Upload
others
View
9
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
ABOUT US
� World’s leading inspection, verification, testing and certification company
� Experts at:• Providing competitive advantage
• Driving sustainability
• Delivering trust
� 60,000 employees, including:• Scientists, engineers, doctors, chemists, auditors and inspectors
� 1,000 plus offices and 360 main laboratories operating in 140 countries.
2
Global LNG Coverage
Terminal &
Transportation Services
Terminal &
Transportation Services
LNG Competence
Center
LNG Competence
Center
Production ServicesProduction Services
Gas Competence Center
Technical Center
Europe, Middle East,
Africa
Gas Competence Center
Technical Center
Europe, Middle East,
Africa
Gas Competence Center
Asia, Oceania
Gas Competence Center
Asia, OceaniaGas Competence Center
North and South America
Gas Competence Center
North and South America
SpainSpain
FranceFrance
BelgiumBelgium
QatarQatar
PortugalPortugal
ItalyItaly
UKUK
EgyptEgypt
AlgeriaAlgeria
NigeriaNigeria
TurkeyTurkey
OmanOman
GreeceGreece
NorwayNorway
Eq.GuineaEq.Guinea
RussiaRussia
UAEUAE
LibyaLibya
3
Global LNG Coverage
Terminal &
Transportation Services
Terminal &
Transportation Services
LNG Competence
Center
LNG Competence
Center
Production ServicesProduction Services
Lake CharlesLake Charles
BaltimoreBaltimore
BostonBoston
CameronCameron
TrinidadTrinidad
MexicoMexico
CanadaCanada
Gas Competence Center
North and South America
Gas Competence Center
North and South AmericaGas Competence Center
Asia, Oceania
Gas Competence Center
Asia, OceaniaGas Competence Center
Technical Center
Europe, Middle East, Africa
Gas Competence Center
Technical Center
Europe, Middle East, Africa
USAUSA
FreeportFreeport
Sabine PassSabine Pass
EnsenadaEnsenada
AltamiraAltamira
ArgentinaArgentina
BrasilBrasil
D. RepublicD. Republic
N.Brunswick N.Brunswick
ChileChile
SavannahSavannah
4
Global LNG Coverage
Terminal &
Transportation Services
Terminal &
Transportation Services
LNG Competence
Center
LNG Competence
Center
Production ServicesProduction Services
AustraliaAustralia
MalaysiaMalaysia
KoreaKorea
TaiwanTaiwan
JapanJapan
IndiaIndia
ChinaChina
Gas Competence Center
North and South America
Gas Competence Center
North and South AmericaGas Competence Center
Asia, Oceania
Gas Competence Center
Asia, OceaniaGas Competence Center
Technical Center
Europe, Middle East, Africa
Gas Competence Center
Technical Center
Europe, Middle East, Africa
LNG Sales and Purchase Agreement
6
SPA - Calculations
The economical consequences in using different LNG standards
8
� Typical values
• 150000 m³
• 67 500 tons of LNG
• 3 500 000 MMBTU
9
Transferred Energy
• Etransferred = energy transferred from loading facilities to LNG carrier of
from LNG carrier to unloading facilities
• DLNG = Density of LNG loaded or unloaded (kg/m³)
• VLNG = Volume of LNG loaded or unloaded (m³)
• GHV = Gross Heating Value of LNG loaded or unloaded (MJ/kg or
MMBTU/kg): quantity of heat produced by complete combustion in air of a unit of
volume or mass of the gas, at a constant absolute pressure of 1,01325 bar and at a
temperature T
• Egas displaced = quantity of energy in gaseous form displaced during loading
or unloading
displacedgasLNGLNGLNGdtransferre EGHVVDE ** −=
10
Using different LNG standards
� International standards
• GPA 2145
• ISO 6578
• ISO 6976
• NBS IR 77-867
• NBS TN 1030
• Etc ….
• G.I.I.G.N.L. LNG Custody Transfer Handbook
11
Using different LNG standards: Density
� Xi, Xn, Xm determined by analysis in gas chromatograph
• Xi: Molar fraction of the ith component
• Xn: Molar fraction of Nitrogen
• Xm: Molar fraction of Methane
� Mi by standard
• Molecular mass of the ith component
� Vi by standard and dependent on Tliq
• Molecular volume of the ith component
� K1, k2 by standard and dependent on Tliq and molar mass
• Correction factors for Nitrogen and Methane
0.0425
Density = Σ ( Xi * Mi )
Σ ( Xi * Vi ) – [(k1 + (k2 – k1)*Xn) * Xm]
12
Using different LNG standards: Density
456,734
456,795
456,698
456,745
456,806
456,709
456,730
456,791
456,694
Density (kg/m³)
Difference between min and max = 0.113 kg/m³
⇒ +/- 900 MMBTU
13
Using different LNG standards: GHV
� Xi determined by analysis in gas chromatograph
� Hmi by standard
• Molecular Gross Heating Value
� Mi by standard
• Molecular mass of the ith component
∑∑
=
)*(
)**(
MiXi
MiHmiXiHm
14
Using different LNG standards: Hmi (15 °C)
54,3914
54,3907
54,3763
GHV (MJ/kg)
Difference between min and max = 0,015 MJ/kg
⇒ +/- 980 MMBTU
15
3517737
3518209
3517457
3517826
3518298
3517545
3517709
3518180
3517428
3518718
3519189
3518437
3518807
3519279
3518526
3518689
3519160
3518408
Qnet (MMBTU)
Using different LNG standards: Energy
16
3518670
3519141
3518389
3518759
3519231
3518478
3518641
3519112
3518360
Qnet (MMBTU)
Using different LNG standards: Energy
17
Using different LNG standards: Energy
� Combination of D and GHV to calculate Etransferred
⇒ 27 different results between 3517428 MMBTU and 3519279 MMBTU
⇒ 1850 MMBTU
18
Using same standard under different Reference
conditions
� Calculation of GHV according ISO 6976
• 0°C
• 15°C
• 60°F
• 20°C
• 25°C
Difference in energy value is
10104 MMBTU
LNG SPA calculation review:
Case Study 1
20
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
� Master agreement:
• Client wanted to know what method was more favourable:
– Terminal regulations or
– Calculation method specified in SPA
� SGS compared energy calculations
• A typical composition from LP was requested
• Calculations are done for typical cargo (+/- 150000 m³)
• Additional: SGS compares the calculations with other calculation methods using different standards, reference conditions
� Graphs show what calculation method is more favorable for clients
21
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
� Using a typical composition of the LP, the following calculations
were performed using the different international accepted
standards and reference temperatures
3378741
3378752
3378919
3378832
3378843
3379010
3378609
3378620
3378787
Enet
(MMBTU)
22
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
3377835
3377847
3378013
3377926
3377937
3378104
3377703
3377715
3377881
3378924
3378935
3379102
3379015
3379026
3379192
3378792
3378803
3378970
Enet
(MMBTU)
23
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
3378804
3378816
3378982
3378895
3378906
3379073
3378672
3378684
3378850
3384127
3384139
3384305
3384218
3384229
3384396
3383995
3384006
3384173
Enet
(MMBTU)
24
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
3375470
3375383
3375394
3375560
3375160
3375172
3375338
3377063
3377074
3377240
3377153
3377164
3377331
3376931
3376942
3377108
Enet
(MMBTU)
25
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
3375160 3375483
3378700
3384396
3372000
3374000
3376000
3378000
3380000
3382000
3384000
3386000
minimum SPA calculations Terminal
Regulations
maximum
Calculation Method
En
erg
y (
MM
BT
U)
26
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
0
9236
3540
323
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
minimum SPA calculations Terminal
Regulations
maximum
Calculation Method
En
erg
y (
MM
BT
U)
27
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
� Calculation was done for both SPA calculation section and terminal regulations and the following results were found:
• Terminal Regulations: 3378700 MMBTU
• SPA agreement: 3375483 MMBTU
Difference = 3217 MMBTU
� By accepting Terminal regulations client gained on average around 3200 MMBTU per shipment when selling the cargo
28
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
� Analysis of difference between calculation sections
• Different reference temperatures
this case SPA: 25 °C vs terminal regulations: 15 °C
• vapour return included: yes/no
Difference might be around 12000 MMBTU/cargo
• Other standards used
• Roundings
• …
LNG SPA calculation review:
Case Study 2
30
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
3.332.590
3.355.496
3.320.000
3.325.000
3.330.000
3.335.000
3.340.000
3.345.000
3.350.000
3.355.000
3.360.000
T&M calculations Terminal Regulations
En
erg
y (
MM
BT
U)
31
LNG SPA review: Case Study: Calculation Section
22.906
0
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
T&M calculations Terminal Regulations
En
erg
y (
MM
BT
U)
32
SPA - Sampling
33
Change during transportation
� Change in Quantity & Quality
• Gas used as a fuel: dual - firing
• Determined by experience
– Weather ?
– Direction waves ? ( motion of the ship ? )
– Cargo handling ? (Gas – Gas, Fuel – Fuel, TK pressure …)
– Length voyage ? ( at anchor, drifting )
– Composition ?
– Volume Vessel
– Age Vessel
– Insulation
– Etc
• Has to comply with the limit described in Charter Party
– Exception Gas – Gas
34
Change during transport
� Prediction based on experience
Follow up change Q&Q
36
Case studies
� Load Port 1: underestimation of LNG
� Load Port 2: overestimation of LNG
37
Case studies: Load Port 1: underestimation of LNG
� Monitor change in composition for a fixed route
• General: GHV at DP and LP remain ± constant
• LP 1 – DP 1:
– GHV at DP ± constant
– GHV at LP decreases
� This might indicate an overestimation of the LNG at LP
38
Case studies: Load Port 1: underestimation of LNG
LP - DP GHV
0,994
0,996
0,998
1,000
1,002
1,004
1,006
1,008
1,010
1,012
14/ 11/ 2007 3/ 01/ 2008 22/ 02/ 2008 12/ 04/ 2008 1/ 06/ 2008 21/ 07/ 2008 9/ 09/ 2008 29/ 10/ 2008 18/ 12/ 2008 6/ 02/ 2009 28/ 03/ 2009 17/ 05/ 2009 Data
GH
V (
No
rmali
sed
)
GHV LP
GHV DP
GHV LP max – GHV LP min = 8.1 BTU/SCF
GHV DP max – GHV DP min = 8.3 BTU/SCF
Δ GHV max= ± 8.5 BTU/SCFΔ GHV min= ± 4.5 BTU/SCFΔ GHV avg = ± 6.5 BTU/SCF
39
Case studies: Load Port 1: underestimation of LNG
Voyage: LP 1 - DP 1
0,985
0,990
0,995
1,000
1,005
1,010
1,015
1,020
07/2008 09/2008 11/2008 12/2008 02/2009 04/2009Date
GH
V (
BT
U/S
CF
)
GHV LP
GHV DP
Δ GHV avg = ± 5 BTU/SCF
Δ GHV max = ± 9 BTU/SCF
GHV LP max – GHV LP min = ± 14 BTU/SCF
GHV DP max – GHV DP min = ± 12 BTU/SCF
Δ GHV avg = ± 13 BTU/SCF
Δ GHV max = ± 19 BTU/SCF
GHV LP max – GHV LP min = ± 12 BTU/SCF
GHV DP max – GHV DP min = ± 4 BTU/SCF
Δ GHV =± 7 BTU/SCF
Δ GHV = ± 19 BTU/SCF
Composition 1
Composition 2
Calculation of energy difference composition 1 vs composition 2
40
Case studies: Load Port 1: underestimation of LNG
� Composition has big influence on final energy delivered
� Comparison cargo calculated composition 1 and composition 2
� Difference for cargo 150000 m³
� ± 25000 MMBTU
41
Case studies
� Load Port 1: underestimation of LNG
� Load Port 2: overestimation of LNG
42
Case studies: Load Port 2: overestimation of LNG
� Monitor change in GHV from 1 LP to different DP
� Normally: GHVvol must increase
� At LP2: from a certain moment increase GHV lower than before AND regularly a decrease in GHV is found
� As the LNG is exported to different DP (15 different DP, with no history of problems sampling/analysis) the problem is most likely located in LP
43
Case studies: Load Port 2: overestimation of LNG
Change in GHV: voyages 10-16 Days
-10,0
-5,0
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
0 8 /2 0 0 7 1 1 /2 0 0 7 0 2 /2 0 0 8 0 6 /2 0 0 8 0 9 /2 0 0 8 1 2 /2 0 0 8 0 3 /2 0 0 9 0 7 /2 0 0 9
D ate
∆ G
HV
(B
TU
/SC
F)
44
Case studies: Load Port 2: overestimation of LNG
� Period 2, on average a shift of 3 BTU/SCF is found
� Energy at LP is 7250 MMBTU ‘overstated’
45
SPA - Volume
46
Level Measurement system
� Types
• Float gauge
• Capacitance gauge
• Radar system
� Two types are installed
• Primary system
• Secondary system
47
WISH YOU A SAFE OPERATION
Thank you Sven