Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report

Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424

Fig.1: M.V. Pacific Leader1

Dual Fuel Conversion

Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424

This document contains the first progress report from the evaluation stage of the above
named project.

0
Fig.2: An overview of the Wärtsilä LNGPAC system2
Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424
Contents
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 2
Cost Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 3
Review of feasibility with respect to regulations ...................................................................... 5
Review of project specification .................................................................................................. 6
Evaluation of progress reporting and goal setting .................................................................... 7
Evaluation of objective implementation ................................................................................... 7
Actions taken as result of research results. ............................................................................... 7
Evaluation of actions taken to overcome unforeseen circumstances ...................................... 8
Novel Feature ............................................................................................................................. 8
References ................................................................................................................................. 9

1
Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424
Abbreviations
LNG

MGO

MCR

USD

DNVGL

2
Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424
Cost Evaluation
The initial cost was based on a new-build by Harvey Gulf and a similar conversion proposal
by Damen, and gave a figure of approximately 12 million USD. In Progress report 2, the work
required was evaluated, and a new costing drawn up.

The table below compares the initial coasting with the revised costing. Boxes with red lines
indicate a cost that was not considered during that budgeting (ventilation and structural
modification were consolidated during progress report 2)

Component Initial cost Final cost Over/under budget

LNG Tanks 8.04 4.78 3.26
New Engines 2.64 4.4274 1.7874
Electrical costs 0.36 0.3 0.06
MGO system modification 0.24 0.1 0.14
Finishing Work 0.075 0.075
Ventilation 0.24
Structural modification 0.12 0.1
Engine room modification 0.35
Engine installation 0.442 0.442
Gas tank installation 0.5 0.5
Unforeseen costs 0.36 0.36 -
Re-classification by DNVGL 1.0 1.0
TOTAL COST 12 12.3344 0.3344 Over Budget
Prices in million USD.

The initial cost was 12 million $ (+/- 10%), and the final cost is 12.3344 million $. This falls
within the +/-10% as set out in the project proposal, thus indicating that the initial budget
research I undertook in the project proposal was accurate.

3
Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424
Voyage cost
From my correspondence with the second mate aboard the Pacific Leader:

“The normal voyage length is around 12 days, and this will only be extended due to bad
weather preventing an entry to port or a special job at the request of a client. Bad weather
normally only delays us for 2 days or so, and if one port is inaccessible there are other ports
within the two day voyage range. Every port visit provides an opportunity to undertake
bunkering operations, re-supply and to load the next cargo.”

Based on this, we can assume a voyage length of 12 (+/-2) days. Taking the worst case (14
days), the voyage with conversion would now be 10 days on Dual Fuel and 4 days on MGO.

Based on the fuel costs in Progress Report 2, this gives us the following (new engine MGO
figure includes pilot fuel for 10 days LNG):

Usage of Fuel MGO LNG

New engines (4 days MGO, 10 days LNG) 87.9973 tons 8382.993239682 mmBTU
Old engines (14 days MGO) 308.756 tons

Total cost of Fuel MGO LNG

New engines (4 days MGO, 10 days LNG) 43,118.53 $ 33,448.14 $
Old engines (14 days MGO) 151,290.44 $

Total running cost

New engines 76,566.67 $
Old engines 151,290.44 $
Saving per voyage 74,723.77 $

Payback time
Based on the cost per voyage, the payback time from progress report 2 can now be re-
evaluated.

12.344 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛 $ 14
( )∗( ) = 6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠, 10 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 2 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
0.07472377 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛 $ 365

This is almost half the time indicated in progress report 2, and as such improves the
feasibility of the project if the vessel runs on shorter voyages. The vessel is still capable of
undertaking longer voyages, up to 28 days; however the saving in cost is primarily during
the 10 days that the vessel is running on gas.

4
Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424
Review of feasibility with respect to regulations
The regulations as discussed in progress report 3 do not pose a barrier to feasibility, and
indeed the current and upcoming versions of MARPOL Annex VI indicate that this project
becomes more feasible as time goes on, as the vessel will not require modification in the
future.

The majority of regulations are related to the safety of the vessel and personnel, and as long
as these regulations are followed during the conversion, the project is feasible. The
regulations also help to guide the design and final specification of all systems, especially
firefighting and gas detection systems.

The DNVGL rules for ships was used as the main guide to legislation throughout this project,
and compliance with these rules during the construction will greatly streamline the process
of reclassification following the conversion. This reduces the commercial impact of the
works as the vessel will be able to return to trading in a shorter period of time.

Many of the regulations, such as SOLAS and COSWOP, are already in use aboard the Pacific
Leader, and as such the vessels systems of work may be easily adapted to encompass the
additional points raised by the conversion.

In summary, the regulations as discussed throughout this project serve to improve the
feasibility of the project, by guiding its development and ensuring that the safety of the
vessel and personnel.

5
Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424
Review of project specification
The primary aim of this project was to carry out a feasibility study for the conversion of the
specified vessel from MGO to Dual fuel LNG gas, giving 2 solutions for the storage of the
LNG. The following table is based on the specific objectives laid out in the project proposal.

Delivered
Deliverable (Yes/No)
Where delivered

2 viable solutions for storage of LNG providing Throughout

combined MGO and LNG capacity for 28 days steaming Yes Progress reports
at 85% MCR. 1, 2 and 3
Fuel consumption calculations Yes Progress report 2
Drawings for both final storage options Yes Progress report 3
Drawings of fuel systems Yes Progress report 3
Regulatory compliance. Yes Progress report 3
Stability considerations. Yes Progress report 2
Detailed cost calculations. Yes Progress report 2
Commercial considerations with regards to the loss of
Yes Progress report 2
deck space or tank capacity.

Additional deliverables out-with the initial specification:

Deliverable Where delivered

Knowledge base of dual fuel engine and fuel technology Progress report 1
Novel feature (Possibility of bunkering from FPSO) Progress report 4

As can be seen from the above tables, this project has fully met and exceeded the initial
deliverables. All objectives have been covered in depth throughout the project, and fully
referenced throughout.

6
Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424
Evaluation of progress reporting and goal setting
Setting goals for the submission of each progress report has aided greatly in keeping on
track throughout the project. As each progress report had a clear set of criteria, this
provided guidance as to the client’s requirements for each stage. Regular meetings with the
client following each progress report allowed for changes to be made as required, whether
removing surplus information or expanding on the points made in the progress report.

During progress report two, I was delayed due to two factors when attempting to carry out
the stability calculations. These factors were outside my control; however they have had a
major knock-on effect on the project as a whole. These factors were:

 A delay in receiving guidance from my lecturer due to college holidays

 A delay in a response from Swire due to internal staff holidays.

These points were discussed with the client, and the project timeline and submission dates
extended to reflect these.

Once the delay from the above mentioned issues is taken into account, every objective has
been fully delivered on time as part of the relevant process report.

Evaluation of objective implementation

All objectives have been implemented throughout the progress reports, with each progress
report also providing background knowledge to the client as required. The objectives as laid
out in the project proposal formed the basis for each progress report, and further guidance
was obtained from my lecturer as the project progressed. Each objective have been

Actions taken as result of research results.

1: Based on the regulations studied during progress report 3, the final placement of the
tanks was moved inboard by Breadth/5. This also improved the placement of the on-deck
tanks, moving them away from cargo manifold connections.

2: Engine room separated into two compartments to ensure the ship will continue to
haver propulsive power in the event of one engine room suffering a gas leak.

7
Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424
Evaluation of actions taken to overcome unforeseen
circumstances
Behaviours, attitude to the project

Technical difficulties and lack of data

Retrofitting cost and actual cost estimation

Software skills and administration difficulties

Deadline and resubmittion timescale.

During the project, I encountered several unforeseen issues:

Limitations on tank placement due to regulations

Tanks were moved in-board

Requirement to move ships crane

Action taken: ships crane was moved to the aft end, permitting full usage of the crane. The
vessels gangway was also moved, as it is handled by the crane

Access to stability data – overcome by contacting Swire, however the late reply delayed
progress report 2 – this had a knock on to the rest of the project.

Difficulty in obtaining pricing from Wärtsilä, thus assumptions used and additional research
carried out into prior conversions and the costs incurred by them. This has led to a degree of
uncertainty in the pricing of the final solution

Novel Feature
Bunkering of gas from FPSO if available in the area. Commented [DK(1]: Best selling point of your feasibility report
to the companies,
Unique features of your project
In terms of cost, technical spec, fuel design and operation, stability

8
Dual Fuel Conversion Feasibility Report
Progress report 4 Andrew Banks 30170424

References