| Front page | | Contents | | Previous |

Natural gas for ship propulsion in Denmark

11 Appendices

• 11.1 APPENDIX 1: Natural gas and processing plants
  • 11.1.1 What is natural gas?
    • 11.1.1.1 LNG supplied by ships
    • 11.1.1.2 LNG produced from pipeline gas
    • 11.1.1.3 CNG produced from pipeline gas
    • 11.1.1.4 CNG supplied by ships
  • 11.1.2 Description of a LNG liquefaction plant (Ramboll Oil and Gas)
    • 11.1.2.1 LNG liquefaction plant supplied by LNG carriers
    • 11.1.2.2 LNG liquefaction plant supplied by pipeline gas
  • 11.1.3 Description of CNG compression plant (Ramboll Oil and Gas)
    • 11.1.3.1 CNG compression plant supplied by pipeline
    • 11.1.3.2 Liquid compressed natural gas facility (LCNG)
  • 11.1.4 References
• 11.2 APPENDIX 2: Basic gas engine and distribution information
  • 11.2.1 LNG propulsion in ships
  • 11.2.2 LNG storage onboard
  • 11.2.3 CNG propulsion technology in ships
  • 11.2.4 CNG storage onboard
  • 11.2.5 Bunkering configuration in Norway
  • 11.2.6 Fuel cells on ships
  • 11.2.7 Regulations
  • 11.2.8 Distribution of LNG
    • 11.2.8.1 Current LNG infrastructure
    • 11.2.8.2 LNG production plants
    • 11.2.8.3 Downstream distribution of LNG
    • 11.2.8.4 LNG import and export terminals in Europe
    • 11.2.8.5 Availability of LNG
    • 11.2.8.6 Transportation of LNG
    • 11.2.8.7 Downstream distribution
    • 11.2.8.8 LNG tanks on quay
  • 11.2.9 Distribution of CNG
  • 11.2.10 References
• 11.3 APPENDIX 3: Economics of LNG (DNV)
  • 11.3.1 Economics of LNG distribution
  • 11.3.2 References
• 11.4 APPENDIX 4: Risks associated with CNG and LNG
  • 11.4.1 Individual risk and societal risk
  • 11.4.2 Risk Acceptance Criteria (RAC)
  • 11.4.3 ALARP
  • 11.4.4 Risk assessment
  • 11.4.5 Risks originating from the storage facility
  • 11.4.6 Risks related to supply activities
  • 11.4.7 Risks associated to fuelling activities
  • 11.4.8 Risks associated to external impact on the storage facility
  • 11.4.9 Risks related to collision involving a LNG/CNG fuelled vessels
• 11.5 APPENDIX 5: Fuel consumption in ferries and short sea shipping
  • 11.5.1 Estimation of fuel consumption
  • 11.5.2 Ferries calling Danish ports
    • 11.5.2.1 Ferries 0-499GT
    • 11.5.2.2 Ferries 500-9,999GT
    • 11.5.2.3 Ferries above 10,000GT
    • 11.5.2.4 Including ferries with foreign ownership or other flags
    • 11.5.2.5 Summary on ferries
  • 11.5.3 Estimation of potential in short sea shipping
    • 11.5.3.1 The number of ports in short sea shipping
    • 11.5.3.2 The number of vessels
    • 11.5.3.3 Data for ferries
    • 11.5.3.4 Short sea shipping data
  • 11.5.4 References
• 11.6 APPENDIX 6: Emissions to air
  • 11.6.1 Reductions achieved in Scenario 1
  • 11.6.2 Reductions achieved in Scenario 2
  • 11.6.3 Reductions achieved in Scenario 3
  • 11.6.4 Reductions achieved in Scenario 4

11.1 APPENDIX 1: Natural gas and processing plants

11.1.1 What is natural gas?

The average composition for 2009 of the natural gas received in Denmark (Egtved) for the Danish transmission network is given in Table 11-1 (This section by Ramboll Oil and Gas).

11.1.1.1 LNG supplied by ships

There are several “typical” LNG cargo compositions, for example the ones reported in Table 11‑2 (Campbell, 2004 and Morgan, 2009).

11.1.1.2 LNG produced from pipeline gas

LNG may also be produced by liquefaction of pipeline gas from the gas transmission net or directly from offshore pipelines. It must comply with the requirements from the Danish gas transmission system, reported in Table 11-3 and on average have the composition reported in Table 11‑1.

11.1.1.3 CNG produced from pipeline gas

CNG is currently produced by high-pressure compression of gas imported from the gas transmission net or offshore pipelines. In Denmark the composition will be as described in Table 11‑1.

Assuming that the gas is, in both cases, sales gas, it will comply with the requirements from the Danish gas transmission system, reported in Table 11‑3 above.

11.1.1.4 CNG supplied by ships

In the case CNG is supplied by sea by CNG carriers the gas should not require further treatment but meet the requirement of sales gas, but it is not a currently a feasible option.

11.1.2 Description of a LNG liquefaction plant (Ramboll Oil and Gas)

11.1.2.1 LNG liquefaction plant supplied by LNG carriers

The LNG liquefaction plant receives LNG from LNG carriers, store LNG and deliver LNG to be used as fuel for marine transportation. The main facilities required in the LNG terminal are:

• Loading/Unloading facilities
• Metering (import and export)
• Storage facilities (including submerged pumps)
• Re-liquefaction facilities (for boil-off vapours)
• Utilities
• Flare/Vent facilities

The LNG is pumped from the cargo tanks in the LNG carrier to the onshore LNG storage tank and boil-off vapours from the onshore LNG storage tank are displaced via the vapour return line to the LNG carrier. Alternatively, the LNG from the carrier may be directly sent to the export route to supply fuel for marine transport.

For the small scale LNG plants, two options may be considered for the LNG storage tanks being atmospheric or pressurised tanks. This may introduce minor variations to the process that are not detailed here.

The storage capacity of the plant shall be based on the supply requirements (magnitude and frequency) with suitable delivery size and intervals. A market evaluation is necessary to analyse the potential LNG usage in the area and used to define the capacity of the plant. The capacity required for the plant will determine the dimensions of the terminal.

As an example of a small scale LNG terminal, information on the Nynashamn LNG terminal (Sweden) is provided in Table 11‑4. This terminal is currently under construction.

11.1.2.2 LNG liquefaction plant supplied by pipeline gas

The LNG liquefaction plant considered receives pipeline gas (from gas transmission net or offshore pipelines), liquefy the gas into LNG and store it as LNG. The gas would be exported as LNG to be used as fuel for marine transportation.

The LNG plant supplied with pipeline gas requires the same facilities as the LNG plant supplied by LNG carriers, but it may require the following additional facilities for:

• Removal of acid gases
• Dehydration
• Separation of natural gas liquids
• Liquefaction by cooling

Some examples are available of existing LNG terminals that liquefy pipeline gas. Table 11‑5 summarises the information available for some of these plants and this can be used as an indication for the sizes and capacities of LNG terminals for marine transport fuel supplied with pipeline gas.

In general terms, the total energy losses for processing LNG from the gas well to the final consumer are estimated to be approximately 10-15% of the total gas transported (Valsgaard et al 2004, MAGALOG 2008). The processing of gas into LNG requires approximately 50 MW per Mtpy^[47] of LNG produced. These numbers are based on base load LNG liquefaction plants.

In case of liquefaction of LNG from pipeline gas, a small scale LNG plant is considered and the energy requirements may vary from 0.7 to 0.9 kWh/kg of gas (Lemmers 2009, Mustang 2008), which is equivalent to 80 - 100 MW per Mtpy of gas and depends on the composition of the gas to be liquefied.

11.1.3 Description of CNG compression plant (Ramboll Oil and Gas)

11.1.3.1 CNG compression plant supplied by pipeline

An CNG plant is considered that shall be able to receive pipeline gas from gas transmission net (or if relevant offshore pipelines), compress the natural gas to CNG (approx. 200-250 bar), store the CNG in HP containers and export the CNG to be used as fuel for marine transportation.

The main facilities required in the CNG compression plant are:

• Metering
• Compression and cooling facilities
• HP storage facilities
• Utilities
• Flare/vent facilities

Moreover, quay facilities will be required if CNG is to be supplied to/from ships.

The natural gas from the pipeline enters the terminal through the metering system and is routed to the compressor. In the compressor, the pressure of the gas is increased to the required CNG pressure (approx. 200-250 bar) and the compressed gas is then cooled to ambient temperature in the compressor after-cooler. The CNG at ambient temperature is sent to the HP containers for storage and export.

An example of existing CNG plants is from Kollsnes (Bergen, Norway). This plant can store 8-10 Mm³ of CNG that is transported by trailer to supply industry, housing and fuel for busses (Norges Vassdrags- og Energidirektorat, 2004).

In the case of CNG, the total energy losses from gas well to the consumer are estimated to be approximately 5-8% of the total gas transported^[48] (Valsgaard et al 2004), when considering CNG maritime transportation. When considering the processing of pipeline gas into CNG, the energy required is approximately 6 MW per Mtpy of CNG.

11.1.3.2 Liquid compressed natural gas facility (LCNG)

The LCNG plant considered is able to receive LNG from LNG carriers, store LNG and deliver either LNG or CNG to be used as fuel for marine transportation. The LCNG plant described in this section considers LNG received from LNG carriers. The differences involving a plant receiving LNG from pipeline have been described above and can also be applied here. The main facilities required in the LCNG terminal are:

• Loading/unloading facilities
• Metering (import/export)
• LNG storage facilities (including submerged pumps)
• Re-liquefaction facilities (for boil-off vapours)
• Re-gasification facilities (vapourisers)
• Compression and cooling facilities
• HP storage facilities
• Utilities
• Flare/vent facilities

The LNG is pumped from the cargo tanks in the LNG carrier to the onshore LNG storage tank and boil-off vapours from the onshore LNG storage tank are displaced via the vapour return line to the LNG carrier. Alternatively, the LNG from the carrier may be directly sent to the export route to supply fuel for marine transport.

In case of CNG export required, the LNG from the storage tanks is pumped to the re-gasification facilities where the LNG is vaporised. The outlet gas is then sent to the CNG compression facilities (including compression and cooling) and the CNG is stored in HP storage facilities.

11.1.4 References

Campbell, JM (2004) Gas conditioning and processing, vol. II, 8th ed., John M

Egtved

Environment and Quality CMP, Lennart Hall

Lemmers SPB (2009) Designing the LNG terminal of the future, Hydrocarbon Processing, September 2009

MARINTEK (2008) The overall aspects of an LNG supply chain with starting point at Kollsnes and alternative sources

Morgan, J (2009) LNG - Roaring ahead. Where will it end? SPE Distinguished Lecturer Series, Copenhagen, 11-02-2009.

Mustang (2008) LNG Smart® Liquefaction Technologies, International Gas Union Research Conference, October 2008

Norges Vassdrags- og Energidirektorat, 2004

Valsgaard et al. (2004) The Development of a Compressed Natural Gas Carrier. The 9th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating

Structures”, PRADS 2004

11.2 APPENDIX 2: Basic gas engine and distribution information

This section is mainly contributed by DNV and provides details regarding the applications regarding ships. Natural gas can be contained in different states with different attributes as shown in the figure below. Natural gas at atmospheric pressure and room temperature has a very low energy density, and hence a large volume. In ships the space available for fuel tanks is generally limited, so as high as possible energy density for the fuel is preferable. Cooling the gas to the point of liquefaction and applying a moderate pressure increases the energy density 600 times. Still this is only about half the energy density of oil. Compressing the gas to 200 bar instead of cooling it also significantly increases the energy density. This is what is called Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). LNG is however the most volume-effective of the two options. In short, LNG requires approximately 2 times the fuel volume of oil, and CNG (at 200 bar) requires 5 times the volume of oil. In addition the added insulation and sub optimal tank shape of LNG and CNG further increases the tank requirement for a given ship and sailing range. One very significant implication of choosing CNG as fuel is that these tanks must be placed on deck due to safety precautions of the high pressure.

11.2.1 LNG propulsion in ships

The four main suppliers of gas engines are Rolls-Royce, Wärtsilä, Mitsubishi and MAN. Rolls-Royce and Wärtsilä are also suppliers of complete engine and propulsion design and supply packages as well as complete ship designs. Wärtsilä and MAN are the main suppliers of dual fuel engines whereas Rolls-Royce and Mitsubishi are the main suppliers of gas engines. In the table presented below the engine maker is also specified for each existing LNG fuelled ship.

The world’s first ferry with LNG propulsion was to DNV class. MF Glutra was built in 2000, and since then many ships have been built (see table below). So far, all ships (other than gas carriers) built with LNG propulsion have been built to DNV class. A complete list of ships currently in DNV class is shown below. An additional 6 ships to DNV class are currently under construction and two small LNG fuelled gas carriers are regularly operating in Norwegian waters (one DNV and one BV class).

Click here to see: Table 11‑6 Ships currently in DNV class

In addition to the ships listed and mentioned, seven cargo ships and two ferries have applied for funding for newbuilds with LNG propulsion through the Norwegian NOx-fund. A new stimuli package was recently proposed by the Norwegian government for the national maritime industry. This is expected to result in a further increase of LNG newbuilds.

11.2.2 LNG storage onboard

A feasible way to store natural gas in ships is in liquid form, as LNG. In existing ships LNG is stored in cylindrical, double-wall, vacuum insulated stainless steel tanks. The tank pressure is defined by the requirement of the engines burning the gas and is usually less than 5 bar. A higher (typically 9 bar) tank design pressure is selected due to the natural boil-off phenomenon.

This means that the heat flow through the tank insulation boils the LNG, which increases the pressure in the tank. In the case of long lay-up periods, some boil-off gas must be released or burned.

The main practical challenge when using LNG in ships is the space required for the LNG tanks. An equal energy content of LNG requires about 1.8 times more volume than MDO. When adding the tank insulation, noting the maximum filling ratio of 95%, the required volume is increased to about 2.3 times.

The practical space required in the ship increases four times when taking into account the squared space around the cylindrical LNG tank. If compared to an MDO tank located above a double bottom, the total volume difference is smaller, about 3.0. Below the tank sizes for some selected ships already built or under construction are shown. The typical tank size is less than 200 m³.

Figure 11‑1 Tank sizes for ships already built or under construction

However, other types of independent tanks are accepted for ship use. We can therefore expect new concepts for LNG storage tanks in ships in the coming years. A change to a tank which is rectangular in shape (tank type B) will change the volume need in the ship, however it may also change the allowed maximum filling for the tank. The final outcome with regard to needed volume is therefore not yet clear.

The weight of LNG is marginally lower than for MDO when considering the fuel itself. However, the special tank and tank room steel structure may increase the total weight for LNG storage to approximately 1.5 times over MDO.

The gas fuelled car and passenger ferries Bergensfjord, Fanafjord and Raunafjord operating between Halhjem and Sandvikvåg have two LNG tanks onboard of 125 m³ each. For bunkering, two LNG tanks of 500 m³ each are located on the quay at Halhjem. These tanks are refilled by a LNG carrier or trucks depending on availability and the LNG spot transport market.

11.2.3 CNG propulsion technology in ships

Internationally, there are only few ships operating on compressed natural gas (CNG) today. These are three tourist boats in Russia, two canal boats in Netherlands, one bulk carrier in Australia, two ferries in Canada and one river boat in US.

Selected projects of natural gas utilisation in water transport

• Accolade II – cargo ship Adelaide, Australia 1982 CNG
• Klatawa – ferry Vancouver, Canada 1985 CNG (26 cars, 146 passengers)
• Kulleet – ferry Vancouver, Canada 1988 CNG (26 cars, 146 passengers)
• Heineken – pleasure boat Amsterdam, NL 1992 CNG
• Mondriaan, Escher, Amsterdam, NL 1994 CNG Corneille – pleasure boats
• Tourist ship St. Petersburg, Russia 1994 CNG
• Elisabeth River I - ferry Norfolk, Virginia, USA 1995 CNG (149 passengers)
• Tourist ship Moscow 1999 CNG
• Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Amsterdam, NL 2000 CNG Jeroen Krabbé – pleasure boats

11.2.4 CNG storage onboard

The Canadian ferries are refuelled twice a day using about 3-4 minutes each time. The on-shore compressor station store the gas at 250 bar, filling the on board storage to about 160 bar (Sintef 2008).

Compared with LNG, an equal energy content of CNG requires almost 2.5 times more volume, thus requiring at least 5 times the storage space of MDO.

11.2.5 Bunkering configuration in Norway

For the Norwegian gas fuelled car and passenger ferry Glutra, the two LNG tanks onboard are 32 m³ each. Refuelling takes place every 4-5 days. Having this storage capacity onboard, storage at the ferry berth was not necessary. This cut down on investment costs and provided some freedom regarding where to put the ferry in service. The refuelling takes place when the ferry is docked for the night and no passengers are onboard. Refuelling time is about one hour for a truckload of 40 m³ of LNG. The truck connects to the filling station through a hatch at the shipside (Sintef 2008).

For the Norwegian gas fuelled passenger ferries Tidekongen, Tidedronningen and Tideprinsessen operating from Oslo, the LNG tank onboard is 29 m³. The ships are fuelled approximately once a week from a dedicated truck with typically 50 m³ capacity.

11.2.6 Fuel cells on ships

A fuel cell converts the chemically stored energy in a fuel directly to electricity through a reaction with oxygen in the air. The process taking place is very similar to an ordinary battery, but with the important distinction that a fuel cell does not need to be recharged. It operates as long as it is supplied with a suitable fuel, for instance hydrogen, natural gas, LPG, methanol or biogas. Fuel cells have two major advantages over conventional power generators; they are clean and efficient. Water is the only “waste product” from a fuel cell run on hydrogen. If a carbon containing fuel is used, such as natural gas or methanol, the exhaust include CO₂, however reduced by up to 50% compared to a diesel engine run on marine gas oil.

FellowSHIP is a joint industry R&D project to develop maritime fuel cell power packs based on leading Norwegian maritime industry in synergy with state-of-art fuel cell technology. Besides DNV, the project includes equipment supplier Wärtsilä Norway, shipowner Eidesvik, ship design office Vik-Sandvik and MTU Onsite Energy of Germany as fuel cell vendor. The power packs will be of 330 kW based on molten carbonate fuel cell technology. Fuel cells of this power size have never before been installed in merchant vessels, and the project is innovative on a world scale. FellowSHIP phase I was initiated in 2003 and included a feasibility study, developments of concepts and initial design studies. Phase II (2007-2010) will finalise development of the “marinified” fuel cell power package integrated with new electro-, power electronics- and control system technology. The project will include testing and verification of the new power pack onshore. Final qualification tests onboard an offshore supply vessel are conducted for the stringent requirements of marine and offshore power industries. The ship used will be the Viking Lady, sister vessel to the Viking Queen. The power package will be run on LNG as fuel. In addition, the project will include extensive amount of work in connection with integration of the power package in the ship, and safety and reliability studies together with approval and rule developments. The project receives support from Norwegian Research Council and Innovation Norway.

11.2.7 Regulations

Some relevant regulations, standards and procedures are listed in the table below.

11.2.8 Distribution of LNG

This section looks into LNG onshore infrastructure, what is available in Norway and Europe today and what is needed and realistic with regards to development of a LNG distribution network for supply as fuel for a fleet of short sea vessels in the near future.

Over the past four decades LNG trade has grown to become a large and flexible market with good access to spot cargos. Thus, the availability of LNG is not going to be a limiting factor for a potential growth in the distribution and consumption of natural gas along the Norwegian coast. It is rather a matter of establishing price mechanisms encouraging the necessary development in infrastructure and logistics. Currently, lower prices are normally achieved by undertaking longer term contracts based on regular delivery intervals. The current low spot price of LNG allows for robust margins for the participants in the supply chain.

The expected growth in natural gas demand can either be met by expansion of small scale liquefaction capacity in Norway or by imports from the international LNG spot market. The following chapters identify the LNG distribution infrastructure in Norway today and give some alternative solutions to achieve easy availability of LNG fuel for short sea transport vessels.

11.2.8.1 Current LNG infrastructure

LNG as a bunker fuel is already introduced in Norway. LNG is transported either by small scale LNG carriers or by truck from regional LNG production and/or storage terminals to local storage terminals or bunkering stations. LNG has also been supplied from large LNG carriers to coastal LNG carriers.

Norway is a country with deep fjords, high mountains and scattered population. Therefore natural gas cannot be distributed to the whole country by pipelines in a cost effective way. Instead, technology for a small scale LNG distribution is developed. This includes liquefaction plants for production of LNG, small scale LNG carriers and semi-trailers for transportation, and local LNG terminals for storage. The LNG distribution system was developed with industrial customers in mind, but has also made it possible to use LNG as ship fuel (Marintek 2008).

11.2.8.2 LNG production plants

There are five LNG production plants in Norway. A list of the suppliers, production plants and their capacity is given in Marintek (2008).

It is noted that Statoil’s plant at Melkøya is primarily dedicated to export on long term contracts to Spain and the US.

11.2.8.3 Downstream distribution of LNG

From LNG production plants and potential large import terminals, LNG may be further distributed to smaller terminals and/or fuel bunkering stations. Today LNG is distributed by ship or semi-trailers or a combination of the two. There are two LNG vessels operating in Norway; Pioneer Knutsen (1000 m³) and Coral Methane (7500 m³). From 2010 one or two combined ships (10 000 m³) will be distributing volumes from the Risavika plant (Marintek 2008). LNG is also supplied from large LNG carriers to coastal LNG carriers, and this can represent a supply source.

Figure 11‑2 Pioneer Knutsen and Höegh Galleon conducting a ship to ship transfer of LNG Cargo

More than 30 LNG receiving and storage terminals are in operation along the coast of Norway. 13 of these terminals are organised to supply LNG as bunker fuel for ships. Another two terminals can easily be organised to supply LNG as bunker fuel for ships. Furthermore, it is likely that another three terminals will be established within the next two to three years, which may supply LNG as bunker fuel for ships. It should be noted that these facilities have been built for other purposes, and it has not been assessed whether an extension of the services into fuel supply will fit into the business model for the existing facilities.

For storage of LNG, double shell cylindrical pressurised vessels are used. Powder-vacuum or multi-layer-vacuum insulation ensures long time storage with limited vapourisation. The storage tanks in a bunkering terminal for ships will have a capacity of 500 to 700 m³ LNG (Marintek 2008). The tanks are placed in series according to the storage capacity required. Capacity can be increased over time by adding storage tanks.

Figure 11‑3 LNG receiving and storage terminal (Source: MARINTEK)

For transfer of LNG from the storage tanks to the ship, insulated piping with a pipe connection or marine loading arm is used. The distance from the terminal to the quay should be as short as possible to minimise boil-off. The pipe connection may be placed in an underground culvert to allow other activity in the quay area when no bunkering is taking place. The quay should have a water depth of 10 meters (Marintek 2008) From the receiving and storage terminals the LNG can be transported to fuel bunkering stations. Only three of the 30 terminals are used as LNG bunkering stations today (Kollsnes production plant, CCB Ågotnes Offshore base and Halhjem ferry quay). An additional bunkering station will be established when the Risavika plant is in operation (Marintek 2008).

11.2.8.4 LNG import and export terminals in Europe

Current LNG import terminals in Europe and terminals under construction are listed in Appendix 1. Here you can also find lists of proposed LNG import terminals in Europe and LNG export terminals in Europe and the Mediterranean.

11.2.8.5 Availability of LNG

Over the past four decades LNG trade has grown to become a large and flexible market with good access to spot cargos. This means that the availability of LNG is not going to be a limiting factor for a potential growth in the distribution and consumption of natural gas along the Norwegian coast line. It is rather a matter of establishing price mechanisms encouraging the necessary development in infrastructure and logistics. In essence, a standard size cargo of LNG can be bought at any point in time; it is a matter of price. Lower prices are normally achieved by undertaking longer term contracts based on regular delivery intervals. The current low spot price of LNG allows for robust margins for the participants in the supply chain. The expected growth in natural gas demand can either be met by expansion of small scale liquefaction capacity in Norway or by imports from the international LNG spot market.

11.2.8.6 Transportation of LNG

It is logical to expect that future transportation of LNG from production sites or from larger carriers will be done by the same type of small LNG carriers serving a range of terminals and bunkering stations along the coast today. Construction time for these ships is such that it can be expected that shipowners will be able to react to the market needs in due time for demand growth.

In high demand periods, smaller distribution vessels can load their cargos directly off larger LNG carriers, reducing the need for overcapacity of production and storage in the Norwegian terminals.

11.2.8.7 Downstream distribution

Based on both safety acceptance levels and logistical issues, it is unlikely that any large number of ships can bunker directly from the LNG production sites or any potential import terminal.

Further, the distribution infrastructure that has been established so far appears to be dedicated to certain consumers. Most of the terminals are dedicated to supply natural gas to nearby industry, or to ferries. These are not built with sufficient capacity and do not have the quay infrastructure necessary to offer LNG as bunkers for merchant vessels.

Distribution of LNG as fuel is considered most realistic through the distribution system that is already established for ship bunkering. The coast line is scattered with bunker stations operated by Statoil, Shell, and the other oil and gas companies. These bunkering stations offer various qualities of hydrocarbon fuels, and many of them should be able to establish the necessary equipment to also offer LNG without extensive investment needs. They have the quay capacities, the safety zones, and the operational procedures in place for this type of operations, hence they should be much better suited locations than various ferry quays and harbours not previously used for this purpose. From a safety perspective, bunker stations already have risk acceptance levels and safety zones in place, and it is not expected that LNG operations will have a large impact on these parameters.

11.2.8.8 LNG tanks on quay

As mentioned earlier, ships currently operating on LNG in Norway are either served by dedicated trucks or stationary LNG tanks on the quay. The stationary tanks are in turn served by either trucks or small LNG carriers. The tanks on the quay serving three sister ferries with 12 MW power installed each are 1000 m³ in total. The cost of this bunker station is not known but the new LNG terminal in Sarpsborg was budgeted to 85 mNOK (10.8 mEUR) for 5 x 700 m³ LNG tanks. With the planned up-scale of this facility, the budget is 250 mNOK (31.8 mEUR) for 16 tanks. This facility is served by the small LNG carrier Pioneer Knutsen from the LNG plants in Kollsnes and Karmøy.

11.2.9 Distribution of CNG

The distribution of CNG is more available in countries with developed gas distribution grid for daily use in households. This is generally the case for the European continent and UK. Arranging CNG bunkering stations for ships should therefore be considerably easier to achieve than LNG bunkering, and less costly. Also one escapes the energy-demanding process of LNG liquefaction. The gas is typically transported at approximately 70 bar in the main grid, and reduced to 4-5 bar near the end users. For marine use the gas would have to be compressed to 200-250 bar at the bunkering station.

11.2.10 References

Gasnor (2009) http://www.gasnor.no/14/Nyhet.aspx

MARINTEK (2008) The overall aspects of an LNG supply chain with starting point at Kollsnes and alternative sources

Sintef (2008) http://www.sintef.no/upload/MARINTEK/PDF-filer/Publications/The%20Norwegian%20LNG%20Ferry_PME.pdf

11.3 APPENDIX 3: Economics of LNG (DNV)

11.3.1 Economics of LNG distribution

Studies undertaken by MARINTEK indicate a price mechanism resulting in a price of 15 USD/mmbtu (11.5 EUR) based on an oil price of 70 USD/barrel (54 EUR). At this level natural gas will be preferable to heavier hydrocarbon fuels by a significant margin. Further, it can be observed that long term contracts for the supply of LNG internationally are currently being signed on levels around 6 to 8 USD/mmbtu (4.6-6.2 EUR) for 20 year contracts. DNV has undertaken simple economic calculations to assess whether the margin between the cost of the gas and its value to consumers is large enough to ensure viable business opportunities for downstream distribution players.

DNV has performed assessments for two supply chains:

• LNG from small scale liquefaction plant in Norway: LNG is produced at Kårstø where the volumes are taken out of the gas exports to Europe. Further it is distributed by small LNG carriers to bunker stations along the coast.
• LNG from global market: LNG is imported from the international market using standard size LNG carriers (about 140 000 m³). These carriers remain in an anchorage position until empty and offload to small LNG carriers which distribute to bunker stations.^[49]

The figure below lists the inputs that apply to both cases.^[50]

Figure 11‑4 Inputs to economic calculations

The two figures present the expected cash flows and calculated net present values for the two distribution cases. Note that the results are associated with significant uncertainty, and should be used for conceptual discussions only.

Click here to see: Figure: Economic results for Kårstø case

Click here to see: Figure 11‑5 Economic results for LNG import case

• As the results show, the LNG import case is highly favourable with a Net Present Value (NPV) of NOK 3132 million (398 mEUR) versus NOK 825 million (105 EUR) for the Kårstø case. This shows that establishment of small scale liquefaction plants in Norway will hardly be attractive from an economic perspective. This is also logical as the alternative case with LNG imports utilises an established supply chain with better economics due to its scale. Therefore, funding the establishment of LNG as fuel for selected bunker stations along the Norwegian coastline could be an incentive by the Norwegian authorities.

Click here to see: Figure 11‑6 Supply chain for LNG

Over the past four decades LNG trade has grown to become a large and flexible market with good access to spot cargos. Thus, the availability of LNG is not going to be a limiting factor for a potential growth in the distribution and consumption of natural gas along the Norwegian coast. It is rather a matter of establishing price mechanisms encouraging the necessary development in infrastructure and logistics.

More than 30 LNG receiving and storage terminals are in operation along the coast of Norway. 13 of these terminals are organised to supply LNG as bunker fuel for ships. Another two terminals can easily be organised to supply LNG as bunker fuel for ships. Furthermore, it is likely that another three terminals will be established within the next two to three years, which may supply LNG as bunker fuel for ships.

The distribution infrastructure that has been established so far is not built with sufficient capacity and does not have the quay infrastructure necessary to offer LNG as bunkers for typical ships.

It is considered most realistic to distribute LNG as fuel through the distribution system that has been established for other types of ship bunkers. Many of the bunker stations in operation should be able to establish the necessary equipment to also offer LNG without extensive investment needs.

Studies undertaken by MARINTEK indicate a price mechanism resulting in a price of 15 USD/mmbtu (11.5 EUR) based on an oil price of 70 USD/barrel (54 EUR). At this level natural gas will be preferable to heavier hydrocarbon fuels by a significant margin. Further, it can be observed that long term contracts for the supply of LNG internationally are currently being signed on levels around 6 to 8 USD/mmbtu (4.6-6.2 EUR) for 20 year contracts.

DNV has undertaken simple economic calculations, to assess whether there is sufficient margin between the cost of the gas and its value to consumers to ensure viable business opportunities for downstream distribution players. The calculations are based on two alternative supply chains:

• LNG from small scale liquefaction plant in Norway: LNG is produced at Kårstø where the volumes are taken out of the gas exports to Europe. Further it is distributed by small LNG carriers to bunker stations along the coast.
• LNG from global market: LNG is imported from the international market using standard size LNG carriers (about 140 000 m³). These carriers remain in an anchorage position until empty and offload to small LNG carriers which distribute to bunker stations.

Based on the results, DNV concludes that importing LNG from international markets on standard size LNG carriers offers significantly better economics than building small scale liquefaction plants in Norway. This is also logical as the alternative case with LNG imports utilises an established supply chain with better economics due to its scale.

11.3.2 References

Sintef 2008) http://www.sintef.no/upload/MARINTEK/PDF-filer/Publications/The%20Norwegian%20LNG%20Ferry_PME.pdf

MARINTEK (2008) The overall aspects of an LNG supply chain with starting point at Kollsnes and alternative sources

11.4 APPENDIX 4: Risks associated with CNG and LNG

This document provides risk and safety related input to the study evaluating the use of natural gas for maritime vessels in Denmark and was developed by Ramboll Oil and Gas.

Two options are considered:

1. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
2. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

The memo address the main risk and safety aspects related to the options, however, detailed risk assessments are not performed at this stage. The memo applies a general approach to the evaluation of the risks associated with LNG/CNG installations and the context specific issues related to the use of natural gas for maritime vessels.

Natural gas activities will always have the potential of causing accidents as the gas is flammable under certain conditions. In order to enable assessment of the associated risks the international generally accepted categorisation of risk is a combination of the severity of the consequences and the likelihood of occurrence. The (technical) objective definition is thus:

Risk = severity of impact x frequency of event occurring

The combination of severity and likelihood is not necessarily a linear product but depends on the severity and likelihood classification.

The individual’s perception of risk provides for various subjective interpretations of a given installation/event which depends on various social elements, the level of information/knowledge, previous experience, necessity of the application, external inputs, etc. This is not covered in this memo. However, it is generally accepted that risk aversion increases exponentially with the scale of potential accidents.

11.4.1 Individual risk and societal risk

Risk is therefore considered in terms of individual risk and societal risk. Various methods exist to estimate the level of these risks and the risks can be expressed in different ways (potential loss of life, risk to specific groups, risk on-site staff, risk to neighbours, etc.).

The individual risk (IR) is the likelihood of fatal incidents that a specific person will experience within a given time period (normally per year). The IR depends on exposure to hazards, where the person is located, time spend on the location, protection in terms of cover, etc. The IR will thus differ for maintenance staff, neighbours, persons occasionally passing the installation, etc. and it provides for a measure of the risk to the most exposed person.

The societal risk is the collective risk that a given installation imposes on persons/groups and surroundings. This can be expressed as the frequency of fatalities compared with the scale of the incident subject to the risk aversion concept.

11.4.2 Risk Acceptance Criteria (RAC)

Whenever an activity has associated risks the decision-maker is to compare these risks with the benefit of the activity. There are several ways of defining the criteria for risk acceptance, e.g. cost-benefit analyses (CBA) or industry common practice levels for IR and societal risk.

The health and safety risks the RAC can be either quantitative or qualitative and provides for a minimum level of safety (or maximum level of risk) that must be achieved. In most case a differentiation between on-site risk and risk to third party is incorporated into the acceptance criteria through the risk aversion concept.

The decision-maker of course always has the zero-alternative opportunity if the risk is not considered acceptable.

11.4.3 ALARP

Alongside demonstrating that the risk acceptance criteria are achievable it is also necessary to demonstrated that the risk is ALARP. This means that measures to reduce the risk shall be assessed in order to evaluate if implementation is necessary.

The ALARP principle is often closely related to cost-benefit analyses and favours that inexpensive risk reducing measures (“low hanging fruits”) are implemented even though the risk acceptance criteria is already met.

In addition, the ALARP principle also addresses the issue of major accidents with very low likelihood of occurrence. This follows from the definition above where the risk related to a major accident can be low due to a low frequency. Qualitative aspects of the ALARP principle combined with the acceptance criteria may thus require the implementation of additional risk reducing measures.

The ALARP assessment is performed as part of the combined risk assessment documentation.

11.4.4 Risk assessment

From a risk perspective LNG and CNG as well as the respective installations required are of similar nature. The installations considered at Danish harbours may be categorised as simpler installations as they are not to be production plants.

Natural gas is a fuel and a combustible substance. To ensure safe and reliable operation, particular measures are taken in the design, construction, installation, commissioning and operation of LNG/CNG facilities.

In high concentrations (and liquid state for LNG) natural gas is not explosive and cannot burn. For natural gas to burn, it must first mix with air in the proper proportions (the flammable range is 5% to 15%) and then be ignited.

If the mixture is within the flammable range, there is risk of ignition which would create fire, explosion and thermal radiation hazards.

The design, construction, installation, commissioning and operation of LNG/CNG facilities are all subject to risk assessments according to the regulation. Various topics are to be considered in these assessments, hereunder:

• Risks originating from the storage facility (LNG vs. CNG)
• Risks related to supply (ship vs. pipeline)
• Risks associated to fuelling activities
• Risks associated to external impact on the storage facility
• Risks related to collision involving LNG/CNG fuelled vessels

The main consequences related to health and safety risks at natural gas installations are fire and explosion. Environmental risks are not covered in this memo.

11.4.5 Risks originating from the storage facility

The main risks related to natural gas facilities are:

• Rupture of pressurised systems (tanks, pipes, compressors, releases at flanges etc.) due to causes such as:
  • Installation and maintenance errors, hereunder design/fabrication errors and material failure
  • Corrosion
  • Mechanical impact (dropped objects, collision, etc.)
• Overpressure in system caused by heat radiation from external fires
• Construction and structural risks due to causes such as:
  • Weather (e.g. erosion and frost)
  • Subsidence
• Software related risks caused by software errors.
• Procedural risks caused my insufficient manuals/instructions or human errors.
• Failure of utility systems such as power supply, earthing system, fuel gas and emergency equipment.

Fires will be of similar nature (jet fire or flash fire) as the composition of LNG and CNG is identical. If CNG is produced on-site based on supply from the gas distribution network the need for storage capacity is less which in turn may reduce the scale of a potential accident due to the smaller volume.

Explosions can be either chemical explosions (burning gas is a chemical reaction requiring ignition) or physical explosions (i.e. fragmentation when differences in pressure is balancing out if a barrier between two systems is broken).

The chemical explosions are similar for LNG and CNG. The physical explosions are different from a technical point of view (compressed gas expansion vs. rapid phase transition) but the resulting expansion pressure is expected to be of similar nature.

Overpressure in a system caused by heat radiation is only considered an issue if there is a fire. The radiation from the sun is part of design specifications. Potential overpressure is controlled/reduced by pressure safety valves which are standard equipment.

Structural risks related to weather or subsidence is similar to that of any construction.

For software risks the main credible issue is related to “failure on demand” of safety systems. This is a common issue for the development of software for safety systems. Failure of the F&G detection systems (software) is also a common element of the development of emergency shut-down systems.

Procedural errors are similar to those of other installations and there is as such no difference between LNG and CNG.

The utility systems of both LNG and CNG are similar to those of other natural gas installations and are not considered to impose extraordinary risks.

11.4.6 Risks related to supply activities

The main risks related to supply are:

• Rupture of pressurised systems (CNG pipeline from gas distribution net, pumping from LNG supply vessel, releases at flanges etc.) due to the same causes as mentioned above.
• Software related risks caused by software errors.
• Procedural risks caused my insufficient manuals/instructions or human errors.
• Ship collision (LNG option) due to increased ship traffic.

The previous section includes a description of the consequences for fire, explosion, software and procedural risks.

For the risk associated to the increased ship traffic it is not considered to be significant as the supply of LNG will be rare compared to the overall ship traffic in the respective harbours.

11.4.7 Risks associated to fuelling activities

The risks associated to the fuelling activities are of similar nature as the description in the previous section. Although the risk is considered to be slightly higher than that of conventional vessels due to the potential ignition in case of rupture it is not assessed to have a significant impact on the overall risk picture.

The number of fuelling operations may have an impact if either LNG or CNG operated vessels require significantly larger number of operations. However, in practice this is not considered to be a determining issue in the selection process between the two options.

11.4.8 Risks associated to external impact on the storage facility

The risks caused by external impact do not differ from other natural gas installations and is as such not assessed to cause significant risks.

11.4.9 Risks related to collision involving a LNG/CNG fuelled vessels

It is not expected that the consequences of ship collision will impact the overall risk picture as it is assumed that the LNG/CNG fuelled vessels can be designed in such a way that the LNG/CNG tank is not damaged during collision. This is considered a technological design issue.

The frequency of collision between vessels in Danish water is outside the scope of this memo, but this also needs to be taken into account. The lower the general ship collision frequency, the lower the contribution to the overall risk will be.

11.5 APPENDIX 5: Fuel consumption in ferries and short sea shipping

This section was developed by LITEHAUZ. The Danish Statistic’s databases on port calls were used (Danmarks Statistik 2010). Three categories are shown starting with up to 499GT, 500 to 9,999GT and the ferries above 10,000GT.

Figure 11‑7 Ferry port calls 2008. Ferries between 0-499GT, 500-9,999GT and >10,000GT

The smallest ferries operate short routes in sheltered waters and despite their frequent port call this may not entail any significant fuel consumption. The medium sized ferries in the (broad) range of 500 to 9,999GT are very typical and a large number of them are conventional regional ferries, but this category also includes a few fast ferries. The largest ferries with a total of >10,000GT include ferries operating high volume routes from Danish ports to our neighbouring countries and regional ferries on longer distance routes.

The estimated fuel consumption of vessels operating on the routes can be found based on the data of the ferries^[51] combined with a few assumptions as outlined below. The fuel consumption is allocated to the ports for subsequent consideration of storage needs.

11.5.1 Estimation of fuel consumption

The fuel consumption for each ship is estimated from the equation found below by summarizing the product of engine load (MCR%), main engine size (kW), AIS signal time interval (s) and fuel consumption factor (g/kWh)^[52]:

where E = fuel consumption, %MCR = engine load (%), Δt = Sailing time (s), P_ME = main engine power (kW), EF = specific fuel consumption factor (g/kWh), I = AIS signal interval, k = fuel type, l = engine type, x = calculation year. The MCR is set to 75% and the specific fuel consumption factor is set to 220g/kWh. With a fixed fuel consumption factor it does not distinguish between engine types and this will tend to underestimate fuel consumption in gas turbine powered vessels, such as fast ferries.

The fuel consumption for ships calling the same port is summarised and the total energy consumption for the respective port is found. Obviously, a minimum of two ports are involved in ferry operations, and the energy consumption is assigned to the major port or to the port with the most routes to ensure the least challenges in supply of natural gas and bunkering facilities.^[53]

11.5.2 Ferries calling Danish ports

11.5.2.1 Ferries 0-499GT

The tables below list port’s fuel consumption from the Danish Shipowners’ ferries and a separate scenario will be made of all nationality in the end of this chapter.

In Table 3-2 below (Ferries between 0-499GT) the largest energy consumption occurs at the Stigsnæs port where the Omø and Agersø ferries operate. Both ferries have many port calls and the ships are in the high end of the scale 0-499GT. The table shows the Top 10 ports regarding energy consumption in ferry routes with smaller ferries.

11.5.2.2 Ferries 500-9,999GT

As seen in Table 3-3 below the largest energy consumption occur at Sjællands Odde port. There are three fast ferries, Mai Mols, Mie Mols and Max Mols that have large fuel oil consumption due to the high speed and the distance on the ferry routes between Sjællands Odde port and Ebeltoft and Århus. The second largest energy consuming ferry is the 6402GT large fast ferry Villum Clausen, which has port calls in Rønne and Ystad (Sweden).

Hou port has the third largest fuel consumption but this is more than 10 times and 5 times lower than Sjællands Odde and Rønne port, respectively, because Hou port operates traditional ferries such as Kanhave and Vesborg

11.5.2.3 Ferries above 10,000GT

The largest contributors are the frequent ferries at the Rødby færgehavn route to Germany (Table 3-4) despite not being fast ferries. The ferries are the sister ships Prinsesse Bennedikte, Prins Richard and the sister ships M/V Deutchland and M/V Schleswig-Holstein, which are operated by Scandlines. Beside these ferries M/V Holger Danske operates from Rødby port with dangerous cargo when required.

The DFDS Seaways Crown of Scandinavia and Pearl of Scandinavia have large fuel consumption due to the relatively long distance from Copenhagen to Oslo and the installed engine power of the ships. Also, Gedser port has significant large fuel consumption on the route between Gedser and Rostock. The ferries, which are operating the route, are the almost 30-year-old ferries Prins Joakim and Kronprins Frederik.

The fast ferry Fjord Cat and the conventional ferry Bergenfjord operating on the routes from Hirtshals to Kristiansand and Stavanger respectively has a large fuel consumption due to the speed and/or the distance of the routes.

11.5.2.4 Including ferries with foreign ownership or other flags

Since the majority of the routes are domestic most ferries are operated under Danish flags and the transboundary routes included are operated by companies registered in Denmark. However, there are routes operated by companies abroad with vessels under German, Swedish or Norwegian flags. The inclusion of these is analysed in the table below.

In the smallest segment no additional ferries would be included if the study included ferries with foreign ownership and/or flags. In the scenario for ferries between 500 to 9,999GT the ferry to Sylt (Germany) from Rømø appears, but in particular the Stena Line route to Frederikshavn would contribute substantially to fuel consumption (see below note on Frederikshavn).

The scenario for ferry routes above 10,000GT will see Hirtshals with the largest fuel consuming routes due to the relatively fast ferry operated and long routes to Larvik and Kristiansand (both Norway). Also, the Port of Grenå will join due to the Stena Line route to Sweden.

The port of Frederikshavn has a great potential for reducing the emissions by natural gas because of the large fuel consumption as Frederikshavn are serviced by Stena Line’s fast-ferries, which have large fuel consumption and by the conventional large ferries serving long distances to the ports in Sweden.

To achieve the largest reduction of emissions in the overall scale it is essential to not only focus on the Danish owned ferries but all nationalities ferries, which enter Danish ports. Despite the beneficial conditions at first glance both in the case of Hirtshals and Frederikshavn, LNG bunkering infrastructure is more advanced in Norway and plans are well progressed in Gothenburg port to establish an LNG storage and bunkering facility. If allowed by technical conditions it is therefore assumed that the LNG facilities will be placed in the ports of destination in these cases rather than in Denmark, and the in this study the potential contribution is not added to the scenarios, thus making them more conservative.

11.5.2.5 Summary on ferries

The fuel consumption of the smaller ferries is relatively small due to the limited engine power. The port with the largest fuel consumption from small ferries only achieves about one tenth of the consumption of number nine on the list of the largest ferries’ ports. If key ferry ports are considered those with a fuel consumption of more than 10,000 t/y, still more than 80% of the total fuel consumption in the ferry sector in Denmark will be covered in only nine ports.

11.5.3 Estimation of potential in short sea shipping

The number of port calls for cargo ships entering Danish ports is approximately 5% of the total number of port calls (Table 3-1, Ship calls in Danish ports) and include all cargo ships such as the large container ships, bulkers, tankers and general cargo ships. No statistics are available specific for the short sea traffic be it tramp or line.

11.5.3.1 The number of ports in short sea shipping

To identify which ports that have short sea line traffic a number of ports have been contacted for an interview and is described below. The relevant ports have been identified as those having the largest cargo turnover per year (as seen in the table below). However, this information on main import-export ports is not directly related to short sea shipping and the identification of the most important short sea shipping ports has therefore also taken into consideration the number of short sea cargo routes operating in the ports based on a study by Danske Havne (2008).

The present study has also investigated the potential of short sea line traffic based on the information available from a number of sources in the Danish sector engaged in short sea shipping. The three large providers^[55] of short sea shipping and the Danish Shipowners’ Association^[56] was interviewed with respect to the number and type of short sea line traffic in relation to the conversion to LNG and installation of storage and bunkering facilities in ports. The interviews revealed that the line traffic is less fixed that anticipated and that changes to the routing occur occasionally.

Unifeeder

Unifeeder operates container feeder vessels and short sea traffic in general in the northern part of Europe. Unifeeder explained that their line shipping traffic mainly entered two ports in Denmark, Aarhus and Copenhagen. However, the ships will not always have a specific Danish port as destination but instead operate in the region and the actual cargo will determine the destination(s), which may include Aarhus, Gothenborg, Copenhagen, Helsingborg or Malmö etc.

Scandlines

Scandlines do not operate short sea line traffic such as general cargo ships or RoRo cargo vessels on Danish ports.

DFDS Tor line

DFDS operate RoRo cargo ships in line traffic. A list of DFDS line traffic RoRo routes that have at least one Danish port can be seen in Table 11-14 below:

Figure 11-8 Azimuth thruster

Esvagt

Esvagt main base is located in Esbjerg and their main core of business are activities within the offshore industry. Their ships are Multirole Anchor Handling Tug Supply (AHTS) vessel^[57], standby vessels, crew-change vessels and vessels for rescue operations. An interview^[58] revealed that Esvagt’s vessels operates on low sulphur marine diesel, has installed catalysts for reduction of NO_x emissions and has very low fuel consumption when they are at standby at a rig or when they are in operation. A standby vessel only uses around 30 litre of fuel per hour when they operate their Azimuth thrusters^[59].

Product and power plant ports

Product ports such as Statoil port, Aalborg Portland port or Stålvalseværkets port are not included in the evaluated ports for short sea line traffic since the cargo ships although often calling regularly call relatively rare and serve other ports in the interval. This also includes the ports serving power plants with coal. Actually, the import of coal for Enstedværket makes the port one of the largest in Denmark when it comes to cargo volume.

The Danske Havne study

Danske Havne is the national association of commercial ports with 80 active ports in Denmark, Faroe Islands and Greenland. The short sea shipping operating in the member ports includes feeder ships, RoRo cargo, RoPax, general cargo, tanker, bulkers etc. To identify the short sea line traffic, which operates from the Danish ports, a list of routes from a study performed in 2007-2008 was provided by Danske Havne (2008).

Because the study had focus on container traffic, general cargo and the RoRo shipping sector the ports servicing the bulk trade with e.g. agricultural products, construction materials, timber, scrap etc. were not included in the Danske Havne study. This would concern the ports in e.g. Randers, Vejle, Horsens, Aabenraa, Odense, and several more, but the presence of line traffic or the actual volumes involved are not known. To accommodate this uncertainty we have added three undisclosed ports to the 11 ports identified in Dansk Havne’s study bringing the total number of ports to 14 involved in short sea line shipping^[60].

In addition to the three unnamed ports, the main short sea shipping ports (in alphabetical order) are:

• CMP/Copenhagen
• Esbjerg
• Fredericia/ADP
• Frederikshavn
• Grenå
• Hanstholm
• Hirtshals
• Hundested
• Kolding
• Aarhus
• Aalborg

The largest of these are Fredericia, Aarhus, Copenhagen and Esbjerg, and a short description is given below.

Port of Fredericia:

The Associated Danish Ports A/S (ADP) is a co-operation between the ports of Fredericia, Nyborg and Middelfart. The largest short sea line traffic ports of ADP is Fredericia and the shipping companies which enters the ports are Unifeeder on routes to Hamburg/Bremerhaven, CMA CGM on the routes to Hamburg - Fredericia - Halmstad - Copenhagen - Szczecin, MSC on the route to Antwerp – Fredericia – Aarhus – Copenhagen and DFDS Tor Line on the route Fredericia – Aarhus – Copenhagen - Klaipeda^[61].

Port of Aarhus

RoRo cargo ships with regular routes to Finland and Lithuania have port calls in Aarhus port together with cruise liners. General cargo ships carrying paper, windmills etc. call regularly at the port. Bulker traffic, which operates from Aarhus port, is carrying agriculture products, coal and concrete. The tanker traffic mainly carries mineral and vegetable oil.

Port of Copenhagen

Copenhagen Malmö port (CMP) is a co-operation between the ports of Copenhagen and Malmö. The main short sea line traffic entering CMP are Unifeeder^[62]. Vessels that enter the port of Copenhagen are typically time charter from a half to a year.

Port of Esbjerg

The port of Esbjerg handles RoRo ships (both RoRo cargo and RoPax) and LoLo ships, fishing vessel and off-shore activities with regular port calls on their port. The main ship owners which operates from Esbjerg port are, and not limited to, Smyril line, Cobelfret NV, DFDS, Esvagt, Maersk etc.

Figure 11‑9 Port of Esbjerg

11.5.3.2 The number of vessels

The short sea line traffic in Danish ports comprises Danish and foreign vessels operating on some 75 lines with 216 calls/year in 2007-2008 according to Danske Havne. It is beyond the present study to identify the individual vessels, their engine power or the length of their voyage, so for each of the lines we have assigned a 6,000GT average to the LoLo traffic and 25,000GT to the Ro-ro cargo lines and 1 day voyage/call is attributed to each line. For the longer cargo lines from Europe this latter assumption will in effect only include the distance covered in Danish territorial water.

Since the data are from the height of the shipping boom we have reduced the fuel consumption with 25% to reflect the present cooler market conditions. The fuel consumption in the short sea shipping is therefore estimated on the basis of crude assumptions and must be taken as indicative.

The number of vessels calling Danish ports in short sea line traffic on the 75 lines has been set to 78 vessels. Some of the lines have relatively rare calls (< one per month) and obviously operate on other voyages where natural gas may not be accessible. A more conservative estimate may leave these out, but the number could also be set higher considering the bulk trade was not included in the Danske Havne study or considering a future situation where the availability of natural gas for bunkering is more widespread in (S)ECAs and a number of vessels operate in these waters with dual fuel engines.^[63] In the following the “maximum” number of vessels considered is maintained at 78.

Scenarios for natural gas conversion

To identify the ports in Denmark that have the potential for installing a LNG or CNG refilling system four scenarios have been identified. A short description and the procedure of developing the scenarios are as follows.

Introduction to scenarios

A key component in the estimate of pollution reduction benefits and associated costs when transforming a heavy fuel dependent transport mode into a natural gas mode is the identification of the potential for change.

The basic driver is the consumption of energy on ships, which is estimated for the vessels engaged in short sea shipping calling at least one Danish port.

Energy consumption of the fleet

This in turn defines the three basic needs in terms of infrastructure:

Ships - the installations needed on ships (be it new ships or existing with retrofits)

Port - the installations needed in ports or other bunkering infrastructure

Infrastructure - the LNG production, storage and distribution network

For the ships the number of Danish ferries and number of vessels in short sea shipping is estimated. For the ports the number of ports are estimated within the ferry sector and the short sea shipping sector.

The final bullit is considered elsewhere in the report, and for the purpose of estimating the energy consumption and eventually pollution reduction scenarios it is anticipated that natural gas is distributed to the bunkering facilities and ships at par with existing fuel distribution.

11.5.3.3 Data for ferries

* Data from Hans Otto Kristensen (DTU) &amp; shipowners

11.5.3.4 Short sea shipping data

Fuel consumption estimated for the short sea shipping routes calling each port in 2007-2008 (source: Danske Havne 2010). RoRo: Roll on–Roll off; Lo-Lo: Lift on–Lift off.

Note: If no ship type is specified it is assumed to be a LoLo.
Two generic engine sizes have been used LoLo = 4436kW & RoRo = 18775kW^[64]

11.5.4 References

Associated Danish Ports A/S, Ole H. Jørgensen, May 2010

Danish Ministry of the Environment, Website “Ship emissions and air pollution in Denmark”

Danish Shipowners’ Associateion, Arne Mikkelsen April 2010

Danmarks Statistik (2010) Shipping statistics and port calls, www.statbank.dk

Danske Havne (2008) Undersøgelse af nærskibstrafik i danske havne; Received from Jakob Svane, May 2010

DFDS, Gert Jacobsen, May 2010

DTU, Hans Otto Holmegaard Kristensen

Environment and Quality CMP, Lennart Hall, May 2010

Esvagt, Steffen Rudbech Nielsen, May 2010

Scandlines, Lars Jordt, May 2010

Transport- og Energiministeriet, Søfartsstyrelsen og Konkurrencestyrelsen (2005) ”Vækst i Danske Havne”

Unifeeder, Jørn Oluf Larsen, May 2010

11.6 APPENDIX 6: Emissions to air

11.6.1 Reductions achieved in Scenario 1

Table 11‑18 Annual fuel consumption for Scenario 1 (65 ferries and 78 cargo ships) shows the emissions from Scenario 1 and the expected reduction potential, if all ships were converted from the existing fuel type to LNG or CNG. The presented result for ferries comprise fast ferries, smaller ferries within the Danish boarders and RoPax vessels on routes within the Danish boarders and to our neighbour countries. The short sea traffic comprises cargo ships, which have at least one Danish port on their routes. All cargo ships are assumed to operate on fuel with 1.0% sulphur.

Based on the reduction in the total fuel consumption for the evaluated ferries and short sea cargo ships the emissions from Scenario 1 can be estimated as shown in Table 11‑19 below.

The reduction potential linked to Scenario 1, includes 65 ferries in 41 ports and 78 short sea cargo ships in 14 ports.

The absence of sulphur and almost non-existing PM contents in natural gas there are no emissions of SO_x and PM when a ship is operated on LNG or CNG. It should be noted that the sulphur and PM emissions are indicative and LNG or CNG exhaust gas from vessels with dual fuel engines may contain a fraction of sulphur and PM.

The reduction potential for NO_X are up to 80% if all the selected ferries and short sea cargo ships are converted to LNG or CNG operated engines.

11.6.2 Reductions achieved in Scenario 2

Scenario 2 includes emissions from all ferry routes and a limited number of short sea cargo ship routes operating from four Danish ports. To identify the four largest ports, data concerning total annual cargo per port^[65] were used, as identified in Chapter 3, indicating the largest fuel consumption and hence, emission reduction potential. This was compared with the list of short sea shipping routes from Danske Havne (see Appendix 5). The four short sea line traffic ports are Aarhus, Esbjerg, CMP/Copenhagen and ADP/Fredericia.

The total fuel consumption for all evaluated ferries and short sea line cargo ships on conventional fuel and LNG are see in Table 11‑20 and the emissions from Scenario 2 can be seen in Table 11‑21 below.

11.6.3 Reductions achieved in Scenario 3

Scenario 3 includes emissions from 27 ferries operating from nine ports and all short sea cargo ship routes. To identify the most important ferry ports the largest fuel consumption was used. The nine ferry ports are Sjællands Odde, Rønne, Rødby, CMP/Copenhagen, Gedser, Hirtshals, Helsinore, Esbjerg and Aarhus port.

The total fuel consumption for nine evaluated ferries and all short sea line cargo ships on conventional fuel and LNG are found in Table 11‑22.

The emissions from Scenario 3 can be seen in the table below.

11.6.4 Reductions achieved in Scenario 4

This is the most reduced scenario, and Scenario 4 includes emissions from routes in only nine ferry ports (identical to Scenario 3) and vessels calling four short sea cargo ship ports as developed for Scenario 2. The nine ferry ports are Sjællands Odde, Rønne, Rødby, CMP/Copenhagen, Gedser, Hirtshals, Helsingore, Esbjerg and Aarhus port and the four short sea line traffic ports are Aarhus, Esbjerg, CMP/Copenhagen and ADP/Fredericia. The total fuel consumption estimates are found in Table 11‑24.

Based on the reduction in the total fuel consumption for the evaluated ferries and short sea cargo ships the emissions from Scenario 4 can be estimated as shown in Tabel 11-25 below.

[47] Million ton per year

[48] According to Asger Myken, DONG, this is a conservative estimate, The power consumption for CNG production for use in cars is 2-3%.

[49] There are other supply concepts that may offer comparable economics. These include LNG volumes from Snøhvit, or establishment of a large scale import facility in Norway with sufficient storage space to accept standard size LNG carriers (i.e. approximately 150 000 m³).

[50] DNV estimates that over the next 10 years, a total of 50 ships with LNG propulsion will be in operation, with an average fuel consumption of 3400 tons per ship. This amounts to a total fuel consumption of approximately 170,000 tonnes/year.

[51] Vessel data input (GT and engine powerFuel consumption) from Hans Otto Kristensen, DTU ant the actual shipowners.

[52] The calculation procedure is found at the Danish Ministry of the Environment web page “Ship emissions and air pollution in Denmark”.

[53] Exceptions exist; e.g. Odden færgehavn and Rønne havn.

[54] Interview with Scandlines reveals that an LNG refilling terminal may in fact be placed in Rostock for commercial reasons since from there are many ferry route operates to other destination such as Gdynia, Helsinki, Trelleborg etc.

[55] Scandlines (Lars Jordt), DFDS (Gert Jacobsen) and Unifeeder (Jørn Oluf Larsen)

[56] Arne Mikkelsen, Danish Shipowners’ Association.

[57] Anchor Handling Tug Supply vessel

[58] Steffen Rudbech Nielsen, Esvagt

[59] An Azimuth thruster is a special propulsion unit allowing the propeller to be rotated 360 degrees. This enhances the ship’s manoeuvrability making a rudder unnecessary.

[60] In an optimistic assessment more ports could be included. In the ”Vækst i Danske Havne” Transport- og Energiministeriet, Søfartsstyrelsen og Konkurrencestyrelsen (2005) the total number is 27 cargo ports (later reduced to 19), although these are not evaluated for short sea line traffic.

[61] Ole H. Jørgensen, Associated Danish Ports A/S

[62] Lennart Hall, Environment & Quality CMP

[63] We have added a contribution to the potential LNG consumption by including approx. 15,000 t/y estimated from the 31 lesser vessels operating the tramp trade and registered with the members of Rederiforening af 1898 and Rederiforening for Mindre Skibe (based on data from H.O. Kristensen, DTU)

[64] Hans Otto Holmegaard Kristensen (DTU) supplied engine data.

[65] Total annual cargo per port was from “Danmarks Statistik”. This was used as an indication of the short sea cargo volume and compared with the knowledge of short sea shipping routes from Danske Havne (see Chapter 3)

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Top |

Version 1.0 November 2010, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency