PARTNERS

SUPPORTERS

CO-FINANCED BY WORKING METHOD

A TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORKS (TEN-T) PROJECT Contract No. 2011-EU-92079-S

Make a Difference

Maria Bännstrand, Project leader

SSPA Sweden AB

Make A Difference – one of the ZVT JIPs

2011

Mapping

the

North EU

LNG Infra

Port

2012 Shipowner

integrate with Port

harmonisation

LNG

stakeholders

2014 Baltic

Toolbox 2013 6 JIPs Implement Vessels

& Infrastructure

G

Make A Difference – in context of the LNG flow

Make a Difference - background

SSPA SWEDEN AB

SIRIUS SHIPPING

PREEM

SWEDISH SHIPOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION

FKAB

DNVGL

VIKING LINE

EU Commission

TENT-T

Make a Difference

NORTHERN SECA 2015

SUPPORTERS: Finnish Shipowners’s Ass. MAN Ports of Stockholm Skangass

Make a Difference - Activities

1. Prepare for the LNG certification process for vessels and operators.

2. Harmonise land-based and sea-based regulations and bunkering permit process.

3. Select and demonstrate vessel environmentally efficient technical solutions.

4. Identify logistic solutions for energy efficiency of LNG fuelled vessels.

5. Develop safe and efficient technologies for LNG bunkering.

6. Assess safety issues

AIM: identify and minimize barriers when building and operating an LNG fuelled vessel.

7 & 8. Coordination and Dissemination

Make a Difference – factors influencing the project

• During Q3, 2014 it became evident that it was no longer possible to continue and execute the EVOlution project within the set times frame, due to market development and financial instruments. Planned testing of new technologies onboard the vessel EVOlution, as set out in MaD activity 3, has therefore not been feasible.

• Description of bunkering permit process (MaD activity 2) could not be done as regulations are not yet in place.

MaD – milestones achieved

REGULATION AREA - ACTIVITY 1, Milestones:

- Finalised Safety Assessment of an LNG fuelled tanker; Fictive as a detailed design of EVOlution was not available at the start of study.

- Completed study of rules and regulations

REGULATION AREA - ACTIVITY 2, Milestone:

- Description of regulations and permit process; Still not a single way for permit processes, but case studies have been done and suggestions are made.

MaD – milestones achieved (cont.)

VESSEL AREA – ACTIVITY 3, Milestone:

- Inventory of environmentally efficient technologies;

Inventory done but limited amount of data available from makers/suppliers.

Planned testing of certain techniques onboard the EVOlution not feasible, but a method for energy efficiency improvments in general has been developed.

VESSEL AREA - ACTIVITY 4, Milestone:

-Analysis of commercial solutions for sea transport;

Analyzed the impact of commercial setups on the environmental performance of the transport.

Analyzed the technical and organizational constraints impacting the efficiency of the ship.

MaD – objectives achieved (cont.)

INFRASTRUCTURE AREA - ACTIVITY 5, Milestone:

- Identification of LNG bunkering methods and mitigation measures;

Methods and mitigation measures are identified and described.

Activity 6, Milestones:

- Risk assessment of parallell bunkering and passenger handling on a ferry; - Risk assessment of parallell bunkering and cargo handling on a tanker;

Risks are identified and technical solutions and best practices are suggested.

MaD – today’s focus & important areas for the future

• Methods for efficiency improvements (FKAB)

• Bunkering methods; Viking Grace experience (Viking Line)

• Rules and regulations with regards to bunkering processes and bunkering permits. (SSPA)

PARTNERS

SUPPORTERS

CO-FINANCED BY WORKING METHOD

A TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORKS (TEN-T) PROJECT Contract No. 2011-EU-92079-S

Efficiency improvements

Christian Sjöberg, FKAB

Efficiency improvments

• Purpose

– Identify new technologies

– Study current technology and possible improvement

This is to be done both considering viable economics and that the ship is to be operated with LNG as primary fuel

Problems

• Difficulties to obtain data in general

– Obtained data have been limited

– No data was updated to correlate with the example ship

• LNG and MGO engines have different efficiency–load curves

– MGO peak efficiency at 80-90% load

– LNG peak efficiency at 100% load

• Economic information is sensitive

– thus such information have not been obtained

– Economics cold not include acquiring cost for equipment

Results

• General conclusions in six categories

– Lines

– Main engines

– Auxiliary engines

– Heat recovery

– Energy savings

– Other

Lines

• Savings pending on original lines

– From 0 to 20 % improvement

• To be performed in early stage of design

• Main parameters that are studied

– Length, Width, Draft

– Bulbous bow and stern

– Speed and capacity

– Propeller rpm and size

Main engine

• Fixed or variable RPM

• Lowest environmental speed

– Will differ pending on fuel type and operation mode

• Fuel per ton fuel consumed per nautical mile traveled is included in this graph

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18kg

LN

G/n

auti

cal m

ile

Knots

LNG Operation fixed RPM

E2 LNG cons kg/nm

E3 LNG cons kg/nm

E4 LNG cons kg/nm

E5 LNG cons kg/nm

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

kg L

NG

/nau

tica

l mile

Knots

LNG Operation Variable RPM

E1 LNG cons kg/nm

E2 LNG cons kg/nm

E3 LNG cons kg/nm

E4 LNG cons kg/nm

E5 LNG cons kg/nm

Auxiliary engines

• Different sizes

– Small engine to cover low load

– Large engines to cover large loads

• AC-DC-AC conversion

– No rpm restrictions for main and auxiliary engines

– Better efficiencies obtainable

Heat recovery

• Generated waste heat normally larger than heat demand

• Transportation is the main issue

• Heat conversion -> improved overall efficiency of 5-10%

Energy savings

• Small equipment – a case by case calculation by the economic department.

• Equipment controlled by demand

• Turn off equipment that is not used

Other

• Reduce time required for loading and unloading.

– Larger cargo pump capacity

– Remove constraints of loading rate

• Time in turn can be used to reduce speed or perform more journeys.

– Reduced emission by either lower speed or total number of ships required globally.

Conclusions

- Which actions to be vessel specific based on: o Planed operation profile o Area of operation o Fuel type o Company philosophies

- Identify minimum environmental speed - Conflict between yards and owners economic goals

o Owner -> build cost plus operation cost -> space for expensive but good equipment

o Yard -> operation costs are a secondary interest

PARTNERS

SUPPORTERS

CO-FINANCED BY WORKING METHOD

A TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORKS (TEN-T) PROJECT Contract No. 2011-EU-92079-S

Viking Grace

Kari Granberg, VIKING LINE

24 / 7 on LNG

• Viking Grace has now 18 moths experience of full time run on LNG/NG.

• Also when the vessel is in berth load and unload cargo and passengers simultaneously bunkering LNG.

• Full time 24 / 7 on LNG!

• Cancellation of departure = 0

• Delayed departure = 0

Gas / Diesel Electric Machinery

LNG tanks 2 * 200 m³

Dual Fuel Engines

4 * 8L 50DF

Dual Fuel Boiler´s (2)

Risk Analyses

• STX, Germanischer Lloyd:

• AGA, SSPA:

• Lloyd´s Register. Viking Grace classification.

• Bunkering Operator Sirius, AGA/Cryo, Wärtsilä, STX,

• LNG System and Arrangement Risk Analyses.

• LNG transportation Nynäshamn – Viking Grace stadsgården

• Bunkering in Stockholm.

• Safety Action Reports for Grace.

• Ship to Ship Bunkering Operations includes HAZOP study for Lloyd´s

Requirement´s Ship to Ship Bunkering

• The Swedish Transport Agency requirement’s for Seagas - Viking Grace Ship to Ship Bunkering, as agreed by all involved parties.

Operational requirements:

• Communication - in this case Telemetry with Redundancy.

• Watch keeping for both ships bridges.

• Monitoring of the bunker station , locally - no staff directly adjacent to manifold´s (eg camera)

• Zero tolerance for routine methane emissions to the atmosphere.

• Monitored security area 25 meters from the bunker vessel outer limit lines - the violation involves shutdown.

• Bunkering according to operational procedures in accordance with the Stockholm harbor / Sirius - Seagas / Viking Grace.

• Hoses should be inert when disconnected.

• VTS central communicated prior to refueling.

• If abnormal operation announced SOS central.

Technical requirements:

• Accepted mooring devices specially designed for gas bunkering.

• Uninterrupted communication - shutdown in case of interruption in communication.

• Break away coupling with momentary closure - adapted weakest point of the manifold and hoses - with minimal liquid spills.

• " Drip free " Quick connect - disconnect coupling.

• Hose according to standard.

• Water curtain to protect both ships.

• Shutdown Sequence 4-5 sec.

• Personal protective equipment.

• Pressure monitoring.

• Level alarm receiving tank.

• Any critical alarm means shutdown ( two vessels ).

• Manual emergency stop at the monitoring site and the bridge (two vessels).

Viking Grace (VIKING LINE)

• On November 4, 2014, Seagas conducted the five hundred (500) LNG bunkering to the cruise ship Viking Grace since bunker vessel became operational last spring.

• Seagas supply Grace with 60-70 tonnes of LNG (liquefied natural gas) when the ship is moored at Stadsgården in Stockholm.

• Each bunkering time takes approximately 45 minutes and is carried out during the time that passengers and cargo loaded and unloaded..

Main Engine running hours

• 2014-11-07

• ME 1: 12 788 h

• ME 2: 8 666 h

• ME 3: 12 367 h

• ME 4: 6 650 h

• Tot. all Engines 40 471h

PARTNERS

SUPPORTERS

CO-FINANCED BY WORKING METHOD

A TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORKS (TEN-T) PROJECT Contract No. 2011-EU-92079-S

Harmonization of rules and regulations

Ulrika Roupé, SSPA Sweden AB

Activity 2: Regulations and guidelines on bunkering (SSPA/SKANGASS)

• Activity 2 Harmonization of land based and sea based regulative and permission application process for LNG bunkering

• Partners/participants: SSPA, Preem, Skangass

• Objective: finding ways of harmonizing and facilitating the regulative process, the process of establishment of LNG terminals, and finding common technical solutions for bunkering, making the process easier for ports, ship owners and gas suppliers

Starting point

• Stakeholders face problems and obstacles:

Several processes or regulations

Time consuming and costly processes

Different authorities involved

Land and sea

Lack of coordination

National and international

Outline

• Identification of relevant regulations, rules, guidelines etc from an LNG perspective

• Focus on the Baltic Sea region, in particular Norway, Sweden, Denmark

• Taking all stakeholders into account: ports, ship owners, gas suppliers, operators, authorities etc

• Identification of key focus areas, key obstacles

• Suggestions for improvements

Tentative solutions

• Coordination? On different levels?

• Adjustments in legislation?

• International conventions?

• Simplifying the process?

• Which authority?

Which steps of LNG handling are included?

Terminal to Ship

bunkering

Truck to Ship bunkering

Ship to Ship

bunkering Offshore Ship to Ship bunkering

Construction of

small scale

terminal

Existing experience

International Standards

• European Standard EN1473 (Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas – Design of onshore installations), and EN1474 (Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas – Design and testing of marine transfer systems)

• ISO 28460:2011 (Petroleum and natural gas products – Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas, Ship-to-shore interface and port operations)

• SIGTTO (The Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators)

On-going regulation development

• IGF Code

• ADN

• ADR

• SEVESO

Key focus areas

• Planning phase of LNG terminal establishment

• Technical and operational aspects of LNG bunkering

• Facilitation of the process of receiving permits for bunkering

Cases: Norway, Sweden, Denmark

• Ship-to-ship in ports

• Truck-to-ship

• Ship-to-ship off shore

Conclusions and recommendations, Activity 2

• The most prioritized area is the issue of permits for bunkering

• Cooperation and coordination: National Maritime Authorities take the responsibility for all bunkering

permits at sea (STS and off-shore bunkering)

Local authorities (municipalities) take the responsibility for all bunkering from land (TTS)

• Risk and safety: main focus should be on harmonizing the local/national regulations and guidelines to make them in line with the international agreements and conventions

MaD - Conclusions and areas of improvement

• Design phase important for best energy efficiency; general suggestions on design are:

-Evaluate each vessel as its own entity, with specific operating parameters.

-Flexible systems, despite large investments, could pay off due to a possibility of optimization by demand.

• Rules related to LNG bunkering and the bunkering permit process must be harmonised.

• LNG bunkering process to be kept as simple as possible.

Thank you!

www.zerovisiontool.com/mad maria.bannstrand@sspa.se