Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Table of Contents
i
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
DISCLAIMER NOTICE
NOMENCLATURE
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Scope of Study
1.3 Summary of Results
1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
1.5 Next Steps for the Project
2 GAS MARKET ASSESSMENT
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Island Electric Utility (Aqualectra)
2.3 Isla Refinery (CRUC)
2.4 Seasonal, Daily and Hourly Demand Fluctuation
2.5 Demand Growth
2.6 Neighbouring Islands
2.7 Natural Gas and Fuel Oil Price Forecasts
2.8 Gas Quality Requirements
3 GAS SUPPLY CONCEPTS
3.1 Introduction
3.2 CNG Option
3.3 LNG Options
3.4 Gas Import Pipeline Options
4 COMMERCIAL EVALUATION
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Commercial Evaluation Basis
4.3 CAPEX and OPEX Estimates
4.4 Delivered LNG Price (C.I.F. Curacao Terminal)
4.5 Curacao Average Delivered Gas Price
4.6 Curacao Gas Cost vs. Gas Rate
4.7 Risk Matrix Analysis
4.8 Conclusions
5 LNG SUPPLY
5.1 Introduction
5.2 LNG Industry Overview
5.3 LNG Quality Specification
5.4 Typical LNG Supply Contract Terms
5.5 Potential LNG Suppliers
Table of Contents
ii
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
5.6 Pooling LNG Supply With Neighbouring Islands
5.7 Conclusions
6 LNG SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTATION
6.1 Overview
6.2 Availability of Ships
6.3 Shipping Costs and Losses
6.4 Port Requirements
6.5 Conclusions
7 TERMINAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT
7.1 Introduction
7.2 LNG Terminal Site Locations
7.3 Bullen Bay Site Option
7.4 Schottegat Harbor Site Option
7.5 LNG FSRU Option
7.6 Advantages / Disadvantages
7.7 Conclusions
8 CONCEPTUAL CURACAO LNG TERMINAL
8.1 Overview
8.2 Marine and Unloading Facilities
8.3 LNG Storage
8.4 BOG and Ship Vapor Return System
8.5 LNG Pumps, BOG Condenser and LNG Sendout System
8.6 LNG Vaporization System
8.7 Gas Sendout System
8.8 Operations Control System
8.9 Utility Systems
8.10 Safety Systems
8.11 Security Systems
8.12 Buildings and Infrastructure
8.13 Layout Plot Plan
9 CONCEPTUAL CURACAO GAS SENDOUT PIPELINE
9.1 Overview
9.2 Route
9.3 Size, Capacity and Design Parameters
9.4 Constructability
9.5 Pipeline Operations Control
10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
10.1 Overview
10.2 Personnel Training
10.3 Owner Staffing and Labor Costs
10.4 Operations and Maintenance Budget
Table of Contents
iii
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
11 INTEGRATED SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
11.1 Reliability
11.2 Backup Fuel Supply
11.3 Turndown Flexibility
11.4 Expandability
11.5 Conclusions
12 PROJECT EXECUTION PLANNING
12.1 Execution Plan Framework
12.2 Development Planning
12.3 Construction Strategy / Philosophy
12.4 Typical Project Schedule
13 REGULATORY AND PERMITTING
13.1 Environmental, Social, Health and Safety
13.2 Environmental Regulations and Global Standards
13.3 Curacao Permitting Requirements
13.4 Financial Institution Requirements
13.5 ESHS Issues of Concern
13.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
14 COMMENTS ON PROJECT FINANCING
14.1 Overview
14.2 Equity Requirements
14.3 Typical Lending Organizations
14.4 Terms and Criteria
14.5 Risk
14.6 Equator Principles
14.7 Lenders Due Diligence Report
15 APPENDIX
A. Conceptual Basis of Design
B. Process Flow Diagram With Heat & Material Balance
C. Terminal Layout
D. Major Equipment List
E. Utility Load Summary
F. Key Milestone Project Schedule
G. LNG Shipping Route Charts
H. Historical Hurricane Tracking Charts
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Disclaimer Notice
This document was prepared by Shaw Consultants International, Inc. (Consultant) for
the benefit of the Refineria di Korsou N.V. (Company) and their respective lenders
(collectively, the Beneficiaries). With regard to any use or reliance on this document
by any party other than the Beneficiaries and those parties intended by the Beneficiaries
to use this document (Additional Parties), Consultant, its parent, and affiliates: (a)
make no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information or
methodology disclosed in this document; and (b) specifically disclaims any liability with
respect to any reliance on or use of any information or methodology disclosed in this
document.
Any recipient of this document, other than Beneficiaries and the Additional Parties, by
their acceptance or use of this document, releases Consultant, its parent, and affiliates
from any liability for direct, indirect, consequential, or special loss or damage whether
arising in contract, warranty, express or implied, tort or otherwise, and irrespective of
fault, negligence, and strict liability of Consultant.
Nomenclature
CRUACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
AAV Ambient Air Vaporizer
ABS American Bureau of Shipping
ACI American Concrete Institute
ACQ Annual Contract Quantity
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APCI Air Products & Chemical Inc.
API American Petroleum Institute
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASNT American Society for Non-Destructive Testing
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWS American Welding Society
BACT Best Available Control Technology
bcf Billion Cubic Feet
BOG Boil Off Gas from LNG
Bscfd or Bcfd Billion Standard Cubic Feet per Day
Btu British Thermal Unit
bpd Barrels per Day
BOE Barrel Oil Equivalent
CAER Community Awareness and Emergency Response
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCR Central Control Room
CO Carbon Monoxide
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CP Conditions Precedent LNG Contract. Also Curacao Peil Reference Datum
CPI Consumer Price Index Published by U.S. Department of Labor Statistics
CRUC Curacao Refinery Utility Company
CSP Contract Sales Price
DCS Distributed Control System
DNV Det Norske Veritas (A Ship Classification Society)
DWP Deep Water Port
F&G Fire and Gas Detection
ECA Export Credit Associations
EDIN Energy Development in Island Nations
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EIB European Investment Bank
EIAS Environmental Impact Assessment Study
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
ESD Emergency Shut Down
ESHS Environmental, Social, Health and Safety
ETA Estimated Time of Arrival
FEED Front End Engineering Design
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FI Financial Intermediaries. Also Flow Indicator
FPSO Floating Production Storage Offloading (Associated With Oil Production)
FSRU Floating Storage Regasification Unit for LNG
Nomenclature
CRUACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
ft Feet
GOC Government of Curacao
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HAZOP Hazards and Operability
HHW High High Water
HM Heating Medium (fluid used for heat transfer)
hp Horsepower
HP High Pressure
HSFO High Sulfur Fuel Oil
HTF Heat Transfer Fluid
HWS High Water Spring
Hz Hertz (frequency cycles per second)
IAS Integrated Automation System
IBC International Building Code
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
ICSS Integrated Control and Safety System
IDB Inter-America Development Bank
IDA International Development Association
IDC Interest During Construction
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IFC International Finance Corporation
IMO International Maritime Organization
IRR Internal Rate of Return
ISA Instrument Society of America
ISO International Standards Organization
ITC Independent Technical Consultant
ITS Interruptible Transportation Service
J BIC J apan Bank for International Cooperation
J V J oint Venture
kV Kilovolt
kW Kilowatt
LLW Low Low Water
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LNGC LNG Carrier
LS Lump Sum
LSFO Low Sulfur Fuel Oil
LWS Low Water Spring
m
2
Square Meter
m
3
Cubic Meter
m
3
/hr Cubic Meter per Hour At Actual Flowing Conditions
MAOP Maximum Allowed Operating Pressure (for pipelines)
MCC Motor Control Center
MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MMBtu Million British Thermal Units
MMscfd Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
MP Mile Post
MPHEN Curacao Ministry of Public Health, Environment and Nature
Nomenclature
CRUACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
MSS Manufacturer Standardization Society
mtpa Million Tonnes per Annum
MW Megawatt
N2 Nitrogen
NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers
NBP National Balancing Point in the UK
NDE Non-Destructive Examination
NEMA National Electric Manufacturers Association
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NOx Nitrous Oxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOR Notice of Readiness
NOT Notice of Termination
NPV Net Present Value
NTP Notice To Proceed
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OBE Operating Basis Earthquake
OC Operations Center
OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine Forum
OD Outside Diameter
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
ORV Open Rack Vaporizer
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OPEX Operating Expenditure
PDVSA Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
PLEM Pipeline End Manifold (Used in Subsea Pipelines)
PMT Project Management Team
PO Purchase Order
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
ppmv Parts per million by volume
PSA Purchase Sales Agreement
PSC Project Services Contractor
psia pounds per square inch (absolute)
psig pounds per square inch (gauge)
PSV Pressure Safety Valve
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
RAM Reliability, Availability and Maintainability
RDK Refineria di Korsou N.V.
ROW Right of Way
SC Shipping Charge (LNG shipping cost)
SCF or scf Standard Cubic Feet @ 14.65 psia and 60
o
F
SCV Submerged Combustion Vaporizer
SIGTTO Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operations
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SPA Sales Purchase Agreement
SPCC Spill Prevention and Containment Control
SPL Sabine Pass Liquefication LLC
SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake
Nomenclature
CRUACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
SSPC Steel Structures Painting Council
STL Submerged Turret Loading
STS Side-to-Side LNG Transfer
TCF or tcf or Tcf Trillion Standard Cubic Feet @ 14.65 and 60
o
F
TEMA Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association
UCC Unit Capacity Charge (for Liquefaction)
UK United Kingdom
UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply
USCG United States Coast Guard
V Volt
VIP Vacuum Insulated Pipe
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
W Watt
WBG World Bank Group
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 1
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In order to improve its international competitiveness and reduce its dependence on imported petroleum,
the Government of Curacao (GOC) has implemented a strategy to diversify its energy supply. The
strategy aims at introducing imported natural gas into Curacaos energy supply mix to improve security of
supplies, achieve long-term stability in energy prices and to improve the environmental sustainability of
providing energy. Importation of natural gas to Curacao could conceivably be by means of liquefied
natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG) or a gas import pipeline.
Environmental issues in Curacao stem from stack gas emissions containing significant quantities of sulfur
dioxide (SO
2
). No. 6 high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) is the primary fuel used to generate electrical power
on the island with minor quantities of No. 2 HSFO. The HSFO is supplied by Isla Refinery, the local
Curacao refinery currently being operated under a lease agreement with Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.
(PDVSA). Aqualectra, the local public utility company, provides electrical power and water to the
citizens of Curacao. The Curacao Refinery Utility Company (CRUC) operates electrical power
generation facilities to supply the Isla Refinery with electric power. Also contributing to stack gas
emissions is the Isla Refinery process steam boilers which burn high sulfur bitumen; essentially the
bottom of the barrel.
The stated goals and objectives of GOC include the following:
Convert Curacaos power generation and refinery fuel to lower-cost, clean-burning natural gas;
Reduce fuel cost for electric power generation and refinery operations;
Reduce electrical power costs paid by the citizens of Curacao; and
Reduce SO
2
emissions to clean-up Curacao air pollution.
Refineria di Korsou N.V. (RDK) has undertaken the lead role in advancing the goals and objectives for
the GOC. It is a nonprofit, government owned refining company in Curacao. RDK owns the Isla
Refinery and the crude oil terminal and storage facilities located at Bullen Bay. These facilities are
currently under long-term lease to PDVSA which expire in 2018. The Isla Refinery is an old refinery
designed to process heavy Venezuelan crude originally owned and operated by Shell. The refinery was
constructed and started up in 1918. Several years ago, Shell decided to abandon operation of the refinery
and conveyed ownership of the facility to the GOC which was subsequently structured in ownership to
RDK by the GOC.
In March 2012, RDK solicited competitive bids from multiple engineering firms to perform a study to
evaluate the feasibility of bringing natural gas to Curacao. Shaw Consultants International, Inc. (Shaw
Consultants) was the successful bidder and was awarded a contract for the study on March 12, 2012.
Shaw Consultants has completed the study and this report documents the work, conclusions and
recommendations.
1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY
RDK requested that Shaw Consultants evaluate the fundamental options for bringing natural gas supply to
Curacao. Three gas supply options were evaluated including LNG, CNG, and natural gas import by
pipeline. The scope of work for this study involved a broad examination of both technical and
commercial aspects of the gas supply options.
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 2
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
The starting point for the study was an assessment of the potential local market demand for natural gas.
Gas demand forecasts were prepared for Aqualectra, CURC and the Isla Refinery process steam boiler
system (collectively referred to as the Curacao Demand). The assessment also considered potential gas
demand loads from neighboring islands including Aruba and Bonaire.
Energy pricing forecasts were developed for natural gas at Henry Hub and UK National Balancing Point
(NBP). LNG netback pricing mechanisms were evaluated for both UK NBP and Henry Hub
indexation. Fuel oil price forecasts for No.6 and No.2 LSFO were also developed. Price forecast data
published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) served as the basis for such forecasts.
As part of this study, Shaw Consultants made a site selection study of alternative terminal site locations
on Curacao including jetty sites at Schottegat Harbor and Bullen Bay.
One of the primary objectives of the study was to determine the delivered cost of gas for each of the gas
supply options. A matrix of cases were defined and analyzed for each of the various gas supply options
which included a total of 17 scenario cases. Rough CAPEX and OPEX estimates (+/-40%) were prepared
for each of the scenarios. The delivered gas costs to the Curacao customers were then calculated for each
scenario case. In determining the delivered gas costs, the CAPEX costs were amortized on a 10-year
straight line basis and rolled in with the purchase costs the gas (or LNG) plus OPEX cost to obtain the all-
in delivered cost of gas for each case.
An overview of LNG trade/shipping costs was prepared using Shaw Consultants in-house shipping
model and data taken from the LNG Shipping Market 2011 Annual Review and Forecast published by
Drewry Maritime Research J une 13, 2011. The terms and provisions of a typical LNG purchase and
sales agreement (PSA) were summarized and included in this report. Potential LNG supply sources for
Curacao were identified and listed.
Shaw Consultants provided discussion of fuel supply reliability and suggestions for back-up fuel
parameters. A preliminary risk assessment was made to identify project risks and mitigation steps were
developed to minimize project risks.
Conceptual design documents were prepared for a conventional onshore LNG terminal including a
preliminary basis of design, process flow diagrams, heat and material balances, layout drawing,
equipment list, and utility load summaries.
To round out the study, Shaw Consultants prepared discussion on the following topics which are included
in this report:
Integrated Operations/Maintenance Support;
Integrated System Performance;
Project Execution and Schedule Planning;
Regulatory Issues; and
Comments on Project Financing.
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 3
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
1.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Curacao Gas Demand
If Aqualectra, CRUC, and the Isla Refinery process steam boilers were converted to natural gas fuel their
combined current demand would average approximately 110 MMscfd with 19 MMscfd attributed to
Aqualectra, 55 MMscfd attributed to CRUC and 36 MMscfd attributed to Isla Refinery process boiler
fuel. Looking forward, the total Curacao demand is projected to grow to an average demand rate of
120.7 MMscfd by the year 2031. From historical records it was determined that the peak hourly demand
rate for Aqualectras customer service load was approximately 25% above the annual average daily rate.
Peak hourly demand for CRUC and Isla Refinery steam boiler fuel demand was assumed to be 10%
above their respective annual average daily demand rates. To accommodate hourly peaking demand, a
peak delivery capacity of 137.2 MMscfd would be required by the year 2031 based on Shaw Consultants
analysis. The decision to switch CRUC and Isla Refinery to natural gas fuel was assumed to be deferred
until 2018 based on the guidance provided by RDK. Figure 1.3-1 illustrates the Curacao gas demand
forecast developed from this study.
Figure 1.3-1 Curacao Natural Gas Demand
Shaw Consultants note that there is risk of uncertainty in the Curacao demand forecast. At this time there
is no surety that the Isla Refinery will continue to be in operation for the long-term. An expensive
upgrade to the Isla Refinery will be needed to meet potential new air emissions standards for SO
2
and to
improve product quality slate for producing low sulfur fuel oil products. Until it is confirmed that the Isla
Refinery will continue to operate long-term, the Curacao Demand Forecast should likely be risk weighted
downward with a biased toward the Aqualectra demand load only. RDK will need to weigh the risks of
potential closure of the Isla Refinery as it advances a project to bring natural gas to Curacao.
137.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
M
M
s
c
f
d
Aqualectra CRUC Refinery TotalPkHour
120.7
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 4
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Driving Force for Switching to Natural Gas
This study is based on the premise that Curacao environmental emission standards will be tightened to
limit SO
2
emissions form combustion gas stack discharge sources. If new tighter emission standards are
adopted by the Curacao authorities, stack gas emissions will either have to be treated and cleaned-up to
reduce SO
2
emission levels or alternatively low sulfur content fuels will be mandated for used in
combustion services (i.e. boilers, engines, turbines, etc.). This study assumes that existing combustion
services will either have to burn No.2 or No.6 LSFO or otherwise convert to clean-burning natural gas in
order to comply with potentially new tighter emission standards. Since No.6 LSFO has historically
always been less expensive than No.2 LSFO, it is presumed in this study that the fuel cost comparison for
natural gas conversion logically must be compared to the alternative of burning No.6 LSFO.
In this study, Shaw Consultants used the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasted
prices for No.6 LSFO and Natural Gas at Henry Hub as reported in the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2012
Early Release Report. The UK NBP price forecast was developed assuming that the recent historic
differential between Henry Hub and UK NBP (~US$5.00/MMBtu) is maintained throughout the forecast
period. Figure 1.3-2 illustrates the forecasts.
Figure 1.3-2 Price Forecast of No.6 LSFO and Natural Gas
An evaluation period from 2015 to 2031 was used to analyze the various gas supply options. The average
price of No.6 LSFO over the evaluation period was determined to be US$153/Bbl or converted to Btu
pricing US$24.36/MMBtu based on the forecasted prices illustrated in Figure 1.3-2.
The average delivered gas cost for each option was calculated over the evaluation period and compared to
the corresponding average price of No.6 LSFO over such period (i.e. US$24.36/MMBtu). The delivered
gas costs for each option were calculated with a base starting price indexed to Henry Hub with CAPEX
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 5
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
amortization and OPEX costs added in to determine the total delivered gas costs. Liquefaction fees,
FSRU rental costs, and LNG shipping fees for the LNG options were added to the CAPEX amortization
and OPEX costs in calculating the delivered gas costs for the LNG options. In principle, the difference
between the average price of No.6 LSFO and the average delivered gas costs are the fuel cost savings
realized in switching from No.6 LSFO to natural gas.
Switching from LSFO to natural gas fuel will, however, involve some conversion cost to modify the fired
equipment to burn natural gas. These conversion costs will need to be deducted from the calculated fuel
savings in order to derive the overall net fuel saving costs. The net fuel cost saving is the Driving Force
for Switching to Natural Gas.
Estimating the cost of converting fired equipment from fuel oil to natural gas was not within the scope of
this study. Separate studies have been made by others to quantify the fuel conversion costs. The results
of these third-party studies will need to be integrated with the results of Shaw Consultants study in order
to determine the overall net fuel saving costs for switching to natural gas.
Gas Supply Options
Figure 1.3-3 illustrates the average delivered gas cost for the scenario cases calculated for the various gas
supply options.
Figure 1.3-3 Curacao Average Delivered Gas Cost
Gas Import Pipeline Option: The gas import pipeline option yields the lowest delivered gas cost to the
Curacao customers. The calculated delivered cost of gas to serve the Curacao demand for this option
ranged between US$7.82 to US$8.16/MMBtu. These costs reflect the average delivered price over the
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 6
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
evaluation period from 2015 to 2031 assuming gas supply is contracted at a purchase price (F.O.B.
Columbia or Venezuela) equal to 100% of the Henry Hub forecasted price. Compared to the average
price of No.6 LSFO (US$24.36/MMBtu or $153/Bbl), this option yields an average fuel cost savings of
approximately US$16/MMBtu.
If Curacao and Aruba were to both participate and share costs in a gas import pipeline project, the
delivered cost of gas to Curacao would be lower. The delivered cost of gas estimated for an Aruba-
Curacao coop pipeline is US$7.56 to US$7.75/MMBtu depending on whether the supply is from
Venezuela or Colombia.
If only the Aqualectra demand is served, the delivered cost of gas increases to a range of US$8.58 to
US$9.20/MMBtu. With only the Aqualectra demand load, the average fuel cost savings is more than
US$15/MMBtu compared to burning No.6 LSFO.
The estimated CAPEX for the gas import options range between US$193 to US$292 million depending
on whether the supply is sourced from Venezuela or Colombia. If the pipeline is extended to include
supply to Aruba, the CAPEX cost increases to US$328 million. If the pipeline is sized for only the
Aqualectra demand load, the CAPEX cost is US$162 million. The pipeline project completion schedule
is estimated to require approximately 42 months after obtaining an MOU for a gas supply contract.
Installing the gas import pipeline is clearly feasible. The maximum water depth of the subsea gas import
pipeline would be approximately 4,000 feet which is well within the current capability of deep-water
pipeline lay vessel companies such as AllSeas and Eni Saipem. Pipelines have been successfully installed
in water depths up to 9,000 feet.
The major challenge for the pipeline option will be contracting for a long-term reliable gas supply. Both
Venezuela and Columbia have gas supply that could potentially be tapped for export to Curacao via
pipeline. It is uncertain how much time it would take to successfully negotiate a gas supply contract.
However, until Curacao officials set down and discuss potential gas supply contracts with Columbian and
Venezuelan producers, gas supply availability is only conjecture at this time.
Shaw Consultants research indicates in Columbia that the Guajira Basin has the greatest potential for
exportable gas. Also, a recent press release by Pacific Stratus Columbia Corporation (a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp.) indicates that incremental gas supply could potentially be
available for export from the La Creciente Field. Regarding possible Venezuelan gas supply, the new
Cardon IV Block discovery may offer the best potential for a long-term gas contract supply.
To meet the total Curacao demand for 25 years requires approximately 1.1 tcf of natural gas. Total gas
reserves reported for Columbia and Venezuela are 4 tcf and 179 tcf, respectively. Shaw Consultants note
that Venezuela has the second largest proven natural gas reserves in the Western Hemisphere, but the
pace of development of such resources has been very slow.
Onshore LNG Terminal Option: The onshore LNG terminal option, although not as attractive as the gas
import pipeline option, also yields a considerable cost savings in comparison to burning No.6 LSFO. For
this option, the calculated delivered cost of gas to serve the Curacao demand is approximately
US$12.88/MMBtu. Again, cost reflects the average delivered price of gas over the evaluation period
from 2015 to 2031. This option yields an average fuel cost savings of approximately US$11.50/MMBtu
versus the alternative of burning No.6 LSFO.
If only the Aqualectra demand is served, the delivered cost of gas increases to US$14.86/MMBtu which is
approximately US$9.50/MMBtu lower than the average cost of burning No.6 LSFO.
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 7
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
The estimated CAPEX for this option is approximately US$433 million based on a terminal equipped
with a 160,000m
3
LNG storage tank. The project completion schedule is estimated to require
approximately 50 months.
If the terminal were sized with sendout capacity to supply gas for both Curacao and Aruba, the estimated
CAPEX (including the cost of the export gas pipeline from Curacao to Aruba) is approximately
US$567 million. The economy of scale and incremental gas delivery volumes to Aruba act to reduce the
overall delivered gas cost for Curacao customers by approximately US$0.42/MMBtu.
FSRU LNG Terminal Option: The LNG FSRU option also yields a considerable cost savings in
comparison to burning No.6 LSFO. The calculated delivered cost of gas to serve the Curacao demand for
this option is US$13.92/MMBtu. Again, this cost reflects the average delivered gas price over the
evaluation period from 2015 to 2031. This option indicates an average fuel cost savings of approximately
US$10.44/MMBtu compared to burning No.6 LSFO.
If only the Aqualectra demand is served, the delivered cost of gas for this option increases to
US$18.32/MMBtu. Even with only the Aqualectra demand load, the average fuel gas cost is
approximately US$6.00/MMBtu lower than No.6 LSFO.
The estimated CAPEX for this option is approximately US$87 million which is significantly lower than
the onshore LNG terminal option. The LNG FSRU would be leased from one of the leading vendors
possibly Excelerate Energy, Hoegh, Exmar or Golar. The out-of-pocket CAPEX covers the cost for the
jetty facility to permanently moor the FSRU and onshore gas handling systems. The project completion
schedule for this option is estimated to require approximately 36 months.
A scenario case was also evaluated for an offshore submerged turret moored FSRU LNG terminal with a
short (1.5 mile) interconnecting gas sendout pipeline to shore. The offshore moored scenario offers no
apparent benefit over the jetty moored scenario and costs approximately US$45 million more than the
jetty moored alternative.
CNG Option: The CNG option was dropped from consideration as a potential alternative for bringing
natural gas to Curacao. The use of large CNG ships has never been applied in a commercial scale
operation. Although the technology is theoretically sound on paper and the CNG ships can receive
certified Class approval from both DNV and ABS, it has yet to be deployed in any commercial project
application of this scale. If Curacao were to engage in using the CNG ship technology, it would be the
first application. In Shaw Consultants opinion, there are technical and commercial risks in using
unproven technology. Obtaining bank financing would be difficult to impossible. As a result, a decision
was made to drop the CNG option from further consideration as a practical alternative.
Terminal Site Location Selection
Shaw Consultants considered several site locations for the terminal. After initial screening, two site
locations were identified for further review, namely a site at Bullen Bay and one at Schottegat Harbor at
Willemstad.
After careful review and consideration, the site at Bullen Bay was selected as the preferred location for
the terminal. The Schottegat Harbor site was deemed less desirable since the Curacao Port Authority
advised that it would impose restrictions and rules of navigation on LNG ships entering Schottegat
Harbor. During the peak tourist season, large cruise ships frequent the Willemstad area and often moor at
the wharf located in the narrows entry to Schottegat Harbor. LNG ships could be delayed as a result of
the cruise ship traffic and the navigation rules/restrictions.
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 8
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
The site at Bullen Bay, on the other hand, is remotely located from the major population centers of
Curacao and will have easy access for approach and departure of LNG ships with no interference from
cruise ship traffic. J etty #1 at Bullen Bay was selected as the preferred jetty for access to the site.
Adequate space is available onshore from J etty#1 to easily accommodate thermal and gas dispersion
zones required for a 160,000m
3
full containment LNG tank and the LNG spill impoundment sumps.
There is adequate space available to accommodate all of the terminal process equipment and operating
infrastructure (control room, workshop, and vehicle parking) required by the terminal. The site is cleared
and will require minimal site preparation. There is adequate space at this site to accommodate the future
installation of a new power plant should a decision be made to do so. Figure 1.3-4 illustrates a Google
Earth view of the proposed Bullen Bay terminal site.
Figure 1.3-4 Bullen Bay Proposed Terminal Site
Onshore Customer Gas Delivery Pipeline System
The power generation facilities for both Aqualectra and CRUC are located within the Isla Refinery
complex at Willemstad. An existing crude transfer pipeline traverses from Bullen Bay to the refinery. A
new gas pipeline will be installed from Bullen Bay to the refinery complex using the right-of-way
easement of the existing crude transfer pipeline (see Figure 1.3-5).
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 9
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 1.3-5 Onshore Customer Gas Delivery Pipeline Route
The existing crude pipeline is above ground except at street crossings. The new gas delivery pipeline
system will be buried the entire route to assure public safety and compliance with typical pipeline codes.
The gas pipeline will be approximately 8 miles in length and will be a nominal 12OD line. Gas delivery
pressure to the customers will not be less than 500 psig. Capacity of the new gas delivery pipeline will be
approximately 137 MMscfd.
CAPEX and OPEX costs for this new gas pipeline have been included in calculating the delivered cost of
gas for each of the options previously discussed. The estimated CAPEX for the new gas pipeline is
approximately US$12 million. The estimated project completion schedule including FEED, equipment
and material procurement, delivery, pipeline construction, hydro-testing and commissioning is
approximately 24 months.
1.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the study, Shaw Consultants offer the following conclusions and observations.
Based on the evaluation results of the gas supply options, Shaw Consultants conclude that
importing natural gas or LNG to Curacao is technically and economically feasible. All of the
options evaluated will yield significant fuel cost savings compared to the alternative of burning
No.6 LSFO.
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 10
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
The gas import pipeline option will yield the lowest delivered gas cost to Curacao. Securing a
contract commitment for long-term reliable gas supply will likely be challenging and may take an
extended effort.
In comparison to the conventional onshore LNG terminal option, the estimated delivered cost of
gas for the gas import pipeline option is US$4.50 to US$5.50/MMBtu lower than gas delivered
via LNG. This is a significant incentive to pursue a gas import pipeline supply.
The traditional onshore LNG terminal option yields a lower delivered gas cost to Curacao
customers than the LNG FSRU option since the OPEX cost are not burdened with the high daily
rental lease cost of the FSRU vessel. However, the initial CAPEX cost for the onshore LNG
terminal is higher than any other gas supply option evaluated. The advantage of the onshore
LNG terminal option is that after 10 years of operation, the CAPEX amortization will be
complete and Curacao will own a fully paid asset. From a long-term perspective, the traditional
onshore LNG terminal is a good investment that will yield lower cost gas benefits to Curacao.
The advantage of the LNG FSRU option is its significantly lower CAPEX commitment compared
to the traditional onshore LNG terminal option. However, the rental cost of the FSRU will be
expensive (US$130,000 to US$140,000 per day) and the resulting average delivered cost of gas
will be approximately US$1.05/MMBtu higher than the traditional onshore LNG terminal option.
If RDKs objective is to minimize the amount of its initial CAPEX commitment, then the LNG
FSRU option should be given priority consideration. With respect to asset ownership, Curacao
will not be accumulating equity ownership in the FSRU facility. At the end of a 10-year lease
agreement, Curacao will have paid approximately US$500 million in rental payments for the
FSRU and will not have accumulated any equity in an asset.
The term of the FSRU rental agreement is flexible ranging from 5-years to 20-years. A longer
term lease agreement generally results in a lower cost for the FSRU rental day rate fee. Based on
discussions with the vendors, the daily rental cost under a 20-year lease could be 20% lower than
that of a 10-year lease.
The typical LNG FSRU is designed for large gas sendout rates (500 to 800 MMscfd). At sendout
rates below 70-80 MMscfd, handling boil off gas (BOG) becomes problematic for the typical
FSRU. The sendout rates for Curacao could range from a low of 19 MMscfd up to 137 MMscfd.
Modifications and onshore BOG compression equipment will be required for an FSRU capable of
serving the full range Curacao demand.
Although the LNG supply volumes required to service Curacao demand are small when
compared to most LNG terminals, it will be feasible to obtain LNG supply for transport and
delivery to Curacao. A slight premium (US$0.40 to US$0.50/MMBtu) will likely have to be paid
for LNG supply due to small annual volumes. Shaw Consultants conclude that a good strategy
for Curacao LNG supply management might involve either
- Contracting with major LNG suppliers such as BP, BG, Shell, etc.; or
- Contracting with an LNG marketer/terminal operator such as Gas Natural (e.g. the Puerto
Rico LNG terminal operating strategy).
With the recent large-scale shale gas development projects in the U.S., gas production has
exceeded demand and prices at Henry Hub have declined significantly during the past few years.
As a result, new liquefaction projects are being advanced to produce LNG for export from the
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 11
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
existing LNG receiving terminals at U.S. Gulf Coast locations such as Sabine Pass, Freeport, and
possibly others. As new U.S. Gulf Coast LNG export supply comes on stream during 2016 to
2018, it is anticipated that LNG prices in the Atlantic Basin marketing region will remain stable
at current pricing levels or perhaps experience some slight downward pricing pressure due to
LNG on LNG competition. The LNG market conditions will likely make LNG imports to
Curacao attractive since Atlantic Basin LNG pricing is not linked to crude oil and fuel oil prices.
Historically LNG pricing mechanism for Atlantic Basin LNG sources have a market clearing
netback price based on the UK or European NBP gas prices. However, LNG supply is currently
being contracted from U.S. Gulf Coast LNG suppliers with pricing provisions linked to 110% to
120% of Henry Hub monthly gas prices plus liquefaction fees of approximately
US$2.50/MMBtu. These Gulf Coast LNG contract terms reflect calculated netback clearing
prices exceeding the UK or European NBP price. Shaw Consultants used the Henry Hub pricing
mechanism for LNG to assure that the calculated delivered gas costs are conservative.
Shaw Consultants, in collaboration with RDK representatives, developed the following recommendations:
1. The gas pipeline options yield lowest delivered gas cost, but development lead time and EIAS
could be long and politics could take time. However, the fuel cost savings is US$4.50 to
US$5.50/MMBtu or approximately $197 to $240 million per year. This is a significant potential
savings and should be pursued further to determine gas supply feasibility.
2. Make initial inquiries to producers and determine their level of interest in supplying gas for
pipeline export to Curacao. Make inquiries to following producers: a) Repsol; b) Eni; c)
Chevron; d) Pacific Stratus Energy Colombia Corp and e) PDVSA.
3. If, after extensive discussions with the producers, it is confirmed that a reliable long-term gas
supply can be contracted (confirmed by MOU), make a decision to go with the gas import
pipeline option and then:
a. Proceed with FEED for gas import pipeline and onshore customer delivery pipeline.
b. Prepare EIAS and file for permits.
c. After completing FEED, obtain competitive bids for EPC.
d. With a firm budget in hand, rework economics and if attractive, make FID.
4. On the other hand, if after extensive discussion with Venezuelan / Columbian producers it
becomes apparent contracting for gas supply is not feasible within a reasonable timeline; then
pursue either the conventional onshore LNG terminal option or the FSRU LNG option. The
FSRU option has significantly lower initial CAPEX exposure and if RDKs objective is to
minimize CAPEX, then pursue the FSRU option. Otherwise, Shaw Consultants recommends the
traditional onshore LNG terminal option. Either of the LNG options will significantly reduce fuel
cost compared to burning No. 6 LSFO.
5. Pursue negotiations for an FSRU rental agreement with at least three FSRU vendor/operators and
execute a MOU for an FSRU conditioned on completion of FEED to define the jetty design and
modifications required to solve BOG handling issues at the low sendout rates. With a MOU in
hand for a FSRU lease agreement, then:
a. Prepare Plans for Project Execution and Operation.
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 12
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
b. Prepare documents required for FEED, prepare the RFQ package and obtain bids for
FEED. Evaluate the bids.
c. Proceed with FEED for the FSRU jetty, onshore BOG handling equipment and the
onshore customer delivery pipeline.
d. Prepare the EIAS and file for permits.
e. After completing FEED, obtain competitive bids for EPC.
f. With a firm budget in hand, rework economics and if attractive, make FID.
1.5 NEXT STEPS FOR THE PROJECT
Shaw Consultants note that there will be significant engineering work and preparation required on the part
of RDK to complete the future tasks required in project execution. RDK may want to consider engaging
a company to assist in project management (PMT) and to serve as Owners Engineer. Following is a list
of project execution tasks that will be required in executing a project.
FEED Tasks
Preparing, reviewing and confirming a Plan of Execution and Master Schedule;
Obtaining all site information, surveys, geotechnical studies and other technical information
required for executing the FEED;
Setting up project management controls, QA/QC procedures and document approval procedures;
Preparing RFQ documents and packages required for soliciting bids for FEED;
Identifying and pre-qualifying engineering firms to be included in the FEED bid list;
Tendering and evaluating bids for FEED including both technical and commercial;
Monitoring progress and interfacing with FEED contractor;
Checking FEED contractor technical data, calculations, drawing and specification performance;
Preparing documents for soliciting bids for EIAS;
Identifying and pre-qualifying firms to be included in the EIAS bid list;
Tendering and evaluating bids for EIAS;
Interfacing and monitoring EIAS contractor progress;
Manage and monitor permitting activities and regulatory compliance; and
Managing and monitoring cost and schedule.
EPC Tasks
Preparing documents and contracts for soliciting bids for EPC;
Identifying and pre-qualifying contractors to be included in the EPC bid list;
Tendering and evaluating bids for EPC;
Section 1 Executive Summary
1 - 13
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Monitoring progress and interfacing with EPC contractor;
Checking EPC contractor technical data, calculations, drawing and specification performance.
Reviewing and approving technical detail design documents and drawings;
Monitoring QA/QC of equipment fabrication, welding, and construction;
Monitoring procurement activities;
Witnessing equipment testing and performance run tests;
Monitoring field construction; and
Monitoring costs and schedule.
Facility Operations
Preparing Startup and Operation Manuals;
Preparing Plan of Operation for Facilities;
Preparing Plans for Managing LNG or Gas Supply;
Preparing Plans for Maintenance and Repair Programs;
Coordinating staffing plans;
Coordinating operator training program; and
Preparing Procedures for Managing Health, Safety and Environmental Compliance for the
Project.
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 1
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
An assessment of the Curacao gas market has been performed to determine the peak gas demand
requirements. Shaw Consultants has based its assessment on data provided by Aqualectra, the local
utility company in Curacao, together with independent review of information available through online
resources.
2.2 ISLAND ELECTRIC UTILITY (AQUALECTRA)
Power on the island of Curacao is currently generated by Aqualectra using No. 6 high sulfur fuel oil
(HSFO) supplied by the Isla Refinery. Based on the government of Curacao initiative to diversify its
energy supply, Aqualectra has developed an estimate of the natural gas quantities needed to satisfy the
power generation needs of the island of Curacao over the next twenty years. This estimate is based on an
assumed power demand growth of two percent per annum starting in 2016. The US Energy Information
Agencys (EIA) International Energy Outlook 2011 report notes natural gas fired electricity generation
worldwide is expected to increase 2.6 percent annually over the 2008 to 2035 period. The EIA report
attributes this increase to the relatively low emissions, low capital costs, fuel efficiency and operating
flexibility that make natural gas fired electricity generation an attractive choice for new power plant
installations. Thus, Aqualectras assumed growth of 2.0 percent annually, as shown in Figure 2.2-1, is
conservative and generally in accordance with expected trends worldwide.
Figure 2.2-1 Aqualectra Forecasted Power Demand
The average rate shown in Figure 2.2-2 is the required natural gas supply condition to meet the
Aqualectra power demand noted in Figure 2.2-1. A review of the Aqualectra electricity dispatch
quantities conveyed the peak rate is normally no more than 25 percent above the average daily rate. Thus,
to ensure power generation capability, Shaw Consultants has assumed a peaking rate of 25 percent above
the average daily rate shown in Figure 2.2-2.
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 2
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 2.2-2 Aqualectra Forecasted Natural Gas Demand
2.3 ISLA REFINERY (CRUC)
There are two main power consumers in the Isla refinery, namely the refinery electric utility power
generation operated by CRUC and the refinery process steam boiler system. Electric power generation
for the refinery is currently fueled by No.6 HSFO. The process steam boiler system is currently fueled by
bitumen asphalt and other heavy hydrocarbon streams leftover from the refinery processing applications.
These streams are commonly termed the bottom of the barrel streams in the refinery industry. Some
modifications to the existing equipment may be needed to permit electricity and steam generation via
natural gas. In addition, Shaw Consultants understands that the Isla Refinery would require a significant
investment to process and refine these bottom of the barrel streams into saleable products. The required
modifications are currently being studied by the Isla Refinery, who anticipates completing the required
changes by 2018 if delivery of natural gas for power and steam generation is pursued. Based on
discussions between the Isla Refinery and Aqualectra, it is estimated the natural gas demand needed to
satisfy the Isla Refinery systems will be as shown in Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2. Peak utilization in each
case was assumed to be 10 percent above the annual average rate.
The viability of the Isla Refinery long-term is uncertain. Originally built in 1918 by Shell, the Isla
Refinery is currently leased through 2019 to Venezuelan state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A.
(PDVSA). PDVSA has operated the facility under a lease agreement with the Government of Curacao
since 1985, when Shell sold its interest in the Isla Refinery to the Curacao Government. Shaw
Consultants note that conversion of the refinery fuel systems to natural gas will essentially eliminate the
current environmental issues and the operation of the Isla Refinery will likely continue beyond 2018.
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 3
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 2.3-1 Refinery Utility System ( CRUC ) Natural Gas Demand Forecast
Figure 2.3-2 Refinery Processes Natural Gas Demand Forecast
2.4 SEASONAL, DAILY AND HOURLY DEMAND FLUCTUATION
Shaw Consultants was provided with the electricity dispatched by Aqualectra on four separate days of
operation. This data is presented on an hourly basis for October 11, 2011 and March 10
th
through 12,
2012. As seen in Figures 2.4-1 through 2.4-4 the electricity demand has a little fluctuation on a daily
basis and relatively similar demand seasonally.
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 4
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 2.4-1 Electricity Dispatch October 11, 2011 (Weekday max 2011)
Figure 2.4-2 Electricity Dispatched March 10, 2012 (Saturday)
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 5
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 2.4-3 Electricity Dispatched March 11, 2012 (Sunday)
Figure 2.4-4 Electricity Dispatched March 12, 2012 (Weekday)
In addition, Aqualectra states that electricity demand over the course of a year does not vary significantly
as the island of Curacao has a temperate climate with little variation in temperatures year round. Shaw
Consultants notes that based on limited amount of data points provided for review, this assertion by
Aqualectra seems quite reasonable.
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 6
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
2.5 DEMAND GROWTH
Based on the Aqualectra data, peaking above the average rate was determined to be approximately 25
percent for the worst case scenario. Thus, to accommodate peak sendout gas demand, Shaw Consultants
has assumed that the highest reasonably likely peak demand during any 24 hour period will be as follows:
Aqualectra Maximum Peak Rate: 25 Percent above the annual average daily rate
Refinery Process Heat Maximum Peak Rate: 10 Percent above the annual average daily rate
CRUC Maximum Peak Rate: 10 Percent above the annual average daily rate
The assumptions detailed above result in the natural gas demand forecast presented in Figure 2.5-1.
Figure 2.5-1 Total Curacao Natural Gas Demand Forecast
2.6 NEIGHBORING ISLANDS
Natural gas supply via CNG or LNG may be more economically feasible to implement in Curacao if the
adjacent islands of Aruba and Bonaire develop mutual natural gas power generation capability in
coordination with the island of Curacao.
Aruba
As of 2009, Aruba has 0.266 GW (2330 GWh per year) of installed power generation capacity. Annual
power generation and consumption in Aruba was 880 GWh and 818GWh, respectively, in 2009
suggesting Arubas infrastructure adopted an N+2 philosophy, which Shaw Consultants confirms is
common practice. Arubas power generation, consumption and capacity have nearly tripled in the past
twenty years, as shown in Figure 2.6-1.
Power generation in Aruba is achieved currently through the combustion of petroleum products (likely
No.6 HSFO) rather than natural gas. Thus, like Curacao, investment to modify/upgrade existing power
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 7
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
generation systems may be necessary in Aruba. Figure 2.6-2 depicts the predicted natural gas
requirements in Aruba assuming the 2009 demand of 880 GWh increases by two percent per year
compared to the Aqualectra natural gas demand in Curacao.
Figure 2.6-1 Arubas Annual Historical Power Demand
Source: EIA International Energy Statistics
Figure 2.6-2 Natural Gas Demand for Public Power Generation (Aruba and Curacao)
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 8
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
If Curacao were to build an LNG import terminal, it is conceivable that Curacao could possibly supply
natural gas by pipeline to Aruba for power generation. This may be a challenging proposition since a
project to build a LNG import terminal in Aruba already exists.
Bonaire
Shaw Consultants gathered information on Bonaires power generation from the public domain. In effect,
Bonaire has become the first country to be powered almost exclusively by clean energy. Thus, natural
gas supply to Bonaire from Curacao is an unlikely scenario given the apparent success of their clean
energy initiative. The Bonaire power demand is only 10 percent of the power demand seen in Curacao,
thereby needing a very small quantity of natural gas to satisfy Bonaires power generation needs. Figure
2.6-3 compares the forecasted natural gas demand in Curacao to that of Bonaire, which is based on a
power demand growth rate of two percent per annum.
Figure 2.6-3 Forecasted Natural Gas Demand Comparison between Bonaire and Curacao
In Shaw Consultants opinion, the minute power demand requirements in Bonaire do not justify the costs
to lay a pipeline from Curacao to Bonaire.
2.7 NATURAL GAS AND FUEL OIL PRICE FORECAST
The price of natural gas, supplied to Curacao (via pipeline, LNG or CNG), will likely be indexed to the
Henry Hub price. Historical Henry Hub pricing is shown in Figure 2.7-1.
The price at Henry Hub has declined sharply starting in 2008. A key driver for the decrease in the natural
gas Henry Hub pricing in recent years has been the shale gas development within the continental US.
Shaw Consultants anticipates exploration, development and production from shale gas plays will
continue. Thus, it is anticipated Henry Hub natural gas prices will remain relatively stable in the
upcoming years, likely increasing at rate of one percent per annum.
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 9
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 2.7-1 Henry Hub Spot Natural Gas Price (January 1997 February 2012)
Source: Henry Hub Gulf Coast Natural Gas Spot Price, EIA
The Henry Hub price forecast published in the EIAs Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release utilizes
a similar pricing assumption as illustrated in Figure 2.7-2.
Figure 2.7-2 Henry Hub Natural Gas Price Forecast
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
5
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
%
)
P
r
i
c
e
(
U
S
$
/
M
M
B
T
U
)
HenryHubPrice PriceIncrease
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release, EIA
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 10
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figures 2.7-3 and Figure 2.7-4 depict the EIA forecast of low sulfur spec fuel oil for No.2 (Distillate) and
No.6 (Heavy Fuel Oil) used to generate power.
Figure 2.7-3 No.2 LSFO (Distillate) Price Forecast
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
5
P
r
i
c
e
(
U
S
$
/
M
M
B
T
U
)
P
r
i
c
e
(
U
S
$
/
b
b
l
)
US$/bbl US$/MMBTU
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release, EIA
Figure 2.7-4 No.6 LSFO (Heavy Fuel Oil) Price Forecast
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
P
r
i
c
e
(
U
S
$
/
b
b
l
)
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release, EIA
Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment
2 - 11
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
2.8 GAS QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
The commercial quality natural gas specifications for the Curacao Feasibility Study are listed in Table
2.8-1.
Table 2.8-1 Gas Delivery Specifications
PARAMETER \ SITE BULLEN
BAY
SCHOTTEGAT
HARBOR
Max. Sendout Gas Pressure 780 psig 550 psig
Peak Sendout Gas Rate 137 MMscfd*
Minimum Sendout Gas Rate 15 MMscfd*
Sendout Gas Temperature Minimum: 60
o
F Maximum: 120
o
F
HHV 1,000 - 1,150 Btu/scf
Max. N
2
2.00 mol%
Max. CO
2
2.00 mol%
Max. Non-Hydrocarbon Content 4.00 mol%
Max. O
2
10 ppm by volume
Max. H
2
S 0.25 grains/100 scf
Max. Mercaptans 0.25 grains/100 scf
Max. Total Sulfur 0.50 grains/100 scf
Max. Water Vapor Content 7.0 lbs/MMscf
HC Dewpoint Less than 30
o
F @ 500 psig
*Sendout rate is based on gas equivalent assuming HHV of 1,000 Btu/scf.
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 1
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the report documents the gas supply concepts that were considered and evaluated for
Curacao in the study. Three basic supply options were analyzed including CNG, LNG, and Gas Import
Pipeline option. With respect to the LNG option, two configurations were considered including a
traditional onshore LNG terminal facility and a LNG FSRU jetty facility.
What Is Commercial Quality Pipeline Natural Gas
Commercial quality pipeline natural gas is predominately methane with small amounts of ethane,
propane, and butanes. It can contain up to 2 mol% nitrogen and 2 mol% carbon dioxide. Hydrogen
sulfide must be less than 0.25 grains/100scf and total sulfur compound content must be less than
0.50 grains/100scf. The water content is typically less than 7 lbs/MMscf. The commercial gas pipeline
pressure is typically less than 1,440 psig with the temperature of the gas ranging between 40
o
F to 120
o
F.
The hydrocarbon dew point temperature of the gas must be sufficiently low to assure that no hydrocarbon
liquids will condense in the pipeline over its range of operating pressure and temperature. The higher
heating value (HHV) of commercial quality natural gas is dependent on the quantity of ethane and heavier
hydrocarbon content. Typically, the HHV ranges between a minimum of 950 Btu/scf to a maximum of
1,150 Btu/scf.
What Is CNG
CNG is commercial quality natural gas which has been compressed to 4,000 psig. After compression the
CNG is cooled, stored and transported at a temperature ranging between 60
o
F and 120
o
F.
What Is LNG
LNG is liquefied commercial quality natural gas with essential all of the water and carbon dioxide
removed. The C6+hydrocarbon content is less than 1 to 2 ppm by volume. It is a cryogenic liquid at a
bubble point temperature of approximately -259
o
F stored at essentially atmospheric pressure.
3.2 CNG OPTION
In the Scope of Work, Shaw Consultants was requested to consider and evaluate CNG technology
offered by Sea NG Corporation. Shaw Consultants contacted Sea NG and requested that they furnish
information on their patented CNG Coselle delivery system. The following is a recap of the
information obtained from Sea NG.
NOTE: INFORMATION FURNISHED BY SEA NG IS SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN SEA NG, SHAW CONSULTANTS, REFINERIA DI
KORSOU, AND SOLOMON ASSOCIATES. THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE TREATED AS
CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANY OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY
THAT HAS NOT EXECUTED A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT WITH SEA NG.
Compared to an LNG system, a CNG delivery system avoids liquefaction, regasification and onshore
storage of gas. The gas is compressed into ships which provide both the storage and transportation. The
system is illustrated schematically Figure 3.2-1.
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 2
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 3.2-1 CNG Delivery System Schematic
Sea NGs CNG transportation solution is based on the Coselle System, which is an integrated system
that combines loading and unloading facilities with transportation and storage in specially designed CNG
ships. These ships provide marine transport of natural gas for distances up to 1,000 nautical miles. The
system is based on Sea NGs patented Coselle technology. It uses coiled pipe to safely and effectively
store gas at high pressure (4,000 psig). The CNG is transported in the CNG Coselle ships to receiving
destinations where it is decompressed for delivery.
A Coselle is a coiled pipeline contained within a supporting structure mounted within a ships hull as
illustrated in Figure 3.2-2.
Figure 3.2-2 Schematic of Coselle and Ship Structure
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 3
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
A Coselle is Sea NGs patented storage vessel comprised of approximately 17 km (13 miles) of
168 mm (6 in) diameter ERW high-strength steel pipe that has been coiled into a reel-like support
structure called a carousel. The name Coselle is derived from a coil in a carousel. Coselles can
be stacked up to seven units high, as required to meet the ships design. Each container is designed to be
integrated into the ships structure. The Coselles are stacked within the vessels hold, and connected
together using a proprietary manifold and control system. The unique, patented part of the cargo system is
the use of high and low pressure manifolds to efficiently load and unload the Coselles (or Coselle
stacks) in a cascade fashion allowing more rapid loading and unloading while maintaining control of the
temperatures and using less compression horsepower.
Coselle CNG ships have been fully approved for construction by the American Bureau of Shipping
(ABS). To achieve this approval a full design of a C16 ship and a full design of the mid-body of a C25
ship (integrated design) was carried out. These designs, plus all supporting safety studies, plus all of the
Coselle analysis and testing, plus HAZIDs and HAZOPs were submitted to ABS for formal review. The
achievement of full class approval is the final step before construction. This guarantees that a Coselle
CNG ship can be constructed and receive full Class Approval. Once a ship has Class Approval it is then
internationally accepted as a safe means of shipping and will receive the international certificates.
In 2008, representatives Sea NG visited Curacao to investigate the potential of delivering CNG to the Isla
Refinery. The concept at the time was to import 30 MMscfd. The current delivery requirements assume
a peak rate of 137 MMscfd by year. To accommodate the current peak rate requirements, four C16 ship
would be required with a ship arriving daily at Curacao. Two ships will load and two ships will discharge
each day. At the Curacao discharge terminal there would be substantial overlap of the ships. This means
that 50% of the time there will be two ships at the discharge terminal, one full and one discharging. Both
the export and import receiving terminals will require berths for two ships.
Sea NG has a web site which provides access to computer modeling software that can be used to analyze
the shipping and terminal facility tariff fees for CNG delivery using the patented CNG Coselle ships.
Shaw Consultants used this web site to prepare an analysis of the shipping and terminal facility tariff fees
for gas supplies from Trinidad, Venezuela, and Columbia. The results are illustrated in Figure 3.2-3.
Figure 3.2-3 CNG Tariff Fees vs. Transport Distance
NOTE: The tariff fees include cost for both shipping and terminal facilities
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 4
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
The CNG tariffs illustrated in Figure 3.2-3 include costs for CNG ships and the facilities at both the
export and import terminals. As noted in the figure, CNG tariff cost for importing gas from Trinidad is
approximately US$3.75/MMBtu which has a transport distance of 560 nautical miles. As the transport
distance is reduced, the tariff costs decline. For gas supply transported from Venezuela and Columbia,
the calculated tariff costs are US$2.05/MMBtu and US$2.30/MMBtu, respectively.
Sea NGs business model for deploying the CNG Coselle gas delivery system is structured around a
time charter agreement. Sea NG retains ownership of the CNG ships and will lease CNG ships under a
long term charter agreement. A day rate will be charged for each CNG ship required to service the gas
delivery capacity required by the project. A minimum 10-year charter will be required. On-loading
facilities will be the responsibility of the producer (or alternatively Sea NG). The Off-loading facilities
will be the responsibility of the gas customer (or alternatively Sea NG).
Based on Shaw Consultants review of the Sea NG information and after analyzing the CNG Coselle
delivery system concepts, the following conclusions were developed.
Technical Feasibility
- Design safety of CNG Coselle containment has been confirmed by ABS and DNV.
- CNG ships with the Coselle containment system can be Classed.
- CNG delivery to Curacao is theoretically feasible.
Potential Gas Supply
- Trinidad, Columbia and Venezuela have potential gas supply that might be tapped. However,
contract negations with producers could require a long-lead time.
- Gas supply may be available, but infrastructure may not exist. Pipelines, treating,
dehydration, and CNG compression will be needed at the CNG export terminal.
Schedule
- Likely to have a schedule of 30 to 40 months.
- Schedule driven by fabrication of multiple CNG ships (4 to 6).
Economic Viability
- Significant uncertainty exists in costs of CNG ships and export infrastructure. No actual
fabrication history is available for CNG ships. No CNG ships have ever been built.
- Tariff calculations by Sea NG indicate CNG is competitive with LNG.
Operability
- Scheduling and ship logistics will be challenging and complex.
- Lot of equipment to operate and maintain.
- One ship arriving daily makes for potential complex shipping.
Reliability
- High frequency arrival schedule makes this option less reliable.
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 5
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
- Not as reliable as the LNG and Gas Import Pipeline options.
Historical Track Record
- No CNG Coselle ships have been built.
- Curacao would be the first application of this technology.
- Technology is unproven in real commercial application.
- This option has high risk from both a commercial and technical perspective.
Based on Shaw Consultants analysis, it was recommended that the CNG option be dropped from
consideration because of the risks and lack of having any commercial projects in service.
3.3 LNG OPTIONS
Two LNG terminal configurations were considered including the traditional onshore LNG terminal and
the LNG FSRU jetty terminal.
Onshore LNG Terminal Option
The onshore LNG terminal option is based on the traditional LNG regas terminal design. Open Rack
Vaporizer (ORV) technology was selected for this conceptual design since it is highly reliable and has the
lowest OPEX costs. A 160,000m
3
full containment LNG storage tank is assumed in this option. All
critical equipment has been spared and the expected on-line reliability is 99%. Design life is based on 25
years. Gas sendout capacity is 137 MMscfd at pressures up to 780 psig.
A simplified process flow diagram for the terminal is illustrated in Figure 3.3-4.
Figure 3.3-4 Typical LNG Regas Terminal Simplified PFD
BOG PIPELINE
COMPRESSOR
SENDOUT GAS
SUPERHEATER
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 6
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Curacao onshore LNG terminal option includes the following major systems and equipment:
Berthing J etty for LNG Ship Ranging from 80,000m
3
to 155,000m
3
.
Unloading Platform Equipped With 2-LNG Arms (16 inch), 1-Hybrid LNG/Vapor Arm (16 inch),
and 1-Vapor Arm (16 inch) Designed for an Offloading Rate of up to 12,000m
3
/hr.
One LNG Drain Drum and LNG Drain Drum Pumps (2x100%) At Unloading Platform.
LNG Transfer Line (36), Ship Vapor Transfer Line (12) and LNG Cool Down Circulation Line
(3).
One LNG Storage Tank (160,000m
3
capacity).
LNG In-Tank Pumps (2x100%) and HP LNG Sendout Pumps (2x100%).
Small BOG Compressors (2x100%), Large BOG Compressor (1x100%), BOG Pipeline
Compressor (1x100%) and Ship Return Vapor Blowers (2x100%).
BOG Condenser/Absorber.
LNG Vaporizers Using Open Rack Vaporizer (ORV) Technology (2x100%).
Sendout Gas Superheaters (2x100%).
Seawater Lift Pumps for ORVs (3x50%).
Gas Sendout Metering and Odorization.
Process Control System.
Flare/Vent/Drain Systems.
Safety Systems Including Fire Protection, Gas/Smoke/Fire/Spill Detection, Emergency Shut
Down (ESD), LNG Spill Impoundment, Emergency Generator, and UPS Emergency Power.
Miscellaneous Utility Support Systems Including Electrical Power (Purchased from Aqualectra),
Process Utility Heat Medium, Fuel Gas, Nitrogen Supply, Instrument and Utility Air, Plant
Lighting, etc.
Infrastructure at the terminal will include a control room, operating offices, a laboratory,
workshop/warehouse, employee parking area, potable water supply and sewage treatment. Security
fencing and guarded entry are required to control access to the terminal facilities.
LNG Vaporization Technology
CH-IV International, a company recognized within the industry as having expertise in LNG, published a
technical paper on LNG vaporizer alternatives in 2007 which is still valid today. The following
discussion draws from the information contained in CH-IVs technical paper.
The choice of a vaporization system is an important first step in the development of a LNG import
terminal, since it impacts capital expenditure, operating costs, operating flexibility and reliability,
emissions as well as public perception and regulatory compliance.
Historically, LNG import terminals have generally used either Open Rack Vaporizers (ORV) or
Submerged Combustion Vaporizers (SCV) for LNG regasification purposes. ORVs are widely used in
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 7
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Asia and Europe, and are well proven in baseload LNG regasification service. SCVs have been used in
the four existing import terminals in the U.S. When compared to other vaporization technologies, the
higher emissions from SCVs have prompted requirements to evaluate alternative vaporization systems.
Recent developments in alternative vaporizer technologies include ambient air vaporizers and shell and
tube vaporizers with or without intermediate fluid and/or combinations of each and there now exists
proven design and operating experience.
The process of returning LNG to a gaseous state requires the introduction of heat energy. Heat sources
include ambient temperature sources (air or seawater) or above-ambient temperature sources such as
burning fuel either directly or to heat an intermediate fluid. In either arrangement, LNG absorbs heat as it
passes through thermal conductors that are surrounded by a higher temperature medium. As the LNG is
heated, it vaporizes into natural gas, which is then delivered to customers via distribution pipelines at
controlled flow rates, pressures and temperatures. There are many heating mediums in general use for this
type of process and the particulars of the energy exchange process may be governed by any number of
alternative vaporization processes currently available.
The various vaporization technologies include:
Open Rack Vaporizers (ORVs).
Submerged Combustion Vaporizers (SCVs).
Shell and Tube Vaporizer.
Ambient Air Vaporizers (AAVs) including
- Direct Natural draft Ambient Air Vaporizer and
- Direct Forced Draft Ambient Air Vaporizer.
Air-Water Tower Vaporization Technology
Open Rack Vaporizers: The ORV is commonly considered in the design of LNG import terminals. The
relatively low mechanical, electrical, and process complexity and reduced air emissions present good
engineering arguments in its favor. However, life-cycle operating costs must also be considered. The
ORV uses seawater as the sole heat source to vaporize LNG. The vaporizer consists of a heat conductor
panel with multiple tubes through which the LNG passes. A typical ORV arrangement is illustrated in
Figure 3.3-5.
LNG enters at the bottom of the vaporizer through a distribution header and moves up through the tubes
while seawater flows down along the outer surface of the tube panels. Vaporized natural gas is removed
from the top of the vaporizer and is sent to the distribution pipeline. The cooled seawater collects in a
trough at the bottom of the vaporizer and is discharged to an outfall.
Chlorination of the seawater is used to prevent bio-fouling. Typically, sodium hypochlorite would be
injected continuously to maintain a concentration of 0.2 ppm. In order to shock the system, elevated
concentrations of 2.0 ppm would be injected for 20 minutes every 8 hours, during ORV operation. De-
chlorination of the effluent may also be required to meet environmental standards.
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 8
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 3.3-5 Open Rack Vaporizers (ORVs)
Submerged Combustion Vaporizer (SCV): SCV systems are also commonly considered in the design of
LNG import terminals. Their proven operational history, low capital cost, simplicity in design and
operational flexibility combine to make this an attractive option. The SCV system uses natural gas as its
heat source and requires electrical power to operate combustion air blowers and circulating water pumps.
LNG is routed to a stainless steel tube bundle that is submerged in a water bath heated with flue gases
generated by a submerged combustion burner. A schematic of typical SCV operation is presented in
Figure 3.3-6.
Figure 3.3-6 Submerged Combustion Vaporizers
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 9
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
The forced air draft combustion burner is fueled by low-pressure gas from either the Boil-Off Gas (BOG)
header or from the natural gas sendout pipeline. Hot exhaust gases from combustion are sparged into the
water bath creating a relatively low temperature (typically in the range of 55 to 90F) thermally stable
heat source for the vaporization of LNG flowing through the coil bundle. Natural gas exits the coils at
pipeline pressure and temperature for pipeline distribution.
Shell and Tube Vaporizer: There are many configurations of shell and tube vaporizer technologies that
are available for LNG applications. One such system uses a closed loop heated water-glycol system to
provide heat to vaporize the LNG using a shell and tube exchanger design patented by Chicago Power &
Process, Inc. A Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) warmed from an external heat source, is used to vaporize the
LNG. For the vertical configuration shell and tube LNG vaporizer illustrated in Figure 3.3-7, LNG
enters the exchanger tubes from the bottom and vaporized natural gas exits from the top. The HTF is split
fed to the shell side of the vaporizer from both the bottom and top. In the bottom section of the
exchanger, the heat transfer is achieved from co-current exchange while the top section is in counter-
current exchange. This vaporization technology is used by Excelerate Energy and Exmar on their LNG
FSRU facilities.
Figure 3.3-7 Shell and Tube LNG Vaporizer
Ambient Air Vaporizers (AAVs): Direct AAVs transfer heat from the ambient air directly into the LNG
through a heat exchanger heat transfer surface. In typical Direct AAVs, the LNG is passed through a
manifold that divides the flow into a number of vaporizer units where a series of smaller flows are
directed through individual heat transfer tubes. Each tube has aluminum fins for increased heat exchange
area and is in direct contact with the ambient air. Figure 3.3-8 illustrates the Direct AAVs.
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 10
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 3.3-8 Ambient Air Vaporizers (AAVs)
There are two types of direct ambient air vaporizers natural draft and fan induced forced draft air flow.
These units typically are designed with a thaw cycle to remove ice buildup. In forced draft AAVs,
airflow into the unit is controlled by fans installed on top of the vaporizer. Each unit can be equipped with
shrouds on each side to direct airflow through the vaporizer. Direct forced draft vaporizers are
approximately 1.7 times more effective than natural draft AAVs becaus they move 1.7 times more air
across the tubes of the unit. AAVs installed at locations having a cool to cold winter require supplemental
heating during cool weather operation.
AAVs produce a substantial flow of fresh water which is condensed from the moisture in the air. Up to
100 gpm of pure fresh water is produced for each 100 MMscfd of vaporized LNG. The production rate of
fresh water, of course, is dependent on the relative humidity and ambient air temperature. For the forced
draft units, electrical power required for the fan motors adds operating cost for vaporization. Overall,
AAVs have low OPEX and minimal fuel requirements during cool weather periods of operation.
However, the natural draft AAVs required proportionally a much larger area plot space than the other
types of vaporizers. A large number of AVVs must be installed to provide the vaporization duty. Since
the airflow through the forced draft units is higher than natural draft units, fewer forced draft units are
required to achieve the same duty.
Emissions and effluents for forced draft and natural draft units are similar, except that with forced draft
AAVs the formation of fog is diminished by the forced airflow. There is also more ice formed in forced
draft units because the increased air flow over the tubes increases the rate of water condensation and
consequently the rate of ice formation. The shrouds around the tube bundles impede the amount of radiant
heat reaching the ice forming on the tubes, which can increase the ice buildup rate.
Air-Water Tower Vaporization Technology: This type of vaporization system consists of shell and tube
vaporizers, air-water towers (i.e a reverse cooling water tower), plate frame water/heat medium heat
exchangers, and a heat medium circulation loop with direct fired heaters. The heat medium is typically a
water-glycol solution. A schematic of this process is illustrated in Figure 3.3-9.
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 11
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 3.3-9 Ambient Air-Water Tower Vaporization System Schematic
The LNG Terminal at Freeport, Texas selected the air-water tower vaporization technology. The Freeport
vaporization air-water towers are shown in Figure 3.3-10.
Figure 3.3-10 Freeport LNG Terminal Air-Water Tower Vaporization System
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 12
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
LNG FSRU Option
This option involves the leasing of a LNG Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU). There are
four leading vendors that have experience in LNG FSRUs including Excelerate Energy, Hoegh, Exmar,
and Golar.
Shaw Consultants contacted Excelerate Energy and Hoegh to obtain information on LNG FSRU vessels.
Both companies responded with information for their respective FSRU vessels. Following is a recap of
the information obtained from these two vendors.
Excelerate Energy LNG FSRU Information
NOTE: INFORMATION FURNISHED BY EXCELERATE ENERGY IS SUBJECT TO
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN EXCELERATE ENERGY,
SHAW CONSULTANTS, REFINERIA DI KORSOU, AND SOLOMON ASSOCIATES. THIS
INFORMATION SHALL BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE
DISCLOSED TO ANY OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY THAT HAS NOT EXECUTED A
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT WITH EXCELERATE ENERGY.
History and Background
Excelerate is a provider of LNG storage and regasification services, an importer of LNG, and a developer
of unique market access points around the world (see Figure 3.3-11). In 2001, Excelerate placed the first
shipyard order to incorporate regasification equipment into the design of a new type of LNG vessel that
would be referred to as Energy Bridge Regasification Vessels or across the industry today as FSRUs. As
of 2011, Excelerate operates a fleet of eight purpose-built FSRUs, three with an LNG cargo capacity of
138,000m and five with a capacity of 150,900m. Excelerate has also taken the conventional LNG carrier
(LNGC) Excalibur under long term charter to support our global efforts and is currently developing the
largest FSRU in the industry for Petrobras, expected to enter into service in May 2014.
Figure 3.3-11 Excelerate Energy Historical Milestones
Since taking delivery of the first FSRU in J anuary 2005, Excelerate has been at the forefront of technical
innovation in the LNG industry, achieving several World Firsts in the process. These include Excelerate
being the first company in the world to design, build, and operate offshore and dockside LNG
regasification terminals (Gateways and GasPorts respectively). In addition, Excelerate was the first to
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 13
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
utilize its own fleet of LNG regasification vessels to service these facilities, and the first in the industry in
developing side-to-side (STS) LNG transfer capabilities to maximize the efficiency of its fleet.
Excelerate developed, owns and operates two offshore LNG regasification terminals, Gulf Gateway
(GGEB) Deepwater Port in the US Gulf of Mexico and Northeast Gateway(NEG) Deepwater Port in
Massachusetts, as well as the Teesside GasPort (TGP) dockside regasification terminal at Teesside in the
UK. Internationally, Excelerate developed, operates, and provides LNG storage and regasification
services at three GasPorts, the Bahia Blanca (BBGP) and GNL Escobar (GNLE) GasPorts in Argentina
and at the Mina Al Ahmadi GasPort (MAAGP) in Kuwait.
In the course of developing and operating these terminals, Excelerate has amassed a highly experienced
group of project management and operations professionals to design, permit, construct, and operate the
port facilities and associated vessels. Excelerate brings this experience, as well as excellent long standing
relationships with critical equipment manufacturers, design consultants, installation contractors, and
operations and maintenance contractors to each project we develop.
With eight FSRUs currently in service, Excelerate is the unquestioned world leader in floating offshore
and dockside regasification solutions. This, in conjunction with unique design, construction and
operational experience derived from the completion of six such facilities worldwide, leaves Excelerate
uniquely suited to manage the challenges involved with the timely implementation and safe, efficient
operation of the LNG importation infrastructure for the Curacao GasPort or Gateway. Furthermore,
Excelerates global reputation for utilizing available local resources in facilitating the development of the
facilities will allow the seamless integration of many qualified local businesses and personnel as progress
is made in the design, fabrication, installation and operation of the LNG terminal.
Energy Bridge Terminal Technology
Energy Bridge is the propriety offshore LNG regasification and delivery system developed by Excelerate.
This system involves the use of the purpose-built FSRUs for the transportation and vaporization of LNG
through specially designed offshore and near shore receiving facilities. Energy Bridge is a combination of
proven technology and equipment in a new application and represents an innovative step forward in LNG
importation technology.
Gateways (see Figure 3.3-12), such as Excelerates Gulf Gateway and Northeast Gateway, consist of:
One or more submerged turret loading (STL) buoys that connect to the FSRU and serve as
both a mooring for the vessel and a conduit for the discharge of natural gas;
Chains, wire rope, and anchors used to secure each of the buoys to the seabed;
A flexible riser designed to connect the buoy to a seabed pipeline end manifold (PLEM)
allowing tie-in to a subsea pipeline;
A subsea PLEM that incorporates necessary control instrumentation and related valves; and,
An interconnecting subsea pipeline to tie into downstream delivery infrastructure.
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 14
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 3.3-12 Excelerate Energy Bridge Terminal Gateway System
GasPorts (see Figure 3.3-13), such as Excelerates Bahia Blanca GasPort, are dockside applications of
Excelerates Energy Bridge technology. Using the dockside delivery method, the FSRU moored at the
GasPort is connected to a shore-mounted high-pressure gas unloading arm via the vessels gas manifold.
Natural gas vaporized onboard is delivered from the FSRU at a prescribed pipeline pressure. Effectively,
this allows an FSRU to function as a highly flexible LNG receiving terminal, and the low cost of
construction of a GasPort allows for short-term, seasonal, or peaking service, in addition to long-term
base load deliveries. The FSRU, permanently moored at the GasPort, receives LNG supplies from
conventional LNGCs utilizing Excelerates STS transfer procedure.
Figure 3.3-13 Excelerate Energy Bridge Terminal GasPort System
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 15
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
FSRU Technology. FSRUs are new, purpose-built LNG tankers that incorporate onboard equipment for
the vaporization of LNG and delivery of high pressure natural gas. Excelerate currently has eight FSRUs
in its young fleet (the oldest vessel delivered in J anuary 2005).
Excelerate initially developed the FSRU to facilitate its trading activities and to supply LNG to its own
Gateway and GasPort importation terminals, but a greater potential for this technology was recognized.
Today, Excelerate also makes its FSRUs available to third parties under LNG storage and regasification
agreements as part of a complete floating LNG importation solution. Excelerate FSRUs are currently
providing storage and regasification services for Repsol-YPF at the Bahia Blanca and GNL Escobar
GasPorts in Argentina and to Kuwait National Petroleum Corporation at the MAAGP Project in Kuwait.
In May 2014, Excelerate will be providing storage and regasification services for Petrobras at Guanabara
Bay Terminal in Brazil.
As all vessels in Excelerates FSRU fleet are built essentially the same and positioned strategically around
the globe, they can be interchanged and substituted as needed, avoiding the need for a facility to be down
while a vessel conversion or FSRU is sent to a shipyard. This inventory of vessels allows our clients
unsurpassed regasification up-time, and virtually eliminates gaps in service. This cannot be said of
competing companies who may provide a single, older converted LNG carrier, constituting a single point
of failure mode.
LNG STS Transfer. Excelerate can affect the transfer of LNG cargos from a traditional LNG carrier to
Excelerates FSRU utilizing its proprietary, commercial STS transfer process (see Figure 3.3-14).
Excelerate has undertaken over 142 STS transfers using flexible hoses, transferring almost 14 million
cubic meters of LNG in the process. The STS System is capable of transferring up to 1,000 cubic meters
of LNG per hour per line on each of six liquid lines and two vapor lines to manage vapor transfer between
the two vessels involved in the STS transfer. The maximum transfer rate of 6,000 cubic meters per hour is
the design rate of the system due in part to the assumption that two (2) cargo tanks with four (4) cargo
tank pumps in operation at 1,500 cubic meters per hour each. The transfer rate has proven to be the most
optimal rate while maintaining a safety margin to manage tank pressures and minimize the BOG
generated.
Figure 3.3-14 STS LNG Transfer Hoses and Manifolds
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 16
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Mooring Arrangements. The FSRU requires a 16 line configuration 2-4-2 (2 head, 4 breast and 2 springs
forward 2 springs aft, 4 breast and 2 stern lines). In regard of the mooring configuration with the supply
vessel, Excelerate recommends to have availability to send 2 shore lines at head and stern, although
detailed mooring arrangements for STS will provide the mooring configuration for each class of supply
vessel (see Figure 3.3-15).
Figure 3.3-15 Mooring Arrangement For STS Transfer
In order to allow the mooring arrangement described above, the berth will be provided with the following
set of quick release hooks:
Mooring Dolphins (MD1, MD2, MD3 and MD4): 4 x 150 t each
Berthing Dolphins (BD1 and BD4): 2 x 150 t each
Vaporization and Regasification System. Each FSRU is capable of three modes of LNG vaporization:
Closed-Loop, Open-Loop, and Combined Mode.
In the Closed-Loop mode, steam from the FSRU propulsion steam boilers is used to heat fresh water
circulated through the shell-and-tube vaporizers to regasify the LNG. There is no seawater intake or
discharge used specifically for the regasification process in the Closed-Loop mode.
In Open-Loop mode, the basic process is much the same as Closed-Loop with the exception that seawater
is drawn in through the FSRUs sea chests near the stern of the vessel. This seawater is used as a heat
source and passed through the shell of the vaporizers. LNG is fed to the tubes of the vaporizer where it
contacts the inner surface of the tubes and the heat required for vaporization is transferred. For this
reason, the FSRUs are constrained from operating in the Open-Loop mode when water temperatures are
below 45
o
F to minimize the risk of icing within the vaporizers.
In Combined Mode of operation, seawater at temperatures between 45 and 58
o
F can be used and is further
heated using steam from the FSRUs boilers to provide sufficient heat for the vaporization of the LNG.
A simple block flow diagram of the Excelerate Energy vaporization and regas system is illustrated in
Figure 3.3-16.
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 17
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 3.3-16 Excelerate Energy FSRU LNG Vaporization Block Flow Diagram
LNG Vaporizers. The FSRUs incorporate six LNG vaporizers. The vaporizer is a shell-and-tube heat
exchanger where the LNG is vaporized to natural gas and heated to approximately 1C (35F) minimum
by the seawater (open loop) or by the vessels internal heating system (closed loop). On leaving the LNG
Vaporizer, natural gas flows through a Pressure Regulating Station that maintains a minimum pressure of
approximately 75 barg in the regasification system, through a metering station and into the export pipeline
and finally through the HP gas arm.
Operation and Control. The regasification and gas delivery operation is continuously manned and is
controlled utilizing the ships Integrated Automation System (IAS). The high pressure gas system is
protected by means of high pressure trips, low temperature trips, and relief valves. The FSRU Emergency
Shut Down (ESD) system will activate to shut down the regasification process in the event that a ship or
shore side, including the power plant, ESD condition is present. The FSRUs IAS ensures the safe
operation of the regasification plant within the system design parameters.
For each regasification nomination the FSRU operator will utilize a configuration screen to input three
ordered parameters:
1. Required discharge rate.
2. Maximum discharge pressure.
3. Minimum discharge temperature.
The GasPort or Gateway facility design provides for the following Operating Modes:
Inerting
Warm Startup
Cold Startup
Startup from ambient temperature with air atmosphere within system
Steady-state Operation
Operation at minimum send out (turndown)
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts
3 - 18
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Normal shutdown and Warm-up
Emergency Shutdown
Depressurizing
Flexibility for LNG Supply Sources: The Excelerate LNG FSRU will be capable of handling and
vaporizing a wide range of LNG supply sources. Data from various LNG supply sources that may
supply/utilize the GasPort or Gateway terminal has been collected and is tabulated in Table 3.3-1.
Table 3.3-1 LNG Supply Properties
Charter Lease Agreements and Customer CAPEX Costs: Excelerate Energy advised Shaw Consultants
that they lease their LNG FSRU vessels under charter agreements. They are flexible with regard to the
term of the lease which can range from 5-year to 20-year lease agreements. Typical indicative day rates
for Excelerates 138,000m
3
LNG FSRU ranges from US$125,000 to US$145,000 per day. The jetty and
associated onshore facilities CAPEX costs are funded by the customer. As a reference, Excelerate was
directly involved in the development of several LNG receiving terminals. Development of a GasPort
starting from an existing jetty as in Bahia Blanca, the terminal infrastructure CAPEX cost paid by the
customer was approximately US$50 million. In the case of a single buoy offshore Gateway configuration
installed in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, the CAPEX cost paid by the customer was approximately US$80
million.
An FSRU connected to a Gasport can provide at base load rate up to 500 MMscfd in Open-Loop mode
depending on downstream pipeline entry requirements. If pipeline pressure at the system entry point is
between 65 bar (~940 psig) and 100 bar (or ~1450psig), then 500 MMscfd can be delivered. Each FSRU
is provided with six independent LNG vaporizers and associated high pressure pumps. Each of these
trains is rated for a nominal send-out capacity at 115 MMscfd, providing a high level of redundancy for
Curacaos 120 MMscfd base load capacity.
BOG Handling Issues: When operating in Closed Loop mode at sendout rates in excess of
approximately 200 MMscfd any boil off gas (BOG) generated onboard is used as fuel gas in the boilers
and therefore there is no excess BOG that has to be processed. At lower sendout rates BOG will be
generated in excess of what is normally consumed by the boilers. Given that sendout rates in the first
years of the Curacao Project could be as low as 20 MMscfd, there will be excess BOG generated that will
need to be handled in order to improve the efficiency of the facility.
Excelerate Energy advises that gas sendout delivery rates less than 70 MMscfd will result in uncondensed
BOG that must be handled onshore. During the first three years of operation with only the Aqualectra
demand load, sendout gas rate is approximately 20 MMscfd. To accommodate low sendout rates, a BOG
transfer arm and BOG pipeline compression equipment will have to be installed onshore. Without such
onshore BOG equipment and modifications, the uncondensed BOG would otherwise have to be flared or
vented. Shaw Consultants has estimated the CAPEX cost for the onshore BOG equipment required to
achieve low gas sendout rates would be approximately US$25 million. Also, several modifications will
Properties Trinidad Idku Damietta Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Malaysia Oman Qatar Qatar
(lean)
M.W. 16.82 16.55 16.39 17.44 17.64 17.51 18.05 18.20 18.24 17.02
LNGSpGr
AtlanticLNGPointFontintoCuracao
QatartoCuracao
PeruLNGtoCuracao
NigeriaLNGtoCuracao
AlgeriaLNGtoCuracao
AngolaLNGtoCuracao
Section 15 Appendix H
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
HURRICANE HISTORICAL TRACKING CHARTS
2005
1
Source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks/
2006
2
Source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks/
2007
3
Source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks/
2008
4
Source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks/
2009
5
Source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks/
2010
6
Source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks/
1430 Enclave Parkway Houston, TX 77077-2023
Tele: 281.368.4000 Fax: 281.368.4488
Offices:
Cambridge, MA
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Milton Keynes, UK
Singapore