Executive Summary. Engineering Report of the: Adaptation of jetties and LNG transfer facilities for loading of bunker vessels in Fos Tonkin

Transcription

1 Executive Summary Engineering Report of the: Adaptation of jetties and LNG transfer facilities for loading of bunker vessels in Fos Tonkin

2 index 01 INTRODUCTION page 4 02 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2.1 Scope 2.2 Time Plan 2.3 General Description of the Installation 2.4 Location page 6 03 ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS 3.1 Design of the Berth 3.2 Civil Engineering 3.3 Design of the Tanks 3.4 Safety 3.5 Environmental Impact page MAIN RESULTS OF THE STUDY page 12

3 3 GLOSSARY OF ABREVIATIONS LNG - Liquefied natural gas BOG - Boill off gas DCS - Distributed control system F&G - Fire and Gas PLC - Processed Logic Controller

4 01 Introduction 4 This report shows the main results of the engineering reports carried out by Elengy in the framework of GAINN4MOS Action. In particular, this executive summary includes the conclusions of the basic and the detailed engineering report for the adaptation of jetties and LNG transfer facilities in Nantes-Saint Nazaire, for loading of bunker vessels. LNG Bunkering Station The following figure shows the location of the terminal of Elengy which is within the scope of this study: Fos- Marseille CROATIA Figure 1. Location of the project

5 01 Introduction 5 The company of Elengy works in the development and operation of the Montoir-de-Bretagne methane terminals on the Atlantic coast, Fos Tonkin and Fos Cavaou on the Mediterranean coast. An LNG terminal is an installation for regasifying liquefied natural gas (LNG) transported by sea by shippers from production areas. Functions: A conventional terminal has four functions: Receiving LNG tankers and unloading or recharging their cargo. Storing LNG in cryogenic tanks (-160ºC). Regasifying LNG according to network needs. Returning gas to the national transmission system. 1. LNG is transferred from the LNG vessel to the LNG terminal 2. LNG is received in the tank 3. LNG is transferred from the tank to the regasifier 4. The outdoor temperature makes a small portion of LNG evaporate 5. The evaporations are transformed into LNG by cooling the recondensor 6. The gas is converted from liquid to gas 7. Finally, it is counted, odorized and emitted on the natural gas network 8. It can also be transported by tanker trucks to manufacturers not connected to the grid 9. Safety device related to site equipment. During maintenance periods, the evaporation gases can no longer be recovered and are burned by the torch. It is preferable to burn methane instead of releasing it into the atmosphere (less contribution to the greenhouse effect) Figure 2. Operational flows in an LNG terminal. Source: Elengy

6 02 General Description of the Project 6 Since 2013, the Fos Tonkin LNG terminal provides LNG reloading service from its LNG tanks RV01, RV02 and RV03. Due to external constraints, the RV01 and RV02 are being decommissioned, therefore, RV03 is the only tank in service at Tonkin LNG terminal. Elengy is interested in offering LNG reloading services to its customers the vessel reloading service and wants to know under which conditions simultaneous LNG operations are possible from RV03. The reloading service will allow small-scale LNG vessel to be loaded as berth already allow down to 7500 m3 LNG sized vessel. The following additional constraints must be taken into account. The truck loading service should remain available in all scenarios. There should be no boil off gas flaring in operation. 2.1 Scope The purpose of this study is to propose various scenarios to be able to operate LNG loading and unloading simultaneously to a berthed vessel from the sole RV03 tank. The criteria for identifying the scenarios are : Maximum loading : loading lows Project cost +/-50% (usual accuracy for opportunity study). Project delay. Duration of operations, jetty lockout or operational restrictions. 2.2 Time Plan The time plan is followed described. Basic Studies: 2 months FID : 1 month Procurement : 2 months / 6 months Detailed studies : 2 months Works: 1 month Notes 1. All delays include a preliminary step of 3 months for instruction and FID 2. This study does not recommend the scenario 1 as it includes the boil off gas flaring, which is not environmentally acceptable 3. The scenario 2 proposes the maximum flexibility of loading / reloading LNG flows, thanks to a more sophisticated control scheme which is yet to be defined and tested.

7 02 General Description of The Project General Description of the Installation General Description of the Installation The installation is showed in the following figure: There is no piping modification : this the shortest and the cheapest solution. However, it is necessary to remark: The loading flow is limited to 500 m3/h (PO54 max delivery). The recondensor is on the wrong reloading side : all the boil off gas will be flared. Figure 3. Installations at Fos Tonkin Terminal. Source: Elengy Scenario 1: MOV817 and MOV856 are closed : the two LNG LP lines are separated. LP pumps PO55 and PO59 are dedicated to the sendout. LP pump PO54 is dedicated to the reloading. Control schemes for sendout and reloading are totally separated. Emergency shutdown for sendout and reloading are totally separated. Figure 4. Scenario 1. Installations at Fos Tonkin Terminal. Source: Elengy

8 02 General Description of The Project General Description of the Installation 8 Scenario 2 MOV817 and MOV856 are open: the three LP pumps and two LNG LP lines are common to load and unload. Control schemes for loading and unloading are united and haveto cope with both constraints. Actually, priority is given to keepinga steady LP pressure for a reliable loading. Reloading receives the excess of LNG. The boil off gas is not flared. However, it is necessary to remark: Scenario 3 Loading and reloading and sendout are separated, as in scenario 1. By adding a new MOV856, the LNG will go through the recondensor. Hence, the LNG will go. However, it is necessary to remark: The piping work imposes a temporary lockout of the loading. The piping work makes the cast and delay higher. Emergency shutdown for sendout and reloading have to be reworked together. There is no piping modification but FCV15 and HV66 may have to be replaced and the DCS has to be modified accordingly (FCV15 is replaced in the cost estimate of scenario 2). Figure 6. Scenario 3. Installations at Fos Tonkin Terminal. Source: Elengy Figure 5. Scenario 2. Installations at Fos Tonkin Terminal. Source: Elengy

9 02 General Description of The Project General Description of the Installation 9 The following figures are the tie-ins points for the new valve : Figure 7. Scenario 3. The tie-ins points for the new valve. Source Elengy Figure 8. Scenario 4. Installations at Fos Tonkin Terminal. Source: Elengy The new piping scheme for this scenario: Scenario 4 The scenario 4 is functionally identical to the scenario 3 but a different piping scheme allows to reduce the send out lockout delay. This new piping scheme is more complicated, hence increasing the cost of the project. Figure 9. Scenario 4. The piping scheme. Source Elengy

10 02 General Description of The Project General Description of the Installation 10 The tie-ins description for the present scenario : 2.4 Location Figure 10. Scenario 4. The tie-ins points for the new valve. Source Elengy Figure 11. Location of the Fos Tonkin LNG Terminal. Source Google Maps Figure 12. Location of the jetty at Fos Tonkin LNG Terminal. Source Elengy

11 03 Engineering Calculations Design of the Berth Berth, as it is built now, allows ship down to m3 LNG to be loaded in the terminal. 3.2 Civil Engineering There is no significant civil work in the various solutions of this project. 3.4 Safety The «Reloading Sendout» Emergency Shutdown should be redesigned during further studies, accordingly with the selected scenario. There is, at first glance, no hardware work for this modification, it is mainly a matter of programming the safety DCS. In the cost estimate, a lump sum amount is dedicated to this aspect. 3.3 Design of the Tanks TRV03 is a full containment, with a self-supporting 9% Ni primary container, LNG tank, fitted with 3 in-tank LP LNG pumps able to deliver 500 m3/h at a pressure of 6 bar, approximately. For this study, the possibility to dedicate LP pumps to the send out service or to the reloading service has been considered. 3.5 Environmental Impact LNG reloading usually creates an additional boil off flow. This flow can be reduced by operating RV03 at a pressure as low as possible compared with the loaded LNG carrier tanks pressure. The scenario 1 proposes to flare the boil off gas, which is not acceptable. In scenarios 2 to 4, this additional boil-off gas is recondensed along with the normal boil-off gas of the terminal. In order to respect the no flaring policy, the operators may have to reduce the reloading LNG flow and increase the send outflow. However, the scenario 2 offers the best flexibility in this regard.

12 04 Main Results 12 The four analised scenarios are summarised as follows: Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Qmax. (m 3 /h) RV03 lockout (days) Project Cost (K ) Time plan (months) Key point Total : 6 Studies : 2 Work : 1 Fast realisation BOG flaring Total : 9 Studies : 3 Procurement: 5 Work : 1 Flow control: Innovative solution Total : 9 Studies : 3 Procurement: 5 Work : 1 Total : 14 Studies : 3 Procurement: 6 Work : 2 Flow control : proven solutions Figure 13. Main results of the study- Source Elengy

13