat. 45.75; lon. 31.5) for 10 years of data 2005-

2015 .......................................................................................................................................... 139

Figure 80 Local bathymetry of cross-section from measuring location to Yuzhny. ............... 140

Figure 81 Upper layer soil conditions of Ukraine adapted from European Soil portal, retrieved

May 2015 from eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/maps/country_maps/metadata.cfm?mycountry=UA ©

1995-2015, European Communities , reprinted with permission ..................................................... 143

Figure 82 Distance between Port Odessa and Port Yuzhny adapted from Google maps,

retrieved May 2015 from kilometerafstanden.nl/hemelsbreed-afstand-meten.htm © 2015, Google

Maps &2015, TerraMatics , reprinted with permission ................................................................... 144

Figure 83 Geotechnical survey at Port Odessa adapted from Landslide protection of the

historical heritage in Odessa, retrieved May 2015 from ciesin.org/documents/yuri.landslides.pdf ©

2006, Springer-Verlag reprinted with permission .......................................................................... 145

S. Quirijns

98

Figure 84 Sediment inflow by Dniester and Dnieper adapted from State of the environment of

the Black Sea, retrieved May 2015 from Institute of Marine Sciences © 2007, Referans Çeviri

Hizmetleri, Yazılım ve Yayıncılık Ltd reprinted with permission ....................................................... 146

Figure 85 Wind rose of annual averaged velocity at Odessa Airfield for the period of 2005 to

2015 .......................................................................................................................................... 148

Figure 86 Graph of the annual minimum temperatures (Extreme Value Type I) Gumbel

distribution for the period 2005 to 2015 ....................................................................................... 151

Figure 87 Graph of the expected maximum velocity for the desired return period in years .. 151

Figure 88 Graph of the annual wind velocity (Extreme Value Type I) Gumbel distribution for

the period 2005 to 2015 ............................................................................................................. 152

Figure 89 Graph of the expected maximum velocity for the desired return period in years .. 153

Figure 90 Graph of the annual minimum precipitation (Extreme Value Type I) Gumbel

distribution for the period 2005 to 2015 ....................................................................................... 154

Figure 91 Expected maximum precipitation for the desired return period in years ............... 155

Figure 92 Graph of the annual minimum precipitation (Extreme Value Type I) Gumbel

distribution for the period 2005 to 2015 ....................................................................................... 156

Figure 93 Graph of the expected maximum snowfall for the desired return period in years . 156

Figure 94 Cross section of an internal turret within the FSRU, adapted from Subsea cryogenic

fluid transfer system, retrieved July 2015 from http://www.google.com/patents/US20070095427 ©

2007, USPTO, reprinted with permission ...................................................................................... 180

Figure 95 Vertical cross-section of soil with monopile ........................................................ 181

12.3 List of tables

Table 1 Densities of natural gas and LNG ............................................................................ 1

Table 2 Indication of in-depth of various research topics ...................................................... 6

Table 3 Ideology of boundary limits for this design study ..................................................... 7

Table 4 Current state of technology for the three receiving concepts ...................................16

Table 5 Largest LNG exporting hubs sorted by sailing distance in reference to Yuzhny ..........20

Table 6 LNGC dimensions and classes ................................................................................22

Table 7 Safety distances around objects and carriers ..........................................................26

Table 8 Objects within siting study Odessa region ..............................................................28

Table 9 Description of terminal locations and opportunity to realize an LNG unloading concept

...................................................................................................................................................28

Table 10 High design water levels for certain return periods (RP) at Taman Basin ................31

Table 11 Distribution of meteorological design values .........................................................32

Table 12 Vertical soil structure at Odessa ...........................................................................33

Table 13 Description of annual LNG unloading for the conventional terminal ........................36

Table 14 Terminal locations with FSRU berth locations ........................................................44

Table 15 Carrier dimensions ..............................................................................................44

Table 16 Qualitative cost per terminal location comparison .................................................46

Table 17 Dimensions of the GBS and of a single caisson .....................................................47

Table 18 Dimensions of the modularized storage tanks constructed by Ulsan Korea ..............47

Table 19 Design height GBS based upon local bathymetry relative to MSL............................48

Table 20 Weight factors ....................................................................................................52

Table 21 results of the MCA ..............................................................................................52

Table 22 Short term costs and benefits ..............................................................................53

Table 23 Long term Cost Benefit Analysis ...........................................................................54

Table 24 Possible combinations for mooring structures and mooring layout ..........................56

Table 25 Berthing energy of the LNGC ...............................................................................58

Table 26 Characteristics of applied fenders for design carrier Qmax class .............................59

S. Quirijns

99

Table 27 Sum of all forces working on combinations of moored carriers without safety factors

...................................................................................................................................................63

Table 28 Soil characteristics at Yuzhny described with NEN 9997-1+C1 © 2012, Nederlandse

Normalisatie Instituut ...................................................................................................................64

Table 29 Results of SPM computations for the SPM Mooring structure..................................66

Table 30 Monopile computational results for the ULS load cases ..........................................67

Table 31 Material selection for wires within mooring structure SBS ......................................70

Table 32 Results for dimensioning of the monopiles for Side-by-Side mooring structure. .......70

Table 33 Material selection for wires within mooring structure Central Platform ....................72

Table 34 Results for dimensioning of Central platform structure. .........................................72

Table 35 results for monopile displacements, settlements and decisive buckling failure unity

check computed with D-piles .........................................................................................................74

Table 36 Details for construction phase ..............................................................................76

Table 37 Potential delay time window due to environmental conditions ......................................79

Table 38 Terminal procedures defined by OCIMF and SIGTTO .............................................79

Table 39 Proposed operational limits for the local environmental conditions based upon PIANC

...................................................................................................................................................80

Table 40 Technical comparison of the mooring structures ...................................................82

Table 41 List of applied terms in report ..............................................................................89

Table 42 List of abbreviations ............................................................................................90

Table 43 Applied units within main report ..........................................................................91

Table 44 Conversion factors ..............................................................................................91

Table 45 Conversion factors 2 ...........................................................................................91

Table 46 Primary criteria and secondary criteria ............................................................... 115

Table 47 List of bottlenecks dimensions compared with dimensions of the Qatar fleet. ....... 119

Table 48 Bottlenecks along the transport routes A and B with corresponding intensities

measured in 2014. ..................................................................................................................... 119

Table 49 Safety regime for Suez Canal ............................................................................. 125

Table 50 Daily and hourly averaged demand for NG or LNG .............................................. 126

Table 51 Largest Cities in Ukraine by inhabitants .............................................................. 127

Table 52 Area coverage of Ukraine by land and open water surfaces ................................. 128

Table 53 Borders of Ukraine and coastal boundaries ......................................................... 128

Table 54 Dimensions of approach channels at the North Shelf ........................................... 130

Table 55 Dimension and bathymetry of Turkish Straits ...................................................... 132

Table 56 Monthly averaged values of the current velocity for the period 1993-2010, © 2013

SciRes ....................................................................................................................................... 136

Table 57 Seasonal averaged values of the current velocity at P1 for the period 1993-2010 . 136

Table 58 Statistics of current velocity at location P1 for the period 1993-2010, © 2013 SciRes

................................................................................................................................................. 137

Table 59 Distribution of significant wave height for 10 years of data .................................. 138

Table 60 Distribution of significant wave height direction for 10 years of data ................... 139

Table 61 Simplified data for soil classification at Yuzhny .................................................... 145

Table 62 Seismologic activity scale .................................................................................. 147

Table 63 Seasonal variety within wind velocity over time .................................................. 149

Table 64 Seasonal variety in wind direction ...................................................................... 149

Table 65 Temperature data set at Odessa Airport measurement station ............................. 150

Table 66 Visibility data set at Odessa Airport measurement station for the period of 2005-2015

................................................................................................................................................. 153

Table 67 Precipitation data set at Odessa Airport measurement station for the period of 2005-

2015 .......................................................................................................................................... 154

S. Quirijns

100

Table 68 Snowfall data set at Odessa Airport measurement station for the period of 2005-

2015 .......................................................................................................................................... 155

Table 69 LNGC class dimensions and FSRU Concepts ........................................................ 159

Table 70 Design criteria considering lay out determined by carrier dimensions ................... 160

Table 71 Design criteria considering bathymetry determined by carrier dimensions ............ 160

Table 72 Design criteria LNG as rule of thumb .................................................................. 160

Table 73 Sustainable port management ........................................................................... 161

Table 74 Design of conventional terminals at the three potential locations ......................... 162

Table 75 Accessibility of the conventional terminal per potential location ........................... 163

Table 76 Sustainability of the conventional terminal per potential location .......................... 163

Table 77 Characterestics at terminal location 1, 3 and 4.................................................... 163

Table 78 FSRU terminal location characteristics ................................................................ 164

Table 79 Carrier characteristics........................................................................................ 164

Table 80 Conversion factor dredging costs ....................................................................... 164

Table 81 GBS and caisson dimensions .............................................................................. 165

Table 82 Height of GBS calculation .................................................................................. 165

Table 83 Modularized tank size ........................................................................................ 165

Table 84 MCA Criteria ..................................................................................................... 166

Table 85 Scores per criteria for short and long term planning ............................................ 166

Table 86 Scores per concept per secondary criteria .......................................................... 166

Table 87 Ideology of Cost-Benefit Analysis ....................................................................... 168

Table 88 Relevant characteristics of 'Golar Igloo' unit ....................................................... 169

Table 89 Dimensions for individual and combined carriers ................................................. 170

Table 90 Berthing Energy Input ....................................................................................... 171

Table 91 Floating foam fender produced by ‘Trelleborg’ applied between SBS mooring layout

................................................................................................................................................. 172

Table 92 Rubber fenders applied at breasting dolphins ..................................................... 172

Table 93 overview of applied fender per mooring structure ............................................... 172

Table 94 Results of wave calculations .............................................................................. 173

Table 95 Results wind induced forcing ............................................................................. 175

Table 96 Results current induced forcing .......................................................................... 176

Table 97 Results of wind induced forcing ......................................................................... 177

Table 98 Results Current induced forcing ......................................................................... 178

Table 99 Results of examplary calculations for the Qmax class carriers .............................. 179

Table 100 Loads by moored carriers ................................................................................ 181

Table 101 Maximum dimensions by rules by OCIMF and BS .............................................. 182

Table 102 Input for FSBS quasi static calculations ............................................................ 183

Table 103 Simplified Shared load method for ULS load cases one and two ......................... 183

Table 104 Dominant load cases for mooring and breasting dolphins .................................. 183

Table 105 Dimensions required for Large Conventional class ............................................. 184

Table 106 Dimensions required for Qmax class ................................................................. 185

Table 107 Simplified Shared load method for ULS load cases one and two ......................... 185

Table 108 Simplified Shared Load Method for central platform structure ............................ 185

Table 109 Results for applied monopiles dimensions for the mooring structure central platform

................................................................................................................................................. 185

Table 110 Input for ULS conditions for the Tower Yoke mooring structure ......................... 186

Table 111 Sum of all working forces for the ULS ............................................................... 187

Table 112 load per pile group for Tower Yoke Mooing Structure ........................................ 188

Table 113 Results of spreadsheet and D-Piles for pile displacement ................................... 189

Table 114 Complete list of the identified safety barriers for the atypical hazards ................. 190

S. Quirijns

101

12.4 List of applied equations

Equation 1 Risk formula ....................................................................................................18

Equation 2 Energy balance at arbitrary selected locations 1 and 2 .......................................30

Equation 3 Miche Criterion ................................................................................................30

Equation 4 Productivity per berth.......................................................................................37

Equation 5 Number of berths equation ...............................................................................37

Equation 6 Wave energy ................................................................................................. 141

Equation 7 Wave energy including width .......................................................................... 141

Equation 8 Energy balance at arbitrary selected locations 1 and 2 ..................................... 141

Equation 9 Miche Criterion .............................................................................................. 141

Equation 10 Adjusted Miche criterion for deep water level ................................................. 142

Equation 11 Breaker index .............................................................................................. 142

Equation 12 density of soil mixture .................................................................................. 143

Equation 13 Specific weight of the soil mixture ................................................................. 144

Equation 14 Gringorten estimation ................................................................................... 152

Equation 15 Berthing energy formula ............................................................................... 171

Equation 16 Maximum wave force in x-direction ............................................................... 173

Equation 17 Maximum wave induced forcing in y-direction ................................................ 173

Equation 18 Wind induced force in horizontal x- direction ................................................. 178

Equation 19 Wind induced force in horizontal y- direction ................................................. 178

Equation 20 Wind induced momentum ............................................................................. 178

Equation 21 Average current velocity ............................................................................... 178

Equation 22 Current induced force in horizontal x- direction .............................................. 178

Equation 23 Current induced force in horizontal y- direction .............................................. 178

Equation 24 Current induced momentum ......................................................................... 178

Equation 25 Maximum wave induced forcing in x-direction ................................................ 178

Equation 26 Maximum wave induced forcing in y-direction ................................................ 178

Equation 27 Morrison’s equations for slender piles ............................................................ 184

Equation 28 Wind force on structure ................................................................................ 187

Equation 29 Max Camy and Fuchs equation for wave load on piles .................................... 187

S. Quirijns

102

13 Appendices Research questions ....................................................................................................... 114 13.2.1

MCA criteria .................................................................................................................. 115 13.2.2

Sub-questions answered ................................................................................................ 116 13.2.3

LNG Carrier dimensions ................................................................................................. 118 13.3.1

Bottlenecks ................................................................................................................... 119 13.3.2

Passage restrictions....................................................................................................... 121 13.3.3

Geographical ................................................................................................................ 127 13.5.1

Layout .......................................................................................................................... 129 13.5.2

Bathymetry ................................................................................................................... 130 13.5.3

Hydrology of Black Sea .................................................................................................. 134 13.6.1

Location measurement stations ...................................................................................... 137 13.6.2

Waves .......................................................................................................................... 138 13.6.3

Near shore wave transformation .................................................................................... 140 13.6.4

Geological survey .......................................................................................................... 144 13.7.1

North West Black Sea littoral zone .................................................................................. 146 13.7.2

Seismological activity .................................................................................................... 147 13.7.3

Yuzhny ......................................................................................................................... 148 13.7.4

Wind ............................................................................................................................ 148 13.8.1

Temperature ................................................................................................................. 150 13.8.2

Maximum annual wind velocity ...................................................................................... 152 13.8.3

Visibility ........................................................................................................................ 153 13.8.4

Precipitation ................................................................................................................. 154 13.8.5

Snow ............................................................................................................................ 155 13.8.6

Synergy ........................................................................................................................ 157 13.9.1

Possible synergy cooperation within port of Yuzhny ......................................................... 157 13.9.2

Dimensions of LNGC .................................................................................................. 159 13.11.1

LNGC based boundary conditions ................................................................................ 160 13.11.2

Sustainable port planning ........................................................................................... 161 13.11.3

Requirements of the conventional terminal .................................................................. 161 13.11.4

Data comparison for the conventional terminal ............................................................ 162 13.11.5

Data Comparison for FSRU ......................................................................................... 164 13.11.6

Data comparison for GBS ........................................................................................... 165 13.11.7

MCA .......................................................................................................................... 166 13.12.1

Cost Benefit Analysis .................................................................................................. 168 13.12.2

FSRU dimensions ....................................................................................................... 169 13.13.1

S. Quirijns

103

Dimensions of moored carriers ................................................................................... 170 13.13.2

Berthing energy input ................................................................................................ 171 13.13.3

Determining the environmental boundary conditions .................................................... 173 13.13.4

Example calculation of environmental forces on a Qmax class carrier ............................ 177 13.13.5

Technical feasibility of mooring structures ................................................................... 180 13.13.6

Operability ................................................................................................................ 190 13.13.7

S. Quirijns

104

13.1 Additional figures

Figure 44 System diagram of LNG receiving chain

S. Quirijns

105

Figure 45 Map with Bathymetry of the Black sea, adapted from Navionics, retrieved march 2015 from

webapp.navigations.com © 2015, Navionics, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

106

Figure 46 Monthly averaged wind roses January to April

Figure 47 Monthly averaged wind roses May to August

S. Quirijns

107

Figure 48 monthly averaged wind roses September to December

S. Quirijns

108

Figure 49 Siting analysis for port of Yuzhny

S. Quirijns

109

Figure 50 Reference carrier orientation adapted from Mooring Equipment Guidelines, retrieved July 2015 from Mooring Equipment guidelines 3th edition © 2013, OCIMG, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

110

Figure 51 SPM load case 1

Figure 52 SPM load case 2

S. Quirijns

111

Figure 53 SPM load case 3

Figure 54 FSBS Load case Breasting Dolphin

S. Quirijns

112

Figure 55 FSBS load case Mooring Dolphin

Figure 56 Central Platform Breasting Dolphin LC1

S. Quirijns

113

Figure 57 Central platform breasting dolphin load case 2

Figure 58 Central Platform Mooring dolphin

S. Quirijns

114

13.2 Methodology

Research questions 13.2.1

The emphasis of the research questions is to get a better understanding for the local environmental conditions at Yuzhny and globally applied safety regulations. The research proposal

contained the following research questions:

1. How is the current situation at Port of Yuzhny, with respect to:

a. bathymetry b. offshore transport

c. bottlenecks ( i.e. the Bosphorus Strait)

d. onshore infrastructure

2. What are the current conditions at Yuzhny, with respect to: a. hydrological conditions

b. morphological conditions

c. environmental conditions

3. What are the global and local rules for safety, with respect to; a. design criteria

b. standardizations c. regulatory components

d. risk management

i. layout ii. sheltering of carriers

iii. protection of carriers

4. What determines the most suitable concept for the case study, with respect to;

a. What are the possible concepts for LNG Unloading plants? i. Do offshore LNG Receiving terminals avoid excessive Port

infrastructure? ii. Is SSLNG distribution beneficial for import and to avoid bottlenecks?

b. What are the most optimal layouts per concept? c. What processes and components are required to regasify LNG?

i. What is the best combination per situation?

d. What are the best criteria to evaluate the different LNG unloading concepts?

5. Is it possible to combine power generation components and receiving LNG? a. What are the required processes and components?

b. Does the current technology already exist?

c. Can it be included in the Port of Yuzhny? d. Can it be transferred to any other regasification plant?

e. Is possible to design the required process for Heat-Cold synergies with Power generation projects?

S. Quirijns

115

MCA criteria 13.2.2

Table 46 Primary criteria and secondary criteria

Primary criteria Secondary Criteria

Functionality Site selection

Peak shave capacity

Transport capacity accessibility

berthing and mooring time

berth occupancy

Safety aspects Hazard containment

port management

risk management

Financial aspects Financial feasibility

import/export hub

Economical lifespan

Sustainability additional value by synergies

Energy efficiency

environmental integration/consequences

social integration/ consequences

durability

Technicality Construction site

Installation period

Construction method

Technical feasibility

expandability of capacity

Re-use

Operability unloading capacity

storage

Potential downtime

Maintenance

Stability during berthing

S. Quirijns

116

Sub-questions answered 13.2.3

During the thesis study these sub-questions have been answered.

1. How is the regasification chain of LNG defined for:

a. Required processes?

The LNG is transferred to a regasification plant, where it first is stored as LNG . Subsequently

the LNG is regasified into NG. Afterwards the NG is cleaned and transported towards the hinterland.

b. Required components? During regasification of the LNG required components are from LNGC to hinterland:

mooring structure o (Un)loading arms o natural gas hoses o pumps

yard o storage tanks o pipelines o measurement and compressor station

re-liquefier system o vaporizers

c. Bounded differences per LNG unloading concept?

Conventional terminal

o Required components allocated onshore in the yard FSRU

o Required components for regasifying, pump, little storage capacity to shore integrated within the FSRU

o Required components for distribution are onshore GBS

o Required components for regasifying, pump and large storage capacity integrated within the FSRU

o Required components for distribution are onshore

2. What defines sustainability?

Sustainability is defined as the three p’s, these are factors for People, Planet, profit:

People’s aspect is explained as the sociological impact of constructing a terminal.

Planet is explained as the environmental and ecological consequences by

constructing a terminal, e.g. Greenhouse gasses.

Profit is explained as sustainable profit made with recycling or decommissioning a

plant.

3. What are the key factors for selecting a concept?

a. Functionality b. Technicality c. Accessibility d. Operability e. Sustainability f. Financial aspects

S. Quirijns

117

4. What defines feasibility: a. In a technical sense?

i. stability of the construction b. In a sustainable sense?

i. environmental footprint ii. energy efficiency iii. applied synergy collaborations

c. In a financial sense? i. investment costs ii. Operational costs iii. benefits iv. Cost Benefit ratio v. Qualitative Risk assessments

5. What are limiting factors or boundary conditions regarding the preliminary design?

a. environmental conditions i. wind ii. waves iii. currents iv. soil conditions v. seismological activity

b. safety regulations c. equipment limitations d. Operational limits

6. Construction method per LNG unloading concept?

a. Is there a universal approach. i. no, different per structure

b. What are the decisive elements?

i. Stability ii. Mooring limits iii. Berthing iv. Hydrodynamics of carriers

7. What affects downtime of an operational LNG unloading terminal the most?

a. How is this minimized? i. Hydrodynamics carriers

1. breast lines 2. spring lines 3. breasting dolphins with fenders

ii. Environmental conditions 1. mooring limits

iii. Atypical hazards 1. to prevent 2. to control 3. to limit

S. Quirijns

118

13.3 Transport analysis for port Yuzhny

LNG Carrier dimensions 13.3.1

In figure 59 underneath the most plausible transport routes are shown. Route A is to Algeria

and route B is towards the Middle Eastern Countries. The Middle Eastern countries are now mentioned

as a conglomeration of United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. This does not result in

a different transport routes.

Figure 59 Two main transport routes, adapted from Google maps, retrieved May 2015 from Marine vessel traffic © 2013 - 2015 www.marinevesseltraffic.com

According to the performed analysis in table 48 the depth and width of both straits are no

limitation for Qmax sized carriers. However, there is safety regime, because of the size and cargo of

the carriers. For the Suez Canal there is a limitation on ships dimensions known as the Suez max.

This is shown and compared with the Qatar fleet in table 48. Support of these statements is

mentioned within transport analysis.

S. Quirijns

119

Table 47 List of bottlenecks dimensions compared with dimensions of the Qatar fleet.

Bottlenecks Maximum dimensions

kind of carrier

Qmax Qflex

Bosphorus strait LOA [m] NA. 345 297.5 Beam [m] NA. 53.8 47.75 Draft [m] 13 12 10.95 Air draft [m] 58 34.7 25.5

Dardanelles Strait LOA [m] NA. 345 297.5 Beam [m] NA. 53.8 47.75 Draft [m] 20 12 10.95 Air draft [m] 58 34.7 25.5

Suez Canal/ Suezmax LOA [m] NA. 345 297.5

Beam [m] 50 53.8 47.75 Draft [m] 20.1 12 10.95 Air draft [m] 68 34.7 25.5

Table 48 clearly shows that Qmax carriers are prohibited to sail through to the Suez Canal.

The smaller Qflex carriers are allowed to pass the Suez Canal. The remaining bottlenecks do not result

in any limitations. Because of the ship’s dimensions and transport of hazardous cargo, a safety regime

for the Turkish straits and Suez Canal have been introduced in order to avoid dangerous situations.

These safety regulations are handled in the next chapter about safety.

The Turkish Straits are connected via the Sea of Marmara. The transit distance is about 204km

and is not included as bottleneck, because there are no significant navigational hazards to carriers. At

the access of the Dardanelle strait there is limited anchorage space, and the space is close to the

traffic lanes. The approach at Bosphorus strait is adjacent to the Istanbul port, which is very crowded.

Therefore the approach from Sea of Marmara to Bosphorus is quite congested (Oil Companines

International Marine Forum, 2007).

Bottlenecks 13.3.2

The technical definition of a bottleneck is the congestion of transport flow due to

overcapacity, which means that intensity of the transport flow is higher than the capacity of the

transport flow. In this case the congestion is caused by narrow and/or shallow water bodies, as shown

in table 49. Capacity can be interpreted in two manners, namely as maximum allowable ships

dimensions or as annual throughput of handling vessels. However there is a third limiting factor this is

the content of the cargo. If the cargo is hazardous it will introduce limitations for accessibility.

Table 48 Bottlenecks along the transport routes A and B with corresponding intensities measured in 2014.

id. Route A Route B Intensity [Ships/year]

1 Strait of Bosphorus Strait of Bosphorus 56000

2 Dardanelles Strait Dardanelles Strait 56000

3 Suez Canal 17148

Regarding the limitations of vessel seizes through the straits and canals, it was already

mentioned that only maximum width of the Suez Canal was exceeded. For bathymetry, air draught

and length of the relevant carriers, no limitations were raised for the remaining bottlenecks.

S. Quirijns

120

Intensities Annual vessel intensities of the Turkish Straits are a rough estimation. Since no statistics were

available about the Dardanelles Strait intensity, this intensity is assumed equal to the intensity of the

Bosphorus strait. By making this assumption some loss in accuracy of the research is accepted. Annual

statistics of the intensity at Suez was correctly measured in 2014.

Due to the high intensities, there is limited space for errors within the Turkish Straits. This has

resulted in a high dependability on vessel traffic services. (Pixon, 2006).

Currents

As was discussed in the topic for Hydrology within both the Turkish straits, flow is in two

directions. The surface current is from Black Sea through the straits towards the Aegean Sea. In the

other directions is the undercurrent. The surface current is strong in the first areas of the Bosphorus

strait. Figure 60 shows the current within the Istanbul/Bosphorus strait.

Figure 60 currents in Bosphorus strait http://www.afcan.org/dossiers_techniques/tsvts_gb.html

The surface current, caused by water level difference, flows from the Black Sea towards the

Aegean Sea with an average speed of about 2.1 m/s and has a maximum during strong northerly

winds of about 3.6 m/s. Due to strong southern winds the surface current can weak or reverse the

surface current, which is called the Orkoz current. A northbound deep current is due to density

differences between both sides. This current is between 2 to 9 m below surface level and has a

maximum velocity of about 1.5 m/s. Eddies and significant turbulence of is formed where the currents

mix. This results in unpredictable navigational conditions. Currents within the Dardanelle strait are less

hazardous yet there is a surface current which can reach up to 2.6 m/s, because of strong northerly

winds. This information is received from a report made by an oil company (Oil Companines

International Marine Forum, 2007).

The Suez Canal has a minor sea level difference, because of the flat land. No locks are

required at the outer ends, which allows weak neglectable currents within the canal.

Other actual projects

In order to increase capacity for both ships dimensions and annual throughput two new

projects, which are in different phases, are introduced:

1. New channel in Istanbul— Canal Istanbul

2. New Suez Canal

S. Quirijns

121

Since the project for a new Suez Canal is planned to be finished in 2016 and will be accessible

for any vessel size, all physical limitations for sailing through the Suez Canal are removed. When the

LNG regasification terminal in Yuzhny project is finished, then the Suez Canal has no more limitations

regarding Qmax sized distributions. The decision for the new channel in Istanbul is not final.

Therefore the design of the Port of Yuzhny is based upon the current Bosphorus strait.

Passage restrictions 13.3.3

In order to safeguard the vessels through these bottlenecks safety regimes or passage

restrictions are introduced. First the Turkish Straits are treated and second is the Suez Canal Safety

regime. Safety regimes of the present situations are discussed.

Turkish Straits

Due to narrow areas, shallows, strong currents and congestion at approaches the following

passage restrictions for the Bosphorus strait are introduced in 2002 and are shown in figure 61.

Figure 61 Bosphorus strait passage restrictions http://ocimf.org/media/8922/Turkist%20Straits.pdf

Carriers carrying hazardous cargo and of large LOA are prohibited in opposite directions.

Zoning is explained as, that in the case of opposing vessels with hazardous cargo. The restrictions

allow those vessels to transit in opposite directions, provided they do not meet in the narrower parts

i.e. between Kanlica and Vanikoy.

The Dardanelle strait is less dangerous regarding bathymetry, currents, but a high intensity

still results in congestion. A less strict safety regime compared to the Bosphorus strait is maintained.

This can be seen in figure 62.

S. Quirijns

122

Figure 62 Dardanelle Strait passage restrictions.

These statements about hazardous cargo, such as LNG, underline the safety regime of the Turkish Straits:

“When a vessel carrying dangerous cargo, enter the Strait of Istanbul (Bosphorus), another

vessel with the same characteristics, may not be permitted to enter the straits, until, it has passed the “Istanbul Bogazi bridge”, when entering from the north and until it has passed the “Hamsi Burnu – Fil Burnu” line,when entering from the south, and in the case of the Strait of Canakkale (Dardanelles), until the vessel navigating ahead, has left the “Nara Burnu” region. (Bosphorus Strait News, 2015)”

Similar for the LOA of carriers of more than 250 m this is stated:

“Istanbul Traffic Control Station permits only 1 (one) tanker with LOA 250 meters or more to

transit Bosphorus Strait between 05.30 and 07.30 hours. The first one on turn is chosen for transit. Tankers waiting in turn are only permitted to transit if they take an escort tug boat for passage, otherwise they are instructed to wait at the outside of Bosphorus until next daylight. (Bosphorus Strait

News, 2015)”

These restrictions are stated by Turkish Authorities in 2002 that are relevant for LNG carriers (Oil

Companines International Marine Forum, 2007):

Northbound and southbound traffic will be suspended once each day for the passage

of vessels exceeding 200 metres in length carrying dangerous cargo in the Bosphorus

Strait and in the Dardanelle Strait.

When a vessel of 150 metres or more, carrying dangerous cargo, is in transit of the

Bosphorus Strait, no other vessel carrying dangerous cargo of 150 metres or more

may enter the Strait in the same direction until the said vessel has cleared the

Bosphorus Bridge (if southbound) or passing Fil Burnu (northbound). In practice, this

means a separation distance of some 21-24 km between the vessels.

S. Quirijns

123

When a vessel carrying dangerous cargo is in transit of the Dardanelle Strait, no other

vessel of 200 metres or more carrying dangerous cargo may enter the Strait in the

same direction until the said vessel has cleared the Nara region. In practice, this

means a separation distance of some 40 km between the vessels when southbound

and 32 km when northbound.

In Dardanelle Strait, no vessels are allowed to follow within 32 km of an LNG carrier.

Where one-way traffic is imposed, certain vessels, including passenger ships, may be

permitted to transit against the direction of one-way traffic, provided that they have a

pilot on board.

In figure 63 the restricted areas are indicated in yellow. Northern indication is the ‘Hamsi

Burnu- Filburnu’ line and the southern indication is the Bosphorus Bridge.

Figure 63Bosphorus strait map www.europeanmaritime.com/ist.html

S. Quirijns

124

In figure 64 shows the Dardanelle strait with in yellow indicated the Nara region. In this

region there is limited access for LNG carriers and large LOA carriers. As mentioned in previously.

Figure 64 Dardanelle Strait http://www.europeanmaritime.com/canakkale.html

S. Quirijns

125

Suez Canal

Suez Canal connects the Mediterranean sea and the Red sea. According to the information site

of the Suez Canal (Suez Canal Authority, 2015), the following passage restrictions are necessary for

LNG carriers. Since there is no space for free two-way traffic, ships pass in convoys and use bypasses

in the canal. Figure 65 shows a schematic view of the Suez Canal map and its bypasses.

Figure 65 Schematic view of Suez Canal map

On a typical day three convoys transit the canal, two southbound and one northbound. It

takes up 11 hours to 16 hours at a speed of about 15 km/h. The canal operates 24 hours per day,

which results in an average of 76 average sized ships per day. The convoys sail at scheduled times

each day. Table 50 shows the passage restrictions of the Suez Canal regarding LNG carriers and large

sized vessels.

Table 49 Safety regime for Suez Canal

Requirements

Description Allowed Tugs Maximum in

strait per day

Accessibility depends on:

Carrier's LOA +

300m

Y Y 1 Sailing manoeuvring capacities

Climate conditions

Seasonal conditions

Carrier's Beam

between 65 m

and 75 m

Conditionally Y 1 Only transit in calm weather

Hazardous

Cargo

Y Y 1 No spilling and pollution at all cost

LNGC are allowed to release clean ballast water to reduce draft

S. Quirijns

126

13.4 Verification of Functional requirements

The LNG receiving terminal is an extension of the Port of Yuzhny and has to be located in the

most optimal location considering accessibility, safety, sustainability and economically. Qatar

Investment Group is willing to invest in the project on one condition, that the berthing location is

accessible to Qmax sized carriers (South Online, 2015). According to (U.S. Energy Information

Administration , 2014) the statistics of NG in Ukraine’s over time are shown in figure 66. Clearly,

consumption is reduced because of political orders. In 2008 it was caused by the financial crisis and in

2015 is credited to the conflict. Since 2015 Crimea is no longer Ukrainian land and many investors

have left Ukraine, reducing the expected production drastically in 2015. Similar for the import of gas

by Ukraine is caused the price increase of gas (Belousov, 2015).

Figure 66 Volumes of NG consumption, production and demand

Before the conflict Ukraine imported 64% (U.S. Energy Information Administration , 2014) of

their total NG demand from Russia. Currently this import is frozen to an all-time low, because of the

conflict. The new facility is required to have at least an annual throughput of 10% of the total

Ukrainian NG demand. In the future this 10% has to increase, by doing so, the energy independence

of is expected to increase.

Table 51 shows the averaged demand for NG and LNG in Ukraine in 2013. In which the

volume of NG is 600 times larger compared to the volume of LNG. However, this demand is a

simplification, because of the applied values for year-round 24/7 operational times.

Table 50 Daily and hourly averaged demand for NG or LNG

Averaged demand

m3/y cm/day m3/hr

10% Demand NG 5.00E+09 1.37E+07 5.71E+05

100% Demand NG 5.00E+10 1.37E+08 5.71E+06

10% Demand LNG 8.33E+06 2.28E+04 9.51E+02

100% Demand LNG 8.33E+07 2.28E+05 9.51E+03

A more realistic value for (un)loading rates per hour is rather based upon service time per

ship. Nevertheless, this table is rough indication of the required demand and corresponding

(un)loading rates on a yearly, daily or hourly basis.

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

NG

usa

ge

[b

cm

]

Ukrainian's NG record 2003 to 2014

Consumption [bcm/yr]

production [bcm/yr]

Net import (-)/export

[bcm/yr]

S. Quirijns

127

13.5 Area analysis

Geographical 13.5.1

Relevant topographical features required for the study are analysed, topics that are treated

are urban areas, water surfaces and local bathymetry. Reference is made towards the chapter 1.3.2

boundary limits of the current thesis report and corresponding figure 3 and table 2, respectively.

Topography

Figure 67 shows Ukraine, which is the second largest country of Europe. Crimea is still shown as

a part of Ukraine, but this is now part of Russia. Five largest cities of Ukraine are shown in table 52 of

which Kiev is the capital.

Table 51 Largest Cities in Ukraine by inhabitants

Index Population Number of people

in millions

Overall Ukraine including Crimea

45.4

1 Kiev 2.85

2 Kharkiv 1.4

3 Dnipropetrovsk 1.0

4 Odessa 1.0

5 Donetsk 1.0

Yuzhny is significantly smaller and has a population of about 50 thousand people. In figure 54

Yuzhny is indicated with a red dot and black arrow. Location of Yuzhny is on the north-western shores

of the Black Sea in the Odessa Province.

Figure 67 Map of Ukraine, adapted from Shipyard Liman location, retrieved February 2015 from

http://liman.ua/eng/images/stories/liman/map_eng.jpg © 2014, shipyard Liman, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

128

Several statistics about Ukraine are mentioned in tables 53 and 52. The main language is

Ukrainian and second is Russian. This corresponds to the Ethnic groups living within Ukraine, where

Ukrainian people are the largest group, second are the Russians, respectively. Ukraine mostly consists

out of fertile land and the largest borders are with Russia and Moldova.

Table 52 Area coverage of Ukraine by land and open water surfaces

Area Value [km2]

Total 603550

Land 579330 Water 24220

Table 53 Borders of Ukraine and coastal boundaries

Boundaries Value [km]

Total length of

borders

4566

Russia 1576

Moldova 940

Belarus 891

Romania 438

Poland 428

Hungary 103

Slovakia 90

Coastal boundary 2782

Figure 68 shows all sea and container ports in Ukraine focussed on the port of Yuzhny and

western side of Crimea. Since Crimea is overtaken by Russia, Ukraine has lost some important

industrial areas i.e. coal refinery or production of natural gas, also strategic military and cargo ports.

Figure 68 Map of ports in southern Ukraine, adapted from Searates LP, retrieved march 2015 from http://www.searates.com/maritime/ukraine.html © 2015, Basarsoft, Google, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

129

Layout 13.5.2

Yuzhny sea port located within Adjalykskiy Liman. Figure 69 shows the layout of the port

within this liman. As mentioned the port of Yuzhny consists out of a dry, liquid and general cargo

terminals and a container terminal. Figure 69 shows the schematic mapping of the port layout with

primary and secondary features. Within this figure water surface and land are indicated with white

and grey, respectively. Primary features consist of the terminal allocation and pipeline distribution.

The existing high and low pressure pipelines and prospective pipelines are applied for distributing gas

towards the hinterland. The desired connection to the pipeline hinterland connections is at AGDS

Vyzyrka.

Figure 69 Schematic image of current layout of Yuzhny port

Secondary features are the marina port of Port of Yuzhny, Odessa Chemical Port Plant, rail

connections and two villages New Bilyary and Vyzyrka. The existence of these two villages has

influence on the allocation of the new LNG terminal. Odessa chemical port plant is a potential co-

operating partner to develop a synergy with the LNG regasification terminal.

White area:

Water

Grey area:

Land cover

S. Quirijns

130

Bathymetry 13.5.3

Considering bathymetry for the Black Sea, Sea of Marmara and Aegean Sea does not result in

restrictions for arriving LNGC. The figures containing the bathymetry of these seas are included as

figure 59 and Figure 60. Considering local bathymetry along the primary transport routes from the

Mediterranean Sea towards the Black Sea are the North Shelf and the Turkish straits.

North shelf

The shallower North Shelf is located along the southern coastline of Ukraine. Due to the

shallowness of this location an approach channel is constructed. Figure 70 shows the North Shelf

including the approach channel. The three leading ports are located in the region of Odessa, namely

the ports of Odessa, Ilichivs’k and Yuzhny. The ports are accessed by a combined channel that splits

up in three separate channels into the direction of a single port. Table 54 shows the dimensions of the

channels shown in figure 70.

Table 54 Dimensions of approach channels at the North Shelf

Major approach channel to

Length [km]

width [km]

Depth [m]

max speed [knots]

Max speed [m/s]

Odessa 16.8 3 +20 15 7.72

Ilichivs’k 7.46 3.3 +20 15 7.72

Yuzhny 23 2.6 +20 15 7.72

Turn circle 13 6.5 +20 15 7.72

Figure 70 Bathymetry of north shelf and approach channel, adapted from Navionics, retrieved march

2015 from webapp.navionics.com © 2015, opencyclemap.com, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

131

Port of Yuzhny

The bathymetry within Port of Yuzhny and adjacent coastline is shown in figure 71. It is noted

that the approach channel in and outside the port nearly has a constant depth. The banks along the

coast are not too steep approximately 10 degrees.

Figure 71 Bathymetry and layout at port of Yuzhny and adjacent coastline, adapted from Navionics,

retrieved march 2015 from webapp.navionics.com © 2015, opencyclemap.com, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

132

Turkish Straits

Remaining shallow areas along the transport routes are the Turkish Straits. Figures 72 and

Figures 73 show the Bosphorus Strait and Dardanelle strait respectively. Both straits have some

severe shallow and narrow areas, which is dangerous for carriers to run ashore on shallow banks.

Table 55 gives a description of the dimensions of both the Turkish straits.

Table 55 Dimension and bathymetry of Turkish Straits

Turkish

Strait

Minimal Mean Maximum

Bosphorus Length [km] 31

Width [m] 700 3420

Depth [m] 13 65 110

Dardanelle Length [km] 61

Width [m] 1200 6000

Depth [m] 20 55 103

In both figures 72 and 73, the location of the cross-section is indicated by a green line.

However, most critical locations for either of the straits are not sufficient measured. Consequently

these figures propose an accuracy, which is not measured at all locations. When a cross-section is

taken at these dark red locations indicate a water level of zero depth. Therefore these figures are

solely for indicating the schematic average depth of both the straits. The minimal dimensions for

width and depth, in table 55, are applied for verifying the limitations of transport routes.

Figure 72 Bathymetry of Bosphorus strait and depth profile adapted from EMODnet, retrieved march

2015 from Portal for Bathymetry© 2015, EMODnet, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

133

Figure 73 Bathymetry of Dardanelle strait and depth profile adapted from EMODnet, retrieved march

2015 from Portal for Bathymetry© 2015, EMODnet, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

134

13.6 Hydrological conditions

First the conditions of the Black Sea are determined, afterwards the local conditions around

Yuzhny.

Hydrology of Black Sea 13.6.1

Figure 74 shows the variety of waterbodies within the boundary limits. The Black Sea is the

largest body of water with a meromictic basin3 and is called a marginal5 sea. Due to the meromictic

character the sea volume contains over 90% of anoxic water. Circulation pattern within the Black Sea

are controlled mainly by basin topography and fluvial inputs, resulting in a strong stratified vertical

structure. Therefore the Black Sea classifies as a salt wedge estuary4. Due to this the sea is highly

anoxic, which means that there is no marine life possible in the lower layers. The upper layer density

is estimated to 1018 kg/ m3.

Figure 74 Map of water bodies and rivers at the Black sea, adapted from Worldatlas, retrieved march

2015 from http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/blacksea.htm © 2015, GraphicMaps.com, reprinted with permission

Water exchange of the Black Sea is from the exchange with Mediterranean Sea and inflow by

rivers such as Danube River and Dnipro River. The water transfer between the two seas passes the

Dardanelle strait and Bosphurus strait. Inflow from the Mediterranean Sea has a higher salinity and

density compared to the outflow, creating a classical estuarine circulation. Denser and salter water

inflow is near the bottom and fresher water, coming from the Black Sea surface, is at the upper layer.

In both the Turkish straits, flow is in two directions in the upper layer fresher water flows as a surface

current from the Black Sea towards Aegean Sea and vice versa for the denser and saltier water layer

via an undercurrent.

5 See List of Terms

S. Quirijns

135

(Staneva, Dietrich, Stanev, & Bowman, 2001) Have researched the water flows within the

Black Sea. Figure 75 shows a model in which they modelled the currents and eddy and residual flows

within the Black Sea. The model applied is a DieCAST ocean model, this is z-level, primitive,

hydrostatic, Boussinesq, finite difference model running with low dissipation and fully fourth-order

numerics.

Figure 75 Snapshot of sea level (cm) and surface streamlines at the Black sea, adapted from (Staneva,

Dietrich, Stanev, & Bowman, 2001), retrieved march 2015 from http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/icbm/ag/physoz/download/sebastian/JMS_sdsb_01.pdf © 2001, Elsevier Science B.V. , reprinted with permission

According to (Staneva, Dietrich, Stanev, & Bowman, 2001) figure 75 shows the surface

circulation of the Black Sea. The existence of the larger cyclonical rim current around the perimeter of

the Black Sea with a maximum velocity of about 50 to 100 cm/s. Within the rim current two smaller

gyres are located in the western and eastern side of the basin. During winter these two gyres are

well-organized systems, but during spring and autumn these gyres dissipate into a series of

interconnected eddies. Due to upwelling around the coastal apron and ‘wind curl’ mechanisms, several

quasi-permanent anti-cyclonic eddies are formed, such as the Batumi and the Sebastopol eddies.

“According to the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler measurements (Oguz and Besiktepe,

1999), the Rim Current jet has a speed of 50-100 cm/s within the upper layer, and about 10-20 cm/s

within the 150-300 m depth range.” (Oguz & Besiktepe, 2002)

Latter statement about current velocity is supported by (Staneva, Dietrich, Stanev, &

Bowman, 2001) & (Toderascu & Rusu, 2013). So, it is expected that the determined values are

validated and can be applied during the design phase within this port masterplan.

S. Quirijns

136

Figure 76 Currents within Black Sea, adapted from Institute of Marine Sciences, retrieved April 2015 from http://www.ims.metu.edu.tr/cv/oguz/circulation.htm © 2015, opencyclemap.com, reprinted with permission

The outer anti cyclonic rim current and two inner cyclonic gyres are clearly visible within this

figure 76. The Danube gyre is influenced by the fresh water inflow from the Danube, this forms the

clockwise circulation along the Ukrainian coastal zones/ north-western shallows.

According to the paper, written by (Toderascu & Rusu, 2013), there is a high seasonal

variation at the location P1 (Coordinates 45.21 N, 31E). During the winter two dominant directions are

present: North and South. While during summer period the direction is of the current is northwards. Table 56 shows the monthly averaged current velocities for the measured period of 1993 to 2010.

Table 56 Monthly averaged values of the current velocity for the period 1993-2010, © 2013 SciRes

Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Averaged

current

velocity [m/s]

0.071 0.075 0.068 0.057 0.064 0.058 0.062 0.073 0.069 0.076 0.080 0.069

Table 57 shows the monthly averaged values of the current velocities averaged as seasonal periods.

Table 57 Seasonal averaged values of the current velocity at P1 for the period 1993-2010

Winter Spring Summer Autumn

Averaged

current

velocity [m/s]

0.072 0.063 0.064 0.075

S. Quirijns

137

So in summer an onshore directed current develops, while in winter two distinctive directions

on and offshore are formed. The offshore directed current is interpreted as a return current at bed

level. This results in an offshore directed sedimentation flux, ultimately leading to a small amount of

erosion of the shallow north shelf during winter. Sediment transport is treated more extensively in the

next chapter. Table 58 is a view of the statistics of the current velocity at location P1.

Table 58 Statistics of current velocity at location P1 for the period 1993-2010, © 2013 SciRes

Minimum (m/s)

Maximum (m/s)

Mean (m/s) Median (m/s)

St. Dev (m/s)

Skewness5 Kurtosis6

0.001 0.293 0.069 0.063 0.039 0.992 4.577

For the port location the following design values are selected. Maximum current velocity is

applied as design criterion in the cross-shore direction at the port location. Longshore current is set

to a value of 1 cm/s.

Location measurement stations 13.6.2

All external influences are discussed within this chapter, such as hydrological, morphological

and environmental conditions. The metocean data and wave characteristics have been acquired at the

locations shown in figure 77.

Figure 77 Locations of both measurement stations at Black Sea, adapted from Google M aps, retrieved

April 2015 from http://www.latlong.net/ © 2012-2015 www.LatLong.net, reprinted with permission

Both the data sets, for the metocean data and wave characteristics data, have a time span of

ten years, yet the wave data has an uniform measurement interval of four measurements per day and

the metocean measurements have a non-uniform interval of at least two per day or more. ‘Matlab’

and “Excel” both have been applied to plot the data, respectively.

6 See List of Term

S. Quirijns

138

Waves 13.6.3

‘Witteveen + Bos’ supplied the wave data set of the Black Sea. Figure 78 shows a wave rose

at the location (latitude 45.75 and longitude 31.5). This offshore location is the nearest location

towards Yuzhny that represents an accurate wave climate. Tables 59 and 60 support the figure 78

and both show that the frequencies of occurrences of a particular wave height or direction

respectively. It can be seen that the highest frequencies are at the lower ranges for wave height and

is multidirectional. Yet the higher ranges for wave height are clearly in the directions;

1. West-Southwest

2. Northeast

3. East-Northeast & East-southeast

The single occurrence for the plus 5 m significant wave height is in the East-northeast

direction (60-70 degrees). Similar for the waves between the ranges 4 m or higher have a probability

of occurrence of 1 in 1000 year. So, probability of significant waves of 4 m or higher is negligible small

during the design. Wave heights between 0m and 2 m are most common, thus 2.5 meter significant

wave height is used as the offshore design level. This results in a probability of exceeding of 0.3% in

100 years.

Figure 78 Wave rose at location (lat. 45.75; lon. 31.5) for 10 years of data

Waves towards Yuzhny are in the range of 300° and 360°.

Table 59 Distribution of significant wave height for 10 years of data

Nr of events per particular wave height for ten years of data 2005-2015

Range Significant wave height

(0:0.5> (0.5:1> (1:1.5> (1.5:2> (2:2.5> (2.5:3>

Events

[%]

39.55% 37.34% 14.66% 5.22% 2.01% 39.55%

Nr of events

5778 5455 2141 763 294 124

(3:3.5> (3.5:4> (4: 4.5> (4.5:5> (5;5.5> Sum

Events [%]

0.27% 0.06% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 100%

Nr of events

39 9 3 1 1 14608

S. Quirijns

139

Table 60 Distribution of significant wave height direction for 10 years of data

Nr. of events per direction for ten years of data

Directional range (°)

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90

3.57% 3.48% 3.27% 3.31% 3.66% 4.28% 3.80% 3.02% 3.04%

Nr.of events 521 508 477 483 534 625 555 441 444

Directional range (°)

90-100

100-110

110-120

120-130

130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180

2.41% 2.20% 2.09% 1.62% 1.99% 1.92% 2.23% 2.31% 2.81%

Nr. of events 352 322 305 237 291 280 326 338 411

Directional range (°)

180-190

190-200

200-210

210-220

220-230 230-240 240-250 250-260 260-270

3.48% 4.35% 4.77% 4.04% 3.01% 2.04% 1.91% 1.68% 1.92%

Nr. of events 509 635 697 590 440 298 279 245 280

Directional range (°)

270-280

280-290

290-300

300-310

310-320 320-330 330-340 340-350 350-360

1.86% 1.64% 1.93% 2.20% 2.35% 2.62% 3.09% 3.04% 3.07%

Nr. of events 271 240 282 322 344 382 451 444 449

Figure 79 Wave characteristics at location (lat. 45.75; lon. 31.5) for 10 years of data 2005-2015

In figure 79 the wave height axis is applied at a reference level z= 0 m at minimal low trough

wave height independent of bathymetry. With respect to the direction axis to the north is indicated as

0°.

S. Quirijns

140

In the upper two plots the significant wave height is plotted over time and against wave

period. Seasonal variance can be noted in the left upper plot, there are ten peaks and lows within ten

years. So, it can be deducted that high and low water levels correspond to winter and summer

periods, respectively. In between the peaks are spring and autumn with a decrease or increase wave

height. The upper right plot indicates that there are only wave periods in the range of 2 to 8 seconds.

So in the measured period only very short waves exist.

The lower plots contain the significant wave height and significant wave period are plotted

against wave directions cantered at given latitude and longitude. It can be stated that most of the

waves are clustered in the directions 60°, 200° and 320°. This corresponds to the wind rose shown in

figure 74.

During the analysis of the Black Sea´s hydrology the absence of tidal influences was already

mentioned. So, mostly all occurring waves are driven by wind and density differences. Due to the

relatively short fetch at Black Sea, wind driven waves in general have little energy. Yet during storms

more energy is transferred over a short fetch, which are associated with the high peaks of more than

2.5 m significant wave height, therefore this is selected as design wave height.

Near shore wave transformation 13.6.4

As the wind rose shows the waves towards Yuzhny are in the range of 335 degrees up to 345

degrees. This range is normalized into a single wave front of 340 degrees. Regarding the coastline of

Yuzhny is 70 degrees to the North, this results in a normally incident wave front to Yuzhny coastline.

Bathymetry of a single cross-section from the measured location to Yuzhny is shown in figure

80. Depth is given relative to the mean sea level.

Figure 80 Local bathymetry of cross-section from measuring location to Yuzhny.

Linear wave theory divides the 10 year wave data into three sections, namely deep,

intermediate and shallow waves. On average deep water formulas, for which the criteria is h/l>0.5,

are applied from offshore point about 92.5km from the coast to up to 500m from the coast. Shallow

areas are the last 500 m from the coastline, the boundary is h/L<1/20. In between the boundaries for

deep and shallow waves are the intermediate waves. These are approx. 5.5 km from the coast up to

100 m from the coast and some even reach the coast. Thus intermediate waves and deep waves

overlap at for varying locations. Within this analysis for wave transformations, indicated wave heights

at arbitrary locations 1and 2 are the root mean square wave heights at these locations, which is equal

to 0.707 *Hs.

-60

-40

-20

0

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

De

pth

[m

]

Distance [km]

Yuzhny's bathymetry Bed level of relative to MSL

Bedlevel

MSl

S. Quirijns

141

Wave transformation is based upon the energy balance and linear wave theory. Wave

transformation is described as effects for shoaling and refraction of waves, also wave dissipation by

white capping and wave breaking is included. Equation 6 is applied for relating the energy balance to

wave heights at two arbitrary locations.

Equation 6 Wave energy

𝑈 = 𝐸𝑐𝑔 = 𝐸𝑛𝑐 = (18⁄ ∗ 𝜌𝑔𝐻𝑟𝑚𝑠

2 ) ∗ 𝑐𝑔

U energy flux per unit wave crest width [j/ms] E wave energy per unit surface area [J/m2]

cg wave group velocity [m/s]

c wave celerity [m/s] n ratio cg to c (For deep water n =0.5 and shallow water n=1)

Hrms Root Mean Square wave height [m] ρ density of water (approx. 1018 m3/kg) [m3/kg]

g acceleration of gravity [m2/s]

Equation 7 Wave energy including width

𝐸𝑛𝑐𝑏 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 → 𝐻22𝑛2𝑐2𝑏2 = 𝐻1

2𝑛1𝑐1𝑏1

The adjusted energy balance in equation 7 includes refraction by adding a difference in width,

caused by a change in incoming angle (See Snell’s law). Since refraction is determined by the

incoming angle of the wave front, in this case normally incident, thus the refraction factor is equal to

one. Shoaling is determined by the difference in propagation speed of two wave groups.

Equation 8 Energy balance at arbitrary selected locations 1 and 2

𝐻2𝐻1

⁄ = 𝐾𝑅𝐾𝑆ℎ = √𝑏1

𝑏2√

𝑐𝑔1

𝑐𝑔2

= √𝑐𝑔1

𝑐𝑔2

Ksh Shoaling factor Kr Refraction factor

Cg 1 or 2 wave group propagation speed at arbitrarily selected locations 1 and 2.

b 1,2 width of the wave front at the same arbitrarily selected locations.

In equation 8 the wave front of 10 years data collection is introduced as H0 and based upon

the shoaling effect the next wave height is calculated. This is done up to the coastline, however this

results in large waves, thus waves will dissipate energy by white capping offshore and wave breaking

at nearshore. Energy dissipation is determined with the ‘Miche criterion’ and ‘Breaker Index’, both is

shown in equations 9 and 10.

Equation 9 Miche Criterion

[𝐻

𝐿]

𝑚𝑎𝑥= 0.142tanh (𝑘ℎ)

H wave height [m] L Wavelength [m]

k wavenumber [1/m] h water level [m]

Because in deep water tanh(kh) goes to 1, this reduces into:

S. Quirijns

142

Equation 10 Adjusted Miche criterion for deep water level

[𝐻

𝐿]

𝑚𝑎𝑥= 0.142

If the deep water steepness exceeds this limit, steepness induced wave breaking (White

capping) occurs. In shallow water the equation 11 becomes:

Equation 11 Breaker index

[𝐻

𝐿]

𝑚𝑎𝑥= 0.142

2𝜋ℎ

𝐿= 0.88

ℎ

𝐿→ 𝛾 = [

𝐻

ℎ]

𝑚𝑎𝑥=

𝐻𝑏

ℎ𝑏

≈ 0.88

γ breaker index

Hb breaking wave height [m] hb water depth at breaking point [m]

When the breaker index is exceeded the wave height becomes greater than a certain fraction

of the water depth. This is called depth-induced breaking.

For Yuzhny it is noted that most wave energy is dissipated in the shallow areas that starts

about 500 m of the coast. Due to the shoaling effect the wave height increased and overreached the

shallow breaker index, immediately causing energy dissipation. Waves that reach the coast are up to

25 cm. offshore within the deeper areas no wave dissipation occurs because the Miche criterion for

morphological conditions is never exceeded.

S. Quirijns

143

13.7 Soil classification

No geotechnical data are available for determine the soil classification. Nevertheless, a rough

estimation is based upon the upper soil layer conditions and a geological survey in Odessa. The

isolines of equal soil classification in figure 81 are an assumption, which will increase the inaccuracy of

the research. The soil layer distribution in the North shelf, where the red line indicates the boundary,

is based upon data of the soil map of Ukraine.

Figure 81 Upper layer soil conditions of Ukraine adapted from European Soil portal, retrieved May 2015

from eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/maps/country_maps/metadata.cfm?mycountry=UA © 1995-2015, European Communities , reprinted with permission

Figure 81 shows that the soil classification of the North shelf varies from loamy clay soils (ρ=

1280 kg/ m3) to uniform clay soils (ρ= 1760 kg/m3). This corresponds to a specific weight of

12.8kN/m3 and 17.6kN/m3, respectively. Along the coast of Yuzhny and the liman in which the port is

located the soil is classified as; “Dark chestnut soil on loess with residual alkaline”. So the soil is rich

with alkaline earth metals and accumulation of a wind-blown silt layer. The soil composition at port of

Yuzhny and adjacent areas is classified as ‘Clay loamy soils’. Distribution of the soil mixture is

assumed to be 1:5, which results in a density of 1664 kg/m3 and a corresponding specific weight of

16.6 kg/m3. Equation 12 for calculating mixture density is;

Equation 12 density of soil mixture

𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑥 = 𝜀𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦𝜌𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦 + 𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑚𝜌𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑚

In which;

ρ density of mixture, clay content and loam content [kg/m3]

ε percentage of soil content [%]

Legend Soil Map of Ukraine Dark chestnut residual alkaline Southern chernozems meagre humic and weakly humic Soddy mainly gleyed sand, clay sand and sandy loam soals on a complex with weakly humic sands Southern chernozems residual alkaline 1 : Clay Loamy soils 2: Medium loamy soils 3: light loamy soils 4: Clay soils

S. Quirijns

144

Equation 13 for specific weight is;

Equation 13 Specific weight of the soil mixture

𝛾𝑚𝑖𝑥 = 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑥 ∗ 𝑔

In which;

γ specific weight [kN/m3] ρ density of mixture, clay content and loam content [kg/m3]

g acceleration of gravity (= 9.81 m/s2)

Geological survey 13.7.1

In order to acquire the vertical soil structure two reference studies considered. The primary

reference study is at the port of Yuzhny, secondary is study is in about the vertical soil structure in

Odessa. The geological survey for this project in the preliminary phase is deducted from both

reference studies. This derived vertical soil structure is included within the main report. Because of the

inaccuracy it is required to have sounding measurement when starting the final phase. Both studies

are discussed within this Appendix.

A study (Cherkez, Dragomyretska, & Gororhovich, 2006), focussed on the specifics of

moderns geological conditions and deformations of landslide affected slopes within Odessa, introduces

a geological survey that is done in Odessa. The location of this geological survey is at Odessa port.

The geological survey is applied for verification. Also it is an introduction for failure mechanisms of the

soil conditions at port of Yuzhny. Figure 82 indicates the distance between both locations.

Figure 82 Distance between Port Odessa and Port Yuzhny adapted from Google maps, retrieved May

2015 from kilometerafstanden.nl/hemelsbreed-afstand-meten.htm © 2015, Google Maps &2015, TerraMatics , reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

145

The geological survey in Odessa is performed in 2005. Figure 83 shows the location and results of this geological survey.

Figure 83 Geotechnical survey at Port Odessa adapted from Landslide protection of the historical heritage in Odessa, retrieved May 2015 from ciesin.org/documents/yuri.landslides.pdf © 2006, Springer-Verlag reprinted with permission

Figure 83 and table 61 show similar results for soil layers with clay, loess and loamy clay. The

following simplified soil classification is deducted for the location of Yuzhny. Table 61 is a schematised

version of the previous mentioned classification. The depth of zero is the reference level at the figure,

so zero is lowest point of the bore measurement.

Table 61 Simplified data for soil classification at Yuzhny

Soil classification Simplified schematically soil depth per soil class

id Description Start Depth [m] End Depth [m]

Difference [m]

1 Pleistocene Loess 35 45 10 2 Pleistocene Loess-like loam 25 35 10

3 Upper Pliocene red clay 20 25 5

4 Alluvial sediment on Pontian limestone

18 20 2

5 Pontian clay 10 18 8 6 Meotian clay 0 10 10

In table 61 it is noted that the upper layer of approximately 20 m contains of loess or a

mixture of loess, thus mostly containing siltic sediments. The lower layer of 20 meter is a variety of

clay layers containing limestone and alkaline earth metals.

S. Quirijns

146

North West Black Sea littoral zone 13.7.2

Sedimentary system within the Black Sea is heavily influenced and structured by the sea level

changes driven by the processes of glaciation and deglaciation. The north-western Black Sea littoral

zone is located north of the Danube Delta (from Jibriany to Yuzhny) is characterized by a degradation

of sediment transport. The beaches aggregate solely through the erosion of the near-shore bottom

and by loess cliffs abrasion, sediment transport containing mostly sand of the Dnieper, Southern Bug

and Dniester being settled within the North shelf.

According to a study (Oguz T. , 2007) performed into the environment of the Black Sea, it is

stated that within the north western shallow shelf is separated in a sediment rich regime and

sediment starving regime. The Danube and Dnieper are the two main inflows of sediment for the

sediment fed areas. Dniester sediment flow and Dnieper sediment flow are equal to 2.5 Million tons

per year and 2.12 Mt/yr, respectively. Figure 84 shows the locations these sediment fed areas and

starving external shelf.

Figure 84 Sediment inflow by Dniester and Dnieper adapted from State of the environment of the Black

Sea, retrieved May 2015 from Institute of Marine Sciences © 2007, Referans Çeviri Hizmetleri, Yazılım ve Yayıncılık Ltd reprinted with permission

The upper layer of the bed level consists of a small layer of mud. The soil layers underneath

the mud are classified as clay and loess and mixtures of loamy clay. Sediment transport of both rivers

mostly contains silts and clayish sediments. There is a non-dominant alongshore current which

transports the sediment westwards along the coast and a dominant southern directed outflow that

transport the sediment in offshore direction towards the deep sea zone. Yuzhny is located within the

area of B, an sediment discharge area of the Dnieper is simplified as a sediment discharge equal to

5808 tons of silt and clay sediment per day (approx. 2.1 m3/ day) in the south-southwest direction.

Outside of area B there is no more forcing of sediment, so the little amount of sediment from the

Dnieper is settled within the area of B.

1:Area under influence of sediment inflow by Dniester. 2: Area under influence of sediment inflow by Dnieper. 3: Danube Delfta front area 5 & 6: Western Black Sea continental shelf areas under (5, influence the influence of the Danube-borne sediment drift; 6, Sediment starved area). 7: Shelf break and upper most contintental slope zone. 8: Deep-sea fans area. 9: Deep-sea floor area. Dot: location of Yuzhny

S. Quirijns

147

Seismological activity 13.7.3

A seismic activity measurement station is located in Odessa. Seismic activity in Odessa is

represented for the Yuzhny situation. In a seismologic monitoring report for Ukraine (Kendzera,

Yegupov, & Yegupov, 2014) it was stated that for the Odessa region, earthquakes magnitudes are in

the range from 4 to 5. Since the start of the measurements there have been 100 events within this

range. Table 62 shows the magnitude, corresponding Modified Mercali Intensity and description

Table 62 Seismologic activity scale

Magnitude

“Richter”

Typical Maximum

Modified Mercalli Intensity

Description

1.0-3.0 I I: Not felt except by a very few under especially

favourable conditions 3.0 - 3.9 II - III II: Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on

upper floors of buildings.

III: Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not

recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck.

Duration estimated

4.0 - 4.9 IV - V IV: Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors

disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars

rocked noticeably. V: Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some

dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned.

Pendulum clocks may stop. 5.0 - 5.9 VI - VII VI: Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture

moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. VII: Damage negligible in buildings of good design and

construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary

structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken

6.0 - 6.9 VII - IX VIII: Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings

with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns,

monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.

IX: Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out

of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

7.0 and higher VIII or higher X: Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most

masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.

XI: Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly.

XII: Damage total. Lines of sight and level are

distorted. Objects thrown into the air.

S. Quirijns

148

Yuzhny 13.7.4

As said there is no accurate information and data available, it is required to do an accurate

geological survey at the project site. Consequently, a rough estimation is made based upon

surrounding soil conditions and fluvial sediment transport.

The soil at Yuzhny and the adjacent coastline mostly contain out of clay, loam and alluvial

sediment. Vertical structure of the soil is classified as a mixture of clay and loess layers. Within the

Black Sea the vertical soils structure remains the similar with loam layers and clay layers and a deeper

clay-sand combination as main classifications. Yuzhny is located within the area of the sediment

discharge by the Dnieper, which is equal to 5808 tons of silts and clayish sediments per day (2

m3/day). This is such a negligible amount of sediment, it can be said that Yuzhny is in a sediment

starving regime.

Seismological activity at Yuzhny is described as felt by all inhabitants and little damage.

Although there is little damage, the seismological activity is implemented in the design. Awareness is

raised for large wave impact on shores and structures. Epicentres of these earthquakes are located to

the east of Odessa. Due to these earthquakes, landslides along the coast of Odessa are the most

often occurring effects.

13.8 Environmental boundary conditions

Wind 13.8.1

Reconsider figure 77, the weather measurement station at Odessa airport is consulted for the

meteorology data for the period from 2005 to 2015. The station is located at lat. 46.49; lon. 30.75.

Figure 85 shows the yearly averaged wind data as a wind rose. Applied velocity ranges are in meter

per second. Within the figure Yuzhny is located east of Odessa Airport.

Figure 85 Wind rose of annual averaged velocity at Odessa Airfield for the period of 2005 to 2015

The annual averaged velocity wind rose clearly displays an inclination of wind blowing from

the east for the lower velocity ranges, while the higher ranges tend to blow from the Northeast. Most

significant is the range between 2 and 5 m/s directed from the south, because it will develop wind

waves coming from the Black Sea towards the ports of Yuzhny and Odessa.

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

Yearly averaged wind rose 2005-2015

(0<u≤2) [m/s]

(2<u≤5) [m/s]

(5<u≤10) [m/s]

(10<u≤15) [m/s]

(u>5) [m/s]

S. Quirijns

149

A high seasonal variance can be seen per seasonal period in the monthly averaged wind roses

in Appendix A. Tables 63 and 64 show the seasonal variety in wind velocity and direction. The highest

values, in both tables, are indicated with shades of green.

Table 63 Seasonal variety within wind velocity over time

Seasonal Period

Months Calm [m/s]

(0<u≤2) [m/s]

(2<u≤5) [m/s]

(5<u≤10) [m/s]

(10<u≤15) [m/s]

(u<15) [m/s]

Average speed [m/s]

Winter December 1.59% 39.89% 41.32% 14.70% 2.25% 0.08% 3.88

January 1.78% 39.99% 41.25% 14.99% 1.94% 0.00% 3.65

February 1.57% 38.09% 41.32% 18.04% 0.81% 0.00% 3.52

Spring March 1.55% 41.64% 45.83% 10.49% 0.24% 0.16% 3.26

April 2.08% 48.81% 43.21% 5.81% 0.04% 0.00% 2.88

May 1.71% 59.23% 37.23% 1.67% 0.00% 0.00% 2.38

Summer June 2.77% 60.96% 33.88% 2.31% 0.00% 0.00% 2.41

July 1.72% 64.33% 30.71% 3.12% 0.08% 0.00% 2.39

August 1.95% 67.24% 28.50% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 2.32

Autumn September 1.85% 59.50% 31.18% 7.10% 0.29% 0.00% 2.76

October 2.59% 48.26% 36.99% 10.66% 1.38% 0.00% 3.17

November 2.00% 43.29% 41.41% 12.47% 0.75% 0.04% 3.40

Sum number of days 559 14763 10917 2485 189 7

As expected for a European country the higher velocities cluster during winter and the transitional

periods as autumn and spring. Calm indicates a windless period. Within table 64 the highest three

values per season are indicated with red.

Table 64 Seasonal variety in wind direction

Seasonal Period Months N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Calm

Winter December 5% 6% 9% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 6% 10% 7% 8% 10% 8% 8% 2%

January 7% 9% 9% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 6% 6% 7% 5% 8% 9% 5% 8% 2%

February 10% 8% 9% 8% 5% 4% 4% 4% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 8% 7% 8% 2%

Sum 7% 8% 9% 6% 4% 3% 4% 3% 5% 6% 7% 5% 7% 9% 7% 8% 2%

Spring March 10% 8% 8% 3% 3% 2% 4% 5% 8% 7% 7% 4% 6% 8% 7% 8% 2%

April 6% 4% 6% 4% 3% 3% 7% 7% 10% 9% 9% 5% 5% 7% 5% 6% 2%

May 6% 6% 5% 3% 4% 4% 7% 6% 10% 8% 9% 5% 5% 6% 5% 8% 2%

Sum 7% 6% 6% 3% 4% 3% 6% 6% 9% 8% 8% 5% 6% 7% 6% 7% 2%

Summer June 6% 4% 5% 3% 2% 2% 6% 5% 8% 7% 8% 5% 7% 9% 10% 10% 3%

July 8% 8% 8% 4% 3% 3% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 4% 5% 8% 8% 10% 2%

August 7% 7% 6% 5% 3% 3% 5% 5% 8% 4% 5% 5% 5% 9% 11% 12% 2%

Sum 7% 6% 7% 4% 3% 3% 6% 5% 7% 5% 6% 5% 6% 9% 10% 11% 2%

Autumn September 7% 7% 9% 5% 5% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 9% 10% 10% 9% 2%

October 6% 9% 10% 6% 4% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 3% 4% 9% 9% 9% 3%

November 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 7% 6% 8% 6% 7% 7% 5% 6% 2%

Sum 6% 7% 9% 6% 5% 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 4% 7% 9% 8% 8% 2%

S. Quirijns

150

In table 64 it is evident that during winter and autumn the prevailing wind directions are;

4. West-Northwest 9%

5. Northeast 9%

6. North-Northwest 8%

In spring the prevailing wind directions are;

4. South 9%

5. Southwest 8%

6. South-Southwest 8%

Last during summer the prevailing wind directions are;

4. North-Northwest 11%

5. Northwest 10%

6. West-Northwest 9%

When seasonal and yearly averaged wind roses are compared with the wave rose the

differences are quite severe, only the winter months have little correspondence. The lower velocity

ranges show more association with the lower wave heights. However, this could also be influenced by

other environmental conditions.

Temperature 13.8.2

Data set for temperature is acquired from the same measurement station at Odessa Airport.

Table 65 Temperature data set at Odessa Airport measurement station

Temperature [°C]

Average [nr. of

days]

10-years return

period [%]

Maximum [nr. of

days]

Return Period

[%]

Minimum [nr. of

days]

10-years return

period [%]

T>0 3250 89% 3385 93% 3036 83%

0 ≤ T<-5 277 8% 200 6% 388 11%

-5 ≤T<-10 88 2% 53 1% 167 5%

-10≤T<-15 30 1% 12 0% 43 1%

-15≤T<-20 7 0% 2 0% 16 0%

T ≤ -20 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

Sum 3652 100% 3652 100% 3652 100%

Table 65 shows the measurements for a period of 10 years nearly 90% days per year are

above 0 °C. The extreme low temperatures of -10 °C or less influence the project time span

significantly, yet the amount of days that this occurs is quite low.

S. Quirijns

151

Figure 86 Graph of the annual minimum temperatures (Extreme Value Type I) Gumbel distribution for

the period 2005 to 2015

Considering the annual minimum temperatures in figures 86 and 87, it is derived that the

probability of a reducing minimal temperature increases over time. In figure 87 the correlation

coefficient squared is equal to 0.9511, this indicates that the applied Gumbel distribution is a good fit.

Last the scale parameter and location parameter are equal to -3.015 and -13.397 °C.

Figure 87 Graph of the expected maximum velocity for the desired return period in years

Within figure 87 the desired return periods of 50 and 100 years resulted in a minimum

temperature of at least once in 50 years minimal temperature of –25.16 and -27.27 °C.

y = -3.015x - 13.397 R² = 0.9511

-25.00

-20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Temperature

[°C]

Quantiles of the theoretical Gumbel distribution

-ln(-ln(Pv))

Annual minimum temperatures 2005-2015

Type I Distributition

Linear (Type I

Distributition)

-30.00

-25.00

-20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

1 10 100

Temperature

[°C]

Return period [years]

Minimum temperature Linearised Gumbel

(Extreme value Type I) distribution

Extreme value

distribution

S. Quirijns

152

Maximum annual wind velocity 13.8.3

A linearized Gumbel distribution is applied to determine the extreme wind velocities for the

desired return period. Figure 84 is a graph of the annual maximum wind velocity for the given data

set plotted versus the quantiles 7 of the theoretical Gumbel distribution. The latter is the double

negative logarithm of the ‘Gringorten’ estimation of probability, this estimation for Gumbel is shown in

equation 14.

Equation 14 Gringorten estimation

𝑃𝑣 = (𝑚 − 0.44)/(𝑛 + 0.12)

In which; m ranking of sample

n total number of samples

Figure 88 Graph of the annual wind velocity (Extreme Value Type I) Gumbel distribution for the period

2005 to 2015

In figure 88 the scale parameter is 2.0517, the location parameter is 13.43 and R2 is the

correlation coefficient squared, which is an indication for the goodness of the fit. R2 is equal to 0.8942

means that the Gumbel distribution has a good correlation with the given dataset.

7 See List of Terms

y = 2.0517x + 13.43

R² = 0.8942

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Velocity

[m/s]

Quantiles of the theoretical Gumbel distribution

-ln(-ln(Pv))

Annual maximum wind velocities 2005-2015

Type I Distributition

Linear (Type IDistributition)

S. Quirijns

153

Figure 89 Graph of the expected maximum velocity for the desired return period in years

Figure 89 shows the expected maximum value for a given return period. The expected

maximum wind velocity that has occurred within 100 years is equal to 22.70 m/s and has a probability

of exceeding of 1%.

Visibility 13.8.4

Data set for visibility is acquired from the same measurement station at Odessa Airport.

Table 66 Visibility data set at Odessa Airport measurement station for the period of 2005-2015

Visibility

[km]

Average

[nr. of days]

10-years

return period [%]

Minimum

[nr. of days]

10-years

return period [%]

V<5 309 8% 1248 34%

5 ≥ V>10 494 14% 1021 28%

10 ≥ V>15 432 12% 372 10%

15 ≥ V>20 564 15% 770 21%

20 ≥ V>25 714 20% 115 3%

25 ≥ V>35 864 24% 111 3%

V ≥ 35 275 8% 15 0%

Sum 3652 100% 3652 100%

Table 66 gives the average and minimal amount of days in which the visibility is between

certain ranges. On average the visibility is no issue, yet considering the minimal visibility values the

visibility decreases significantly.

The data set for visibility did not result in a good fit for any probabilistic estimation. A uniform

distribution with an annual minimum visibility of 0.1 km was the most accurate solution.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

1 10 100

Velocity [m/s]

Return period [years]

Wind velocity Linearised Gumbel

(Extreme value Type I) distribution

Extreme value distribution

S. Quirijns

154

Precipitation 13.8.5

Data set for visibility is acquired from the same measurement station at Odessa Airport.

Table 67 Precipitation data set at Odessa Airport measurement station for the period of 2005-2015

Precipitation

[mm/day]

Total number

of days

10-years return period

[%]

R=0 2686 74%

0< R ≤ 5 653 18%

5< R ≤ 10 133 4%

10<R ≤ 15 52 1%

15<R ≤ 20 41 1%

20 ≤ R 87 2%

Sum 3652 100%

Table 67 on the previous page shows the amount of precipitation per day. Most days have no

to low amount of rainfall. However, during storms the consequences are not only loss in working

days, but damages due to storm have to be included as well.

Figure 90 Graph of the annual minimum precipitation (Extreme Value Type I) Gumbel distribution for

the period 2005 to 2015

Figure 90 shows an increasing linear trend for the probability of occurrence of the maximum

amount of precipitation. The goodness of the fit (R2 = 0.8669) has an acceptable accuracy. The

location parameter is equal to 39.32 mm/day and scale parameter 8.9406. Particularly, the latter

parameter results in a high variance for the annual maximum precipitation. This is also reflected by

figure 80.

y = 8.9406x + 39.32

R² = 0.8869

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Precipitation

[mm/day]

Quantiles of the theoretical Gumbel distribution

-ln(-ln(Pv))

Annual maximum precipitation 2005-2015

Type I Distributition

Linear (Type I

Distributition)

S. Quirijns

155

Figure 91 Expected maximum precipitation for the desired return period in years

Figure 91 shows that within a 100 year return period the maximum rainfall have nearly doubled. For 50 year return period this is equal to 74.21 mm/day with a probability of occurrence of

98%.

Snow 13.8.6

Data set for snowfall is acquired from the same measurement station at Odessa Airport.

Table 68 Snowfall data set at Odessa Airport measurement station for the period of 2005-2015

Snow [cm/day] Total number

of days

10-years

return period [%]

S=0 3380 93%

0<S ≤ 1 37 1%

1<S ≤ 2 12 0%

2<S ≤ 3 11 0%

3<S ≤ 5 38 1%

5<S ≤ 10 124 3%

S>10 50 1%

Sum 3693 100%

Table 68 shows the total number of days in a 10 year measuring period. It can be seen that

most days are snowless, but during the days with snow it instantly is quite severe of 3 to 5 cm/day or

more. Obviously this increases the total construction time during winter periods.

In the snowfall data set is one freak snowfall value for 118 cm/ day, because of this storm

none of the probabilistic approximations resulted in an accurate fit. When the freak event is removed

from the approximations, the Gumbel distribution resulted in an accurate fit once more. This is shown

in figure 88 on the next page. The graph shows a blue line with the freak event that has a bad fit (R2

0.6805) and without the freak event indicated with red of which the fit is accurate (R2 = 0.9249)

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

1 10 100

Precipitation

[mm/day]

Return period [years]

Precipitation Linearised Gumbel

(Extreme value Type I) distribution

Extreme value

distribution

S. Quirijns

156

Figure 92 Graph of the annual minimum precipitation (Extreme Value Type I) Gumbel distribution for

the period 2005 to 2015

Figure 92 visualizes the return period of the extreme values for maximum snowfall. The blue

line includes the freak event and resulted in a far too large expected maximum approximation.

Although, freak events as such as the 118 cm in a day are still possible, it should not be included

during the design. Therefore the red line is a much better indication of the increase in expected

maximum value.

Figure 93 Graph of the expected maximum snowfall for the desired return period in years

Ultimately, the approximation without the freak event results in a 50 year return period

maximum snowfall event of 37.26 cm in a day. The 100 year return period maximum snowfall is equal

to 41.74 cm per day.

y = 21.993x + 13.041

R² = 0.6805

y = 6.4142x + 12.23

R² = 0.9249

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

-2 0 2 4 6

Velocity

[m/s]

Quantiles of the theoretical Gumbel distribution

-ln(-ln(Pv))

Annual maximum Snowfall 2005-2015

Type I Distribution with

freak event

Type I Distribution without

freak event

Linear (Type I Distribution

with freak event)

Linear (Type I Distribution

without freak event)

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

1 10 100

Snowfall

[cm/day]

Return period [years]

Snowfall Linearised Gumbel

(Extreme value Type I) distribution

Extreme value

distribution with freakevent

Extreme value

distribution withoutfreak event

S. Quirijns

157

13.9 Sustainability analysis

Synergy 13.9.1

The definition of synergy is a co-operation between multiple instances in order to reduce

energy loss or increase energy efficiency. An example of such a synergy, is between LNG Gate

terminal and Eon Power plant in the Netherlands, where EOn supplies LNG Gate terminal with warm

residual water. LNG Gate terminal applies warm residual water during the transformation process of

LNG to NG. Scenarios for potential synergies within the port of Yuzhny are described and analysed.

Possible synergy cooperation within port of Yuzhny 13.9.2

In the literature study (CH.4.3.4) a study into cold energy applications resulted in many

synergy possibilities. Similarly, other scenarios for synergy are based upon reference cases.

Underneath a list of all conceived scenarios in arbitrary order;

A. Air separation using cold energy can provide liquid nitrogen or liquid oxygen, which

can be used for refrigerating the Ammonia storage tanks of Odessa Port Plant.

B. Supply chilled water for port of Yuzhny industrial district, such as the coal or grain

terminals.

C. District cooling for usage in residential areas near Yuzhny or commercial uses.

D. Niche applications:

a. cold storage

b. cryogenic crushing

c. sea water desalination

E. Waste Heat Recovery via pipeline connection from industrial port facility or Odessa

Port Plant towards the LNG unloading concept.

Scenario A requires an intermediate refrigeration circuit to transfer the cold energy to Odessa

Port plant. Scenario B, C and D can be realised when a closed-loop system and an intermediate

refrigeration circuit are integrated and thus supply cold water to the other party. Scenario E requires a

continuous inflow of waste water (T≥0°C.), via a pipeline and pumping station, from a collaborative

partner.

Main ideology of cold energy extraction is that thermal energy is transferred by intermediate

fluid to the collaborative company. Main limitation of such a synergy is that thermal energy diminishes

over time and space. To maintain net positive energy efficiency, the distance between both facilities

has to be as small as possible and pumps to limit loss in time. These two methods make it possible at

various investments and operational costs to construct synergies between LNG import terminal and

the adjacent industrial port district.

Onshore regasification terminal concept is most preferable for cold energy extraction, because

of the shortest distance between facilities. Second best is the GBS offshore terminal, on one condition,

that the cold energy extraction system is implemented within the layout of the GBS. Third is the FSRU

concept, due to motions of the carrier and lack of space on board, it is not efficient to construct

synergies for cold energy extraction. Currently, no technology is available for small scale vaporizers

that can be adapted with cold energy extraction.

S. Quirijns

158

13.10 Power generation components in combination with LNG

receiving facilities

At LNG receiving terminals large quantities of cold energy are available for extraction during

the regasification process. I.E. a typical 5 MTPA import terminal can generate up to 110 MW cold

energy as maximum send out. Power generation is most easily integrated with the vaporizer

technology. In the literature study (Ch.4.3.3 & Ch.4.3.4) a study is done for applications of vaporizers,

such as OCV’s and SCV’s. Currently, shell and tube vaporizers are most suitable, when there is an

external heat source available or when cold energy can be extracted.

Scenarios for power generation

Cold energy released during vaporisation can be acquired in several methods to improve

efficiency for a potential synergy and reduce overall capital and operating cost. These methods are;

i. inlet air cooling to gas turbines for power generation

ii. Cold power generation

Method i. describes a system, where Inlet Air Cooling (IAC) to gas turbine generators (GTG)

results in increased power output from the turbine. Because of the higher density of the cooler inlet

air, IAC increases power output. When more fuel is ignited to maintain combustion conditions,

additional power is generated from the greater mass of the exhaust gas. However, this additional

power requires more operational and initial investment costs. Consequently, this results in an

opportunity of a potential synergy for sending out power of 110 MW.

Method ii. is cold power generation. This creates electricity by expansion of a working fluid

across a turbine linked to a generator. A large temperature potential exists between the LNG and

seawater to condense and vaporise the working fluid. For success of the cycle the fluid should boil at

high pressure against seawater and condense at low pressure against LNG. A Rankine cycle8 has been

applied before by other LNG regasification terminals. A 5 MTPA import terminal could generate a

35MW without burning additional fuel. A study done by Forster Wheeler resulted in a 6 years payback

scheme for the integrated Rankine Cycle power generation.

Both methods require additional space, which is limited on the offshore unloading concepts.

Yet, it is possible to implement both methods on the GBS unloading concept. FSRU concept is not

efficient for both methods, because of the limited space and additional required fuel of method i.

Technology for both methods is not developed for SSLNG, because of lack of efficiency.

8 See List of Terms

S. Quirijns

159

13.11 LNG unloading concepts

Dimensions of LNGC 13.11.1

Table 69 LNGC class dimensions and FSRU Concepts

LNG carrier classes Dimensions Ship size

[m]

LNG capacity in

thousands [m3]

Small Beam ≤ 40 ≥90

LOA ≤ 250

Small conventional Beam 41-49 120 - 149,999

LOA 270 - 298

Large conventional Draft ≤12 150-180

Beam 43 - 46

LOA 285 - 295

Q-flex Draft ≤ 12 200-220

Beam ≈ 50

LOA ≈ 315

Q-max Draft ≤ 12 ≥260

Beam 53 - 56

LOA ≈ 345

SSLNG Draft ≈6.7 =10

Beam 19.8

LOA 137.1

Golar Igloo Draft 292.5 170

Beam 43,4

LOA 12.3

Excelerate Explorer Draft 290 151

Beam 43.4

LOA 11.6

S. Quirijns

160

LNGC based boundary conditions 13.11.2

LNGC specific design criteria necessary to design a terminal are mentioned within table 70.

Table 70 Design criteria considering lay out determined by carrier dimensions

Design criteria

Lay out Qmax Qflex LC SSLNG Explorer Igloo

Channel width of dredged approach

[m]

11.2* Bmax.d 627.2 515.2 560 222 62 62

Ljetty LOA +2*15 375 345 325 167.1 269 269

Minimal channel length [km]

Without tugs carrier sailing

with 6 to 8

knots must come to a

stop about 1 nm or 1 km

1 km 1 km 1 km 1km 1 1

Turning circles within ports [m]

2* LOA 690 630 596 274.2 554 580

Width between

berths [m]

LOA +

1*B+2*15

4

31

3

95

3

71

1

86.9

Table 71 Design criteria considering bathymetry determined by carrier dimensions

Design criteria Bathymetry

Description Qmax Qflex LC SSLNG Winter Igloo Explorer

Draft D 12 12 12 11.5 11.4 12.3 11,6

Tidal elevation ht 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0,1

Maximum sinkage

smax 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0,5

Vertical motion

a 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1,25

safety margin hnet 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0,3

Guaranteed depth

hgd 14.0 14.0 14.0 13.5 13.4 14.3 13,6

Table 72 Design criteria LNG as rule of thumb

Design criteria LNG as rule of thumb

1 Storage capacity per tank 3 a 4 * Capacity Design vessel

2 Handling capacity 3% a 5% of annual throughput

2a Maximum Qmax must be unloaded within 24hrs

2b Maximum LC must be unloaded within 24hrs

S. Quirijns

161

Sustainable port planning 13.11.3

Sustainable port planning and management set by (World Association for Waterborne

Transport and Infrastructure, 2014).

Table 73 Sustainable port management

Environment Impact Assessment Keywords

land and water area use Topography and bathymetry

modalities and connectivity Metocean conditions

air and noise pollution Geotechnical aspects

surface water and sediment Material supply

soil and groundwater Dredging and reclamation

dredging Marine access

climate change and sea level rise Breakwaters

light pollution Quays and jetties

habitat and species management Utilities

ship related management Maintenance

globalization Safety, security and border patrol

sustainable resources management Container terminal simulation

Requirements of the conventional terminal 13.11.4

Characteristics and demands that are valid for all terminal locations are enlisted below:

single berth:

o jetty or quay

o exposed jetty, no breakwaters required

o mooring and breasting dolphins

Approach channel

o available width for LNG carriers to pass

o two way channel

o In line with dominant wave direction

o no bends

2 or 3 LNG full containment storage tanks (360000 m3~540000 m3 LNG):

o Hside=40m; Hmid=55m; D=86m ; Asurface=5809m2

o gross volume 200000m3

o net volume 180000 m3

o 3 in-tank pumps per tank total discharge 12000 m3 /hr LNG

o peak shaving capacity

o Well-designed structure

o soil improvement

handling capacity (12000 m3 /hr LNG):

o three 16 inch cryogenic unloading arms (4000 m3 /hr LNG)

o one 16 inch vapour return service cryogenic arm (4000 m3 /hr LNG)

Regasification plant (output = 5 billion m3 NG per year):

o high-pressure cryogenic pumps

o regasifyer

o vaporizers adapted to power generation

o Integrated Air Separation Unit

S. Quirijns

162

distribution of LNG:

o cryogenic pipelines

o intermediate refrigeration circuit / Integrated system closed-loop system with

an intermediate refrigeration circuit

distribution of NG:

o NG pipelines

o metering station

o flare

o BOG compressor

o compression facilities

other utilities:

o offices

o security measurement systems

o crew’s facilities

o roads and parking

o Vessel Traffic Management Service

o tug service (already within port Yuzhny)

Data comparison for the conventional terminal 13.11.5

Conventional terminal data comparison

In table 74 the total amount of dredged volumes are compared per location. It can be seen

that location 1 has the lowest amount of dredging, because there is no need for dredging an approach

channel. Differences between locations three and four are only little.

Table 74 Design of conventional terminals at the three potential locations

Design Location

Description 1 3 4

Sheltered berthing Y N N

Additional action N N

Dredging required Inner port cut and fill

Outside port Outside port

Dredging Area [m2] 5.3E+05 1.8E+06 2E+06

Dredging depth [m] 14 14 14

Dredging required NA Approach Channel

Approach Channel

total length [m] 6E+03 6.9E+03

Dredging length [m] 2.5E+03 2.5E+03

Dredging depth [m] 14 14

Dredging width [m] 336 336

Total [m3] 7.4E+06 4.9E+07 5.1E+07

At location one there is a limitation in accessibility for LNGC larger than the Large

Conventional Class. This requires more ship calls per year with a lower capacity, compared to

locations three and four. At locations three and four the minimal amount of annual ship calls is 33, yet

a distribution between Large Conventional and Qmax carriers is better. This increases the efficiency in

operational unloading periods and non-operational periods. Table 75 is indication of the accessibility of

the conventional terminal per potential location

S. Quirijns

163

Table 75 Accessibility of the conventional terminal per potential location

Accessibility Location

Description 1 3 4

LNGC large

conventional

Qmax Qmax

Minimum Calls per

annum

47 33 33

Table 76 Sustainability of the conventional terminal per potential location

Sustainable solutions Potential Locations

Description 1 3 4 Power generation Y Y Y

Cold energy extraction Y Y Y Potential synergies Supply of cooled intermediate fluid Odessa Port plant [km]

2 2.7 3.6

Warm-cold water exchange terminals in Yuzhny [km]

1.2 6.5 5

Electrical power to substation/transformer in Yuzhny [km]

6.1 9 4

Table 77 Characterestics at terminal location 1, 3 and 4

Layout Location

Description 1 3 4

Available area [k

m2]

2,1 1,9 1,6

Nr. Of berths 1 2 2

Normal Type of Jetty L-Jetty with pile

structure and trestle

L-Jetty with pile

structure and trestle

L-Jetty with pile

structure and trestle

Ljetty 355 395 395

SSLNG type of quay NA Cantilever Cantilever

Lquay [m] NA 197,1 197,1

SSLNG re-export Trucks Trucks Trucks

SSLNGC SSLNGC

Nr. of full containment

cryogenic storage tanks

2 3 3

net capacity [m3] 360000 540000 54000

Unloading capacity [m3/hr]

12000 12000 12000

Channel width

[m]

285 308 308

Under keel

clearance

14.05 14.05 14.05

Turning circle

[m]

596 690 690

S. Quirijns

164

Data Comparison for FSRU 13.11.6

Table 78 FSRU terminal location characteristics

Location Area [k

m2]

Berth

length

[km]

Type Carrier type connection to

shore

Incoming

LNGC

1 2.1 1.2 Side by side

Excelerate Explorer Pipeline LC

2 0.25 0.5 Side by side

Excelerate Explorer Pipeline LC

3 1.9 1.3 jetty Golar Igloo trestle pipeline All

4 1.6 3.1 Jetty Golar Igloo trestle pipeline All

5 NA NA SPM Golar Igloo subsea pipeline All

6 NA Na SPM Golar Igloo Subsea pipeline All

Table 79 Carrier characteristics

Carrier type Excelerate

Explored

Golar

Igloo

Capacity [m3] 150900 170000

Containment

type

No 96 Membrane

LOA [m] 290 292.5

Beam[m] 43.4 43.4

Laden draft [m] 11.6 12.3

Regasification capacity

[bcm/yr]

5.2 up to 7.5

Regasification

system

Closed loop Open loop

SPM Y Y

Jetty Y Y

Side by side Y Y

Layout design

Minimal Draft 13.6 14.25

Ljetty [m] 239 239

Turning circle [m]

554 580

Table 80 Conversion factor dredging costs

Onshore

km mile Cost

(2001)

Indexation

cost

Cost

(2015)

1.609344 1 1.3E+06 1.02 1.7E+06

1 0.621371192 8.1E+05 1.02 1.1E+06

Subsea

1.609344 1 2.6E+06 1.02 3.4E+06

1 0.621371192 1.6E+06 1.02 2.1E+06

S. Quirijns

165

Data comparison for GBS 13.11.7

Table 81 GBS and caisson dimensions

Description GBS Nr. of

caissons

2

Height [m] 32 32

LGBS [m] 360 180

Width [m] 60 60

Ratio L/W 6 3.00

Width walls

[m]

2 2

Table 82 Height of GBS calculation

Description Loc 5 Loc 6

Bathymetry 18 18

Significant wave height

1.25 1.25

Design Water Level

1 1

Freeboard 11.35 11.35

Height 31.6 31.6

The freeboard is calculated by taking half of the laden freeboard of a Qmax class carrier.

Table 83 Modularized tank size

Modularized storage

tanks

nr of tanks 2

Storage

capacity per

tank

125000

height [m] 28

length [m] 155

Width [m] 33

Mass [mt] 4500

S. Quirijns

166

13.12 Concept selection

MCA 13.12.1

Table 84 MCA Criteria

MCA Functionality Transport Capacity

Safety aspects

Financial aspects

Sustainability

Technicality

Operability

Total Weight factor

Functionality 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 0.14

Transport

Capacity

0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0.11

Safety

aspects

1 1 0 0 1 1 4 0.14

Financial

aspects

0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0.11

Sustainability 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 0.14

Technicality 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 0.18

Operability 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 0.18

4 3 4 3 4 5 5 28 1

Table 85 Scores per criteria for short and long term planning

Short term Long term

Criteria Total Weight factor

Total Weight factor

Functionality 4 0.14 4 0.11

Transport

Capacity

3 0.11 3 0.09

Safety aspects 4 0.14 4 0.11

Financial aspects

3 0.11 6 0.17

Sustainability 4 0.14 8 0.23

Technicality 5 0.18 5 0.14

Operability 5 0.18 5 0.14

Total 28 1 35 1.00

Table 86 Scores per concept per secondary criteria

Primary criteria Secondary criteria Con FSRU GBS Motivation

Functionality Site selection 3 5 3 FSRU can be allocated anywhere

Peak shave capacity 5 1 3 Conventional terminal has the most storage. allowing the peak shaving of NG output

Transport capacity accessibility 5 5 5 All LNGC classes can reach the terminals

berthing and mooring time 3 3 5 GBS has sheltered berthing

behind structure berth occupancy 5 3 3 Conventional terminal

independent of LNGC class storage capacity. so has the lowest berth occupancy.

Safety aspects Hazard containment 3 5 5 Additional safety due to offshore locations

S. Quirijns

167

port management 5 3 3 Conventional has the most space

risk management 5 5 3 More experience in failure for known methods

Financial aspects economic feasibility 3 5 1 lowest investment cost for FSRU

import/export hub 5 1 5 Conventional and GBS can be applied to be an LNG hub for the region.

Economical lifespan 1 3 1 FSRU high mobility extends the economical lifespan if the demand for LNG is diminished.

Sustainability additional value by synergies 5 1 1 Only conventional terminal

is able to construct synergies

Energy efficiency 5 3 3 Conventional terminal has the most efficient use of energy by thermal energy extraction and synergy

environmental integration/consequences

1 5 1 FSRU has lowest environmental footprint

social integration/ consequences

1 5 3 FSRU and GBS reduce NIMBY effect.

durability 1 3 1 FSRU has best durability

Technicality Construction site 1 5 1 FSRU is a conversed LNGC. which requires only a dry dock.

Installation period 3 5 1 Conversion is already done by fabricator of FSRU’s

Construction method 3 5 1 idem

Technical feasibility 3 5 1 Least influenced by weak soil and mild wave climate

expandability of capacity 5 3 3 Conventional terminal can be easily expanded with additional storage and berth

Re-use 1 5 1 FSRU is the only method that can be re-used.

Operability unloading capacity 5 5 5 Little to no difference

storage 5 1 3 Conventional storage has the most nr. of tanks.

Potential downtime 5 3 3 Conventional terminal least sensitive for downtime

Maintenance 3 1 3 FSRU is out of order during maintenance. GBS and Conventional terminal has enough available space for back equipment during maintenance.

Stability during berthing 3 3 5 GBS has sheltered berthing. therefore highest stability of the LNGC during berthing and unloading.

S. Quirijns

168

Cost Benefit Analysis 13.12.2

Table 87 Ideology of Cost-Benefit Analysis

Benefits effect Ideology

Short term less

than 25 yrs.

Experience Reduced CAPEX More experience during construction results in a significant cost reduction

Sheltered berthing Increase operability Due to sheltered berthing the operational limits are more lenient

Mobility Increased sustainability An FSRU can be (de)-commissioned at any time

Quick installation Reduced CAPEX Less time required for installation

Easy fabrication Reduced CAPEX Less time required for prefabrication of components

Energy efficient Reduced OPEX & increased Sustainability

Energy efficiency reduces the required energy for the same output, which reduces the required fuel and emissions

Peak shave capacity Increased operability & functionality

By peak shaving of the LNG supply based upon the local demand, the efficiency is increased

Social Integration Increased sustainability and safety

by applying an offshore terminal, social consequences for atypical hazards are minimized

Environmental integration

Increased sustainability & safety

by applying an offshore terminal, environmental consequences for atypical hazards are minimized

Little to no dredging Reduced CAPEX Conventional terminal requires the most dredging for berthing area and approach channels. The GBS does not required dredging, because piles carry the structure

Implemented SSLNG Distribution

Increased operability, functionality & financial value

SSLNG is incorporated in design for GBS and GSRU, at the Conventional terminal a separate berth is required.

Long term

equal or more

than 25 yrs.

Long technical lifespan Increased functionality Conventional terminal and GBS are long term based construction with technical lifespans of 25 years or longer

Expandability of storage Increased functionality Conventional terminal has enough available space to allocate additional storage tanks

Large scale Import-Export hub

Increased Financial Aspects

Conventional terminal and GBS can become international transport hubs

Synergy opportunities Increased Sustainability Conventional terminal is able to apply power generation and produce cold intermediate fluids that can be applied at the Odessa Port Plant

Re-usability Increased Financial aspects and sustainability

After the economical lifespan is exceeded the FSRU is easily re-used at any other project

Expandability of Regasification capacity

Increased operability When demand is increased the Conventional terminal and GBS can easily adapt by adjusting regasification pumps

Expandability number of berths

Increased operability When demand increases the Conventional terminal has enough available space to allocate an additional berth

S. Quirijns

169

13.13 Preliminary Design of FSRU

FSRU dimensions 13.13.1

FSRU’s have standardized dimensions, which are similar to classes for LNGC. The FSRU

applied for this project is the ‘Golar Igloo’, which characteristics best fit this situation. Table 88 shows

the most relevant characteristics of the design FSRU, the ‘Golar Igloo’.

Table 88 Relevant characteristics of 'Golar Igloo' unit

Main Parameters of FSRU Value Unit

Name Golar Igloo

Loa 292.5 m

Lbp 281 m

Width 43.4 m

Gross Tonnage 106.792

Depth 26.6 m

Draft 12.3 m

Storage capacity 1700000 m3

Nett storage capacity at 98% 1666000 m3

FSRU Loading system parameters

Maximum LNG (un)loading rate 12000 m3/hr

Number of flexible LNG (un)loading hoses 4

Number of vapour return flexible hoses 2

Length of flexible LNG (un)loading hoses 18.5 m

minimum LNG temperature acceptable in tanks -163 °Celsius

LNG Regasification System parameters of FSRU

Maximum LNG regasification capacity 7.5 bcm/yr. 856.2 cm/ hour

minimum LNG regasification capacity 5 bcm/yr. 570.8 cm/ hour

Three operational trains and one standby. each with capacity of

2.5 bcm/yr. 285.4 cm/ hour

Operational pressure at FSRU natural gas export 60 bar

Natural gas connection 2 pcs of 12 inch

S. Quirijns

170

Dimensions of moored carriers 13.13.2

Table 89 Dimensions for individual and combined carriers

Required design

values of Carriers

STS HTS

Golar Igloo

LC Qmax GI & LC GI & Qmax

GI & Qmax

DWT [tonnes] 87015 90000 125000 99030 134030 134030

LNG Cargo [tons] 77985 84258 121706 84258 121706 121706

Carrier weight

[tons]

9030 5742 3294 14772 12324 12324

LOA [m] 292.50 295.00 345.00 295.00 345.00 637.50

Lpp [m] 281.00 285.00 333.00 285.00 333.00 614.00

Beam [m] 43.40 46.00 53.80 89.40 97.20 53.80

height carrier [m] 26.60 26.00 34.70 26.60 34.70 34.70

Fully loaded draft [m]

12.30 11.80 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00

Fully loaded Freeboard [m]

14.30 14.20 22.70 14.60 22.70 22.70

40% loaded draft [m]

4.92 4.72 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80

40% loaded

freeboard [m]

21.68 21.28 29.90 21.80 29.90 29.90

Bowshape V-shaped V-

shaped

V-shaped Cylindrical Cylindrical V-shaped

Fully Loaded

Waterdepth/draft 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Alongitudinal [m2] 4018.30 4047.00 7559.10 4161.00 7559.10 13937.80

Atransverse [m2] 620.62 653.20 1221.26 1305.24 2206.44 1221.26

40% Loaded

Waterdepth/draft 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Alongitudinal [m2] 6341.40 6277.60 10315.50 6431.00 10315.50 19061.25

Atransverse [m2] 940.91 978.88 1608.62 1948.92 2906.28 1608.62

S. Quirijns

171

Berthing energy input 13.13.3

The list underneath is applied to calculate the berthing energy of incoming LNGC and FSRUs

with equation 15. This input is filled in the formula for berthing energy, which is:

Equation 15 Berthing energy formula

𝐸 = 0.5 ∗ 𝑚 ∗ 𝑣𝐵2 ∗ 𝐶𝑀 ∗ 𝐶𝐸 ∗ 𝐶𝐶 ∗ 𝐶𝑠

Table 90 Berthing Energy Input

Input

ρW 1018 kg/m3 1.018 t/m3

Vessel LC Qmax SSLNGC Golar

DWT [t] 90000 125000 10000 87015

Displacement [t]. m 125000.0 185000.0 12592.5 123689.8

LOA [m] 295 345 137.1 292.5

Lpp [m] 285 333 127.1 281

B [m] 46 56 19.8 43.4

D [m] 12 12 6.7 12.3

F [m] 14.2 22.7 4.8 14.3

CB [-] 0.78 0.81 0.73 0.81

Factors

berthing mode side side side side

Structure open open open open

impact point at Lpp 25% 25% 25% 25%

UDC [m] 6 6 6 6

Radius of Gyration 74.32 74.32 74.32 74.32

Impact to Centre of Mass 73.53 73.53 73.53 73.53

Berthing Angle 5 5 5 5.00

Velocity Vector Angle 67.84 67.84 67.84 67.84

Added Mass Coefficient. Cm 1.5 1.500 1.5 1.509

Eccentricity Coefficient. CE 0.569 0.579 0.55 0.576

Berth Configuration Coefficient. CC 1 1.000 1 1

Softness Coefficient. Cs 1 1.000 1 1

Vessels

Berthing Conditions PIANC 2002

velocity table c c c c

Berthing velocity [mm/s] vb 178 115 287 133

factor of safety 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25

Berthing carriers determine the dimensions of the carriers. Thereafter the selected fender type is

universally applied. Floating fender is applied between the SBS moored carriers and rubber cone

fenders are applied to the breasting dolphins. Other fenders those were not applicable for various

reasons:

pneumatic rubber fender

foam donut fenders

SCK cell fender

S. Quirijns

172

Table 91 Floating foam fender produced by ‘Trelleborg’ applied between SBS mooring layout

Foam fender SeaCushion®

performance at 60% deflection Performance at 100%

Deflection Size Standard Capacity High Capacity

Diameter x

length [m]

Overall

Diameter [m]

Energy

[kNm]

Reaction

[kN]

Energy

[kNm]

Reaction

[kN]

3.3 x 4.5 3.8 1367 1908 1978 2686

Table 92 Rubber fenders applied at breasting dolphins

Super cone fenders

Rubber type Energy [kNm]

Reaction [kN]

E/R ( 3)

SCN 1300 E3.0 1330 1916 0.69

Dimensions [mm & kg]

H ØW ØU C D ØB ØS Anchor/ Head bolts

Zmin Weight

1300 2080 1275 65-90 50-58 1900 1100 8x M48 195 2455

A brief overview for the applied fender is shown in table 93.

Table 93 overview of applied fender per mooring structure

Mooring structure

Layout Fender type 1 fender type 2

SPM SBS Foam SeaCushion®

SBS SBS Foam SeaCushion® Super Cone fender

Central Platform SBS Super Cone fender

Tower Yoke ms HTS NA

S. Quirijns

173

Determining the environmental boundary conditions 13.13.4

Wave forces

Wave forcing is determined in accordance with the paper issued by (Goda & Yoshimura,

1972). Wave forcing on a carrier is in longitudinal and lateral direction, this is represented as a force

on a vertical elliptical cylinder with dimensions Ls, Bs, and D. held fast by the mooring system. Since

the mooring equipment always has little movement, therefore the forces are higher than in reality.

Angle of wave attack determines the maximum wave conditions required for the quasi static

calculations. For both mooring layout the included wave angles are normally incident and head or

stern waves. The angle of attack is based upon the orientation of the moored carriers.

Equations 16 and 17 are used to calculate the wave force in longitudinal(X) and lateral(Y)

direction. Corresponding required parameters are in the additional Appendix-CD.

Equation 16 Maximum wave force in x-direction

𝐹𝑥.𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶𝑚.𝑥

sinh (2𝜋ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ

𝐿) − sinh (2𝜋

ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ − 𝐷𝐿

)

cosh 2𝜋ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ

𝐿

πcos 𝛼

8𝑊𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟

2 𝑤𝐻

Equation 17 Maximum wave induced forcing in y-direction

𝐹𝑦.𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶𝑚.𝑦

sinh (2𝜋ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ

𝐿) − sinh (2𝜋

ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ − 𝐷𝐿

)

cosh 2𝜋ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ

𝐿

πsin 𝛼

8𝑊𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟

2 𝑤𝐻

In which:

Cmx. Cmy Virtual mass coefficients [-]

hberth Water depth at terminal location 14m Wshelter Sheltering width in the wave direction [m]

Bs+ (Ls-Bs)sin(α) w Specific weight of seawater 1018 kg/ m3

α Angle of incoming waves 90° L Length of LNGC [m]

H design wave height 1.83 m

As design value for wave height, the average is taken of the twenty highest wave heights at

terminal location six. Table 94 shows the results for SBS mooring of ‘Golar Igloo’ and ‘Large

Conventional’ class or Qmax class sized LNGC. In Appendix 13.13.5 the steps in between are treated.

Table 94 Results of wave calculations

Layout Angle of wave attack [°]

Units Fx.m [kN] Fy.m [kN]

SBS 90 Golar Igloo & LC 0.0 1136.3

90 Golar Igloo & Qmax 0.0 1328.9

0 or 180 Golar Igloo & Qmax -303.3 0.0

HTS 0 or 180 Golar Igloo & Qmax -81.0 0.0

Main difference is caused by angle of attack for incoming waves. Which results in a sheltering width for SBS equal to the largest carrier length and for HTS this is equal to the width of the widest

carrier.

S. Quirijns

174

Wind forces

Wind induced forcing causes surge, sway and yawing. Significant factors that determine the

amount of wind force are the longitudinal area of the carrier above water level, transverse area of the

carrier above water level, the length between perpendiculars, wind angle of attack and wind velocity.

Primary wind directions as determined in the environmental conditions are applied, these are:

Northeast

North-Northwest

Northwest

West-Northwest

As design value for wind velocity the expected maximum value for a return period in 5 yrs. is

applied (vwind.d=21.4m/s). This represents an expected maximum value that occurred at least once in

the next 50 years. Wind coefficients in X. Y and XY directions separate the obliquely incoming wind

force into a longitudinal (X), lateral(Y), and rotating (XY) component. These wind coefficients are

determined with graphs provided in the guidelines by (Oil Companies International Marine Forum,

2008). In these graphs differences are made for loading conditions and wind angle of attack and bow

shape.

Wind force is solely against the area of the carrier above water level, so a difference is made

for the LNGC between the fully loaded conditions and ballasted tanker (40% loaded condition). Other

differences between boundary conditions of SBS and HTS:

Bow shape. no influence for fully loaded condition:

o Conventional SBS mooring

o Cylindrical HTS mooring

SBS layout is fixed to mooring structure

HTS layout as able to adjust with primary force by:

o Wind

o Waves

S. Quirijns

175

In Appendix 13.13.5 the example calculation shows all required steps and the Appendix CD

includes all wind specific parameters and results. Table 95 shows the final results of wind inducing

forces.

Table 95 Results wind induced forcing

Fully loaded Ballasted tanker

Primary wind direction

NE NNW NW WNW NE NNW NW WNW

Layout Adjusted angle [°]

25 92.5 115 137.5 25 92.5 115 137.5

SBS GI & LC

Fx.w [kN] 261.5 -3.7 -112.1 -224.2 224.2 0.0 -37.4 -112.1

Fy.w [kN] 357.3 833.7 774.1 595.5 357.3 1131.4 1071.9 833.7

Mxy.w [kNm] -44125.9 -37337.3 -30548.7 -16971.5 -44125.9 -13577.2 16971.5 20365.8

SBS GI & Qmax

Fx.w [kN] 442.1 0.0 -189.5 -378.9 378.9 0.0 -63.2 -189.5

Fy.w [kN] 649.1 1514.5 1406.3 1081.8 649.1 2055.4 1947.2 1514.5

Mxy.w [kNm] -93662.4 -79252.8 -64843.2 -36024.0 -93662.4 -28819.2 36024.0 43228.8

Adjusted layout parallel to

dominant wave direction

wind angle of attack [°]

0 90 180 0 90 180

SBS Fx.w [kN] 473.7 31.6 -600.0 473.7 0.0 -536.8

Fy.w [kN] 0.0 1514.5 0.0 0.0 2055.4 0.0

Mxy.w [kNm] 0.0 -79252.792

0 0.0 -28819.2 0.0

HTS GI & Qmax

Fx.w [kN] 262.2 17.5 -332.1 262.2 0.0 -297.1

Fy.w [kN] 0.0 2792.5 0.0 0.0 3789.9 0.0

Mxy.w [kNm] 0.0 -269440.5 0.0 0.0 -97978.4 0.0

Logically, because the higher carrier’s dimensions of Qmax-class compared to the LC-class

results in higher forces that force the carrier to start swaying, surging, and yawing. Considering the

results of the HTS moored layout with a wind force perpendicular to the longitudinal centreline is not

a realistic, because the length of two parallel moored carriers is included as a single length.

S. Quirijns

176

Current force

Two types of currents exist at the terminal location, these are an alongshore current (0.1 m/s) and

onshore current (0.3m/s). In the adjusted coordinate system the alongshore current from east to

west. Similarly to the wind computations, current coefficients are applied to separate the current force

in a longitudinal (X), lateral(Y), and rotating (XY) component. Current velocity is at 30% of the draft

of the carrier, which is expressed in the current velocity correction factor (Κ) determined with the ratio

Water depth/Draft=1.2. Table 96 includes the results of the current force calculations.

Table 96 Results current induced forcing

Fully Loaded 40% Loaded

Layout Description onshore longshore onshore longshore

GI & LC Fx.w [kN] 3.1 -0.5 15.4 -3.8

SBS Fy.w [kN] 250.7 0.0 30.7 0.0

Mxy.w [kNm] -2438.3 0.0 -1194.9 0.0

GI & Qmax

Fx.w [kN] 3.7 -0.6 17.9 -4.4

SBS Fy.w [kN] 292.9 0.0 35.9 0.0

Mxy.w [kNm] -2438.3 0.0 -239.0 0.0

GI & Qmax

Fx.w [kN] 3.7 -0.6 44.9 -11.0

HTS Fy.w [kN] 292.9 0.0 89.7 0.0

Mxy.w [kNm] -2438.3 0.0 -597.4 0.0

Table 96 shows all results of the forces induced by the onshore current and alongshore

current. The difference in fully loaded condition and ballasted condition is explained as the difference

in draft and length per carrier. Since current force works on a larger longitudinal, or transverse length,

forces in corresponding directions increase as well.

S. Quirijns

177

Example calculation of environmental forces on a Qmax class carrier 13.13.5

As example the Qmax class LNGC is applied. Appendix 13.1.5 shows the positive vectors of x-

direction, y-direction and positive momentum. Applied units and abbreviations for the fully loaded

condition:

Fx.y.w Wind induced force in x or y direction [kN] Mxy.w Wind induced momentum [kNm]

C i.w Wind coefficient for x. y and xy direction [-] ρair density of air 1018 kg/m3

vw Expected maximum wind velocity for a 50 yr return period 21. 4m/s

At Transverse area of LNGC above water level [m2] AL longitudinal area of LNGC above water level [m2]

LBP Length between perpendiculars [m] Κ Current velocity correction factor for WD/D=1.2 0.95 [-]

hberth Water depth at berth location 14m

D Draft 12m vc.o Current velocity onshore 0.3m/s

vc.l Current velocity along shore east to west 0.1m/s Cm.x/y Virtual mass coefficient in x- or y-direction [-]

Wshelter Sheltering width in the wave directions [-] =Bs + (LOA-Bs)sin(α)

w specific weight of seawater 10.18 kN/m3

Step 1: Determine carrier characteristics

Specifics for a Qmax 125000 DWT carrier in a fully loaded condition:

Alongitudinal 7559 m2

Atransverse 1221 m2

Lbp 333 m

Step 2: Wind drag coefficients obtained via graphs in the guidelines issued by (Oil Companies

International Marine Forum, 2008). The Qmax class has a ‘Conventional’ bow shape. but for the fully

loaded situation this does not make a difference.

Table 97 Results of wind induced forcing

Qmax Class Fully loaded Adjusted wind

directions NE NNW NW WNW 25.00 92.50 115.00 137.50

Cx.w [kN] 0.7 0 -0.3 -0.6 Cy.w [kN] 0.3 0.7 0.65 0.5 Cxy.w [kN] -0.13 -0.03 -0.09 -0.05 Fx.w [kN] 244.69 0.00 -104.87 -209.73 Fy.w [kN] 649.08 1514.52 1406.34 1081.80 Mxy.w [kNm] -93662.39 -21614.40 -64843.19 -36024.00

Step 3: Wind velocity at 10 m height. At Odessa airport wind directions are measured 10 m

height, so no transformation needed. The maximum expected velocity for a return period of 50 yrs. is

21.4 m/s.

S. Quirijns

178

Step 4: Calculate forces and momentum due to wind.

Equation 18 Wind induced force in horizontal x- direction

𝐹𝑥.𝑤 = 0.5𝐶𝑥.𝑤𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟

𝑣𝑤2 𝐴𝑇

Equation 19 Wind induced force in horizontal y- direction

𝐹𝑦.𝑤 = 0.5𝐶𝑦.𝑤𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟

𝑣𝑤2 𝐴𝐿

Equation 20 Wind induced momentum

𝑀𝑥𝑦.𝑤 = 0.5𝐶𝑥𝑦.𝑤𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟

𝑣𝑤2 𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐵𝑃

Step5: Compute average current velocity

Equation 21 Average current velocity

𝑉𝑐 = 𝛫𝜐𝑐

Step 6: Calculate forces due to currents in cross-shore direction and alongshore direction.

Equation 22 Current induced force in horizontal x- direction

𝐹𝑥.𝑤 = 0.5𝐶𝑥.𝑐𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑣𝑐2𝐿𝐵𝑃𝐷

Equation 23 Current induced force in horizontal y- direction

𝐹𝑦.𝑤 = 0.5𝐶𝑦.𝑐𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑣𝑐2𝐿𝐵𝑃𝐷

Equation 24 Current induced momentum

𝑀𝑥𝑦.𝑤 = 0.5𝐶𝑥𝑦.𝑐𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑣𝑐2𝐿𝐵𝑃

2 𝐷

Table 98 Results Current induced forcing

Qmax Cross-shore longshore

K[-] 0.95

VC [m/s] 0.29 0.10

Fx.c [kN] 73.22 -0.51

fyc [kN] 421.03 0.00

Mxy.c [kNm] -3047.90 0.00

Step 7: Calculate forces on carrier due to waves. Reference is made towards the ‘Coastal

Engineering’ section of a book written by (Goda & Yoshimura, 1972).

Equation 25 Maximum wave induced forcing in x-direction

𝐹𝑥.𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶𝑚.𝑥

sinh (2𝜋ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ

𝐿) − sinh (2𝜋

ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ − 𝐷𝐿

)

cosh 2𝜋ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ

𝐿

πcos 𝛼

8𝑊𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟

2 𝑤𝐻

Equation 26 Maximum wave induced forcing in y-direction

𝐹𝑦.𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶𝑚.𝑦

sinh (2𝜋ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ

𝐿) − sinh (2𝜋

ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ − 𝐷𝐿

)

cosh 2𝜋ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ

𝐿

πsin 𝛼

8𝑊𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟

2 𝑤𝐻

S. Quirijns

179

Virtual mass coefficients are determined with for various wave conditions and ship sizes and

are presented in dimensionless graphs in the published paper by (Goda & Yoshimura, 1972).

On the right-hand-side of the equations 25 and 26 is ‘H’ the indicator for wave height at the

terminal location. The wave height after transformations at a distance of 3.5km of the coast is applied

for calculations. Design value for wave height is based upon the average of the twenty highest waves

(H=1.83m). Horizontal force in x-directions, thus stern waves are equal to zero. Beam wave induced

force is equal to 1330kN.

Ultimately, this results in table 99 for the Qmax sized carrier.

Table 99 Results of examplary calculations for the Qmax class carriers

Fully loaded NE NNW NW WNW

Angle of wind attack

25.00 92.50 115.00 137.50

Fx.c [kN] 317.40 72.71 -32.15 -137.02

fyc [kN] 2399.04 3264.48 3156.30 2831.76

Mxy.c [kNm] -96710.29 -24662.29 -67891.09 -39071.89

S. Quirijns

180

Technical feasibility of mooring structures 13.13.6

SPM

The internal turret applied in the FSRU is shown in figure 94. The figure depicts one

embodiment of a submersible cryogenic turret connector connected to a vessel within a vessel

receptacle (Ehrhardt, Mathews, Rymer, & Wilson, 2007).

1: Submersible cryogenic turret connector 2: Cryogenic riser

3: Mooring Chain 4: Pipeline connection

5: FSRU 6: Receptable

7: Carrier cryogenic fluid transfer

8: Water level 9: Carrier booster Pump

10: Carrier feed storage line 11: Carrier storage pump

12: Carrier storage tank

13: Manifold/Swifel stack

Figure 94 Cross section of an internal turret within the FSRU, adapted from Subsea cryogenic fluid transfer system, retrieved July 2015 from http://www.google.com/patents/US20070095427 © 2007, USPTO, reprinted with permission

S. Quirijns

181

The intermediate required steps for the quasi static calculations are included as tables, figures

and equations. Table 98 shows the input values for the SPM quasi static calculation for the Ultimate

Load State conditions. First the loads are determined, and second the characteristics for a chain are

selected for the break strength in table 100.

Table 100 Loads by moored carriers

Input data ULS conditions SBS HTS

incoming waves 90° Incoming 0-180°

GI& LC GI & Qmax GI & Qmax GI & Qmax

Force longitude Fx [kN] 15.36 13.56 -900.18 -407.45

Force transverse Fy [kN] 2298.46 3420.23 292.89 292.89

Force vector Fxy [kN] 2298.52 3420.25 946.63 501.80

Young’s Modulus E [kN/ m2] 6.40E+07 6.40E+07 6.40E+07 6.40E+07

Safety Factor 2.0 2 2 2

Design force vector

Fxy.d 4597.03 6840.51 1893.26 1003.59

Break strength [kNm]

4621.00 6916.00 1903 1248.00

Diameter D [mm] 76 92 46 38

Third step is the calculations of the forces into the soil and maximum allowable extension of

chai, which is already shown in the main report. Figure 91 shows the cross-section for the monopile in

the soil and water level at MSL =0 [MSL -19: -27m], [MSL -27: -35m] and [MSL <35m]. The pile head

is 0.5 m above seabed and the whole pile is driven up to a depth of MSL -69.5m. It is noted that this

is a different water level, but the D-piles program does not allow setting the water level at any other

level than zero. However this does not matter for the end results for the pile dimensioning.

Figure 95 Vertical cross-section of soil with monopile

S. Quirijns

182

FSBS Mooring structure

Input for FSBS mooring structure is based upon the dimensions of the FSRU.

Table 101 Maximum dimensions by rules by OCIMF and BS

Rules in formula

Longitudinal (X) distance

Transverse (Y) distance [m]

Vertical distance with respect to horizontal [m]

Maximum angle with respect to perpendicular [°]

Maximum Angle with horizontal [°]

Breast lines

35-50 Fb.d-1.5m+WD.d 15 25

Breasting dolphin

0.25* Loa.d 0 0 0 0

Spring lines

Fb.d-1.5m+WD.d 10 25

Rules in values

Longitudinal (X) distance

Transverse (Y) distance [m] w.r.t beam side

Vertical distance with respect to horizontal [m]

Maximum angle with respect to perpendicular [°]

Maximum Angle with horizontal [°]

Mooring Fully loaded

11.61 43.32 13.40 15 17.2

mooring Ballasted

11.61 43.32 20.20 15 25

Spring Fully

Loaded

43.32 7.64 13.40 10 17.2

Spring Ballasted

43.32 7.64 20.20 10 25

Rules in values

Distance h.t.h. [m]

Length of SSLNG

Distance h.t.h.

Breasting dolphins <

LOA.SSLNG

Breasting dolphins in

73.13 137.1 TRUE

Breasting dolphins out

117 137.1 TRUE

Maximum

dimensions for ballasted

Length [m] Transverse (Y)

distance [m] + 0.5*BFSRU

Vertical

distance with respect to horizontal [m]

Maximum

angle with respect to perpendicular [°]

Maximum

Angle with horizontal [°]

Breast line Bow/Stern

69.07 65.02 20.20 10.1 17.3

Breast line beam side

49.19

Spring line 21.64

S. Quirijns

183

Simple Shared Loads method is applied to calculate the loads in the mooring lines. The input

is shown table 102.

Table 102 Input for FSBS quasi static calculations

Input environmental forces

Description Loads Max transverse

force (Y) [kN]

Max longitudinal

force (X) Golar Igloo & LC

SBS

Fx [kN] 15.36 264.13 Fy [kN] 2298.46 1744.29 Fxy [kN] 2298.52 1764.17

Mxy [kNm] -14772.09 -46564.21

Golar Igloo & Qmax SBS

Fx [kN] 13.56 445.13 Fy [kN] 3420.23 2270.89 Fxy [kN] 3420.25 2314.11

Mxy [kNm] -29058.18 -96100.71

Table 103 shows the applied Simplified Shared Loads method. For which on-half of the force

is taken by a single breast lines and transverse force is fully taken by a spring line.

Table 103 Simplified Shared load method for ULS load cases one and two

Simplified Shared Load Method for ULS

ULS Load case 1 max transverse load

ULS Load case 2 max longitudinal load

Mooring carrier

Mooring carrier

Mooring lines

Spring lines

Mooring lines

Spring lines

Golar Igloo & LC

Fx [kN] 0.00 -15.36 0.00 -264.13

Fy [kN] -1149.23 0.00 -872.14 0.00

Fxy [kN] -1189.77 -2.71 -902.91 -46.57

Fz [kN] 554.80 1.26 421.03 21.72

MLC Fline [kN] -1312.77 -2.99 -996.25 -51.39

Golar Igloo & Qmax

Fx [kN] 0.00 -13.56 0.00 -445.13

Fy [kN] -1710.11 0.00 -1135.45 0.00

Fxy [kN] -1770.44 -2.39 -1175.50 -78.49

Fz [kN] 825.57 1.11 548.15 36.60

MLC Fline [kN] -1953.46 -2.64 -1297.02 -86.60

Dominant load cases required for calculation the mooring piles and breasting dolphins are

shown in table 104.

Table 104 Dominant load cases for mooring and breasting dolphins

LC1 LC2

Loads Mooring dolphins Fxy -1772.83 -1253.99 Fy.waves 71.21 71.21 fz 826.68 584.74 Loads Breasting dolphins Fy. berthingQmax -1916.00

Shear force [kN] 1149.60 Shear coefficient.

rubber 0.60

Fhorizontal 2305.63 Fz 36.60

S. Quirijns

184

Morrison’s equation is applied for the wave and current load on mooring structure SBS and

Central platform, is shown in equation 27.

Equation 27 Morrison’s equations for slender piles

𝐹𝐻 = (1

1000) 0.5𝐶𝑑𝜌𝐷(𝑢 + 𝑈) |√((𝑢 + 𝑈)2 + 𝑣2)| + 𝐶𝑚𝜌

πD2

4�̇�

FH Horizontal loads by waves and currents [kN]

Cd Drag coefficient 1.0 [-]

Cm Mass coeffieccient 2.0 [-] ρ Density water 1018 [kg/m3]

D Diamter [m] u Horizontal wave induced water particle velocity [m/s]

U Current velocty [m/s]

v Vertical wave induced water particle velocity [m/s] udot horizontal wave-induced water particle acceleration [m/s2]

Central platform mooring structure

Input for the ULS load cases is based upon the dimensions shown in table 105. The guidelines

for the maximum allowable angle of breast lines and spring lines are identical as table 103, similar for

the dimensions based upon the FSRU.

Table 105 Dimensions required for Large Conventional class

LC Class Longitudinal

(X) distance

Transverse

(Y) distance [m] w.r.t

beam side

Vertical distance

w.r.t. horizontal [m]

Maximum angle

with respect to perpendicular

[°]

Mooring FL 11.37 42.42 12.70 15.00 16.67

mooring BL

11.37 42.42 19.78 15.00 25.00

Spring FL 42.42 7.48 12.70 10.00 16.67

Spring BL 42.42 7.48 19.78 10.00 25.00

Distance

h.t.h. [m]

Length of

SSLNG

Distance h.t.h.

Breasting dolphins <

LOA.SSLNG

Breasting

in

118.00 137.1 TRUE

Breasting

out

138.00 137.1 FALSE

Maximum dimensions

for BL

Length [m] Transverse (Y) distance

[m] + 0.5*BLC

Vertical distance with respect to

horizontal [m]

Maximum angle with respect to

perpendicular [°]

Breast line

Bow/Stern

69.28 65.42 19.78 9.86 16.82

Breast line

beam side

48.16

Spring line 21.19

S. Quirijns

185

Table 106 Dimensions required for Qmax class

Qmax

Class

Longitudinal

(X) distance

Transverse

(Y) distance [m] w.r.t.

beam side

Vertical distance

w.r.t. horizontal [m]

Maximum angle

w.r.t. perpendicular

[°]

Maximum Angle

with horizontal [°]

Mooring FL 16.32 60.90 21.20 15.00 19.19

mooring BL

16.32 60.90 28.40 15.00 25.00

Spring FL 60.90 10.74 21.20 10.00 19.19

Spring BL 60.90 10.74 28.40 10.00 25.00

Maximum dimensions

for BL

Length [m] Transverse (Y) distance

[m] +

0.5*BFSRU

Vertical distance with respect to

horizontal [m]

Maximum angle with respect to

perpendicular

[°]

Maximum Angle with horizontal

[°]

Breast line

Bow/Stern

93.71 87.80 28.40 10.53 17.92

Breast line

beam side

69.15

Spring line 30.42

Table 107 Simplified Shared load method for ULS load cases one and two

Input for Simplified Shared Load method for ULS

ULS Load case 1 max transverse load

ULS Load case 2 max longitudinal load

mooring carriers

Description Breast lines

Spring lines

Breast lines Spring lines

LC Fx [kN] 0.00 -11.41 0.00 -133.44

Fy [kN] -749.34 0.00 -570.46 0.00

Fxy [kN] -775.77 -2.01 -590.58 -23.53

Fz [kN] 361.75 0.94 275.39 10.97

Tension Fline [kN] -855.97 -2.22 -651.64 -25.96

Qmax Fx [kN] 0.00 -13.56 0.00 -247.74

Fy [kN] -1140.08 0.00 -756.96 0.00

Fxy [kN] -1180.29 -2.39 -783.67 -43.68

Fz [kN] 550.38 1.11 365.43 20.37

Tension Fline [kN] -1302.31 -2.64 -864.68 -48.20

Table 108 Simplified Shared Load Method for central platform structure

Simplified Shared Load Method for ULS

ULS Load case 1 max transverse load

ULS Load case 2 max longitudinal load

Mooring

carrier

Description Breasting

lines

Spring

lines

Breasting

lines

Spring

lines FSRU Fx [kN] 0.00 -11.72 0.00 -126.98

Fy [kN] -2278.53 0.00 -1753.23 0.00

Fxy [kN] 0.00 -2.07 0.00 -22.39

Fz [kN] 0.00 0.96 0.00 10.44

Fline [kN] 0.00 -2.28 0.00 -24.71

LC Fy.mooring additional 749.34 0.00 570.46 0.00 Qmax Fy.mooring additional 1140.08 0.00 756.96 0.00

Table 109 Results for applied monopiles dimensions for the mooring structure central platform

Description Component LC1 LC2

S. Quirijns

186

Loads mooring piles

outer

Fxy [kN] -1182.68 -827.35

Fx.waves [kN] 71.19 71.19

Fz [kN] 551.49 385.80

Loads Mooring piles

inside

Fxy [kN] -1182.68 -827.35

Fx.waves [kN] 71.19 71.19

Fz [kN] 551.49 385.80

LNGC side FSRU side

Breasting dolphin outer Fy. berthing [kN] -1916.00 1801.00

Fx.Shear force [kN] -1149.60 -1080.60

Shear coefficient. rubber 0.60 0.60

Fy.breast line [kN] 0.00 570.04

Fhorizontal [kN] 2234.42 2605.67

Fvertical 20.37 10.44

Breasting dolphin Inner Fy. berthing [kN] -1916.00 1801.00

Fx.Shear force [kN] 1149.60 -1080.60

Shear coefficient. rubber 0.60 0.60

Fhorizontal [kN] 2234.42 2100.31

Tower Yoke mooring structure

Input for the Tower Yoke mooring structure is based upon the ULS load cases for waves

coming in normally incident and waves that come in line with the moored carriers. The applied

mooring layouts are Side by side or Head to Stern. Table 110 shows the input for the tower yoke

mooring structure.

Table 110 Input for ULS conditions for the Tower Yoke mooring structure

ULS load

cases

SBS HTS

Beam waves [90] Head waves [180]

Description GI & LC GI & Qmax

GI & Qmax

GI & Qmax

Fx [kN] 264.1258 445.1277 -900.182 -407.449

Fy [kN] 1744.287 2270.893 292.8908 540.0449

Fxy [kN] 1764.171 2314.108 946.6321 676.5082

Mxy [kNm] -46564.2 -96100.7 -2438.32 -8289.69

Since the Tower Yoke mooring structure consists of a rotatable head with yoke, the vertical

and rotational motions do not have any effect on the structure. So the resulting forces on the

structures are for:

Wind load on structure

Wave load on structure

Weight of structure

o surface weight (> MSL)

o submerged weight (≤MSL)

S. Quirijns

187

Wind load is calculated with equation 28.

Equation 28 Wind force on structure

𝐹𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 = 𝐴 ∗ 𝑃 ∗ 𝐶𝑑

A= surface in the wind= D*L

P=pressure =0.00256*vwind2

Cd= Drag coefficient = 1.5 for large surface areas

Vwind= 21.4 m/s

D=Diameter L=length of pile above MSL

Table 111 shows the results for the calculations for the weight of the Tower Yoke Mooring

Structure, and the horizontal loads by wind, waves, and currents. Wave load is calculated with ‘Mc

Camy and Fuchs’ formula shown in equation X.

Equation 29 Max Camy and Fuchs equation for wave load on piles

𝑭 =𝟏

𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎𝒎𝒊𝒏 (𝝎𝟐𝒉

𝝅

𝟒𝑫𝟐𝑪𝑴

𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐡{𝒌𝒉}}

𝐬𝐢𝐧{𝒌𝒉} 𝒄𝒐𝒔(𝒌𝒙 − 𝝎𝒕 + 𝜶)𝒅𝒛)

F= horizontal wave force kN] Cm= Mass coefficient=1.3 [m] ω= rotational speed [rad/s] k= wavenumber [-]

h= waterlevel=z+d [m] x=distance [m] z=depth wrt MSL [m] t=time [s]

d=wave height [m] α=phase angle [rad]

D= Diameter [m]

%%Submerged weight Structure four. %Simplified as a large column %wp=W-Fb haw=18;r=2; SGss=8000; %[kg/m3] Vyoke=10*21.7*1; %[m^3] WYoke=0.001*Vyoke*g*SGss %[kN] Vout=(h+haw)*DS4*L; %[m^3] Vin=(h+haw)*(DS4-2*r)*(L-2*r); %[m^3] WS4=(1/1000)*(Vout-Vin)*SGss*g %[kN] Fb=(1/1000)*h*(DS4*L-(DS4-2*r)*(L-2*r))*rho*g %[kN] WP=(WS4-Fb) %[kN] TLs4=WP+WYoke %[kN]

Table 111 Sum of all working forces for the ULS

Head waves [180°] SBS mooring layout

HTS mooring layout

Horizontal Forces GI & Qmax GI & Qmax Fx.carriers [kN] 445.127748 -900.1818 Fxwind. structure [kN] -686.89604 -686.896 Fx.waves and currents [kN/m] -394.03 -394.03

Fx.waves[kN] -7486.57 -7486.57 Fx.total -7728.3383 -9073.648 Vertical forces Gyoke [kN] -1.70E+04 -1.70E+04 Gstructure [kN] -4.58E+05 -4.58E+05

FBuoyancy[kN] -2.99E+04 -2.99E+04 Submerged weight [kN] -4.28E+05 -4.28E+05 Total load -4.45E+05 -4.45E+05

S. Quirijns

188

Next the number of monopiles is verified. When the piles are 10 m h.t.h than there are 8

monopiles required. All values are negative, because reference frame is positive for upwards force.

Table 112 load per pile group for Tower Yoke Mooing Structure

Loads

Large Conventional

Horizontal Surface Submerged

Single corner piles -222.7 -3784.4 -53466.3 Mid -2145.2 -1892.2 -53466.3

right -1922.6 -630.7 -53466.3 Center left 0.0 -4415.2 -53466.3

Center right 0.0 0.0 -53466.3

sum -4290.46 -2.67E+05 Nr. of rows = 2 -8580.92 -1.70E+04 -4.28E+05

Qmax class Single corner piles -284.2 -3784.4 -53466.3

Mid -2268.4 -1892.2 -53466.3

right -1984.2 -630.7 -53466.3 Center left 0.0 -4415.2 -53466.3

Center right 0.0 0.0 -53466.3 sum -4536.8 -2.67E+05

Nr. of row -9073.65 -1.70E+04 -4.28E+05

Since the structure is made with trusses for stability, in total three truss-elevations up to the

yoke, the total weight of the structure and the horizontal loads is divided as Pascal’s triangle. Upper

level where the yoke is jointed to the main structure, so three layers lower the load is divided over

nine monopiles.

S. Quirijns

189

Pile displacements

Table 113 shows all results for the verified failure mechanisms. (Load case = LC)

Table 113 Results of spreadsheet and D-Piles for pile displacement

Qmax class & Golar igloo Dominant mooring conditions

SPM SBS CP TYMS

beam waves

Head waves

LC1 SBS LC2 SBS LC3 HTS LC1 MD LC2 BD LC1 MD LC2 BD LC3 BD LC1 LC2

Results - horizontal direction

Upper Displacement MSL+2.5m [m]

na na na 0.35 0.46 0.38 0.33 0.4 na na

Displacement at bed level MSL -18 [m]

0.28 0.118 0.044 0.12 0.16 0.108 0.109 0.134 na na

Moment [kNm]

8.50E+04 1.53E+04 6.60E+03 4.80E+04 6.17E+04 3.13E+04 6.00E+04 7.14E+04 na na

Shear force [kN]

6770.3 1873.8 993.3 3150.00 4065 2270 3713 4480 na na

Results Vertical Direction

Upper settlement MSL +2.5[m]

na na na 1.85E-03 8.47E-04 1.61E-03 4.00E-04 2.72E-04 na na

Bedlevel settlement MSL-18m [m]

1.52E-03 8.20E-04 4.20E-04 1.60E-03 7.28E-04 1.41E-03 3.50E-04 2.72E-04 na na

Axial Force [kN]

977.72 270.61 143.44 825.57 36.60 551.49 20.37 10.44 na na

Reaction [kN/m]

48 17 10 48 2 35 1.4 0.6 na na

Summary failure mechanisms Unity checks

Buckling Strength

0.56 0.24 0.1 0.27 0.34 0.28 0.26 0.3 na na

Eurocode elastic verification (EN1993-1-1):

0.57 0.24 0.1 0.27 0.34 0.28 0.26 0.31 na na

Empty piles according to Eurocode (EN1993-5. EN1993-1-1 and EN1993-1-6)

0.87 0.35 0.15 0.4 0.51 0.42 0.37 0.44 na na

S. Quirijns

190

Operability 13.13.7

Table 114 Complete list of the identified safety barriers for the atypical hazards

Hazardous event Safety function Safety barrier

Terrorist attack terrorist attack to prevent Surveillance Malicious intervention to prevent Security zones External impact to prevent control of ship to limit Absorbing barriers Cryogenic damages Leak of cryogenic fluid to avoid Plant design to prevent General leak prevention.

control and limit measures to control

to limit low temperature to prevent Inspection Brittle structure to avoid Low temperature design Impact to limit Protect the structure Cryogenic burns9 Release of cryogenic liquid to prevent General leak prevention.

control and limit measures to control to limit Cryogenic burns to prevent Protective clothing RPT Rapid heat exchange to prevent Containment system to

prevent water contact

Asphyxiation5

High concentration of gas to control Detection of gas dispersion to limit ventilation

With a Qualitative Risk Assessment these potential hazards are valued against probability of

failure and cost of damage. Table 114 shows atypical hazards that require a management decision if a

risk measure is required in order to reduce the risk. The investment costs are valued against the

benefits of the safety measurement. Methods to reduce risk of these normal events are by reducing

damages. for instance introducing safety distances. or by adjusting operational limits for mooring.

Management decisions are applied to set limits for mooring during extreme environmental conditions.

These decisions are based upon investment costs over benefits for reducing risk.

9 See List of Terms

S. Quirijns

191

13.14 Interview at LNG GATE Terminal

25-03-2015

Paddy Hudig Karin Kuipers

Sebastiaan Quirijns

Safety

1. What is the safety approach regarding risk management?

a. Risk management with respect to distances, regulations and standardised design

criteria are applied within the port.

2. Risk reduction or damage control?

a. Both, due to quantitative probabilistic approaches for hazards, risk is reduced and

consequences. However, increasing safety is expensive, so an balance is achieved for

optimal safety and investment costs.

b. LNG has lower and upper safety fire limits, in which LNG will not burn. When LNG has

a methane amount of 95% is the upper limit.

c. No light ignitable objects in the harbour.

3. Is there a different safety regime for LNGC in comparison with other large vessels?

a. There used to be a window for LNGC passing the channel and berthing, yet in the

new design it is not necessary. LNGC carriers berth always facing the sea, so the

LNGC can leave the port quickly.

b. During (un)loading an maximum of 1 meter of movement in any direction. Large

carriers respond less to smaller waves compared to smaller vessels.

4. Is there a power back during failure?

a. Yes

Local conditions

5. What is most significant wave climate and has the largest conditions.

a. Wind waves are mostly damped because of berthing in protected area. An artificial

island protects the LNGC. Yet, in larger storms with strong winds this results in lower

service times.

b. Swell, see answer above.

c. Tides are predictable and have large periods of 12 hours. So, the influence during

unloading is within the boundary limits.

d. Seiches are important for large carriers. Due to movement of water bodies high

energy levels are transferred to ships. The wave height of these seiches can be up to

3.5 m. which is outside the boundaries.

6. Boundaries for LNGC within and for the port?

a. No high velocities

b. safety distances between vessels

c. tugboats

d. No (un)loading outside boundary limits

e. No berthing in heavy weather

7. What about sustainability

a. OCV’s do not have emissions Gate terminal is a zero emissions terminal.Chlorinated

water is reduced by applying waterfalls. Sodium atoms within salt sea water react with

b. Chlorine atoms flowing from the terminal. This results in clean salt water, however all

algae’s and other living organisms are dead.

S. Quirijns

192

Design

8. What are the most significant processes and systems from production towards the distribution

grid?

a. Production

b. Liquefaction

c. Transport

d. Regasification

i. 0.0002% of the stored volume is captured in the domed roof of the storage

tank as BOG’s. Partly, this goes back into the storage tank of the LNGC in

order to maintain pressure. The remaining part is added in the recondenser to

transform back in LNG, when the capacity of both solutions is exceeded the

BOG’s are released.

e. Distribution

Between all steps everything is measured at metering stations. High

pressure pumps transfer NG into distribution pipeline grid. A new concept is

loading ships and trucks with LNG as fuel.

9. Were FSRU and the GBS realistic alternatives at the GATE terminal?

a. No, the operational cost of an offshore construction is too large. Especially,

considering that the Maasvlakte was already constructed.

10. Expansion opportunities

a. Yes, when demand for more storage tanks is increased, there is room for three more

storage tanks. By doing so, new distribution spots for trucks and extra pumps are

required.

11. How is SS-LNG applied within the Netherlands?

a. In Netherlands the spot price market approach is applied. This means short

contracts for NG demand and supply. Price of gas based upon the gas price index.

Companies rent a certain amount of LNG Gate capacity and can choose to resell their

imported LNG.

b. By applying LNG as a fuel for cars, trucks, boats and trains.

12. Which vaporizer is applied

a. OCV

13. What determined the depth of the channels with the port?

a. Probabilistic approach, by calculating the depth with standardized design criteria.

14. What is the determining factor for the storage tanks?

a. Storage tanks are designed with standardised sizes in which the limiting factors are

space, investments and operational costs. A storage tank must be of the full

containment type, combined with a cryogenic pressure, resulting in high operational

costs. A spot market approach results in multiple energy suppliers, so as long the

capacity is not exceeded, there is no problem. In theory it is possible for over

capacity, yet in practical sense, it never occurs that all companies are unloading and

storing at the same moment. So capacity of three tanks is never reached, yet when

this occurs the investments costs for a new storage tanks are for the energy

suppliers.

b. During winter the tanks are more used than winter, because of the higher demand

when it’s cold.

S. Quirijns

193

Constructional

15. Is there a single or separate system necessary during re-exporting LNG?

a. Single system, whole process can be done in opposite direction.

16. Prefab or in situ

a. All prefab elements

17. What ensures stability of the constructions?

a. ‘Work with work’ principle is applied; sand dredged at EUROMAX terminal is released

at the GATE terminal. Holocene sand is applied for constructing the artificial sand

embankment; still no foundation is applied for stability. After modelling and

measuring it appeared that settlement were even lower than expected. Regarding the

quay walls a specialised company constructed these with prefab elements.

18. Were there any surprises during construction?

a. The pumps for transporting the rest water from EON towards Gate had to be

relocated, because of the location of the local canteen. Therefore the pipelines were

completely around the Eon compound.

19. Any possibilities for more sustainable scenarios?

a. Except for the chloride removal and the Hot-cold synergy approach with Eon.

b. By applying LNG as a fuel, not only the emission rates are reduced, also the amount

of particulates is reduced significantly. This is seen by Paddy Hudig as a significant

higher threat for health of flora, fauna and humans compared to the consequences by

greenhouse gasses.

Synergy

20. What is the cost-benefit efficiency of the water pipeline construction for the applied synergy?

a. The investments were done by GATE terminal and Eon. Eon has large water basins,

which used to release all residual water in the sea. Since the construction of the

pipeline, the water is transported towards GATE terminal and is used in the

regasifying progress. After this process most chloride molecules have been reduced to

allowable amounts. By continuous measuring of chloride and other emissions the

effect of environment is contained.

21. Benefits of storing underground and why has this not be done at the GATE terminal?

a. According to Paddy the only motivation for constructing an underground storage

tanks is because of the ‘Not in my backyard effect’. Due to difficult safety measures,

maintenance and hard reconstructions, this results high investment and operational

costs. This is the primary motivation at GATE terminal against underground storage

tanks.

22. How to re-use cold energy from LNG?

a. Since this a large gap within the current operations, many engineers are still

struggling to solve this problem. One of the methods is constructing ice-packing

companies, which apply the cold energy for cooling their vendibles.

23. Are there any other techniques to create other synergies?

a. Currently, unknown.

Usage

24. Monthly down time?

a. No restrictions in tidal windows or safety regimes, so in theory it is possible to have

an year-round 24/7 operational capacity. Practically this has not been necessary,

because the terminal is not required at such a capacity. Most of the time one berth is

applied, so when maintenance or any other reason for downtime, this does not have

any influence on the service time. Measurement stations and operational time are

both 24/7 occupied by at least two people.

S. Quirijns

194

25. Is it possible to have multiple berths are there any safety restrictions?

a. At GATE?

i. Yes there two jetties and the new break bulk LNG small scale terminal,

currently in construction, also has two berths for SSLNG.

b. At ‘Maasvlakte’

i. At GATE, there is a regulation against other vessels than LNGC sailing to the

channel of GATA, which can be used as shortcut by other vessels.

26. What are the most limiting factors?

a. In a technical sense the most limiting factor are the cryogenic pipes and (un)loading

arms.

b. In an economical sense the spotmarket gas price index determines the demand of

Energy supplying companies i.e. Eon. When it is cheaper for such a company to

import NG by pipeline instead of importing it by LNGC it will select the cheapest

solution. Since the terminal is now rented by multiple energy supplies, they determine

what happens. They can decide to use it for energy or to re-export it and find a better

price.

c. After the Fukushima disaster, the Japanese government closed down all their nuclear

power plants and started importing LNG. Due to the Japanese Government importing

as much as possible volumes of LNG at any cost, the LNG Carriers decide to supply

LNG at the highest price. This results in many LNG for Japan, also in many low

running terminals within the rest of the world, such as Gate terminal. This has

negative effect on Gate, because they have to repay their operational costs as well.

d. When long-term contracts were used this problem was not there, because the LNG

terminals were owned by a single company. However, the price of NG was linked to

the oil price gas index. Ultimately resulting in too high prices for NG.

Political

27. Private investment or governmental sponsoring?

a. Private investments in combination with investments by clients such as the Energy

supplying companies.

28. Many influence by Dutch politics?

a. Not discussed.

29. Due to the reduced pumping of NG at Groningen, has this resulted in higher demand?

a. Not discussed

30. Main global exporting countries?

a. Qatar, Oman, Egypt and Norway

b. Does this have any consequences for Gate terminal?

i. Qmax carriers from Qatar can berth at Gate terminal, which gives a good

marketing position.

31. Any fear for terrorist attacks?

a. No, because these LNG Storage tanks are of a full containment type. Two hulls and a

domed roof protect the LNG. Both the inner and outer hull can maintain the LNG,

during an explosion. The roof is designed to resist the force of a small aircraft

crashing into it.

b. However, pipelines are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Only will the desired effect be

less significant.

S. Quirijns

195

Future expectations

32. What is expected of the applications of LNG?

a. Due to the Kyoto declaration, an increase in demand for NG is expected as well for

the usage of LNG as a fuel.

b. Exported volumes are fully dependable on the peak shaving methods of the exporting

countries. When demand is high during winter, they will export less.

c. Due to the enormous amounts of LNG imported by Japan, the LNG spot-price market

suffers severely resulting in unbalanced pricing for LNG. Ultimately leading to Energy

supplying companies to import via pipelines. I.e. Dutch Energy Supplying Companies

are importing NG via the pipeline connection from Russia, nevertheless the trade

embargo.

d. According to Paddy the offshore trend within the LNG industry is not rational, because

of the high operational costs. It is better to construct conventional jetties, as these

have a good reputation considering design, construction and safety.

33. What will be the role of Gate in the near future?

a. As a large LNG hub it is their desire to increase the number of large clients. These

clients must be willing to invest in more storage tanks and the related pumps, pipes

etc.