p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:46 Page 1

44 pages
essential LNG
news!
June 2008

In this issue: Australia increases output and

1 Australia increases
output and expands
expands LNG perspectives
LNG Journal Editor, John McKay
LNG perspectives Australia’s LNG exports have gradually
LNG Journal Editor, John McKay
expanded since the first shipments from
the North West Shelf in 1989. The
6 Commercial country is now on track, along with
Nigeria, to be the world’s main LNG
engineering of LNG
producer after Qatar.
value chain merits
The nation’s eventual output could almost
more attention quadruple to more than 50 million tonnes per
Neil Wragg and David Haynes,
Advantica Group annum by 2020, with the further expansion
of the NWS and Darwin LNG projects, and
with around 10 other ventures under
12 LNG project development or planned for the current 160
relationships trillion cubic feet of gas discovered.
change as NOCs These include five new traditional LNG
projects with land-based liquefaction
gain more contract
plants and three coal-seam gas LNG
leverage
Nick Prowse, Norton Rose LLP projects. Floating liquefaction is also seen
as a certain starter offshore Australia in
the next few years.
16 A round-up of latest Australia is also reaping the benefits of
events, company the new price environment in LNG over
and industry news the last couple of years.
News Index Recent Asian LNG contracts are at or
close to crude oil parity in a seller’s market.
Most current long-term contracts contain
25 Offshore LNG regular price reopeners because previous
develops too for new LNG contracts were negotiated at lower
regasification prevailing crude prices.
technology
Hans Kristian Danielsen and Huge reserves Australia's natural gas resources make it a leading LNG nation with
additional prospects for coal-seam gas
Goran Andreassen According to latest government figures,
Australia’s commodity production provides Executive J. Michael Yeager. do on the LNG side what we've been able
huge reserves close to 40 per cent of export He said BHP was in talks with the to do in the Gulf of Mexico.”
28 BP develops studied income. NWS venture and others in Western The Woodside-operated Browse LNG
approach to The local commodity giant BHP Billiton Australia on the possible processing of project in which BHP has a stake, may
liquefaction in an and oil and gas companies like Woodside gas from Scarborough. cost between $20 billion and $30 billion
Arctic climate Petroleum and Santos have joined with BHP has a one-sixth stake in the to develop, according to Yeager.
Martin Josten and international energy companies to push Woodside-operated NWS venture, which He said BHP and Exxon may decide
John Kennedy
ahead with LNG ventures in Australia. is expanding LNG capacity to 15.9 within a year how best to develop the
Their project development plans are MTPA when Train 5 comes on stream Scarborough field.
underpinned by recent natural gas later this year. Four options are being considered,
31 World Carrier Fleet: discoveries and an abundance of potential. The undeveloped Scarborough field, half- including a floating LNG project, a
More new-builds BHP, for example, says its number one owned by Exxon Mobil Corp., is the largest standalone project, or sending the gas for
commissioned priority is to expand its LNG and natural gas single discovery in BHP's portfolio, while the processing through the North West Shelf
business in Australia the same way it has Thebe discovery, made last year, is the venture or other companies such as
expanded oil output in the Gulf of Mexico. company's biggest find in the past five years. Chevron Corp. that are seeking third-
38 Tables of The company’s Australian Scarborough “You're going to see us try to move party gas for LNG, he said.
liquefaction plants and Thebe gas discoveries off the heaven and earth to get those projects The Thebe discovery, holding between 2
and LNG import northwest coast, as well as the Browse crystallized, formed up and get them going trillion and 3 trillion cubic feet of recoverable

terminals worldwide LNG project, will help expand LNG forward,” Yeager said at a recent briefing. gas, is 100 percent owned by BHP and is “a
output post-2013, said BHP Chief “If we have a number-one priority, it is to big shot in the arm”' for the company's
p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:46 Page 2

AUSTRALIAN LNG

growth prospects in gas, Yeager said.
journal While Yeager’s attitude reflects the
can-do nature of the Australian energy
companies, their international partners
and Australia’s federal and state
governments, other less stable countries
with LNG potential are failing to
The World’s Leading LNG publication
monetize their natural gas assets for
Maritime Content Ltd reasons of resource nationalism.
213 Marsh Wall Another concern among LNG investors in
London E14 9FJ some countries would be the dangers of asset
United Kingdom seizure through bureaucratic blockage.
www.LNGjournal.com In the development of its LNG industry,
Australia has also mostly resolved the key
Publisher issue of local energy supplies competing
Stuart Fryer with the urge to cash in on high energy
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7510 0015 prices by exporting as much as possible.
An element of this issue is reflected in
Editor the recent announcement of the Western
John McKay Australian state government to reserve
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7510 4942 15 per cent of the gas reserves in a
editor@lngjournal.com particular gas field for domestic use.
Western Australia is keen to retain
Advertising Manager sufficient gas supplies for domestic use
Ema Ali
into the long term, while encouraging
Tel: +44 (0)207 510 4932
investors and energy companies with a
ema@lngjournal.com
favourable and safe business climate.
According to the most recent
Subscriptions Sales Manager
government figures, Western Australia
Patrick Schweitezer
presently accounts for about 35 per cent
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7510 4934
of the nation’s domestic gas demand.
patrick@lngjournal.com
However, there is still a very healthy
natural gas reserves-to-production ratio
Production
Vivian Chee in the region in excess of 100 years.
the NWS project, ConocoPhillips still has
expansion plans for Darwin LNG that
receives feed gas from the Bayu-Undan
field discovered in 1995.
First cargoes were delivered in 2006
and the main customers are Tokyo
Electric and Tokyo Gas Co. ConocoPhillips
has sold LNG to Japan since the 1960s
from its small plant in Alaska.
The company also benefits in the
industry from its Optimized Cascade
SMProcess for liquefaction.
While Japanese utilities, and lately
China, have been Australia’s main LNG
customers the Japanese are also investors
in the Australian LNG value chain.
The Bayu-Undan field exploited by
ConocoPhillips and its partners lies
between East Timor and Australia, about
500 kilometres north-west of Darwin.
The development of Bayu-Undan was
undertaken in two stages. The initial
stage was the condensate stripping gas
recycle phase. Condensate production
began at Bayu-Undan in February 2004
at the rate of some 50,000 barrels per day
with a build up to 110,000 bbl/d by the
third quarter of 2004.
The second stage of the
development involved the construction of
a pipeline from the gas field to the LNG
plant in Darwin harbour.
The first LNG cargo was shipped in
February 2006. Capacity of the plant is
The Gorgon natural gas fields are
located about 130 kilometers off the
north-west coast of Western Australia.
Last year a decision was made by the
partners to pursue a scope of three Trains
instead of two to help improve the project
economics and to address rising industry
cost pressures.
Australian projects are similar in
sourcing scope for contractors elsewhere
in the world. Chevron said in its latest
briefing about Gorgon that the project
was committed to providing full, fair and
reasonable opportunity for Australian
industry to supply goods and services and
is working hard to ensure that local
content opportunities for local
contractors are realized.
The Kellogg Joint Venture is the
downstream contractor for Gorgon and is an
unincorporated partnership between KBR
of the US, JGC Corp. of Japan, and Clough
Projects Australia and Hatch Associates.
The downstream component of the
project includes the front-end engineering
and design for the project’s gas processing
and export facilities on Barrow Island.
The Gorgon project is utilizing the
LNG vendor identification services of the
Industry Capability Network of Western
Australia to provide qualified
information on Australian suppliers.
Certain structures may be fabricated in
Australia where practicable, Chevron said.

Tel: +44 (0) 20 8995 5540
chee@btconnect.com
Subscription
6 Months (5 issues) £234/US$468
1 Year (10 issues) £390/US$780
2 Years (20 issues) £664/US$1329
See inlay for more details
subs@lngjournal.com
hotline +44 (0)20 7510 4934
No part of this publication may be
reproduced or stored in any form by any
mechanical, electronic, photocopying,
recording or other means without the
prior written consent of the publisher.
Whilst the information and articles in
LNG journal are published in good faith
and every effort is made to check
accuracy, readers should verify facts and
statements direct with official sources
before acting on them as the publisher
can accept no responsibility in this
respect. Any opinions expressed in this
magazine should not be construed as
those of the publisher.
The LNG export market is presently
supplied from the NWS and more
recently from Bayu-Undan, processed at
Darwin LNG, owned by industry pioneer
company ConocoPhillips.
Speaking at a conference last month
in Texas organized by energy pricing
company Platts, senior ConocoPhillips
LNG executive Darren Jones was bullish
about global supply and liquefaction
development, particularly in Australia.
Jones said the company was optimistic
about future LNG supplies being around
450 MTPA by 2020, with the US major
considering an expansion of its Darwin
LNG plant in northern Australia.
“Committed projects in the Pacific
Basin should supply 30 MTPA and
probable projects should make that total
rise to 49 MTPA by 2017,” Jones said.
Australia’s LNG supply additions to
the global total will include: NWS Train
5, 4.2 MTPA by 2008; Pluto LNG Train 1,
4.8 MTPA by 2011; Gorgon LNG, 15
MTPA by 2015; Browse LNG, 10 MTPA
by 2013; Ichthys LNG 7.6 MTPA by 2014;
and Greater Sunrise, 5 MTPA by 2015.
While much credit goes to Woodside
and its partners for the great success of
3.24 MTPA. ConocoPhillips is the
operator with more than a 50 percent
stake, but other minority partners
include Santos of Australia, Italy’s ENI,
Japan’s INPEX, Tokyo Electric power Co.
and Tokyo Gas.
Bayu-Undan had initial published
reserves of around 400 million barrels of
condensate and LPG and 3.4 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas.
The NWS project is Australia’s largest
resources project involving some A$19
billion of capital expenditure to date.
Other Australian gas fields earmarked
for LNG development include: Greater
Gorgon, Pluto, Browse Gas, Pilbara LNG,
Greater Sunrise.
The Greater Gorgon fields located to
the south west and west of the NWS, and
including the massive Jansz field,
contains somewhere in the order of 40 tcf,
currently representing some 25 per cent
of Australia’s total gas resources,
according to government figures.
Gorgon LNG, a joint venture between
operator Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and
ExxonMobil. plans to construct an LNG
plant at Barrow Island with three Trains
each producing 5 MTPA.
“We look to maximize Australian
opportunities and hope to see Australian
industry participate and grow its ability
to engage in the subsea development
area,” said Chevron’s Gorgon General
Manager Colin Beckett.
The environmental assessment
process for the expanded Gorgon LNG
scope started in February 2008 when the
revision to the already approved two 5
MTPA Trains was formally submitted to
the Western Australian Environmental
Protection Authority.
The EPA’s decision – which was
advertised in March and received no
objections – set the level of assessment at
Public Environmental Review with an
eight-week public review period.
Beckett said the project team would
continue to work with the state and
Australian governments and other
stakeholders as the expanded scope of
Gorgon LNG progressed through the
approval process.
Woodside is fast-tracking development
of its 100 per cent-owned Pluto gas field
located to the south west of the NWS.
The project is based on the
development of the Pluto and Xena gas

2 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:46 Page 3

Complex, remote LNG project.

Community & environment to sustain.
Reputations & revenues to consider.
One looming deadline to meet.

Got a plan? We do.

For more information, email lng@kbr.com or visit www.kbr.com/lng.

Interested in being part of our plan? If so, visit www.kbr.com/careers.
KO8036 © 2008, KBR Inc., All Rights Reserved
p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:46 Page 4
AUSTRALIAN LNG
Australian Gas Consumption and LNG Export Forecast
fields with reserves of around 5 tcf. First The development of these fields is
LNG is scheduled to be produced in 2010. being assessed by the Browse LNG
Agreements have been reached with consortium consisting of Woodside, BP,
two Japanese companies to supply up to BHP, Chevron and Shell.
3.75 MTPA for at least 15 years in Additionally, the development of the
addition to the processing of gas for the Ichthys field in the Browse basin is under
Western Australian market. The project consideration by a joint venture of the
has approved funding of up to A$11.2 Japanese company Inpex and
billion. France’s Total.
Pluto LNG onshore contracts The resources of both these fields are
Foster Wheeler WorleyParsons - FEED very large. For example, the Torosa,
and EPCM Brecknock and Calliance fields contain in

BGC - storage and export site preparation the order of 20 tcf of gas - around 20

Leighton Contractors - LNG train site times Australia’s total present annual
preparation gas consumption - and Ichthys contains

CB&I - storage tank construction about 10 tcf.

Boskalis – dredging The fields also contain

Ngarda Alliance - constructing Gap amounts of condensate. The proposals to
Ridge Village develop these gas fields are in the very

Sino-Thai P&I - module fabrication in early stages and production is unlikely to
Thailand begin in either of these fields before 2012.
Pluto LNG offshore contracts The federal and Western Australian
EOS (WorleyParsons, Kellogg Brown governments are currently assessing
Root JV) – FEED and production system whether Browse Basin gas
engineering developments should operate out of a

JP Kenny, Atteris - flowlines, trunkline single industrial hub at a suitable site in

Bredero Shaw - pipe coating the Kimberley region.

FMC - subsea hardware Possible benefits could include site

Allseas - trunkline and flowline selection with least disturbance of
installation pristine areas and better efficiency in

Mitsui and Co - line pipe terms of environmental

Shenzhen Chiwan Sembawang - assessments and project approval.
jacket fabrication The Troubador and Sunrise fields,

Rumania - topsides fabrication in known jointly as the Greater Sunrise field,
Malaysia are located offshore in the Bonaparte Basin,

McDermott Industries - platform 350 kilometres north-west of Darwin.
There are also a number of major gas The Greater Sunrise field contains an
fields (Torosa, Brecknock and Calliance) estimated 295 million barrels
located in the Browse Basin, located some condensate and 8.4 tcf of
350 kilometres off the north western Development of these fields is on hold
coastline from Derby in the Kimberley pending further economic assessment.
region of remote northern Western The Sunrise LNG project planned by
Australia. Woodside was on the agenda when
These fields are of the order of 800 Australian Resources Minister Martin
kilometres north-east from the major Ferguson visited East Timor last month.
fields of the NWS. Sunrise could become the first major
4 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal
offshore LNG venture using Shell’s
FLNG technology that is currently under
development. Shell is also one of the
Sunrise shareholders.
An LNG project based on Shell FLNG
technology would remove potential
political delays in the Sunrise venture as
there would be no need for an onshore
LNG plant in East Timor nor in
Australia, analysts said.
Floating LNG not only might solve
some of the political issues surrounding
development of gas assets in the joint
petroleum development area of the Timor
Sea, but also might substantially reduce
the capital costs of Greater Sunrise,
industry executives said.
Floating LNG incorporates the
replacement of three elements of a
conventional LNG scheme, namely the
production platform, the pipeline to bring
gas ashore and all the onshore facilities
for liquefaction and loading.
Instead, using sub-sea production, the
the offshore gas is produced directly to a
barge moored above the gas field, with
the barge supporting a compact
liquefaction plant and storage facility.
The Timor Sea treaty between Australia
and East Timor, which came into force in
April 2004, provides the underpinnings
for regulatory and legal certainty for
investment in oil and gas developments.
limited The treaty establishes that the Timor
Sea Designated Authority is administered
by the Australian government.
Australia has limited crude oil but is
relatively well endowed with natural gas
resources. The natural gas industry has
shown remarkable growth - both the
LNG domestic and export sectors - over the last
few decades and this is projected to continue.
The bulk of Australia’s gas resources
are located long distances from the eastern
Australian markets. These are offshore
northwest Western Australia (Carnarvon
and Browse basins) and in the Timor Sea
impact to the north of Australia (Bonaparte
Basin). Because of the uneven distribution
of our gas resources it had been thought
that gas would need to be piped from these
fields when the closer smaller eastern
fields run down prior to 2020.
The above scenario is now less likely
of with the development of newer gas fields
gas. in the Gippsland, Bass and Otway Basins
located offshore in southern Victoria.
Furthermore, there has been rapid
development of coal seam gas reserves in
Queensland and New South Wales with
the potential to become a major source of
gas for eastern Australia.
The natural gas export sector is
presently supplied from the North West
Shelf and Bayu-Undan, Darwin.
Additional export volumes are expected
from the North West Shelf in late 2008
and thereafter from a number of new
ventures including Greater Gorgon,
Pluto, Pilbara LNG, and Browse Gas all
in Western Australia, and coal seam gas
field developments in Queensland and
New South Wales.
A recurring question in natural resource
use and development is: why export a
commodity with an important domestic
use, especially with gas exports projected
to increase to around 60 per cent of
production by 2020. The answer invariably
relates to economics and the adequacy of
the resource base to provide for domestic
use into the foreseeable future.
Natural gas as an energy source has
significant environmental benefits over
both coal and oil in terms of lower
greenhouse gas and other emissions. This
aspect will be of considerable advantage
in the further promotion of natural gas
use and Australia’s energy future.
Natural gas remains a cheap energy
source in Australia when compared to the
United States and Europe. However,
wholesale gas prices have generally
trended upwards in the last few years,
especially in Western Australia.
Implementation of newer gas
regulatory processes has been protracted
although considerable progress has been
made in recent times. The present Gas
Code will be replaced with the National
Gas Law and National Gas Rules.
Regulation will be simplified with a
single Australian Energy Regulator.
Coal seam gas
The rapidly developing coal seam gas
(CSG) industry is adding to Australia’s
known economic gas resources.
Importantly, these gas sources are
relatively close to the major centres of
population in eastern Australia. The
development of these gas sources could
delay the need for gas to be piped from
Western and Northern Australia for
many years and possibly decades to come.
Whilst the outlined reserves and
resources of coal seam gas are still
relatively modest, there has been strong
growth in this sector of the gas industry
with year on year production increases,
beginning with 2 petajoules (PJ)/y in
1994 and growing to 45PJ/y in 2004.
Gas associated with coal mining was long
regarded as a major hazard causing explos-
ions in underground coal mining operations.
These gas accumulations were often
p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:46 Page 5

AUSTRALIAN LNG

vented where practical and subsequently subject of a takeover offer from BG, and estimates from 3 million tones a year to 10 project of state significance by the
wasted. Furthermore, this gas is a highly Origin's gas reserves are necess-ary for the million tonnes. While QGC has obtained Queensland Government, which means
intensive greenhouse gas, with a global QGC/BG project to proceed. an international partner in BG, the that its process for obtaining state
warming potential some 21 times higher But Santos has increased its tonnage Santos project has been designated a approvals will be fast-tracked.

than carbon dioxide.
Modern technology and
the realisation that such gas
can be a valuable energy
resource have led to the
development of this industry.
CSG - often referred to as
coal seam methane (CSM)
- is naturally occurring
methane gas in coal seams.
The associated gas in coal
has been absorbed onto the
grain faces and micro-pores of
the coal during the geological
thermal maturation process
of coalification. CSG
resources contained within
the Queensland and New
South Wales coal reserves
and resources are located
fairly close to large potential
markets in eastern Australia.
The successful development
of CSG fields n SANTOS is
claiming "first mover" status
in the race to build the world's
first liquefied natural gas
project while conceding there
is also room for a rival project
backed by British Gas and
Queensland Gas.
When Queensland Gas
announced earlier this year
that it had formed an alliance
with BG to build an LNG
plant at Gladstone in You need a higher-yield, lower-cost LNG system.
central Queensland, its chief
executive Richard Cottee said
he expected all LNG projects
We deliver.
to eventually "migrate to one".
There are four projects on
the drawing board to pump
coal seam methane gas from The demand for LNG is growing. And, we bring it all right to your door.
the Surat Basin on the Competition is, too. Efficient production No matter where in the world you are.
western Darling Downs To learn more about how we can
is more critical than ever. With more than
through to Gladstone and
35 years of experience and the best improve your LNG efforts, call
turn it into liquid for export,
with Santos and Queensland technology and equipment available, 800-654-4567 (US), 1-610-481-4861
Gas/BG the frontrunners. Joe Kugler, Mark Roberts (worldwide) or visit us online.
our team can design a system from the
and Bill Merlini are part
When Santos proposed its
of the Air Products team ground up or optimize the one you
$7.7 billion project in July
that developed the new
last year it claimed it would already have. With the introduction of
highly efficient AP-X TM LNG
be producing LNG for export liquefaction system. our new AP-XTM system, we can help you
by 2014, but Queensland
achieve 60% or more output per train
Gas says its plant will be tell me more
at the lowest product cost ever. www.airproducts.com/LNGplant
producing LNG by 2013.
Santos has the second-
largest quantity of natural ©2005 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

gas after Origin, which is the

LNG journal • June 2008 • 5

p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:46 Page 6
VALUE CHAIN
Commercial engineering of LNG
value chain merits more attention
Neil Wragg and David Haynes, Advantica Group
What is the optimum LNG project design?
The question usually has different
answers depending on who you ask.
Engineers will want certain technical
features such as maximum storage,
certainty in design specifications and a
narrow range of composition while
commercial team members will see
the value in flexibility and the ability
to arbitrage.
Project management and the
financiers’ interest will be in schedule
and cost.
There are many management methods
used to bring these diverse opinions to a
consistent and achievable facility design,
but is there a tool available that will
measure and compare all these criteria to
enable the optimum design to be found?
Advantica has been developing a
concept called “Commercial Engineering”
which attempts to put numbers to many
of the engineering and commercial
aspects of projects.
Using Monte Carlo simulation, a risk
profile for a project can be produced
which values the range of possible project
outputs from worst case through to
“normal” operations. This paper will
attempt to explain, using project case
studies, the application and power of
the technique.
To analyse an LNG project, one or
more parts of the LNG supply chain may
need to be analysed.
For the simplest models, only the LNG
liquefaction plant or import terminal
needs to be modelled. This is classic
availability modelling. The modelling is
designed to analyse equipment sparing
philosophies to enable a certain level of
production to be guaranteed to meet
contractual commitments; this could be
on an hourly, daily or annual basis.
The simulation is straight forward;
however, LNG industry-specific
reliability data, the underlying basis of
the assessment, is often difficult to find.
Liquefaction plants, in particular, publish
little of their operating performance,
making performance benchmarking
difficult to achieve.
However, most of the risk and the
potential value in an availability
simulation involves correctly sizing the
LNG storage tanks which inevitably means
6 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal
that LNG ships need to be investigated.
Again, there is little data on ship
physical performance. The main
parameter that needs to be considered is
much more difficult to define, the
weather. Port delays resulting from tides,
strong winds, large waves or fog can have
a considerable impact on terminal
operations and may define the amount of
LNG storage required.
For onshore facilities, wave impacts
can sometimes be mitigated by the use of
a breakwater. The costs associated with
marine protection may eclipse the
amount of expenditure required on those
expensive LNG tanks.
In the nascent offshore world of FSRUs
and FPSOs no such protection is available
and weather impacts and the stored LNG Figure 1 – Isle of Grain Terminal
volumes to mitigate them become
disproportionately more important. modelling have changed considerably existing storage adequate (as project
Modelling can be extended further to over this time and demonstrates many of schedules would not allow additional
assess the distribution of ship voyage the impacts of Commercial Engineering. tanks to be built)?
times and the impacts of weather and Advantica was trying simultaneously to 3. What technical terms should be
other marine traffic on fleet size and achieve two goals: included in the tolling agreements to
project performance.
Minimisation of capital investment protect the terminal owner?

Minimisation of commercial risk (or An availability model of the whole LNG
Solutions protection of minimum revenues) terminal quickly demonstrated that the
The UK gas market has recently The initial phase of the project was all current ratings of the LNG plant could be
undergone, and will continue to undergo, about minimizing capital expenditure expanded to 125 percent of nameplate
a change in its gas supply and will no while ensuring minimal contractual capacity without significant loss of service,
longer be self sufficient in natural gas. penalties. The key decision was how but that increasing the throughput to 166
Demand will increasingly be met by much throughput could be sold to LNG percent or 183 percent of rated capacity
importing gas via interconnecting shippers. This modelling was performed could attract significant penalties from
pipelines and through LNG. There has from three aspects: terminal users if additional capital
been an LNG peak shaving facility at the 1. What equipment needed replacing or investment was not sanctioned.
Isle of Grain, a remote location but within additional units purchased? Different investment scenarios were
50 kilometres of London, since 1981. 2. At what gas throughput was the developed to investigate their impact on
In 2000, National Grid decided to
rejuvenate an old oil berth and to convert
and extend the existing peak shaving
equipment into an LNG import terminal.
Since that time two additional project
phases have occurred, each expanding
the facility significantly.
The success of the project depended on
many factors including system design and
life extension, operational strategy,
equipment reliability and supply contracts.
A key consideration was ensuring that the
facility will deliver the required business
performance once in operation.
Advantica was involved in the
modelling and risk analysis of all three
phases of the Grain project. The nature
of the risks and the role of availability Figure 2 - What can a terminal handle?
p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:46 Page 7

/1*-RXUQDO)UDQNOLQ SGI   

p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:00 Page 8

VALUE CHAIN

Figure 3 - How much throughput to sell?

availability and therefore overall project metres storage tanks, with additional
commercial performance. For the 166 pumps and vaporisers.
percent throughput scenario an economic These installations were analysed
investment scenario could be justified. using availability modelling to confirm
The impact of the additional gas that no unacceptable risks were being
throughput was the need to turnaround taken and whether targeted equipment/
LNG tankers more frequently. Capex reductions could be made.
This results in the LNG storage tanks The only facility that needed to
Figure 5 – Storage Tank Issues
being cycled more quickly. The impact of operate unaltered from Phase 1 was the
this on the limited existing storage jetty, which now had to accommodate sizes also increased over this period, contentious issue. All the shippers want
capacity was that, occasionally, the tanks more than twice the number of vessels which included the development of the the rights to send out when the market
were too full to allow the unloading of an seen in Phase 1. Qatari Q-Flex and Q-Max ships. price peaks and none of them wish to
LNG carrier in the allowed contractual Grain is a good marine location and These larger vessels complicated the send out when it is at its nadir.
timescale. has very little in the way of access analysis since, due to their larger However, regasification plant is
Demurrage would be payable or, restrictions (some current limits) but can draughts, they were subject to tidal relatively inexpensive compared to
alternatively, shipping slots would need be prone to significant wind effects. restrictions during the transit to and storage and berth facilities so additional
to be cancelled with an appropriate The modelling confirmed that, even from the terminal. The extra ships and capacity can often be justified to provide
penalty charge. with in excess of 150 LNG ships calling their additional size demanded the shipper upside until other constraints
To avoid these penalties, an at the terminal annually, there was only construction of a second jetty to reduce such as offtake pipeline capacity come to
additional storage tank would be a low risk of any of these berthing slots the impact of transit delays. the fore.
required; an expensive technical being cancelled. Provision of an additional jetty enabled The gas nomination send-out system
mitigation and one that, through Furthermore, demurrage penalties a second ship to berth and prepare for was originally designed to send out all
negotiation, might be avoided were outweighed by the revenue unloading whilst another ship continued the LNG/gas from one carrier prior to the
commercially in the tolling agreement. associated with the additional ships, even to be unloaded on the first jetty. arrival of the next vessel.
The Grain expansion, started in in the most pessimistic scenarios. This suits the terminal operator
2004/5 (now nearing completion), Interestingly, the main contributors to LNG sales extremely well as he can almost
presented a different set of issues. berth downtime were not natural Third Party Access (TPA) to an LNG guarantee that there will be sufficient
The Isle of Grain site is large so any phenomena (i.e. weather or tidal import terminal is the regulated norm in tank space to unload the next ship.
amount of equipment and storage tanks limitations), but the physical inability to Europe. The commercial arrangements However, it can be argued that it
can be accommodated provided that this unload fast enough due to equipment need to be written in such a way so that penalises a small LNG shipper as its
is financially attractive. Tolling failure, either on the ship or on the berth. no participant in the terminal is volume must be sent to the market (or
agreements for the second phase capacity The second expansion phase (recently advantaged or disadvantaged compared to gas storage elsewhere) in very short-
were quickly completed and were able to started construction) required further any other, often regardless of their duration but high-volume batches.
cover the installation of 3 x 190,000 cubic ships to be accommodated. LNG ship investment or throughput in the terminal. A larger shipper feels less pain as its
Advantica has been working with a cargoes arrive more frequently and the
major European company to assist in the send-out profile, although “spiky”, is more
development of the commercial strategy continuous.
for a proposed LNG import terminal, and Aggregating the LNG of all terminal
to test their practicality and risk profile. users and sending them out over a longer
The terminal development has two period, say a week or two, levels the
features that complicate modelling: playing field but at the cost of more

Shipping delays occur very late in the vaporisers and either larger storage
journey or on entry to the port tanks or greater working capacity.

Storage inventories are limited by Availability modelling has been used
local authority planning/zoning to test these different send-out time
consents periods against maximum storage
Figure 4 - Investment scenarios Normally regasification capacity is a volumes and send-out capacity.

8 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:47 Page 9

VALUE CHAIN

As with most TPA contracts, this vessels moving LNG from Nigeria and profitability. Most LNG purchase The immediate question is how should
project involved the purchase or award Trinidad to Japan (8-10,000 nautical agreements now include diversion an LNG facility be designed to have
of “berthing slots”. LNG voyage miles). Commercially the rationale for clauses allowing, if not encouraging, access to this upside without investing
modelling was conducted to examine the this type of business is clear, better this business. excessive capital?
likely delay profile of LNG
vessels arriving at the
anchorage/pilot station
and then transiting into
the port.
The result was a wide
range of delay times, with
the most significant delays
from both traffic and
weather occurring in the
last 48 hours of the voyage,
allowing no time for the
vessel to catch up on its
original schedule.
This had implications for
the Notice of Readiness
Your investments deserve
FIBER OPTIC
(NOR) clauses in the
contract and on the
operation of the terminal.
A late ship would be able
to unload but potentially
has a knock-on effect on the
next ship and its ability to
unload. Deciding how late a
ship can arrive and still be
unloaded is a key decision.
With a fixed gas
nominations system there
is less opportunity to
increase send-out to
rapidly create space for the
next tanker. The second
tanker may then have to
wait at the expense of the We know that your Liquefaction
terminal operator.
Various NOR rules were
terminals and LNG tanks
evaluated simultaneously projects are exacting and demanding.
with the gas nominations
rules to fix a NOR window Therefore, we supply safe, reliable and high-
and start time which
minimised ship waiting
performance monitoring instruments
(and terminal penalties) in order to assist you during the phases of
and maximised the ability
to unload late ships. Construction Monitoring, Hydro Test Monitoring

Maximise and Permanent Settlement Monitoring, using the

revenue finest technologies such as fiber optic.
The establishment of
portfolio suppliers able and
willing to supply LNG to a
range of import terminals
from a range of liquefaction
Roctest Telemac is the world pioneer and leading manufacturer of geotechnical and
plants, normally on the
basis of price, has been a structural monitoring instruments, in operation since 1947.
key development in the
LNG industry over the last
five years.
Such diverse cargo www.roctest.com
deliveries have included

LNG journal • June 2008 • 9

p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:47 Page 10

VALUE CHAIN

Advantica has been working for a delays to occur in the load and off load
major international oil company to try an ports and the model is able to predict
address these issues for a green field whether a ship would be available to load
LNG liquefaction development. the next cargo before the LNG tanks
The availability of the liquefaction over-top and the liquefaction plant needs
plant itself can be modelled (using to be turned down or stopped.
similar techniques to those described for Ship loading and destination schedules
Isle of Grain) to generate a probabilistic can be changed to perform sensitivity follow. Many of the FSRUs under vres must be accomplished in higher sea
LNG production profile, based on a given analyses on the robustness of the LNG consideration are for smaller or island states than for a conventional terminal.
supply chain throughput. trades for a given level of LNG storage. markets where the vessel represents the Even at claimed maximum tug
Combining the LNG production profile The model so far includes a range of sole gas supply system. operating limits, berth availabilities only
with a Monte Carlo model of the ship destinations in Europe and the Americas A back-up fuel supply may be start to approach those regularly
arrivals and loading operations allowed the and is currently examining the inclusion available, particularly for power achieved onshore.
project to make a key investment decision: of LNG terminals in the Far East. generation-led projects, but diesel is The mitigation for this lack of berthing
“How many storage tanks should be Using this type of supply chain typically more expensive than LNG and availability is storage margin, i.e. the
built and what size should they be to “commercial” model, sensitivities can also has higher maintenance costs for gas amount stored on the FSRU less that
minimise disruptions to the LNG supply be carried out to examine the potential turbine type machinery. carried on the LNG tanker serving it.
chain?” benefits of periodically selling cargoes on Fines for abusing environmental Most of the currently envisaged
The second key investment decision the spot market, over and above the base consents may also be applied. The issue FSRUs, to achieve aggressive schedule,
the project has to make is: load contractual commitment. of security of supply and, hence, facility are conversions of older LNG tankers
“How many LNG tankers should the availability therefore becomes paramount. which have smaller cargo volumes,
project own (or long-term charter)? Understand security Availability in this context has two 138,000 cubic metres or below.
In this instance, the supply chain The Isle of Grain case study provides an elements; firstly plant availability, the The bulk of the LNG carrier fleet is
model is incorporating each ship’s voyage insight into the commercial operation of nuts and bolts of equipment operation also of this size so storage margins can be
plan and assessing, based on seasonal an onshore terminal. and maintenance, and secondly berthing very limited. Normal onshore mitigations
weather data, the likelihood of a ship The LNG industry has ordered its first availability. are therefore of little value and
arriving at the terminal on schedule. two Floating Storage and Regasification The critical difference between commercial mitigations covering
Combine this with the potential for Units (FSRUs) and more look set to onshore and offshore is the lack of the alternative fuels are likely to be required.
usual technical mitigations; storage
volumes and breakwaters. Advantica modeling
FSRUs are normally sited in water Advantica has successfully used
depths that make the construction of availability modeling throughout the
breakwaters or other protective facilities LNG supply chain. Traditional
uneconomic. The FSRU will, therefore, availability modeling is useful to
see the full force of Mother Nature. engineers to provide an estimate of

CHINA POWER Site selection is critical with any performance for an LNG facility design.

OIL&GAS shelter from distant headlands or nearby
islands a potential boon. It is not all bad
CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION
2 - 4 SEPTEMBER 2008 z GUANGZHOU news, it is easier to moor one vessel to
GUANGDONG PROVINCE z CHINA
another (side by side) than a vessel to a
fixed structure such as a jetty.
BOOST YOUR INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE The two ships can move together
ATTEND CHINA’S PREMIERE CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION limiting the impact of waves and wind.
FOR POWER, OIL & GAS The issue is the initial berthing, the
Don’t miss your opportunity to attend this new and unique conference that recognizes the nexus that moment when the two vessels first touch.
has formed, at which growing Chinese demand for electric power meets its critical need to produce
that power more cleanly. The industry is working hard to
The comprehensive multi-track conference programme will address the challenges and opportunities understand the issues and develop
which face the region’s decision makers and business community regarding China and Asia’s
JVU]LU[PVUHSHUKYLUL^HISLLULYN`NHZWYVK\J[PVUHUKZ\WWS`LULYN`LMÄJPLUJ`[LJOUVSVN`JOVPJLZ guidelines for operating limits but at the
transmission and distribution requirements.
moment the limits are somewhat vague
WHY ATTEND? and three categories based on wave size
‹ +PZJV]LY[OLM\[\YLVM*OPUH»Z7V^LY6PS
.HZPUK\Z[YPLZ
are suggested.
‹ 3PZ[LU[VRL`WYLZLU[H[PVUZMYVTSLHKPUNPUK\Z[Y`]VPJLZ
‹ :WLHRMHJL[VMHJL^P[OTHU\MHJ[\YLYZHUKZ\WWSPLYZVM[OLSH[LZ[[LJOUVSVN`
Conventional protected berth (the
‹ .HPUHUL_JS\ZP]LPUZPNO[PU[VM\[\YL[LJOUVSVNPJHSHK]HUJLTLU[Z norm for onshore)
‹ -YLLLU[Y`PU[V[OLL_OPIP[PVU
‹ <UYP]HSSLKUL[^VYRPUNVWWVY[\UP[PLZ
Exposed berth (for example Brunei)

Expected limit for tug operations
Table 1 provides example availability
REGISTER ONLINE NOW figures for an FSRU to accept an LNG
WWW.CHINAPOWEROILANDGAS.COM carrier in different wave states. This
example is taken from a recent
Jointly owned and produced by: Advantica FSRU project for a relatively
Flagship media sponsors: Supported by:
However, availability modeling can do
much more if the commercial or business
aspects of the problem can be analyzed
alongside the design.
The assessment of multiple segments
of the LNG supply chain (i.e. storage,
load/unload, transit) is often necessary
for a more complete solution.
“Commercial Engineering” has the
potential to maximize project
performance by allowing both
commercial and technical mitigation of a
particular project issue to be considered.
The “Commercial Engineering”
methodology, although able to make an
impact throughout the life-cycle of a
project, is best applied during the
conceptual and feasibility phases as this
maximizes the scope for alternative
solutions to be considered.

Neil Wragg is Advantica’s Senior
Consultant, Asset Performance. Email:
neil.wragg@advanticagroup.com

benign sea area. David Haynes, is Advantica’s Principal LNG

It quickly becomes obvious that, for Consultant. Email:
FSRUs to be economic, berthing manoeu- david.haynes@advanticagroup.com

10 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:48 Page 11

The best human team and a fully in-house

integrated process enable us to offer
top design and manufacturing
of cryogenic valves.

TOTAL RELIABILITY
IN THE MOST SEVERE CONDITIONS
Poyam Valves is one of the world's leading manufacturers of cryogenic ball, Our own quality renowed foundry AMPO and long experience in cryogenic
gate, globe and check valves. Cryogenic service valve's main aplications are valves (since 1979), enables Poyam Valves to design and manufacture high
focussed in the complete LNG chain: technology valves with the best performance and low maintenance cost.
1.Offshore/Onshore well (gas reserves).
2.LNG Liquefaction Terminals, both Offshore and Onshore. Through our Field Engineering Service (FES) team we provide timely
3.LNG Loading Arms. response to customer needs worldwide: witness and technical support in
4.LNGC/LPGC (Cargo valves & LNG Reliquefaction Plant valves). commissioning & start up stage, maintenance shut down supervision,
5.LNG Unloading Arms. troubleshooting and repair service, equipment selection, maintenance
6. LNG Receiving (Regasification) Terminals. and operation training...
p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:48 Page 12

PROJECT RELATIONSHIPS

LNG project relationships change as

NOCs gain more contract leverage
Nick Prowse, a partner in law firm Norton Rose LLP, presents the first of a two-part series on
perfecting LNG joint venture contracts

The critical issues between National their desire to exercise control and share
Oil Companies (NOCs) and rewards along the chain.
international oil companies (IOCs) in Previously NOCs were most visible
joint venture LNG projects are value upstream, where the initial capital
extraction, control, added value to investment from investors is typically
the host country and incentives and required.
investment protection for the foreign
investors. Key demands
These are the main drivers behind Holders of large natural gas reserves can
the anatomy of a typical LNG project also demand that their IOC partners
today and it is these issues that are provide project development and
being fiercely contested by NOCs and technological expertise without being full
IOCs during negotiation of the many asset partners, therefore limiting
LNG ventures currently under potential upside for the IOCs.
development. In multiple-Train projects NOCs are
The potential investors and also benefiting by using their experiences
stakeholders in an LNG chain will each of Phase 1 Train development to seek
bring their different assets to the improvements in the terms of any new
negotiating table. contracts presented.
NOCs will bring the principal asset - The most successful LNG projects are
natural gas – and IOCs will offer a those that strike the right balance along
variety of assets, including established the chain. However, some potential LNG
market positions, technical expertise, projects have struggled from conflicts of
equipment and skilled personnel, interest from the outset and never
technology licences and access to prime reached a final investment decision.
natural gas markets. Currently, the biggest problem in the
The extent to which each party LNG industry is a shortage of LNG
requires the other to complete an LNG supply caused by delayed liquefaction
chain will have a strong impact on the projects.
relative strengths of the bargaining Making projects happen and striking
positions. the right balance between NOCs and
These strengths will no doubt vary at IOCs in the current environment is
different stages of the LNG chain. In the especially difficult, given rising
current market, we are seeing NOCs construction costs and a shortage in the
gaining more availability of skilled and experienced
access along contractors.
the Even if an LNG project
reaches commercial
difficult to manage. In particular, NOCs
are seeking ever better terms frequently
causing problems in the context of
expansions.
The final structure of each particular
project will be determined by the positions
of the parties on these critical issues.
Value extraction
NOCs typically seek to maximise their
return from the development of their
natural resources and also from any
direct investment they may make in the
LNG chain.
IOCs need to develop LNG chains in a
manner that, among other things, seeks
to maximise shareholder return.
Traditionally, IOCs have been involved
in more than one link in the LNG chain.
This gave IOCs the opportunity to
extract value from the chain in a
number of places.
More recently, NOCs have been
moving down the LNG chain to realise
value downstream as well as upstream.
The issue of value extraction gives rise
to a number of financial tensions between
NOCs and IOCs and is, perhaps, the most
critical issue for NOCs and IOCs
developing a LNG project today.
There are a number of places along the
chain where NOCs and IOCs may extract
value. At the final link, the LNG will be
turned back into gas and sold in the
destination markets.
Ideally, those sales proceeds will be
sufficient to make their way back up the
chain and return a profit to each
therefore able to extract value through
the liquefaction plant project
company?

LNG carriers: are all parties involved
in delivering from the host country to
destination markets and therefore
able to see revenue from the provision
of shipping transportation services?

Regasification: who has capacity at the
import terminal and ultimately
control over the sale of natural gas in
destination markets?
Upstream
The extent to which value can be realised
upstream will be dictated by the
exploration and production licensing
regime operated by the host country.
As a practical matter, this part of the
LNG chain affords little scope for
structuring or negotiation. The IOCs are,
on the whole, at the mercy of the NOCs
and have to operate predominantly on
their terms.
In some countries, all the
hydrocarbons may be owned by the NOC
at the point of sale to the liquefaction
plant.
This is typically the case in countries
which operate a service contract or buy-
back contract regime, where foreign
investors in the upstream development
are paid for their services rather than
given a share of production.
Here, the NOC will be the seller of all
the gas to the liquefaction plant. There
will then be obvious tensions as to the
price at which gas should be sold to the

The most close, there is a never-

ending balancing
participant in the chain, otherwise not all
participants will be satisfied.
liquefaction plant.
Should this be at market rates, or

successful LNG act between

objectives of NOCs
the The number of places where IOCs
and NOCs may extract value will be
instead at artificially low prices to allow
the liquefaction company to increase its

projects are those and IOCs

the life of the
over determined by the extent to which
they are vertically integrated. Look,
profits? This will need to be negotiated
on a case-by-case basis and is obviously a

that strike the project as new

issues arise and
for example, at the following links in
the chain:
sensitive issue.
In host states which operate a

right balance circumstances

change.

Upstream assets: are they involved in
natural gas production, transportation
production sharing agreement regime,
both the NOCs and the IOCs will

along the chain. complex

Given today’s
commercial
and gas sales to the liquefaction plant
in the host state and therefore able to
typically own their respective shares
of production, as allocated to them at
arrangements which extract value upstream? the “fiscalisation point” in accordance
chain make up an LNG chain, this
Liquefaction assets: who is involved in with the terms of the relevant production
because of continuing balancing act is often liquefaction and LNG sales and sharing agreement.

12 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:48 Page 13

PROJECT RELATIONSHIPS

Tax and royalty extraction is not the only upstream issue ability to book reserves. produced, can have a negative impact on
In this situation, the NOCs and IOCs which is of critical concern to IOCs. One This is because failure to find and an IOC’s share price.
should be more aligned as to the price at of the key objectives of any IOC in book new reserves, thereby replacing Buy-back contracts are a major
which gas should be sold to the liquefaction relation to a LNG project will be the reserves which are currently being irritant for IOCs in this respect because
plant as they are both gas
sellers.
At the other end of the
spectrum, in host states
which operate a tax and
royalty regime, the host
state will typically transfer
ownership in all produced
hydrocarbons to the IOCs.
However, no host state
gives up its natural
resources for free and
instead the host state will
realise value through the
levy of taxes and royalty.
Ideally, whichever
upstream licensing
structure is used, the price
at which natural gas is sold
to the liquefaction plant,
whether by the NOC, the
IOCs or both, should be set
at a level which ensures
that the IOCs and NOCs
each earn a fair rate of
return over time.
In reality, however,
NOCs tend to try to tip the
balance very much in their
favour. For example, if you
wish to explore for and
produce hydrocarbons in
various parts of the Middle
East, the only way to do so
Which heat exchanger do you need-
is under service or buy-back
contracts.
3ODWHļQRUFRLOZRXQG"
Buy-back contracts
contain some of the Whatever your heat exchanger requirements,
toughest terms in the world Linde is the only manufacturer equipped to align,
for foreign investors and design and produce both types to meet them.
there is currently a trend to
use these more frequently For you, this means: you don´t just get the solution we have,
in the Middle East. but rather the one that you need.

Tough terms Are you interested in a documentary movie about the

At present, foreign manufacturing of process plant equipment ?
investors seem to be To order a free DVD, please visit our website:
prepared to agree to www.linde-plantcomponents.com/orderdvd.php
exploration and production
terms under buy-back
contracts which are
Designing Processes – Constructing Plants.
extremely favourable to the
host state, presumably Linde AG
because competition Linde Engineering Division,
amongst foreign investors Carl-von-Linde-Strasse 15, 83342 Tacherting, Germany
for new exploration Phone +49.8621.85-6434, Fax +49.8621.85-6622,
opportunities remains E-Mail: plantcomponents@linde-le.com
extremely high.
Of course, value

LNG journal • June 2008 • 13

p1-14:LNG 3 06/06/2008 11:48 Page 14

PROJECT RELATIONSHIPS

the IOCs are they will also be seeking NOC Qatar Petroleum and others to following ways:
entitled to a to maximise their return ship LNG for its charterers (Qatargas II, (a) Technology licences - Licence fees
fee on any sale of LNG Qatargas 3, Qatargas 4 and Rasgas 3) to may be a lucrative source of value

In a tolling structure to atthirdthe parties

LNG
the UK, US and other markets. Other
NOCs are now considering adopting
extraction for foreign investors
providing liquefaction technology,

the liquefaction plant loading arm

in the host
LNG shipping models similar to the
Qatar 1 model.
such as Royal
ConocoPhillips;
Dutch Shell or

project company will country,

typically take little risk
other than its own
operating risk but will, as a on-board
assuming
There are some tensions between
NOCs and IOCs in this part of the chain
(b) Co-lending to projects - Not such a
classic case, but one which seems to
the sale as IOCs, if given a choice, would typically be becoming a trend for foreign
is prefer to use their own, owned or investors is co-lending to liquefaction
structured chartered, LNG carriers. This is for projects at a level equivalent to
on a free- reasons of both value extraction and commercial banks and export credit
control. agencies. This can only be done by

consequence, also earn a (FOB) basis.

However, Regasification
those IOCs with access to the
necessary funds. It does provide

lower rate of return. which

for those IOCs
rather
than a share
of the reserves,
therefore making it
difficult to “book” the reserves.
Moving down the chain,
value may be realised
through the shares which
the NOC and IOCs own in
the liquefaction plant project
company.
The liquefaction plant project
company will need to be a robust and
profitable joint venture, particularly if it
is project-financed. Profits made from
liquefaction will either be re-invested in
the plant or, more likely, distributed to
shareholders.
There is plenty of scope for deal
structuring and risk allocation in and
around liquefaction projects, with at least
two models to choose from for revenue
generation in liquefaction.
SPA structure
The first model is a sale and purchase
structure. The gas is sold to the project
company, the project company produces
LNG and the LNG is then sold by the
project company to its off-takers.
Most LNG projects follow this model.
Here, the level of profit will typically
depend on the costs of the liquefaction
plant project company, including the
purchase price of natural gas, and the
price realised for sales of LNG.
For those NOCs which are not
involved downstream beyond
liquefaction plant, sales of LNG will be
their last opportunity, and in some cases
the primary mechanism, by which they
may extract value from the LNG chain.
Similarly, if the IOCs are not involved
in shipping, regasification or marketing
of natural gas in destination markets,
are
involved in the
downstream business,
they may be more interested in
extracting value downstream if this
improves their overall economics.
The second model is a tolling
structure. Here, the liquefaction plant
project company will not buy natural gas
and sell LNG and will typically not have
title to the natural gas or LNG while it is
in its custody and control.
Instead, the project company will be
paid a service fee in return for the
provision of liquefaction and other
services. In a tolling structure the
liquefaction plant project company will
typically take little risk other than its own
operating risk but will, as a consequence,
also earn a lower rate of return.
LNG shipping
Value may also be realised in the provision
of LNG shipping services although the
maritime part of the chain can look very
different from project to project.
Some NOCs have long been involved
in the LNG shipping business, such as
Malaysian energy company Petronas
through its majority shareholding in
Malaysia International Shipping Corp.
Others, such as Nigerian National
Petroleum Corp., are involved in LNG
shipping activities through joint ventures
with IOCs. For example, Nigeria LNG
Ltd. has been providing LNG shipping
services through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Bonny Gas Transport (BGT)
the for many years.
The BGT structure is essentially an
extension of the liquefaction plant to
enable the project to deliver LNG to its
customers in destination markets on an
ex-ship basis.
Qatar Gas Transport Co., also known
as Nakilat, was established in 2004 by
Value may also be realised through
shares in the regasification plant project
company and/or capacity rights in the
regasification terminal to the extent
IOCs or NOCs own such shares and/or
have such capacity rights.
However, if the regasification terminal
is owned by a third party then any IOCs
or NOCs seeking to reserve capacity will
try to keep any capacity reservation and
other fees as low as possible to minimise
value leakage.
Value may also be realised upon the
sale of natural gas owned by the NOCs
and IOCs, or any downstream joint
venture, in the destination market.
NOCs are increasingly securing
contracts for the long-term lifting and/or
marketing of LNG and some such as
Qatar Petroleum, Petronas and Angola’s
Sonangol have secured positions in LNG
import terminals in the Atlantic Basin.
Qatar Petroleum, as a consequence of
its upstream partnership with
ExxonMobil, has stakes in ExxonMobil’s
downstream regasification projects.
These include the Adriatic LNG
import facility being constructed offshore
Italy, the South Hook regasification
terminal being completed in the UK, and
a subsidiary of the Qatari company will
have a majority stake the Golden Pass
import facility under construction in the
US state of Texas.
Petronas has a share in the Dragon
LNG import terminal under construction
in the UK, while Sonangol has gained a
stake in the Pascagoula LNG import
terminal planned for the US state of
Mississippi by Chevron Corp., one of its
upstream partners in Angola LNG, the
southwest African nation’s first LNG
project.
Revenue streams
NOCs and IOCs may also extract or at
least seek to maintain value in the
another means for an investor to earn
a return on its investment, or at least
to prevent its return being diluted by
project financing; and
(c) Licence fees - Similarly, NOCs may
extract value through charging
licence fees, port fees, export taxes
and other similar levies in the host
country.
Maintaining control is also an important
issue for the parties. Control can be
derived through participation in the LNG
chain in much the same way as has just
been seen in the context of value
extraction.
The host government will often wish
to ensure that it or the NOC retains
control over the liquefaction plant and
other parts of the LNG chain which it
considers of strategic importance.
In this context, NOCs are increasingly
seeking to maintain more involvement in
or control over the LNG chain. This is
partly related to issues of value
extraction and, in particular, greater
control may help an NOC to prevent
revenue leakage from the chain without
its approval.
In addition, it may also give the NOC
an opportunity to participate in decisions
to realise short-term opportunities such
as selling occasional spot cargoes or
positioning excess production volumes.
This issue of control can obviously give
rise to a number of tensions between
NOCs and IOCs as their interests are
unlikely to be aligned at all times.
We will look at specific legal issues
involving NOCs and investors in Part II
of this article which will be published in
the July edition of the LNG Journal.

This article is based on a presentation by
Nick Prowse, Partner at Norton Rose LLP,
at the 4th Annual Law of LNG Conference
in Houston, at the Centre for American
and International Law.

14 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:29 Page 1

WE DO IT SAFELY OR NOT AT ALL. SVITZER is a world leader in towage, salvage and related marine services.
Some 4,000 highly skilled people handle almost 600 vessels in more than 35 countries around the world.

SAFETY AND SUPPORT AT SEA

WORLD’S LARGEST LNG

TERMINAL TOWAGE OPERATOR
SVITZER provides berthing, pilotage, safety and
related marine services at LNG terminals around the
world. A fleet of more than 100 dedicated terminal
tugs makes us the world’s largest supplier of towage
services to the LNG industry.
DEDICATED TEAM WITH YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
We assist terminals in meeting the very highest opera-
tional, environmental and safety standards. Our efforts
begin at the design stage. A strong team of dedicated
naval engineers, operations and commercial LNG
experts put their years of experience to use in close
cooperation with our clients. Our purpose: to tailor-
make second-to-none maritime support solutions.
STATE-OF-THE-ART FULL MISSION TUG SIMULATOR
Emphasis on continuous improvement is part of the
SVITZER solution. This is also evidenced by our
development of a state-of-the-art full mission tug
simulator. The first of its kind in the towage industry
and dedicated to clients of SVITZER. Coupled with
our ongoing follow-up programmes and rigorous
training of local crews, our clients are ensured conti-
nuous high performance at their LNG facilities.

Phone +45 3919 3919 · info@svitzer.com · www.svitzer.com

Pakhus 48, Sundkaj 9 · DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø · Denmark A part of A.P. Moller - Maersk Group
p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:29 Page 2
NEWS
News
index
ABS said it was selected by Teekay
Corp. to provide technical evaluation to
the basic design concept of a floating
offshore LNG liquefaction facility the
Canadian LNG carrier company is
developing. On the opening day of the
Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) in
Houston, Texas, the American Bureau of
Shipping said the contract called for
review through to front-end engineering
and design with the award of ABS
classification to the facilities once a
suitable project has been confirmed. The
Teekay LNG/LPG liquefaction facility’s
topsides process is being designed by
Mustang Engineering of Houston, Texas
and Samsung Heavy Industries of South
Korea will design and construct the hull
for the floating LNG vessel. Initial design
concepts call for the unit to have a
combined storage capacity for LNG in
excess of 200,000 cubic metres. “The
containment system has not yet been
selected and will be greatly determined
by the site specific conditions,” said the
US classification society. “With its
approval in principle (AIP) for numerous
concepts, ABS has been at the forefront
of technical standards for gas production
at sea and novel transport technologies,”
said Mark Kremin, Vice President,
Teekay Gas Services. “The class society’s
experience with the Gaz Transport
Technigaz (GTT) Mk III system and
Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries’
Self-supporting, Prismatic-shape, IMO
Type-B tank (SPB) is unmatched,”
Kremin added. ABS has previously
classed the only LNG carriers to use the
SPB containment system, and also
classed the first LPG Floating Storage
and Offloading (FSO) unit newbuild, the
“Escravos”, and the first LPG Floating
Production, Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) unit newbuild, the “Sanha”, both
operating offshore Angola in southwest
Africa. ABS Project Manager John
Soland says Teekay’s project will use one
of Mustang’s proprietary LNG Smart
liquefaction solutions. Mustang’s LNG
Smart technologies are designed to
improve the commercial viability of LNG
terminals, liquefaction plants, and
floating regas and liquefaction facilities.
ABS’s evaluation of a floating gas project
16 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal
is based upon the application of
prescriptive requirements, sea-keeping
studies, structural and fatigue analysis of
the structure, containment and station
keeping systems plus a series of overall
risk analysis and special studies. A
number of ABS Guides and Guidance
Notes will be referred to in establishing
compliance for the Teekay floating gas
liquefaction facility, including the ABS
Guide for Building and Classing Offshore
LNG terminals as well following
international standards such as the
International Maritime Organization’s
Gas Code. Specialized required analysis
and technical studies include: mooring
analysis, containment system sloshing
analysis, gas dispersion and heat
radiation analysis; cryogenic liquid
spillage and structural protection study;
vibration studies to analyze impact of the
top side processing facilities on the hull;
as well as other detailed process and
marine systems studies, ABS said.
Teekay, the Vancouver-based shipping
company, is the latest of around a dozen
companies to be involved in developing
floating LNG concepts. Teekay has a fleet
of almost 200 vessels and transports
more than 10 percent of the world’s
seaborne oil, as well as a growing share
of the world’s LNG.
AES Corp.’s planned Sparrows Point
LNG import terminal near the US city of
Baltimore has progressed after the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
ruled the facility would have limited
adverse environmental impact. The
FERC issued a draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the facility
being developed by AES, a power
company, on the former site of a
Bethlehem Steel shipyard. Sparrows
Point will have an eventual 480,000 cubic
metres of LNG storage and natural gas
send-out capacity of 1.5 billion cubic feet
per day. The advance of the FERC
application for Sparrows Point comes at
a time when other US LNG projects are
being delayed by the developers because
of a global shortage of volumes for
companies not linked to the LNG chain.
A pipeline linked to the project would be
about 88 miles long and run in two states,
from Maryland into the town of Eagle in
Pennsylvania. The EIS made the usual
mitigating measures compulsory and
included findings by the US Coast Guard,
the US Army Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Primary reasons for acceptance of the
project included the fact that the
terminal would be built within an
industrial port setting and the proposed
pipeline would follow existing,
maintained rights-of-way for almost 85
percent of its route. The Coast Guard
concluded in its preliminary Waterway
Suitability Report that the offshore
waters of Chesapeake Bay can be made
suitable for LNG marine traffic, provided
additional measures for maritime safety
and security are put in place. The
project’s pipeline, part of the Mid-Atlantic
Express Pipeline venture, would connect
with three systems in Pennsylvania:
NiSource Inc.'s Columbia Gas
Transmission Corp., Williams Cos. Inc.'s
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
and Spectra Energy's Texas Eastern
Transmission.
AUSTRALIAN company Santos said
it sold 40 percent of its Gladstone LNG
project to Malaysia’s Petronas for up to
US$2.5 billion after a tender process.
Petronas will make an initial cash
investment of $2Bln, plus a further
payment of $500 million upon reaching a
final investment decision for a second
LNG Train for the project that plans to
make LNG from coal-seam gas. “The
agreement with Petronas establishes a
new benchmark for the value of eastern
Australian gas resources and represents
a major step towards realisation of
Santos’ Coal Seam Gas (CSG) to LNG
strategy,” Santos said. The transaction
sells a third of Santos’ CSG proven plus
probable (2P) reserves and less than 11
percent of Santos’ total 2P oil and gas
reserves. Petronas operates an LNG
complex in Bintulu, Sarawak, producing
23 million tonnes per annum from eight
LNG trains. The Malaysian company is
also a partner in the ELNG project in
Egypt and in the Dragon LNG project in
Wales. In addition its subsidiary,
Malaysian International Shipping Corp.
is the world’s largest single owner-
operator of LNG carriers. Santos is
involved in another major LNG project in
Papua New Guinea in partnership with
other companies, including ExxonMobil.
“The agreement fully aligns the interests
of both companies across all strategic
elements of the value chain from
resources to plant development and
operation, and LNG marketing,” the
statement added. The Petronas-Santos
deal follows a $12Bln takeover bid by
LNG player BG Group of the UK for
Australia’s Origin Energy, a large coal-
seam gas resource owner. BG is also
involved in a rival coal-seam gas project,
also centred on the Australian port of
Gladstone in northern Queensland. The
Santos Gladstone project has achieved a
number of important advances during
2008, including the start of dual pre-
front-end engineering and design studies
conducted by LNG engineering
contractors Foster Wheeler and Bechtel
of the US, and the lodging of
environmental applications.
BG GROUP, the leading Atlantic
Basin LNG operator, said it signed an
agreement with Samsung Heavy
Industries of South Korea for the
delivery of two dual-fuel, diesel-electric
LNG carriers. The BG LNG shipping
fleet currently consists of more than 20
vessels that are comprised of owned and
chartered ships. The new ships will each
have a cargo capacity of 170,000 cubic
metres and are scheduled to be delivered
in 2010, BG said. “These two new vessels
are sister ships to the vessels BG ordered
from Samsung in 2006,” said Martin
Houston, BG Vice President for Global
LNG. “Their addition to the BG fleet will
further enhance performance and
provide increased flexibility in meeting
the growing demand by our customers
throughout the world for natural gas,”
Houston added. Samsung will build,
equip, launch and deliver the ships,
which will use the GTT Mark III
membrane cargo containment system.
The new ships' design specifications are
a repeat of the 170,000 cubic metres
design which is intended to provide
maximum flexibility for access into
regasification terminals around the
world while minimizing transportation
costs. Samsung has so far constructed
and delivered eight ships for BG. These
new ships are intended to replace
chartered tonnage when delivered,
BG said.
CHEVRON Corp. said VetcoGray was
awarded a five-year contract for subsea
equipment supply to the Gorgon LNG
project in Australia. VetcoGray is an
international subsidiary of GE Oil &
Gas headquartered in Florence, Italy,
and specializing in upstream subsea
equipment, drillings, completion and
production technology. Gorgon LNG, the
joint venture between operator Chevron,
Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil.
plans to construct an LNG plant at
Barrow Island with three Trains each
producing 5 million tonnes per annum.
The project includes the subsea
development of the Gorgon natural gas
p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:29 Page 3

NEWS

fields, located about 130 kilometers off contractor for Gorgon and is an Associates. The downstream component Barrow Island. The Gorgon project is
the north-west coast of Western unincorporated partnership between of the project includes the front-end utilizing the vendor identification
Australia. “We're extremely pleased that KBR of the US, JGC Corp. of Japan, and engineering and design for the project’s services of the Industry Capability
Chevron has selectedour technology, Clough Projects Australia and Hatch gas processing and export facilities on Network of Western Australia to provide
which has been proven
in LNG applications
worldwide, for this major
Australian development,”
said Dave Tucker, Chief
Operating Officer of
VetcoGray. The companies
didn’t disclose the value of
the contract. The scope
of VetcoGray's contract
includes the supply
of manifolds, pipeline
termination structures,
pipeline end terminations,
trees with subsea control
modules, wellheads,
production control systems,
system integration testing,
installation and operations
support. Last year a
decision was made to
pursue a scope of three
Trains instead of two to
help improve the project
© 2007 Swagelok Company

economics and address

rising industry cost
pressures. Under the
latest contract, Vetcogray’s
project and engineering
management will be based
in Western Australia.
Subsea structures and
equipment are highly
specialized and much
You know us for our tube fittings,
will be sourced from
various
Vetcogray
international
locations
But there is so much more to know...
including Singapore, the
US, the UK and Norway,
Chevron said. The Gorgon
project said it had also
started listing local
supply opportunities for Did you know that Swagelok supplies thousands of other quality fluid system
downstream procurement products and subassemblies to a wide range of industries? From tube fittings,
on the Industry Capability tubing, and valves to pressure measurement and control devices; regulators,
Network WA’s (ICNWA) transducers and gauges, Swagelok offers the instrumentation solutions you need.
ProjectConnect web site. With Swagelok you also get global support, procurement services, engineered to
The project said it was
order products, product training, seminars and more. To find the solutions you need
committed to providing
to configure your ideal fluid system, contact your authorized Swagelok sales and
full, fair and reasonable
service center or visit us at www.swagelok.com.
opportunity for Australian
industry to supply goods
and services and is
working hard to ensure
that local content
opportunities for local
contractors are realized.
The Kellogg Joint Venture
(KJV) is the downstream

LNG journal • June 2008 • 17

p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:29 Page 4
NEWS
qualified information on Australian
suppliers. Certain structures may be
fabricated in Australia where
practicable, Chevron added. “We look to
maximize Australian opportunities and
hope to see Australian industry
participate and grow its ability to
engage in the subsea development area,”
said Chevron’s Gorgon General Manager
Colin Beckett. The environmental
assessment process for the expanded
Gorgon LNG scope started in February
2008 when the revision to the already
approved two 5 MTPA Trains was
formally submitted to the Western
Australian Environmental Protection
Authority. The EPA’s decision – which
was advertised in March and received no
objections – set the level of assessment
at Public Environmental Review (PER)
with an eight-week public review period.
Beckett said the project team would
continue to work with the state and
Australian governments and other
stakeholders as the expanded scope
progressed through the approval
process.
CHIYODA Corp., France’s Technip and
Fluor Corp. of the US said they won
contracts from Australia’s Woodside
Energy to carry out studies covering the
Browse LNG and Pluto LNG projects.
The three companies announced that
their Australian joint venture, known as
TCF, will carry out an onshore plant
development study, as part of the
selection process of a design concept for
the Browse LNG project, located 425
kilometers from Broome, Western
Australia. The three companies will also
prepare the “basis of design” for the
proposed second processing Train for the
Pluto LNG project, located in the Burrup
Peninsula of Australia. These two
separate studies are scheduled for
completion in the second half of 2008, the
companies said. Technip and Chiyoda are
regular LNG liquefaction project
partners and are the main contractors in
Qatar, the world’s largest LNG producer.
The French-Japanese partnership is
building LNG Trains each with a
capacity of 7.8 million tonnes per annum.
Woodside has helped turn Australia into
one of the world’s main LNG producers.
The company is aiming between now and
the end of 2010 for final investment
decisions for an expansion of Pluto LNG,
and the development of the Browse and
Sunrise LNG projects. At the end of
2010, Australia will have seven LNG
Trains in operation, six of them operated
18 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal
by Woodside and the other at Darwin
LNG, where US major ConocoPhillips is
the operator. Excelerate Energy, the
offshore and dockside LNG terminal
developer, has set up an import facility
for Argentina at the port city of Bahía
Blanca, about 400 miles south of
Buenos Aires.
EXCELERATE, which is 50 percent
owned by Germany’s RWE, said the
Bahía Blanca GasPort is Excelerate's
fourth operational LNG facility and
second dockside terminal using LNG
regasification vessels. Excelerate’s
vessels are equipped with both an
onboard regasification system and a
normal LNG discharge capability,
enabling them to offload at conventional
LNG terminals, their own facilities or in
ship-to-ship operations. The Argentine
facility will allow the delivery of up to 400
million cubic feet of natural gas per day
to Argentina's market. The facility has
the capacity to import up to three LNG
cargoes per month. Excelerate’s GasPort
technology involves a dedicated jetty and
a converted LNG carrier that regasifies
the cargo and feeds it directly into the
natural gas network. The company's first
GasPort at Teesside in the UK was
commissioned in February, 2007, though
like all of Excelerate’s facilities it has
suffered from the global shortage of
surplus LNG cargoes. “This facility
marks yet another milestone for
Excelerate Energy and further
demonstrates how the unique ability of
our onboard regasification and GasPort
technology can quickly and cost-
effectively deliver LNG supplies and
connect markets globally,” said Rob
Bryngelson, Excelerate’s Chief Executive.
The commissioning cargo for the Bahia
Blanca GasPort was sold to the Spanish-
Argentine energy company Repsol YPF
by Excelerate and loaded onto the carrier
the “Excelsior” by ship-to-ship transfer on
May 4. This cargo was delivered from
another of Excelerate's regasification
vessels the “Excellence” and marked the
fifth transfer of LNG between two ships
for commercial purposes. Excelerate has
been the pioneer in STS transfer and
continues to use this process to provide
additional flexibility for scheduling and
fleet use. Meanwhile, the Excelerate
vessel “Excellence” took part in the first
LNG delivery to the company’s Northeast
Gateway, located 18 miles east of Boston
in Massachusetts Bay. The vessel fed its
cargo into the existing HubLine natural
gas pipeline system operated by Spectra
Energy. “This delivery is a milestone in
efforts to bring a new, safe, clean,
affordable energy source to the New
England region in record time,” said
Bryngelson. “During the course of this
project it became extremely clear that our
ship-board regasification technology is
the quickest, least expensive and most
environmentally responsible way to bring
new natural gas supplies to markets,” he
added. Excelerate and Spectra Energy,
both based in Houston, Texas, teamed up
to extend a 16-mile, 24-inch pipeline
lateral from Spectra Energy's HubLine to
the offshore facility. The system is
capable of supplying up to 20 percent of
New England's natural gas demand,
Excelerate said. Aside from the
Northeast Gateway, Excelerate also
operates the Gulf Gateway in the Gulf of
Mexico, about 116 miles south of
Louisiana.
EXXONMOBIL Corp., operator of the
$10-billion PNG LNG project, said it
signed a formal joint venture agreement
with the Papua New Guinea state,
opening the way for the venture to enter
the engineering phase. The joint venture
deal and an accompanying gas
agreement establish the fiscal regime
and legal framework by which the LNG
project will be regulated throughout its
lifetime. It also sets the terms and
mechanism for state equity
participation, ExxonMobil said in a
statement. Following the signing
ceremony, the US major said it would
immediately enter the front-end
engineering and design stage. The PNG
LNG project is an integrated
development which includes all
components including the gas processing
facilities, pipelines, and LNG plant.
ExxonMobil’s current partners include
Australian companies Santos and Oil
Search, as well as Japan’s Nippon Oil.
However, shareholding levels will change
when the PNG government’s nominees
join as equity participants at a later
date. The agreement was signed on
behalf of the State of Papua New Guinea
by the Governor General, Sir Paulias
Matane, and Minister for Petroleum and
Energy William Duma. The FEED team
will comprise personnel from
ExxonMobil, the joint venture companies
and the contractors based in PNG,
Australia, the US and Japan.
“ExxonMobil is pleased to have the Gas
Agreement executed and to move this
project to the next stage of development,”
said Peter Graham, Project Executive,
ExxonMobil Development Co. “During
the FEED stage we will also pursue LNG
sales agreements, secure the necessary
permits and licenses, and undertake the
financial planning necessary for a final
investment decision,” Graham added.
FRANCE’S Total said it made a
significant natural gas discovery in the
Maharaja Lela-Jamalulalam gas field
that already supplies the Brunei LNG
plant. The French company said the
discovery was made about 50 kilometres
offshore in the MLJ2-06 well. Total is a
shareholder along with Royal Dutch
Shell and the Brunei authorities. With a
final depth of 5,850 metres, the well is
the deepest ever drilled in Brunei in
a high pressure/high temperature
reservoir, Total said. “Other new gas
compartments in the Maharaja Lela-
Jamalulalam field have been detected
and further appraisal work is necessary
to evaluate them,” Total said in a
statement. Total, which has been present
in Brunei since 1986, said the new well
should come onstream before the end of
2008. In addition, Total holds a 60
percent interest in Brunei’s exploration
block J, situated deep offshore, for which
a production-sharing agreement had
been signed in March 2003. Exploration
activities on this block have been
suspended since May 2003, awaiting the
resolution of a border dispute with
Malaysia. Total’s production in the Asia-
Far East region amounts to 11 percent of
the group’s production, though its assets
are mainly located in Indonesia, another
LNG producer.
GASOL, the venture company formed
to find LNG opportunities off West
Africa, has exercised an option to acquire
all the shares in African LNG, a project
company in which it previously held a
minority stake. The deal follows the
signing last month by Gasol of a heads of
agreement with Canadian LNG carrier
owner Teekay Corp. to collaborate on
possible LNG projects in West and
Central Africa. The companies said they
would cooperate in African operations by
seeking to develop LNG capacity using
floating liquefaction technologies and
would invest in LNG vessels and
regasification terminals, including
Floating Storage and Regasification
Units. Gasol, whose shares are listed on
London’s Alternative Investment
Market, said the all-share transaction to
acquire African LNG would involve the
issuing of 623 million Gasol shares, or
p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:29 Page 5

NEWS

about 75 percent of the enlarged the new LNG division of the merged IMPORTS of LNG by Asian countries tonnes, a rise of 12.5 million tonnes. In
company's share capital. The deal GdF-Suez, said: “The Triton project and North America soared in 2007 but 2007, LNG demand in the Asia Pacific
constitutes a reverse takeover. Theo serves a double purpose: allowing Gaz de Europe’s LNG imports dropped, reached just over 112 million tonnes, a
Oerlemans, the current chairman of France to be a player in LNG according to the latest statistics from rise of almost 10 percent. Japan was the
African LNG, will join the Gasol board as development and to reinforce its presence Paris-based Cedigaz. LNG pursued its biggest importer with 66.8 million
non-executive chairman. “Completion of in Italy, where we have ambitions for a “sustained and buoyant expansion tonnes and South Korea second highest
this significant transaction will position long-term presence, contributing to the worldwide” with global LNG trade rising with 25.6 million tonnes. In Europe,
Gasol to become the premier energy supply of the country.” by 7.3 percent to about 172 million Spain was the largest importer with
independent LNG player in the Gulf of
Guinea,” said Gasol Chief Executive
Soumo Bose. “It will further strengthen 5 , 4 ) - ! 4 % ¬ + . / 7 , % $ ' % ¬  ¬ , % ! $ ) . ' ¬ 3 / , 5 4 ) / . 3
Gasol’s Board and management team
and its relationships in the region, and
bring to Gasol a number of LNG business
development opportunities in the Gulf of
Guinea.” Bose added. Gasol was founded
in 2005 and has the mission of becoming
an integrated LNG company in West and

3)4%¬3!&%49
Central Africa through acquisitions,
investments and alliances.

GAZ DE FRANCE and Hoegh LNG

of Norway said they agreed to set up a
floating LNG import facility offshore the
342!4)&)#!4)/.¬-!.!'%-%.4¬!.$
Adriatic coast of Italy. The floating
storage and regasification unit will be
2/,, /6%2¬02%6%.4)/.
owned by GdF and operated by Hoegh.
GdF is currently completing its merger
4O¬%3$
process with Franco-Belgian peer Suez
that will give the enlarged companies a
powerful position in the Atlantic Basin in
terms of trading, LNG offtake and
regasification capacity in Europe and the
US. However, the Italian facility will fill a 3IGNAL
CONVERTER
gap for the pair in Italy. The facility is the
third offshore import terminal planned
for the Italian coast. One of them, also
offshore the Adriatic, is owned by
4O¬$#3
ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum. Hoegh
operates five LNG carriers and has two
shuttle and regasification vessels (SRVs)
on order. Hoegh is also developing two
offshore terminals based on the SRV
technology in Florida and the UK. GdF
and Hoegh said their Adriatic LNG
project would be called Triton LNG and
located 30 kilometres offshore. The LNG 2EDUNDANT¬0#¬BASED
storage capacity of the FSRU would be CONTROL¬PLATFORMS
about 170,000 cubic metres and the
baseload regasification capacity 5 billion 4O¬REGAS¬PLANT
cubic metres. “The technologies involved
in the FSRU-vessel and in the ship-to-
ship LNG transfer will be selected to
gather the safest and most cost efficient ,.'¬3AMPLING¬3YSTEM
and environment-friendly solutions,” the
companies said. “The studies related to
the permitting and development of the
Triton LNG project are already well
advanced. The final investment decision
7HESSOE¬0ROCESS¬#ONTROL¬4ECHNOLOGY¬
WWWWHESSOE PCTCOM
should be reached by the end of 2009, IS¬A¬QUALITY¬DIVISION¬OF¬7ËRTSILË
with first LNG deliveries before the end
of 2012,” they said. GdF Chief Operating 4/4!,¬,.'¬4!.+¬).3425-%.4!4)/.¬3/,54)/.3
Officer Jean-Marie Dauger, who will run

LNG journal • June 2008 • 19

p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:29 Page 6
NEWS
18.9 million tonnes, almost twice as
much as France’s 9.7 million tonnes.
Overall, Europe imported 41 million
tonnes, about 4 tonnes less than the
previous year. The US posted a 32
percent rise in imports in 2007 to 16.2
million and Mexico imported 2 million
tonnes. The year 2007 was marked by
the start-up of two new liquefaction
plants in Norway and Equatorial
Guinea, opening new LNG routes,
Cedigaz said. However, due to technical
problems and shut down periods, these
plants could only produce limited
quantities of LNG last year, the Cedigaz
survey said. LNG's share of global
natural gas trading rose to 25 percent in
2007 from 23.7 percent the previous
year, Cedigaz added. The natural gas
industry data compiler and seller said
that overall international gas trade
including pipeline supplies increased 2
percent to 905 billion cubic metres last
year, making up 31 percent of the
world's marketed production. According
to the Cedigaz figures, global natural
gas trade by pipeline grew a modest 0.4
percent to 679 Bcm in 2007. Larger
intra-regional trade in North America,
Asia and the Middle East offset the drop
Diary of events
September
2nd Annual LNG Tech Global Summit
2007
Rotterdam, Netherlands
10th - 12th September 2007
www.lngsummit.com
2nd Asia LNG Summit 2007
Beijing, China
20-21 September 2007
www.LNG-summit.com
The 7th Annual Italian Energy Summit
Milan, Italy
26th - 28th September 2007
wing.yan.lee@informa.com
China Power Markets & Project
Conference 2007
Beijing, China
27-28 September 2007
www.inc-global.com
October
The 2nd Annual Global LNG
Infrastructure Summit
NH Mexico City, Mexico
4-5 October 2007
www.cityandfinancial.com/lng2
Autumn Launch, The Energy Institute
16 October 2007
London, UK
20 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal
in Russian and Algerian exports to the
European continent and pipeline flows
in Latin America due to Argentina's
exports cuts. Therefore, LNG trade
accounted for the bulk of the growing
global trade. LNG supplies represented
7.7 percent of worldwide gas supply in
2007, compared to 7.3 percent the
previous year.
LNG IMPEL of Canada announced
development plans for a venture called
Southern Cross LNG, which would be an
open-access liquefaction plant for coal-
seam gas producers in the Australian
state of Queensland. The project is the
third announced for the same area
around the Port of Gladstone to produce
LNG from Australian coal-seam gas. Of
the other two projects, one involves
Australian oil and gas company Santos
and a second involves BG Group of the
UK, an experienced LNG player. LNG
Impel, a subsidiary of Calgary-based
Galveston LNG, said its Southern Cross
venture would include liquefaction
processing, two 160,000 cubic metres
storage tanks and marine loading
capabilities. The facility would be built in
modules to allow for expansion, and the
2008 international LNG Projects and
Technology Week
27-31st of October 2008
Shanghai China
www.lngweek.org
Course: "Fundamentals of Baseload
LNG: Markets, Technology, Economics"
29 October - 2 November, 2007
Houston, USA
www.gastechnology.org/classroom.
November
20th World Energy Congress
Rome, Italy
11- 15 November 2007
www.rome2007.it.
Fair and Congress on Alternative,
Renewable, Clean and Co-generated
Energy
São Paulo – SP – Brazil
27-29 November 2007
www.latinevent.com.br
December
Eight Annual World LNG Summit
Rome, Italy
3- 5 December 2007
LNG/GTL Tech Asia Summit 2007
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
4-6 December 2007
www.safan.com/conferences/ phconf.htm
site has already been scoped for three
liquefaction Trains, Impel said in a
statement. Each individual Train would
have a capacity range of 700,000 tonnes
to 1.3 million tonnes per annum. The
Southern Cross Train 1 is scheduled for
operation in 2013, with a rolling
expansion program designed to fit supply
availability, the company said.
Southern Cross pipeline will be a 16-24-
inch open access gas transportation route
of about 400 kilometres, which will be
constructed to connect feed-gas to the
Southern Cross plant. “By providing an
open-access service, which to date has not
been available in Australia, Southern
Cross LNG will appeal to producers of
varying sizes,” the company said. Impel
believes that this model will also allow
junior producers access to
international gas markets and provide
them with the opportunity to realize an
international netback price for their gas
reserves,” Impel added. “For those
producers not wishing to be exposed to an
international pricing formula or netback
arrangement, Impel will purchase gas at
a market-based price on the pipeline
system or at the inlet to the facility,”` it
said. Southern Cross will also offer
processing services for those producers
wishing to market their own gas as LNG
if they have sufficient quantities to do so.
Impel said the Gladstone Ports Corp. had
allocated a site located on Curtis Island
to Impel for the Southern Cross LNG
project after a 12-month review by Impel
for a preferred site. The preliminary
feasibility analysis of the site was
undertaken by CDS Research, LNG
engineering specialists based
Vancouver, Canada. Impel said it had
also entered into a preliminary
agreement with CB&I Lummus for the
use of their liquefaction technology and
engineering services.
KUWAIT National Petroleum Co. said
it was in talks with Qatar Petroleum to
secure LNG for an import facility
expected to be set by Excelerate Energy
of the US using a regasification vessel.
KNPC said it signed an agreement last
month with Excelerate to qualify and
prepare the South Pier near the Mina Al
Ahmadi oil refinery so as to support LNG
import operations. Excelerate has yet to
make a statement, suggesting aspects of
the project have to be finalized. Despite
the Middle East being the hub of energy
production, Kuwait and several other oil
and gas producers are short of natural
gas for power generation during the peak
summer demand period and Kuwait
often suffers power blackouts. According
to KNPC, a $150 million contract was
signed last month by KNPC Deputy
Chairman Asaad Al-Saad and Edward
Scott, Excelerate’s Vice President for
Development. KNPC said the country
plans to begin LNG imports in about a
A year. Dubai in the United Arab Emirates
is also planning an LNG import facility
using a berthed regasification vessel. The
talks with the Qataris could lead to a
solution whereby Kuwait would receive
seasonal imports of spot cargoes to fill its
power station shortfalls of natural gas.
The project is scheduled to be complete
by April 2009, KNPC said. Kuwait is the
second Gulf state to move forward on an
LNG import programme, The Dubai
the authorities in April signed an LNG
supply agreement for around 15 years
with Qatargas and Royal Dutch Shell to
receive supplies in the United Arab
Emirates. Dubai is planning a floating
regasification and storage unit charter
from Golar LNG for $450M. The LNG
will be supplied from 2010 to an FSRU, a
converted LNG carrier, the Dubai
emirate is planning to site at Jebel
Ali port.
ORIGIN Energy of Australia rejected a
revised US$13 billion takeover bid from
LNG player BG Group, saying another
deal between Petronas and Santos had
boosted the value of coal-seam methane
assets as feed gas for LNG. Origin,
Australia's largest coal-seam gas
producer, also more than doubled the
value of its coal-seam gas reserves to over
in US$15Bln as it seeks a higher offer from
the UK-based company. Another
transaction announced on May 29 under
which Malaysia’s Petronas agreed to pay
Australia’s Santos $2.5Bln for a 40
percent stake in the Gladstone LNG
project that will use coal-seam gas
influenced origin’s decision, the company
said. “The Santos announcement
establishes a new and higher benchmark
for the value of CSG and, along with the
proposed BG LNG project, demonstrates
confidence in the use of CSG for LNG
production,” Origin said in its statement
rejecting BG’s offer. “It is particularly
relevant to the valuation of Origin’s CSG
interests, which includes acreage covered
by and adjacent to the acreage being
acquired by Petronas,” Origin said. Origin
added that it had also increased its
certified reserves since the original BG
offer. “Origin commissioned Netherland,
Sewell & Associates Inc. to review and
p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:30 Page 7

NEWS

certify its reserves and resources in its professionals come to learn about Chairman. “Technology will be crucial to resources in harsher and more extreme
CSG tenements. This report shows, as at innovative approaches to overcoming delivering affordable and sustainable conditions,” Vardeman added. The LNG
15 May 2008, significant expansion in the technical challenges as we drill in deeper energy for the future. OTC offers the presentations at the conference included
CSG resource base available to Origin,” waters,” said Don Vardeman, OTC chance to share knowledge about getting US prospects of boosting volumes for its
the company added. Origin
received its first unsolicited
bid from BG on April 29
when the UK company
offered A$14.70 per share.
The Australian company CO2
MDO
said in its statement Green benefits
HFO
rejecting BG’s approach
that since the original offer,
the bid from BG had been
Meets future emission
increased to A$15.50 per Fuel Flexibility
requirements

share, but that was still not

enough. “The board of Gas
Economical
Origin has given careful
consideration to all of the
relevant information
available to it, particularly
the substantial increase in
the company’s CSG
resource base and the
demonstrably higher value
now placed on CSG
resources,” said Origin
Chairman Kevin McCann.
“The board has decided that
the revised proposal does
not adequately reflect the
greater value that will be
available to shareholders by
not accepting this proposal,”
McCann added.

OTC, the Offshore

Technology Conference in
Houston, concluded after
four days with more than
75,000 paying energy
industry professionals
attending to hear around
300 technical presentations,
and with a bigger focus on
US LNG and offshore LNG
technology. The organizers
said attendance was up 11
percent on last year to
reach a 26-year high at the
Reliant Park venue in the
Texan city, which is the 51/ 60DF – Green profits
capital of the US energy
industry and where all the You can operate the 51/ 60DF with whichever fuel best meets your economic requirements.
main international Combine the world´s most powerful four-stroke dual-fuel engine with a sound propulsion concept
companies have offices. The and see your LNG business reap the benefits – safely and ecologically.
exhibition area included Find out more at www.mandiesel.com
2,500 companies from 35
countries, with stands
covering an area equivalent
to 13 American football
fields. “OTC is
MAN Diesel – Powering the World
where offshore energy

Typ 02 - 5160DF.indd 1 LNG journal • June2008-05-14 • 21

2008 11:14:40
p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:37 Page 8

NEWS

growing import terminal network, on offshore liquefaction platforms and PROJECT TENDER changes could procurement and construction
LNG facility expansions, LNG transfer equipment. Next year’s event takes break the logjam in the industry that companies in the past five years. The
technology for offshore liquefaction place at the same venue starting on has seen contract backlogs double call came from a senior executive at the
plants and terminals, and innovations May 5, 2009. among the top 10 engineering, annual Offshore Technology Conference
in Houston, Texas, after a
series of LNG liquefaction
project and cost overruns
caused by shortages of
skilled personnel and

FOR US IT’S NATURAL materials. Recent

LNG projects have suffered
large

serious cost overruns as

the prices of key
commodities such as
stainless steel have tripled
over the last three years
and the costs of equipment
such as compressors have
almost doubled. “The
strategy of competitive bids

PROTECTING LIFE THROUGH OUR at each stage of a project in

today’s environment can
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – result in qualified bidders

IT’S IN OUR NATURE. declining to participate,

risk premiums being added
to pricing and uncertain
access to qualified project
teams,” said Tom Phalen,
Vice President at US EPC
company Fluor Corp. “By
committing early in the
project development to an
EPC contractor, and by
working with them to
develop a viable strategy,
an LNG facility owner can
tie up valuable resources
for the project and lower
risk,” Phalen added. “The
schedule and risk benefits
of this approach can
typically outweigh any cost
advantage relative to a
traditional competitive bid
approach,” he said. In
addition, an LNG facility
owner can broaden its
access to key resources by
using teams of contractors
on its projects for work
other than the liquefaction.
The liquefaction portion of
any LNG facility project
typically represents 34
percent to 38 percent of the
total project, so the
developer can use a skilled
www.lr.org/marine liquefaction portion
contractor and teams from
various other contractors
for the rest of the work,
Coral reef in the Red Sea, Indian Ocean – a rich and diverse ecosystem, with many species found nowhere else.
Phalen said. Most of the
Services are provided by members of the Lloyd’s Register Group. Lloyd’s Register is an exempt charity under the UK Charities Act 1993.
recent LNG liquefaction

22 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:32 Page 9

NEWS

projects have been executed by LNG
industry leaders Bechtel of the US, the
joint venture partners Chiyoda of Japan
and Technip of France, and the joint
venture team of KBR and
JGC Corp. of Japan.
The total value of the agreement is statement added. “This proposed Chief Operating Officer for Shell
expected to be up to US$0.7 billion. alliance between Shell and Arrow would Development (Australia) Pty Ltd. “Shell
Completion of a definitive agreement is combine the complementary strengths of has global gas marketing and financial
anticipated in the near term,” the our two companies,” said Chris Gunner, strengths coupled with leading research

SHELL has announced a

deal to enter the coal-seam
LNG business after it
signed an agreement with
Arrow Energy of Australia
to jointly develop projects
Eisenbau-Krämer
in Australia, China, A world market leader in large diameter
Indonesia, Vietnam and
steel pipe production.
India. The alliance with Founded in 1921, the quality and reliability of EBK’s longitudinally
Arrow will boost Shell's submerged arc welded steel pipes has enabled the company to become
a truly global supplier to the oil, gas and power industries, to the offshore
existing strategic positions
and onshore construction sectors as well as machinery equipment pipes.
in potential coal seam gas
areas, the companies said. Operating from three production bases in Germany, with a combined
yearly capacity of 100,000 tonnes, EBK’s range of carbon and alloy
Arrow has significant CSG
pipes meet and surpass the most stringent national and international
production facilities in quality standards.
Queensland, Australia,
Additionally, EBK’s commitment to research and development has resulted
where it is the largest CSG
in the availability of revolutionary new products:
acreage holder. It has four
producing projects in EBK Cryo – Ultra Low Temperature Pipes suitable for cryogenic applications (LNG)
Queensland, and supplies EBK Clad – Ultra Corrosion Resistant Pipes suitable for extreme wet sour gas applications.
gas for industrial users EBK Power – Ultra Heat Resistant Pipes suitable for high temperature power generation
applications.
such as power stations.
The memorandum of
Leading edge welding techniques and production know how, combined
understanding calls for with the most modern production equipment in the world enable EBK
Shell to acquire a 30 pipes to meet the highest quality requirements.
percent interest in Arrow's
For state of the art technology in pipe
CSG acreage in
production, there is only one choice – EBK
Queensland, as well as a 10
percent stake in Arrow
International - a wholly
X80 NACE / X140
owned subsidiary of Arrow
Energy Ltd, which holds
Arrow's international
interests in CSG. The
agreement also gives Shell
a five-year option to
acquire up to 50 percent
of individual Arrow
International projects,
which includes activities in
China, Shell said in a
statement. Under the deal
Shell would also acquire -196° C
the right to negotiate an
agreement to purchase any
LNG that may potentially
be produced from the CSG
operations. “Shell and
Eisenbau Krämer mbH Sales linepipes Technical dept.
Arrow have also agreed to Karl-Krämer-Str. 12 Mr. Winchenbach Dr. Reichel
undertake further research D-57223 Kreuztal Phone: +49 (0) 2732 588-115 Phone: +49 (0) 2732 588-114
PO BOX 40 20 E-Mail: f.winchenbach@ebkpipe.com E-Mail: t.reichel@ebkpipe.com
and development in this D-57263 Hilchenbach
important and growing Phone: +49 (0) 2732 588-0
Fax: +49 (0) 2732 588-102
area of gas supply,” Shell Web: www.ebkpipe.com
said. “Shell will also assign
at least five personnel to
work at Arrow's operations.

LNG journal • June 2008 • 23

p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:32 Page 10
NEWS
capabilities. Arrow has proven CSG
expertise, and extensive Australian and
international CSG acreage positions.
"We look forward to working with Arrow
and creating an alliance that should
become a significant force in the
development of CSG resources,”
Gunner said.
SHELL ship management signed an
agreement in Washington on April 30
with the American Maritime Officers
Union for AMO deck and engine officers
to be recruited for Shell-managed LNG
carriers. The signing of the
memorandum of understanding will take
place at the US Department of
Transportation, with Richard Mellor,
General Manager for Shell Ship
Management, signing on behalf of Shell
and Tom Bethel, National President of
the AMO, signing for the US side. Shell
announced in February that the
recruitment process had already begun
as the company said it was pleased to
link up with “an exceptional skill pool,
particularly for LNG vessels.” The
growing demand for LNG has led to
many import projects being put forward,
including Shell’s US venture,
Broadwater LNG, a $700 million offshore
project to be developed by Shell and
TransCanada Corp. in Long Island
Sound, off New York State. The focus of
local opposition to such operations has
been security. Other LNG companies
with US import and marketing
businesses, such as Suez North America,
have announced plans to increase the
number of US nationals crewing carriers
calling at US ports to help alleviate the
concerns of citizens and ease pressures
on the planning process. Shell currently
employs more than 500 marine officers
with LNG experience around the world,
and is looking to further expand the
presence of US mariners as it takes
delivery of new ships in the next two
years. Shell has LNG carrier operations
delivering from nations such as Qatar,
Brunei, Malaysia, Nigeria and Australia
and helps train officers from those
countries.
US buyers will face a widening gap in
the next few years between natural gas
supply and demand, and LNG will have
to fill a large portion of this demand at
very high prices, the annual Offshore
Technology Conference in Houston was
told. Addressing an LNG session at the
OTC, McKinsey & Co consultant Mike
Juden said that projections suggested
24 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal
that by 2015 the US natural gas
shortfall would amount to 22 billion
cubic feet per day. In 2007, US natural
gas demand was 73 billion cubic feet per
day and supply was 70 Bcf/d. By 2015
demand is expected to reach 92 Bcf/d
and supply will still be around the 70
Bcf/d level. One billion cubic feet per day
of natural gas is equivalent to 7 million
tonnes per annum of LNG. “LNG has got
to fill a significant portion of this gap in
the US and Canada,” said Juden. “We
shall have a huge problem” unless the
natural gas gap can be filled. The
McKinsey executive said that LNG was
one of the main hopes for the energy
market as expansion of the nuclear
power infrastructure in the US “was still
10 years out.” He said that according to
all the facts, alternative energy such as
wind-power would never provide enough
energy to reduce the country’s reliance
on natural gas and LNG. With global
LNG production in 2007 of less than 200
million tonnes per annum and
worldwide regasification capacity at
more than 400 million tonnes, there was
a clear deficiency in supply. According to
Juden, the US would have to pay
premium prices for LNG to match the
highest feed fuel prices for power plants,
such as distillate, which would mean
paying equivalent prices of up to $17 per
million British thermal units. That
compares with current US natural gas
prices of around $10 to $11 per MMBtu.
These prices are equivalent to those paid
by Japanese buyers for spot cargoes over
the past six months. At the same time,
buyers for the US market would be
unable to compete even with European
buyers for most of the year unless given
the advantage of a mild European
winter season, delegates were told. With
the US now even longer on
regasification capacity after the opening
of two new terminals at Sabine Pass,
Louisiana, and Freeport, Texas, the US
gas business is expected to find life
difficult in the LNG world in the years
ahead. Countries such as Russia, Qatar
and Nigeria have the potential to boost
global LNG supplies. However, the
conference heard that Russia’s LNG
development future was far from
certain, Qatar was likely to have a
moratorium on new projects post-2010
and Nigeria was expected to continue to
be afflicted by political unrest. Other
leading producers such as Indonesia and
Malaysia would be unlikely to provide a
solution because of depleting or
stagnating natural gas supplies and
under investment. “It will be difficult to
attract LNG to North America, period,”
said Juden. “We shall have a huge
problem in the short to medium term.”
He said McKinsey wasn't making a
forecast, just relating the facts as they
are now.
WOODSIDE Petroleum said new
LNG projects it’s working on contain
gross proved and probable reserves and
contingent resources of about 50 trillion
cubic feet of dry gas. Speaking at the
company’s annual meeting in the
Western Australian city of Perth,
Woodside Chairman Michael Chaney
said because of the available long-term
volumes customers in Asia will be willing
to pay “prices for LNG which are close to
oil price equivalent”.“In the North West
Shelf Venture we have a large, sound and
profitable legacy asset,” said Chaney.
“Our Pluto LNG Project will begin
deliveries in just 32 months and we are
aiming to begin construction of another
two developments - Browse and Sunrise
- within the next few years.” However,
Woodside Chief Executive Don Voelte
told shareholders the company’s
exploration record was not as he had
hoped, though it was still well prepared
for the future. “I make no secret of the
fact we would have liked to have found
more hydrocarbons in 2007,” said Voelte.
“The disappointment with our
exploration success last year remains
tempered, however, by the knowledge
that our proved plus probable reserves to
production ratio remains extremely high
at 25 years, and more than 60 years
when contingent resources are included.”
Woodside was aiming between now and
the end of 2010 for final investment
decisions for an expansion of Pluto LNG,
and the development of the Browse and
Sunrise LNG projects. At the end of 2010
Australia will have seven LNG Trains in
operation, six of them operated by
Woodside and the other at Darwin LNG
by ConocoPhillips. When Woodside
announced in August 2005 that we
intended to build an LNG project based
on our Pluto discovery, made just four
months earlier, many in the industry
questioned whether we could or would do
that,” said Voelte. Less than three years
later, Voelte said the modules for the first
LNG Train at Pluto were under
construction in Thailand, the platform
was being assembled in China, the
topsides were being put together in
Malaysia, and at the plant site at
Karratha the walls of the LNG storage
tanks were going up. “We have set our
goals high in relation to the Browse and
Sunrise developments, and an expansion
at Pluto,” said Voelte.
WOODSIDE conducted site visits last
month for investors and energy
executives to its North West Shelf LNG
operation and its Pluto LNG project in
Northwest Australia and said
engineering plans for a Train 2 for Pluto
would be completed this year. The
investors were also shown that Train V
of the NWS LNG expansion was almost
complete and would come on stream as
scheduled in the fourth quarter of 2008.
The fifth train at the NWS complex at
Karratha would boost LNG production
to 16.3 million tonnes per annum. The
Train’s final cost was put at A$2.6
billion (US$2.4Bln). In addition to the
new Train, work was completed on a
second LNG loading jetty for NWS,
additional fractionation, power
generation, fuel gas and boil-off gas
facilities and offshore feed-gas projects
were being worked on. On the A$12Bln
(US$11.2Bln) Pluto LNG project,
Woodside told investors that
engineering plans for a Train 2 would be
completed by the end of 2008. However,
the Pluto LNG Train 2 final investment
decision “requires new gas either from
Woodside discoveries or other resource
owners.” Woodside said Pluto was still on
track to be the fastest LNG project in
the world from discovery in 2005 to first
gas in late 2010. Pluto’s onshore Burrup
LNG complex would establish a
foundation for future growth with at
least three Trains planned long-term for
the site. Meanwhile, another planned
Woodside project, Sunrise LNG, will be
on the agenda when Australian
Resources Minister Martin Ferguson
visits East Timor this week. The Sunrise
LNG project could become the first
major offshore LNG venture using Royal
Dutch Shell’s FLNG technology that is
currently under development. Shell is
one of the Sunrise shareholders. East
Timor has already received about
A$1.5Bln in royalties from another
Australian-based LNG project, Darwin
LNG run by ConocoPhillips that takes
gas from Bayu Undan in the Timor Sea.
An LNG project based on Shell FLNG
technology would remove potential
political delays in the Sunrise venture
as there would be no need for an onshore
LNG plant in East Timor nor in
Australia. It would also substantially
reduce costs.

p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:42 Page 11
Offshore LNG develops too for new
regasification technology
Hans Kristian Danielsen and Goran Andreassen
There have been big developments in
offshore receiving terminal design, where
many companies are hoping new
technology can ameliorate the actual or
perceived risks of a land-based location
without introducing too many new
dangers and challenges.
Until Excelerate Energy’s Floating
Storage and Re-gasification Unit (FRSU)
opened in the Gulf of Mexico, all LNG
import terminals were land-based.
Now an FRSU has begun operations off
the Northeast coast of the US and others
are under construction in offshore
Tuscany in Italy (using a refitted LNG
carrier), Southern California (using a new,
dedicated vessel), as well as at Pecem and
Guanabara Bay offshore Brazil.
Others are planned around the world
and a limited number of key parameters
are decisive for concept selection in terms
of offshore versus onshore.
With the exception of Brazil, the main
motivation for the offshore developments
currently under construction has been
concern about safety and security.
This is in a way demonstrated by the
fact that the first offshore developments
are taking place in US and Italy where
the opposition has been particularly
focused on public safety.
Common factor
Although the concern is slightly different
in the two countries, a massive public
opposition against onshore developments
is a common factor.
For the Brazil developments the
motivation for offshore solutions has
flavours from several parameters such as
sufficient distances to third parties,
limited site development cost and
existing gas grid in the proximity.
However, the short lead time for the
project development compared to an
onshore development has been decisive.
The short lead time is possible by
converting existing LNG Carriers to
floating re-gas facilities.
The main drivers for the offshore
developments with granted Final
Investment Decision (FID) is safety and
security for the Italian project and time
to market for the Brazilian projects.
For projects the offshore project
portfolio (with and without FID), there
are a few additional key parameters that
have been decisive for investing. In the
following these important parameters
and their interaction are discussed.
Safety
Because LNG is poorly understood by the
general public, the industry has faced the
constant risk that public perception will
be based on fears and falsehoods. This
environment allows professional
opposition groups to present catastrophic
scenarios as if they were equally credible
with official studies.
The consequence-based permitting
process in the US unfortunately lends
credence to these fears, because it focuses
on the worst case rather than providing
the public with the full range of scenarios.
The suitability for offshore
development to address of safety and
security in the US was recently
reconfirmed by the aggressive marketing
of the Blue Ocean terminal outside New
Jersey, following massive opposition
against the Broadwater project.
Net present value
While the discussion related to offshore
terminal versus onshore commonly focus
on around the cost side of the
development, the FID needs to be based
on actual return on the investment,
commonly termed “Net Present Value”
(NPV) of the investment.
Simplified the “net present value”
indicate what is todays value of the
investment, and is a function of CAPEX,
OPEX, revenues and the minimum
required return on the investment used
as the discount factor.
Most LNG projects has long time from
initiation of project costs to positive cash-
flow. In addition, high financial risks
attributed to the projects requires
relatively high discount factors. Positive
cash-flows years into the future has little
positive impact on NPV. FID for LNG
terminals are hence sensitive to CAPEX,
OPEX, Revenues (through-put),
execution risks and last but not least,
time to positive cash generation.
Capex
Traditionally, CAPEX for onshore
development has been perceived as
REGASIFICATION
higher than for offshore developments.
Currently it is challenging to directly
compare the development cost
between projects, as the industry
has been exposed to a cost
The operating cost
increase in the range of 80% for a import terminal is
over the latest three years.
Further, CAPEX is a
influenced by [mainly]
function of the terminal re- energy consumption for
gasification and storage
capacity as well as well as
re-gasification,
cost related to site specific maintenance activities
construction needs.
There are some recent and labour cost.
examples that the CAPEX is not
necessarily higher for an offshore
development. The GATE terminal (9
BCM) in Rotterdam has announced a as seawater assisted vaporisers are
budget of 800 million euros, while the available for both offshore and onshore
Blue Ocean project (12 BCM) outside developments.
New Jersey has indicated a development The potential for utilizing seawater is
cost of $1Bln. more linked to the local sea temperature
When comparing these figures one and potential environmental restriction
needs to bear in mind that the Blue on release of cool water, than the concept
Ocean project is at much earlier selection.
development stage. From experience, On the maintenance side it is assessed
without any project specific knowledge or that the volume in terms of maintenance
reference, the probability for a cost hours for the terminal will be higher for
increase is higher for less developed an offshore terminal. However, it is not
projects. assessed to be essentially different for an
Research carried out by DNV indicate onshore terminal.
that the CAPEX for an offshore An FSRU that holds maritime
development could be in the range of 10– certificates will need a renewal survey
40%, relative to an onshore development with dry docking every fifth year. The
of similar capacities. One important FSRU can not receive or deliver LNG in
parameter for the CAPEX is the required such periods and will also require time
pipeline distances, both cryogenic and for cool down procedures to prepared the
natural gas pipeline. facility for a new 5 year period of
Required pipeline distance may alter operation.
the project CAPEX, in terms of offshore Certiifcation through an offshore
versus onshore. In relation to cryogenic regime would increase CAPEX but make
pipeline lengths, the environmental it possible to replace the renewal survey
properties of available areas and the jetty with a continuous survey program
landfall are decisive, while the length of avoiding business interruption. This
the natural gas pipeline is a function of decision can differentiate NPV figures
the distance to the existing gas grid. significantly.
The labour cost is again more linked to
Operating cost the local labour marked than the concept
The operating cost for a import terminal selection, although there could be some
is influenced by a number factors, the implications by the need for a maritime
main one being energy consumption for crew on and FSRU.
re-gasification, maintenance activities From the above discussion it is
and labour cost. concluded that although optimisation is
The energy cost is mainly affected by very important parameter in concept
the type of vaporisers that are selected. selection, it has not been decisive for the
Vaporisers based on gas burners, as well onshore versus offshore decision
LNG journal • June 2008 • 25
p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:42 Page 12
REGASIFICATION
Throughput
In any LNG supply chain there are a
variety of cooperating and competing
stakeholders.
The complexity of the supply chains
will increase when different gas
importers are using the same terminals.
In this picture an evolving and
increasingly interesting LNG spot
market are bringing risks and
opportunities to the various stakeholders.
On the positive side it will be a more
flexible market with increased
possibilities for catching up delays.
The flipside is less predictable carrier
arrival frequencies at import terminals.
The industry is in a way still young and
limited causing many players in the LNG
industry to take high risk investment
positions without a thorough under-
standing of the risks and opportunities.
There are examples of terminal
operators overselling capacity and import
companies committing to downstream
sales agreements that with higher
probability of failure than success.
To build the necessary decision basis
for investments in the LNG supply chain,
simulation models are extremely
valuable. Advanced simulation software
can be used to forecast the performance
of complex supply chains and user
agreements.
When assessing yearly “gas through
put” and the terminals quality in terms
of availability, the key parameters are
significantly affected by the terminal
concept selection. In the two next sub-
sections, “through put” related key
parameters influencing the selection of
an offshore or onshore LNG import
terminal are discussed.
Onshore
For onshore developments the terminal
capacity is commonly defined by the
storage and re-gasification capacity.
However, the actual capacity is often
restricted by operational constraints such
as restricted berth availability due
arrival slots. Such slots are governed by
traffic restrictions, tidal restrictions.
For multi-user terminals, lack of
berthing rights at the desired time of
arrival may become an issue. For these
shared terminals, storage capacity has
also proven a potential restriction on
utilizing the maximum theoretical
capacity of the terminal.
For offshore terminals the sea state
and the terminals ability to receive
cargos at given wave heights may be the
greatest challenge.
26 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal
It is interesting to notice that most
discussions are focused on the wave
heights, while the parameter with most
impact on side by side unloading
operations is the wave period.
Depending on design, a mooring
arrangement may experience excessive
loads in low sea states if the wave period
is co-inciding with the roll period of the
LNG carrier.
Storage capacity is a design issue with
no particular limit. Extensive
engineering and design has been carried
out for gravity based offshore storage
tanks.
Purpose built floaters can also be
tailor made relative to optimum storage
capacity. Use of exisiting tonnage can
however represent a storage constraint.
Offshore terminals that are currently
under construction, based on FSRU`s
built on speculation, are generally to
small for full realisation of the terminals
commercial potential in terms of spot
cargo trading.
Fast-track
As mentioned in the beginning of this
section, the fast track potential for
FSRU`s that where available in the
market was the most important
parameter for the two floating terminals
currently under development in Brazil.
A short period from investment to
revenues is a huge NPV advantage but
there are energy political aspects to such
decisions as well.
The evolving economy in Brazil is
fuelled by access to energy and the
prospect of gas shortage is urging quick
solutions.
Currently, the typical critical path for
an onshore re-gasification terminal is
about 40 months of construction prior to
approval. Add to that a typical permitting
process of two years, and we are currently
discussing facilities coming online in
2013.
This stands in vast contrasts to the
Brazilian developments scheduled to
come online in May 2008 following
contract award to Golar LNG in the early
spring of 2007.
This very limited time for construction
was possible from the fact that two
in use of new technology has been a key
factor to such slow developments.
This is understandable as the
reliability of the supply chain is essential
in the LNG industry and the commercial
exposure for supply interruptions has
significantly higher consequences than
for e.g. crude oil trading, where
existing vessels where available of which alternative sources of supply exists.
one already was under conversion to a In principle, unproven technology
FSRU. represents an increased project
Currently there is a number of older development cost, as unproven
LNG carriers approaching the end of technology represent an increased risk.
their operational service life, while their The challenge is to quantify this cost and
owners are looking for alternative use. as important reduce this risk.
With a delivery time for vaporisers of
1-2 years, and the opportunity to start a Riskex
speculative conversion prior to obtaining The statistical cost related to unplanned
development permits for a specific site, repairs, maintenance and reduced or lost
the lead time may prove one of the best regasification capacity can be termed as
arguments for developing a floating re- RISKEX. Project investment decisions
gasification terminal although this needs are typically based on Capital
to be weighted against the fact that most Expenditures (CAPEX) and Operational
vessels available for conversion has Expenditures (OPEX), with little
smaller storage capacity than desirable consideration for the risk exposure.
for most potential developments. By introducing a third component to
The alternative to conversion is of the economic “balance”, namely risk
course a new building. A new build FSRU expenditures (RISKEX), it is possible to
enables optimization of capacities and take a balanced, mature appraisal of the
features, and there are several potential uncertainties and risks involved that
terminal developers that have reserved may have detrimental consequences on
building slots at the biggest and most initial, intermediate and long-term
competent yards. However, the minimum revenue streams.
lead time would increase to 3-4 years. By implementing risk management
plans and applying risk and reliability
Regas facilities techniques to re-gasification projects,
From the discussion in the previous risks can be identified and managed. You
sections, it is obvious that there are may chose to keep or even increase the
commercial opportunities in offshore RISKEX if there are associated rewards
developments of re-gasification attributed to the extra RISKEX. You may
terminals. also choose to reduce the RISKEX as the
However the realisation of projects statistical cost of risk outweighs the
has been slower than many expected a reward. An important side of a risk
few years back. The reluctance to go first management process is that decisions
Figure 2- Cost of Risk
p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:42 Page 13

REGASIFICATION

can be made with a better understanding parameters that affect the concept of parameters properly in the concept the marked through risk based
of the total risks and consequences. selection in terms of onshore versus development phase, by quantifying the qualification procedures, terminal
Because operators are reluctant to use offshore. cost of risk, assessing terminals actual developers are likely to improve the
unproved technology, a structured By addressing these limited number availability, and bring new technology to return on their investment.

technology qualification
process can provide cost
savings and assurances
T H E 2 3 R D A N N U A L E U R O P E A N A U T U M N G A S C O N F E R E N C E
regarding functionality and
reliability. Technology
qualification can play a
decisive role in the
development of offshore
LNG concepts.
The objective of
technology qualification is
to bring the technology to
the market by building
confidence. This will be
achieved by documenting
that the concept meets
specific reliability targets.
25-26 November 2008 • Spazio Villa Erba • Lake Como • Italy
Technology qualification
is the process of proving the
technology will function
reliably within specific
limits. It is important to
follow a rational, systematic
and well-documented
approach to creating
confidence in novel
solutions. This should focus
on high-risk issues and on
reducing the risk of
unforeseen events.
The qualification can
be conducted in parallel
with the technology-
development project.
Through co-operation
between the technology
stakeholders, the
qualification work process
ensures all aspects of
the novel technology
are adequately addressed
and that the technology
is proved to comply

Bookings now being taken

with stated functional
requirements and
reliability targets.
In this respect, known
technology in a new E A R LY BIRD DEADLINE – 31 J U LY 2008
application is also included.
An additional benefit of a HOSTED BY
systematic approach is cost
ORGANISED BY
savings during the
development phase – as
much as 90% of the cost of a
technology development
project is related to tests.
Experiences so far,
www.theeagc.com/lngj
indicate that there are
THE LONGEST RUNNING ANNUAL GAS CONFERENCE IN EUROPE
only a few really important

LNG journal • June 2008 • 27

p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:42 Page 14
COLD CLIMATE
BP develops studied approach to
liquefaction in an Arctic climate
Martin Josten and John Kennedy
The Kenai LNG plant, at latitude 60oN
in Alaska, has been operating
successfully since 1969, but until recently
has been the only major baseload
liquefaction plant in a cold or even
temperate region.
Now the Snøhvit LNG plant has
recently begun operations at 71˚N in
Norway, and another plant, Sakhalin II
LNG, is very close to start-up at 47˚N in
Russia. What differentiates these plants
from those operating further South?
Firstly, the annual average
temperature is low. Typically, this may be
around 0 to 5˚C rather than the 20-25˚C
experienced in the tropics. And secondly,
the seasonal variations can be very wide,
with ambient air varying from -40˚C in
winter to +30˚C in summer rather than
say +5˚C to +45˚C further South. Day-to-
night temperature variations can be
large as well.
BP’s recent studies on cold region LNG
production were focused on selection of
the liquefaction process and rotating
equipment.
However, there were additional results
in the areas of design for lower ambient
temperatures and the balancing of low
pressure gas flows around the plant.
We also looked at the need for
winterisation in both the construction
and operational stages, but those
measures are not addressed in this
article.
Environment
Figure 1a shows ambient air
temperature variation thoughout the
year in one of the locations we studied.
Figure 1: Ambient air temperature
28 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal
Seasonal temperature variations tend to
be greater anyway as you go further from
the equator.
But in addition, as all LNG plants are
by definition in coastal locations, air
temperature variations are damped by
the presence of water.
In extreme Northern (and Southern)
latitudes, once the sea surface has frozen
over, this mitigating effect is removed
and winter temperatures become more
like those of mid-continent locations. As
we shall see, this poses special challenges
for process, coolant and machinery
selection.
As a further challenge to the plant
designers and project managers, freezing
temperatures, snowfall and high winds
reduce on-site productivity, complicate
the transport of personnel and
equipment and extend the construction
schedule, while snow and ice loadings can
have a significant impact on building and
structure designs.
Plant performance
As both air and seawater are colder in
winter, air/water cooler performance is
higher and more refrigerant can be
circulated, allowing more gas to be
liquefied, provided that the heat transfer
capacity of the main exchanger is not
exceeded.
This requires more compressor power,
but as gas turbine power is also greater
when the inlet air is colder, this should
not be a problem.
Figure 2 presents a typical seasonal
temperature profile (monthly averages as
used for plant design), and the
Figure 2: C3/MR5mtpa plant theoretical maximum production
corresponding variation in theoretical
maximum plant output: +/- 10 percent
from the mean. This is for an air-cooled
plant.
How can such theoretical figures be
achieved? Firstly, to cover the winter
production peak (when coolant
temperatures are lowest), the gas supply
network from wellhead to plant fence
must be sized for the maximum flow,
regardless of the fact that it will only be
fully utilised for a few days per year - and
then only for part of each day.
Then the whole LNG plant, including
gas treatment facilities, will also have to
be designed for peak flow, and enough
ships will have to be procured to take
away the extra production in midwinter,
just when shipping is at a premium and
sea passages are at their most
challenging with storms and ice-covered
waters.
Some of this extra shipping capacity
may well be idle or on charter at low
rates every summer. So the economics of
Figure 2: C3/MR5mtpa plant theoretical maximum production
following the theoretical production
profile, even if the choice of process and
cooling medium allows this, must be
examined in relation to all the
investments in the chain, not just the
liquefaction process.
Design temperature
In practice, the plant will not be designed
for the winter peak, or even for the
average temperature of the coldest
month.
As we shall see, more detailed process
modelling shows that the process itself
will set a limit or “cap” to peak
production. Then there are at least three
further steps.
Firstly, sensitivities to lower peak
rates have to be run, to identify the trade-
off between the cost of additional ships,
supply rates, etc. and imperfect
utilisation of all this extra equipment
throughout the year.
Secondly, ways of mitigating the
summer production “trough” have to be
p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:42 Page 15
devised. Thirdly, once the design point
has been selected, the selected system
has to be “rated” to predict
performance at both extremes
temperature, to establish the annual
output of LNG and the overall project
economics.
Figure 3 illustrates the effect on
annual throughput of setting different
“caps” on winter throughput for a given
plant.
Coolant selection
Broadly, we are looking at direct air
versus direct seawater cooling. Other
variants such as indirect seawater
cooling will fall in between, and may in
any case be needed for certain specific
sections of the plant for mechanical
reasons.
Air temperature will vary more widely
than water temperature, which is both
good and bad. It’s bad because the driving
temperature difference and hence the
heat transfer rate in the pre-cooling
refrigerant condensers will change.
This means the pre-cooling refrigerant
circulation will vary almost linearly with
ambient temperature, and the overall
refrigeration plant capacity will follow.
This means that there will be a large
“hole” in summer production, just when
spare shipping capacity is available.
Incidentally, this will also coincide with
weather conditions that are favourable
for plant turnarounds.
The mitigating factor is that some
advantage can potentially be taken of
sub-zero temperatures in winter.
Figure 1b shows some seawater
temperature data for different seasons
and water depths.
Note that depth-related temperature
data is not widely available, and this may
have to be obtained specially for the
chosen site by the project sponsor.
As large bodies of water are good heat
“sinks”, water temperature will tend to
vary less widely than the air above it,
particularly if the water can be obtained
from below about 10m depth.
However, water obviously cannot go
much below 0˚C, and therefore (counter-
intuitively, perhaps) the annual average
water temperature may be 2-3˚ higher
than for air. So although this will go some
way towards filling in the summer
production “trough”, the opportunity to
make up extra production in winter will
be limited.
Capital costs for seawater cooling tend
to be significantly higher than for air
cooling, and coupled with
environmental sensitivity connected with
extracting seawater, this points towards
its air cooling being generally the more
of likely choice, except where space is
severely limited.
As the Sakhalin LNG plant is air-
cooled and the Snøhvit plant (on a small
island) is water-cooled, it will
interesting to compare their performance
in practice.
Process selection
The most widely available LNG processes
are divided between those which are pre-
cooled with propane and those with a
mixed refrigerant.
In the case of propane pre-cooling, the
refrigerant is a single, pure component,
and therefore its evaporating
temperature is more or less fixed, given
the practical limit of avoiding a vacuum
at the compressor inlet.
Therefore, the temperature to which
the process gas can be pre-cooled before
entering the main liquefaction exchanger
is limited in practice to around -35˚C.
The alternative of ethane pre-cooling
has also been proposed, which could
provide chilling down to -60˚C or so.
However, the critical temperature of
ethane is about 32˚C.
So it could work with a coolant whose
temperature never rises above around
20˚C in summer, but this effectively rules
out the use of air cooling in the location
studied.
Within the pre-cooling cycle, if colder
air is available, the air coolers and
condensers can process more refrigerant,
but then the circulation rate will be
limited by the compressor rating and
driver power. So compressor/driver sizing
will determine throughput.
On the other hand, if the pre-cooling
medium is a mixture of refrigerants, then
the mixture can be adjusted within
certain limits to change the molecular
weight and hence the condensing
temperature of the mix.
Thus in winter the lower ambient air
can be used to condense a lighter
refrigerant at a lower temperature. But
what about the compressor?
As the refrigerant is condensing at
lower temperature, this can be performed
at a lower pressure, so that the
compressor can move out along its curve
and process a greater refrigerant flow at
lower compression ratio - all within a
given shaft power. So overall
refrigeration duty can be increased to
take advantage of the winter conditions.
the Figure 3 also illustrates the difference
be
Figure 4: Fuel gas balance
between propane and mixed refrigerant
pre-cooling in this respect. Increased
output requires investment in larger
piping sizes, larger treatment facilities
and so on (which have not been examined
in this article) and adjustment of the
mixed refrigerant composition to keep
performance and efficiency optimised is a
challenge for plant operations.
However, the extra cargoes of LNG
produced using mixed refrigerant pre-
cooling can have a significant impact on
plant economics.
Train size limits
The question that is often asked about
cold climate LNG plants is: “What about
large train sizes?” Intuitively, it seems
that with the opportunities for increased
process efficiency, more cargoes of LNG
can be delivered by a plant using
established equipment sizes.
Unfortunately, this is not
straightforward, because the limiting
piece of equipment is usually the main
cryogenic exchanger in the liquefaction
section.
If the liquefaction section of the plant
is cooling the process gas from say -35˚C
(with propane pre-cooling) to -160˚C
(ignoring end-flash effects), it is relatively
insensitive to ambient conditions.
It will be limited by its total “UA” (heat
transfer coefficient times surface area),
which is directly related to physical size
limits.
On the other hand, if the pre-cooling
cycle uses mixed refrigerant, this can be
used to pre-cool the gas to say -60˚C,
taking load away from the liquefaction
circuit and getting around that
bottleneck.
So very large Train sizes can be
envisaged without having to duplicate
the main exchanger or enlarge it beyond
proven limits.
COLD CLIMATE
Fuel gas balance
Having colder ambient temperatures
available presents another problem
which may be a surprise. As will be
explained in the next section, not only
will the refrigeration process operate
more efficiently in cold weather, but gas
turbine drivers also consume less fuel
under these conditions. Overall fuel
consumption will be less and this is not a
problem in itself.
However, the fuel balance of an LNG
plant is quite delicate. Under normal
circumstances, as shown in Figure 4, fuel
gas is derived from several sources: a)
boil-off gas from the tanks, which is
determined by nearly constant heat
inleak through the tank insulation, and
by the degree of sub-cool in the LNG
rundown stream; b) excess return vapour
from ship loading; c) treated gas from the
upstream part of the plant; and d) end-
flash gas.
Of these streams, a) and b) are fixed by
design parameters such as insulation
thickness and loading line lengths, and
also partly by operating issues such as
the arrival of a ship with a warm cargo
hold, so the plant operator doesn’t have
much if any control over them if flaring
is to be avoided.
Stream c) provides a supply of fuel gas
at start-up, but can be cut back in steady
operation. So that leaves end-flash gas.
If the overall fuel gas usage is low,
then the plant operating conditions must
be trimmed to reduce end-flash gas. Why
is that a disadvantage?
End-flashing is a way of achieving the
final few degrees of cooling in the process
gas stream from the main liquefaction
exchanger before entering the storage
system.
Its pressure is reduced through a
Joule-Thompson valve or expander before
flowing into an intermediate flash drum.
LNG journal • June 2008 • 29
p15-30:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:43 Page 16

COLD CLIMATE

The evolved vapour, rich in nitrogen, is
usually compressed and sent to the plant
fuel system.
Some 10o of cooling can be achieved in
this way, so that the exit temperature
from the main exchanger may be no
lower than -150˚C.
This reduces refrigeration compressor
load and increases the heat transfer
performance of the exchanger, and hence
(for a fixed surface area) increases its gas
throughput capacity.
Conversely, if there is no such disposal
route for the end-flash gas, the process
gas will have to be cooled to nearer -
160˚C in the main exchanger, which will
restrict its gas throughput capacity.
So in a cold climate with a fuel-
efficient plant, the capacity in million
tonnes per annum of a plant with a given
exchanger may actually be significantly
less.
This is important if you are trying to
maximise LNG Train output within the
limits of available exchanger sizes. What
can be done about this?
One possible measure is to re-adjust
plant operation every time a ship loads,
because stream b) above is intermittent.
It is much larger than stream a), and sets
the worst condition for fuel gas balancing,
mainly because of the large heat output
from the loading pumps.
But in between ship-loading
operations, there is more “ullage” in the
fuel system to absorb end-flash gas.
Unfortunately, this is scarcely practical
as it means a major adjustment to plant
performance every few days, including
mixed refrigerant compositional change
which cannot be done rapidly.
Another measure is to keep the end-
flash flow constant and recycle it to the
front end of the liquefaction plant. This
means the end-flash flow can be
maximised, and it does increase main
exchanger throughput performance -
albeit at the expense of a fairly large
recycle compressor.
Note that it does not increase the
overall thermal efficiency of the plant, as
the power saved in the refrigeration
circuit is simply added back into the end-
flash gas compressor.
And finally, there may be another
disposal route for the end-flash gas such
as a domestic gas market. If this can be
supplied at lower pressure, then there
will be gains in both Train performance
and thermal efficiency, as there will be
less power consumption for compression.
A possible problem could be if the
nitrogen content exceeds the market
specification, but this can be overcome by
a two-stage flash, directing the higher
nitrogen stream from the first stage to
plant fuel.
Machinery selection
Seasonal temperature variation has a big
effect on gas turbine performance,
because colder inlet air is denser, the
mass flow is greater and it requires less
power to compress it, leaving more power
available to the compressor shaft.
So gas turbine-driven compressor
power can vary by +5 percent for a
temperature variation of -10˚C. This is
good news in winter but bad news in
summer, when production can be limited
by turbine performance.
One possible mitigation is to run the
starter motor as a helper in summer, if
there is enough electric power available.
Electric motor drivers are relatively
insensitive to ambient temperature,
apart from possible limits to the stator
winding cooling system. So although they
do not gain much from a cold winter, they
also lose less power in summer.
This flatter profile, if well “tuned” to
refrigeration performance, will result in
higher annual average production
without putting such a strain on shipping
and other facilities.
Higher overall availability will further
increase the number of cargoes of LNG
that can be delivered.
Obviously, the electric power is
supplied from gas turbine generators in
the power station, but it is assumed that
there is enough spare capacity to provide
the needed electric power in all seasons.
Where necessary, the spare generation
machine can be run: this will require
careful maintenance scheduling to avoid
machinery outage in the warmest
summer period.
There are other significant benefits
with electric motor drives, such as the
removal of large fired machines from the
process area, the ability to specify the
shaft power to fit the process,
compactness, combined cycle fuel
efficiency and full-load soft start
facilities.
Together, these features make an all-
electric solution potentially very
attractive in Northern latitudes, if a cost-
effective power scheme can be achieved.
Conclusions
Northern latitudes offer colder average
ambient temperatures and hence the
possibility of larger and more efficient
LNG Trains.
However, apart from the obvious
construction and operational issues posed
by severe weather, they also pose the
challenge of wide temperature variations.
BP has been studying these challenges
extensively with various contracting
partners.
The indications are that air cooling
yields the best overall economics in most
situations and that a mixed refrigerant
pre-cooling cycle offers the best flexibility
to take advantage of lower and widely
varying ambient temperatures.
It can also be seen that electric motor
drives will provide additional LNG
cargoes, not only through higher
efficiency and availability, but also
through a smoother annual production
profile which will place less strain on
supporting facilities.

Martin Josten and John Kennedy of BP
would like to acknowledge the
contribution by Chiyoda Corp. of
Yokohama, Japan, to these studies and the
completion of this article.

Subscribe now and

get 4 issues free!* In this
issue:
60 p
essen ages
1 tial LN
news! G
China
LNG shapes fir
ter
as de minal strm

AND -20% till 30th July*

mand
soar forec ategy
asts No
John
McK
and Dav ay, LNG
Jou
China Decem vember/
ber 20
Corres id Hayes, rnal Editor,
ponden Asia
strate sha 07

gy ap es r
t, Sha
nghai

s defi
6 LNG
im
turns porter foc
John
McKay,
LNG Joum LN
inter to US
ch
rules angeabilit
us
China
will
mand G
rnal
termEditor,
and Dav
Kirstin
E. Gib
y meet
rising
have
nine
forec inal
demand LNG term
id Hay
es, Asia
Corres
and Mea bs, Dav
Asbill& gan Keiser
id L. Woc
networ
LNG
k beg
ins to
as its
asts
coasta
inals
to
ponden
t, Sha
nghai

gton
D.C.
of
Washin Brennan LLP Sutherlan
,
hner
d
were
More
has alre
than
ady bec
16 LN
take
ome
shape
a
soar
strateg
now
l imp
ort
that
12 Tr propos G term ic fue
govern ed at inal l.

*new subscribers only, terms and conditions apply*

inida ment one pro jects
expa d’s LNG supplie later
stage,
though
ns s mu insiste
cloud ion plans to beg st be
secure
d tha
t LN
the

reserve ed by in con
structio d before app G
ga project
Linda s concs . n is
given
roval
Hutchi er The for any
Port of nson-Ja n curren
Spain, far, expecte t Chi
nese
Trinida d to be LNG
d term restric networ
17 A inals
becaus ted to k is
roun supply the nin
even d-up of lat constra e of future e LN
G
ts, co Most ints. global
indus mpan es t involve LN G
Oil Cor
News try news y and
China

subs@lngjournal.com
p. and Nation
Index phase PetroC al Off
ventur hina shore
facilitie es con and
33 CB s to imp sist are two
ort from ing of -
&I per ann
build helps the immedia
um to
3 MT
2.5 mil
lion ton
initial

netw up LNG imUK tely beg PA and

with
nes
or in dou
capa k and sto port
CNOO plans
C ope bling to
city term rates cap acity.
Peter rage inal China’ China'
Ben Dapeng on the Pea s firs s
are flu LNG import
Barbar nett, Mik rl Riv t LN
a Web e Wh in Gu G id com netwo
er, CB& itney and curren
tly
angdon er del
ta at petitio rk is
I is con g Pro n wil em
37 Re import structin vince LNG l increa erging,
term and term se for and
al Tim near ina g two Fuzhou inal near region though som
deliv e Engin the city ls in Fujian more . the pro al and e
er of Sha Provin vincial global completion
mana s LNG eering The
compan nghai. ce and Locate
d in
capital LNG
supplie dates
UK tergement for
other y also the term the coa the sou
LNG pla ns inal is stal th of s
receivi city Fujian
Robert minals two in Zhe
jiang ng term to build
two
capacit bei
y to han ng built
of Xiu
yu,
pipelin
e sec with
McSave and Provin inals yea dle with CNOO tion a tra
ney at Zhu ce on at Ningbo r, wh 2.6 MT a Pha runnin nsmissi
hai in the eas ile a PA of se I C’s Dap on
43 Ak Guang t coa double Phase LNG eng term g north
er Kv dong. st the term II exp per inal. from
propos aerner
Offta Chicag inal cap ansion Fujia
ke se o Bri acity. will n link
es
treatm the pr CNOO
C, wh
ar ch awarde
d the
dge &
Iron
In nor
theast
ich has of the
LNG ent optio oduct LNG
from agreem
design
and
$140M
contra
US was coastli
ne,
Fujian
, at a
termi
nals ns for Malay Austra ents term constru ct for runnin a gas site
K. Sha sia for lia, to imp inal g nor transm near
h, Tec Indone ort system ction the
th from the
Aker hni now its firs contra of Fuj will con ission
Kvaern cal Vice looking t thr sia
and ct as plus ian nec the line
G. Josh er, Hou Preside newer for LN ee term two 160 far bac a $10 t wit Xiuyi
i, ston, nt, inals k as Apr 0M constru h a pip term
Parago Project Ma and project
s.
G sup
plies is
contain
,000
cubic il 200
EPC ction
in Zhe
eline
planne
inal
n, Hou nager, Talks for its metres 5 to bui will
jiang
Aker link
Kvaern ston (for AMEC have ment ld d for
potent been Xiuyu LNG capacit CNOO the Provin
er Inc merly ial sup held term storag y full C’s pla Xiuyi ce. Thi
.) of pliers, with inal. e tan - term s
Indone The ks at Natur nned inal
48 Wo sia. includi
ng Qat
variou
s term the al gas Ningbo faci with
rld In add comme inal supplie lity.
is sch
More Carrier Fle ar and rcial d to from
ition, operat eduled three Xiuyi
fram the com comple totallin
commnew-build et: ework ted, it ions to beg gas-fir will
deals pany in 200 in g 3,6 ed pow be
from has by wil bui 00
ission s severa to buy
spot
signed CNOO l be own 8. Wh
en
lt dur
ing the
me gawatts er pla
nts
54 Ta ed Total l sup
pliers LNG ventur C Fuj
ian
ed and
operat three project that
and cargos e com pow will
bles Royal incl udi pany
LN G Co,
ed er pla 's firs be
and LN of Lique details
of car Dutch ng Fra
nce’s
60 per
cent
shareh
in wh
ich CN a join
t
combin
ed-cyc nts
will
t pha
se. The
fac goes, Shell,
termi G Recepti tion not bee
n ann timing
and pric
though provin
cial olding,
while
OOC
has a Regasif le sta
ied LN
tions.
be bui
lt as
nals govern
world on Constru ounced.
ction
es hav
e
Investm
ent and ment-b the Fuj
ian
to hou
sehold G also
will be
wide comple
work a 40
percen Develop acked Fuj cities custom supplie
tion ment ian in Fuj ers in d
southe in Fuj is t inte Corp. Quanz ian five
rn Chi ian nearin The rest. holds – Fuz major
g term hou,
na on Provin kilome inal Putian hou,
CNOO ce in tres-lon will be link CNOO
C wil
and Jin Xiame
n,
C’s sion g hig ed from l imp jian.
second pipelin h-pres to a 367 the ort 2.6
e run sure project BP-op MTPA
The ning transm erated of LN
pipelin throug is- in Ind Tan G
e is pla h Fuj stream onesia gguh
nned ian. in 200 LNG
to con 8, tho that
nect had to comes
to agr ugh the com on
Indone ee to
pay a pany
sian higher has
LNG price
than for the
origina
lly pla
nned.


 

Maritime Content Ltd, 213 Marsh Wall, London E14 9FJ, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7510 0015 Fax: +44 (0)20 7510 2344 wwwlngjournal.com

30 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p31-36:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:47 Page 1

CARRIER FLEET

World LNG Carrier Fleet

LNG Capacity Owner Operator Builder Delivery Flag Power Cargo No. of Regular Exporter Charterer Contract
carrier m3 Date Plant System tanks Route

Abadi 135,000 Brunei STASCO Mitsubishi Jun-02 Brunei S Moss 5 Brunei-Japan Brunei LNG 2023
Gas Carriers Nagasaki
Al Aamriya 210,100 J5 Consortium K Line/ Daewoo Feb-08 Marshall I DRL GT NO 96 4 Qatar-Japan Qatargas
NYK Line
Al Areesh 151,700 Teekay LNG Teekay LNG Daewoo Jan-07 Qatar S GT NO 96 4 Ras Gas II Various 2032
Qatar-Europe
Al Biddah 135,275 J4 Consortium Mitsui Kawasaki Nov-99 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2024
OSK Line Sakaide
Al Daayen 151,70 Teekay LNG Teekay LNG Daewoo Apr-07 Qatar S GT NO 96 4 RasGas II Various 2032
Qatar Europe
Al Deebel 145,000 Peninsular LNG Mitsui OSK Samsung Dec-05 Bahamas S TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-Italy Qatargas RasGas II 2031
Line
Al Gattara 216,200 OSG/Nakilat Hyundai Oct-07 Marshall I DRL TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-UK/Var Qatargas II 2032
Al Ghariya 210,100 ProNav ProNav Daewoo Feb-08 Germany DRL GT No. 96 4 Qatar-Atl’c Basin Qatargas
Al Gharaffa 216,200 OSG/Nakilat OSG Hyundai Jan-08 Marshall I. DRL TZ Mk. III 4
Al Hamra 137,000 National Gas National Gas Kvaerner- Jan-97 Liberia S Moss 4 Abu Dhabi- ADGAS Natural Gas 2022
Shipping Shipping Masa Japan Shipping
Al Jasra 137,100 J4 Consortium NYK Line Mitsubishi Jul-00 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2025
Nagasaki
Al Jassasiya 145,700 Maran-Nakilat Maran Daewoo May-07 Greece S GT No 96 4 Qatar-Various RasGas 2027
Al Khaznah 135,500 National Gas National Gas Mitsui Jun-94 Liberia S Moss 5 Abu Dhabi- ADGAS Natural Gas 2020
Shipping Shipping Chiba Japan Shipping
Al Khor 137,350 J4 Consortium NYK Line Mitsubishi Dec-96 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2022
Nagasaki
Al Mafyar 216,200 OSG/Nakilat OSG/Nakilat Hyundai Oct-07 Marshall I DRL TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-UK Qatargas II 2032
-Various
Al Marrouna 151,700 Teekay Teekay Daewoo Nov-07 Bahamas S GT NO 96 Ras Gas I Qatar-Europe 2031
Al Rayyan 135,360 J4 Consortium K Line Kawasaki Mar-97 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2022
Sakaide
Al Ruwais 210,100 ProNav ProNav Daewoo Nov-07 Germany DRL GT NO 96 4 Qatar-UK Qatargas II 2032
Al Safliya 210,100 ProNav ProNav Daewoo Dec-07 Germany DRL GT NO 96 4 Qatar-UK Qatargas II 2032
Al Thakhira 145,000 Peninsular LNG K Line Samsung Sep-05 Luxemb'g S TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-Italy Qatargas RasGas II 2031
Al Wajbah 137,350 J4 Consortium Mitsui OSK Mitsubishi Jun-97 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2022
Line Nagasaki
Al Wakrah 135,360 J4 Consortium Mitsui OSK Kawasaki Dec-98 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2022
Line Sakaide
Al Zhubarah 137,570 J4 Consortium Mitsui OSK Mitsui Chiba Dec-96 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2022
Line
Aman Bintulu 18,928 Perbadanan/ Perbadanan NKK Tsu Oct-93 Malaysia S TZ Mk. III 3 Malaysia- Petronas MLNG 2013
NYK Line NSL Japan
Aman Hakata 18,800 Perbadanan/ Perbadanan NKK Tsu Nov-98 Malaysia S TZ Mk. III 3 Malaysia- Petronas MLNG II 2017
NYK Line NSL Japan
Aman Sendai 18,928 Perbadanan/ Perbadanan NKK Tsu May-97 Malaysia S TZ Mk. III 3 Malaysia- Petronas MLNG II 2017
NYK Line NSL Japan
Annabella 35,500 Chemikalien Chemikalien La Seyne May-75 Liberia S GT NO 82 5 Libya-Spain Sirte Oil Enagas 2004
Seetransport Seetransport
Arctic 140,000 K Line K Line Mitsui Jan-06 Bahamas S Moss 4 Norway-US Statoil Suez LNG 2036
Discoverer Chiba
Arctic Lady 147,200 MOL/ Hoegh LNG Mitsubishi Apr-86 Norway S Moss 4 Norway-U.S. Petronas MLNG II 2017
Hoegh LNG Nagasaki
Arctic 147,200 MOL/ Hoegh LNG Mitsubishi Jan-06 Norway S Moss 4 Norway-US Suez LNG Norway-US 2035
Princess Hoegh LNG Nagasaki
Arctic Sun 89,880 Arctic LNG Marathon IHI Chita Dec-93 Liberia S IHI SPB 4 Alaska- ConocoPhillips ConocoPhillips 2014
Shipping Japan /Marathon /Marathon
Arctic 140,000 K Line K Line Kawasaki Jul-06 Bahamas S Moss 4 Norway- Statoil Snohvit Sellers 2026
Voyager Spain-US
Bachir 129,750 SNTM-Hyproc SNTM- La Seyne Feb-79 Algeria S GT NO 85 5 Algeria- Sonatrach BOTAS 2015
Chihani Hyproc Turkey
Banshu Maru 125,542 J3 Consortium K Line Mitsubishi Oct-83 Japan S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina 2011
Nagasaki -Japan
Bebatic 75,060 Brunei Shell STASCO Atlantique Oct-72 Brunei S TZ Mk. I 6 Brunei-Japan Brunei LNG 2013
Tankers
Bekalang 75,080 Brunei Shell STASCO Atlantique Jun-73 Brunei S TZ Mk. I 6 Brunei-Japan Brunei LNG 2013
Tankers
Bekulan 75,070 Brunei Shell STASCO Atlantique Dec-73 Brunei S TZ Mk. I 6 Brunei-Japan Brunei LNG 2013
Tankers
Belais 75,040 Brunei Shell STASCO Atlantique Jul-74 Brunei S TZ Mk. I 6 Brunei-Japan Brunei LNG 2013
Tankers

LNG journal • June 2008 • 31

p31-36:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:47 Page 2

CARRIER FLEET

Belanak 75,000 Brunei Shell STASCO La Ciotat Jul-75 Brunei S TZ Mk. I 5 Brunei-Japan Brunei LNG 2013
Tankers
Berge Arzew 138,088 BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Jul-04 Norway S GT NO 96 4 Exports from Sonatrach 2030
Algeria
Berge Boston 138,059 BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Jan-03 Norway S GT NO 96 4 Atlantic LNG Suez LNG 2032
Berge Everett 138,028 BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Jun-03 Norway S GT NO 96 4 Atlantic LNG Suez LNG 2033
Bilbao Knutsen 138,000 Knutsen/ Knutsen/ IZAR Jan-04 Spain S GT NO 96 4 Trinidad- Atlantic Repsol 2024
Marpetrol Marpetrol Sestao Spain LNG
Bilis 77,730 Brunei Shell STASCO La Seyne Mar-75 Brunei S GT NO 82 5 Brunei-Japan Brunei LNG 2013
Tankers
Bishu Maru 125,000 J3 Consortium K Line Kawasaki Aug-83 Japan S Moss 5 Ind’sia-Japan Pertamina 2011
Sakaide
Bluesky 145,700 Bluesky LNG Corp TMT Daewoo Jan-06 Panama S GT No 96 4 M/East-Taiwan
British Emerald 155,000 BP BP Hyundai Jun-07 UK DFDE TZ Mk. III 4 Ind’sia-Japan Tangguh LNG Pertamina 2033
British Innovator 138,200 BP Shipping BP Shipping Samsung Jul-03 Isle of Man S TZ Mk. III 4
British Merchant 138,000 BP Shipping BP Shipping Samsung Apr-03 Isle of Man S TZ Mk. III 4 Engas 2007
British Ruby 155,000 BP Shipping BP Hyundai Jan-08 U.K. DFDE TZ Mk. III 4 Various
British Trader 138,000 BP Shipping BP Shipping Samsung Dec-02 Isle of Man S TZ Mk. III 4 Engas
Broog 135,466 J4 Consortium NYK Line Mitsui Chiba May-98 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2023
Bubuk 77,670 Brunei Shell Tkrs STASCO La Seyne Oct-75 Brunei S GT NO 82 5 Brunei-Japan Brunei LNG 2013
Cadiz Knutsen 138,826 Knutsen/ Knutsen/ IZAR Jun-04 Spain S GT NO 96 4 Egypt-Spain Engas Union Fenosa 2030
Marpetrol Marpetrol Puerto Real
Castillo 138,000 Elcano Elcano IZAR Nov-03 Spain S GT NO 96 4 Algeria-Spain Sonatrach Enagas 2007
de Villalba Puerto Real
Catalunya 138,000 Teekay LNG Teekay LNG IZAR Mar-03 Liberia S GT NO 96 4 Trinidad- Atlantic Enagas 2024
Spirit Partners Partners Sestao Spain LNG
Celestine River 145,000 KLNG KLNG Kawasaki Dec-07 S Moss Various-US Cheniere 2017
Century 29,588 BW Gas BW Gas Moss Moss Dec-74 Norway D Moss 4 Algeria-Greece Sonatrach DEPA 2010
Cheikh El Mokrani 75,500 Med LNG Corp. Hyproc/MOL June-07 Liberia S TZ Mk. III 4 Intra-Med Sonatrach 2032
Cinderella 25,500 Taiwan Marine Bluesky LNG Le Trait Jun-65 St. Vincent S Worms 7 Libya-Spain Sirte Oil Enagas 2004
Clean Energy 150,000 Pegasus Shiph’d Dynagas Hyundai Mar-07 Marshall Is. S TZ Mk. III 4 Available
Clean Force 150,000 Seacrown Mariti Dynagas Hyundai Jan-08 Marshall I. S TZ Mk. III 4 Various
Clean Power 150,000 Lance Shipping Dynagas Hyundai Oct-07 Marshall Is. S TZ Mk. III 4 Available
Dapeng Sun 147,000 China Ships China Ships Hudong Jul-07 China S GT NO 96 4 Aus-China Woodside Guangdong LNG 2033
Energy
Descartes 50,000 Messigaz Gazocean Atlantique France S TZ Mk. I 6 Algeria-France Sonatrach GdF 2013
Dewa Maru 125,000 J3 Consortium K Line Mitsubishi Jul-84 Japan S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina Tepco 2005
Nagasaki -Japan
Disha 136,000 Petronet LNG Mitsui Daewoo Jan-04 Malta S GT NO 96 4 Qatar-India Qatargas Petronet 2029
Ltd. OSK Line
Doha 137,350 J4 Consortium NYK Line Mitsubishi Jun-99 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2024
Nagasaki
Duhail 210,100 ProNav ProNav Daewoo Jan-08 Germany DRL GT NO 96 4-
Dukhan 135,000 J4 Consortium Mitsui Mitsui Oct-04 Japan S Moss 4 Qatar-Spain Qatargas 2024
OSK Line Chiba
Dwiputra 127,385 Humpuss Humolco Mitsubishi Mar-94 Bahamas S Moss 4 Indonesia Pertamina 2010
Consortium Nagasaki -Japan
Echigo Maru 125,570 J3 Consortium NYK Line Mitsubishi Aug-83 Japan S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina Tepco 2005
Nagasaki -Japan
Edouard L.D. 129,300 Dreyfus/ Louis Dunkerque Dec-77 France S GT NO 85 5 Algeria- Sonatrach GdF 2013
Gaz de France Dreyfus France
Ejnan 145,000 4J NYK Samsung Jan-07 Luxemb’g S TZ Mk. III RasGas 2032
Ekaputra 136,400 Humpuss Humolco Mitsubishi Jan-90 Liberia S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina CPC 2014
Consortium Nagasaki -Taiwan
Energy 145,000 Tokyo LNG Mitsui Kawasaki Mar-05 Japan S Moss 4 Australia Darwin Togas 2025
Advance Tankers OSK Line Sakaide -Japan
Energy 147,600 Tokyo LNG Mitsui Kawasaki Sep-03 Japan S Moss 4 Australia Darwin Togas 2025
Frontier Tankers OSK Line Sakaide
Energy 145,000 Mitsui OSK Line Mitsui Kawasaki NOV-06 Japan S Moss 4 Indonesia Bayu Undan LNG 2026
Progress OSK Line -Japan
Excalibur 138,200 Exmar/ Exmar Daewoo Oct-02 Luxemb'g S GT NO 96 4
Excelerate
Excel 138,106 Exmar/ Exmar Daewoo Sep-03 Belgium S GT NO 96 4 Exports Oman Gas 2009
Mitsui OSK Line from Oman
Excelerate 138,000 Exmar/Excelerate Exmar Daewoo Oct-06 Belgium S GT NO 96 4 Various Various
Excellence 138,000 GKFF Ltd. Exmar Daewoo May-05 Luxemb'g S GT NO 96 4 Various Excelerate 2025
Energy
Excelsior 138,000 Exmar Exmar Daewoo Jan-05 Luxemb'g S GT NO 96 4
Explorer 150,900 Exmar/Excelerate Exmar Daewoo Mar-08 Belgium S GT NO 96 4 Excelerate Excelerate
Fuwairit 138,000 Peninsular LNG Mitsui Samsung Jan-04 Luxemb'g S TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-Italy RasGas II 2029
OSK Line
Galea 134,425 Shell Shipping STASCO Mitsubishi Oct-02 Singapore S Moss 5 Shell
Nagasaki

32 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p31-36:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:47 Page 3

CARRIER FLEET

Galeomma 126,540 Shell Shipping STASCO Newport Dec-78 Singapore S TZ Mk. I 6 Oman-Spain Oman Iberdrola 2007
News
Galicia Spirit 140,620 Teekay LNG Teekay LNG Daewoo Jul-04 Liberia S GT NO 96 4 Eqypt-Spain Engas Union Fenosa 2034
Partners Partners
Gaselys 153,500 GdF/NYK NYK Line Atlantique Mar-07 France DFDE CS 1 4 Egypt-France Engas Gaz de France 2027
Gaz de France 74,000 Gaz de France Gazocean Chantiers Dec-06 France DFDE CS1 4 Algeria-France Sonatrach Gaz de France 2013
Energy d’Atlantique
Gallina 134,425 Shell Shipping STASCO Mitsubishi Oct-02 Singapore S Moss 5 Shell
Nagasaki
Gemmata 138,100 Shell Shipping STASCO Mitsubishi Mar-04 Singapore S Moss 5 Shell
Nagasaki
Ghasha 137,510 National Gas National Gas Mitsui Jun-95 Liberia S Moss 5 Abu Dhabi- ADGAS Natural Gas 2021
Shipping Shipping Chiba Japan Shipping
Gimi 126,277 Golar LNG Golar LNG Moss Dec-76 UK S Moss 6 Trinidad-U.S. Atlantic BG 2020
Stavanger LNG
Golar Freeze 125,850 Golar LNG Golar LNG HDW Feb-77 UK S Moss 5 Trinidad-U.S. Atlantic LNG BG 2008
Golar Mazo 135,225 Golar LNG/ Golar LNG Mitsubishi Jan-00 Liberia S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina CPC 2027
Chinese Pet. Nagasaki -Taiwan
Golar Spirit 129,000 Golar LNG Golar LNG Kawasaki Sep-81 UK S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina Kogas 2008
Sakaide -Korea
Golar Winter 138,250 Golar LNG Golar LNG Daewoo Apr-04 Norway S GT NO 96 4
Grace Acacia 150,000 Algaet Shipping NYK Line Hyundai Jan 07 Japan S TK MK III 4 Various
Grace Barleria 150,000 Swallowtail Ship NYK Line Hyundai Oct-07 Japan S TZ Mk. III 4 Available
Gracilis 138,830 Golar LNG Golar LNG Hyundai Jan-05 Bermuda S TZ Mk. III 4 Shell 2011
Granatina 140,645 Shell Shipping STASCO Daewoo Dec-03 Singapore S GT NO 96 4 Shell
Grand Aniva 147,200 Sovcomflot/NYK NYK Line Mitsubishi Jan-08 Japan S Mos 4
Grand Elena 147,200 Sovcomflot/NYK NYK Line Mitsubishi Oct-07 Japan S Moss 4
Grandis 145,700 Golar LNG Golar LNG Daewoo Jan-06 UK S GT NO 96 4 Shell 2011
Hanjin Muscat 138,200 Hanjin Shipping Hanjin Line Hanjin Jul-99 Panama S GT NO 96 4 Oman-Korea Oman Gas Kogas 2019
Hanjin Pyeong 130,600 Hanjin Shipping Hanjin Line Hanjin Sep-95 Panama S GT NO 96 4 Indonesia Pertamina Kogas 2016
Taek -Korea
Hanjin Ras Laffan 138,214 Hanjin Shipping Hanjin Line Hanjin Jul-00 Panama S GT NO 96 4 Qatar-Korea QatarGas Kogas 2020
Hanjin Sur 138,333 Hanjin Shipping Hanjin Line Hanjin Jan-00 Panama S GT NO 96 4 Oman-Korea Oman Gas Kogas 2020
Hassi R'Mel 40,850 SNTM-Hyproc SNTM- La Seyne Jan-71 Algeria S GT NO 82 6 Various Sonatrach 2013
Hyproc
Hilli 126,227 Golar LNG Golar LNG Moss Dec-75 UK S Moss 6 Trinidad-U.S. Atlantic LNG BG 2023
Stavanger
Hispania 140,500 Teekay Teekay LNG Daewoo Sep-02 Spain S GT NO 96 4 Trinidad-U.S. Atlantic LNG Repsol 2033
Spirit LNG Partners Partners
Hoegh 87,600 Hoegh LNG Hoegh LNG Moss Nov-74 Norway S Moss 5 Trinidad-U.S. Atlantic LNGSuez 2018
Galleon Stavanger
Hoegh 125,820 Hoegh LNG Hoegh LNG HDW Oct-77 Norway S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina Kogas 2008
Gandria -Korea
Hyundai 135,000 Hyundai MM Hyundai MM Hyundai Mar-00 Panama S Moss 4 Oman-Korea Oman Gas Kogas 2020
Hyundai 135,000 Hyundai MM Hyundai MM Hyundai Jan-00 Panama S Moss 4 Qatar-Korea RasGas Kogas 2020
Cosmopia
Hyundai 125,000 Hyundai MM Hyundai MM Hyundai Nov-96 Panama S Moss 4 Indonesia Pertamina Kogas 2017
Greenpia -Korea
Hyundai 135,000 Hyundai MM Hyundai MM Hyundai Jul-00 Panama S Moss 4 Oman-Korea Oman Gas Kogas 2020
Hyundai 135,000 Hyundai MM Hyundai MM Hyundai Jul-00 Panama S Moss 4 Qatar-Korea RasGas Kogas 2019
Technopia
Hyundai 125,182 Hyundai MM Hyundai MM Hyundai Jun-94 Panama S Moss 4 Indonesia Pertamina Kogas 2015
Utopia -Korea
Iberica 138,000 Knutsen OAS Knutsen Daewoo Aug-06 Norway S GT 96 4 Qatar-various various Repsol/ 2009
Knutsen OAS Gas Natural
Ibra LNG 147,100 Oman Gas Samsung Jun-06 Panama S TK Mk. III 4 Oman-Japan Oman LNG
Ibri LNG 145,000 Oman Gas Mitsubishi Jul-06 Panama S TK Mk. III 4 Oman-Japan Oman LNG
Isabella 35,500 Chemikalien Chemikalien La Seyne Apr-75 Liberia S GT NO 82 5 Libya-Spain Sirte Oil Enagas 2004
Seetransport Seetransport
Ish 137,540 National Gas National Gas Mitsubishi Nov-95 Liberia S Moss 5 Abu Dhabi ADGAS Natural Gas 2019
Shipping Shipping Nagasaki -Japan Shipping
K Acacia 138,017 Korea Line Korea Line Daewoo Jan-00 Panama S GT NO 96 4 Oman-Korea Oman Gas Kogas 2020
K Freesia 135,256 Korea Line Korea Line Daewoo Jun-00 Panama S GT NO 96 4 Qatar-Korea RasGas Kogas 2020
Kayoh Maru 1,517 Daiichi Tankers Daiichi Imamura Jan-88 Japan Cylinders 2 Japanese
Tankers Domestic Trade
Khannur 126,360 Golar LNG Golar LNG Moss Jul-77 UK S Moss 6 Qatar-Spain Qatargas BG 2019
Stavanger
Kotawaka 125,200 J3 Consortium NYK Line Kawasaki Jan-84 Japan S Moss 5 Australia Darwin TEPCO 2024
Maru Sakaide -Japan
Laieta 40,000 Auxiliar Anglo-East- Astano May-70 Panama S Esso 4 Algeria-Spain Sonatrach Enagas 2007
Maritima ern Mgmt
Lala Fatma 145,000 Algeria Nippon Hyproc/ Kawasaki Dec-04 Japan S Moss 4 Exports from Sonatrach Various 2030
N'Soumer Gas MOL Sakaide Algeria

LNG journal • June 2008 • 33

p31-36:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:47 Page 4

CARRIER FLEET

Larbi Ben 129,750 SNTM-Hyproc SNTM- La Seyne Jun-77 Algeria S GT NO 85 5 Algeria- Sonatrach BOTAS 2014
M'Hidi Hyproc Turkey
LNG Abuja 126,530 Bonny Gas Anglo-East- GD Quincy Sep-80 Bahamas S Moss 5 Nigeria-Spain/ Nigeria LNG Enagas/ 2019
Transport ern Mgmt France/Turkey GdF/BOTAS
LNG Adamawa 141,000 Bonny Gas Anglo-East- Hyundai Jun-05 Bermuda S Moss 4 Nigeria-Europe
Transport ern Mgmt
LNG Akwa Ibom 141,000 Bonny Gas STASCO Hyundai Nov-04 Bermuda S Moss 4 Nigeria-Europe 2024
Transport
LNG Aquarius 126,300 MOL/LNG ProNav . GD Quincy Jun-77 Marshall I. S Moss 5
Japan Ship Mgmt
LNG Aries 126,300 MOL/LNG ProNav . GD Quincy Dec-77 Marshall I. S Moss 5
Japan Ship Mgnt
LNG Bayelsa 137,500 Bonny Gas STASCO Hyundai Feb-03 Bermuda S Moss 4 Exports from Nigeria LNG 2019
Transport Nigeria
LNG Benue 145,700 BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Mar-06 Bermuda S GT NO 96 4 Exports from Nigeria LNG Various 2026
Nigeria
LNG Bonny 133,000 Bonny Gas STASCO Kockums Dec-81 Bermuda S GT NO 88 5 Nigeria-Spain/ Nigeria LNG Enagas/ 2019
Transport France/Turkey GdF/BOTAS
LNG Borno 149,600 NYK Line NYK Line Samsung Aug-07 Japan S TZ Mk. III 4 Nigeria-Various Nigeria LNG 2027
LNG Capricorn 126,300 MOL/LNG Japan ProNav Ship GD Quincy Jun-78 Marshall I. S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina 2010
Mgmt. -Japan
LNG Cross 141,000 Bonny Gas Anglo-East- Hyundai Sep-05 Bermuda S Moss 4 Nigeria-Europe
River Transport ern Mgmt
LNG Delta 126,540 Bonny Gas STASCO Newport May-78 Isle of Man S TZ Mk. I 6 Nigeria-Spain/ Nigeria LNG Enagas/ 2023
Transport News France/Turkey GdF/BOTAS
LNG Dream 145,000 Osaka Gas NYK Line Kawasaki Sep-06 Japan S Moss 4 Australia-Japan Woodside Energy
LNG Edo 126,530 Bonny Gas Anglo-East- GD Quincy May-80 Bahamas S Moss 5 Nigeria-Spain/ Nigeria LNG Enagas/ 2019
Transport ern Mgmt France/Turkey GdF/BOTAS
LNG Elba 41,000 ENI ENI Italcantieri Jan-70 Italy S Esso 4 Algeria- Sonatrach GdF 2013
Genoa France
LNG Enugu 145,000 BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Oct-05 Burma S GT NO 96 4 Exports from Nigeria LNG Various 2026
Nigeria
LNG Fimina 133,000 Bonny Gas STASCO Kockums Jan-84 Bermuda S GT NO 88 5 Nigeria-Spain/ Nigeria LNG Enagas/ 2019
Transport France/Turkey GdF/BOTAS
LNG Flora 127,700 J3 Consortium NYK Line Kawasaki Mar-93 Japan S Moss 4 Indonesia Pertamina Osaka Gas 2014
Sakaide -Japan
LNG Gemini 126,300 MOL/LNG ProNav GD Quincy Sep-78 Marshall S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina 2010
Japan Ship Mgmt. Islands -Japan
LNG Jamal 135,330 Osaka Gas/ NYK Line Mitsubishi Oct-00 Japan S Moss 5 Oman- Oman Gas Osaka Gas 2024
J3 Consortium Nagasaki Japan
LNG Kano 148,471 BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Jan-07 Bermuda S GT No. 96 4 Nigeria-Various NLNG 2027
LNG Lagos 122,000 Bonny Gas STASCO Atlantique Bermuda S GT NO 85 6 Nigeria-Spain/ Nigeria LNG Enagas/ 2019
Transport France/Turkey GdF/BOTAS
LNG Leo 126,400MOL/LNG ProNav GD Quincy Dec-78 Marshall S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina 2010
Japan Ship Mgmt. Islands -Japan
LNG Lerici 65,000 ENI ENI Italcantieri Mar-98 Italy S GT NO 96 4 Algeria-Italy Sonatrach ENI 2021
Sestri
LNG Libra 126,400 MOL/LNG ProNav GD Quincy Apr-79 Marshall S Moss 5 Indonesia 2010
Japan Ship Mgmt. Islands -Japan
LNG Lokoja 148,300BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Dec-06 Bermuda S GT No. 96 4 Atlantic Basin Nigeria LNG Various 2027
LNG Ogun NYK Line NYK Line Samsung Aug-07 Japan S TZ Mk. III 4 Nigeria-Various Nigeria LNG 2027
LNG Ondo 148,300 BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Sep-07 Bermuda S GT NO 96 4 Nigeria-Various Nigeria LNG 2027
LNG Oyo 140,500 BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Dec-05 Bermuda S GT NO 96 4 Exports from Nigeria LNG Various 2026
Nigeria
LNG Palmaria 41,000 ENI ENI Italcantieri Jun-69 Italy S Esso 4 Algeria-Italy Sonatrach ENI 2017
Genoa
LNG Pioneer 138,000 Mitsui OSK Mitsui OSK Daewoo Jul-05 Luxemb'g S GT NO 96 4 Exports from Idku BP 2008
Line Line Egypt
LNG Port 122,000 Bonny Gas STASCO Atlantique Sep-77 Bermuda S GT NO 85 6 Nigeria-Spain/ Nigeria LNG Enagas/ 2019
Harcourt Transport France/Turkey GdF/BOTAS
LNG 65,000 ENI ENI Italcantieri Jun-96 Italy S GT NO 96 4 Algeria-Italy Sonatrach ENI 2017
Portovenere Sestri
LNG River 141,000 Bonny Gas Anglo- Hyundai May-06 Bermuda S Moss 4 Nigeria-Europe
Niger Transport Eastern Mgmt.
LNG River 145,910 BW Gas BW Gas Daewoo Nov-04 Bermuda S GT NO 96 4 Exports from Nigeria LNG Various 2026
Orashi Nigeria
LNG Rivers 137,231 Bonny Gas STASCO Hyundai Jun-02 Bermuda S Moss 4 Nigeria-Spain Nigeria LNG Enagas 2019
Transport
LNG Sokoto 137,231 Bonny Gas STASCO Hyundai Aug-02 Bermuda S Moss 4 Nigeria-France Nigeria LNG GdF 2019
Transport
LNG Taurus 126,300 MOL/LNG ProNav GD Quincy Aug-79 Marshall S Moss 5 Indonesia 2010
Japan Ship Mgmt. Islands - Japan

34 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p31-36:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:47 Page 5

CARRIER FLEET

LNG Vesta 127,547 Tokyo Gas Mitsui OSK Mitsubishi Jun-94 Japan S Moss 4 Indonesia Pertamina Togas 2014
Consortium Line Nagasaki - Japan
LNG Virgo 126,400 MOL/LNG ProNav GD Quincy Dec-79 Marshall S Moss 5 Indonesia Pertamina 2010
Japan Ship Mgmt. Islands - Japan
Lusail 138,000 Peninsular LNG K Line Samsung May-05 Luxemb'g S TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-Italy Qatar RasGas II 2030
Madrid Spirit 138,000 Teekay LNG Teekay LNG IZAR Jan-05 Spain S GT NO 96 4 Egypt-Spain Engas Repsol 2035
Partners Partners Puerto Real
Maersk Qatar 145,000 A. P. Moller Maersk Gas Samsung Apr-06 Denmark S TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-Italy Qatar RasGas II 2031
Maersk Ras 138,270 A. P. Moller Maersk Gas Samsung Mar-04 Denmark S TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-Italy RasGas II Italy 2029
Laffan
Maran Gas 145,000 Kristen Maran Gas Daewoo Jul-05 Bermuda S GT NO 96 4 Qatar-Europe Qatar RasGas II 2030
Asclepius Navigation Maritime
Maran Gas 145,700 Maran Maran Daewoo Sep-07 Greece S GT NO 96 4 Qatar-Europe Rasgas II 2032
Coronis
Matthew 126,540 Suez LNG Hoegh LNG Newport Jun-79 Bahamas S TZ Mk. I 6 Trinidad-U.S Atlantic LNG Suez 2019
Shiping News
Methane Alison 145,000 BG BG Samsung Aug-07 Bermuda S TZ III 4 Eq.Guinea-US Eq.Guinea LNG 2027
Victoria
Methane Heather145,000 BG BG Samsung Jul-07 Bermuda S Tz Mk. III 4 Eq.Guinea-US Eq.Guinea LNG 2027
Sally
Methane Jane 145,000 British Gas Ceres Samsung Jun-06 Bermuda S TZ Mk. III 4 Egypt-US Engas BG 2026
Elizabeth Hellenic
Methane Kari 138,200 BG BG Samsung Jun-04 Bermuda S TZ Mk. III 4
Elin International International
Methane 145,000 BG BG Samsung Feb-07 Bermuda S TZ Mk. III 4 Marathon Oil BG Eq.Guinea 2027
Lake Charles -Atlantic Basin
Methane 145,000 Australian Bank Ceres Samsung Aug-06 Bermuda S TZ Mk. III 4 Various Engas MSL 2026
Lydon Volney -Leased to BG Hellenic
Methane Nile 145,000 BG BG Samsung Dec-07 Bermuda S TZ Mk. III 4 Egypt - Engas 2026
Eagle Atlantic Basi
Methane Princess138,000 Golar LNG Golar LNG Daewoo Aug-03 UK S GT NO 96 4 Trinidad-Spain Atlantic LNG BG 2034
Methane Rita 145,000 British Gas Ceres Samsung Mar-06 Bermuda S TZ Mk. III 4 Egypt-US Engas BG 2026
Andre Hellenic
Methane Shirley 145,000 BG Eagle Gas Samsung Apr-07 Bermuda S TZ Mk. III 4 Equatorial Marathon Oil BG 2027
Elizabeth Guinea - US
Methania 131,230 Distrigas Exmar Boelwerf Oct-78 Belgium S GT NO 85 5 Algeria-Spain Sonatrach Suez 2015
Mostefa Ben 125,260 SNTM-Hyproc SNTM- La Ciotat Aug-76 Algeria S TZ Mk. I 6 Algeria-USA Sonatrach BOTAS 2018
Boulaid Hyproc
Mourad 126,130 SNTM-Hyproc SNTM- Atlantique Jul-80 Algeria S GT NO 85 5 Algeria- Sonatrach Suez 2006
Didouche Hyproc Belgium
Mraweh 137,000 National Gas National Gas Kvaerner- Jun-96 Liberia S Moss 4 Abu Dhabi ADGAS Natural Gas 2021
Shipping Shipping Masa -Japan Shipping
Mubaraz 137,000 National Gas National Gas Kvaerner- Jan-96 Liberia S Moss 4 Abu Dhabi Livorno recei-
Shipping Shipping Masa -Japan ving facility
Muscat LNG 149,170 Oman Gas Mitsui OSK Kawasaki Mar-04 Japan S Moss 4 Oman- Oman Gas Shell 2007
/MOL Line Sakaide Spain
Neo Energy 150,000 Tsakos Tsakos Hyundai Feb-07 Liberia S Moss 4 Available
Nizwah LNG 145,000 Oryx LNG Mitsui OSK Kawasaki Dec-05 Japan S Moss 4 Oman- Oman Gas Osaka Gas 2026
Carriers Line Sakaide Japan
Norman Lady 87,600 Hoegh LNG Hoegh LNG Moss Jan-73 Norway S Moss 5 Trinidad- Atlantic LNG Enagas 2020
Stavanger Spain
North Pioneer 2,500 Japan Liquid Japan Liquid Kawasaki Dec-05 Japan D Cylinders 2 Japanese
Gas Gas Kobe Domestic Trade
Northwest 127,525 Australia LNG ALSOC Mitsubishi Jun-89 Australia S Moss 4 Australia- NWS IGTC 2008
Sanderling Nagasaki Japan
Northwest 127,500 Australia LNG ALSOC Mitsui Feb-93 Australia S Moss 4 Australia- NWS IGTC 2008
Sandpiper Chiba Japan
Northwest 127,450 Australia LNG STASCO Mitsubishi Nov-92 Bermuda S Moss 4 Australia- NWS IGTC 2008
Seaeagle Nagasaki Japan
Northwest 127,500 Australia LNG BP Shipping Kawasaki Sep-91 Bermuda S Moss 4 Australia- NWS IGTC 2008
Shearwater Sakaide Japan
Northwest 127,747 Australia LNG ALSOC Mitsui Sep-90 Australia S Moss 4 Australia- NWS IGTC 2008
Snipe Chiba Japan
Northwest 127,600 Australia LNG ALSOC Mitsubishi Dec-94 Australia S Moss 4 Australia- NWS IGTC 2008
Stormpetrel Nagasaki Japan
Northwest 127,708 J3 Consortium Mitsui Mitsui Nov-89 Japan S Moss 4 Australia- NWS IGTC 2008
Swallow OSK Line Chiba Japan
Northwest 138,000 Australia LNG Chevron Daewoo Mar-04 Australia S GT NO 96 4 Exports NWS IGTC 2024
Swan Transport from Australia
Northwest 127,590 J3 Consortium NYK Line Mitsubishi Sep-89 Japan S Moss 4 Australia- NWS IGTC 2008
Swift Nagasaki Japan
Pacific Eurus 137,000 LNG Marine NYK Line Mitsubishi Mar-06 Bahamas S Moss 4 Australia- Darwin Tepco 2024
Transport Nagasaki Japan

LNG journal • June 2008 • 35

p31-36:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:47 Page 6

CARRIER FLEET

Pacific Notus 137,006 Pacific LNG NYK Line Mitsubishi Sep-03 Bahamas S Moss 5 Australia- Darwin Tepco 2024
Shipping Nagasaki Japan
Pioneer Knutsen 1,100 Knutsen OAS Knutsen Bijlsma Dec-03 Norway D Cylinder 2 Coastal Naturgass Norway 2019
OAS Norway Vest
Polar Eagle 89,880 Polar LNG Marathon IHI Chita Jun-93 Liberia S IHI SPB 4 Alaska-Japan ConocoPhillips ConocoPhillips 2014
Shipping /Marathon /Marathon
Provalys 153,500 Gaz de France Gazocean Chantiers Nov-06 France DFDE CS1 4 Egypt-France ELNG Gaz de France 2026
Puteri Delima 130,400 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Atlantique Jan-95 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG II 2015
Puteri Delima 137,100 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Mitsui Chiba Apr-02 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG III 2023
Satu
Puteri Firuz 130,400 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Atlantique May-97 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG II 2018
Puteri Firuz 137,100 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Mitsubishi Sep-04 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG III 2024
Satu Nagasaki
Puteri Intan 130,400 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Atlantique Aug-94 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG II 2015
Puteri Intan 137,100 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Mitsubishi Dec-01 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG III 2023
Satu Nagasaki
Puteri Mutiera 137,100 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Mitsui Chiba Apr-05 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG III 2025
Satu
Puteri Nilam 130,400 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Atlantique Jun-95 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG II 2016
Puteri Nilam 137,100 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Mitsubishi Sep-03 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG III 2023
Satu Nagasaki
Puteri Zamrud 130,400 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Atlantique May-96 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG II 2017
Puteri Zamrud 137,100 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Mitsui Apr-87 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 M’sia-Japan Atlantic LNG Enagas 2020
Satu Chiba
Raahi 136,000 Petronet Mitsui Daewoo Dec-04 Malta S GT NO 96 4 Qatar-India Qatargas Petronet 2030
LNG Ltd. OSK Line
Ramdane 126,130 SNTM-Hyproc SNTM- Atlantique Jul-81 Algeria S GT NO 85 5 Algeria- Sonatrach GdF 2013
Abane Hyproc France
Salalah LNG 147,000 Oman Gas/ Mitsui Samsung Dec-05 Japan S TZ Mk. III 4 Oman-Spain Oman Qalhat LNG 2026
MOL OSK Line
SFC Arctic 71,500 Sovcomflot Unicom Kockums Jan-69 Liberia S GT NO 82 6 Trinidad-Spain Atlantic LNG 2012
SCF Polar 71,500 Sovcomflot Unicom Kockums Aug-69 Liberia S GT NO 82 6 Algeria-France Sonatrach 2012
Senshu Maru 125,000 J3 Consortium NYK Line Mitsui Chiba Feb-84 Japan S Moss 5 Ind’sia-Japan Petamina 2011
Seri Alam 138,000 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Samsung Oct-05 Malaysia S TZ Mk. III 4 Yemen-U.S. Yemen LNG Total 2028
Seri Amanah 145,000 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Samsung Mar-06 Malaysia S TZ Mk. III 4 Yemen-U.S. Yemen LNG Total 2028
Seri Anggun 145,000 MISC MISC Samsung Nov-06 Malaysia S TZ Mk. III 4 Yemen-US Yemen LNG Total 2031
Seri Angkasa 145,000 MISC MISC Samsung Feb-07 Malaysia S TZ Mk. III 4 Petronas Various Malaysia-Pacific
Seri Bakti 152,300 MISC MISC Mitsubishi Mar-07 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4 Petronas Various Malaysia-Pacific
Seri Begawan 152,300 MISC MISC Mitsubishi Dec-07 Malaysia S GT NO 96 4
Shahamah 135,500 National Gas National Gas Kawasaki Oct-94 Liberia S Moss 5 Abu Dhabi- ADGAS Natural Gas 2020
Shipping Shipping Sakaide Japan Shipping
Shinjyu Maru 2,540 Shinwa Shinwa Imabari Aug-03 Japan D Cylinders 2 Japanese Shinwa
No. 1 Chemical Co. Marine Higaki Domestic Trade Chemicals
Simaisma 147,700 Maran Gas Maran Gas Daewoo Jul-06 Greece S GT No 96 4 Qatar-Europe Qatar RasGas II 2030
Maritime Maritime
SK Splendor 138,375 SK Shipping SK Shipping Samsung Mar-00 Panama S TZ Mk. III 4 Oman-Korea Oman Gas Kogas 2020
SK Stellar 138,375 SK Shipping SK Shipping Samsung Dec-00 Panama S TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-Korea RasGas Kogas 2020
SK Summit 138,000 SK Shipping SK Shipping Daewoo Aug-99 Panama S GT NO 96 4 Qatar-Korea RasGas Kogas 2019
SK Sunrise 138,306 I. S. Carriers SK Shipping Samsung Sep-03 Panama S TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-Korea RasGas Kogas 2025
SK Supreme 138,200 SK Shipping SK Shipping Samsung Jan-00 Panama S TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-Korea RasGas Kogas 2020
Sohar LNG 137,250 Oman Gas/ Mitsui OSK Mitsubishi Oct-01 Malta S Moss 5 Oman-France Oman Gas 2022
MOL Line Nagasaki
Surya Aki 19,475 MCGC Int’l Homolco Kawasaki Feb-96 Bahamas S Moss 3 Ind’sia-Japan Pertamina 2020
Sakaide
Surya Satsuma 23,096 MCGC Int’l Humolco NKK Tsu Oct-00 Japan S TZ Mk. III 3 Ind’sia-Japan Pertamina 2020
Tellier 40,000 Messigaz Gazocean La Ciotat Jan-74 France S TZ Mk. I 5 Algeria-France Sonatrach GdF 2013
Tembek 216,200 OSG/Nakilat Overseas Hdg Samsung Sep-07 Marshall I. DRL TZ Mk. III 4 Qatar-UK/Var. Qatargas II 2032
Tenaga Dua 130,000 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Dunkerque Aug-81 Malaysia S GT NO 88 5 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG 2205
Tenaga Empat 130,000 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. La Seyne Mar-81 Malaysia S GT NO 88 5 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG 2007
Tenaga Lima 130,000 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. La Seyne Aug-81 Malaysia S GT NO 88 5 M’sia-Japan Pertamina 2010
Tenaga Satu 130,000 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Dunkerque Sep-82 Malaysia S GT NO 88 5 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG 2007
Tenaga Tiga 130,000 M.I.S.C. M.I.S.C. Dunkerque Dec-81 Malaysia S GT NO 88 5 M’sia-Japan Petronas MLNG 2006
Umm Al Ashtan 137,000 National Gas National Gas Kvaerner- May-97 Liberia S Moss 4 Abu Dhabi- ADGAS Natural Gas 2021
Shipping Shipping Masa Japan Shipping
Umm Bab 145,000 Kristen Maran Gas Daewoo Nov-05 Bermuda S GT NO 96 4 Qatar-Europe Qatargas RasGas II 2030
Navigation Maritime
Wakaba Maru 125,000 J3 Consortium K Line Mitsui Chiba Apr-85 Japan S Moss 5 Ind’sia-Japan Pertamina Tepco 2009
YK Sovereign 127,125 SK Shipping SK Shipping Hyundai Dec-94 Panama S Moss 4 Ind’sia-Korea Pertamina Kogas 2015
Zekreet 135,420 J4 Consortium K Line Mitsui Chiba Dec-98 Japan S Moss 5 Qatar-Japan Qatargas 2024

Notes:
Any observations, additions or suggested revisions to the LNG journal World LNG Carrier Fleet list should be sent to editor@lngjournal.com

36 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p37-44:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:56 Page 1

Sponsors:

Contact:
Rob Percival
CWC Associates Limited
Tel: +44 20 7978 0078
Fax: +44 20 7978 0099
Email: rpercival@wgc2009.com
Website: www.wgc200.com
p37-44:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:56 Page 2

TABLES

Tables of reception terminals

LNG Reception Terminals
Total Storage
Country Location Owners Start up Vaporization No.of Total
Explanatory Notes (Project) capacity Tanks Capacity m3
mtpa

The tables do not include the Belgium Zeebrugge Fluxys 1987 7.4 4 380,000
following types of LNG facilities : China Guangdong CNOOC,BP 2006 3.7 2 320,000
 Small marine satellite Dominican
Republic Andres AES 2003 2 1 160,000
terminals receiving LNG from
France Fos-sur-Mer Gaz de France 1972 4 3 150,000
liquefaction plants in their own
Montoir Gaz de France 1980 8 3 360,000
country (such as exist in Greece Revithoussa DEPA 2000 2 2 130,000
Norway) or which receive LNG India Dahej Petronet LNG 2004 5 2 320,000
transhipped from nearby Hazira Shell India 2005 5 2 320,000
reception terminals in their own Italy Panigaglia Snam 1969 2.4 2 100,000
Negishi Tokyo Gas 1969 11 14 1,180,000
country (such as in Japan)
Sodegaura Tokyo Gas 1973 28 35 2,660,000
 Satellite LNG storage facilities
Ohgishima Tokyo Gas 1998 5 3 600,000
that receive LNG transported Higashi-Ohgishima Tokyo Electric 1984 15 9 540,000
only by road or rail Futtsu Tokyo Electric 1985 20 10 1,110,000

Expansions of LNG reception Yokkaichi LNG Chubu Electric 1988 7 4 320,000
terminals are only shown if they Kawagoe Chubu Electric 1997 8 4 480,000
involve new storage tanks Yokkaichi Works Toho Gas 1991 0.7 2 160,000
Chita LNG Joint Toho Gas, Chubu Electric 1978 8 4 300,000

The capacity given is either the
Chita LNG Toho Gas, Chubu Electric 1983 12 7 640,000
total existing or planned Chita - Midorihama Toho Gas 2001 5 1 200,000
vaporization capacity (baseload Senboku I Osaka Gas 1972 2.4 4 180,000
and peak), converted to an Senboku II Osaka Gas 1977 13 18 1,585,000
equivalent annual throughput in Himeji Osaka Gas 1984 5 8 740,000
million tonnes per annum (mtpa), Japan Himeji LNG Kansai Electric 1979 8 7 520,000
Yanai Chugoku Electric 1990 2.4 6 480,000
or, in the case of those planned
Niigata Nihonkai LNG, Tohoku Electric 1984 10 8 720,000
terminals where the available data Oita Oita Gas, Kyushu Electric 1990 5 5 460,000
is limited to a planned annual Tobata Kitakyushu LNG 1977 6 8 480,000
capacity, the capacity in the table Fukuoka Saibu Gas 1993 0.9 2 70,000
may be either baseload or peak. Sodeshi Shizuoka Gas 1996 0.9 2 177,000

For expansions to existing Hatsukaichi Hiroshima Gas 1996 0.5 2 170,000
Kagoshima Nippon Gas 1996 0.5 2 136,000
terminals the numbers given for
Shin-Minato Sendai City Gas 1997 0.8 1 80,000
capacity, and for numbers of
Nagasaki Saibu Gas 2003 0.13 1 36,000
storage tanks and their capacity, Sakai Kansai Electric, Cosmo OIl 2006 2.7 3 420,000
are those for the extra facilities Mizushima Nippon Oil,Chugoku Electric 2006 0.6 1 160,000
associated with that expansion, not Pyeong-Taek Korea Gas Corp. (Kogas) 1986 18 10 1,000,000
for the total terminal facilities after Kwangyang POSCO 2005 1.7 2 300,000
Korea Incheon Kogas 1996 29 18 2,480,000
expansion.
Tong-Yeong Kogas 2002 10 5 700,000

Where there is a blank in the table
Mexico Altamira Shell, Total, Mitsui 2006 3.6 2 300,000
the information is uncertain or Portugal Sines Transgas Atlantico 2003 5 2 240,000
unknown. Puerto Rico Penuelas Edison, Mission Energy, Gas Natural 2000 2.7 1 160,000
Barcelona Enagas 1969 8 6 540,000
Any comments on the tables, and Spain Huelva Enagas 1988 3 4 460,000
corrections/additional information from Cartagena Enagas 1989 4 3 297,000
Bilbao BP, Iberdola, Repsol, EVE 2003 5 2 300,000
terminal shareholders and project
Sagunto Union Fenosa, Endesa,Iberdola, Oman Oil 2006 4.8 2 300,000
developers would be most welcome, and Reganosa, Ferrol Union Fenosa, Endesa,Sonatrach,Tojeiro 2006 2.6 2 300,000
should be sent to John McKay e-mail Taiwan Yung-An C.P.C. 1990 20 6 690,000
editor@lngjournal.com Turkey Marmara Ereglisi Botas 1994 4 3 255,000
Izmir EgeGaz 2006 3 2 280,000
Everett Suez LNG NA 1971 5 2 155,000
Lake Charles Southern Union 1982 9 4 425,000
USA Elba Island Southern LNG 2001 4 4 351,000
Cove Point* Dominion 2003 7.7 5 370,000
Gulf Gateway*
(offshore RVs, Gulf) Excelerate Energy 2005 4 * *
UK Isle of Grain National Grid 2005 3.3 4 200,000

38 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p37-44:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:56 Page 3

TABLES

Planned New and Expanded LNG Reception Terminals

Country Location/Project Owners/ Start up/ planned Storage

Project Developers start up No. new/ existing Total new/ exisiting
tanks capacity m3

Bahamas Freeport, Grand Bahama Suez, FPL Group, El Paso 2009 2 360,000
Ocean Cay AES Ocean Express 2008
Brazil Suape GNL do Nordeste : Shell, Petrobras 2009 1 160,000
Canada Bear Head US Venture Energy 2007 2 360,000
Cacouna LNG, Quebec TransCanada, Petro-Canada 2009 2 320,000
Goldboro, Keltic Petrochemicals
Goldboro Maple LNG 4Gas 2010 3
Nova Scotia PEV International R&D . 2008
Kitimat, B.C. Galveston LNG 2008 2 142,000
Texada Island, Nr. Vancouver WestPac LNG Corp., 2013
Canaport, Saint John, N.B. Irving Oil, Repsol 2008 3 480,000
Rabaska, Quebec Gaz Métro, Gaz de France & Enbridge 2010 2 320,000
Chile Quintero Enap 2008
China Fujian CNOOC, Fujian Investment & Development 2008 2 320,000
Shenzhen, Guangdong (expansion) CNOOC 2008 3 480,000
Hainan LNG CNOOC 2009
Shanghai CNOOC, Shenergy Group 2008 2 320,000
Tianjin CNOOC
Hebei CNOOC
Liaoning, Dalian PetroChina Ltd 2011 2
Ningbo, Zheijang CNOOC 2009
Yancheng, Jiangsu CNOOC 2010
Yingkou, Liaoning CNOOC 2010
Shantuo, Guangdong CNOOC 2010
Guangxi China National Petroleum Corp
Qingdao, Shangdong Sinopec 2009
Rudong, Jiangsu Sinopec, Petrochina 2010
Croatia Adria LNG E.ON-Ruhrgas, OMV, Total, RWE, INA, Geoplin 2011
Cyprus Vassiliko Cyprus Government 2009
France Fos Cavaou Gaz de France, Total 2009 3 330,000
Le Havre Verding/Poweo/ Gaz de Normandiem (Studies) 2011
Bordeaux (Le Verdon) 4Gas 2011
Marseilles (Fos-Sur-Mer) Royal Dutch Shell (Studies)
Le Havre (Antifer) Poweo/E.ON Ruhrgas/ Verbund/CIM 2012
Germany DFTG Willemshaven 2011 2 320,000
Honduras Puerto Cortes AES 2008
India Dabhol GAIL, NTPC (Ratnagiri Gas & Power) 2009+ 3 480,000
Mangalore ONGC 2010+
Kochi, Kerala Petronet LNG 2011 220,000
Ennore, Tamil Nadu GAIL, CPCL, IOC
Indonesia Cilegon, West Java PLN, Pertamina 2008
Italy Porto Levante (offshore GBS) ExxonMobil, Qatar Petroleum, Edison Gas 2008 2 250,000
Brindisi BG 2011 2 320,000
Livorno (offshore FSRU) OLT , Falck 2010
Rosignano (Livorno, offshore) BP, Edison, Solvay 2011 1 160,000
Taranto Gas Natural 2009 2 300,000
Priolo/Augusta/Melilli, Shell Energy Europe,
Sicily ERG Power & Gas 2010
Monfalcone (offshore) Endesa 2010
Jamaica Port Esquivel, Old Harbour Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica 2010
Japan Okinawa Okinawa Electric Power 2010
Shikoku/Sakaide LNG Shikoku Electric Power, Cosmo Oil Co., 2010
Shikoku Gas Co.
Pyeong-Taek (expansion) Kogas 2008 4 560,000
Korea Tong-Yeong (expansion) Kogas 2006 5 700,000
Incheon (expansion) Kogas 2015 11
Pyeong-Taek (expansion) Kogas 2015 10
Tong-Yeong (expansion) Kogas 2010 2 200,000
Energia Costa Azul Sempra LNG 2008 2 320,000
Mexico Lazaro Cardenas Repsol 2010 2 300,000

LNG journal • June 2008 • 39

p37-44:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:56 Page 4

TABLES

Planned New and Expanded LNG Reception Terminals (continued)

Country Location/Project Owners/ Start up/ planned Storage

Project Developers start up No. new/ existing Total new/ exisiting
tanks capacity m3

Manzanillo CFE 2009

Mexico(contd) Puerto Libertad, Sonora DKRW Energy, Sonora Govt. 2009 2 320,000
Ensenada (offshore GBS) GNL Mar Adentro de Baja
California -Chevron 2009 2 250,000
TAMMSA, Rosarito (o/shr FSRU) Moss Maritime/CEMSA 2008
Dorado HiLoad, Gulf (o/shr FSRU) Tidelands Oil &Gas 2009
Netherlands Gasunie, Royal Vopak, RWE Petroplus
New Zealand North Island Contact Energy, Genesis 2010
Pakistan Karachi Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. 2010
Philippines Mariveles, Bataan GNPower 2008 2 280,000
Calaga LNG, Manila Bay Batangas Govt. 2015
Poland Baltic PGNiG
Singapore Singapore Energy Authority 2012
El Musel, Gijón, Enagas 2010 2 300,000
Spain Cartagena (expansion) Enagas 2008 1 150,000
Spain - Arinaga, Gran Canaria Gascan, Unelco Endesa 2008
Canary Is. Granadilla, Tenerife Gascan, Unelco Endesa 2008
Sweden Oxelosund Sydkraft Gas (Eon)
Taiwan Tai-chung CPC 2008 3 480,000
Thailand Map Ta Phud PTT 2012
Dragon LNG, Milford Haven BG, Petroplus, Petronas 2008 2 310,000
South Hook, ExxonMobil, Qatar Petroleum, Total 2008 3 465,000
UK Milford Haven 2010 2 310,000
Amlwch, Anglesey Canatxx
Teeside ConocoPhillips
Ukraine Black Sea coast Naftogaz
Blue Ocean Energy (offshore ExxonMobil 2010+
Cove Point (expansion) Dominion 2009 2 320,000
Cameron Sempra LNG 2008 3 480,000
Downeast LNG (Robbinston, Maine) Dean Girdis, Kestrel Energy
USA Freeport Freeport LNG, Cheniere,ConocoPhillips 2008 2 320,000
Neptune LNG Hoegh LNG/Suez LNG 2009
Sabine Pass Cheniere 2008 3 420,000
Bradwood, OR Northern Star
Broadwater Energy, NY (offshore FSRU) TransCanada, Shell 2010 2 350,000
Cabrillo Port, CA (offshore FSRU) BHP Billiton 2010 3 273,000
Calhoun LNG Gulf Coast LNG, Haddington
Port Lavaca, TX Ventures 2009 2 320,000
Clearwater Port, CA (offshore platform) Crystal Energy, Woodside 2010
Corpus Christi, TX Cheniere Energy 2009 3 480,000
Creole Trail, LA Cheniere Energy 2009 4 640,000
Crown Landing, NJ BP 2010 3 450,000
Golden Pass, TX ExxonMobil 2009 5 775,000
HiLoad, Gulf (offshore FSRU) TORP Technology, Golar LNG 2009
Ingleside Energy, TX Occidental Oil & Gas Corp 2011 2 320,000
Jordan Cove, OR Fort Chicago LNG/Energy Projects 2011 2 320,000
Main Pass, Gulf (offshore platform) McMoRan 2009+ 1 145,000
Northeast Gateway (offshore RV) Excelerate 2008
Oregon LNG (Warrenton) 2013 3 480,000
Pascagoula, MS Gulf LNG Energy 2012 2 320,000
Pascagoula, MS (Casotte Landing) Chevron 2012
Pearl Crossing,Gulf (offshore) ExxonMobil 2009 2 250,000
Port Arthur, TX Sempra Energy 2010+ 3 480,000
Port Pelican,Gulf (offshore GBS) Chevron 2010 2 330,000
Providence, RI * Keyspan, BG 2008
Quoddy Bay LNG Quoddy Bay LLC 2011
St. Helens, OR Port Westward LNG 2011
Sparrow Point, Maryland AES CORP. 2011
Vista Del Sol, Ingleside, TX ExxonMobil 2009 3 465,000
Weaver's Cove, Fall River, MA Amerada Hess, Poten & Partners 2010+ 1 200,000

40 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p37-44:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:56 Page 5

TABLES

Tables of liquefaction plants

Existing Liquefaction plants Explanatory Notes
Country Location/Project Shareholders Start Liquefacton Storage
up No. of capacity No. of Total
The tables do not include the
trains (nominal) tanks capacity following types of LNG facilities :
mtpa m3  Liquefaction plants which do not
Algeria Arzew Sonatrach GL4Z 1964 3 1.1 (1.7) 4 71,000 have a marine terminal for LNG
Bethioua Sonatrach GL1Z 1978 6 7.6 3 300,000
exports, i.e. it excludes most
GL2Z 1981 6 8.5 3 300,000
Skikda Sonatrach GL1K 1972 1 1 2 112,000 LNG Peakshaving plants and
GL2K 1981 2 2 3 196,000 those smaller-scale LNG plants
Karratha Woodside, Shell, BHP, ) 1989 2 Total 7.5 4 260,000 supplying LNG by road tanker
Australia (North West Shelf J.V.) BP, ChevronTexaco, MIMI 1992 1 or rail.
(Mistubishi/Mitsui) 2004 1 4.5
 Small-scale liquefaction
Darwin (Bayu Undan) ConocoPhillips, Santos, Tepco, 2006 1 3 1 188,000 facilities supplying small
Tokyo Gas marine satellite terminals in
Brunei Brunei Brunei/Shell/Mitsubishi 1972 5 6.71 3 176,000 their own country (such as exist
Egypt Damietta (SEGAS) Union Fenosa, ENI, EGPC, EGAS 2004 1 5 2 300,000 in Norway)
Idku (Egyptian LNG) EGPC, EGAS, BG, 2005 2 7.2 2 280,000

The existing or planned baseload
Gaz de France, Petronas
Equatorial Bioko Island Marathon, GEPetrol 2007 1 3.4 2 272,000 capacity is given in million tonnes
Guinea (Mitsubishi, Marubeni to join) per annum (mtpa)
Indonesia Blang Lancang 1978 3 Total 7 4 508,000
Storage capacities are given in m3
(PT Arun) Pertamina, ExxonMobil, JILCO 1984 2 (13.2) liquid (LNG)
1986 1

For expansions to existing
1977 2(A,B) 4 380,000
1983 2 (C,D) 1 127,000 terminals the numbers given for
Bontang Pertamina, VICO, JILCO, Total 1989 1 (E) Total 22 number of liquefaction trains and
(PT Badak) 1993 1 (F) their capacity, and for numbers of
1997 1 (G) storage tanks and their capacity,
1999 1 (H)
are those for the extra facilities
Libya Marsa el Brega Sirte Oil (NOC/Shell upgrade) 3.2 2 96,000
Bintulu (Malaysia LNG) Petronas, Shell, 1983 3 8.0 4 260,000 associated with that expansion,
Malaysia Bintulu (MLNG Dua) Sarawak Govt, Mitsubishi 1995 3 8.0 1 65,000 not for the total terminal facilities
Bintulu (MLNG Tiga) Petronas, Shell, Sarawak Govt, 2003 2 6.8 1 120,000 after expansion.
Mitsubishi, Nippon Oil
Nigeria Bonny Island NNPC, Shell, Total, Agip 1999 2 6.4 2 168,400
(Nigeria LNG) 2002 1 3.2 1 84,200
Shell Total, Iberdrola,, Transgas, 2005 2 8.2
Eni, BG and Endesa
Endesa, France's Total and 2008 1 4.0 1 84,200
Royal Dutch Shell
Norway Melkoya Island Statoil, Total, Gaz de France, Norsk 2007 1 4.2 2 280,000
(Snohvit j.v.) Hydro
Oman Oman LNG Oman Govt. , Shell, Total, Korea 2000 2 7.4 2 240,000
LNG, Mitsubishi , Mitsui, Partex
and Itochu
Qalhat LNG Oman Govt. ,Oman LNG Union 2006 1 3.5 2 240,000
Fenosa, Osaka Gas, & Itochu
Ras Laffan (Qatargas) QGPC, ExxonMobil , 1996 3 9.5 4 340,000
Qatar Total, Marubeni, Mitsui
Ras Laffan (RasGas) QGPC, ExxonMobil, Kogas, 1999 2 6.6 3 420,000
Itochu & LNG Japan
Ras Laffan (RasGas II) QGPC, ExxonMobil 2004 1 4.7
Ras Gas II QGPC ExxonMobil 2005 1 4.7
RasGas II - T3 2007 1 4.7
RasGas III - T6 [2] Qatar Petroleum, ExxonMobil 2008 1 7.8
RasGas III -T7 [2] Qatar Petroleum, ExxonMobil 2008 1 7.8
QatarGas III Qatar Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, 2009 1 7.8
Mitsui
BP, BG, Repsol, Suez, NGC 1999 1 3.2 2 204,000
Trinidad Point Fortin BP, BG, Repsol 2002 1 3.2 1 160,000
& Tobago (Atlantic LNG) 2003 1 3.2
2005 1 5.2
Abu Dhabi Das Island (Adgas) ADNOC, Mitsui, BP, Total 1977 2 3.2 3 240,000
(UAE) 1994 1 2.5
U.S.A. Kenai - Alaska ConocoPhilips, Marathon Oil 1969 1 1.4 3 108,000

LNG journal • June 2008 • 41

p37-44:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:56 Page 6

TABLES

Liquefaction Plants Under Construction

Country Location/Project Shareholders Start up Liquefacton Storage
No. of capacity No. of tanks Total capacity
trains (nominal) mtpa m3

Angola Angola LNG Sonangol, Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, Total 2012 1 5.0
Indonesia Irian Jaya(Tangguh) BP, MI Berau, CNOOC, Nippon Oil, KG, LNG Japan 2008 2 7.6
Qatar Ras Laffan -exp. QGPC, ExxonMobil Train 4 2008 1 7.8
(Qatargas II) QGPC, ExxonMobil, Total Train 5 2008 1 7.8
Russia Sakhalin (Sakhalin Energy) Gazprom, Shell, Mitsui, Mitsubishi 2008 2 9.6 2 200,000

Planned Liquefaction Plants And Expansions

Country Location/Project Project developers Planned No. new new capacity

start up trains mtpa

Abu Dhabi Das Island (expansion) Adgas 1

Algeria Skikda Sonatrach 2011 1 4.5
Algeria Arzew (Gassi Touil) Sonatrach/Repsol/Gas Natural 2009 1 3.8
Angola Soyo Sonangol, ChevronTexaco, BP, ExxonMobil, Total 2009 1 5
Australia NWS Venture (Tr.5 expansion) Woodside, Shell, BHP, BP, ChevronTexaco, MIMI 2008 1 4.5
Australia Barrow Island (Gorgon) ChevronTexaco,Shell, ExxonMobil 2011 2 10
Australia Tassie Shoal MEO Australia Ltd./Petrofac Ltd 2011 1 3
Australia Pilbara BHP Petroleum 2012 6
Australia Browse Woodside 2012 10
Australia Greater Sunrise Woodside, Osaka Gas, ConocoPhillips, Shell 2013 1 5.3
Australia Gladstone LNG Santos 2014 1 3.4
Australia Ichthys INPEX, Total 2013 2 6.0
Australia Wheatstone LNG Chevron Corp. 2012 1 5
Bolivia Margarita (Pacific LNG) Repsol, BG and BP 2 7
Brazil Solimoes (Green LNG) Petrobras 2008 1 2.5
Brunei Lumut - Train 6 expansion Brunei LNG 2011 1 5
Egypt Damietta - Train 2 expansion ENI, EGPC, EGAS 2011 1 5
Indonesia Bontang - Tr.I expansion Pertamina, Total, Unocal, VICO 2009 1 3.5
Iran Iran LNG NIOC, BP, Reliance 2012 2 8
Iran Pars LNG NIOC, Total, Petronas 2012 2 8
Iran Persian LNG NIOC, Repsol, Shell 2013 2 10
Iran NIOC LNG NIOC, BG, Enel, Agip 2013 2 9.6
Malaysia Bintulu (exp.) Malaysia LNG, Petronas 1
Mauritania BG
Nigeria Bonny - Train 7 NNPC, Shell, Total, ENI 1
Nigeria Bonny NNPC/ExxonMobil 1 4.8
Nigeria Brass LNG NNPC, Eni, ConocoPhillips, ChevronTexaco 2012 2 10
Nigeria Olokola NNPC, Chevron Nigeria, BG and Shell 2012 4 20
Papua NGuinea PNG LNG Merrill Lynch, InterOil, Pacific LNG 2012 1 4.5
Peru Pampa Melchorita (Camisea LNG) Hunt Oil, SK Corp., Repsol and Marubeni Corp. 2008 1 4.5
Qatar Ras Laffan - expansion (Qatargas III - Train 6) Qatar Petroleum (QGPC),ConocoPhillips 2009 1 7.5
Qatar Ras Laffan - expansion (Qatargas IV - Train 7) QGPC, Shell 2012 1 7.8
Russia Murmansk (Shtockman) Gazprom and partners 2015 2 12
Trinidad Point Fortin -Trains. 5&6. BP, BG, Repsol, NGC 2 10.4
USA Alaska Alaska North Slope
Yemen Bal-Haf (Yemen LNG) Total, Yemen Gas, Hunt Oil, SK Corp, Hyundai 2009 2 6.8

42 • LNG journal • The World’s Leading LNG journal

p37-44:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:57 Page 7

20 th - 22 nd October 2008
Rotterdam, Netherlands
www.lngevent.com energy@wtgevents.com

Achieve technical excellence across the LNG value chain

LNG Tech 2008 – The conference and networking event that brings together leading
oil and gas companies to discover how to harness the latest technologies for competitive
advantage.
Conference - LNG TECH summit features 3 individual conference streams focusing on
liquefaction, transportation and regasification.

Confirmed speakers include:

Ahmed Shehata Abdelkader Haouari Fortunato Donato David Maocec

Production Manager Expansion Start-up Manager Costantino LNG Project Leader
EGYPTIAN LNG QATARGAS Head of LNG GAZ DE FRANCE
Egypt Qatar OMV France

Networking:
LNG TECH summit features both informal and formal networking opportunities including a
session of pre-scheduled one-to-one meetings with fellow delegates and solution providers
with which you share common interests and goals.

To find out more please contact us at energy@wtgevents.com

or call us on +44(0) 20 7202 7621
To book your place now visit the website www.lngsummit.com
(quote booking code LNG JOURNAL 2)
Visit our stand #7622 in pavilion 7 at the World Petroleum Congress on 29th of June - 3rd of July 2008
p37-44:LNG 3 06/06/2008 12:57 Page 8

Unique solutions
for industrial processes
Industrial processes come with a multitude Founded in 1962, Temati began by manufacturing, promoting and selling Foster® products in

of challenges, which require reliable and the Benelux. Nowadays Temati is Europe’s sole licensed manufacturer and supplier of Foster®

innovative products. At Temati, we have and Childers® products, with now five office- and warehouse-locations in different countries

decades of experience and expertise. We are and an international distributors- network. Today we sell an extensive range of specialized

your ideal partner when seeking solutions materials to customers throughout Europe, as well as overseas. As we continue to expand our

that make a real difference. services, you can continue to rely on us for a wide range of products and the best solutions.

Temati B.V. Tel: (+31) (0)251 229 172 Fax: (+31) (0)251 212 380 E-mail: temati@temati.com www.temati.com