OTC 20683

Converting Existing LNG Carriers for Floating LNG Applications

David Franklin - Mustang; Henry Reeve - Alan C McClure Associates; Brad Hubbard - Mustang
Copyright 2010, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 36 May 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
Despite the recent economic downturn and reduced need for LNG, long-term demand will be strong and opportunities to
convert existing LNG carriers (LNGC) into floating LNG plants are growing. Costs, schedules, and permitting challenges for
onshore LNG production facilities have trended upward making it difficult for project developers to get financing. Cost
reduction strategies across the LNG value chain have resulted in significant changes in LNG shipping. To increase fuel
efficiency, LNGC capacity has doubled in the past 30 years, and propulsion technology has migrated from steam to high
efficiency diesel and dual fuel engines. Smaller, less efficient LNGCs are being displaced by new ships and the owners of the
older LNGCs are seeking new roles for their vessels. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges of converting
existing LNGCs for Floating LNG Liquefaction FPSOs (FLNG), Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRU) and
Floating Storage and Offloading Vessels (FSO) service.
The costs of onshore LNG terminals with storage facilities, protected jetty, and cargo transfer equipment have increased
sharply whereas converting an LNGC for liquefaction, regasification or storage creates a self-contained LNG terminal that
can reduce overall LNG terminal cost by 30% to 50% compared to onshore alternatives.
Converting LNGCs into floating LNG plants raises myriad design challenges when developing a project. Specific project
requirements will lead LNG project developers to choose the appropriate LNGC for conversion. Below is a partial list of
topics, taken from experience, that require engineering study. These will be discussed further in this paper.

Delivery flow rate and composition requirements

Products to be marketed
Project location specifics
Gas pre-treatment or LNG processing requirements
Appropriate ship type and size from available vessels
Liquefaction or regasification technologies
Equipment space requirements
Vessel motion impact on process and storage
Mooring and berthing systems
Offloading configuration and methods
Fitness for service and life extension, Class requirements
Required utilities and integration with ship systems

OTC 20683

Introduction
The economics of the LNG value chain have driven the base load LNG industry to design increasingly larger LNG trains and
carriers. The older, smaller MOSS and membrane carriers are being displaced with a new generation of larger vessels. The
new LNGCs have been optimized to carry larger cargoes, minimize cargo losses with onboard boil-off-gas (BOG)
reliquefiers, reduce transit times with more fuel efficient propulsion systems, and reduce required crews with many
automated and remote control functions. The majority of the older vessels have been maintained in good condition
throughout their service life. These older vessels are now being released from time charters and the owners and operators are
seeking new and alternate uses for these assets.
The table below lists LNGCs that may soon be available and have sufficient capacity to be considered for conversion.
Contract expiration dates range from 2010 through 2014.
Table 1
World LNG Carrier Fleet
(Courtesy LNG Journal, Jan. 2010)
LNG Carrier Name
Arctic Spirit
Banshu Maru
Bishu Maru
Dwiputra
Ebisu
Edouard L.D.
Ekaputra
Granosa
Gimi
Gracillis
Grandis
Khannur
Larbi Ben MHidi
LNG Capricorn
LNG Flora
LNG Gemini
LNG Leo
LNG Libra
LNG Taurus
LNG Vesta
LNG Virgo
Polar Spirit
Ramdane Abane
Senshu Maru
Tenaga Lima

Owner
Arctic LNG Shipping
J3 Consortium
J3 Consortium
Humpuss Consortium
Kaiun Kaishi
Dynagas
Humpuss Consortium
Golar LNG
Golar LNG
Golar LNG
Golar LNG
Golar LNG
SNTM-Hyproc
MOL/LNG Japan
J3 Consortium
MOL/LNG Japan
MOL/LNG Japan
MOL/LNG Japan
MOL/LNG Japan
Tokyo Gas Consortium
MOL/LNG Japan
Polar LNG Shipping
SNTM-Hyproc
J3 Consortium
MISC

Capacity m
89,880
125,542
125,000
127,385
147,547
129,300
136,400
145,958
126,277
138,830
145,700
126,360
129,750
126,300
127,700
126,300
126,400
126,400
126,300
127,547
126,400
89,880
126,130
125,000
130,000

Cargo System
IHI SPB
MOSS
MOSS
MOSS
MOSS
Membrane
MOSS
Membrane
MOSS
Membrane
Membrane
MOSS
Membrane
MOSS
MOSS
MOSS
MOSS
MOSS
MOSS
MOSS
MOSS
IHI SPB
Membrane
MOSS
Membrane

Contract
2014
2011
2011
2010
2010
2013
2014
2011
2010
2011
2011
2011
2014
2010
2014
2010
2010
2010
2010
2014
2010
2014
2013
2011
2010

Over the past decade, many midscale and small scale LNG projects have been proposed and studied and some are currently
coming to fruition. The projects include floating liquefaction units for mid-tier/low cost gas reserves and small to midscale
floating regasification units. These projects provide a synergistic opportunity for older displaced LNG carriers. Golar LNG
has pioneered LNGC conversions for FSRU service with the Golar Spirit, Golar Freeze, Golar Frost, Golar Winter and
proposed Granatina. Shell, Petrobras, PETRONAS, FLEX LNG, Golar LNG, BWO, SBM, Teekay and others are
spearheading the FLNG and FSRU development effort with help from Mustang Engineering, Hamworthy, Kanfa Aragon,
MOSS Maritime and others. The authors of this paper have worked with multiple clients on LNGC conversions and have
found multiple LNGC conversion opportunities. Both offshore and onshore LNG projects can find LNGC conversions
attractive for FLNGs, FSRUs and as FSO vessels.

OTC 20683

Fig. 1 Golar Freeze MOSS Carrier

Fig. 2 Golar Freeze Conversion to FSRU

There are several incentives for developers, investors and operators to consider converted LNGCs for floating LNG
applications:
1.

2.
3.
4.

Low cost of the older vessels - Used LNGCs are currently available at 10%-25% of the cost of new build LNG
hulls. A 150,000 m3 onshore full containment storage tank facility with all the associated piping systems will cost
approximately US$100-$150 million. A new LNG hull of the same capacity will cost ~$200 million (LNG World
Shipping Dec 2009). A new hull on a FLNG project could represent 25-40% of the cost of the entire project.
Recent reported pricing for a 125,000 m3 MOSS carrier is in the $25 to $50 million range which can reduce the
overall cost of an FLNG project by as much as 25%.
Schedule - New build onshore tanks and hulls will normally require 3-4 years to design and fabricate and are nearly
always on the critical path for LNG projects. Retiring LNGCs are available immediately and may reduce the overall
schedule of a floating LNG project by 1-2 years.
Permitting - The existing ships have been through Class and are generally well maintained. Permitting of the
project using existing LNGCs for offshore service should prove to be an advantage over obtaining permits for
onshore projects.
Mobility of the asset - The floating facility can be refitted and relocated to continued productive service if the
current gas field becomes less attractive due to reduced field production, changes in composition, geopolitical unrest
or other reasons.

It is clear that there are numerous existing LNG carriers that will be replaced, and could be converted to floating LNG
development projects. These carriers offer advantages for the project owners with lower overall cost, shorter project schedule,
permitting advantages, and asset mobility.
Project Development for an LNGC Conversion
Before the LNGC conversion design work can start, critical project and design basis questions must be answered in order to
assure the project value chain is intact and will be economically viable. As an example, key questions to answer for an
FLNG project will include the following:
Gas Reserves:
Are recoverable reserves and predicted production rate sufficient to justify the project?
What is the cost per mmscf of gas at the FLNG inlet?
Can additional fields be added to extend the project life?
Can the facility be designed for refit and relocation to another field to enhance economics?
LNG Market:
Can a LNG market be secured for sufficient quantity and acceptable price?
Does the FLNG owner have a portfolio of LNG supplies so that the market can be assured of deliveries?
Will intermittent delivery of LNG or relatively small cargoes be allowed?

OTC 20683

Gas Quality:
What are the gas composition, pressure and temperature to be processed?
Are there significant C5+ hydrocarbons available to justify the added complexity of condensate and LPG recovery?
Are there markets within economic range of the facility to sell LPG and condensate products?
What contaminants must be removed, stored and disposed to assure a marketable quality LNG? CO2, N2, Hg, H2S,
organic sulfur
Can the heavy hydrocarbons or contaminants be disposed in the fuel gas?
Project Location:
Is the gas supply offshore, near shore or onshore?
If the gas supply is offshore, what water depth, bathometry and metocean conditions will prevail and what mooring
system will the FLNG need to provide greatest availability?
If the FLNG is near shore in shallow water, can a breakwater or protected harbor be constructed to protect it?
If onshore, is shoreside property available and affordable to house some (or all) of the pre-treatment, processing and
storage components?
What LNG offloading system can be used, e.g. ship-to-ship, side-by-side or tandem; ship-pier-ship; hoses or hard
arms?
Similar questions will need to be answered for projects expecting to use LNGCs converted into FSRU or FSO. A successful
project will have the entire project value chain questions clearly answered so that financing, whether internal to the gas
owner or from banks and investors can be assured.
Selection of the Appropriate LNGCs for Conversion

Fig. 3 Aquarius Class LNGC Retiring in 2010

The majority of LNGCs currently available for conversion are of the 125,000 to140,000 m3 BOG fueled, steam driven MOSS
variety. In addition, older 120,000 to 140,000 m3 membrane ships and two 87,500 m3 Self-supporing Prismatic IMO Type B
(SPB) vessels may be available. The MOSS style carriers have very robust spherical IMO Type B independent cargo
(containment) tanks that are resistant to damage by sloshing at any tank filling level. The MOSS tanks are ideally suited for
open sea environments. However, the tanks and insulation covers project through the deck and limit space available for
placing topsides process equipment. The membrane style carriers have considerably more deck space available for topsides
process modules but the cargo tanks are made of very thin stainless steel or Invar sheet and are designed for transit only in
the full or empty condition. The membrane tanks cannot tolerate the severe sloshing effects that can occur in the partially
filled condition with ship motions associated with an open sea environment. The conversion of a membrane carrier for an
FLNG application would only be acceptable if located at a near shore, protected or sheltered location where it will not be
subjected to significant vessel motion.
Two 87,000 m3, ice class, SPB carriers have been serving Japan from an LNG facility in Kenai, Alaska. One of these has
recently been released from charter as the Kenai plant is nearing the end of plant and field life. The authors have been
involved in FLNG conversion concept studies for this vessel. SPB tanks can handle sloshing loads from partial loading.

OTC 20683

Fig. 4 Teekays 87,000 m Arctic Spirit

Fig. 5 Arctic Spirit FLNG Conversion Concept

Selection of the LNGC from the available inventory at the time of project development is a major consideration. Project
concept study, Pre-FEED and FEED schedules can consume 1-1.5 years and the engineering and design are dependent on
knowing the LNGC vessel design details and capability. Unless a number of similar class vessels are available, there is a risk
that the LNGC used as the basis of engineering work may not be available when the project is funded. The client must
therefore own the vessel outright or have some contractual arrangement to assure availability when needed.
When considering a LNGC for conversion, the following questions should be considered:

Will the vessel be moored in an open, unprotected location (MOSS or SPB) or in protected or sheltered waters
(MOSS, SPB or Membrane)?
Is there enough space on deck for the modules (dependent on the complexity and throughput of the process)?
What is the capacity of the LNG shuttle carriers? Is there enough capacity in the LNGC to service the proposed
shuttle carrier? Is there sufficient port/berth availability for staying connected and allowing the shuttle to be filled
over a longer period? Would the shuttle carrier be capable of taking (or delivering) a partial load to/from the
converted LNGC?
What is the condition of the LNGC to be converted and how much repair and life extension modifications are
required to prepare the vessel for conversion?
Can a LNGC offer supplemental or long term floating storage to the facility without modification?
Can the existing utilities on the LNGC be utilized for the topsides e.g. power generation, fire water, inert gas
generators, steam production, fresh water? What supplemental equipment is required?
How much reserve stability does the vessel have to accommodate the additional weight of the above deck process
equipment?

Fig. 6 Membrane LNG Carrier Conversion for FSRU

The choice of the right LNGC for conversion depends on several criteria to meet the project needs and the site specific use
requirements for deck space, LNG containment integrity, mooring, LNG shuttle size, service life and utilities.

OTC 20683

Liquefaction and Regasification Technologies

Several LNG technologies are available and the application of the appropriate technology will be unique to the project,
economics and operability. LNG regasification technologies for floating applications include direct seawater exchangers,
indirect intermediate fluid heat exchangers exchanging heat with air, seawater or a heated fluid (steam or fired heater) or
direct ambient air vaporizers. Open Rack Falling Film Vaporizers and Submerged Combustion Vaporizers are not acceptable
selections for floating applications subjected to ship motion.
The LNG liquefaction technologies for LNGC conversion applications include turbo-expander based refrigeration using open
or closed cycle natural gas, nitrogen refrigerant processes and Single Mixed Refrigerant processes. Large, complex, multiloop refrigeration processes with multiple coldboxes or spiral wound exchangers are not likely to fit on the deck of an
existing LNGC and are more appropriate for onshore plants and large built-for-purpose hulls.

Fig. 7 Dual Expander Nitrogen

Process Module

Fig. 8 Single Mixed Refrigerant

Process Module

One of the primary considerations in determining the appropriate technology is the ability to meet the required production
rate and expected run time given the available deck space, deck loading capability and stability of the LNGC. Minimum
complexity is typically consistent with maximizing the production rate as the simpler process will tend to have a smaller
footprint than a complex process, allowing more production on the available deck space. Further, a liquefaction train with
fewer major pieces of equipment will generally have a lower CAPEX than a more complex plant of the same capacity and
have greater availability. That is, it will be operational more days per year. If sufficient gas is available, increasing
production has significant impact on project profitability.
Safety is another major consideration. A process that minimizes fired equipment and the use of flammable fluids for
refrigerants will be more favorable to the client, operators, regulators, investors, insurers, and Class. A regasification facility
that utilizes seawater or air as the heat source is safer than one that uses a boiler or fired heater. A liquefaction technology
that uses an inert refrigerant such as nitrogen is considered safer than one using propane or mixed hydrocarbons as
refrigerants.
Efficiency of the process should be considered. Minimizing the operating costs will contribute to the financial success of a
FRSU or FLNG. A regasification process that utilizes the ambient heat from the environment (air or seawater) will have a
much lower operating cost than a process that consumes fuel to vaporize the LNG. Gas fired regasification processes can
consume 1-2% of the LNG stream and create significant emissions. Intermediate fluid and direct ambient vaporizers utilize
the environment heat available in the air or seawater and can reduce the fuel consumption and emissions significantly
depending on the project location and average annual air/seawater temperature and humidity.
All liquefaction processes require considerable power for refrigeration compression typically derived by combustion of
approximately 5% to 8% of the inlet natural gas stream. However, the efficiency of an LNG liquefaction technology does
not have as much economic impact on the project viability as one might expect. To illustrate the point, compare two
liquefaction processes, each liquefying 1.0 MTPA and having the same 94% availability and the same hull, inlet separation,
pretreatment and compression and CAPEX of $500 million. One LNG process is a more complex and more efficient
consuming only 5% of the inlet gas as fuel (95% efficiency) and costing $250 million ($750 million total CAPEX). The
second LNG process is simpler with less equipment consuming 8% of the inlet gas as fuel but only costs $150 million ($650
million total CAPEX). To allow for the differences in efficiency, assume a field life of 20 years to depletion with the more
efficient LNG process staying on station 3% longer (20.6 years) than the less efficient LNG process (20 years). Assume that
the net tolling fee for FLNG is $3/MMBtu or $150 million/year and a discount rate of 15%. The Net Present Value ( NPV)
and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the higher CAPEX, more efficient LNG process is $146 million and 19.4%
respectively, with the lower cost, less efficient process having a $247 million NPV and 22.6% IRR. This information is
shown in the table below.

OTC 20683

Table 2
Liquefaction Economics
Liquefaction Capacity
Availability
CAPEX exclusive of liquefaction
CAPEX of liquefaction
Total CAPEX
Liquefaction fuel consumption
Field life
FLNG net tolling fee
Discount rate
Net Present Value (NPV)
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

Complex Process
1.0 MTPA
94%
$500 million
$250 million
$750 million
5% of inlet gas
20.6 years
$150 million / yr
15%

Simple Process
1.0 MTPA
94%
$500 million
$150 million
$650 million
8% of inlet gas
20 years
$150 million / yr
15%

$146 million
19.4%

$247million
22.6%

The lower cost, simpler and less efficient LNG process has a greater NPV and IRR than the more efficient, more complex
and higher cost LNG process. It is readily apparent that higher efficiency will never overcome the higher initial CAPEX of
the more complex process during the service life of the facility.
The choice of liquefaction and regasification technology for floating applications will be driven by the lower CAPEX and
improved operability associated with simpler processes rather than production efficiency.
Project Location Considerations
When evaluating the project location and the options for a floating LNG facility based on a converted LNGC, key factors to
consider include:

Does the offshore project site have any access to infrastructure?

How severe and what is the annual variation of the metocean conditions, i.e. wind, wave, current, temperature and
humidity?
Is the project site near shore where facilities such as piers, breakwaters, harbor and pipelines may be available or
easily constructed?
Are there bathymetry, dredging or geologic issues?
Are there seawater or air environmental issues?
Are there geopolitical concerns?

As a result of consideration of these issues, a suitable option for the floating LNG facility terminal may be selected from the
following:

Floating LNG terminal berthed at a fixed pier;

Floating LNG terminal near shore in moderate depth (approximately 30 meters), on either a single point turret
mooring or spread mooring system.
Floating LNG terminal far offshore, in deep waters (say 500+ meters), most likely on a single point turret mooring.

Site specific project evaluation is essential in deciding what LNGC and conversion options can be pursued. The gas supply
or demand may be onshore, near shore or offshore and the LNGC conversion will be different for mooring at fixed pier,
shallow water or offshore deepwater.
Vessel Motion Considerations
For terminals in which the converted LNGC is going to be exposed to wind, waves and current, the effect of the elements on
the vessels motions needs to be carefully considered.
The vessel motions will directly affect the following components:

LNG containment system loads specifically in the partially filled condition

Process equipment performance
Motions and acceleration limits on processes
Dynamic loads at the foundations supporting the topside equipment
Mooring system loads and design

OTC 20683

The issue of impact loads due to sloshing in partially filled tanks is well documented elsewhere. For the LNGC application
under consideration, a suitable containment system is a requirement. For membrane LNGCs, the integrity of the containment
walls, pump towers and other LNG transfer components will have to be evaluated. Significantly improving the strength of a
membrane LNG containment system without a costly and time consuming complete replacement would be unlikely.
The impact of the vessel motions on the process equipment needs to be evaluated for two reasons. Many of the gas pretreatment process equipment components on a FLNG vessel are sensitive to motions, and have acceleration and roll limits
and maximum angle of heel and trim limits. These effects may be amplified since the equipment may be elevated above the
main deck to fit around the containment system. The process engineers and naval architects need to jointly ensure that the
motions of the vessel are within acceptable limits. The second issue of importance is the evaluation of the dynamic loads
imparted by the process equipment on the supporting structure in the hull. The original design intent of the decks of an
LNGC conversion was not to support significant loads. The deck was essentially a non-structural covering of the areas
surrounding the containment system, perhaps with some structural elements for lateral support of the spheres in a MOSS
system. Designing adequate foundations for modules and process equipment, and tying them into the original vessel
structure (or enhancing the vessel structure), is a critical task. Significant work is required to properly locate and support
process equipment and topsides modules on the deck.
Fitness for Service and Life Extension Considerations
As with all projects in which an older ship is converted to a floating storage unit, significant effort is required to evaluate the
candidate vessel for fitness for service. In the ideal case, the hull structure of the will be in excellent condition, will have
been well maintained, and have sufficient strength to meet the structural requirements for the design life of the installation.
The more likely scenario, however, is that some steel renewal will be required in the hull to extend the life of the vessel. The
extent of renewal will depend on several factors including the site-specific metocean conditions and the design life of the
project. Additional consideration will have to be made for areas of the hull which need to be modified for the new use.
Areas which may need to be modified include:

Bow region for addition of an external turret

Stern region for addition of a stern yoke (for tandem offloading)
Side shell strengthening to accommodate fender loads for side-by-side mooring
Side shell and deck strengthening for accommodating loading arms for side-by-side loading / offloading
Bow and stern region modification and strengthening for installation of fairleads (for a spread moored vessel)
Deck structural stiffening and module support framing for receiving the topsides process module

Fig. 9 Design and Installation of Bow Fairleads for Spread Mooring

For LNGC conversions, the condition of the containment system is of special concern. LNG is a harsh liquid to handle, and
early LNGCs available for conversion have likely suffered some degradation in the containment system. There may be
structural issues due to fatigue and use, or the effectiveness of the insulation may have degraded (or not been very good
initially). The impact of the topsides loading on the integrity of the LNG containment system is also a consideration not to be
overlooked.
The impact of adding elevated process modules on the vessel stability must be evaluated as part of the conversion effort. The
equipment weight may be as much as 20% of the LNGC cargo capacity, so its placement well above the main deck will

OTC 20683

dramatically affect the loaded VCG. It may be necessary to add permanent ballast low in the hull to improve vessel stability.
However, the added weight of both the process equipment and the ballast weight will increase the vessel lightship, thereby
reducing the allowable deadweight unless stability (and structural) site-specific analyses allow for increasing the vessel
loadline draft.
In Situ Maintenance vs. Shipyard Maintenance
Floating storage vessels are intended to stay on station continuously for the design project life. For older converted vessels,
this can be a problem, as they require more maintenance as they age. Careful evaluation of the site specific environmental
loads may necessitate extensive renewal of the structure.
A unique issue with LNG storage vessels is the difficulty in carrying out in situ maintenance and repair of the containment
systems. This is particularly acute for membrane LNGCs. Bringing an LNG tank up to ambient temperature and gas free so
that it can be entered is difficult and time consuming. Likewise, the process to take it back down to cryogenic temperatures is
time consuming and requires significant cooling capacity, possibly beyond the capability of the existing equipment. While
this problem is shared with new build LNG storage vessels, they will have been designed with this in mind, where as an
LNGC would not.
Required Utilities and Integration with Ship Systems
In most conversion projects, the ships power plant and other systems are not well suited to support the process equipment.
Often, for oil tanker projects, the main engines are removed and replaced with generators to provide power. Older LNG
carriers were powered using steam turbines, with boil off gas from the containment system as the fuel. Depending on the
type of process equipment on the converted vessel, there may be a requirement for steam in the process stream. In this case,
the steam boilers may be utilized. However, for most installations, additional power will be required, and generators will
have to be located on the vessel. The new topsides process may also have requirements for water, nitrogen, or other utilities,
which are beyond the capabilities of the legacy ship systems.
Class and Regulatory Issues
Beyond the regulatory challenges associated with gaining overall project approval for LNG projects, the uniqueness of
conversion of an aging LNG carrier for use as a floating LNG unit with process equipment may present challenges on the
regulatory front. As such projects become more common, the regulatory pathway will become better defined and less
uncertain. All major Class societies are producing guidelines and rules in anticipation of the floating LNG industry.
The regulatory issues will center on the containment system and the supporting structure as the converted LNGC will be
subjected to partial load sloshing for which it was not originally designed.
The others areas of particular importance to a conversion project are likely to be:

Design Plans and Data for Position Mooring Systems

Design Plans and Data for the loading and unloading systems
Details of all cargo and vapor handling systems

A risk assessment to identify significant hazards and accident scenarios that may affect the installation, and consideration for
risk control options, will be required elements of the project development. A safety assessment of the process facilities will
be required to ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place. Additional safety systems will be required to provide protection
to life, property, and the environment. The safety systems should provide protection against the risk of fire or explosion and
reduce the consequence of fire.
Target Applications for LNGC Conversion Projects
The following three sections are examples of the types of projects for which the authors have examined the use of a converted
LNGC as the basis for the terminal.

10

OTC 20683

Floating LNG Terminal Berthed at a Fixed Pier

This option is particularly suitable when onshore coastal space for a terminal is limited and protected or partially protected
locations for piers are available. Examples include the floating facility providing gas to a coastal community (FSRU), or
being used as an export terminal for an inland gas field (FLNG). Locating the LNG storage on the vessel, along with process
equipment, eliminates the cost and delay associated with appropriating large amounts of typically overcrowded coastal land.
Standard loading arms or hoses, mounted on the fixed pier, are used to transfer of LNG between the shuttle carrier and the
floating terminal. If the floating facility can be located within an existing protected harbor and use an existing pier, project
costs and schedule can be minimized. More likely, a new pier will have to be built and located away from other facilities to
minimize any risk of LNG storage and transport. If local metocean conditions are benign, and never challenge the vessel
mooring arrangement to the pier, the decision is easy. However, if there are metocean conditions which will cause
unacceptable mooring loads and create large motions for the moored vessel, mitigation alternatives need to be considered.
One alternative is to build a partial breakwater to shield the moored vessel (and any visiting shuttle tanker) from the worst
seas. This will greatly increase total project costs and schedule. The new pier and breakwater could be located where most
suited for the project needs, including being slightly further out to sea (not connected to land) mitigating the need for
dredging and offering some security for the terminal.
One may consider taking the terminal vessel out to sea in the event that near shore conditions exceed specified limits. For a
FSRU, this would disrupt the supply of gas to the community, which may not be acceptable according to the contract. This
alternative would also require the vessel to maintain Class as an LNGC, and to have a captain and crew available.
The fixed pier option offers the most flexibility in configuring the arrangement of the storage and process equipment. The
floating vessel will provide LNG storage, but since the carrier is at a pier, some processing equipment, either regasification or
liquefaction, may be located on shore or on the pier adjacent to the LNG vessel. Alternatively, there may be room for a
simple barge moored at the pier, or alongside the vessel to house equipment. Either of these options would help if the
proposed vessel for conversion does not have the capability to house all of the required process equipment.
Near Shore Floating LNG Terminal on Turret or Spread Mooring
The near shore option is suitable as a regasification facility supplying gas to a coastal community (FSRU), as a Floating
Storage Offloading facility (FSO) delivering LNG to shuttle tankers, or as an FLNG for either an onshore or offshore gas
field. The near shore facility does not require the infrastructure of a coastal installation, so is suitable for less developed
locations where there is no available coastline for a new facility or locations where some separation from the coast provides a
measure of security for the terminal. The relatively shallow water depths in the near shore region make both spread and
turret moored vessels practical options. A converted LNGC is suitable for either option, either through the addition of
fairleads and mooring equipment or the addition of a bow mounted turret.
Metocean conditions at the near shore location will influence the mooring system decision. As the moored vessel will be
fully exposed to the conditions, the motions response of the vessel and the resulting sloshing loads in partially filled LNG
tanks may require the vessel to adjust heading to minimize motions. The type of containment system is critical in this
evaluation.
The choice of LNG offloading between the shuttle carrier and the FSRU or FSO may also influence the mooring system
decision. The LNG transfer options are:

Side-by-side transfer through loading arms or cryogenic hoses

Tandem transfer through aerial cryogenic hoses suspended from a stern mounted yoke
Floating cryogenic hoses for tandem transfer are also being developed

The side-by-side transfer option (and to a lesser extent the aerial tandem option) will require additional deck space on the
converted carrier for the transfer system to be mounted. For candidate carriers on which deck space is already limited, this
may become a significant concern.
Offshore Deepwater Floating LNG Terminal
This option is most likely for an FLNG application where it is not practical to transfer the produced gas to shore through a
pipeline. It may also be used for an FSRU installation where metocean, hydrographic, or political considerations require the
facility to be located offshore. Deeper water at these locations, make a single point turret moored vessel most likely. The

OTC 20683

11

options for LNG transfer to or from shuttle carriers are the same as for the near shore moored vessel. The containment
system for this application will have to be fully capable of handling sloshing loads in partially filled tanks.
Conclusion
Over the next decade, an array of LNG carriers will be replaced by more modern vessels and will offer attractive
opportunities for floating LNG project developers in alternate use. In the appropriate application, these retiring LNGCs,
already equipped with cryogenic storage and in good condition can be converted for use as FLNGs, FSRUs or FSOs. They
can be used in various applications including a terminal berthed at a fixed pier, a near shore terminal on turret or spread
mooring, and offshore deepwater terminals. Technical and economic issues associated with choosing the appropriate LNGC
for conversion for the right application must be identified and evaluated by skilled engineers, designers, naval architects and
project developers. LNGC owners, operators, LNG project developers, engineers and financiers have begun and should
continue, to consider the use of these high value, low cost assets to improve schedules and overall project economics.