SPE 68680
Comparing Exploitation and Transportation Technologies for Monetisation of Offshore
Stranded Gas
Seungyong Chang, SPE, Korea Gas Corporation, R&D Center
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 17–19 April 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Natural gas is one of the important energy resources and the
worldwide consumption is rapidly increasing. To satisfy such a
demand of the natural gas, a number of gas fields are under
development in hostile conditions such as deep seas and arctic
areas. However, due to the status of current technologies and
economic situations, many gas fields in offshore are stranded.
The estimated stranded gas reserves are above 4,500 TCF in
offshore areas. The proven technology options available to the
offshore for the natural gas exploitation and transportation are
extremely limited. Currently, the most popular methods of
bringing the natural gas to market from distant locations are
LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) and PNG (Pipelined Natural Gas)
technologies. However, these technologies require expensive
capital cost for infrastructure constructions and huge proved gas
reserves. Thus, in many situations, they are not available for the
stranded gas exploitation and transportation. There exist
alternative technological options to LNG and PNG technologies
that can be considered for exploiting and transporting the
stranded gas in offshore. They are CNG (Compressed Natural
Gas), NGH (Natural Gas Hydrate), GTL (Gas to Liquid), and
GTW (Gas to Wire). In this paper, the available technologies of
CNG, NGH, GTL, and GTW have been reviewed and compared
to LNG and PNG technologies to derive the most economical
one in selected regions such as Mediterranean, Caribbean,
Arabian Seas, and Sakhalin Island.
Introduction
Natural gas is one of the important energy resources and the
worldwide consumption is rapidly increasing. Recently, its
consumption is being accelerated because of growing
environmental concern. Table 1 and Fig. 1 show worldwide
natural gas consumption.1, 2 To satisfy such a demand of the
natural gas, a number of gas fields are under development in
hostile conditions such as deep seas and arctic areas. However,
due to the status of current technologies and economic
situations, many gas fields in offshore are stranded. The
stranded gas reserves are those that cannot be economically
transported to the consumer due to the distance from the gas
field to market or the extreme water depth for laying pipelines.
According to Oil & Gas Journal, discovered global reserves
of natural gas exceed 5,000 TCF.3 It is estimated that over the
half of these reserves are stranded. Another estimates from
Enron suggest that up to 9,000 TCF of natural gas may be
stranded worldwide because of the prohibitive cost of
transportation in the form of gas or LNG and the inherent
limitations of the gas markets. If we assume that half of the
stranded gas resides offshore, this would be something above
4,500 TCF.3
The principal options for the disposal of the natural gas are 1)
gas pipeline, 2) gas re-injection, and 3) gas flaring. Gas re-
injection option is sometimes necessary to enhance crude
production with maintaining reservoir pressure but in some
cases, it reduces or hampers production. Thus it can only be
used as a temporal measure. It costs on the order of $0.25/MCF,
and can range up to $0.50/MCF.4 For onshore or near-shore
gas, pipeline is an appropriate option for transporting the natural
gas to market. However, as the transportation distances to
onshore and the water depths increase, it is not available.
Typically, offshore pipeline installation costs can range from
$170,000/mile to over $1,000,000/mile.4 Currently, gas flaring
is only permitted in an emergency situation with a very short
time due to environmental concern. It generates greenhouse
gases and thus regulated by laws. Table 2 and Fig. 2 show
worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption and
flaring of fossil fuels.1, 2
2 SEUNGYONG CHANG
Currently, there exist four options for offshore gas
exploitation and transportation to markets. They are 1) gas
gathering and transmission to shore by pipelines, 2) gas to
transitory medium by volume reduction such as LNG (Liquefied
Natural Gas), CNG (Compressed Natural Gas), and NGH
(Natural Gas Hydrate), 3) conversion to other products (GTL)
such as Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Synthetic Fuels and Methanol,
and 4) conversion to other energy form such as electric power
and transmission by subsea cable to shore (GTW).
Among them, the most popular methods of bringing the
offshore gas to market from distant locations are LNG
(Liquefied Natural Gas) and PNG (Pipelined Natural Gas)
technologies. However, these technologies require huge proved
gas reserves and expensive capital cost for infrastructures. Thus,
it is recommended that other alternative technological options
be used for many situations to produce and transport the
stranded gas in offshore to market areas.
In this paper, the available technologies of CNG, NGH, GTL,
and GTW have been reviewed and compared to LNG and PNG
technologies to derive the most economical one in selected
regions such as Mediterranean, Caribbean, Arabian Seas, and
Sakhalin Island. Especially, the comparative study of the
available technologies for the Sakhalin Island including Korea,
Japan, and China has been conducted.
Exploitation and Transportation Technologies for the
5
Offshore Stranded Gas
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Currently, LNG is the most
popular technology for transporting natural gas to consumers. It
mainly consists of methane and the boiling point is –161.5 ºC at
atmospheric pressure. This technology has existed for the last
forty years and a number of LNG carriers have been developed.
Currently, it dominates 25% of the world trade in gas. The
production and storage of LNG has always been conducted in
onshore facilities.
Pipelined Natural Gas (PNG). The offshore gas is transported
to onshore market by constructed pipelines. However this option
requires a lot of capital cost and huge proved gas reserves. Thus,
in many situations, this technology is not available. Also, in
offshore area, many critical operational problems might be
occurred in pipelines compared to onshore pipelines such as gas
condensate occurrence and hydrate deposition blocking the gas
flow.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).Although transportations of
compressed natural gas in offshore have been started long time
ago, until now, a number of studies to manufacture a
commercial CNG Carrier have failed primarily due to the high
cost of the pressure vessel. However, recently, the commercial
CNG carrier is on the implementation stage.
Natural Gas Hydrate (NGH). Gas hydrates are ice-like solids
formed by the physical combination of water and gas molecules.
The natural gas molecules are trapped in the cavities of the ice-
like crystalline molecular structure. Currently, the hydrate is
cumbersome because it blocks pipelines and thus a number of
researches were concentrated on avoiding hydrate formation.
SPE 68680
Hydrates also form naturally in subsea as hydrate deposits and
the amount is so huge.
Theoretically, 180 m3 of methane gas can be concentrated in
1 m3 of water. Therefore a hypothetical gas production rate of
73 MMSCFD would generate approximately 11,500 m3/d
(72,000 bbl/d) of hydrate.6 It is possible to form a slurry mixture
of hydrate mixed with brine or even produced condensates and
to transport this slurry at –20 ºC at atmospheric pressure.
Gas To Liquid (GTL). Although the technologies for
transforming gas to liquids are still on the beginning stage
regarding commercial applications and only a small number of
land based process facilities are operated, the possibility of their
application in offshore area is rapidly increasing. Typical
onshore conversion process of natural gas to one of the liquid
options requires large sites and facilities. To put such plants on
FPSO requires a considerable reduction in the footprint area and
significantly increased safety measures due to the subsequent
"crowding" of equipment.
In general the process has the following stages: (1) Natural
Gas Reforming: Conversion of natural gas into a synthesis gas
(Syngas), a mixture of Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen and (2)
Conversion of the Syngas: It utilizes catalytic reactions to
convert the syngas into hydrocarbons. Converting 73 MMSCFD
of gas requires a F-T plant sized to produce 7,900 BBL/D of
syncrude.6
Gas To Wire (GTW). The Gas to Wire (GTW) option converts
the gas energy to electrical power on the Floating Production,
Storage and Offloading (FPSO) platform and transmits this
generated electricity ashore using high voltage subsea cables.
This involves either linking to a national grid or supplying
directly to a high-energy industrial consumers.
Combined cycle plants, where heat recovery from the gas
turbine (GT) is used to generate steam to drive a steam turbine
(ST), are used. The combined GT / ST cycle gives electrical
generating efficiencies of in excess of 50% compared to a single
cycle system. There is a performance / cost trade off between
AC and DC transmission. This trade-off boundary is indistinct
as it is affected by many factors, which are project dependent.
However for distances above approximately 100 km DC
transmission is usually preferred due to voltage drop and power
loss considerations suffered by AC systems.
Evaluation Model
In this paper, the stranded gas is associated with oil and all the
technologies were evaluated in terms of incremental capital cost
base due to the associated gas production and transportation.
The feed gas in the production rate of 100 MMSCFD was
assumed to dry and sweet gas. Prior to the production of the gas,
all the gas was completely re-injected to maintain reservoir
pressure. Thus feedstock value was assumed to zero US$. The
required cost for the gas re-injection was assumed to
$0.25/MSCF.
Also, four regions have been selected in this paper to compare
all the technologies and they are 1) Mediterranean Seas, 2)
Caribbean Seas, 3) Arabian Seas, and 4) The Sakhalin Island &
Northeast Asia. Table 3 shows origin, destination points, and
SPE 68680 COMPARING EXPLOITATION AND TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR MONETISATION OF OFFSHORE STRANDED GAS
transportation distance for the selected regions. Table 4 shows
gross heating value for each region and it was from origin point.
Also, it was assumed that the produced gas exists in offshore
area located few hundreds miles (approximately 300 miles)
from onshore of the origin point. Using the gas conversion rates
in Table 5, the product rates of the technologies for the selected
regions were calculated and represented in Table 6. The capital
cost, operating cost, and shipping cost for this study was
represented in Table 7, 8, and 9, respectively. The product price
at destination point was also shown in Table 10. All the values
for this study were selected and assumed based on referred
articles.
7
Sakhalin Projects
The Situation of Russia and Northeast Asia. Currently, in
Northeast Asia, there are significant energy consumers such as
China, Japan, and Korea that mainly depend on external energy
supplies. On the contrary, Russia possesses substantial energy
resources. Thus, the cooperation between these countries looks
inevitable. The Sakhalin projects are one of the examples for
opening the cooperation between Russia and China, Japan and
Korea. Up to now, there were not many significant connections
between Russia and Northeast Asia. However, in the near
future, Northeast Asia could be a large consumer of Russian
natural gas.
China is already the world’s second largest consumer of
energy following the United States, accounting for about 20% of
the energy use of the OECD (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development) countries combined. However,
between 2000 and 2020, the total increase in demand for energy
resources by China will equal the total OECD additional
demand.
Japan and Korea lack domestic energy resources. Unlike
China, Japan and Korea will be unable to expand their domestic
energy production significantly, and will continue to rely on
imported coal, oil and natural gas. The estimated energy imports
by Japan and Korea by 2020 will be almost double those of the
mid-1990s.
Table 11 shows commercial energy production, use and
imports in China, Japan and Korea between 1996 and 2020.7 An
expected 80% increase by 2020 in the gas demands of Japan and
Korea will provide opportunities for eastern Russia. Moreover,
China’s energy imports will equal the combined energy imports
of Japan and Korea. Russia’s resources and location make it a
natural candidate for large-scale gas exports to China and other
countries in Northeast Asia. The oil and gas resources of
Sakhalin Island are already being explored and developed. In
1998, a giant sea rig was installed in the Piltun-Astokhskoe
field, and the first oil was recovered in July 1999 by Sakhalin
Energy. Potential Reserves of The Sakhalin Island. The total
estimated reserves of Sakhalin including both inland deposits
and those of the continental shelf are 3,360 billion cubic meters
of natural gas and 1,185 million tons of oil and gas condensate
including 935 million tons of oil. The reserves of Sakhalin I
include 324 million tons of oil and gas condensate and 420
billion cubic meters of natural gas. For the Sakhalin II, it
3
includes 433 million tons of oil and gas condensate and 521
billion cubic meters of natural gas. The Sakhalin III includes
133 million tons of oil and gas condensate and 500 billion cubic
meters of natural gas.
The Current Status of Sakhalin Projects.8, 9 Sakhalin I
consists of the Odoptu field (Oil and Gas, discovered in 1977)
and the Chayvo field (Mainly gas, discovered in 1979). In 1989,
the large Arkutun Dagi field was discovered.
The Sakhalin II project consists of the development of two
fields located 10 miles off the northeastern coast of Sakhalin
Island, in the Sea of Okhotsk. The Piltun-Astokhskoye (PA)
field is primarily an oil field with some associated gas.
Lunskoye is a large natural gas field with associated oil and
condensate. The Piltun-Astokhskoye field lies in approximately
100 feet of water and is developed by the Vityaz Production
Complex. Fig. 3 shows the location of the Sakhalin Projects.
The Sakhalin III project will be jointly implemented by
Exxon, Texaco and the Russian company
(Sakhalinmorneftegas). The project consists of the East Odoptu,
Ayashskoe, Veninskoe and Kirinskoe fields. A Sakhalin IV
project in Sakhalin Bay may follow soon after Sakhalin III.
Economic Evaluations
With all the suggested data, economic evaluations were
conducted to predict the ranking from the most economical to
the least economical options. For the proper ranking based on an
economic basis, a simple payback before tax method was
selected.10 The simple payback is defined as the incremental
capital cost related to the base case, divided by first year
revenue minus shipping and operating costs.
The main purpose to use this method is to compare relative
ranking of options, thus it is not intended to a project
justification. The incremental capital cost, gross annual revenue,
and payback period for all the technologies were summarized in
Table 12.
Option Ranking
After assessment of the options based on economical base, an
attempt was made to achieve a relative ranking of the options.
Table 13 shows the relative ranking for all the technologies. In
this table, CNG, NGH, and GTW are the best approach for
producing and transporting the stranded gas instead of gas re-
injection.
For CNG, the capital cost is much lower than other options
because no infrastructure is required. Thus, payback period is
much shorter than other options. In case of NGH, it is under
feasibility study and not on the implementation stage yet. Thus,
there were somewhat difficult problems for selecting the values
related to NGH. Based on these reasons, this technology needs
some adaptation in the actual stages. However, it is certain that
it will be one of the potential competitors in offshore areas in
the near future.
In case of GTL, relative higher capital cost compared to CNG
and NGH influenced the priority ranking for the case studies.
However, the capital cost will be decreased continuously due to
4 SEUNGYONG CHANG SPE 68680

the updated technology. Thus, the GTL technology also might
be a potential competitor in offshore areas in the near future.
In case of GTW, the capital cost is high, but the operating
cost is relatively reasonable and no shipping cost is required.
Based on these reasons, the gross annual revenue is much higher
than other methods, thus, the payback period is relatively short.
For LNG and PNG, the capital cost is so expensive to
construct infrastructure, thus, they are far behind the
competition. However, Japan looks exceptional from the results
in this study. In case of Japan, all the options might be relatively
applicable comparing to other selected regions due to relative
short transportation distance.
Conclusions
Natural gas is one of the important energy resources and the
worldwide consumption is rapidly increasing. Recently, its
consumption is being accelerated because of growing
environmental concern. To satisfy such a rapid demand of the
natural gas, a number of gas fields are under development in
hostile conditions such as deep seas and arctic areas. However,
due to the status of current technologies and economic
situations, many gas fields in offshore are stranded.
In this paper, the available technologies of CNG, NGH, GTL,
and GTW have been reviewed and compared to LNG and PNG
technologies to derive the most economical one in selected
regions such as Mediterranean, Caribbean, Arabian Seas, and
Sakhalin Island. Especially, the comparative study of the
available technologies for the Sakhalin Island including Korea,
Japan, and China has been conducted.
Considering specific locations and economic basis, it appears
that the CNG, NGH, and GTW represent the best approach for
producing and transporting the stranded gas instead of gas re-
injection. For CNG, the capital cost is much lower than other
options because no infrastructure is required. Thus, payback
period is much shorter than other options. In case of NGH, it is
under feasibility study and not on the stage of implementation
yet. Thus, there were somewhat difficult problems for selecting
the values related to NGH. Based on these reasons, this
technology needs some adaptation in the actual stages.
However, it is certain that it will be one of the potential
competitors in offshore areas in the near future.
In case of GTL, relative higher capital cost compared to CNG
and NGH influenced the priority ranking for the case studies.
However, the capital cost will be decreased continuously due to
the updated technology. Thus, the GTL technology also might
be a potential competitor in offshore areas in the near future.
In case of GTW, the capital cost is high, but the operating
applicable comparing to other selected regions due to relative
short transportation distance.
References
1. International Energy Annual 1997, DOE/EIA-0219 (1997), Energy
Information Administration (EIA), Washington DC. (April 1999).
2. Annual Energy Outlook 2000, DOE/EIA-0383 (2000), Energy
Information Administration (EIA), Washington DC. (Dec. 1999).
3. Agee, M.A.: “Taking GTL Conversion Offshore,” paper OTC
10762 presented at the 1999 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, May 3-6.
4. Singleton, A.H. and Cooper, P.G.: “Conversion of Associated
Natural Gas to Liquid Hydrocarbons,” Energy International
Corporation, Research sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Federal Energy Technology Center (DE-AC21-95MC
32079).
5. The Armstrong Technology Website, http://www.ata.uk.com.
6. Mackie, G.C., Hutchinson, K.W., and Wanless, D.: “Exploitation
of Stranded Gas Reserves: Options and Solution Development,”
paper presented at the 1999 Deep and Ultra Deep Water Offshore
Technology Conference, U.K., March 25-26.
7. Ivanov, V.: “Energy Mega-Projects Will Change Northeast Asia,”
paper presented at the 1999 Conference on Economic Cooperation
in Northeast Asia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, June 9.
8. The Website for The Offshore Oil & Gas Industry: Current
Projects, http://www.offshore-technology.com.
9. Sakhalin Project, http://www.mitsubishi.co.jp.
10.Wagner, J.V.: “Canadian Offshore Oil Production-Associated Gas
Utilization Alternatives,” paper presented at the 1999 3rd Annual
Monetizing Stranded Gas Reserves Conference, Houston, Texas,
Dec. 7-9.
TABLE 1-WORLDWIDE NATURAL GAS
CONSUMPTION
1,2
Year TCF
1990 73.0
1996 82.1
1997 81.6
2005 104.2
2010 123.3
2015 140.1
2020 166.5
TABLE 2-WORLDWIDE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
FROM THE CONSUMPTION AND FLARING OF FOSSIL
FUELS
1,2

cost is relatively reasonable and no shipping cost is required.

Based on these reasons, the annual product revenue is much Year MM Metric Tons of Carbon
higher than other methods, thus, the payback period is relatively
1989 5818.41
short. 1990 5832.48
For LNG and PNG, the capital cost is so expensive to 1991 5797.11
construct infrastructure and they require large proved gas 1992 5784.04
reserves and long-term contract thus, they are far behind the 1993 5872.85
1994 5906.52
competition. However, Japan looks exceptional from the results 1995 5986.68
in this study. In case of Japan, all the options might be relatively 1996 6157.88
1997 6163.03
SPE 68680 COMPARING EXPLOITATION AND TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR MONETISATION OF OFFSHORE STRANDED GAS 5

TABLE 3-ORIGIN, DESTINATION, AND TABLE 7-CAPITAL COST

TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE FOR SELECTED
REGIONS GTL $40,000/BPD
NGH 50% of capital cost of GTL
LNG $600/TPA
Region Origin Destination Distance (km)
CNG $60 MM
GTW $1.0/Watt
Mediterranean Libya Spain 1,880
PNG $500,000/km
Caribbean Venezuela Florida 2,320
Arabian Iran India 1,920
Sakhalin Sakhalin Korea 1,680 TABLE 8-OPERATING COST
(Russia) Sakhalin China 2,560
Sakhalin Japan 1,120 GTL $10.0/BBL
CNG $0.07/SCFD.yr
LNG $0.50/MMBTU
TABLE 4-GROSS HEATING VALUE NGH $0.37/MMBTU
GTW 5% of capital cost
PNG $0.9/MMBTU
Venezuela 1,191 BTU/SCF
Russia 1,008 BTU/SCF
Iran 1,056 BTU/SCF TABLE 9-SHIPPING COST (/1,000 km)
Libya 1,047 BTU/SCF
CNG $21 MM/yr
LNG $0.20/MMBTU
TABLE 5-CONVERSION RATES GTL $1.35/BBL
GTW N/A
LNG 3,500 BTU/BBL NGH $0.15/MMBTU
PNG 1.0% used as a fuel PNG N/A
CNG 0.5% used as a fuel
NGH 6348 SCF/M3 TABLE 10-PRODUCT PRICE AT DESTINATION POINT
GTL 9240 SCF/BBL
GTW 8124 BTU/KWh GTL $25/BBL
LNG $2.4/MMBTU
TABLE 6-PRODUCT RATES PNG $2.50/MMBTU
CNG $2.25/MMBTU
The Caribbean Sea NGH $2.30/MMBTU

GTW
LNG 1.43 MMTPA
China $32.0/MWh
PNG 99 MMSCFD
Japan $157.3/MWh
CNG 99.5 MMSCFD
Korea $71.1/MWh
NGH 15,753 M3/D
U.S.A. $39.5/MWh
GTL 10,823 BPD
Spain $55.8/MWh
GTW 612 MW
India $80.0/MWh
The Arabian Sea TABLE 11-COMMERCIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION,
USE AND IMPORTS IN CHINA, JAPAN AND KOREA
7
LNG 1.27 MMTPA (MILLION TONS OF OIL EQUIVALENT)
PNG 99 MMSCFD
CNG 99.5 MMSCFD Energy Energy Net Energy
NGH 15,753 M3/D Production Use Imports
GTL 10,823 BPD 1996 2020 1996 2020 1996 2020
GTW 542 MW High Low High Low

Japan 102 150 510 829 620 408 679 470

The Mediterranean Sea Korea 23 40 163 331 262 140 291 222
China 1,100 1,800 1,097 2,764 2,230 -4 964 430
LNG 1.26 MMTPA Total 1,225 1,990 1,770 3,963 3,140 544 1,973 1,150
PNG 99 MMSCFD
CNG 99.5 MMSCFD TABLE 12-COST, REVENUE, AND PAYBACK (MM$)
NGH 15,753 M3/D
GTL 10,823 BPD LNG PNG CNG NGH GTL GTW
GTW 538 MW Incremental
Capital Cost
Sakhalin Island (Russia)
Caribbean 858 1160 60 217 433 612
LNG 1.21 MMTPA Arabian 762 960 60 217 433 542
PNG 99 MMSCFD Mediterranean 756 940 60 217 433 538
CNG 99.5 MMSCFD Sakhalin
Korea 726 840 60 217 433 517
NGH 15,753 M3/D China 726 1280 60 217 433 517
GTL 10,823 BPD Japan 726 560 60 217 433 517
GTW 517 MW
6 SEUNGYONG CHANG SPE 68680

Credit (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) TABLE 13-OPTION RANKING
(Gas Re-Injection)
LNG PNG CNG NGH GTL GTW
Total Incremental Regions
Capital Cost
Caribbean 5 6 1 2 4 3
Caribbean 849 1151 51 208 424 603
Arabian 753 951 51 208 424 533
Arabian 5 6 1 3 4 2
Mediterranean 747 931 51 208 424 529 Mediterranean 5 6 1 3 4 2
Sakhalin Sakhalin
Korea 717 831 51 208 424 508 Korea 5 6 1 3 4 2
China 717 1271 51 208 424 508 China 5 6 1 2 4 3
Japan 717 551 51 208 424 508 Japan 6 4 2 3 4 1

Product Revenue

Caribbean 104 108 97 100 99 212

Arabian 93 95 86 89 99 380
Mediterranean 92 95 86 88 99 263
Sakhalin
Korea 94 102 82 85 99 322
China 94 102 82 85 99 145 180
Japan 94 102 82 85 99 712

natural gas consumption (TCF)

160

Operating Cost 140

120
Caribbean 22 39 7 16 40 31
100
Arabian 19 34 7 14 40 27
Mediterranean 19 34 7 14 40 27 80
Sakhalin 18 33 7 14 40 26
60
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Shipping Cost/1,000 km year
Fig. 1-Worldwide natural gas
Caribbean 20 N/A 49 15 12 N/A consumption.
Arabian 15 N/A 40 11 10 N/A
Mediterranean 14 N/A 39 11 10 N/A
Sakhalin
Korea 12 N/A 35 9 9 N/A
China 19 N/A 54 14 14 N/A
Japan 8 N/A 24 6 6 N/A

Gross Annual Revenue 6200

st
(1 year option) 6150
(mm metric tons of carbon)
carbon dioxide emissons

6100
Caribbean 62 69 41 69 47 181
6050
Arabian 59 61 39 64 49 353
Mediterranean 59 61 40 63 49 236 6000
Sakhalin 5950
Korea 64 69 40 62 50 296 5900
China 57 69 21 57 45 119 5850
Japan 68 69 51 65 53 686
5800
5750
Simple Payback (yr) 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
year
Caribbean 13.7 16.7 1.2 3.0 9.0 3.3
Arabian 12.8 15.6 1.3 3.3 8.7 1.5 Fig. 2-Worldwide carbon dioxide
Mediterranean 12.7 15.3 1.3 3.3 8.7 2.2 emissons.
Sakhalin
Korea 11.2 12.0 1.3 3.4 8.5 1.7
China 12.6 18.4 2.4 3.6 9.4 4.3
Japan 10.5 8.0 1.0 3.2 8.0 0.7
SPE 68680 COMPARING EXPLOITATION AND TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR MONETISATION OF OFFSHORE STRANDED GAS 7

Fig. 3-The location of the Sakhalin Projects.8