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

Master Class April 3, 2014

The use liquefied natural gas (LNG) as ship fuel has raised the interests of many shipping and shipbuilding companies around the world. There are three important drivers which make LNG as ship fuel one of the proactive future technologies for

shipping lines: reduction of considerable emissions (SOx, partially CO2), perceived costs benefits of LNG compared to heavy fuels. However, the shipping industry seems to be reluctant to broadly embrace LNG and make investments in their fleets. At this Master Class experts from Damen Shipyards, Anthony Veder, Port of Rotterdam, and

STC-Group will explore the latest developments on ship technology, finance, regulations and facilities.

LNG in Shipping Moving towards a paradigm shift?

Venue: STC-Group, Lloydstraat 300, ROTTERDAM, Thursday April 3, 2014 from 17:00 to 19:30 Free entrance, but sign-up is compulsory.

To sign up, please send your contact details to [email protected] This Masterclass is an activity of ‘HBO in de Haven’

Master Class

Platform for knowledge exchange between education, business community and

association of young port professionals

Master Class Knowledge platform for young port professionals

Aat HoornApril 3, 2014

LNG as an alternative fuel forshipping - the big picture

Lloyd’s List, 2 September, 2013

UASC may choose gas to power 18,000 teu vessels.UASC: new vessels will be some of the most technologically advanced and environmentally friendly boxships yet built.• UNITED Arab Shipping Co may power the 18,000 teu ships it has

ordered with liquefied natural gas, an industry first.• All will be built by Hyundai Heavy Industries.• The ships will be classed by DNV.

Emissions

Source: Pounder’s Marine Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines

The legislation gear

Marpol Annex VI Sulphur regulations

General Requirements (Resolution MEPC.176(58), 2008)

• The sulphur content of any fuel oil used on board ships shall notexceed the following limits:– 1 4.50% m/m prior to 1 January 2012;– 3.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2012; and– 0.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2020.

• While ships are operating within an Emission Control Area, the sulphurcontent of fuel oil used on board ships shall not exceed the followinglimits:– 1.50% m/m prior to 1 July 2010;– 1.00% m/m on and after 1 July 2010; and– 0.10% m/m on and after 1 January 2015.

Results

• For any fuel used on board, global sulphur must bereduced to 0.5% from January 1, 2020.

• Reducing environmental harm caused by ship emissionsimposes large costs on ships, particularly when operating in emission control areas.Source: Jiang, Kronbak, & Christensen, 2014

Emission Control Area’s

Source: Lloyds Register

The need for regulations

• As the sulphur in fuels burn, it will form SOx, which is oneof the pollutants to the environment especially in the formation of acid rain. Continued exposure over a long time changes the natural variety of plants and animals in an ecosystem. Also the sulphur content in fuel oil has a large impact on the particle level in the exhaust gas.

• Ships have options to reduce sulphur emissions in the ECA’s.

Source: Notteboom, 2010

Low sulphur fuels

• Switch to low sulphur fuel oil or destillates No capital costs High price (+30 – 50%) Not attractive for charterer/cargo owner Blending needs to be done carefully

• ‘Loss of power’ incidents• Change-over between HFO and MDO / MGO (Compatibility, thermal

shocks, gassing of hot gas oil)

> 2 Cst

< 2 oC/min

Source: JOWA

Source: MAN

< 2 Cst

‘End of tail’ scrubbers

• Use of scrubbers. Effective High capital costs Space Disposal of waste streams Additional fuel consumption conflicts with CO2 reduction

Source: Alfa Laval

Liquified natural gas

• Use LNG as fuel Low Nox for lean burn engines, low particles Methane slip Offers potential cost savings (Acciaro, 2014) Expensive retrofit needed, engine, fuel tanks, piping, safety (IGF

code) Price difference LNG and other marine fuels Availability

Life cycle impact

Source: Brynolf, Magnusson, Fridell & Andersson, 2013

Life cycle impact

1 = HFO2 = HFO + Scrubber (SOx) + SCR (Nox)3 = MGO + SCR (Nox)4 = LNG•Potential impact on climate change

1 ≅ 2 ≅ 3 ≅ 4•Potential impact on particulate matter

1 > 2 > 3 > 4•Potential impact on ozone formation

1 > 2 ≅ 3 > 4•Potential impact on acification

1 > 2 ≅ 3 > 4•Potential impact on terrestial euthrophication

1 > 2 ≅ 3 > 4

Source: Brynolf, Magnusson, Fridell & Andersson, 2013

Example 1: four stroke engine Anthony Veder

Source: Anthony Veder

Wärtsilä 50DF

• P = 7.800 kW• n = 514 rpm

• Duel fuel• Otto process

– Low pressure gas– Lean burn principle– High efficiency

Source: Hoorn

Source: Wärtsilä

Source: Wärtsilä

Example 2: two-stroke engine Tote Shipholding

Source: MAN

MAN 8L70ME-GI

• P = 25,191 kW• n = 104.0 rpm

• Duel fuel• Diesel process

– High pressure gas– High efficiency

Source: MAN

• NOx emission levels lower (approx. 25%)

• SFOC tuning IMO tier II levels 1 – 3% improvement

• Near zero PM levels • Greenhouse Gas Impact 20%

lower due to C/H ratio of methane

Source: MAN

Thank you!

Establishing an analytical model for conversion from HFO to a dual-fuel

engine fleet

Mohammad [email protected]

Establishing an analytical model for conversion from

HFO to a dual-fuel engine fleet

Comparison of various abatement technologies to meet

emission level to comply with IMO conventions

[email protected]

Partners in the project are:

• Damen shipyard co. • Anthony Veder gas carrier shipping co. • MAN B&W engine manufacturer co • Sea-leaders ship management co • Iran Land&Sea Co.

Partners in study

Timetable for new limits to sulphur content 2008 amendment to MARPOL Annex VI :

Mapping emission limits in time

Worldwide development ECAs

Complying with IMO regulations on emission caps Finding most attractive and feasible solutions

A review in 2018 will

determine whether

emission cap is achievable.

Problem Statement:

Objective of research

• financial attractiveness

• technical feasibility

• the right option will depend on the ship owner’s time horizon

• to be dynamic and applicable to specific ships and operational patterns

A wrong technical choice may be severely detrimental to competitiveness.

Develop a decision support tool in order to assess:

Trade route and technical assumption

Assumption:

The vessels do not call Mediterranean ports but they will spend more time in between European ports and Chinese ports.

Total length of voyage : 44 days Average ECA operation: 19 days Maximum 44% ECA operation for one vessel in half round trip

Two owned existing vessels : (MAN B&W)..... 3300 teu: 8S 70 MC-C8/ME-C8 6500 teu: 10k98MC.C6 /ME-C6 14,000 teu:

Planning for ECA implementation

MAN B&W SMCR power demand modeling

Technical modelling assumptions

3,300 TEU 6,500 TEU Ship size

MAN B&W 8S 70 MC-C8

MAN B&W 10k98MC.C6

26,160 kW at 91 rpm

54180 kW at 104 rpm

Propulsion power (SMCR)

Type of engine

16.6 19.5

1,270 818

Investments

Operating costs

132/165.7 consumption

132.3 / 168,2 consumption

Fuel /gas consumption

14,000

Engine

Propulsion power

21

522

132.2/167 consumption

New

building

Selecting efficient engine for 14,000 teu 14000teu: 12k98MC-C6/ME-C6

For all calculation 15% sea margin and 10% engine margin have been assumed. A service rating of 90% SMCR, including a 15% sea margin. MAN B&W ME: ME-C, ME-B engine can be delivered/Converted to the GI system MAN B&W ME: ME-C, ME-B engine can be delivered/Converted to the GI Sys.

8S70ME-C8.2-GI-TII 10G95ME-C9.2-GI-TII 12G95ME-C9.2-GI-TII

Alternative ship propulsion

for existing / new vessel

Operational data

Strategy : Slow steaming • The fleet are run with ~ 60% Pb.

Except 6500 teu. It is not economical to run over 56% Newer engines are available and more efficient engines.

The conversion to LNG as fuel require some larger changes most importantly: • Main Engine Conversion of MC-C to

ME-GI • LNG / Inert Gas System • LNG Storage Tanks • Fuel Supply Systems • Removal of Existing Piping and

Equipment • Tank Specification


• 8S70ME-C8.2-GI-TII • 10G95ME-C9.2-GI-TII • 12G95ME-C9.2-GI-TII

• The information is for only be used in

the initial stages of projects. The final design values are always to be confirmed by MAN Diesel & Turbo

Engineroom and performance data MAN-Diesel&Turbo-ceas-Software

Main Engines specification Technical determinants for the financial model Installed Main Engine 3,300 teu 6,500 teu 14,000 teu

Supplier MAN B&W

Model 8S 70 MC-C8 10k98MC.C6 12K98MC7/ME7

Specific Maximum Continuous Rating (SMCR)

26,160 kW at 91 rpm

54180 kW at 104 rpm

72,240kw at 104 rpm

Normal Continuous rating 18,312 Kw

at 80.8 RPM 33110 kw

at 86.1 rpm 50568 kw

at 92.3 rpm

Specific fuel oil consumption 165 gr/kwh 168,2 gr/kwh 167.8 gr/kwhr

Specific gas consumption 132 gr/kwh 132 gr/kwh 132 gr/kwh

Capital expenditure and Operation Cost

SOx Scrubber consumption at 70% M/E Max SMCR

3300 teu 6500 teu 14000 teu price

Fuel 3,5% ton/year 22423.02 42079.83 62969.83 640 $/ton

Elc Power, MW/year 650 2200 3292.16 220 $/MW

NaOH m3/year 187.00 660.00 987.65 306 $/m3

Sludge m3/year 235.00 810.00 1212 30 $/m3

Capex for scrubber installing

Estimating for each type of vessel 3300teu 5,527,110.96

For retrofitting& large installation 300 $/kw 6500teu 10,175,292.96

For new Ship 250 $/kw 14000teu 12,719,116.20

Scrubber installation

Operating cost cost per slot per annum total opex

3300 (Panamax) 1.270,91 4.194.000

6500(New- Panamax) 818,46 5.320.000

14000(Mega- Panamax) 522.50 7,315,000

Capital expenditure and Operating Cost

Operating Cost 3,300t teu 6,500teu 14,000 teu

Manning 950,000.00 1,020,000.00 1,020,000.00

Repair and maintenance 1.044.000,00 1.100.000,00 1.150.000,00

Insurance 550,000.00 850,000.00 1,100,000.00

Stores and lubes 275,000.00 275,000.00 350,000.00

Administration 175,000.00 175,000.00 175,000.00

Port charges 1,200,000.00 1,900,000.00 3,520,000.00

Tot operating costs per annum 4.194.000,00 5.320.000,00 7.315.000,00

Tot cost per slot per annum 1.270,91 818,46 522,50

LNG dual Fuel Engine

Capex for DF engine Conversion (mil US$) 3,300 teu 6,500 teu 14,000 teu

Main Engine Increase (incl. EGR) 3 4 5

FGS System 3 3 3

LNG Fuel Tank (incl. construction cost) 5.5 6 8

Additional Equipment 1 2 3

Total 12.5 15 19

15% additional investment for conversion 16.67 19.55 21

Synthesis data Key message …

14

-

2

4

6

8

10

2013-2015 2015-2019 2020-2025

Mil

US$

3300 teu MGO6500 teu MGO14000 teu MGO3300 teu LNG6500 teu LNG14000 teu LNG

Benefit from LNG vs MGO (US$, ml)

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

3300 teu 6500 teu 14000 teu

Mil

$

2015-2020

2020-2025

Benefit scrubber vs. HFO during 10 years

• The financial benefit of the LNG alternative will depend on the cost spread between HFO and MGO.

Conclusion Net present Value and IRR

15

Internal return ration of dual fuel Engine vs. Scrubber installation

43

95

138

10 26 43

-

50

100

150

200

3300 6500 14000

NPV

M

illio

ns

LNGScrubber

Comparing NPV, LNG vs. Scrubber

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

3300 6500 14000

IRR

LNGScrubber

Basic assumptions: • Discount rate : 11% • Inflation rate : 4% • The period is 10 years (2015 – 2024)

NPV and IRR for a period of

10 years are more positive

for LNG

Contrasting advantages and disadvantages

Option Pros Cons

Distillate fuel No more little modifications and investment Well known and tested

Higher fuel cost Prices likely to increase Fuel availability uncertain Wear and tear

Scrubber Can use cheaper Higher sulphur fuel Fuel availability

Take up space Significant investment cost No significant reduction of NOx Requires additional energy during operation Costly to deliver produced sludge

LNG

SOx content of virtually 0% Currently cheaper fuel , but future price development is uncertain Reduces NOx and CO2 remarkably

Retrofit difficult Requires larger fuel tanks Fuel availability uncertain Infrastructure currently limited

Partners in the project are: Net present value and pay back time Base Case

-8.00-6.00-4.00-2.000.002.004.006.008.00

10.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

il $

3300 SCR

3300 LNG

10.00- 5.00-

- 5.00

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

IL $

14000 LNG

14000 SCR

3300 teu

6500teu

14000 teu

• The pay back period is about 2,5 years and for more large vessels event is less .

• The payback time is more sensitive to HFO price if the vessel operates longer inside ECA’s.

• DF sys. shows sensitivity to global cap enforcement at 2020 when differential price between LNG and HFO-MGO will boom by increasing demand over MGO. (Inelasticity of demand and supply)

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

IL $

6500 LNG

6500 SCR

10.00-

5.00-

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

IL $

14000 LNG

14000 SCR

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024NPV

M

il $

3300SCR3300LNG

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

IL $

6500 LNG

6500 SCR

Partners in the project are: Synthetic data creation on NPV & PBT What if global sulphur cap is postponed for 5 years

3300 teu

6500 teu

14000 teu

The scrubber option is not very sensitive to changes in absolute HFO price

Both systems are not very sensitive as much as base case at 2020 .

Partners in the project are: NPV & PBT 2. LNG price set at price parity of average price

3300 teu

6500 teu

14000 teu

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024NPV

M

il $

3300 SCR3300 LNG

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

IL $

6500 LNG

6500 SCR

(15.00)

(5.00)

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

IL $

14000 LNG

14000 SCR

• The payback period of the scrubber is primarily sensitive to the price HFO and MGO and no less sensitive to capex and the absolute HFO price.


-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

IL $

6500 LNG

6500 SCR

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

IL $

6500 LNG

6500 SCR

(15.00)

(5.00)

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

NPV

M

IL $

14000 LNG

14000 SCR

NPV & PBT 3. If the Capex for conversion to DF increase 10 $mil

3300 teu

6500 teu

14000 teu

• Payback for the larger vessels

shows a stronger dependency on the investment than for the smaller vessels

• payback for all vessels shows at

higher rate of cash out but payback time is shorter for DF sys.

Conclusion

• Using LNG promises less emission and less fuel costs. LNG Vs scrubber systems for the fleet in the trade rout of Fareast to north of Europe

• With 44% ECA exposure, LNG system payback time below three years. • The dual fuel system is attractive as long as differences of LNG price

(delivered on board) to HFO is less than 150 $/ton. • For larger vessels , Eca exposure with higher than 44% , is expected to

show the shortest payback times . • Use of scrubber system reduces payback time and is more attractive

than MGO

Conclusion

• An dual-fuel offers lower fuel costs, maintenance cost and better chartering potential .

• ECA exposure is a crucial factor while the Capex plays important role in payback time & feasibility

• An LNG price of up to 550$/ton provides a competitive advantage for dual-fuel engine vs scrubbers in terms of payback in this study

• It may lead to a higher Capex but a longer period of economic depreciation. It makes economic sense for banks to confront with less risk by financing on dual fuel engine vessels.

Recommendation • For all type references vessels , dual fuel engine has higher financial

attractiveness and technically is more feasible. • If the global sulphur cap enters into force after 2025, the payback time

increases by about 1 year. • Higher 44% presence at ECA gives a less payback period when the

engines need to burn more 0.1% MGO, assuming an HFO-MGO spread of ~780$/ton.

• The LNG solution is more expensive than the scrubber solution. If LNG is also used outside ECA after 2020, the business case becomes more interesting with a payback period of less than 2.5 years with 44% ECA exposure.

• As for the scrubber solution, the payback period is most sensitive to the HFO-MGO spread. Referring to chapter predicting a limitation of price difference is difficult as the LNG infrastructure is also unknown

Thank you for your attention

Master in Shipping and Transport © STC-Group

April 3rd , 2014

Rotterdam

[email protected]

Certification and legislation

Existing convention, regulations and codes:

• IMO Marpol Annex VI, CCNR/ EPA/EU/ IVW/SIGTO/OCIMF

• Bunkering legislation still under development by BLG;

• IGC COD for small LNG carrier and IGF COD for receiving ship

Guidelines:

• Society of International Gas Tanker & Terminal operators Ltd

• Oil Companies International Marine Forum

• DNV, GL,BV possible, guidelines available Gas Fuelled Ships

LNG from a shipbuilder’s perspective

Pieter HuyskensProgramme Manager Sustainability

[email protected]

DAMEN SHIPYARDS GROUP L I Q U E F I E D N AT U R A L G AS

Rotterdam 2014-04-03

* EGR = Exhaustgas Recirculation System, removes another 40% of NOx emissions. These NOx regulations might be postponed till 2021

Source: Adapted from DNV

Why LNG?

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING

FUEL SYSTEM BACKGROUND ENGINES

Impact PM Lead SOx NOx VOC CO CH4 CO2 N2O CFC Local Health and welfare X X X X X X

Regional

Acidification X X Photochemical Oxidants X X X

Global

Indirect greenhouse effect X X X X X Direct Greenhouse effect X X X X X Stratospheric Ozone depletion X X X

[Fiaz A., World Bank (1991)]

Diesel LNG

Harmful emissions related to transport

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING


Methane Pioneer °1957

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING

Long track record for LNG and shipping FUEL SYSTEM BACKGROUND ENGINES

Methane =

CH4

LNG components

Ethane =

C2H6

Propane =

C3H8

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING


LNG infosessie

Source: GIIGNL

To remember 1. Upcoming regulations force us to take action

2. LNG offers a clear environmental benefit

3. LNG is the fastest growing prime fuel/energy

source

4. LNG is a mixture of different components

5. The mixture varies geographically

6. This reflects in different energy contents => fuel consumption

7. There are big uncertainties about price, but given the ample resources of NG and the foreseen price increase of diesel fuel due to de-sulphurization, LNG seems promising

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING


Logistic chain

LNG truck

Bulk Terminal

Break Bulk Terminal

LNG Carrier

Small LNG Carrier

LNG bunker vessel LNG propelled vessel

LNG power plant Electricity grid

LNG fueling station LNG transport truck


LNG IN SHIPBUILDING

The energy content of LNG is 1.8 time < diesel fuels ⇒ Need +/- 2 times the fuel for the same work

→ 2 times bigger fuels storage tanks OR 2 times higher bunkering frequency

Storage tanks contain LNG at -162°C and withstand +/- 10 bar pressure ⇒ Insulated cylindrical storage tanks → Hard to fit in ship design → Lots of “lost” space

Rule of thumb: 4-5 times the space required for LNG for equal bunkering

intervals

The need to make a compromise

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING


LNG IN SHIPBUILDING

Bunker connection

LNG storage tank

Fuel conditioning (cold box) Gas Engine

Master gas valve

Additional systems required: - Fuel heating system (start from dead ship?) - Inerting system - Ventilation - Safety systems - Automation & control

LNG fuel system

Source: Adapted from TGE


No standard => What to choose?????

Pressurized LNG supply system

- Vacuum insulated cylindrical tank - Vaporizers, valves, etc… in “cold box” - Bottom outlet for “tank vaporizer” - High pressure tank (6-8 bar) - Design pressure 8-10 bar


LNG IN SHIPBUILDING


Pumped LNG supply system


- Bilobe or conical shape possible - Cryogenic pump inside tank - All outlets on top - Low pressure (0-3 bar) - Design pressure 4 bar - Equipment in ventilated processing room

(more flexible)

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING


To remember

1. Need for additional space for fuel storage (4-5 x) of higher bunker frequencies

=> Compromise… => Loss of cargo space => Hydrodynamic implications (VCG)

2. Start from dead ship can be a challenge for 100% gas propelled vessels

3. Fuel can be supplied by pressure or by volume

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING


Lean burn - Pure Gas – Dual Fuel – Pilot Injection – Emergency Diesel Many different names for equal/similar technologies

⇒ Creates uncertainty in the market Most technologies have their own specific advantages

Limited suppliers and limited power ranges

Ship performance is determined by engine availability in stead of functional requirements only

Engine behaviour

Engine power output depends on NG quality (geographically) De-rating at high temperatures (due to engine knock) Maintenance intervals and cost

→ some parts are expensive and need regular maintenance, fouling of the engine itself is much less

Dynamic load response

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING

Engine demystification FUEL SYSTEM BACKGROUND ENGINES

Engine technologies

Lean Burn Diesel principle Otto principle

Ordinary Diesel Dual fuel Emergency Diesel Pure Gas • Intake: Air enters the engine • Combustion: Diesel is injected in the hot air and auto-ignites

• Intake: Air and gaseous fuel enter the engine • Combustion: A substantial amount of diesel is injected and auto-ignites, thereby igniting the air gas mixture

• Intake: Air and gaseous fuel enter the engine • Combustion: A small amount of diesel is injected and auto-ignites, thereby igniting the air gas mixture

• Intake: Air and gaseous fuel enter the engine • Combustion: A small pre-combustion chamber, filled with a stoichio-metric air-gas mixture is ignited by a spark

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING


To remember

1. Different engine types create uncertainty

2. Limited power ranges for NG engines make ship design difficult

3. NG engines have specific characteristics • Dynamic behaviour • De-rating • Maintenance

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING


The LNG safety onion model

Source: SEA Consulting / GIIGNL

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING

Safety rules

1. Prevent leak of vapour and liquid to the atmosphere

2. In case of a leak, use protection (cryogenic materials, drip trays, water curtains)

3. In case of a leak, prevent ignition (EX equipment, safety, security and exclusion zones)

LNG IN SHIPBUILDING

G ST2013 Life Cycle Cost

DAMEN E3 Ferry

Time, i.e. fuel consumption

Cost

CAPEX DD

CAPEX LNG

Three parameters influence the economical feasability:

(1) Add. investment cost LNG system, (2) Price difference LNG and fuel oil, (3) Operational profile of the vessel.

CAPEX DD + SCR+ DPF

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

DAMEN SHIPYARDS GROUP

2013

WORLDWIDE COMPANY Committed/proud

Entrepreneurial

Development /R&D Ship repair

Building on-site

Ambitious Partnership

Achieving clients’ goals

Family business/values

Fantastic company

Ship building

Best ship builder

Total solution provider

Reliability/trust

Customer oriented

Vessels & Services

Dutch

Standardization

Best quality

D A M E N

LNG bunkering at Port of Rotterdam

Cees BoonSector Coordinator

[email protected]

2© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 2012

LNG 2015

A successful port of the future cannot do without a successful region and vice versa. The port needs a region that people like to live, work and recreate in.

The Port of Rotterdam Authority views LNG small sca le as an important element in achieving a sustainable shipping and a s ustainable Port.

The Port of Rotterdam Authority remains a key discu ssion partner in this respect and a connecting factor between science, go vernment organizations and the business sector.

LogoLogo

2-4-2014 3

4© Copyright - Port of Rotterdam - 20122-4-2014

4

Integral Safety Program forsmall scale LNG supply

chain

LogoLogo

Consensus on draft: Jan./Feb. 2014

External consultation: Feb. /March 2014

Final draft : April 2014

Approval June 2014

Draft Port Bye Laws 2014 Ship To Ship LNG bunkeringDraft Port Bye Laws 2014 Ship To Ship LNG bunkering

LNG fuelled ships will bring LNG closer to people


LNG safety policy:

We have no special nautical traffic rules for LNG carriers

We have no special regulations for LNG fuelled ships.

We have regulations for LNG bunkering.

We consider an LNG tanker as a “normal” tanker carrying dangerous goods and of course we have regulations for ships carrying Dangerous Goods.

• See our admission policy

An LNG fuelled ship is considered to be a “normal” ship

• Of course we must be aware of the LNG bunker tank on board

LNG bunkering is a transfer of dangerous goods. In the Port of Rotterdam we have regulations for-, and enforcement on the transfer of dangerous goods.


LNG bunkering in the Port Bye Laws

To get this stuff on board is very demanding

• Spatial planning • Environmental restrictions• Safety requirements for LNG bunkering • Checklists• Safety distances• Minimum passing distances for other

vessels• Simultaneous activities• Accreditation of LNG bunker vessels• Accreditation for power supply vessels• Safety requirements for repairs• Operational reports


LNG bunkering in the Port of Rotterdam

• At a location with an environmental

permit

• (Shore to ship, truck to ship)

• Environmental permit based on PGS 33-2

• From a accredited LNG bunker vessel

• (ship to ship)

• With an exemption of the competent

authority


Emission policy:

• No release of LNG, or emission of NG during: • Bunkering

• Cooling down

• Purging

• De-bunkering or gas freeing

• No release of LNG during the disconnecting of the LNG bunker line

A white cloud around the ventstack is not desirabl e


Tankers with DG on board only in designated area’s

LNG-NG free and inerted


LNG bunker areas

LNG bunkering outside Petrol harbors or LNG harbors only with permission

Spatial planning: Designated areas for LNG bunkering:

Prinses Amaliahaven,Prinses AlexiahavenPrinses Arianehaven

With permission

EuropahavenAmazonehavenMississippihaven

With permission

Other locations

After a local (positive) risk assessment and with permission

Petroleum harbors and en LNG harbors Allowed


Accreditation


Simultaneous operations (SIMOPS – SIMBOPS )

• The risk of falling containers


Mooring alongside, passing distances and signaling

• During LNG bunkering no vessels alongside accept (only one) LNG bunker vessel

• During LNG bunkering of an inland vessel:• LNG fuelled inland vessel: Special Sign• Passing and mooring distances for other

vessels: 25 m

• During LNG bunkering of a seagoing vessel:• LNG fuelled seagoing vessel: Red light or

B flag• Passing and mooring distances for other

vessels: 50 m


• Requirements for repairs on LNG / NG

installations on board of ships

For LNG Only specialized repair crew


• Operational reports of STS LNG bunkering


Ship to Ship LNG bunker checklist

• LNG bunker checklists:• truck to ship

• shore facility to ship

• ship to ship

• based on IAPH / WPCI developed LNG bunker checklist s


LNG bunkering in the Port of Rotterdam 2015

LNG AMBITION 2015

Allowed

(procedures in place)

Possible

(infrastructure available)

Encouraged

(financial incentives offered)

Prepared

(Informed, educated trained)


Future

LNG bunkering challenges at North of EU, latest technical developments

in small scale LNG

Pieter WijkstraBusiness developer

[email protected]

Presentation cannot be made public via this medium, if you’re interested please contact the speaker directly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-WjkHbNkrg

Master Shipping and TransportFull speed ahead with your career!

Maurice JansenSenior Manager Innovation, Research & Development

[email protected]

Maritime knowledgeinfrastructure

Highlyspecialised andexperiencedstaff

Main supplier of skilledlabour force to port of Rotterdam and Dutch maritime cluster

Focussed on the business with verticaleducation model

Largestmaritimesimulator park in Europe

STC-Group within the Dutch maritime cluster

Education and training for all professionals in the transport chain

The shipping and transport world of the STC-Group: a global approach, one-stop-shop for the transport chain

“We educate from door to door”

Profile Master Shipping and Transport

• A Master Shipping in Transport is a manager who is mainly involved in directing, coordinating and managing shipping, port and transport related activities and the relevant infrastructure.

• He / she is a competent professional who has knowledge of the industry and is excellently equipped with the right skills to occupy a management position within the shipping and logistics sector.

• In their work, graduates must be able to say the following. “I know my facts (content), I am competent (competency), I know when and how to apply my knowledge and skills in specific situations (judgement) and I understand the implications relating to social and ecological well-being (ethics).”

Target Group

Bachelor Degree

in relevantsubject

Preferably 2 yearsworkingexperience

The Master Program is open to people who have excellent

English proficiency AND have:

Bachelor Degree

Preferably2 yearsworkingexperiencein shipping, transport, logistics or related

Admission conditions

Thesis

Research and management skills

Port CaseShipping Case

Courses:AQT; CMS;

HRM

Domain: Maritime

management

Domain: Logistics

Courses:SCM; COM;

HIN, ILO, PDM

Domain: Finance andeconomics

Courses: ECO S; ECO P;

FCM-I; FCM-II; FCM-III

Domain: Shipping

management

Courses:SBC; FLM; SBP, ISM,

ENG

Domain: Law andPolicies

Courses: LAW; POL; OCM; SEC

Curriculum Master Shipping and Transport

Master follows a study approach

Source: Skills sheets

Challenge students to work on problem-driven cases. Let them identify theirknowledge gaps, how to analyse and diagnose the problems, before coming

up with the answer / solution

Skills development framework Problem driven approach

‘I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand’ (Confucius)

Didactical model

Academic year (60 credits) followed by thesis project (21 credits)

Intensive course

All lecturers are maritime experts

SimulationsManagement games, Full mission simulators

Field Trips: Logistics center, Container terminal, vessel visit, ship yard etc.

Course AssignmentsGroup projects, Individual assignments

Presentation and Role PlayBusiness proposal, Pleading session, etc.

Didactical approach

International study trip

Didactical approach

Oman 2014, full-time students

• Accredited by Dutch FlemishAccreditation Organisation(NVAO)

• ISO-9001-2008 Certified byDet Norske Veritas (DNV)

• Investor in People Certified

Keep up-to-date via Flipboard

@STCGroupNL

NetherlandsMaritime University

[email protected]

How to stay in contact?

full speed ahead… with your career!

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

Engineering

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