OTC 15230
Modification of LNG Carriers for Regasification
W.S.Wayne, Shell Shipping Technology
K.G.Powell, Shell Shipping Technology
Copyright 2003, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2003 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5–8 May 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.
Introduction
This paper addresses the issues surrounding the modification
of existing Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) carriers to act as
floating storage and provide regasification facilities. In the
context of studies undertaken, ‘existing’ may refer to an LNG
vessel of any age ranging from one in excess of 20 years age
to one still in the Builder’s shipyard. The key point is that the
modification is of a vessel whose original design purpose was
that of a conventional sea-going LNG carrier. The modified
vessel is known generically as a Floating Storage and
Regasification unit (FSRU).
The need for such an FSRU may arise because a
modified LNG carrier is seen as a possible solution where
there is a high value given to achieving early gas delivery into
a new market. The FSRU can be mobilised and in operation
for the initial period whilst the conventional receiving terminal
is being constructed.
An alternative scenario is the case where acquisition
of land for the receiving terminal, or obtaining the necessary
permits is likely to be a difficult and drawn out process.
The concept may also be applicable for the case
where the supply contract is too short to economically justify
the building of a land based terminal.
This paper reflects the evolution of ideas over a
number of project proposals studied.
The Basics
In terms of hardware and duty, what are we expecting of the
FSRU? The FSRU is to be moored permanently or semi-
permanently in an appropriate location. The FSRU is to
receive, store and vaporise LNG and to send out regasified
LNG into a pipeline distribution system. Other
issues relating to management of boil-off gas, power
generation and manning arrangements are also addressed.
Selection of Candidate Vessels
The studies embraced a range of vessels for conversion from
some more than 20 years old to one project which looked at
modifying vessels whilst still in the construction yard. Clearly
the ‘flat deck’ designs (membrane and IHI-SPB) offered some
advantages with respect to lay out of new equipment, but
studies of Moss spherical tank design vessels did not find any
insuperable difficulties. Within the industry, there are
questions about the susceptibility of membrane designs to
damage caused by excessive liquid motions in the cargo tanks
– ‘sloshing’ damage. Should the candidate be a membrane
ship then specific studies for the site conditions would be
conducted by well established procedures to demonstrate
acceptability.
Interruptible Supplies
When considering any FSRU project proposal, one of the first
issues to address is that of interruptibility of supply. Are
interruptible supplies acceptable and on what terms? The
attraction of accepting an interruptible supply basis is that it
may reduce some of the technical requirements for the FSRU.
In the evolution of projects, it often starts off that interruptible
supplies are acceptable, but as serious commercial
negotiations progress the penalties involved are such as to
drive the project towards higher and higher levels of
continuity of supply.
In this paper, the assumption is that the basis is that
of maintaining uninterrupted supply.
In this context, the case has to be considered where,
as a result of mooring location and local extreme weather
conditions, the FSRU has to have the facility to disconnect and
seek safety at sea. This is obviously a special case with
significant ramifications which will be addressed further in
various sections of this paper.
The Start Point
When we first started looking at this issue, one of the first
suggestions was to modify two LNG carriers with vaporisation
2 OTC 15230
and regasification equipment and operate them on a shuttle
basis. The idea was that whilst one was discharging vaporised
LNG to shore, the other would steam to the loading port, load
and return in time to take over from the one discharging. This
model is obviously nearer to the normal model of ships
shuttling between a loading and a discharge port. In effect this
did away with the need for an FSRU. However, further study
led us to the conclusion that this approach was not appropriate.
The main reasons for this are summarised as follows:
• Duplication of vaporisation and send out equipment
on the ships and hence low utilisation
• Unless interruptible supplies are accepted, there is a
need for a duplicate mooring and send-out connection
to shore
• The relationship between steaming distance, and
hence time, and the send out rate tends to put severe
restrictions on the applicability of the scheme.
• Difficulty with handling routine ship refits with
respect to continuity of supplies.
For these reasons, we came to the concept of a dedicated
FSRU permanently/semi-permanently moored at the receiving
point. The basis for the projects is to employ standard LNG
carrier(s) available on the charter market to keep the FSRU
supplied with LNG without any need for modification to the
supply vessels.
Mooring Arrangements
The mooring arrangements are a site-specific issue. In the
studies we have undertaken there have been broadly two
possibilities:
1. Permanent mooring alongside a jetty.
2. Single point weather-vaning system.
In the first case, the mooring arrangements for the supply
LNG carrier would be dependent on the jetty configuration.
This could either be a side-by side configuration with the
supply carrier moored on the offside of the FSRU to the jetty,
i.e. ‘double banked’, or one could envisage an entirely
conventional mooring system on a finger jetty with the FSRU
on one side of the finger and the supply carrier on the
other side.
In the second case, the plan is use a conventional LNG
carrier in a side-by-side mooring configuration to supply LNG
to the FSRU. This makes spread mooring systems
relatively unattractive.
The permanent mooring alongside a jetty is clearly the
simplest option – booster pumps and vaporisers may be
mounted ashore - but is not generally likely to be available.
The form of the single point weather-vaning system is
dependent upon water depth. In relatively shallow waters, say
about 20 to 30 m, and for benign locations then a tower
arrangement with a soft yoke type mooring system would
seem most appropriate. In deeper waters, say 50 m plus, turret
systems, either internal or external, would provide a solution.
The choice of turret system will be affected by the amount of
structural modification that is required to the ship to
incorporate the mooring arrangements. Whilst submerged
internal turrets have their proponents, it maybe that integration
into an existing ship’s structure is more complicated and an
external turret would be simpler to install.
Clearly, the location of the mooring system is a site-
specific issue, however, it is essential that careful
consideration be given to the approach and exit path for the
supply LNG carrier. For the weather-vaning systems, we
would anticipate that a stern transverse thruster would be
required to facilitate heading control of the FSRU during the
approach and berthing of the LNG carrier and whilst the LNG
carrier is alongside.
As mentioned in the comments above concerning the case
for emergency disconnection in the case of severe weather,
this requirement needs to be identified from meteorological
information as early as possible so that the appropriate steps
can be taken for the design and selection of the
mooring equipment.
Process
In simple terms, the process requires LNG to be pumped from
the cargo tank to a booster module which pressurises the liquid
to the send out pressure, typically of the order of 70 – 90 bar.
The liquid is then passed to a heating device to vaporise the
liquid and warm to ambient temperatures. The product then
passes via a metering station to the turret swivel, riser and to
the PLEM before entering the send out line to shore.
Normally, a recondenser will be positioned in the line from the
supply pump to the booster pump. Fig. 1 shows a simplified
diagram of the system.
On FSRUs converted from membrane or SPB design
carriers, a neat solution is to install the supply pumps in the
emergency pump column. For Moss type spherical cargo
tanks, the solution is to replace one of the existing cargo
pumps in two or more tanks.
A new dedicated LNG header is needed to supply the
booster module. This leaves the existing liquid header free for
normal loading operations from the supply ship and, if
necessary, internal transfer of LNG.
Supply Pumps
The capacity of the supply pump is clearly dictated by the
send out capacity requirements. The range of send out flow
rates will dictate the number of supply pumps. The pumps
typically have a normal operating range of about 40% to 110
% rated flow. If the variability in send out rate is greater than
this, then two or more pumps would be needed. In any case,
we would install one more pump than needed to satisfy the
flow requirement to ensure continuity in event of a single
pump failure.
OTC 15230
Recondenser
A recondenser is installed in the line from the supply pump(s)
to the booster pumps. It is used as part of the boil-off gas
management system. A dedicated boil-off gas compressor
will have to be installed to supply the vapour to the
recondenser since the ships existing compressors do not have
sufficient discharge head for this duty.
Booster Pumps
The booster pumps are multi-stage pumps pot-mounted on
deck. A similar argument to that for the number of supply
pumps pertains except that the operating range of a booster
pump is more limited than a supply pump, of the order of 60%
to 100 %. This implies that there will be a greater number of
booster pumps than supply pumps. In a new import scheme,
the early send out flow rates may be quite low compared to the
full rate design send out to be achieved as the project matures.
This obviously will have impact on the selection of booster
pumps. It may come about that the optimum solution requires
booster pumps of differing capacity, which is acceptable from
the operational point of view. At an operational level, and
depending on the characteristics of the distribution system,
some of the day-to-day variation in demand can be absorbed in
line pack.
One key point in the specification of booster pumps
is that the motor power is quite sensitive to density and hence
it is important to use a realistic value for the highest likely
density of the LNG.
It is noted that the majority of receiving terminals
employ single speed booster pumps, however, a case could be
made for using variable frequency drives (VFD) on the FSRU.
The case would probably on the basis of either minimising
starting currents or if there was likely to be a significant
variation in density of the LNG feed to the booster pumps.
An alternative option considered was to mount the booster
pump directly in a pump column in side the cargo tank. There
are a few examples in shore tanks, however it was not
accepted for the ship conversion case for the following
reasons:
• A recondenser could not be used
• Modifying the pump tower for the high pressure
pump column presented some difficulties
Vaporisers
Four types of vaporisers were considered, but, for reasons,
which will become apparent, in practice, there are only two
practical options. The four considered were:
• Open rack
• Submerged combustion
• Intermediate fluid
• Steam – shell and tube
3
With the exception of steam, all of these options are to be
found in existing receiving terminals. Direct sea water heated
vaporisers have been proposed, but there is no operational
experience of these and hence they were not considered.
Open Rack Vaporiser (ORV)
These are extensively used in receiving terminals. LNG is
pumped upwards through a series of parallel tubes while sea
water flows downwards under gravity around the outside of
the tubes. Heat transfer is enhanced by use of external fins.
However, because of issues around the list and trim of the
FSRU, plus vessel motions due to sea waves, the ORV was
not considered acceptable.
Submerged Combustion Vaporisers (SCV)
SCV’s are usually supplied as self-contained units and
commonly used in terminals as booster units to meet periods
of peak demand, i.e. ‘peak shaving’. This vaporiser uses the
technique of submerged (under water) combustion. The
products of combustion from the burner are discharged
directly into a water bath beneath a tube bundle carrying the
LNG. The cooled products of combustion are discharged to
air via a vent stack. The SCV consumes about 1.3 % of the
throughput as fuel. This system was not selected, mainly
because of concerns related to reliable operations under the
influence of vessel motions.
Intermediate Fluid Vaporiser (IFV)
The IFV uses sea water as the heating medium, but not
directly. An intermediate fluid, typically butane, or propane,
is vaporised by the sea water and then used, in turn, to
vaporise the LNG. A final stage ‘trim’ heat exchanger
superheats the produced gas. Owing to the inherent design of
the IFV, they are considered to be relatively insensitive to
vessel motions and hence suitable for use on an FSRU.
Designs for a 320 m3/h IFV vaporiser give dimensions of 17 m
long x 3 m diameter and gross weight of about 100 t.
Steam Vaporisers (SV)
The steam vaporiser has no general service record in shore
receiving terminals, however, all LNG ships have them, albeit
on a much smaller scale than considered here. The SV
employs a U tube design shell and tube heat exchanger. The
steam is supplied from the LNG carrier’s boilers. A design for
260 m3/h (LNG) was 6.5 m long x 0.8 m diameter and a dry
weight of about 30 t.
Selection of Vaporisers/Capacity Issues
The use of steam vaporisers for the main vaporiser capacity
presents an elegant solution to the issue of boil-off gas
handling on the FSRU. The FSRU based on a ‘standard’ LNG
carrier of about 125 000 to 130 000 m3 capacity has a steam
plant which typically can support, in addition to its own
4 OTC 15230
electrical power generation, a vaporisation capacity of about
500 m3/h of LNG, which equates to just below 100 bcf/year at
this capacity. The ship’s existing electrical generating plant
can support the booster pumps load represented by
this capacity.
If vaporiser capacity above that supportable by the
existing boilers is required, then we concluded that the IVF
would probably be the choice providing the sea water
temperature was above about 6°C. In general terms, the limit
then becomes the capacity of the ships installed electrical
generating plant to support additional booster pumps and sea
water pumps for the IVF.
Send Out Facilities
In our studies, the produced gas was taken from the vaporiser,
via shut down valves and, in the case of turret mooring, high-
pressure gas swivels, riser and PLEM and then to a sub-sea
pipeline to shore. Additional facilities may be required such
as metering, stenching equipment and calorie adjustment
injection but, in general, we concluded it was better to supply
this equipment on shore. It did not seem to make sense, for
instance, to carry the stenching compound or calorie adjusting
gas (nitrogen or propane) out to the FSRU to inject it and then
send it back ashore.
The regasification equipment would be protected by
an all-embracing Emergency Shutdown System (ESD)
connected to the shore, but separate from the ship/FSRU
system referred to below.
LNG Transfer Equipment
As noted previously, our concept for a modified LNG carrier
for an FSRU was based upon the top up arrangements being
provided by side-by-side mooring with the supply LNG
carrier. By definition, this introduces a limiting weather
condition for this operation. Current advice would put a limit
of 1.8 m significant wave height as a limit for berthing
operations although studies are on-going to stretch this
envelope, particularly where the FSRU heading can be
controlled with respect to wind and wave directions
Also, by specifying LNG carriers available on the
charter market as the supply vessel, berthing will need the
assistance of conventional tugs and pilotage.
The actual transfer of liquid would be by means of
conventional hard-arms located on the starboard side of the
FSRU in way of the original manifold. For operational
reasons discussed below, the transfer rate would be at a
reduced rate compared to which LNG carriers may typically
be capable of and hence the installation is based on two hard-
arms. In normal service, one hard–arm would be for liquid
and the other for vapour return. In event of an arm being out
of service, provision would also be made to use the remaining
arm on liquid service and provide a temporary vapour return
hose connection.
A sampling system is installed in the liquid receiving
line to enable samples for compositional analysis by gas
chromatograph to be taken. All other aspects of import
custody transfer would be as for a normal import terminal, i.e.
the import vessel provides figures for volume and temperature
of discharged LNG, which are used for fiscal/commercial
settlements.
A linked ESD system between ship and FSRU will
also be installed in line with current ship-shore practice for
receiving terminals.
Installation of the Equipment
As mentioned previously, the studies embraced both spherical
tank and flat deck designs. In all cases, the equipment layout
was achievable reasonably simply, although clearly the flat
deck option was the easiest. The overall equipment weight
was not an issue from the stability point of view, although
some care was taken to ensure efficient weight distribution
into the ships structure. The heaviest component considered
was an IVF with a gross weight of about 100 t.
At a more detailed level, when considering the layout
of equipment on the deck, every effort was made to minimise
the length of high pressure LNG piping by locating the booster
pumps close to the vaporisers. The location booster/vaporiser
package on the main deck is also selected so as to minimise
the length of high pressure gas piping from the vaporiser to the
send out connection
Operational Modes
When considering the operation of an FSRU, there are two
main issues:
1. management of buffer
2. boil-off gas management
In any supply scheme, there must be some buffer quantity
of LNG to allow for, for instance, delays to the supply vessel
due to inclement weather. In practice, the supply vessel is
most likely to be of similar size to the FSRU. This may be
compared with a shore terminal where the design capacity of
the storage will have, say, 3 days buffer plus capacity for a full
ship load and a margin to tank tops. The FSRU clearly needs
a different approach.
One option is to carry a partial cargo in the supply vessel,
the deadfreight being the same as the ‘buffer’ deemed
necessary in the FSRU. Our studies actually lead to the
conclusion that we would load the supply vessel fully and
schedule arrival when the FSRU comes down to the buffer
level. We would berth immediately and commence slow
unloading of the supply vessel, hence the acceptance of only
one liquid arm. One other advantage of this arrangement, was
that it reduced the demand on the boil-off gas handling
system, see below for further comment. The disadvantage is
that it makes inefficient use of the vessel used for LNG
supply, however, this penalty has to be accepted if the
aspirations of continuity of supply are to be met.
OTC 15230
When considering the issues surrounding boil-off gas
management, the first point to consider is the design boil-off
rate of the FSRU. Older LNG vessels (>20 years) were
typically designed with boil-off rates about 0.2 to 0.25 % per
day. At these levels on a fully laden ship, the boil-off gas rate
nearly matched the full load fuel demand of the boilers. As
the LNG is discharged, the boil-off rate decreases such that
when, say 2 % of the cargo remains equally distributed in all
the tanks, the boil-off rate is only about 40 % of the laden
value. For more modern LNG ships, the boil-off rate is
typically about 0.15 % per day representing about two thirds
(⅔) of the full load fuel consumption. Translating this to the
operation of the FSRU, in the normal send out mode at full
rated capacity, the FSRU can absorb all boil-off gas generated,
even when based on older LNG vessels. Indeed, as the
discharge progresses, there is an increasing demand for
supplemental fuel. This may either be provided by heavy fuel
oil, although it may be more convenient to vaporise a some
additional LNG to meet this need (many LNG ships have what
is called a ‘forcing vaporiser’ to boost the supply of vapour for
the boilers when the natural boil of rate does not meet the
demand and the operator does not wish to use heavy fuel oil).
An alternative operational strategy is to adjust the loading
on the steam vaporiser such that the natural boil-off from the
cargo tanks matches the fuel demand of the boilers.
Additional vaporiser capacity can then be provided by a IFV.
For this strategy to work, there has to be careful analysis of the
load profiles and sizing of the vaporisers.
Should the natural boil off exceed the fuel demand then
the excess may be injected into the re-condenser. Should the
capacity of the recondenser to absorb the excess boil-off gas
be exceeded (its capacity being directly related to the liquid
LNG flow to the booster pumps, and hence the send out rate),
then the alternative is to artificially load the boilers by steam
dumping to a condenser. Under the IGC Code1, effectively all
LNG ships are required to have a steam dump system
sufficient to absorb all the boil-off gas when the main
propulsion machinery is not in use.
The foregoing will cover all normal operations of send out
and cover the case of floating storage with nil send out. The
more difficult case arises during the transfer of LNG from the
supply vessel. During this process, whilst some vapour is
returned to the supply vessel, the rate of vapour generation far
exceeds that returned to the supply vessel. The main
contribution to this is the energy input into the cargo from the
supply vessel’s cargo pumps. The low transfer rates described
above actually mitigate some of these effects and from our
analysis, we estimated that providing there was a reasonably
high send out rate, the boil off gas management was feasible
with out additional measures. If the send out rate is low, then
circumstances could arise where the boil off gas evolution
exceeds that which can be managed by the boiler system and
the recondenser system. If this mode of operation is to be a
design case, then alternative means of disposal such as a
thermal oxidiser or flare may become necessary.
5
Administration, Classification and Manning Issues
The approach a project takes to these issues is largely project
specific but will be influenced by various considerations. As
noted above, if the extreme conditions are such as to require a
disconnectable system so that the FSRU disconnects and goes
to sea to safety in severe weather, then clearly the FSRU has
to be kept in Class as a sea-going ship, fully manned as such,
and kept registered under a ‘flag’. If the project is of
relatively short duration, this may not be an issue. But, with
increasing time, it may become more attractive for the FSRU
to be treated by the Classification Society as a permanently
moored storage tanker. In this case, whether the FSRU is
flagged (registered as a vessel with a Government marine
administration department) will be decided by the local
circumstances. There would be a significant reduction of
manning since there would be no need to retain on board a full
sea-going compliment. Also, there may be options to reduce
maintenance on that equipment specifically related to a sea-
going vessel, e.g. navigation equipment and some aspects of
the propulsion equipment.
Economics
The economic case for a particular project has to be made on
terms specific to that project. On the ‘cost’ side, one of the
biggest variables is going to be the cost of obtaining an LNG
vessel for conversion, regardless of whether the acquisition is
by means of a charter or outright purchase. From an Owners’
perspective, the question will be considered in light of their
assessment of the earnings potential of the vessel in normal
trade. This will be based on the current achievable time
charter rate and a view of the future rates. In this context, it
may be noted that not too many years ago there were LNG
carriers in deep lay-up because no employment was available
for them. Times have changed, and today, charter rates are
relatively high, but there is no immutable law which says a
position of oversupply of LNG ships can never happen again!
Another significant variable is the site-specific cost
of the mooring arrangements and the high pressure send out
line to connect to the local distribution system. The distance
offshore and the nature of the sea bed are key factors here
Compared to these costs, the costs associated with
the modification to the LNG carrier, whilst obviously having a
degree of project specificity, are more predictable. On the
cases we studied, the cost came out in the USD 30 to 40
million range. The time from firm order to delivery of all the
hardware was in the range of twelve to eighteen months, with
a further four to six months for installation/conversion.
Envelope
So far, we have described the technical aspects of FSRU
conversion and given some pointers to the cost issues. In this
section, we attempt to address in general terms the broad
outlines of the characteristics of a project where a FSRU
conversion is most likely to succeed.
6 OTC 15230

From a project perspective, the attraction of this route

is the relative speed of implementation. A purpose built
FSRU will take about 3 years from contract signing, but we
would also expect the contracting procedure to be more
protracted than for a conversion. A shore receiving terminal
also takes about 3 years to build, but the process may be
considerably extended by such issues as land acquisition,
permits, environmental impact studies etc.

Achieving early gas delivery, and the early cash flow

which this generates, can have a very significant impact on the
overall project economics, even if the conversion FSRU is
only deployed for a relatively short period, to be replaced by
more permanent arrangements, be they a new-build FSRU or a
conventional shore terminal.

The implication of this is that we see the converted

FSRU being most attractive in a relatively short-term
deployment, say 2 to 5 years. In the longer term, the
inefficient use of the supply ships tends to reduce the
attractiveness.

Other parameters of a project which will tend to make the

converted FSRU a more attractive option are:
• Max throughput about 0.9 bcf/year
• Availabilty of a suitable location for mooring,
reasonably near to the connection point to the local
distribution system
• Weather conditions which permit regular supply
• Extreme weather conditions which do not require
disconnection, i.e. interruption of supply
• Availabilty of suitable port support services, e.g. tugs
and pilotage

In proposing a list like this, it should not be read that these

are all essential, it is more to recognize that this combination is
likely to be most advantageous for the converted FSRU and, to
the extent these conditions are not met, there is likely to be a
negative impact on the economics.

Conclusions
Conversion of an existing LNG ship to serve as an FSRU is
technically feasible. The economics of such a conversion are
entirely a project specific issue but one of the key advantages
is the relative speed with which an FSRU can be deployed. In
these terms, the converted FSRU presents a flexible option
which deserves careful consideration.
We have identified the broad parameters for a project, but one
of the key attractions has not been mentioned. At the
conclusion of a deployment there is always the option of
finding another project for application or, if this is not
available, reconverting the FSRU to an LNG Carrier for
general trading.

References 1)
IGC Code: “International
Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships
Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk”.
OTC 15230 7

Figure 1.

Simplified Schematic Process Diagram.

Vapour Header

Recondenser BO Compressor Fuel Gas Compressor Vapour Return Compressor

Boilers
BO Gas Return to LNG Supply Vesselr

Steam
Cargo Tank

Recondenser Steam Vaporiser

Supply Pump

Send Out

Steam Vaporiser Drain

Existing LNG Carrier Technology

Water Supply

Booster Pumps
Intermediate Fluid Vaporiser