cv

NATGAS, LNG, Technology, benefits etc , cleaner global energy fuel

Recommended Posts

On 8/15/2019 at 11:32 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

The new ships for AIDA Cruises have the capacity for around 2,600 cabins, with a rating of 183,900 GRT.

Readers might wish to keep in mind that an American nuclear aircraft carrier comes in at about 110,000 tons.  

These new cruise ships are seriously big.   Meyer Werft, a German yard up a river some distance from the North Sea, is the go-to shipyard for these monster cruise ships.  They have developed the skill set and the ability to build these ships with short delivery times.  In that business, quality of product and fast assembly win out over price. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2019 at 6:46 PM, ronwagn said:

Do you know anything about the advantages of using the hybrid design?  It sounds like using a locomotive diesel-electric but with LNG. 

 

On 7/12/2019 at 7:18 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

https://marine.man-es.com/applications/lng-tankers

 

https://marine.man-es.com/applications/fishing-vessels

 

https://corporate.man-es.com/press-media/news-overview

 

I have contacted them to find out more about a few of their lng products including that hybrid system

Unless they've built something new based on physics I'm unaware of, this will be like a hybrid-electric car.  The question is what architecture they used.

Benefits include lower fuel consumption, reduced maintenance - the usual hybrid stuff. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2019 at 10:46 AM, ceo_energemsier said:

US-based classification society ABS has teamed up with OceanFinance and Scorpius Space Launch Company (SSLC) on the SPACE TECH4SEA project to adapt composite technologies developed for the space industry to liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipping.

The project, attracting more than 1 million euro ($1.13m) grant funding from the European Commission, aims to apply composite technology, which is lighter and more cost-effective, as a competitive alternative in LNG as marine fuel designs, principally for short sea shipping, according to a statement by ABS.

“Existing LNG tank technology can make adoption of the fuel prohibitively expensive. This composite technology has proven itself in other industries; we are committed to learning how to safely apply those lessons to benefit the maritime industries,” said ABS Vice President for Global Gas Solutions, Patrick Janssens.

The three-year SPACE TECH4SEA development project will adapt SSLC’S PRESSURMAXX composite tanks for marine applications based on its current use in a range of industries and more than 200 clients including NASA.

Composite carbon fiber technology allows development of ultralight compact tanks, making LNG as fuel feasible for a broader range of marine vessels.

“This technology is a game-changer product that will unlock latent demand for LNG as marine fuel. The benefit of leveraging this US space technology, to improve the environment in European Sea basins, is obvious. We expect introduction of this innovative product will enable sales of more than 2,000 tanks in the next 10 years,” said Managing Director, OceanFinance, Panayotis Zacharioudakis.

“Composite technology can make LNG a compelling choice for ship owners. The size and weight of existing technology reduces capacity and increases the need for additional horsepower. Composite tanks will remove these issues, offering significant improvement in vessels’ OPEX and CAPEX, making LNG as a marine fuel viable for a wide range of marine applications,” said SSLC President and CEO Markus Rufer.

The joint team’s goal is creating tanks which will attract new buildings and LNG as a marine fuel retrofits by cutting costs, reducing weight and increasing vessels’ cargo capacity.

The technology, which offers weight savings up to 80 percent over existing equivalent LNG tank designs and is not affected by corrosion, also introduces space technology safety standards to marine operations, the statement said.

While the tanks are currently made by hand, the project aims to adopt a highly automated production line to ensure a competitive pricing level.

Engineers from ABS’ Global Ship Systems Center in Greece will provide the rules, regulations and standards under which the composite tank technology can be approved for marine applications, reviewing the designs submitted by SSLC.

I heard about this happening years ago on the Gulf Coast. Possibly Houston. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samsung Heavy scoops order for 10 LNG-fuelled crude oil carriers

South Korean shipbuilding giant Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) has received orders from an undisclosed buyer to build ten Aframax LNG-fuelled crude oil tankers.

 

SHI said on Monday that the contract for the vessels was valued at KRW 751.3 billion, which is around $62 million per vessel.

The company added that the 113,000 dwt LNG-fuelled tankers would be delivered by January 2022 in consecutive order. It is worth noting that even though the client was not named, SHI described it as “a shipowner from Oceania.”

The vessels will be equipped with the S-Fugas LNG fuel supply system which vaporizes LNG at the temperature of -163 Celsius and supplies it to main engines or generators.

The use of LNG-fuelled vessels is currently a popular measure to comply with the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) emission regulations which are set to reduce sulfur oxide emissions from 3.5 percent to less than 0.5 percent. The regulations are set to take effect from January 1, 2020.

As for orders this year, SHI has been able to achieve 54 percent of its annual target of $7.8 billion by obtaining orders for 29 vessels, equivalent to $4.2 billion so far including this contract.

The contracts won this year were for several different vessel types with the majority being for LNG carriers and crude oil tankers – 11 and 14, respectively.

Samsung also stated that the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA) estimated that the LNG-fuelled vessel market will account for 60.3 percent (or around $108.5 billion) of the world’s shipbuilding market by 2025.

It is worth reminding that SHI won an order for the eleventh LNG carrier . The order, valued at $186.2 million, was for a vessel scheduled for delivery in October 2021.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small-scale LNG projects make market inroads in US

Large-scale LNG liquefaction and export facilities are helping to write the demand story for US natural gas reserves. But there is a newer demand factor for that gas: small-scale facilities sending LNG to otherwise little-tapped markets and finding new applications for the fuel.

Small LNG plants, usually with production capacities of less than 1 million mt/year, are springing up across the US to service niche markets, such as providing IMO-compliant bunker fuel to oceangoing vessels, meeting peak-shaving demand and serving a growing export market in the nearby Caribbean.

 

These small facilities can be sited and built more quickly and cheaply than their behemoth world-class cousins. Construction costs range into the millions rather than billions and construction takes months rather than years.

The smaller plants can be built almost anywhere, allowing siting near gas production or near markets. Containerized shipment can be by truck or vessel.  The timing also seems right. The Trump administration is pursuing a rulemaking to allow long-distance shipment of LNG by rail.

Demand for LNG

With the increase in US shale gas production over the past decade and a half, the demand for LNG for both domestic use and export has also increased dramatically.

According to the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, as of January 2018, there were more than 110 LNG facilities operating in the US, performing a variety of services including liquefaction, storage, transportation and regasification.

According to PHMSA, there are 160 US LNG facilities built or approved, with the vast majority small-scale projects. Of the 160 plants, four are categorized as large-scale exporting plants already in operation, while seven large-scale plants have been approved.

PHMSA also reports that the volume of LNG storage capacity in the US has grown to 55.7 million barrels in 2018 from 45.4 million barrels in 2010.

IMO 2020

One source of LNG demand growth has come from the maritime industry, where LNG can be used as a bunkering fuel, replacing dirtier fuel oil and diesel. Increased demand is being driven by standards set by the International Maritime Organization to limit greenhouse gas emissions from oceangoing ships.

Under the IMO 2020 rule, beginning January 1 ships operating in international waters will be required to slash their sulfur emissions by more than 80%. Switching to lower-sulfur fuels, such as LNG, is one option.

A Shell executive recently predicted that LNG’s share of the bunker fuel market mix would reach 25 million mt by 2035. Nick Potter, general manager for shipping and maritime, Asia Pacific, Middle East, at Shell Trading, said while LNG had historically been used to power ships plying the coastal waters of Europe, it is increasingly being used for oceangoing vessels.

For example, Carnival Corporation has one LNG-fueled cruise ship in use and a second one on order.

“We invested in LNG because, frankly, it’s the best, most widely available fuel today, which addresses all of the current regulations,” Tom Strang, Carnival senior vice president for maritime affairs, said in June at a sustainable energy event.

Using LNG to power cruise ships means zero SOx, a 75%-85% reduction in NOx, and almost zero particulate matter, Strang said.

Servicing maritime, land-side demand

Several small-scale LNG plants have started operations in recent years to service the bunker fuel and other LNG markets. The Florida Atlantic Coast seems to be the preferred location for these plants, although at least one is sited on the Louisiana Gulf Coast.

JAX LNG, a plant capable of producing 120,000 gal/day of LNG, went into operation last fall in the Port of Jacksonville, Florida. A joint venture of Pivotal LNG and NorthStar Midstream, the plant is the first LNG plant with both dockside and truck-loading capabilities, allowing it to supply both the maritime and onshore markets.

JAX LNG sources its gas from the Peoples Gas distribution system in Jacksonville.

“In addition to that, we have invested in upstream pipeline capacity so we have firm supply,” Tim Hermann, president of Pivotal LNG and manager of the JAX LNG plant, said in a recent interview.

The plant has contracted for firm transportation capacity of just under 15 MMcf/d, enough to supply 100% of its liquefaction capacity, Hermann said.

For smaller ships, JAX LNG can deliver directly from its docks, while Hermann said larger oceangoing ships “prefer to be fueled on the water side by a bunkering barge,” such as the Clean Jacksonville owned by TOTE Maritime Puerto Rico.

Exports to Puerto Rico and Caribbean countries represent another growing market for LNG liquefaction facilities in Florida such as JAX LNG.

According to S&P Global Analytics,  LNG deliveries to the Caribbean and Central American averaged roughly 440 MMcf/d in June (regasified volume), a 90 MMcf/d, or25%,increase over  the year-ago month

The year-on-year increase came primarily from Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, which both saw roughly 40 MMcf/d increases in deliveries this year. Additionally, Panama took roughly 40 MMcf/d of LNG in the first half of 2019 through its Costa Norte LNG import terminal commissioned in June 2018.

The US Energy Information Administration reports that   LNG imports into Puerto Rico last year totaled 60.3 Bcf,  to near 2016’s 61.3 Bcf, and rebounding from 46.4 Bcf in 2017 when the flow of imports was disrupted by Hurricane Maria, the Category 4 hurricane that devastated the island in September of that year.

 

image.png.80b0c99da1b41c6876013dc7ccb357d3.png

 

Another example of a small-scale LNG project finding a bunker fuel market is NuBlu Energy’s Port Allen Liquefaction facility, a 30,000 gal/d project situated along the Mississippi River near Baton Rouge, Louisiana, about 140 miles north of the Gulf of Mexico.

In commercial operation for more than a year, the project is an example of the proprietary micro-scale liquefaction technology NuBlu hopes to market in the US and overseas, Josh Payne, vice president of business development, said in an interview.

“Our goal is to engineer and sell plants worldwide,” he said. “Our tag line is making LNG local, by putting liquefaction closer to where they need the liquid.”

With the imminent implementation of IMO 2020, the company is already seeing increased demand for LNG as a bunkering fuel out of Port Fourchon, Louisiana – the jumping-off point of the US Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas industry – from customers such as Shell and Harvey Gulf International Marine’s LNG bunkering facility, Payne said.

“If ports want to get that fueling business, they’re going to have to offer LNG, and more than likely they’re not going to be able to spend $10 billion on a huge export facility; they’re going to need to build a small-scale facility and grow with the market,” he said.

US Northeast markets

The market structure for small-scale plants in the Florida and Gulf Coast regions differs substantially from that of In the US Northeast. In the latter region small-scale LNG facilities have been operating for years, chiefly providing a source of fuel for electric power plants in the winter months, when fuel demand is high.

Recently, however new small-scale projects have been proposed to serve other markets, in addition to peak-shaving, such as manufacturing plants and potentially even exporting LNG to other countries.

In June, the Philadelphia City Council approved a plan for a public-private partnership to create the Passyunk Energy Center (PEC) a 120,000 gal/d liquefaction project on the site of an existing gas receipt, storage and distribution facility owned by Philadelphia Gas Works in southwestern Philadelphia. When completed, the project will provide LNG for power generation and industrial uses in the southeastern Pennsylvania area.

Under the partnership agreement, PEC, owned by privately held Liberty Energy Trust, will build a liquefaction plant, as well as truck-loading and unloading infrastructure, within the footprint of PGW’s existing Passyunk Plant. The plant will source its feedgas from the PGW system.

Once the LNG plant is built, PGW will operate it and sell related services to PEC. The contract allows PEC to sell LNG produced from the plant to its customers in the region, with PGW earning up to $4 million per year through fees and revenue sharing.

New Fortress Energy, a New York-based company that completed an IPO on the NASDAQ in January, is pursuing another model for marketing LNG. The company plans to become a leading player in the development of small-scale LNG plants in the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania, as well as other US gas-producing regions.

In documents filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it was “currently developing two liquefiers in the Marcellus area of Pennsylvania, each of which is expected to have the capacity to produce approximately 3 to 4 million gallons of LNG (which is the equivalent of 250,000 to 350,000 MMBtu) per day.”

The company added that it plans to develop five or more additional liquefaction plants over the next five years, although it did not disclose the siting of these facilities. New Fortress proposes to establish a “logistics pipeline” to deliver LNG to its customers.

“Tanker trucks will transport LNG from our liquefiers to a port on the Delaware River for Marcellus-sourced LNG or the Gulf of Mexico for Midcontinent sourced LNG, at which point LNG will be transloaded directly to large marine vessels,” the company states.

At least one aspect of this plan, the creation of an LNG shipping port on the Delaware River, has generated pushback from local residents. Earlier this month, the Delaware River Basin Commission approved a project to dredge the channel and build a dock at the Gibbstown Logistics Center, located on the river in New Jersey.

Environmental groups objected to the site improvement project, saying New Fortress plans to use the site, owned by Delaware River Partners, a New Fortress-affiliated company, to export LNG. The groups say such an export project has not been given adequate public notice or received the proper government approvals.

Regardless of the controversy, which is similar to that encountered with the construction of virtually any form of energy infrastructure, the number of small-scale LNG plants can be expected to grow over the next several years.

This growth will likely by driven by several demand factors: the increase in demand for clean-burning natural gas for traditional uses such as supplying electricity, fueling manufacturing plants and heating homes; and the emergence of new markets for gas, to power boats and oceangoing ships, as well as land-based forms of transport, such as long-haul trucks and railroad locomotives.

In addition, because small-scale LNG plants convert gas to an easily transportable liquid form, they provide an affordable solution for owners of stranded gas assets to monetize their resources in regions far removed from pipeline infrastructure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2019 at 7:15 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

 

Unless they've built something new based on physics I'm unaware of, this will be like a hybrid-electric car.  The question is what architecture they used.

Benefits include lower fuel consumption, reduced maintenance - the usual hybrid stuff. 

No they will not as a hybrid car is less fuel efficient(slightly) than a manual car running at its optimum RPM/speed.  A hybrid car wins due to constant stop start of city driving.  It also slightly wins for non flat surfaces requiring different optimization.  You will note, to address this problem, car manu's have gone to ~10+ speed transmissions so now the difference between hybrid and "normal" is ~zero once you factor in inefficiencies of electric power conversion efficiency and battery $$$ requirements.  A ship does not start stop.  It CRUISES at a constant speed.  Fuel consumption on a ship is directly squared proportional to its speed.  Like most ships, its electrical generators are diesel powered not tied to its main engine.  Back-ups.  Now it is possible, that if you run a hybrid ship, that the diesel generators are less fuel efficient than the main engine generator used for propulsion and you can save some fuel that way as a cruise ship unlike a typical cargo ship uses much more electrical power. Gotta have that wave pool, jacuzzi, AC, etc

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No they will not as a hybrid car is less fuel efficient(slightly) than a manual car running at its optimum RPM/speed.  A hybrid car wins due to constant stop start of city driving.  It also slightly wins for non flat surfaces requiring different optimization.  You will note, to address this problem, car manu's have gone to ~10+ speed transmissions so now the difference between hybrid and "normal" is ~zero once you factor in inefficiencies of electric power conversion efficiency and battery $$$ requirements.  A ship does not start stop.  It CRUISES at a constant speed.  Fuel consumption on a ship is directly squared proportional to its speed.  Like most ships, its electrical generators are diesel powered not tied to its main engine.  Back-ups.  Now it is possible, that if you run a hybrid ship, that the diesel generators are less fuel efficient than the main engine generator used for propulsion and you can save some fuel that way as a cruise ship unlike a typical cargo ship uses much more electrical power. Gotta have that wave pool, jacuzzi, AC, etc

In other words, a hybrid achieves better fuel economy in any realistic use case.

Hybrids achieve higher real-world fuel economy than equivalent pure ICEs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

In other words, a hybrid achieves better fuel economy in any realistic use case.

Hybrids achieve higher real-world fuel economy than equivalent pure ICEs. 

In other words, a ocean going long passage ship is a piss poor use for electric drive unless you have a gigantic variable electric demand(warship wanting to use LASERS/railgun for instance)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/20/2019 at 6:58 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No they will not as a hybrid car is less fuel efficient(slightly) than a manual car running at its optimum RPM/speed.  A hybrid car wins due to constant stop start of city driving.  It also slightly wins for non flat surfaces requiring different optimization.  You will note, to address this problem, car manu's have gone to ~10+ speed transmissions so now the difference between hybrid and "normal" is ~zero once you factor in inefficiencies of electric power conversion efficiency and battery $$$ requirements.  A ship does not start stop.  It CRUISES at a constant speed.  Fuel consumption on a ship is directly squared proportional to its speed.  Like most ships, its electrical generators are diesel powered not tied to its main engine.  Back-ups.  Now it is possible, that if you run a hybrid ship, that the diesel generators are less fuel efficient than the main engine generator used for propulsion and you can save some fuel that way as a cruise ship unlike a typical cargo ship uses much more electrical power. Gotta have that wave pool, jacuzzi, AC, etc

Your post is idiotic.  Cruise ships run diesel-electric due to the sail height of these large vessels. 

For the benefit of the readership and not for you:  If the builder were to run the ship with one or two giant diesels, there would be no gear transmission or clutch, as there is far too much power being transmitted.  To go into reverse, such an engine has to be stopped. Then the rotation reversed and re-started using compressed air.  It is a laborious procedure and time-consuming. For a giant tanker or ore carrier, the docking solution is thus to have harbor tugs push the ship into position at the pier.  Cruise ships don't have "long voyages," they go from port to port and are constantly in and out.  The "electric" part of the diesel-electric set-up is effectively a transmission, allowing the propeller to go from forward to aft very rapidly, by reversing the current flow. This is especially critical for a cruise ship as they have this high side area that acts as a sail, and the wind forces can be so large as to push a ship into danger.  With a diesel-electric transmission, the captain has something to work with to dock his ship. 

You have this tendency to go run your mouth and savage others on this forum on topics you know nothing about. Try being a bit more humble and not such a total jerk as you go through life. 

Edited by Ian Lounsbury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

In other words, a ocean going long passage ship is a piss poor use for electric drive unless you have a gigantic variable electric demand(warship wanting to use LASERS/railgun for instance)

Or any ship with hotel loads, which is all of them.  The usefulness of a hybrid system won't change; only the size of the battery. 

To address your point directly, there are plenty of ships that benefit from strong hybrid systems:
- Ferries
- Cruise ships
- Warships
- Tugs
- Feeder container ships

But why am I making this list for you?  You're just as capable of using a search engine as I am. 

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=Benefits+of+hybrid+systems+on+ships

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Or any ship with hotel loads, which is all of them.  The usefulness of a hybrid system won't change; only the size of the battery. 

To address your point directly, there are plenty of ships that benefit from strong hybrid systems:
- Ferries
- Cruise ships
- Warships
- Tugs
- Feeder container ships

But why am I making this list for you?  You're just as capable of using a search engine as I am. 

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=Benefits+of+hybrid+systems+on+ships

<< rubs eyes >> Is Endbglish your 2nd language?  Did I use the word all anywhere?  Yes, niche ships have an application... that is what I said after all...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The International Maritime Organizations (IMO) global sulfur limit of 0.5% will come into force on January 1st, 2020. The LNG share of the bunker market is expected to climb to around 7% by 2030 from 3% today. There are several alternatives to heavy fuel oil for ships in the transition to IMO 2020. However, LNG emits negligible sulfur when burnt, making it a strong contender, and further strengthening its market potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S.-based Disney Cruise Line has revealed the name of the fifth ship in its fleet and the first of three LNG-powered newbuilds ordered from the Meyer Werft shipyard.

Disney said that the cruise ship was scheduled to be delivered in late 2021 under the name Disney Wish. It is expected to set sail in January 2022.

Disney Wish and the other two LNG-fuelled vessels, still unnamed, were ordered back in 2016 and 2017.

The three new ships will be powered by liquefied natural gas and, at approximately 144,000 gross tons and 1,250 guest staterooms. The vessels will be slightly larger than the two already in operation – the Disney Dream and the Disney Fantasy.

The company also stated that it would add a second island destination for Disney Cruise Line on the Eleuthera island in The Bahamas following the new three ships joining Disney’s fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Papua New Guinea government has cleared Total and its Papua LNG project partners to go ahead with the project.

Following a review of the previously signed gas agreement, the new government secured concessions by Total and its partners which later resulted in an agreement under which Total is ready to progress immediately in preparing a detailed National Content Plan with the department of petroleum and energy as requested by the minister for petroleum.

In a letter sent to the Papua New Guinea minister for petroleum, Kerenga Kua, Total said, that it will also build third party access points and, “if requested by a third party, the participants have agreed to engage in negotiations to enable access by such third party to the pipelines on mutually acceptable terms.”

Additionally, Total has also agreed that after all loans to the Papua LNG project and Kumul carry and past costs have been reimbursed, if the state wishes at that time to acquire a participating interest in the pipelines, project partners will engage to negotiate such an acquisition by the state.

It further stated that the state shall recognize the ‘fair value’ of the investment in considering such an acquisition including a fair tariff imposition for the usage of the pipeline.

Total and Kumul have formed a commercial joint venture for the purpose of marketing their shares together. Total agreed to evaluate together with Kumul the option of using LNG carriers in which participating interest is owned by the state for transportation of Kumul’s share of such jointly marketed cargoes through negotiated arm’s length contracts, the letter reads.

These concessions were not previously available, the minister said, however, adding that the government is aware that the Total letter is not a legal document but it does show to which extent Total and its project partners are prepared to go in accommodating the state’s position on the items of concern.

Following the letter, the government would allow the Papua LNG project to proceed under the terms of the related gas agreement applied in accordance with the Total letter as well as the expectations of the government.

Commenting on the minister’s remarks, Peter Botten, managing director of Oil Search, a Papua LNG project partner, said that the next step in the proposed integrated three LNg train development is the finalization of the P’nyang gas agreement.

“Once signed, the PRL 15, PRL 3 and PNG LNG joint ventures can proceed into FEED for this nationally-important development,” he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fleet of Arctic liquefied natural gas carriers planned to ferry the chilled fuel from Novatek’s Arctic LNG 2 project is expected to cost around $4.5 billion. 

During the meeting of the state-owned VEB.RF Bank supervisory board it was noted that the fleet will consist of 15 tankers set to be built at the Russian Zvezda shipyard. The vessels will carry out navigation along the Northern Sea Route.

In a notice by the Russian government, it was noted the financing of the fleet has been discussed during the meeting with costs estimated at 300 billion Russian rubles ($4.5 billion). VEB’s project partners are Russia’s largest shipping company Sovcomflot and the Arctic LNG 2 project developer Novatek.

Zvezda Shipbuilding Complex has already scored a construction contract with Sovcomflot for a pilot LNG carrier for the Arctic LNG 2 project.

The pilot gas carrier for Arctic LNG-2 will comply with the technical requirements for the Christophe de Margerie LNG carrier ordered by Sovcomflot for Novatek’s Yamal LNG project in 2013 in South Korea.

To remind Christophe de Margerie is an Arc7 ice-class carrier able to navigate in ice fields of up to 2.1 meters thick as its bow and stern are covered with 70 millimeters of steel plates capable of withstanding temperatures of -52°C. It has the capacity to transport up to 172,600 cubic meters of LNG.

The shipbuilder said the delivery of the vessel is scheduled for the first quarter of 2023.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is an Offshore GOM Rebound on the Horizon?

 

President Trump’s America-First Offshore Energy Strategy hopes to open up the 94 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that has been off limits to oil and gas leasing and exploration. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) finds that the country could have at least 90 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil and 330 Tcf of natural gas in the OCS. For comparison, BP reports that U.S. proven reserves now stand at 61 billion barrels and 420 Tcf. Yet to be sure, it is almost impossible to know how much offshore resources the OCS holds. Higher prices and steadily advancing technologies, for instance, continually open up more opportunities to produce, lifting a field’s “resource” into the “reserve” category.

The onshore U.S. shale revolution itself proves how quickly evolving technologies and operations (i.e., “learning by doing”) can transform a domestic production outlook. The OCS requires more seismic surveying to get a clearer picture of what the area could retain, with the latest surveying being done 30 years ago. Oftentimes, the more oil and gas companies are able to explore and develop, the more they realize how much there is. Adding to this potential, offshore hydrocarbon deposits are usually much larger than onshore finds. And infrastructure development can face less resistance than onshore builds because it is not as intrusive on human activities.

The Trump administration has joined the U.S. oil and gas industry in promoting more offshore energy development for a number of reasons. DOE models that oil and gas will remain vital for decades to come. More domestic output is therefore a pillar of U.S. energy security. OPEC and Russia, for instance, own 80 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. And already accounting for 20-25 percent of all gas exports, Russia is looking to leverage its Gas Exporting Countries Forum to gain tight control of the globalizing market via LNG.

Indeed, more development in the Gulf of Mexico would be closer to the U.S. oil and gas export complex that continues to mushroom in the region. The U.S. is set to become the largest oil and gas seller internationally within five to seven years. This is offering a great chance for a rebound for a Gulf that has been pushed aside by shale. The Gulf now accounts for just 15 percent of U.S. crude output, compared to 25 percent before shale took flight in 2008. For gas, the region is now just 3 percent of domestic supply, compared to over 25 percent at peak 20 years ago. Dr. Joseph Mason, a professor at LSU and a Senior Fellow at Penn's Wharton School, estimates that opening up more offshore areas to energy development could generate 2.7 million jobs, $3.9 trillion in Federal tax revenues, and $1.9 trillion in State and Local tax revenues.

Facing growing environmental pressure from all angles, the U.S. oil and gas industry has a necessity to be as safe as possible. It surely is good for business, and problems could encourage a new administration in 2020 to restrict offshore development even more. For example, beyond just lost product, it costs about $250 to clean up a single gallon of crude oil. A zero tolerance policy for accidents and spills is only logical: the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill has cost BP at least $65 billion.

The good news is that with tankers and operations continuing to evolve, there has been a downward trend in spills overall. Despite almost 20 percent higher U.S. throughput, oil spills for the industry have dropped to 1-2 million gallons per year, down from 20 million gallons in the early-1970s. This must be kept in perspective: it represents less than 0.2 percent of what the nation consumes in a single day. Given the inherent engineering complexities in getting oil out of the ground and all the way downstream into our cars, trucks, and planes, such low spill numbers are highly impressive. Aging infrastructure, however, demands remaining as vigilant as possible.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/3/2019 at 10:14 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

Is an Offshore GOM Rebound on the Horizon?

 

President Trump’s America-First Offshore Energy Strategy hopes to open up the 94 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that has been off limits to oil and gas leasing and exploration. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) finds that the country could have at least 90 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil and 330 Tcf of natural gas in the OCS. For comparison, BP reports that U.S. proven reserves now stand at 61 billion barrels and 420 Tcf. Yet to be sure, it is almost impossible to know how much offshore resources the OCS holds. Higher prices and steadily advancing technologies, for instance, continually open up more opportunities to produce, lifting a field’s “resource” into the “reserve” category.

The onshore U.S. shale revolution itself proves how quickly evolving technologies and operations (i.e., “learning by doing”) can transform a domestic production outlook. The OCS requires more seismic surveying to get a clearer picture of what the area could retain, with the latest surveying being done 30 years ago. Oftentimes, the more oil and gas companies are able to explore and develop, the more they realize how much there is. Adding to this potential, offshore hydrocarbon deposits are usually much larger than onshore finds. And infrastructure development can face less resistance than onshore builds because it is not as intrusive on human activities.

The Trump administration has joined the U.S. oil and gas industry in promoting more offshore energy development for a number of reasons. DOE models that oil and gas will remain vital for decades to come. More domestic output is therefore a pillar of U.S. energy security. OPEC and Russia, for instance, own 80 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. And already accounting for 20-25 percent of all gas exports, Russia is looking to leverage its Gas Exporting Countries Forum to gain tight control of the globalizing market via LNG.

Indeed, more development in the Gulf of Mexico would be closer to the U.S. oil and gas export complex that continues to mushroom in the region. The U.S. is set to become the largest oil and gas seller internationally within five to seven years. This is offering a great chance for a rebound for a Gulf that has been pushed aside by shale. The Gulf now accounts for just 15 percent of U.S. crude output, compared to 25 percent before shale took flight in 2008. For gas, the region is now just 3 percent of domestic supply, compared to over 25 percent at peak 20 years ago. Dr. Joseph Mason, a professor at LSU and a Senior Fellow at Penn's Wharton School, estimates that opening up more offshore areas to energy development could generate 2.7 million jobs, $3.9 trillion in Federal tax revenues, and $1.9 trillion in State and Local tax revenues.

Facing growing environmental pressure from all angles, the U.S. oil and gas industry has a necessity to be as safe as possible. It surely is good for business, and problems could encourage a new administration in 2020 to restrict offshore development even more. For example, beyond just lost product, it costs about $250 to clean up a single gallon of crude oil. A zero tolerance policy for accidents and spills is only logical: the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill has cost BP at least $65 billion.

The good news is that with tankers and operations continuing to evolve, there has been a downward trend in spills overall. Despite almost 20 percent higher U.S. throughput, oil spills for the industry have dropped to 1-2 million gallons per year, down from 20 million gallons in the early-1970s. This must be kept in perspective: it represents less than 0.2 percent of what the nation consumes in a single day. Given the inherent engineering complexities in getting oil out of the ground and all the way downstream into our cars, trucks, and planes, such low spill numbers are highly impressive. Aging infrastructure, however, demands remaining as vigilant as possible.

 

 

 

Edited by ceo_energemsier
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BP PLC’s North Sea business executed a pilot project combining Mars technology with a fixed-wing remote-piloted air system (RPAS), or drone, testing ways to remotely monitor methane emissions on its offshore assets.

Highly advanced sensor technology originally designed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the Mars Curiosity Rover was combined with a drone that circled the Clair platform West of Shetland at a radius of 550 m for 90 min. It traveled for a total of more than 185 km, beating the previous record of 100 km. The preprogramed drone, once airborne, managed itself autonomously. Throughout the flight, the RPAS live-streamed valuable data collected by the methane sensor.

The specialist drone will be deployed to all of BP’s North Sea assets in 2020, including ETAP and Glen Lyon, the company said.

Project Manager Joe Godwin, Clair field environmental lead, said the company was looking to test a method for collecting large amounts of data over long periods of time without sending people or equipment offshore, adding that the solution “would also have to deal with the turbulent atmospheric conditions that we typically experience offshore in the North Sea.”

 

The RPAS solution was provided by UK supplier FlyLogix combined with sensor technology by SeekOps, Godwin said. The drone was tracked and remotely controlled by a team of three pilots using satellite communications and radio link from the remote Island of Papa Stour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNV GL sees global gas demand overtaking demand for oil in 2026 to become the world’s primary energy source.

That’s according to the company’s latest Energy Transition Outlook report, which predicts that global oil demand will peak in the mid-2020s and gas demand will keep rising to 2033. Gas demand is then anticipated to plateau and remain dominant until the end of the forecast period in 2050, when it is expected to account for over 29 percent of the world’s energy supply.

Oil and gas will still meet 46 percent of world energy demand in 2050, according to DNV GL’s latest Energy Transition Outlook report.

Unconventional onshore gas will increase from 2019 through to the end of the forecast period, growing by 68 percent from 2017 production levels, the report highlights. Conventional onshore gas production is forecasted to be maintained at today’s output rates until the late 2030s. It is then forecasted to decline slowly to mid-century, ending at about 19 percent lower than 2017.

Offshore gas production is anticipated to rise until 2040, when it is expected to be 58 percent greater than in 2017. In 2050, it is still forecasted to be more than a third (39 percent) higher than in 2017.

DNV GL forecasts global upstream gas capital expenditure to reach $737 billion in 2025 before dropping to $587 billion in 2050.

Back in June, the International Energy Agency projected that global demand for natural gas is set to rise by more than 10 percent over the next five years, reaching 4.3 trillion cubic meters in 2024. Earlier this year, Equinor revealed that it expects global gas demand to grow by around 10 percent towards 2030. Back in February, the company said it sees “strong market opportunities for gas”.

The 2019 Energy Transition Outlook provides an independent forecast of developments in the world energy mix to 2050, according to DNV GL, which describes itself as a global quality assurance and risk management company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.