The MAGALOG Project LNG-fueled shipping in the Baltic Sea The project is supported by: 1
MAGALOG WP4.2 Economical and Environmental effect of LNG fuelled ships 2
Objectives and background The study looks into the environmental and economical effects of gas fuelled ship. Based on a separate logistic study and defined criteria as sailing distance, fuel consumption, available space and interests from ship owners, the most promising candidates for natural gas operation are identified as RORO, ROPAX and superspeed vessels. In the study a potential market for LNG fuelled ships in Northern Europe is identified. Further the study explains the properties of LNG, and describes why LNG may be the right fuel for short sea ship operation in the future. 3
A potential market for LNG for ships in Northern Europe For LNG fuelled shipping to expand, several hurdles must be overcome with regard to the types of ships that will use it: Engine technology and ship design for LNG propulsion Supply system for adequate, practical and secure availability of LNG for the ships Economic competitiveness against alternatives 4
Hurdles to overcome Engine technology and ship design for LNG propulsion Significant achievements have already been made with regard to LNG fuelled engines and ship design Further developments are in progress at several manufacturers, These topics are not regarded as an obstacle Supply system for adequate, practical and secure availability of LNG for the ships Making LNG more widely available will require substantial investments in supply arrangements. It will not, in a foreseeable future, be as widely available as liquid petroleum products are today, but can be made more selectively available at locations where there will be sufficient demand to justify the cost of supply arrangements Economic competitiveness against alternatives This forms an important premise for assessing the potential market, i.e. identifying segments of ships that can be designed to operate on LNG without requiring LNG to be available beyond a somewhat limited selection of bunkering locations, at least in the next several years 5
Criteria for ships potentially suited to LNG Serving regular sailing patterns, allowing for repeated bunkering at a small number of locations; Likely to remain in such service for most or all of ship s serviceable life; Expected to be present in significant numbers within the North Sea / Baltic Sea over next several decades, including a significant number of newbuildings over next 0-15 years;[1] Significant environmental benefits from clean fuels; No particular constraint to feasibility of installing LNG fuel system. [1] based on the presumption that LNG can most readily be implemented in new ships, which is discussed below. 6
Cargo ships in liner service (RoRo) 7
General arrangement of gas fuelled RORO ship,. ref. Rolls Royce Marine 8
Example of GA of gas fuelled ROPAX vessel, mechanical drive Source: Aker Yards 9
LNG as a solution to environmental challenges in shipping Physical and environmental properties Fuel type SOx (g/kwh) NOx (g/kwh) PM (g/kwh) CO2 (g/kwh) Residual oil 3.5% sulphur 13 9-12 1,5 580-630 Marine diesel oil, 0,5%S 2 8-11 0,25-0,5 580-630 Gasoil, 0.1% sulphur 0,4 8-11 0,15-0,25 580-630 Natural gas (LNG) 0 2 ~0 430-480 10
Technical features of natural gas used as a ship fuel High methane number, allowing a high power ratio within the knocking margin; Easily mixed with air to obtain a homogenous charge, which burns with high flame velocity even at high air access. This avoids high peak temperatures and pressures during combustion, resulting in reduced emissions of NOx of as much as 90% in comparison with residual oil or marine diesel oil. It also allows for high efficiency. Contains no sulphur, therefore no SOx emissions. 11
Exhaust emission - Natural gas vs MDO g/kwh 6 4 SO2 Sulphur emission is eliminated 2 0 MDO 1% S natural gas g/kwh Particulates Particulate matters is close to zero 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 CO2 is reduced by 26% Due to unburned methane the net reduction of greenhouse gases are in the range of 0% -15% 0 g/kwh 800 600 400 200 MDO 1% S natural gas CO2 0 MDO 1% S natural gas g/kwh NOx is reduced by 80-90% 18 12 NOx 6 Source: Rolls-Royce Marine 0 MDO 1% S natural gas 12
The economic effect of LNG fuelled ships The following actors are identified: LNG producers and distributors Ship owners Cargo owners Political parties and different interest organisations End customers or users The variables / drivers in concern are identified as follows: Economy Availability of LNG Environmental awareness Political factors, i.e. political benefits of being less dependent of one energy source Transport patterns, i.e. stability of transport routes Technology, i.e. developing cleaning systems for other fossil fuels, developing other alternatives 13
Important decision parameters LNG fuelled ships Four main parameters are important and have major influence on the economic feasibility of a LNG fuelled ship. Pure economic factors Availability of LNG and New technology and The environmental awareness 14
Economic evaluation of case ships An LNG fuelled ship is more expensive to build than a conventional ship of the same type. The extra investment cost incurred for a new-building, has to be compensated by lower operation cost to make natural gas as fuel interesting form a commercial point of view. Examples RORO (5600 DWT) : Additional cost for a gas fuelled ship of 10-15% of the total cost of a conventional ship. ROPAX: Increase the total ship price with some 10% 15
Indications of costs of supplying LNG under different crude oil price scenarios 80 70 per MWh $30 crude oil LNG costs at different crude oil prices scenarios $90 crude oil $150 crude oil 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LNG Gasoil LNG Gasoil LNG Gasoil Gas purchase price LNG production (or extra freight) Freight and terminal costs Bunkering 16
Economic feasibility - conclusions Assuming there are no technical and regulative challenges the economic criticality by building a gas fuelled ship as the case ships referred to will always be dependent upon the gas price vs. the price of conventional fuels. Building costs: The actual cost of the gas-engine and propulsion plant may be about 30 % more expensive for the gas version compared to a conventional vessel. For the vessel as a whole cost increase is about 10 % for ROPAX and 10-15% for RORO Operating costs. Operating costs varies slightly with a number of factors, such as maintenance, manning, and others Fuel price: The major issue is of course the price of fuel (gas). For the chosen case ships there is a balancing point around a crude oil price of USD 70/barrel. Above this price (at a certain point in time) the gas solution is advantageous and gives a faster return of investment over a typical project period (15 years used in our studies). The gas price varies with the crude oil price and the development of gas and oil price are not directly linked to each other. Uncertain future development of this ratio will be a criticality factor for the success of the gas (or diesel) version. Taxation: Some sources point to possible future taxation of emissions resulting from the operation of combustion engines in the marine market. Such taxations are not yet regulating the international marine market, but it is already effecting domestic Norwegian operations. Taxation or other regulation is heavily debated in IMO and other regulative bodies in Europe and cannot be excluded as a possibility for the future, but is not considered for the RORO and Ro- Pax example vessels. However, compared to conventional fuels the use of natural gas in general leads to less taxable emissions so the concept vessels will not suffer relative to conventional vessels and this is of course not a critical barrier for the concept. Considering these cost and taxation conditions it seems in general that economic criticality is not a barrier for investing in gas powered vessels. From today s standpoint with exceptional high fuel oil price (spring 2008) it seems even clearer that a gas powered vessel will compete better than a conventional vessel in an open market like the one the ships are operate d in today. Also in a more regulated market, if this shall be a future scenario, the concept vessels seems more competitive due to the added environmental benefits of natural gas as a fuel compared to conventional bunker fuels. The added costs for building gas powered vessel seem to be a worthwhile investment if the market develops in the expected way, but the uncertainty of future gas (or fuel) prices are of course a critical issue. A vessel designed for switching between fuels would of course also be a safe bet if it could take advantage of the lowest cost of fuel at any given time. 17