FINAL REPORT Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO 2 Carrier ... · with the transport distance...

FINAL REPORT

Preliminary Feasibility Study

on

CO2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS

（（（（Phase-2 – unmanned offshore facility））））

<0> Issued for Approval A.O. K.H. K.H. 30-NOV.-12

<B1> Issued for Review A.O. K.H. K.H. 27-NOV.-12

MARK DESCRIPTION BY CHKD APVD DATE

REVISIONS

COMPANY : Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd. (GCCSI) APVD K.Hattori

PROJECT TITLE : Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS (Phase-2) CHKD K.Hattori

JOB NO. : Chiyoda:21508 / GCCSI:EPA026 MADE A. Omata

DOC NO. : CCSC-RPT-00-002 DATE 30 NOV. 2012

This document is published on the Global CCS Institute’s website in the interest of information exchange. The Global CCS

Institute does not give any representation or warranty as to the reliability, accuracy or completeness of the information, nor does

it accept any responsibility arising in any way (including by negligence) for errors in, or omissions from, the information.

Page i

Executive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive Summary

The current study considers the transport of CO2 using shuttle ships. It follows

on from an earlier study completed by Chiyoda Corporation for the Global CCS

Institute. In this study, the CO2 is stored and transported at different conditions

and the injection site has been relocated meaning that different ocean conditions

needs to be considered. The viability of an unmanned injection buoy, instead of a

platform, was also considered in this study.

Earlier studyEarlier studyEarlier studyEarlier study

(Phase(Phase(Phase(Phase----1)1)1)1)

Current studyCurrent studyCurrent studyCurrent study

(Phase(Phase(Phase(Phase----2)2)2)2)

CO2 conditions 2.65 MPa

-10°C

1.97 MPa

-20°C

Injection site Southwest of Japan Northeast of Japan

Ocean conditions 1.46 knots

19°C

1.94 knots

8°C

Injection infrastructure Unmanned injection

platform

Unmanned injection buoy

Table ES-1: Shipping transport study conditions.

The impact of the changes to the CO2 conditions and the injection site on the tank

and ship design, the loading and unloading equipment and the flexible riser pipe

is studied in this report. An economic evaluation is also completed to assess the

cost of CO2 transport for a nominal injection volume of 1 million tonnes per year

with the transport distance ranging from 200 to 1,600 km. The shuttle ship’s

capacity is approximately 3,000 tonnes CO2 and to reach the nominal injection

volume requires a shuttle ship to inject its cargo on a daily basis.

The change in CO2 conditions requires a change in the design and manufacturing

of the ship storage tank. Two manufacturing options are available, either to

subject the tank to a heat treatment process after manufacturing or to construct

the tank from a nickel alloy steel. The heat treatment of a tank of this size is

impractical so it was decided to use a nickel alloy steel as the construction

material. These tanks were the same size as in Phase-1 so the design of the ship

did not have to be changed.

Page ii

The change of injection site resulted in different ocean currents, wave heights

and water temperature. A dynamic positioning system simulation was carried out

to determine whether the thrusters and propellers from the ship would be

sufficient to maintain its position during injection. The simulation allowed for the

change in ocean conditions and considered the wave heights, periods, currents,

wind speed, etc. It was found that the use of 2*1,150 kW side thrusters and a

3,000 kW propeller was sufficient to maintain the ship within a 20 m distance

from its initial injection position.

A more detailed study of the equipment on board the ship, the injection riser and

the pickup method was also completed. A loading arm using a flexible swivel joint

was considered appropriate due to its successful operation in other liquefied gas

processes.

The CO2 needs to be heated prior to injection. This can be done using seawater

but additional energy was required in this case because the CO2 is colder and

because the seawater at the new injection site is also colder. It was determined

that a waste heat boiler could be installed to use the waste heat from the diesel

generator’s exhaust gases and that this, combined with the heating using the

seawater, was sufficient to heat the CO2 to the injection temperature.

The cable design was the same as in Phase-1 but the tension and bending radius

of the cable were re-examined to account for the new ocean conditions. A separate

fatigue analysis was completed that showed that the fatigue life reduces from

36.2 years down to 17.5 years when the ocean depth reduces from 500m down to

100m.

The pick-up procedure for the flexible riser pipe was also described.

An economic evaluation was completed to assess the costs of CO2 transport via

shipping. These results are shown in Table ES-2. The average system cost for

transport ranges from 1.93 to 5.24 ¥/kg CO2 for transport distances ranging from

200 to 1,600 km, respectively.

Page iii

CaseCaseCaseCase----1111 CaseCaseCaseCase----2222 CaseCaseCaseCase----3333

No of tankers in operation 2 4 7

Transport distance (km) 200 800 1600

Total time of round trip (days) 2 4 7

Net transport system cost

First 10 years (Yen/ kg CO2) 2.47 4.15 6.35

First 10 year (AUD/ t CO2) 28.5 47.9 73.3

Average in system life (Yen/ kg CO2) 1.93 3.36 5.24

Average in system life (AUD/t CO2) 22.3 38.8 60.5

Table ES-2: Summary of the CO2 transport system cost.

Page iv

Table of ContentTable of ContentTable of ContentTable of Content

Executive Summary ................................................................................................... i

Table of Content ....................................................................................................... iv

Tables and Figures .................................................................................................. vii

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Proposal of CO2 carrier ship equipped with onboard injection facilities ...... 1

1.1.1 Scope of works and design bases ............................................................. 3

1.1.2 Assumptions ............................................................................................. 5

1.1.3 Shuttle tanker .......................................................................................... 5

1.1.4 Pickup buoy system .................................................................................. 6

1.1.5 Storage site location ................................................................................. 6

1.1.6 Organization of project ............................................................................. 6

2. Ship Design (Liquid CO2 Carrier and Cargo Tank) ............................................. 8

2.1 Ship design ...................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Cargo tank design ......................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Heat treatment of cargo tank ................................................................ 12

2.2.2 Manufacturability .................................................................................. 12

2.3 Dynamic Positioning System ........................................................................ 13

2.3.1 Study methodology ................................................................................. 14

2.3.2 Study results .......................................................................................... 16

2.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 32

3. Loading System, Ship Equipment and Injection Method .................................. 33

Page v

3.1 Loading system of liquefied CO2 .................................................................. 34

3.1.1 Loading arm ........................................................................................... 35

3.1.2 Compression and liquefaction facilities ................................................ 37

3.2 Offshore delivery and injection .................................................................... 38

3.2.1 Heating of CO2 ........................................................................................ 38

3.2.2 Ship-based pump and heating equipment ............................................ 39

3.3 Flexible riser pipe design ............................................................................. 42

3.3.1 Basic design of flexible pipe ................................................................... 42

3.3.2 Static analysis ........................................................................................ 43

3.3.3 Dynamic analysis ................................................................................... 46

3.3.4 Fatigue analysis ..................................................................................... 52

3.4 Flexible riser pipe pickup operation ............................................................ 57

3.4.1 Components of the pickup buoy system ................................................ 57

3.4.2 Shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup ....................... 59

3.4.3 Flexible riser pipe pickup operation ...................................................... 60

3.4.4 Future work ............................................................................................ 63

4. Economic analysis of the proposed transport system ........................................ 65

4.1 Case study of economic analysis .................................................................. 66

4.2 Basis of economic analysis............................................................................ 66

4.3 Method for evaluating transport system cost .............................................. 67

4.3.1 Capital costs ........................................................................................... 67

4.3.2 Management cost ................................................................................... 71

Page vi

4.3.3 Operating Cost ....................................................................................... 71

4.4 Transport system cost ................................................................................... 72

4.5 Sensitivy Analysis ......................................................................................... 83

4.5.1 Effect of Distance ................................................................................... 83

4.5.2 Effect of project size ............................................................................... 83

4.5.3 Effect of CO2 pressure and sea conditions of injection point ................ 84

4.6 Comparison of Phase-1 and Phase-2 results ............................................... 86

4.6.1 Cost Estimates ....................................................................................... 88

Appendix A: Dynamic position system simulation results .................................... 92

Appendix B: Dynamic analysis results ................................................................... 98

Appendix C: Operation cost of CO2 Compression & Liquifaction facility ........... 110

Page vii

Tables and FiguresTables and FiguresTables and FiguresTables and Figures

Table ES-1: Shipping transport study conditions. .................................................... i

Table ES-2: Summary of the CO2 transport system cost. ....................................... iii

Figure 1-1: Shuttle transportation of CO2. ............................................................... 2

Figure 1-2: Scope of works. ....................................................................................... 4

Table 1-1: Design bases and conditions for "ship-based CCS". ................................ 5

Figure1-3: Organization Chart of the Project .......................................................... 7

Table 2-1: Summary of Chapter 2. ............................................................................ 8

Table 2-2: General characteristics of the liquid CO2 carrier. .................................. 9

Figure 2-1: General arrangement plan .................................................................. 10

Table 2-3: Dimensions of cargo tanks ..................................................................... 10

Figure 2-2: Shape of liquid CO2 tank. .................................................................... 11

Table 2-4: Plate thickness of cargo tanks. .............................................................. 12

Figure 2-3: Components of the combination of external forces. ............................ 13

Table 2-5: Ship design basis for the DPS simulation. ............................................ 14

Table 2-6: Ocean conditions for the thruster capacity study. ................................ 14

Figure 2-4: Study conditions and simulation cases. .............................................. 15

Table 2-7: Numerical conditions of the six simulation cases. ................................ 16

Figure 2-5: DPS simulation results in time series –Case-06. ................................ 17

Table 2-8: Statistical results of the DPS simulations for Cases 1 to 3. ................. 18

Table 2-9: Statistical results of the DPS simulations for Cases 4 to 6. ................. 19

Figure 3-1: CO2 Loading System. ........................................................................... 34

Page viii

Figure 3-2: Structure of Swivel. .............................................................................. 36

Table 3-1:. Comparison of typical liquefied gas transportation by swivel joint type

loading/un-loading. ................................................................................................ 37

Figure 3-3: CO2 compression and heating process. ................................................ 40

Figure 3-4: Equipment layout example on the CO2 shuttle tanker. ..................... 41

Table 3-2: Construction of flexible riser pipe. ........................................................ 42

Table 3-3: Main properties of flexible riser pipe. ................................................... 43

Figure 3-5: Construction of Flexible Riser Pipe. .................................................... 43

Table 3-4: Case-01 (Water depth:100m, Current direction:0deg). ......................... 44

Table 3-5: Case-02 (Water depth:100m, Current direction:180deg). ..................... 45

Figure 3-6: Static Configuration of Riser (Current direction: 0 deg) .................... 45

Figure 3-7: Static Configuration of Riser (Current direction: 180 deg) ................ 46

Figure 3-8: CP of Riser Top. .................................................................................... 47

Table 3-6: Response amplitude operator (ROA) of CO2 carrier. ............................ 48

Figure 3-9: Surge Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). ......................... 49

Figure 3-10: Sway Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). ........................ 49

Figure 3-11: Heave Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec)........................ 50

Figure 3-12: Roll Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). .......................... 50

Figure 3-13: Pitch Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). ........................ 51

Figure 3-14: Yaw Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). .......................... 51

Table 3-7: Maximum tension & Minimum bending radius. .................................. 52

Table 3-8: Wave Scatter Diagram (Offshore Miyazaki). ........................................ 53

Figure 3-15: Fatigue Analysis Flow Diagram. ....................................................... 54

Page ix

Table 3-9: Estimated Fatigue Life. ......................................................................... 56

Table 3-10: Design conditions of the flexible riser pipe pickup operation. ........... 58

Figure 3-16: Components of the pickup buoy system. ........................................... 59

Figure 3-17: Shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup. .................. 60

Figure 3-18: Schematic drawing showing the pickup operation of the buoy. ....... 61

Figure 3-19: Schematic of the roll up arm .............................................................. 62

Figure 3-20: Schematic of the shipboard equipment and the sinker pickup

operation. ............................................................................................................... 63

Figure 3-21: Details of the A-frame and coupling system. .................................... 64

Table 4-1: Transportation times.............................................................................. 66

Table 4-2:. Capital cost of CO2 shuttle tanker. ....................................................... 68

Table 4-3: Capital cost of Case-1. ............................................................................ 68



Table 4-6: Capital payments for the facilities. ....................................................... 71

Table 4-7: Consumption of fuel oil of shuttle tanker. ............................................. 73

Table 4-8: Summary of CO2 discharge (Unit: tons/year). ...................................... 74

Table 4-9: Net transport cost (Yen/ kg CO2 or AUD/ tone CO2). ............................ 74

Figure 4-1: Case-1 Transition of CO2 Transport system cost. ............................... 75

Figure 4-2: Case-2 Transition of CO2 Transport system cost. ............................... 75

Figure 4-3 Case-3 Transition of CO2 transport system cost. ................................. 76

Table 4-10: Case-1 - 200 km distance (First 10 years). .......................................... 77

Table 4-11: Case-1 - 200 km distance (average over 30 years). ............................. 78

Page x

Table 4-12: Case-2 - 800 km distance (first 10 years). ........................................... 79

Table 4-13: Case-2 - 800 km distance (average over 30 years). ............................. 80

Table 4-14: Case-3 - 1,600 km distance (First 10 years). ....................................... 81

Table 4-15: Case-3 - 1,600 km distance (average over 30 years). .......................... 82

Figure 4-4: Effect of Distance. ................................................................................ 83

Figure 4-5: Schematic of the effect of project size. ................................................. 84

Table 4-16: Effect of different shipping conditions for Case-2. .............................. 85

Table 4-17: Economic basis of Phase-1 and Phase-2 studies. ................................ 86

Table 4-18: Capital cost parameters. ...................................................................... 87

Table 4-19: Management cost parameters. ............................................................ 87

Table 4-20: Operating cost parameters. ................................................................. 88

Table 4-21: Estimated construction cost of individual facilities. ........................... 88

Table 4-22: Total system estimated construction costs for the difference cases. .. 89

Table 4-23: Capital cost payment schedule. ........................................................... 90

Table 4-24: CO2 discharge comparisons. ................................................................ 91

Table 4-25: Net transport system cost. ................................................................... 91

Figure A-1: DPS simulation results for Case-01. ................................................... 92






Page xi

Figure B-1: Time history of Tension at CP (Neutral position,6sec)....................... 98

Figure B-2: Time history of Curvature at CP( Neutral position,6sec). ................. 98

Figure B-3: Time history of Tension at TDP (Neutral position,6sec). ................... 99

Figure B-4: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Neutral position,6sec). ............... 99

Figure B-5: Time history of Tension at CP (Near position,6sec). ........................ 100

Figure B-6: Time history of Curvature at CP (Near position,6sec). .................... 100

Figure B-7: Time history of Tension at TDP (Near position,6sec). ...................... 101

Figure B-8: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Near position,6sec). ................. 101

Figure B-9: Time history of Tension at CP (Far position,6sec). ........................... 102

Figure B-10: Time history of Curvature at CP (Far position,6sec). .................... 102

Figure B-11: Time history of Tension at TDP (Far position,6sec). ...................... 103

Figure B-12: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Far position,6sec) ................... 103

Figure B-13: Time history of Tension at CP (Neutral position,12sec). ................ 104

Figure B-14: Time history of Curvature at CP (Neutral position,16sec). ........... 104

Figure B-15: Time history of Tension at TDP (Neutral position,12sec). ............. 105

Figure B-16: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Neutral position,12sec). ......... 105

Figure B-17: Time history of Tension at CP (Near position,12sec). .................... 106

Figure B-18: Time history of Curvature at CP (Near position,12sec). ................ 106

Figure B-19: Time history of Tension at TDP (Near position,12sec). .................. 107

Figure B-20: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Near position,12sec). ............. 107

Figure B-21: Time history of Tension at CP (Far position,12sec). ....................... 108

Figure B-22: Time history of Curvature at CP (Far position,12sec). .................. 108

Page xii

Figure B-23: Time history of Tension at TDP (Far position,12sec). .................... 109

Figure B-24: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Far position,12sec). ................ 109

Table C-1: Compression and Liquifaction facility costs. ...................................... 110

Table C-1 (cont): Compression and Liquifaction facility costs. ............................ 111

1. 1. 1. 1. IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

There is not a lot of work dedicated to the transport of CO2 via ships. This is in part because there is a certain level of understanding and familiarity with pipeline transport of CO2 with, dedicated pipelines in North America as part of the infrastructure for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Even in Europe, building on the experience of the existing gas and oil pipeline networks is considered to be the way forward to transport CO2. Hence, ship-based CO2 transportation has not been a major consideration for many CCS and CCUS projects in these regions.

However, if an emitter industry identifies that the potential storage capacity for CO2 in the neighboring area is unsuitable then transportation of CO2 by ship provides an opportunity to access distant storage sites. Countries dependent on overseas resources are familiar with transporting bulk raw materials and fossil fuels by ships, and transportation of CO2 by ocean-going vessels provides an attractive and viable alternative to overcome the limitations imposed by the “sink-source matching condition” in carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS).

Ship-based CCS provides flexibility in changing capture sites, storage sites and the transportation routes for CCS. The flexible selection of project components, such as time, place and size in a CCS chain, can assist in bringing about a smooth introduction of CCS scheme to a society.

The cost of transportation of CO2 by ship has so far only been examined in generic comparisons with pipeline transportation under the “sink-source matching” conditions. The effect of scale and flexibility on ship-based CCS have not yet been carefully investigated and considered in detail.

In the previous Phase-1 study of “Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS”, a CO2 shuttle ship equipped with injection facilities was proposed. The study showed that the proposed shuttle transport using a medium-sized vessel has the merit of flexibility in changing the capture site, the transport route and storage site in a CCS project.

Shipping of liquified gases is a well-practiced technology and is economically feasible. However, the novel configuration of a CO2 shipping system requires that further study is needed to examine the parameters that effect the specific design of the proposed system.

1.1.1.1.1111 Proposal of COProposal of COProposal of COProposal of CO2222 carrier ship equipped with onboard injection facilitiescarrier ship equipped with onboard injection facilitiescarrier ship equipped with onboard injection facilitiescarrier ship equipped with onboard injection facilities

The proposed ship transportation of CO2 has the key component as illustrated in Figure 1-1. The system features:

• A cargo tank for storing liquid CO2,

• A shuttle ship with onboard injection pump to deliver pressurized CO2 directly from ship to the seafloor wellhead of the injection well,

• A flexible riser, and • Seafloor injection wells.

Capture & Liquefac on

Buffer storage

Loading

Shu le transport Shu le transport

Shu le transport CO2 injection via flexible riser pipe and wells

CO2 storage

below deep-sea floor

Figure 1-1: Shuttle transportation of CO2.

The figure also illustrates that shuttle transportation enables CCS from multiple capture sites to be matched to multiple storage sites. Merits of shuttle transportation include:

• Relaxation of the "single source vs. single sink matching" requirement, • Unmanned offshore facilities which might reduce the project cost, • Elimination of the offshore buffer storage tanks, and • Flexibility in changing the CCS project plan.

The objectives of the study are to examine the technical and economic feasibility of a CO2 shuttle tanker equipped with injection facilities combined with an unmanned offshore injection facility.

1.1.1.1.1111.1.1.1.1 Scope of Scope of Scope of Scope of wwwworksorksorksorks and design basesand design basesand design basesand design bases

The present study follows up from the “Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS (Phase-1)” conducted by the University of Tokyo and Chiyoda Corporation (CHIYODA). This Phase-2 study is based on the proposed design and cost analysis from the Phase-1 report but considers the impact of the following scope changes:

• changing the liquid CO2 cargo condition from -10OC and 2.65MPa to -20OC and 1.97MPa, because the conventional condition of liquid CO2 treatment in industries is -20 OC and 1.97MPa,

• rougher sea conditions found in the northern sea area where the Japanese national CCS demonstration project is being proposed instead of the site selected for the Phase 1 study,

• the effect of the sea water temperature on the on-board heating requirements of the CO2,

• the use of an unmanned buoy with a flexible riser and the associated equipment required on board,

• the detailed handling procedure to pick-up, connect and operate the flexible riser pipe and its implications to the general arrangement of the vessel's operation deck,

• the availability of the loading arms onshore for the proposed transport system,

• the durability of the flexible riser, and • onboard heating of the CO2 to prevent the avoidance of the hydrate

formation in the flexible riser.

An economic evaluation is carried out on the transport and injection of the CO2 using these shipping specifications.

Figure.1-2 illustrates the scope of the work and the design bases and conditions are shown in Table 1-1.

Figure 1-2: Scope of works.

PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 General Shuttle type transport

Unmanned offshore facility Shuttle Tanker

Cargo Tank -10°C, 2.65 MPa Capacity – 3000m3

-20°C, 1.97 MPa Capacity – 3000m3

Injection Pump

Outlet pressure, 2 to 10 MPa Flowrate – 3000m3/ 22h

Heater From -10°C to above 0°C From -20°C to 5°C Buoy System

Pickup buoy system

Study of the applicability of TLPs and the selection of Pickup buoy system

Detailed study of pickup buoy system

Flexible riser pipe

Water depth of 200 and 500m

Water depth of 500m but fatigue study carried out

for a 100m depth. Site Location Southwest of Japan Northeast of Japan

(offshore Sakata)

Table 1-1: Design bases and conditions for "ship-based CCS".

1.1.1.1.1111.2.2.2.2 Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in this study: • Shuttle-type transportation is to be used. • An un-manned offshore facility is to be installed to avoid the expected large

expense associated with the construction and operation of a manned offshore platform.

1.1.1.1.1111....3333 Shuttle Shuttle Shuttle Shuttle ttttankerankerankeranker

The following items are examined in the Phase-2 study; some items are changed from those in the Phase-1 study.

1) Cargo tank. The size of shuttle ship remains the same as in the Phase-1 study. A volume of 3000m3 of liquid CO2 is assumed for the shuttle ship, which is equipped with two cargo tanks, each holding approximately 1500m3. The case of CO2 transported in liquid phase under the conventional industrial conditions at -20°C and 1.97MPa is examined in contrast to the conditions of Phase 1.

2) Injection pump. The CO2 injection rate remains as the same in the Phase-1 study, to be 3000m3 over a 22h period. This injection rate equals 1 million tonnes per year which is used as an international standard. The liquid CO2 is to be pressurized from the cargo tank pressure of 1.97MPa to 10MPa required for injection.

3) Heater. Prior to injection, the liquid CO2 needs to be heated from -20°C to 5°C. A temperature of 5°C is to be used as a safe value to prevent the formation of hydrates. After being heated, the CO2 is to be injected through a flexible riser pipe into the injection wells on the seafloor.

1.1.1.1.1111.4.4.4.4 PickupPickupPickupPickup buoy systembuoy systembuoy systembuoy system

This work focusses on procedures for the operation of an unmanned offshore facility, together with the necessary onboard facilities and their arrangement on the deck of the vessel.

1.1.1.1.1111.5.5.5.5 SSSStoragetoragetoragetorage site locationsite locationsite locationsite location

In the Phase-1 study, we adopted a 500 m water depth as a representative depth for examination. In addition, we selected Site M in southern Japan where the sea condition is relatively moderate.

For Phase-2, the sea area offshore Sakata, Yamagata Prefecture is selected, which is where a national CCS project, the RITE’ Japanese CO2 underground storage R&D sponsored by METI (2000 – 2007), is proposed.

This site is within Japanese EEZ sea area where the seawater temperatures are lower and the sea/weather conditions are more severe compared to Phase-1. This impacts on the heating of the CO2 and dynamic positioning system of the ship to maintain it in a stable position during injection operations. The effect of the ocean conditions also needs to be considered in the design of the flexible riser.

Details of the site and an assessment of the storage potential of the site is provided in Volume-2 of this report titled “Storage Site Identification beyond the Japanese Continental Shelf.”

1.1.1.1.1111.6.6.6.6 Organization of projectOrganization of projectOrganization of projectOrganization of project

An organizational chart of the project is provided in Figure 1-3.

Figure1-3: Organization Chart of the Project

2. 2. 2. 2. Ship DesignShip DesignShip DesignShip Design ((((Liquid COLiquid COLiquid COLiquid CO2 2 2 2 Carrier and Cargo TankCarrier and Cargo TankCarrier and Cargo TankCarrier and Cargo Tank))))

In this chapter, the effects of the ship design due to changes between the Phase-1 and Phase-2 assumptions are studied. These changes include the change in storage conditions in the ships tanks of the CO2 and also the changes in the ocean and weather conditions to account for selecting an alternate offshore site in the Northeast of Japan.

The chapter presents: 2.1 Ship Design, 2.2 Cargo Tank Design, and 2.3 Dynamic Positioning System.

The overall results are shown in Table 2-1.

ItemItemItemItem Sub itemSub itemSub itemSub item PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 CO2 conditions -10°C

2.65 MPa -20°C

1.97 MPa Ship Design Same ship design as per Fig

2.1-1 but alternate locations of heater and cranes as shown in Chapter 3

Cargo Tank Design

Thickness of shell 39.7 mm 30.9 mm

Thickness of end shell 20.4 mm 15.9 mm Material of construction Carbon steel Ni steel Dynamic Positioning System

Injection site SW of Japan - offshore

NE of Japan - offshore

Wind speed 15 m/s 15 m/s Significant wave height 3.0 m 3.0 m Current speed 1.46 knots 1.94 knots Side thruster 2 * 1,150 kW Azimuth propeller 3,000 kW

Table 2-1: Summary of Chapter 2.

2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Ship designShip designShip designShip design

The ship was designed in Phase-1 with the general characteristics and general arrangement plan shown in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-1 respectively. In Phase-2, the design temperature of liquid CO2 is changed from -10°C to -20°C and this impacted on the design of the cargo tanks.

Ship equipmentShip equipmentShip equipmentShip equipment SpecificationSpecificationSpecificationSpecification NotesNotesNotesNotes Hull

L (overall) 94,200 mm L (pp) 89,600 mm

B (mould) 14,600 mm D (mould) 6,900 mm d (design) 5,600 mm

Machinery Side thruster (variable

pitch) 1,150 kW 2 sets

Azimuth propeller 3,000 kW 1 set (main propulsion) Power generator 3,500 kW 1 set (diesel driven)

Ship speed (90% NSR) 15.0 knot

Table 2-2: General characteristics of the liquid CO2 carrier.

Apart from cargo tanks, the following parts of the ship are modified;

1) Crane for riser pipe pickup. An arch type crane is adopted at the middle of the ship instead of a forward pick up crane. Since this crane is associated with the operation of the flexible riser, it is further described in Chapter 3.

2) Accommodation. A large gas heater is required for the injection system, requiring increased accommodation to install this heater. The heater is also described in Chapter 3.

3) Dynamic Positioning System. The DPS system is evaluated against its capacity to maintain the ship in a stable location under more severe sea and weather conditions compared to the Phase-1 study. This is described later in this chapter.

All other ship particulars, including gas handling, were the same as in Phase-1.

Figure 2-1: General arrangement plan

2.2.2.2.2222 Cargo tank designCargo tank designCargo tank designCargo tank design

In the Phase-2 study, the effect of changing the design temperature and pressure of the cargo tank is investigated. The dimensions of the cargo tank remain the same as those in the Phase-1 study, shown in Table 2-3.

Number of cargo tanksNumber of cargo tanksNumber of cargo tanksNumber of cargo tanks 2 Volume of cargo tanksVolume of cargo tanksVolume of cargo tanksVolume of cargo tanks Approximately 1,500 m3 each Total volume of cargo tanksTotal volume of cargo tanksTotal volume of cargo tanksTotal volume of cargo tanks Approximately 3,000 m3

Radius of single cylinderRadius of single cylinderRadius of single cylinderRadius of single cylinder 3.50 m Total Total Total Total length of tanklength of tanklength of tanklength of tank 26.96 m

Table 2-3: Dimensions of cargo tanks

The tank will be constructed as a bi-lobe tank with heads at both ends, the outline being of torispherical shape, as illustrated in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2: Shape of liquid CO2 tank.

The plate thickness of the cargo tank can be calculated by using standard equations for pressure vessels, which are authorized by ASME, JIS and so on. The plate thickness is shown in Table 2-4 for both Phase-1 and Phase-2 conditions. This shows the influence of the liquid pressure, which is related to cargo temperature, on the required thickness of the cargo tank. It was assumed that the minimum tensile strength at room temperature was 720.0N/mm2 and that the minimum yield strength at room temperature was 620.0 N/mm2.

PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 Temperature -10°C -20°C

Pressure 2.65 MPa 1.97 MPa

Thickness of shell 39.7 mm 30.9 mm

Thickness of end shell

20.4 mm 15.9 mm

Table 2-4: Plate thickness of cargo tanks.

Due to the lower pressure used in Phase-2, a thinner plate can be used resulting in the tank weight for the Phase-2 study being approximately 23% lighter than that for the Phase-1 study.

2222....2.12.12.12.1 Heat treatment of cargo tankHeat treatment of cargo tankHeat treatment of cargo tankHeat treatment of cargo tank

The welds of pressure vessels need to undergo heat treatment after manufacturing the pressure vessel. Post-welding heat treatment is required for relieving stress at all fittings, such as flanges, nozzles and reinforcement plates that have been welded in place. The guidelines require that heat treatment is required when the plate thickness is over 40 mm. Additionally, the gas code requires that post-welding heat treatment is to be performed for carbon and carbon manganese steel tanks after welding if the design temperature is below -10°C.

Considering the rule requirements above, the design temperature of above -10°C and a plate thickness less than 40mm have advantages in avoiding the need for post heat treatment if carbon steel or carbon manganese steels is used to construct the tank. However, if the design temperature is lower than -10°C, alternate materials such as 9% Ni steel, 5% Ni steel or aluminium alloy 5083-0 can be used, for which heat treatment is not required.

But the price of 9% Ni steel is more than 6 times that of carbon steel. Although the total price of tank using 9% Ni steel becomes more than 4 times compared to that made of carbon steel, we adopted the carbon steel tank in the economic analysis considering the additional cost of heat treatment.

2.2.2 2.2.2 2.2.2 2.2.2 ManufacturabilityManufacturabilityManufacturabilityManufacturability

The chosen shape of the tank is of Bi-lobe type. This shape is more complicated to fabricate compared to cylindrical tanks, but has advantages in terms of ship stability because it provides a lower center of gravity of the tank, good occupation percentage in the ship’s hold and smaller gross tonnage of the ship. The fabrication cost is also dependent on whether heat treatment is required. If the

size of the cargo tank is small enough for heat treatment in a heating furnace then design temperatures below -10°C may be preferable from a total cost point of view. However, if the size of cargo tank exceeds the size of available heating furnace a design temperature above -10°C will be required. To avoid heat treatment problems, Ni steel can be used but this steel is more expensive compared to carbon steel.

We believe the heat treatment facilities might be available and there is no barriers to manufacture the tanks.

2.2.2.2.3333 Dynamic Positioning System Dynamic Positioning System Dynamic Positioning System Dynamic Positioning System

A simulation study was conducted to assess whether the Dynamic Positioning System (DPS) of the ship was sufficient to maintain the ship within a 20m horizontal movement range during injection.

The ship is equipped with two side thrusters and an azimuth propeller as described in Table 2-5 and shown in Figure 2-3. The ocean conditions are shown in Table 2-6. This indicates that the current speed of 1.94 knots in the Phase-2 study is higher than the current speed of 1.46 knots as used in the Phase-1 study. This is the major change since the wind speed and wave heights are kept the same.

VC = 1.0 m/s μC = 90 deg UW = 15.0 m/s μW = 135 deg UW = 15.0 m/s μW = 180 deg H1/3 = 3.0 m T1/3 = 9, 13, 17 s μ = 180 deg μ Y

X Azimuth Side

Figure 2-3: Components of the combination of external forces.

Table 2-5: Ship design basis for the DPS simulation.

Design criteriaDesign criteriaDesign criteriaDesign criteria PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 Wind speed 15.0 m/sec 15.0 m/sec Significant wave height 3.0 m 3.0 m Current speed 1.46 knot 1.94 knot

Table 2-6: Ocean conditions for the thruster capacity study.

2.32.32.32.3....1111 Study Study Study Study methodologymethodologymethodologymethodology

The methodology used in the DPS simulation study is illustrated in Figure 2-4. Firstly, the wind drag force, wave drift force and hydrodynamic manoeuvring are obtained by computation and laboratory testings. These forces are then applied to the ship. A thruster capacity is estimated and the manoeuvring of the ship is calculated using motion time series. The position of the ship is compared to the DPS requirement of horizontal movement within 20 m. If this requirement is met, no further thruster capacity is added. On the other hand, if the requirement is not met, additional thruster capacity is added and the manoeuvre motion calculations

Design criteriaDesign criteriaDesign criteriaDesign criteria DimensionDimensionDimensionDimension

Major items for tanker

Length between perpendiculars (Lpp) 89.60 m

Ship’s beam (B_MID) 14.60 m

Molded depth (D_MID) 6.90 m

Draft (d_BL) 5.60 m

Displacement (△a) 6,000 tons

Height of gravitational center (KG) 5.00 m

Transverse metacentric height (KMT) 7.50 m

Longitudinal metacentric height (KML)

120.00 m

Radius of gyration (κxx/B) 0.320

Water depth and thruster

Water depth 500.0m

Bow thruster Side thruster of 1,150 kW x 2 sets (an initial value for calculation)

Stern thruster Azimuth propeller of 3,000 kW (an initial value for calculation)

are repeated until the DPS conditions are met. The process was then repeated over a period of time to obtain a time series of how the DPS would respond to changes in conditions.

Figure 2-4: Study conditions and simulation cases.

A total of 6 cases were simulated. The conditions of those cases are shown in Table 2-7.

CaseCaseCaseCase

WindWindWindWind velocityvelocityvelocityvelocity UUUU10101010(m/s)(m/s)(m/s)(m/s)

WindWindWindWind directiondirectiondirectiondirection μμμμwwww(deg)(deg)(deg)(deg)

Significant Significant Significant Significant wave wave wave wave heightheightheightheight HHHH1/31/31/31/3(m)(m)(m)(m)

SignificaSignificaSignificaSignificant wave nt wave nt wave nt wave periodperiodperiodperiod TTTT1/31/31/31/3(s)(s)(s)(s)

Wave Wave Wave Wave directiondirectiondirectiondirection μμμμ(deg)(deg)(deg)(deg)

Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean current current current current speedspeedspeedspeed VVVVCCCC(m/s)(m/s)(m/s)(m/s)

Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean current current current current directiondirectiondirectiondirection μμμμCCCC(deg)(deg)(deg)(deg)

Case01

15.0

135

3.0

9.0

180 1.0 90

Case02 13.0

Case03 17.0

Case04

180

9.0

Case05 13.0

Case06 17.0

Table 2-7: Numerical conditions of the six simulation cases.

2.32.32.32.3....2222 Study resultsStudy resultsStudy resultsStudy results

The statistical simulation results are shown in Table 2-8 and Table 2-9. These results show the maximum, minimum and average values of the ships movement and the associated output from the thrusters and propellers for the time interval between 300 and 1000 seconds. These results show that the maximum movement of the ship in all six cases is within the horizontal movement criteria.

A time series of the simulation results for Case06 is shown in Figure 2-5. This shows the time series computation results of turn angle of the ship, front-back movement, side-to-side movement, revolution, thrust force of propeller, etc.

The charts of ship movement at every 100 s for 6 cases are shown in Appendix A, where the initial position of the ship is shown by the red outline and the alternate positions over time show the effectiveness of the DPS to counteract the external forces on the ship.

Figure 2-5: DPS simulation results in time series –Case-06. Abbreviations, e.g. PSI, RATE, u, v, x, etc. on the left side in this diagram, are shown in Table 2-8

CriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteria UnitUnitUnitUnit CaseCaseCaseCase----01010101 CaseCaseCaseCase----02020202 CaseCaseCaseCase----03030303

Ave.Ave.Ave.Ave. Min.Min.Min.Min. Max.Max.Max.Max. Ave.Ave.Ave.Ave. Min.Min.Min.Min. Max.Max.Max.Max. Ave.Ave.Ave.Ave. Min.Min.Min.Min. Max.Max.Max.Max.

PSI Turn angle (DEG) 49.1 36.8 59.8 49.3 32.6 64.7 49.6 31.5 67.7

R Rate of turn (DEG/S) 0.0 -1.0 1.5 0.0 -1.3 1.5 0.0 -1.3 1.7

U Speed of front-back movement (M/S) 0.8 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.2 1.1

V Speed of side-to-side movement (M/S) 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.9

X Front-back movement (M) 4.0 -1.4 7.0 5.0 0.2 10.0 4.9 -0.6 11.8

Y Side-to-side movement (M) -3.8 -12.3 -1.3 -4.1 -8.4 -2.2 -4.0 -10.2 -2.2

AZP1_THT Rudder angle of azimuth propeller (DEG) -9.8 -171.7 54.3 -10.4 -145.5 138.4 -12.5 -165.7 154.4

AZP1_NP Revolution of azimuth propeller (RPS) 1.2 0.6 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.9

AZP1_TT Thrust force of azimuth propeller (TON) 11.6 2.6 31.9 10.8 6.8 30.1 11.4 6.7 30.2

AZP1_FN Perpendicular force on azimuth

propeller (TON)

-0.9 -18.1 19.1 -1.6 -17.9 19.5 -1.5 -18.4 20.8

NS.1 Revolution of side thruster (RPS) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0


TS1 Thrust force of side thruster (TON) 2.5 -11.0 12.8 2.6 -13.5 16.6 2.3 -16.1 16.7


Table 2-8: Statistical results of the DPS simulations for Cases 1 to 3.

CriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteria UnitUnitUnitUnit CaseCaseCaseCase----04040404 CaseCaseCaseCase----05050505 CaseCaseCaseCase----06060606

Ave.Ave.Ave.Ave. Min.Min.Min.Min. Max.Max.Max.Max. Ave.Ave.Ave.Ave. Min.Min.Min.Min. Max.Max.Max.Max. Ave.Ave.Ave.Ave. Min.Min.Min.Min. Max.Max.Max.Max.

PSI Turn angle (DEG) 48.1 32.9 58.3 48.4 30.4 66.0 48.5 30.4 66.1

R Rate of turn (DEG/S) 0.0 -1.1 1.6 0.0 -1.3 1.6 0.0 -1.3 1.6

U Speed of front-back movement (M/S) 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.8 0.2 1.0

V Speed of side-to-side movement (M/S) 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.9

X Front-back movement (M) 7.8 0.6 11.8 9.2 2.4 17.3 9.3 1.1 17.4

Y Side-to-side movement (M) -7.2 -10.4 -4.3 -7.9 -14.9 -6.8 -8.0 -15.6 -5.5

AZP1_THT Rudder angle of azimuth propeller (DEG) -9.5 -171.8 103.2 -12.1 -170.0 155.2 -12.5 -171.5 152.8

AZP1_NP Revolution of azimuth propeller (RPS) 1.2 0.6 1.9 1.2 0.5 1.9 1.2 0.6 1.9

AZP1_TT Thrust force of azimuth propeller (TON) 11.4 2.7 31.3 11.1 1.7 30.0 12.4 2.6 30.1

AZP1_FN Perpendicular force on azimuth

propeller (TON)

-1.7 -18.5 20.3 -2.4 -18.4 19.5 -2.5 -18.4 19.6





Table 2-9: Statistical results of the DPS simulations for Cases 4 to 6.

2.2.2.2.4444 ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

The statistical results of the DPS simulation studies show that:

• an average ship turn angle is around 50°,

• the maximum front-back movement is 17.4 m, and

• the maximum side-to-side movement is 15.6 m.

The simulation showed that the 2 x 1,150kW sets for the side thruster and 3,000

kW for the azimuth propeller is sufficient to maintain the ship within a 20 m

limit for the sea and weather conditions of Phase-2.

3. 3. 3. 3. Loading System, Loading System, Loading System, Loading System, Ship Equipment and Injection MethodShip Equipment and Injection MethodShip Equipment and Injection MethodShip Equipment and Injection Method

Design conditions for handling liquid CO2 onboard and onshore are changed

from -10°C, 2.65MPa (in Phase-1) to -20oC, 1.97MPa (in Phase-2). When the

pressure of liquid CO2 becomes lower, larger CO2 tanks onshore are available

and the total cost of CO2 tanks accordingly becomes cheaper than those found in

the Phase-1 study. However, the specification of the other major equipment,

such as CO2 loading pumps, CO2 tank, boil off gas coolers and loading arms and

so forth are the same as those in the Phase-1 study.

Due to the change in the temperature of liquid CO2 and the injection site, the

capacity of the onboard heater should be increased. In the Phase-1 condition at

the Southwest sea in Japan, the available seawater has enough heat content to

heat up liquid CO2, but under the Phase-2 conditions at the Northeast sea in

Japan, the emission gas from diesel generation and fuel combustion is

additionally needed as heat sources.

For the flexible riser pipe operation, the Phase-1 study only revealed the

conceptual feasibility. We examined detailed onboard operation in the Phase-2

study.

Fatigue life of the flexible riser pipe at a 500m water depth condition (Phase-1)

was 36.2 year. At a 100-m water depth condition, the fatigue life decreases to

half (17.5year). It was pointed out that a bend stiffener and/or a free coupling of

the pipe to the ship should be examined to attain a longer fatigue life.

This chapter shows the followings:

• Design of the loading system of liquefied CO2 and available loading arms,

• Design of the offshore liquefied CO2 delivery/injection facilities, on-board

pump and heating,

• Design of the flexible riser pipe and the pickup operation, and

• Comparison of the Phase-1 and Phase-2 results.

3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 LLLLoadingoadingoadingoading systemsystemsystemsystem of liquefied Cof liquefied Cof liquefied Cof liquefied COOOO2222

The CO2 loading system is almost the same as in the Phase-1 study, except for

the change in temperature and pressure of CO2. The CO2 loading system is

shown in Figure 3-1. CO2 captured from power plants, chemical plants, etc. is

fed to the CO2 compression & liquefier facility, where CO2 is compressed up to

1.97MPa, dehydrated, liquefied at -20ºC, and then stored in the CO2 tank. When

a CO2 shuttle tanker arrives at the berth, CO2 is pumped from the tank and

loaded through the loading arm installed at the berth into the CO2 cargo tanks

on the tanker stored at 1.97MPa and -20ºC. The CO2 is then transported by the

CO2 shuttle tanker to the injection point off the Japanese coast.

Figure 3-1: CO2 Loading System.

The scope of the proposed CO2 transportation system includes:

• Loading facilities: CO2 tank, CO2 loading pump, CO2 tank, Boil Off Gas

cooler, loading arm and related equipment.

• The CO2 compression & liquefier facilities, berth, CO2 capture facilities

and CO2 gathering pipelines are out of scope. The information about the

compressions and liquefier facilities is provided for reference.

The study assumes the following loading capacity metrics:

• CO2 nominal loading capacity of 1 million tons per year (or 3,000 tons per

day for 334 days per year)

• Annual operation days: 334 day (operation factor of 91.5%)

• Non injection days cause by sea conditions: 31 days per annum

Maintenance will be completed on individual equipment when not in use. Hence,

there is no need to provide an additional scheduled shut-down period to comply

with maintenance requirement according to Japanese regulation.

The major equipment required includes:

1) CO2 tanks: operating condition -20ºC, 1.97MPa

[430m3 tank x 14 sets, total capacity of 6,000 tons; 2 days’ stock]

2) CO2 loading pump: capacity of 250 ton/hr, 2 sets + 1 standby

3) CO2 tank boil off gas cooler: utilizes cooling properties of compressed CO2

4) Loading arm: 500 ton/hr, 1 set

The estimated area for the loading facility is 55 m wide by 75 m long for an area

of 4,125m2.

The estimated construction cost is 3,000 million Japanese yen or approximately

37.0 million AUD1.

Two operators will be required for the loading facility, consisting of 0.5 operators

per team over 4 teams across 3 shifts.

The electricity consumed by the loading facility is estimated at

309,000kWh/year, which will produce 173 tons of CO2 per year2.

3.3.3.3.1.1.1.1.1 L1 L1 L1 Loading armoading armoading armoading arm

Most of loading / unloading facilities used to transfer large amount of liquid

1 exchange rate of 81.12 Yen/AUD TTM rate of 28, Sept., 2012 Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ

2 0.561kg-CO2/kWh based on data from the Japanese Ministry of Environment

such as crude oil, petroleum products (including LPG) or petrochemical products

use swivel-type loading/un-loading arms that consist of pipes and rotating free

(swivel) joints.

As shown in Figure 3-2, a swivel-type loading/un-loading arm has a simple

structure that is a combination of a crane, pipes and swivel joints. It has been

used more than 50 years and is well-established in terms of technology and cost.

It has over 30 years of track record from being applied to LPG and LNG that are

refrigerated liquids (liquefied gases).

Swivel joint

Figure 3-2: Structure of Swivel.

Table 3-1 shows the transport conditions of LNG, LPG and CO2 respectively.

Temp.Temp.Temp.Temp.

(((( °C)°C)°C)°C)

PressurePressurePressurePressure

(MPaA)(MPaA)(MPaA)(MPaA) PropertyPropertyPropertyProperty

ConstructionConstructionConstructionConstruction

RecordRecordRecordRecord

LeakLeakLeakLeak

ProtectionProtectionProtectionProtection

LNG -150 to

-165 0.1 Flammable

Many, Over

30 years “O” ring,

Purge gas

system LPG 0 to -40 0.1-0.6 Flammable

Many Over

50 years

CO2 -10 to -50 0.7-2.7 Incombustible -

Table 3-1:. Comparison of typical liquefied gas transportation by swivel joint

type loading/un-loading.

A swivel type loading arm is also acceptable for CO2 loading in terms of safety

considerations that take into account the temperature and pressure levels of the

CO2.

Although a flexible pipe – similar to the CO2 injection riser - could be used as a

substitute of a swivel joint, it is unfavorable as a transfer loading arm between a

pier and a moored tanker due to the following reasons:

• the high price of the flexible pipe,

• the high price of the loading dock and/or ship based crane structures

required to tolerate the maximum curvature of a pipe, and

• numerous elements, such as the strength and flexibility of flexible pipe,

the structure of crane, operation system and etc. to be developed.

3.3.3.3.1.1.1.1.2222 CCCCompressompressompressompressionionionion and liquefand liquefand liquefand liquefactionactionactionaction facilitiesfacilitiesfacilitiesfacilities

The basis and design details for the compression and liquefaction facilities are

provided in Appendix C for reference only.

3.2 Offshore delivery and 3.2 Offshore delivery and 3.2 Offshore delivery and 3.2 Offshore delivery and injectioninjectioninjectioninjection

3.2.1 Heating of CO3.2.1 Heating of CO3.2.1 Heating of CO3.2.1 Heating of CO2222

The CO2 needs to be heated from the storage conditions of -20°C on ship to 5°C

prior to injecting to prevent the formation of hydrates in the injection riser and

the reservoir.

There are three heat sources that are available onboard the ship to heat the

CO2.

1) Sea water is the most convenient heat source and is the first priority for

utilization. However, in order to avoid the seawater freezing in a heat

exchanger it is difficult to use seawater that is 6°C or less. A

specially-structured heat exchanger can be used with antifreeze and this

allows seawater temperatures of approximately 3°C to be used to heat the

CO2.

2) Heat recovery from the exhaust gas of the diesel generator is another heat

source available on board and is the second priority for utilization. The

heat is recovered from the exhaust gases in a water heater and this water

is then used to heat the CO2 liquid. The assumed diesel generator

operation conditions indicates that the maximum usage of heat recovery

from the exhaust gases is 2.5GJ/hr.

3) Additional fuel can also be burned to provide additional heat although

this is the last choice for utilization. To utilize this heat source, a hot

water boiler needs to be installed and the heated water is used to heat the

liquid CO2 and is then recycled. If one-third of the required heat input is

provided by this method, the additional annual cost is estimated to be 180

million Yen3. Therefore, this method should be used only when no other

choices are available.

3 assumption of ¥70,300/kL as fuel price

The type of heat resources described above and how they are combined to

provide the heat required needs to be examined based on the temperature of the

seawater available.

If the lowest seawater temperature is high, such as in the Phase-1 study (i.e.

19 °C), CO2 could be heated sufficiently using only sea water. However, the

average seawater temperature in the Phase-2 study is much lower at 8°C so the

CO2 needs to be heated using a combination of the heat utilization methods

described above.

A combination of the sea water and exhaust gas from the diesel generation was

selected in the present study. First, CO2 is heated from -20°C to -4°C by a

specially-structured heat exchanger (open rack heater) where the heat is

recovered from seawater with the temperature range between 8 to 3 °C

Following this, the CO2 is heated to 5 °C using water heated by the exhaust

gases of the diesel generator.

3.2.2 Ship3.2.2 Ship3.2.2 Ship3.2.2 Ship----based pump and heating equipmentbased pump and heating equipmentbased pump and heating equipmentbased pump and heating equipment

The process for compressing and heating the CO2 up to injection conditions is

shown in Figure 3-3.

The loading arm of CO2 shuttle tanker is connected to the CO2 injection riser at

the injection point. The CO2 stored in the two cargo tanks is pressurized to the

injection pressure (10MPa) by the CO2 injection pump. The CO2 is then heated to

the injection temperature (5ºC) as described above.

The pressurized and heated CO2 is sent through the CO2 injection riser to the

wellhead equipment installed on the seabed at the injection point. The CO2 is

then injected into the underground formations at the scheduled injection rate

set for individual wells with the injection rate controlled by a flow control valve

(electrically controlled) installed at the wellhead. Data signals measuring the

flow rate are sent from the wellhead to the injection control system on the CO2

shuttle tanker to monitor and control the injection conditions.

Injection operation data and the conditions of the injection wells are

transmitted through satellite communication from the communication buoy and

the CO2 shuttle tanker to the injection control center.

Figure 3-3: CO2 compression and heating process.

The ship based equipment for injection include:

1) CO2 injection pump: 150m3/hr, 550kW, 1set

2) Sea water pump: 450m3/hr, 75kW, 1set,

3) CO2 heater:

a. - CO2 OR heater 6.6 GJ/hr 1set (5 blocks)

b. - CO2 heater: 2.4 GJ/hr 1set

4) Injection control system :

a. - Start up sequence control CO2 injection pump and system

b. - Switching sequence control on 4(four) parts of the CO2 cargo

c. - Flow rate, pressure and temperature control of CO2

d. - Flow rate control of each injection well

e. - Shut down sequence control CO2 injection pump and system

The estimated cost of this equipment is 490 million Japanese yen4.

4 AUD6.0 million using an exchange rate of 81.12 Yen/AUD (TTM rate of 28, Sept., 2012 Bank

of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ)

The electrical energy used in this facility is 545kWh/hr (11,990kWh/day), which

represents 123L/hr (2.705kL/day) of diesel. The CO2 associated with the

consumption of this diesel is 7.3 tons/day5. The equipment layout in the hold of

CO2 shuttle tanker is shown in Figure 3-4.

CO2 OR heater

CO 2 heater

12m

15m

Sea Water Pump CO2 Injection Pump

3m

8m

View “X”－”X”

“X” “X”

CO 2 OR heater CO2 heater

4.5

15m

Figure 3-4: Equipment layout example on the CO2 shuttle tanker.

5 2.71 kg-CO2/kL-Fuel Oil (based on Japanese Ministry of Environment)

3.3.3.3.3333 FFFFlexible riser pipelexible riser pipelexible riser pipelexible riser pipe designdesigndesigndesign

In this section, we examine the design of the flexible rise pipe, the tension and

bending radius under static and dynamic conditions, and complete a fatigue

analysis of the pipe during injection operations.

3.3.3.3.3333.1 Basic design of flexible pipe.1 Basic design of flexible pipe.1 Basic design of flexible pipe.1 Basic design of flexible pipe

1) Specification

• Flow rate (q) of 3000m3/16hr, the same condition as in the Phase 1 study

• Flow velocity (v) of 3m/sec

• Inner diameter (D) of 0.16m

• Design pressure of 20MPa (Working pressure 10MPa)

2) Pipe construction and properties

Construction and main properties of the flexible pipe are shown in Table 3-2,

Table 3-3 and Figure 3-5.

LayerLayerLayerLayer FunctionFunctionFunctionFunction ThicknessThicknessThicknessThickness OutOutOutOuterererer

DiameterDiameterDiameterDiameter

MaterialMaterialMaterialMaterial

mm mm

Interlock carcass Collapse resitance 5.5 163 Stainless steel

Inner pipe Liquid tight 6.7 176.4 High density PE

Pressure armor Reinforcement of

internal pressure

2* 2.0 184.4 Carbon steel

Tensile armor Reinforcement of

tension

2* 2.0 192.4 Carbon steel

Buoyant later Weight reduction 51.8 295 Plastic tape

Outer sheath Waterproofing 7.0 309 High density PE

Table 3-2: Construction of flexible riser pipe.

PropertyPropertyPropertyProperty ValueValueValueValue NotesNotesNotesNotes

Weight in air 79.0 kg/m Empty in inner pipe

Weight in seawater 20.0 kg/m Filled with CO2

Burst pressure 76.7 MPa

Axial stiffness (EA) 1.05E+05 kN

Bending stiffness (EI) 94,300 Nm2

Torsional stiffness (GJ) 8,500 Nm2/deg

Minimum bending radius

(MBR)

2.5m 3.75 m for reel winding

Allowable tensile force 820 kN

Table 3-3: Main properties of flexible riser pipe.

Figure 3-5: Construction of Flexible Riser Pipe.

3.3.3.3.3333.2 Static analysis.2 Static analysis.2 Static analysis.2 Static analysis

1) Assumption

• Water depth: 100m(It was determined from MBR)

• Riser configuration: Free hanging

• Excursion of DPS tanker: ±15m

Outer

Buoyant Tensile Pressure Inner Pipe

Interlock Cracass

• Surface current: 0.75 m/sec (declines by 1/7 law)

• Sea water density: 1025kg/ m3

• Drag coefficient: 1.0

• Added mass coefficient: 1.0

2) Applied software: OrcaFlex Dynamics(Ver 9.4)

3) Results

The results of 2D static analysis are shown in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5.

Maximum tension load at TOP of the riser is lower enough for the allowable

tensile force in each case.

Bending radius at TOP of the riser (Far position) is nearly equal to the

minimum bending radius. Bending radius at TDP is kept larger than minimum

bending radius.

TOP：Riser Top(=Connecting Point of the Riser) TDP：Touch Down Point

Tanker Tanker Tanker Tanker PositionPositionPositionPosition

[ ][ ][ ][ ]：：：：ExcursionExcursionExcursionExcursion

((((Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Movement)Movement)Movement)Movement)

NearNearNearNear

[0m][0m][0m][0m]

NeutralNeutralNeutralNeutral

[15m][15m][15m][15m]

FarFarFarFar

[30m][30m][30m][30m]

TOP Tension [kN] 19 22.5 30.0

Bending Radius [m] 6.8 4.9 2.9

TDP Bending Radius [m] 44.5 168 230

Arc length of Riser [m] 112 130 167

Table 3-4: Case-01 (Water depth:100m, Current direction:0deg).



(Horizontal Movement)(Horizontal Movement)(Horizontal Movement)(Horizontal Movement)

NearNearNearNear

[0m][0m][0m][0m]


[15m][15m][15m][15m]

FarFarFarFar

[30m][30m][30m][30m]

TOP Tension [kN] 25.8 30.5 38.4

Bending Radius [m] 573.1 8.8 3.3

TDP Bending Radius [m] 143.4 232.4 286.7

Arc length of Riser [m] 125 143 178

Table 3-5: Case-02 (Water depth:100m, Current direction:180deg).

静的挙動解析　0deg

-120-100-80-60-40-200-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

長手(m)水深(m) 0deg near 0m0deg neutral 15m0deg far 30m潮流0deg

Figure 3-6: Static Configuration of Riser (Current direction: 0 deg)

Horizontal Length

Current direction:0 deg

Wa

ter

De

pth

(m)

静的挙動解析　180deg

-120-100-80-60-40-200-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

長手(m)水深(m) 180deg near 0m180deg neutral 15m180deg far 30m潮流180deg

Figure 3-7: Static Configuration of Riser (Current direction: 180 deg)

3.3.3.3.3333.3.3.3.3 Dynamic analysisDynamic analysisDynamic analysisDynamic analysis

1) Assumption

• Water depth: 100m


• Significant wave height: 3.0m

• Significant wave period: 6sec & 12sec

• Significant wave period: 6sec & 12sec

• Water spectrum: Bretschneider

• Response amplitude operator: refer to Table 3-6

• Connecting point (CP) of riser top: refer to Figure 3-8


Horizontal Length

Current direction:180 deg

Wa

ter

De

pth

(m)

CP：Connecting Point (= Riser Top)

CP CPCP

Neutral NearFar

15m 15m

Figure 3-8: CP of Riser Top.

X(surge

6.4m

Current

Z(heave

2.73m

Center

CP

9.3m

Wave

sway heave

surge

pitch

roll

yaw

Table 3-6: Response amplitude operator (ROA) of CO2 carrier.

Wave dir.=180 SURGE SWAY HEAVE ROLL PITCH YAW TW AMP PHASE AMP PHASE AMP PHASE AMP PHASE AMP PHASE AMP PHASE

(SEC)

(M/M) (deg) (M/M) (deg) (M/M) (deg) (D/M) (deg) (D/M) (deg) (D/M) (deg)

2 1.89E-031.75E+0

21.18E-1

20.0E+0

0 1.13E-0

33.56E+0

26.71E-1

20.0E+0

0 2.56E-0

3 3.29E+0

22.28E-1

2 0.0E+00

2.5 3.04E-033.54E+0

21.80E-1

30.0E+0

0 1.08E-0

33.26E+0

26.24E-1

30.0E+0

0 4.84E-0

3 1.15E+0

12.42E-1

3 0.0E+00

3 8.14E-032.12E+0

23.46E-1

30.0E+0

0 1.85E-0

31.73E+0

25.04E-1

20.0E+0

0 4.11E-0

3 2.75E+0

27.89E-1

4 0.0E+00

3.5 1.68E-022.73E+0

22.91E-1

70.0E+0

0 5.03E-0

32.16E+0

21.61E-1

60.0E+0

0 1.26E-0

2 4.87E+0

16.27E-1

7 0.0E+00

4 2.82E-027.93E+0

12.36E-1

80.0E+0

0 7.04E-0

36.19E+0

11.32E-1

70.0E+0

0 3.06E-0

2 2.08E+0

25.74E-1

7 0.0E+00

4.5 4.42E-023.18E+0

21.64E-1

70.0E+0

0 3.43E-0

22.64E+0

21.14E-1

50.0E+0

0 5.88E-0

2 1.29E+0

26.85E-1

7 0.0E+00

5 5.85E-022.19E+0

24.16E-1

70.0E+0

0 3.28E-0

22.32E+0

24.16E-1

50.0E+0

0 1.75E-0

1 3.52E+0

27.96E-1

7 0.0E+00

5.5 8.61E-021.58E+0

22.48E-1

70.0E+0

0 1.18E-0

19.57E+0

16.06E-1

50.0E+0

0 3.64E-0

1 3.34E+0

25.30E-1

7 0.0E+00

6 1.09E-011.20E+0

21.69E-1

70.0E+0

0 2.91E-0

11.08E+0

23.46E-1

50.0E+0

0 3.12E-0

1 2.84E+0

21.82E-1

6 0.0E+00

6.5 1.00E-011.03E+0

24.70E-1

70.0E+0

0 2.59E-0

11.18E+0

21.19E-1

50.0E+0

0 8.52E-0

1 2.36E+0

23.73E-1

7 0.0E+00

7 3.80E-029.81E+0

13.00E-1

70.0E+0

0 1.65E-0

19.12E+0

11.04E-1

50.0E+0

0 1.57E+0

0 2.38E+0

22.03E-1

6 0.0E+00

7.5 7.10E-022.72E+0

23.95E-1

70.0E+0

0 1.87E-0

14.39E+0

12.57E-1

60.0E+0

0 2.06E+0

0 2.45E+0

21.12E-1

6 0.0E+00

8 2.00E-012.75E+0

24.04E-1

70.0E+0

0 2.83E-0

12.10E+0

14.73E-1

60.0E+0

0 2.29E+0

0 2.52E+0

21.26E-1

6 0.0E+00

8.5 3.22E-012.77E+0

22.75E-1

70.0E+0

0 3.90E-0

11.15E+0

12.70E-1

60.0E+0

0 2.31E+0

0 2.57E+0

29.04E-1

7 0.0E+00

9 4.26E-012.78E+0

22.64E-1

70.0E+0

0 4.89E-0

17.10E+0

02.95E-1

60.0E+0

0 2.22E+0

0 2.61E+0

26.94E-1

7 0.0E+00

9.5 5.11E-012.78E+0

29.23E-1

80.0E+0

0 5.74E-0

14.81E+0

01.60E-1

60.0E+0

0 2.09E+0

0 2.63E+0

22.11E-1

6 0.0E+00

10 5.80E-012.78E+0

21.52E-1

70.0E+0

0 6.46E-0

13.57E+0

01.71E-1

60.0E+0

0 1.95E+0

0 2.64E+0

21.23E-1

6 0.0E+00

10.5 6.36E-012.78E+0

24.25E-1

70.0E+0

0 7.05E-0

12.87E+0

02.32E-1

70.0E+0

0 1.81E+0

0 2.65E+0

21.74E-1

6 0.0E+00

11 6.83E-012.77E+0

22.01E-1

70.0E+0

0 7.53E-0

12.44E+0

01.49E-1

60.0E+0

0 1.68E+0

0 2.65E+0

21.16E-1

6 0.0E+00

11.5 7.22E-012.77E+0

26.42E-1

70.0E+0

0 7.92E-0

12.16E+0

02.44E-1

60.0E+0

0 1.55E+0

0 2.65E+0

21.70E-1

6 0.0E+00

12 7.55E-012.76E+0

28.25E-1

70.0E+0

0 8.24E-0

11.95E+0

03.38E-1

60.0E+0

0 1.44E+0

0 2.65E+0

21.86E-1

6 0.0E+00

12.5 7.84E-012.76E+0

22.89E-1

70.0E+0

0 8.50E-0

11.79E+0

01.36E-1

60.0E+0

0 1.34E+0

0 2.65E+0

26.02E-1

7 0.0E+00

13 8.08E-012.75E+0

27.66E-1

70.0E+0

0 8.71E-0

11.66E+0

08.32E-1

70.0E+0

0 1.25E+0

0 2.65E+0

22.93E-1

7 0.0E+00

13.5 8.29E-012.75E+0

26.01E-1

70.0E+0

0 8.89E-0

11.54E+0

09.95E-1

70.0E+0

0 1.16E+0

0 2.64E+0

24.54E-1

7 0.0E+00

14 8.47E-012.75E+0

24.11E-1

70.0E+0

0 9.04E-0

11.44E+0

03.27E-1

70.0E+0

0 1.09E+0

0 2.64E+0

27.72E-1

7 0.0E+00

14.5 8.62E-012.74E+0

25.78E-1

70.0E+0

0 9.16E-0

11.34E+0

01.78E-1

60.0E+0

0 1.02E+0

0 2.64E+0

22.60E-1

7 0.0E+00

15 8.76E-012.74E+0

21.11E-1

60.0E+0

0 9.26E-0

11.26E+0

01.36E-1

60.0E+0

0 9.55E-0

1 2.63E+0

22.21E-1

6 0.0E+00

16 8.98E-012.73E+0

23.81E-1

70.0E+0

0 9.43E-0

11.11E+0

01.07E-1

60.0E+0

0 8.45E-0

1 2.62E+0

21.29E-1

6 0.0E+00

17 9.15E-012.73E+0

24.59E-1

70.0E+0

0 9.55E-0

19.84E-01 2.25E-1

60.0E+0

0 7.52E-0

1 2.61E+0

22.37E-1

6 0.0E+00

18 9.28E-012.73E+0

27.72E-1

70.0E+0

0 9.64E-0

18.77E-01 1.06E-1

60.0E+0

0 6.74E-0

1 2.60E+0

21.31E-1

6 0.0E+00

19 9.39E-012.72E+0

25.65E-1

70.0E+0

0 9.71E-0

17.86E-01 1.03E-1

60.0E+0

0 6.08E-0

1 2.59E+0

23.04E-1

6 0.0E+00

20 9.47E-012.72E+0

21.19E-1

60.0E+0

0 9.76E-0

17.08E-01 2.63E-1

60.0E+0

0 5.51E-0

1 2.58E+0

21.17E-1

6 0.0E+00

21 9.54E-012.72E+0

22.18E-1

60.0E+0

0 9.80E-0

16.41E-01 1.55E-1

60.0E+0

0 5.03E-0

1 2.57E+0

21.16E-1

6 0.0E+00

22 9.60E-012.72E+0

29.02E-1

70.0E+0

0 9.83E-0

15.83E-01 7.08E-1

70.0E+0

0 4.61E-0

1 2.55E+0

24.11E-1

7 0.0E+00

23 9.65E-012.71E+0

27.05E-1

70.0E+0

0 9.86E-0

15.33E-01 1.70E-1

60.0E+0

0 4.25E-0

1 2.54E+0

27.75E-1

7 0.0E+00

24 9.70E-012.71E+0

21.62E-1

60.0E+0

0 9.88E-0

14.89E-01 2.50E-1

60.0E+0

0 3.93E-0

1 2.53E+0

22.71E-1

6 0.0E+00

Surge-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.3

0 100 200 300 400 500Time (sec)Surge (m)

Figure 3-9: Surge Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). Sway-6E-13-4E-13-2E-1302E-134E-136E-13

0 100 200 300 400 500Time (sec)Sway (m)

Figure 3-10: Sway Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec).

Heave-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.30.4

0 100 200 300 400 500Time (sec)Heave (m)

Figure 3-11: Heave Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). Roll-4E-12-3E-12-2E-12-1E-1201E-122E-123E-124E-12

0 100 200 300 400 500Time (sec)Roll (deg)

Figure 3-12: Roll Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec).

Pitch-3.0-2.0-1.00.01.02.03.0

0 100 200 300 400 500Time (sec)Pitch (deg)

Figure 3-13: Pitch Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec). Yaw-8E-13-6E-13-4E-13-2E-1302E-134E-136E-138E-13

0 100 200 300 400 500Time (sec)Yaw (deg)

Figure 3-14: Yaw Property (Wave height 3m,Wave period 6sec).

2) Results

The dynamic analysis results are shown in Figure 3-9 to Figure 3-14. The

results of the maximum tension load and the minimum bending radius

calculated from dynamic analysis are shown in Table 3-7 and the detailed time

histories are provided in Appendix B.

The maximum tension load at TOP(Riser Top, CP) of the riser is low enough for

the allowable tensile force in each case.

The bending radius at CP(Far position) is equal to the minimum bending

radius(2.5mR). Bending radius at TDP(Touch Down Point) is kept larger than

minimum bending radius. CP：Connecting Point (= Riser Top)



(Horizontal Movement)(Horizontal Movement)(Horizontal Movement)(Horizontal Movement)

NearNearNearNear

[0m][0m][0m][0m]


[15m][15m][15m][15m]

FarFarFarFar

[30m][30m][30m][30m]

CP

TOP

Tension [kN] 32.1(6sec)

34.5(12sec)

39.3(6sec)

47.1(12sec)

53.5(6sec)

73.2(12sec)

Bending Radius [m] 15.4(6sec)

35.5(12sec)

6.7(6sec)

6.6(12sec)

2.8(6sec)

2.5(12sec)

TDP Tension [kN] 8.8(6sec)

13.7(12sec)

16.6(6sec)

27.2(12sec)

34.9(6sec)

60.8(12sec)

Bending Radius [m] 54.2(6sec)

34.0(12sec)

74.8(6sec)

36.3(12sec)

83.8(6sec)

33.5(12sec)

Table 3-7: Maximum tension & Minimum bending radius.

Note: wave height of 3m and wave period of 6sec/12sec.

3.3.3.3.3333....4 Fatigue 4 Fatigue 4 Fatigue 4 Fatigue analysisanalysisanalysisanalysis

1) Assumptions

• Water depth: 100m


• Specified fatigue stress: Curvature change of CP

• Wave spectrum: Bretschneider

• Response amplitude operator: refer to Table 3-6

• CP(Connecting point) of riser top refer to Figure 3-8


• Wave scatter diagram: refer to Table 3-8

Wave time (sec)Wave time (sec)Wave time (sec)Wave time (sec)

Wave Height (m)Wave Height (m)Wave Height (m)Wave Height (m) 0 to 5.00 to 5.00 to 5.00 to 5.0 5.0 to 8.05.0 to 8.05.0 to 8.05.0 to 8.0 8.0 to 8.0 to 8.0 to 8.0 to

11.011.011.011.0

11.0 to 11.0 to 11.0 to 11.0 to

14.014.014.014.0

14.0 to 14.0 to 14.0 to 14.0 to

17.017.017.017.0

17.017.017.017.0++++

2.0 to 3.0 0 3.02 5.91 1.29 0.14 0

1.5 to 2.0 0.02 6.40 3.64 0.91 0.06 0

1.0 to 1.5 0.63 15.05 7.50 1.13 0.02 0

0.5 to 1.0 5.20 31.04 11.33 0.45 0 0

0.0 to 0.5 0.55 4.26 1.45 0 0 0

Table 3-8: Wave Scatter Diagram (Offshore Miyazaki).

Wave heights above 3 m were not included in the study as it was assumed that

the injection operation could not proceed under those conditions.

2) Procedure

The bending fatigue property (S-N curve) of the riser was derived from FEC

in-house data (OTC6876) as follows.

• Log(N)=A-B･Log(⊿k)

• Where N is failure number

• ⊿k is theCurvature change of riser top(1/m)

⊿k=kmax－kmin k:Curvature • A is a coefficient from S-N curve (4.0)

• B is a coefficient from S-N curve (1.912)

The fatigue analysis was carried out as shown in the flow diagram in Figure

3-15.

Figure 3-15: Fatigue Analysis Flow Diagram.

3) Results

The results of fatigue analysis are shown in Table 3-9. These results only show

the analysis of the flexible riser pipe when attached to the ship and does not

consider possible failure events in the coupling. The estimated frequency of

flexible riser pipe damage is 0.08562 per year. The fatigue life (P) was calculated

as follow.

End

= 1/0.08562 × 3/2

= 17.5 year

Where k is the operation rate, which is 2/3 as the injection riser is used 16 hours

per day for CO2 injection. (k = 16hr/24hr = 2/3)

4) Conclusions

Fatigue life of the flexible riser pipe at a 500-m water depth condition (Phase-1)

was 36.2 year. At a 100-m water depth condition, the fatigue life decreases to

half (17.5 year) because of large curvature change in the pipe. A bend stiffener

and/or a free coupling of the pipe to the ship should be examined to attain a

longer fatigue life.

Curvature Curvature Curvature Curvature

change(change(change(change(1/m1/m1/m1/m））））

Number of Number of Number of Number of

occurrenceoccurrenceoccurrenceoccurrence

IIIIn one year (n)n one year (n)n one year (n)n one year (n)

Failure Failure Failure Failure

NumberNumberNumberNumber

(N)(N)(N)(N)

Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of

damagedamagedamagedamage

iiiin one yearn one yearn one yearn one year

(n/N)(n/N)(n/N)(n/N)

MinMinMinMin MaxMaxMaxMax

0 0.008 2.78E+06 3.84E+08 0.00722

0.008 0.016 1.32E+06 4.71E+07 0.02800

0.016 0.024 3.87E+05 1.77E+07 0.02183

0.024 0.032 1.33E+05 9.31E+06 0.01425

0.032 0.04 4.74E+04 5.76E+06 0.00822

0.04 0.048 1.56E+04 3.92E+06 0.00398

0.048 0.056 4.36E+03 2.85E+06 0.00153

0.056 0.064 9.90E+02 2.17E+06 0.00046

0.064 0.072 1.80E+02 1.71E+06 0.00011

0.072 0.08 2.62E+01 1.38E+06 0.00002

0.08 0.088 3.04E+00 1.14E+06 0.00000

0.088 ∞ 3.48E-01 1.04E+06 0.00000

Σ(n/N) 0.08562

Table 3-9: Estimated Fatigue Life.

3.3.3.3.4444 Flexible riserFlexible riserFlexible riserFlexible riser pipe pipe pipe pipe pickup operationpickup operationpickup operationpickup operation

The previous study on the LCO2 injection system at an ocean injection site

concluded that the pickup buoy system had the following advantages over a

stationary surface structure:

• no buoy system necessary for ship mooring,

• less stringent ship handling requirements than mooring at stationary

surface structures, especially in rougher sea conditions, and

• the flexible riser pipe remains on the seabed in rough seas.

The specification for the flexible riser pipe were calculated in the previous

section. This section outlines the shipboard equipment required and the process

for the flexible riser pickup operation.

3.3.3.3.4444....1111 Components of the pickup buoy systemComponents of the pickup buoy systemComponents of the pickup buoy systemComponents of the pickup buoy system

The design conditions for the flexible riser pipe pickup system, detailed in Table

3-10, can be explained as follows:

• the buoy pickup operation can be carried out in sea conditions up to a

significant wave height (H1/3) of 2.5 to 3.0 m, according to a survey of ship

operators,

• the pickup buoy and float must be stable in heavy weather conditions and

have no kinetic influence on the flexible pipe on the seabed,

• the specification of the pickup wire rope is determined by the pickup

conditions listed in Table 3-10, and

• the specifications of the messenger line, sinker, and pickup float are

determined by the storm conditions listed in Table 3-10.

Design criteriaDesign criteriaDesign criteriaDesign criteria Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup

operationoperationoperationoperation

Storm Storm Storm Storm

conditionconditionconditioncondition

Sea water depth 500 m 500 m

Significant wave height (H1/3 ) 3 m 12 m

Significant wave period 17 sec 15 sec

Wind speed (10 min. mean) 15 m/sec 50 m/sec

Tidal current (at 100 m depth) 1.5 knot 1.5 knot

Safety factor of lifting apparatus 6 6

Flexible riser pipe weight in water 20 kg/m 20 kg/m

Flexible riser pipe (outer diameter) 309 mm 309 mm

Table 3-10: Design conditions of the flexible riser pipe pickup operation.

The components of the pickup buoy system are shown in Figure 3-16. These

components are:

• a pickup float and pickup bouy so that the ship can locate the injection

site,

• a messenger line that connects the float to a sinker at the seabed,

• a sinker for keeping the pickup wire rope on the seabed,

• a pick up wire rope of sufficient strength to lift up the flexible riser pipe,

and

• the flexible rise pipe, which is used to inject the CO2 from the ship into the

reservoir.

The pickup buoy is picked up first, followed by the pickup float, which is

connected to the flexible riser pipe through the messenger line and the pickup

wire rope. The junction of the messenger line and the pickup wire rope is kept on

the seabed, using an attached sinker, except during CO2 delivery. This system

isolates the flexible riser pipe from any pickup float motions caused by waves.

The pickup float, with an attached light, serves as a dan buoy (marker) for the

LCO2 carrier ship.

The length of the pickup wire rope is 750 m, 1.5 times the water depth. The 550

m (1.1 times the water depth) messenger line is designed with sufficient

mechanical strength to draw both the sinker and the pickup wire rope up to the

LCO2 carrier. The pickup float is designed with 10 kN buoyancy to sustain the

combined weight of the messenger line and the buoy light and radar reflector.

Pickup buoy

Waves Water depth 500m

Pickup float

Sinker

Pickup wire rope

(φ32 mm, L=750m ) Flexible riser pipe (outer diameter, 309

Floating synthetic rope

Messenger line

(φ18 mm,

Injection well

LCO 2 carrier ship

Figure 3-16: Components of the pickup buoy system.

3.43.43.43.4....2222 Shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickupShipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickupShipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickupShipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup

The LCO2 carrier requires the following equipment for the riser pickup

operation:

• a coupling valve to connect the flexible riser pipe to the ship,

• a crane to hoist the pickup float onto the ship,

• winches to reel in the messenger line and the pickup wire rope, and

• an A-frame for deployment and recovery of the float and pickup wire.

This shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup operation is shown

in Figure 3-17.

Picked up riser

A-frame Coupling valve

Pickup wire winch Messenger line winch

Crane

Figure 3-17: Shipboard equipment for the flexible riser pipe pickup.

3333....4.4.4.4.3 F3 F3 F3 Flexible riser pipe pickuplexible riser pipe pickuplexible riser pipe pickuplexible riser pipe pickup operationoperationoperationoperation

1) Pickup buoy

When the LCO2 carrier ship arrives at the ocean injection site, the ship

approaches the pickup buoy parallel to the pickup-buoy/pickup-float line. A hook

bar is thrown toward the floating synthetic rope by a compressed air gun and

the pickup buoy is hoisted on board the ship by retrieving the hook bar. The

pickup buoy is made of plastic with a few hundred millimeters diameter. Figure

3-18 illustrates the pickup buoy picking up operation.

2) Floating synthetic rope

The floating synthetic rope connects the pickup buoy to the messenger line at

the rope joint. The rope joint is hoisted up to the deck by rolling up the floating

synthetic rope using a shipboard equipped capstan. The floating synthetic rope

requires the tensile strength more than 8 kN to pull up the messenger line

which is 550 m in length. The floating synthetic rope rolling up operation is

shown in Figure 3-19.

The pickup float is designed with 10 kN buoyancy to sustain the combined

weight of the messenger line and the buoy light and radar reflector. The pickup

float is filled with urethane form to obtain enough buoyancy and its weight

becomes hundreds of kilogram or nearly 1 ton if made of FRP or SUS (steel

special use stainless) thin sheet, respectively. The pickup float is pulled up onto

the ship in calm sea condition or remains on the sea surface, attached to the ship

by a rope, in rougher sea conditions.

Pickup buoy

LCO2 carrier ship

Figure 3-18: Schematic drawing showing the pickup operation of the buoy.

LCO2 carrier

LCO2 cargo tank

Figure 3-19: Schematic of the roll up arm

3) Messenger line, pickup wire rope, and flexible riser pipe

The messenger line, 550 m in length connected to the pickup wire rope via a

1-ton sinker, is reeled in by the winch. The sinker is pulled up onto the ship

using the A-frame. The pickup wire rope is then reeled in, which lifts the flexible

riser pipe to the ship. Finally the flexible riser pipe is connected to the coupling

valve. The shipboard equipment, the sinker pickup operation, and details of the

A-frame and the coupling operation are shown in Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21,

respectively.

Figure 3-20: Schematic of the shipboard equipment and the sinker pickup

operation.

3.3.3.3.4444....4444 Future workFuture workFuture workFuture work

Further work is required for the pickup operation, including:

• Development of a remotely-actuated quick-release coupling valve of inner

diameter 160 mm that can withstand an LCO2 pressure of up to 10 MPa,

• Design of a quick-release connector for the umbilical cable, which is

bundled with the flexible riser pipe, to supply electricity from the ship to

both the seabed manifold valve and the communication buoy, and

• Development of a slide-movable work floor that can project ocean-ward

from the deck when needed for maintenance/inspection of the flexible

riser pipe head.

Coupling valve

Flexible riser pipe

A-frame

Pickup wire rope

Figure 3-21: Details of the A-frame and coupling system.

4444. Economic analysis of the proposed transport system. Economic analysis of the proposed transport system. Economic analysis of the proposed transport system. Economic analysis of the proposed transport system

The cost of shuttle ship transportation is estimated on the following three cases.

• Case-1: 200 km distance and 2 (two) tankers operation case,

• Case-2: 800 km distance and 4 (four) tankers operation, and

• Case-3: 1,600 km distance and 7 (seven) tankers operation

This chapter describes:

• The basis for economic analysis,

• The method for evaluating the transport system cost,

• The net cost of the transport system,

• A sensitivity analysis on distance, project size and sea condtions, and

• A comparison between the current study and the Phase-1 study.

These costs are indicated using Japanese yen and also Australian dollar.

4444....1111 Case study of economic analysisCase study of economic analysisCase study of economic analysisCase study of economic analysis

The economic analysis of the proposed CO2 transportation system is evaluated

by the following three cases.

CaseCaseCaseCase----1111 CasCasCasCaseeee----2222 CaseCaseCaseCase----3333

No of tankers in operation 2 4 7

Transport distance (km) 200 800 1600

Loading time (days) ⅓ ⅓ ⅓

Shuttle time (days) 3 2⅔ 5⅔

Injection time (days) 1 1 1

Total time of round trip (days) 2 4 7

Table 4-1: Transportation times.

4444....2222 Basis of economic analysisBasis of economic analysisBasis of economic analysisBasis of economic analysis

The scope of the proposed CO2 transportation system was previously described

in Section 2. This includes:

• Onshore plant: loading section (CO2 tank, CO2 loading pump, loading arm

and related equipments),

• CO2 shuttle tanker including on-board CO2 injection pump, sea water

pump, CO2 heater, Injection control system and riser winch, and

• Offshore facilities: CO2 injection riser and buoy.

The followings are out of scope for the economic analysis:

• CO2 capture facilities,

• CO2 gathering pipelines,

• CO2 compression & liquefier facility (the information of the facility is

reported as references),

• Berth onshore,

• CO2 well head equipment,

• Pipelines between well head equipment and injection well, and

• CO2 injection wells.

The following assumptions are made for the economic analysis:

• Nominal injection capacity of 1,000,000 tons/year

• Operation days per year: 334

• Transport capacity per CO2 shuttle tanker (effective volume) of

2,916 m3 (or 3,003 tons)

• Actual injection capacity of 1,003,121 tons/year

• The well head depth is at 500 m below the ocean surface.

• Total system life of 30 years from the start of injection.

• Expected life of facilities as follows;

- Onshore plant: 30 years

- CO2 shuttle tanker: 15 years, CO2 shuttle tanker will be replaced

with new tankers after 15 years of service.

- Offshore facilities: 30 years

• Standby period for CO2 shuttle tanker: 25% of the period number for

Case-1 and Case-2, 1 (one) ship for Case-3.

The Net injection capacity is calculated as the actual injection minus the

discharged emissions arising from the electricity use at the onshore facility and

the fuel consumption onboard during shuttle and injection operations. The

Japanese Ministry of Environment indices are used:

• Electricity: 0.561 kg-CO2/kWh

• Fuel oil: 2.71 kg-CO2/kL-oil

4444....3333 Method for evaluating Method for evaluating Method for evaluating Method for evaluating transport system costtransport system costtransport system costtransport system cost

The total transport system cost is the sum of three separate cost items:

• Capital costs,

• Management costs and

• Operating costs.

4.3.1 Capital costs4.3.1 Capital costs4.3.1 Capital costs4.3.1 Capital costs

The capital costs covers interest payments and the repayment of the capital

used to purchase the infrastructure.

The estimated construction cost of major capital items are:

(1) Onshore CO2 Loading facilities: 3,000 Million Yen

(2) CO2 shuttle tanker, as shown in Table 4-2

(3) CO2 injection riser: 900 Million Yen (assuming water depth of 500

m)

Main Main Main Main

body & body & body & body &

tankstankstankstanks

Pump, HE & Pump, HE & Pump, HE & Pump, HE &

control control control control

systemsystemsystemsystem

PickPickPickPick----upupupup

WinchWinchWinchWinch SubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotal

Estimated

cost

(Million Yen)

2,200 490 141 2,831

Table 4-2:. Capital cost of CO2 shuttle tanker.

The estimated total capital costs for each case are shown in Tables 4-3 to 4-5.

The number of shuttle tankers in each case is more than the number in

operation to allow for maintenance and servicing of the shuttle tanker.

LoadingLoadingLoadingLoading

facilitiesfacilitiesfacilitiesfacilities

Shuttle Shuttle Shuttle Shuttle

tankertankertankertanker

InjectionInjectionInjectionInjection

riserriserriserriser TotalTotalTotalTotal

Number 1 2.5 1 1

Estimated

cost

(Million Yen)

3,000 7,078 900 10,978

(Million AU$) 34.6 81.7 10.4 126.7

Table 4-3: Capital cost of Case-1.







Number 1 5 1 1

Estimated

cost

(Million Yen)

3,000 14,155 900 18,055

(Million AU$) 34.6 163.4 10.4 208.4








Number 1 8 1 1

Estimated

cost

(Million Yen)

3,000 22,648 900 26,548

(Million AU$) 34.6 261.4 10.4 306.4


The total annual payment is indicated as follows.

yS ( 1 . 0+y ) n P = ( 1 . 0+y ) n― 1 . 0

The annual payment of capital cost is indicated S/n.

The annual interest payable, R, on capital expenses is indicated using:

R = P ― S / n

Where S is the loan amount (capital cost), n is the term of the loan in years and y

is the interest rate. The interest rate is taken to be 1.25% which is the Japanese

long term prime rate on September 2012. For a loan period of 10 years and the

Japanese long term prime interest rate, the above equation simplifies to:

R = 0.700% * S

For a facility with an expected life of 30 years, the annual interest payable is as

follows:

• 0.700% * S for the first 10 years,

• Nil for years 11 to 30.

The average over the life of the system is 0.233 %* S.

For a facility with an expected life of 15 years, the annual interest payable is as

follows:

• 0.700% * S for the first 10 years and during years 16 to 25,

• Nil for years 11 to 15 and 26 to 30.

The average over the life of the system is 0.467% * S.

The capital will be paid off over a period of 10 years and it is assumed that there

will be no salvage value associated with the facilities after 10 years. The

depreciation cost, D, is estimated as:

� =(�� − �� )

��

For a facility with an expected life of 30 years, the depreciation costs is as

follows:

• First 10 years: 10% *S

• Years 11 to 30: nil

For a facility with an expected life of 15 years, the depreciation cost is as follows:

• First 10 years and years 16 to 25: 10%* S,

• Years 11 to 15 and 26 to 30: nil.

Working capital is not taken into account in these calculations.

The capital payments for the facilities are shown in Table 4-6. These payments

are for capital assets only and do not include the interest charges on the capital,

which are considered in a later section.


Initial payment prior to injection

(m Yen/ m AUD)

10,978/ 126.7 18,055/ 208.4 26,548/ 306.4

Payments of new capital

equipment after 15 years (m Yen/

m AUD

7,078/ 81.7 14,155/ 163.4 22,648/ 261.4

Total capital payments (m Yen/ m

AUD)

18,056/ 208.4 30,210/ 371.8 49,196/ 567.8

Table 4-6: Capital payments for the facilities.

4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 MMMManagement costanagement costanagement costanagement cost

The management costs includes the following:

• Maintenance cost based on Japanese chemical plants and set as 3.0% per

annum of the initial capital cost for all facilities except the injection riser

which is set at 1.0%.

• An insurance premium of 0.35% of the initial capital cost per annum

based on Japanese general chemical plants.

• An annual Property Tax of 1.4% of the initial capital cost based on

Japanese general chemical plants.

• Satellite communication cost using the charges of Inmarsat.

• An annual administration cost for the facilities:

o Loading plants at 150% of operators’ wages,

o Shuttle CO2 Tanker at 100% of operators’ wages, and

o Injection at 100% of operators’ wages.

4.3.3 Operating Cost4.3.3 Operating Cost4.3.3 Operating Cost4.3.3 Operating Cost

The operating costs are labour and the use of utilities. Labour wages are

estimated as:

• Operators for onshore Plants are ¥8,000,000 per year based on Japanese

operators’ average wages.

• Crew for CO2 shuttle tanker are ¥9,000,000 per year based on Japanese

crews’ average wages making allowances for the ships’ captain.

• Crew for CO2 Injection at ¥8,000,000 per year, the same as operators’

wages for onshore plants.

Utilities are costed at the following rates

• Electric power of onshore plants: ¥10/kWh based on Japanese general

chemical plants.

• Cooling water of onshore plants: ¥8.0/ton based on Japanesegeneral

chemical plants.

• Treatment cost of waste water from onshore plants: ¥80/ton based on

Japanese general chemical plants.

• Fuel oil cost of CO2 shuttle tanker engine: ¥70,300/kL based on Japanese

market average price from Oct., 2011 to Sept., 2012.

4444.4 .4 .4 .4 Transport system Transport system Transport system Transport system costcostcostcost

The total transport system cost is the sum of the capital costs, the management

costs and the operating costs. This requires a better understanding of the

number of operators and crew required as well as an estimate of the amount of

utilities required.

The onshore plant will require 2 operators.

Each ship requires two team consisting of 3 crew members each. The total

number of crew per ship is 6. Each ship also requires two teams for injection

consisting of 3 crew members each. So 6 crew members are also required for

each ship for the injection of CO2.

The onshore CO2 loading plants facilities uses 309,000 kWh per year.

(1) The CO2 shuttle tanker uses fuel oil to generate electricity on board and

during the different stages of loading, shuttle and injection as shown in

Table 4-7 below.

Table 4-7: Consumption of fuel oil of shuttle tanker.

Note: FO is fuel oil.

CO2 is produced from the utilization of electricity at the onshore facilities and

also from the combustion of fuel oil on board the ship. The emissions of CO2 per

annum are shown in Table 4-8. These total volume injected needs to be adjusted

for the CO2 discharges so that a cost per tonne of CO2 stored can be calculated.

CaseCaseCaseCase ItemItemItemItem LoadingLoadingLoadingLoading ShuttleShuttleShuttleShuttle NNNNavigationavigationavigationavigation

InjectionInjectionInjectionInjection TTTTotalotalotalotal

Case-1

Time h 8 h 8 h x 2 24 h 48 h

Elec./Injection kWh/I - 7,568 46,174 53,742

F.O./Injection kg/I - 1,762 9,751 11,513

F.O./year kL/y - 684 3,787 4,471

Case-2

Injection time h 8 h 32 h x 2 24 h 96 h


F.O./Injection kg/I - 7,047 9,751 16,799

F.O./year kL/y - 2,737 3,787 6,524

Case-3

Injection time h 8 h 64 h x 2 24 h 160 h


F.O./Injection kg/I - 14,095 9,751 16,799

F.O./year kL/y - 5,474 3,787 9,261


Loading 173 173 173

Shuttle 1,854 7,432 14,897

Navigation injection 10,263 10,263 10,263

Subtotal 12,290 17,868 25,333

Gross injection 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121

Net injection 990,831 985,253 977,788

Table 4-8: Summary of CO2 discharge (Unit: tons/year).

Note: Shuttle of Case-2 and Case-3 include the emissions from the boil off gas

during the shuttle voyage.

The annual costs for each of the three cases are shown in Figures 4-1 to Figure

4-3 for the whole 30 year life span of the shuttle project.

The net transport costs details are shown in Table 4-10 to 4-15 and summarise

in Table 4-9 below.


First 10 year ( Yen/ AUD) 2.47/ 28.5 4.15/ 47.9 6.35/73.3

Average over 30 year life (Yen/

AUD)

1.93/ 23.0 3.36/ 38.8 5.24/60.5

Table 4-9: Net transport cost (Yen/ kg CO2 or AUD/ tone CO2).

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Capital related cost

Management cost

Operation cost

year

year

Inje

ctio

n c

ost

(yen/k

g-C

O2)

injection cost average in system life

Figure 4-1: Case-1 Transition of CO2 Transport system cost.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Management cost

Operation cost

year

year

Inje

ctio

n c

ost

(yen/k

g-C

O2)


Figure 4-2: Case-2 Transition of CO2 Transport system cost.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Management cost

Operation cost

year

year

Inje

ctio

n c

ost

(yen/k

g-C

O2)


Figure 4-3 Case-3 Transition of CO2 transport system cost.

The operation cost of the CO2 compression & liquefaction facility is indicated to

the Appendix C for reference purposes only.

ItemsItemsItemsItems UnitUnitUnitUnit LoadingLoadingLoadingLoading ShuttleShuttleShuttleShuttle InjectionInjectionInjectionInjection TotalTotalTotalTotal System capacity tons/year 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Operating factor days/year 334 334 334 334

System life years 30 15 30 30

Number of Facilities set 1 2.5 1 1

Capital cost Mill. yen 3,000 7,078 900 10,978

Mill. AUD 34.6 81.7 10.4 126.7

Utilities Electric power kWh/y 309,000 - - 309,000

Fuel kL/year - 684 3,787 4,471

Number of personnel man 2 6 per ship 6 per ship 26

Gross injection capacity tons/year 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121

Discharged CO2 tons/year 173 1,854 10,263 12,290

Net injection capacity tons/year 1,002,948 1,001,267 992,858 990,831

Capital related

cost

Interest Mill. yen/year 21.00 49.54 6.30 76.84

Depreciation Mill. yen/year 300.00 707.75 90.00 1,097.75

subtotal Mill. yen/year 321.00 757.29 96.30 1,174.59

¥/kg-CO2 0.320 0.756 0.097 1.185

Management

cost

Maintenance Mill. yen/year 90.00 212.33 9.00 311.33

Insurance Mill. yen/year 10.50 24.77 3.15 38.42

Property tax Mill. yen/year 42.00 99.09 12.60 153.69

Communication Mill. yen/year - - 1.60 1.60

Administration Mill. yen/year 24.00 108.00 96.00 228.00

subtotal Mill. yen/year 166.50 444.18 122.35 733.03

¥/kg-CO2 0.166 0.444 0.123 0.740

Operation cost

Wages:

LoadingMill. yen/year 16.00 16.00

Tanker crewMill. yen/year - 108.00 108.00

Injection CrewMill. yen/year 96.00 96.00

Electric power Mill. yen/year 3.09 - - 3.09

Fuel Mill. yen/year - 48.09 266.23 314.31


¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.156 0.365 0.542

Total transport system costTotal transport system costTotal transport system costTotal transport system cost

Mill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/year 506.59506.59506.59506.59 1,357.561,357.561,357.561,357.56 580.88580.88580.88580.88 2,445.032,445.032,445.032,445.03

¥¥¥¥/kg/kg/kg/kg----COCOCOCO2222 0.5050.5050.5050.505 1.3561.3561.3561.356 0.5850.5850.5850.585 2.4682.4682.4682.468

AUD/tonAUD/tonAUD/tonAUD/ton----COCOCOCO2222 5.85.85.85.8 15.715.715.715.7 6.76.76.76.7 28.528.528.528.5

Table 4-10: Case-1 - 200 km distance (First 10 years).






Mill. AUD 34.6 81.7 10.4 126.7


Fuel kL/year - 684 3,787 4,471

Number of personnel man 2 6 6 per ship 26

Injection capacity tons/year 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121 1,003,121


Net injection capacity tons/year 1,002,948 1,001,267 992,858 990,831

Capital

related cost


Depreciation Mill. yen/year 99.90 472.07 29.97 601.94


¥/kg-CO2 0.107 0.504 0.032 0.650

Management

cost







¥/kg-CO2 0.166 0.444 0.123 0.740

Operation

cost

Wages:







¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.156 0.365 0.542

Total transport system Total transport system Total transport system Total transport system costcostcostcost

Mill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/year 292.48292.48292.48292.48 1,105.391,105.391,105.391,105.39 516.64516.64516.64516.64 1,914.511,914.511,914.511,914.51



Table 4-11: Case-1 - 200 km distance (average over 30 years).






Mill. AUD 34.6 163.4 10.4 208.4


Fuel kL/year - 2,737 3,787 6,524




Net injection capacity tons/year 1,002,948 995,689 992,858 985,253

Capital

related cost


Depreciation Mill. yen/year 300.00 1,415.50 90.00 1,805.50

subtotal Mill. yen/year 321.00 1,514.59 96.30 1,931.89

¥/kg-CO2 0.320 1.521 0.097 1.961

Management

cost







¥/kg-CO2 0.166 0.892 0.220 1.292

Operation

cost

Wages:







¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.410 0.462 0.899

Total transport Total transport Total transport Total transport system costsystem costsystem costsystem cost Mill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/year 506.59506.59506.59506.59 2,811.362,811.362,811.362,811.36 772.88772.88772.88772.88 4,090.824,090.824,090.824,090.82



Table 4-12: Case-2 - 800 km distance (first 10 years).






Mill. AUD 34.6 163.4 10.4 208.4


Fuel kL/year - 2,868 3,969 6,837

Number of personnel man 2 6 6 per ship 50

Injection capacity tons/year 309,000 - - 309,000

Discharged CO2 tons/year - 2,737 3,787 6,524

Net injection capacity tons/year 309,000 - - 309,000

Capital related

cost


Depreciation Mill. yen/year 99.90 944.14 29.97 1,074.01


¥/kg-CO2 0.107 1.015 0.032 1.166

Management

cost







¥/kg-CO2 0.166 0.892 0.220 1.292

Operation cost

Wages:







¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.410 0.462 0.899

Total transport system costTotal transport system costTotal transport system costTotal transport system cost Mill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/year 292.48292.48292.48292.48 2,307.022,307.022,307.022,307.02 708.64708.64708.64708.64 3,308.143,308.143,308.143,308.14



Table 4-13: Case-2 - 800 km distance (average over 30 years).






Mill. AUD 34.6 261.4 10.4 306.4


Fuel kL/year - 5,474 3,787 9,261





Capital related

cost




¥/kg-CO2 0.320 2.452 0.097 2.905

Management

cost







¥/kg-CO2 0.166 1.471 0.365 2.028

Operation cost

Wages:







¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.772 0.607 1.416

Total transport system costTotal transport system costTotal transport system costTotal transport system cost Mill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/year 506.59506.59506.59506.59 4,639.944,639.944,639.944,639.94 1,060.881,060.881,060.881,060.88 6,207.406,207.406,207.406,207.40



Table 4-14: Case-3 - 1,600 km distance (First 10 years).



System life year 30 15 30 30



Mill. AU$ 34.6 261.4 10.4 306.4


Fuel kL/year - 2,868 3,969 6,837





Capital related

cost




¥/kg-CO2 0.107 1.636 0.032 1.795

Management

cost







¥/kg-CO2 0.166 1.471 0.365 2.028

Operation cost

Wages:







¥/kg-CO2 0.019 0.772 0.607 1.416

Total transport system costTotal transport system costTotal transport system costTotal transport system cost Mill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/yearMill. yen/year 292.48292.48292.48292.48 3,832.993,832.993,832.993,832.99 996.64996.64996.64996.64 5,122.115,122.115,122.115,122.11



Table 4-15: Case-3 - 1,600 km distance (average over 30 years).

4444....5555 Sensitivy AnalysisSensitivy AnalysisSensitivy AnalysisSensitivy Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was completed to compare the total transport system costs.

The variables assessed include the distance of transport, the size of the project

and the effect of transport conditions.

4.4.4.4.5555.1 .1 .1 .1 Effect of DistanceEffect of DistanceEffect of DistanceEffect of Distance

The effect of transport distance on the total transport system cost is shown in

Figure 4-4. This indicates that the cost increases linearly with distance.

Figure 4-4: Effect of Distance.

4.4.4.4.5555.2.2.2.2 Effect of project sizeEffect of project sizeEffect of project sizeEffect of project size

This study is premised on a nominal annual injection capacity of 1 million

tonnes of CO2. The shuttle-ship transportation volume of 3,000 tons per ship is

based on a daily injection to achieve the nominal annual injection capacity.

There are two approaches to increase the size of the project. The first approach

is to increase the size of the tanks on the shuttle ships. This approach is beyond

the scope of the current project as it would require redesign of the shuttle-ship.

A second approach is to increase the number of shuttle ships so that more than

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

Operation Cost

Management Cost

Capital related Cost

Distance (km)

To

tal T

ran

spo

rt S

yst

em

Co

st

(¥/k

g-C

O2)

one injection per day can be achieved.

In this case, the total transport system cost changes as illustrated in Figure 4-5.

The cyclic nature reflects that the cost decreases as the capacity of the shuttle

ships is used up, but then increases at certain points where additional ships are

required. Overall, the cost decreases as more CO2 is transported and injected.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Re

lati

ve

tra

nsp

ort

co

st (

Ye

n/k

g C

O2)

Nominal CO2 transport capacity (Mt pa)

Benefit of

increasing scale

Effect of additional

infrastructure

required for

additional capacity

Figure 4-5: Schematic of the effect of project size.

4444....5.35.35.35.3 Effect of COEffect of COEffect of COEffect of CO2222 pressure and pressure and pressure and pressure and seaseaseasea conditionconditionconditionconditionssss of injection pointof injection pointof injection pointof injection point

Two cases of CO2 pressure and two cases of sea condition at the injection point

are examined through the Phase-1 and Phase-2 studies. A summary of the costs

for Case-2 are shown in Table 4-16.

Climate Climate Climate Climate

conditionconditionconditionconditionssss

COCOCOCO2222

conditionsconditionsconditionsconditions


capacitycapacitycapacitycapacity

FacilitiesFacilitiesFacilitiesFacilities

ccccostostostost

Capital Capital Capital Capital

related related related related

ccccostostostost

OperatOperatOperatOperat’’’’nnnn

ccccostostostost

TransportTransportTransportTransport

systemsystemsystemsystem

ccccostostostost

Unit: ¥/kg-CO2

Operating

days:

350 days pa

2.65MPa,

-10ºC

1,000,147

Tons/year

18,241

Mil.¥ 1.137 2.231 3.368

Sea water:

Min. 19ºC

1.97MPa,

-20ºC

1,051,175

Tons/year

16,940

Mil.¥ 1.035 2.038 3.073

Operating

days:

334 days pa

2.65MPa

-10ºC

954,426

Tons/year

19,355

Mil.¥ 1.278 2.397 3.674

Sea water:

Min. 8ºC

1.97MPa,

-20ºC

1,003,121

Tons/year

18,055

Mil.¥ 1.166 2.191 3.368

Table 4-16: Effect of different shipping conditions for Case-2.

This data shows that the cost increases when the CO2 is transported at a higher

pressure and temperature but that the cost decreases when warmer seawater is

available. Hence transporting CO2 at a pressure of 1.97 MPa and temperature of

-20°C is more economical than transporting CO2 at a pressure of 2.65 MPa and a

temperature of -10°C.

4444....6666 Comparison of PhaseComparison of PhaseComparison of PhaseComparison of Phase----1 and Phase1 and Phase1 and Phase1 and Phase----2 results2 results2 results2 results

In this section of the report, the results from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies

are compared to identify the changes in cost due to the different transport

conditions and ocean conditions.

1) A total of 3 cases were studied in Phase 2 but only 2 cases were studied in

Phase 1. Case-3 was recalculated in the Phase-1 conditions.

2) The basis for the economic analysis are shown in Table 4-17. The actual

injection capacity in the Phase-2 study was slightly larger than in the

Phase-1 study because of the change in transport conditions of liquefied

CO2 compared to the Phase-1 study.

ItemsItemsItemsItems PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222

Scope Same

Condition of liquefied

CO2 1.97MPa, -10ºC 2.65MPaA, -20ºC

Liquid density 0.98 kg/kL 1,03 kg/kL

Nominal injection

capacity 1,000,000 tons/year

Actual injection

capacity 1,000,147 tons/year 1,003,121 tons/year

Annual operation days 350 days(95.9%) 334 days(91.5%)

Transport capacity of

shuttle ship

2,916 m3/shuttle Same

3,003 tons/shuttle 2,858 tons/shuttle

System life 30 years (Shuttle ship: 15years)

Standby period for

shuttle ship

Case-1 & 2: 25% of ships

- Case-3:one ship

Exchange rate 86.65 yen/AUD 81.12 yen/AUD

Table 4-17: Economic basis of Phase-1 and Phase-2 studies.

The same method as described in this chapter was used in both studies. The

parameters for the capital, management and operating costs are shown in Table

4-18 to Table 4-20.

ItemsItemsItemsItems PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 Interest cost Same formula

- Payment schedule 10 years

- Interest rate 1.50% 1.25%

- Interest per year Capital x 0.843% Capital x 0.700%

11-15year Capital x 0.281% Capital x 0.233%

Average in system life Capital x 0.281% Capital x 0.233%

Depreciation cost Same structure

- Depreciation period 10 years

- Salvage value 10 % or 0% 0%

Items Phase-1 Phase-2

- Depreciation cost Capital x 9 % Capital x 10 %

Average in system Capital x 3 % Capital x 3.33 %

Working Capital Not taking into account

Table 4-18: Capital cost parameters.

The interest cost decreased in Phase-2 because of the reduction in the Japanese

prime rate, and depreciation cost increased in Phase-2 because no salvage value

after 10 years was used.

ItemsItemsItemsItems PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 Maintenance cost Capital x 3 %

Riser: Capital x 1 %

Insurance premium Capital x 0.35 %

Property tax Capital x 1.4 %

Satellite communication Charge of the Inmelsat

Administration cost % of operators’ wages

Loading plant 150%

Shuttle ship 100%

Injection facilities 100%

Table 4-19: Management cost parameters.

ItemsItemsItemsItems PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 Operators’ wage onshore ¥8,000,000/year

Crew for shuttle ¥9,000,000/year

Crew for Injection ¥8,000,000/year

Utility cost Capital x 1.4 %

- Electric power of onshore ¥10/kWh

- Cooling water of onshore ¥8.0/ton

- Treatment cost of waste ¥80/ton

- fuel oil cost of Shuttle ¥63,540/kL ¥70,300/kL

Table 4-20: Operating cost parameters.

The price of fuel oil increased in the Phase-2 study.

4.4.4.4.6.16.16.16.1 Cost EstimatesCost EstimatesCost EstimatesCost Estimates

1) Capital cost

The estimated total capital cost of the Phase-2 study decreased by about 1%

for Case-1, however it increased by about 3% for Case-2 and by about 5% for

Case-2, compared with Phase-1. The following tables show the estimated

construction costs, the capital costs and net transport costs.

ItemsItemsItemsItems PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 Onshore CO2 loading 4,300 Million Yen 3,000 Million

CO2 shuttle tanker 2,608 Million Yen 2,831 Million

- Man body & tanks 2,200 Million Yen

- Pump, HE & control 300 Million Yen 490 Million Yen

- Pick-up winch 108 Million Yen 141 Million Yen

CO2 injection riser 900 Million Yen

Table 4-21: Estimated construction cost of individual facilities.


Case

Case

Case

Case-- -- 11 11

Onshore CO2 loading

facilities

4,300 Million Yen 3,000 Million yen

49.6 Million AUD 34.6 Million AUD

CO2 shuttle tanker 6,520 Million Yen 7,078 Million Yen



10.4 Million AUD

Total capital costTotal capital costTotal capital costTotal capital cost 11,720 Million Yen11,720 Million Yen11,720 Million Yen11,720 Million Yen 10,978 Million Yen10,978 Million Yen10,978 Million Yen10,978 Million Yen

135.3 Million AU135.3 Million AU135.3 Million AU135.3 Million AUDDDD 126.7 Million AU126.7 Million AU126.7 Million AU126.7 Million AUDDDD

Case

Case

Case

Case-- -- 22 22

Onshore CO2 loading

facilities






10.4 Million AUD

Total capital costTotal capital costTotal capital costTotal capital cost 18,24018,24018,24018,240 Million YenMillion YenMillion YenMillion Yen 18,05518,05518,05518,055 Million YenMillion YenMillion YenMillion Yen

210.5210.5210.5210.5 Million AUMillion AUMillion AUMillion AUDDDD 208.4208.4208.4208.4 Million AUMillion AUMillion AUMillion AUDDDD

Case

Case

Case

Case-- -- 33 33

Onshore CO2 loading

facilities






10.4 Million AUD

Total capital costTotal capital costTotal capital costTotal capital cost 26,06626,06626,06626,066 Million YenMillion YenMillion YenMillion Yen 26,54826,54826,54826,548 Million YenMillion YenMillion YenMillion Yen

300.8300.8300.8300.8 Million AUMillion AUMillion AUMillion AUDDDD 306.4306.4306.4306.4 Million AUMillion AUMillion AUMillion AUDDDD

Table 4-22: Total system estimated construction costs for the difference cases.

CaseCaseCaseCase ItemsItemsItemsItems PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222

CaseCaseCaseCase----1111

Initial payment 11,720 Million Yen 10,978 Million Yen


15 years after payment 6,520 Million Yen 7,078 Million Yen


Total payment 18,240 Million Yen 18,056 Million Yen
















Table 4-23: Capital cost payment schedule.

2) Utilities consumption

Annual consumption of fuel oil in the Phase-2 study is decreased by effect of

operation days compared with the Phase-1 study.


Elec. Power (onshore facilities) 294,000 kWh/y 309,000kWh/y

Fuel oil (shuttle ship) Case-1 4,686 kL/y 4,471 kL/y

Case-2 6,837 kL/y 6,524 kL/y

Case-3 9,705 kL/y 9,261 kL/y

Total CO2 discharge Case-1 12,863 tons/y 12,290 tons/y

Case-2 18,693 tons/y 17,868 tons/y

Case-3 26,530 tons/y 25,333 tons/y

Table 4-24: CO2 discharge comparisons.

3) The net transport system costs of the Phase-2 study are a little smaller for

Case-1, and Case-2, and slightly higher for Case-3 compared with the

Phase-1 study. Results of the Phase-1 study are recalculated same conditions

as in the Phase-2 study (Interest rate, depreciation method, unit price of fuel

oil, exchange rate) for comparison of same basis.

CaseCaseCaseCase ItemsItemsItemsItems PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111 PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222

CCCCaseaseasease----1111 First 10 years

2.61 Yen/kg-CO2 2.47 Yen/kg-CO2

30.1 AUD/ton 28.5 AUD/ton

Average in system

life






Average in system

life






Average in system

life



Table 4-25: Net transport system cost.

AppendixAppendixAppendixAppendix A: Dynamic position system simulation results A: Dynamic position system simulation results A: Dynamic position system simulation results A: Dynamic position system simulation results

Figure A-1: DPS simulation results for Case-01.


Case Wind

velocity U10(m/s)

Wind direction µw(deg)

Significant wave height H1/3(m)

Significant wave period

T1/3(s)

Wave direction µ(deg)

Ocean current speed

VC(m/s)

Ocean current

direction µC(deg)

Case02 15.0 135 3.0 13.0 180 1.0 90




Case Wind

velocity U10(m/s)




T1/3(s)


Ocean current speed

VC(m/s)

Ocean current

direction µC(deg)

Case03 15.0 135 3.0 17.0 180 1.0 90



Case Wind

velocity U10(m/s)




T1/3(s)


Ocean current speed

VC(m/s)

Ocean current

direction µC(deg)

Case04 15.0 180 3.0 9.0 180 1.0 90


Figure A-5: DPS simulation results for Case-05

Case Wind

velocity U10(m/s)




T1/3(s)


Ocean current speed

VC(m/s)

Ocean current

direction µC(deg)

Case05 15.0 180 3.0 13.0 180 1.0 90



Case Wind

velocity U10(m/s)




T1/3(s)


Ocean current speed

VC(m/s)

Ocean current

direction µC(deg)

Case06 15.0 180 3.0 17.0 180 1.0 90

AppendixAppendixAppendixAppendix B: Dynamic analysis resultsB: Dynamic analysis resultsB: Dynamic analysis resultsB: Dynamic analysis results

Time History: Line1 Effective Tension at End A

Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Effe

ctive

Ten

sio

n (

kN

) at

En

d A

40

35

30

25

20

Figure B-1: Time history of Tension at CP (Neutral position,6sec).

Time History: Line1 Curvature at End A

Figure B-2: Time history of Curvature at CP( Neutral position,6sec).

Time History: Line1 Effective Tension at Touchdown

Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1 E

ffe

ctive T

en

sio

n (

kN

) a

t T

ouch

do

wn

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

Figure B-3: Time history of Tension at TDP (Neutral position,6sec).

Time History: Line1 Curvature at Touchdown

Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1 C

urv

atu

re (

rad

/m)

at

To

uchd

ow

n

0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

Figure B-4: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Neutral position,6sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Effe

ctive

Ten

sio

n (

kN

) at

En

d A

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

Figure B-5: Time history of Tension at CP (Near position,6sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Cu

rvatu

re (

rad/m

) a

t E

nd

A

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

Figure B-6: Time history of Curvature at CP (Near position,6sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1 E

ffe

ctive T

en

sio

n (

kN

) a

t T

ouch

do

wn

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

Figure B-7: Time history of Tension at TDP (Near position,6sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Cu

rva

ture

(ra

d/m

) a

t T

ou

ch

do

wn

0.02

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008

Figure B-8: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Near position,6sec).

Figure B-9: Time history of Tension at CP (Far position,6sec).

Figure B-10: Time history of Curvature at CP (Far position,6sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1 E

ffe

ctive T

en

sio

n (

kN

) a

t T

ouch

do

wn

35

30

25

20

15

10

Figure B-11: Time history of Tension at TDP (Far position,6sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1 C

urv

atu

re (

rad

/m)

at

To

uchd

ow

n

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

Figure B-12: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Far position,6sec)


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Effe

ctive

Ten

sio

n (

kN

) at

En

d A

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

Figure B-13: Time history of Tension at CP (Neutral position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Cu

rvatu

re (

rad/m

) a

t E

nd

A

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

Figure B-14: Time history of Curvature at CP (Neutral position,16sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1 E

ffe

ctive T

en

sio

n (

kN

) a

t T

ouch

do

wn

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure B-15: Time history of Tension at TDP (Neutral position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Cu

rva

ture

(ra

d/m

) a

t T

ouch

dow

n

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

Figure B-16: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Neutral position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Effe

ctive

Ten

sio

n (

kN

) at

En

d A

35

30

25

20

15

Figure B-17: Time history of Tension at CP (Near position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Cu

rvatu

re (

rad/m

) a

t E

nd

A

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

Figure B-18: Time history of Curvature at CP (Near position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1 E

ffe

ctive T

en

sio

n (

kN

) a

t T

ouch

do

wn

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Figure B-19: Time history of Tension at TDP (Near position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Cu

rva

ture

(ra

d/m

) a

t T

ou

ch

do

wn

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

Figure B-20: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Near position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Effe

ctive

Ten

sio

n (

kN

) at

En

d A

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Figure B-21: Time history of Tension at CP (Far position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Cu

rvatu

re (

rad/m

) a

t E

nd

A

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

Figure B-22: Time history of Curvature at CP (Far position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1 E

ffe

ctive T

en

sio

n (

kN

) a

t T

ouch

do

wn

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure B-23: Time history of Tension at TDP (Far position,12sec).


Time (s)5004003002001000

Lin

e1

Cu

rvatu

re (

rad

/m)

at

Tou

chd

ow

n

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

Figure B-24: Time history of Curvature at TDP (Far position,12sec).

Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix CCCC: Operation cost of C: Operation cost of C: Operation cost of C: Operation cost of COOOO2222 Compression & LiquCompression & LiquCompression & LiquCompression & Liqueeeeffffactionactionactionaction

facilityfacilityfacilityfacility

ItemsItemsItemsItems UnitUnitUnitUnit

Compress & Compress & Compress & Compress &

Liq.Liq.Liq.Liq.


Liq.Liq.Liq.Liq.

PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111

System capacity tons/year 1,002,000 1,050,000

Operating factor days/year 334 350

Facility Life years 30 30

Capital cost Mill. yen 4,560 4,560

Mill. AUD 56.2 56.2

Utilities

consumption

Electric power kWh/year 154,000,000 166,000,000

Cooling water tons/year 24,000,000 19,600,000

Waste water treatment tons/year 23,300 24,700

Number of personnel man 6 6

Injection capacity tons/year 1,002,000 1,050,000

Discharged CO2 tons/year 86,300 92,800

Net injection capacity tons/year 915,700 957,200

Capital

related cost

Interest Mill. yen/year 10.6 10.6

Depreciation Mill. yen/year 151.8 151.8

subtotal Mill. yen/year 162.5 162.5

¥/kg-CO2 0.2 0.2

Table C-1: Compression and Liquefaction facility costs.

ItemsItemsItemsItems UnitUnitUnitUnit


Liq.Liq.Liq.Liq.


Liq.Liq.Liq.Liq.

PhasePhasePhasePhase----2222 PhasePhasePhasePhase----1111

Injection

management

cost

Maintenance Mill. yen/year 136.8 136.8 Insurance Mill. yen/year 16.0 16.0 Property tax Mill. yen/year 63.8 63.8 Administration Mill. yen/year 72.0 72.0 subtotal Mill. yen/year 288.6 288.6 ¥/kg-CO2 0.3 0.3

Operation

cost

Personnel Mill. yen/year 48.0 48.0 Electric power Mill. yen/year 1,540.0 1,660.0 Cooling water Mill. yen/year 192.0 156.8 Waste water Mill. yen/year 1.9 2.0 subtotal Mill. yen/year 1,781.9 1,866.8 ¥/kg-CO2 1.9 2.0

Compression & LiquefyCompression & LiquefyCompression & LiquefyCompression & Liquefy

cost totalcost totalcost totalcost total

MMMMillillillill. yen/year. yen/year. yen/year. yen/year 2,232.92,232.92,232.92,232.9 2,317.82,317.82,317.82,317.8 ¥¥¥¥/kg/kg/kg/kg----COCOCOCO2222 2.4392.4392.4392.439 2.4212.4212.4212.421 AUAUAUAUDDDD/ton/ton/ton/ton----COCOCOCO2222 28.128.128.128.1 28.028.028.028.0

Table C-1 (cont): Compression and Liquefaction facility costs.

FINAL REPORT Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO 2 Carrier ... · with the transport distance...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL REPORT Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO 2 Carrier ... · with the transport distance...