Comparative Analysis of Onshore and Offshore Liquified Natural Gas
Regasification Terminals to Fulfill Gas Supply for Java’s Power
Plants
Judi Winarko1*, Widodo Wahyu Purwanto**
1.
Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Indonesia, Depok 16424 Indonesia
*e-mail: jw.winarko@gmail.com
**e-mail: widodo@che.ui.ac.id
Abstract—Based on 2018-2027 Electricity Supply Businees Plan (RUPTL), gas-based power plants in
Java will experience natural gas shortage of 731 BBTUD, equivalent to 4.86 MTPA on 2027. Nowadays,
natural gas supplies for gas power plants in Java are fulfilled from Bontang LNG and Tangguh LNG plants
and it requires regasification terminal as the main infrastructure in LNG supply chain. Regasification type
selection become critical in order to obtain lowest regasification cost at certain throughput. By considerating
the technical and economic aspects, comparative analysis on both regasification types shows that on the
throughput 0.11 – 1.46 MTPA, offshore LNG regasification terminal gives lowest regasification cost
compare to onshore LNG regasification while on throughput 1.46 – 5.03 MTPA it shows the opposite. The
lowest regasification cost for the onshore is 0.50 USD/mmbtu for 5.03 MTPA and 1.92 USD/mmbtu for 0.11
MTPA. For the offshore, it cost 0.56 USD/mmbtu for 5.03 MTPA and 1.60 USD/mmbtu for 0.11 MTPA.
Keywords— LNG Regasification , Onshore, Offshore, Regasification Cost.
I. BACKGROUND
Based on PT. Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN)
Electricity Supply Business Plan (RUPTL) 2018-2017, on
2018 natural gas share in energy mix composition for Jawa
Bali Power Plant and Nusa Tenggara is 20.4% and its
targeted will increased to 23.4% on 2025 [1]. This target is
in line with energy mix target of National Energy Policy
which stated that natural gas utilization share is 22% in
2025 and increased to 24% in 2050. Based on those targets,
demand for gas in Java will increase following the
increasing electricity demand. In 2018, Java’s natural gas
supply was lacking 186 BBTUD which consist of 170
BBTUD in West Java and 16 BBTUD in Central and East
Java. In 2027 this condition becoming worst by lacking of
2026 BBUTD that consist of 395 BBTUD in West Java and
336 BBTUD in Central and East Java.
The selection types of storage and regasification unit
are rely on several factors, such as: location and LNG
needs, whether it should be stored or re-gasified. Analysis
on regasification type selection, onshore and offshore, was
been done before by analyzing the investment value on
LNG regasification terminal at Sorong by using cash flow
and sensitivity analysis for fixed throughput [7]. Besides,
there’s also another study that comparing the cost for global
existing technology of onshore and offshore, but it was not
considering the throughput [12].
In order to achieve the lowest cost of regasification, in
this study, the two types of regasification are compared in
function of throughput variation by assessing the technical
aspect and economic aspect mainly levelized cost of
regasification to attain suitable regasification type that to
be applied to supply natural gas for Java’s power plants.
II. METHODS
Comparative analysis of LNG regasicifation terminals
comprise the following steps :
a.
LNG Logistic
LNG distribution type that used on this system is
point-to point from the source at Tangguh LNG plant to
Gresik Port at East Java with 1475 nm distances. LNG
Carrier velocity based on its capacity (see Table 1).
Table 1. LNG Carrier’s Speed
Capacity (m3)
Speed (knots)
<10000
12.5
10000-100000
13-15
110000-200.000
17
>200.000
18
Volume of LNG carried by carrier should fulfilled 330
operating days of power plant. LNG amount demand
represented by equation (1) and the total frequency vessel
arrives in one year represented by equation (2) :
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑁𝐺 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 (𝑚3 )
𝐿
= 𝑄𝐷,𝑖 × (( × 2) + 𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝐵𝑂𝐺𝑅 )
𝑣
(1)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝐿𝑁𝐺 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
330
=
𝐿
( × 2) + 𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑣
(2)
where QD,i is gas throughput needed by the power plant i,
mmscfd, L is distance from LNG plant to regasification
terminal (km), v is LNG Carrier speed (knots), tloading and
tunloading is time needed to load and unload LNG from LNG
plant to carrier or opposite (day). BOGR is boil of gas LNG
Carrier (%) which 0.05% for atmospheric tank and 0.5%
for pressurized tank [10].
b.
Technology Selection
Technology selection of regasification equipments
cosist of vessel and vaporizer types. For onshore vessel
with capacity of 5000 m3 is the pressurized type while
above size using an atmospheric type. For offshore
application, there are two types of it; C-type cylindrical
(pressurized) or membrane (atmospheric).For vaporizer,
capacity less than 5000 m3 is Air Ambient Vaporized
(AAV) while above capacity using Open Rack Vaporizer
(ORV), and for offshore application using Intermediate
Fluid Vaporizer (IFV).
Capacity Regasification Unit
Technical consideration for regasification process
consist of carrier mooring on jetty, LNG transferred to
vessel, regasification process in vaporizer and piping gas
throughout the power plant. Offshore regasification also
require mooring for FSRU carrier, while jetty can be
substitute with ship-to-ship on FSRU.
The BOG forming rate is 0.1% of LNG volume per day
[2]. BOG formed is 0.03% - 0.08% volume per day for flat
bottom vessel [9] and 0,1% - 1,2% volume per day for
pressurized vessel [10].
Vessel capacity that required for regasification unit can
be calculated by equation (3):
𝐼𝑡 + 𝑀𝑡 + 𝐹𝑡
(1 + 𝑟)𝑡
𝑄𝑡
∑𝑛𝑡=1
(1 + 𝑟)𝑡
∑𝑛𝑡=1
𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 =
(4)
where It is the invested capital (usd), Mt is the
operating and maintenance costs (usd), Ft is the fuel costs
(usd ) and Qt is the throughput (mmbtu/yr) in year t. the
lifetime of the project is given by n and the discount rate
is given by r.
The CAPEX regasification allocation consists of jetty,
LNG storage, vaporizer, utilities, and general facilities [8],
the capex value for jetty is based on ship capacity, while
for storage and vaporizer based on type and capacity. In
addition to the process systems, an LNG terminal requires
utility and offsite supports and power supply, and pipeline
infrastructure to safely and reliably delivering onspecification gas to the customers. The component of
utility and general facilities costs is around 20% of
investment costs [8] and OPEX is 4% of total CAPEX [4],
this OPEX value is a fixed OM per year.
The fuel cost is a variable cost whose depends on the
regasification throughput and the value becomes an annual
cost. Fuel cost for offshore regasification is assumed to use
gas. the use of gas fuel in the regasification plant refers to
the Oxford Energy Institute study which states that gas
usage is 1-2% of throughput [5,3] Whereas, on onshore
regasification it is assumed that used is electricity which is
the electricity requirement during the regasification
process, the power requirements of the process control
room, office space, and lighting [6].
c.
III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
a.
Variable Throughput Variation on LNG Carrier
and Storage Capacity
𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒,𝑖 (𝑚3 ) = 1.5 × 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑁𝐺 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 (𝑚3 )
(3)
Risk factor used for the equation is 1.5. While the
storage vessel’s heels is 1,5% from the LNG vessel for
regasification unit [11].
d.
Economical analysis
Economical calculation is done by levelized cost
method represented by equation (4).
Fig 1 LNG Carrier capacity on various throughput
Based on Fig 1, we can conclude that the smallest
LNG carrier needed is 9100 m3 and biggest carrier is
288400 m3 but the maximum size available on market is
263000 m3 so that customize order needed if exceeding the
available size.
900,00
Investment Cost (mill USD)
Capacity or vessel size designed for regasification onshore
and offshore variation can be shown on this Fig 2 and
Fig 3
800,00
Investmment Cost Onshore
Investmment Cost Offshore
700,00
600,00
500,00
400,00
300,00
200,00
100,00
0,110,190,560,651,161,281,691,821,892,132,312,572,843,885,03
Troughput (mtpa)
Fig 4. Investment cost on two regasification type
Fig 2. Vessel capacity for onshore regasification based on
throughput
Investment cost for onshore type dominantly formed
by vessel and utility cost. In utility, the cost is relatively
the same with offshore. While for vessel, the cost is
represent the atmospheric vessel. For offshore
regasification, mooring cost is not significantly affecting
while jetty comes as the main cause of the cost difference
between onshore and offshore with the same throughput.
Fig 3. Vessel capacity for offshore regasification based
on throughput
Based on Fig 3 can be shown that the storage vessel
capacity onshore has constant mass when the capacity is
more than 270000 m3 as it is the maximum onshore
regasification. Meanwhile, for onshore regasification is
170000 m3 so it needed more than FSRU for capacity
above the maximum (Fig 2).
In addition to storage as the main equipment with a
large price role, there is a vaporizer as a regasification
device which is have different type due to throughput and
spacious. Vaporizer type for onshore regasification is
ORV and offshore regasification with IFV.
b.
Economic Calculation based on Regasification
Type
Three main component that build up the onshore or
offshore regasification are Capital Expenditure (CAPEX),
Operational Expenses (OPEX) and Fuel cost. Investment
cost for onshore and offshore regasification are followed
by Fig 4 bellow:
Fig 5. Regasification component cost per year
Fig 5 shows a comparison cost of OPEX values is in
line with CAPEX, which is directly proportional. As with
CAPEX, the operating costs and maintenance of the jetty
are higher than the mooring. Fuel cost for offshore unit is
also higher than the onshore one because the vaporizer
type is one of the reasons, the IFV consume higher energy
than onshore’s ORV because of the fluid heat exchanger.
c.
Regasification Cost Comparison
Regasification cost for various throughput of onshore
and offshore regasification are followed this figure:
Regasification Cost (USD/MMBTU)
2,50
Onshore
Offshore
throughput value or low natural gas demand. But, the
onshore regasification can be an answer when it comes to
expansion or a new hub in Java was to be built.
2,00
IV. CONCLUSION
Average cost for offshore regasification is cheaper
than onshore for throughput between 0.11 – 1.46 MTPA.
While for throughput range between 1.46 – 5.03 MTPA,
1,00
onshore comes cheaper. Lowest regasification cost for
onshore type are 0.50 USD/mmbtu (5.03 MTPA) and 1.92
0,50
USD/MMBTU (0.11 MTPA). While for offshore are 0.56
USD/mmbtu (5.03 MTPA) and 1.60 USD/MMBTU (0.11
MTPA). In conclusion, the offshore type is the suitable
0,00
- 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 type for Java’s LNG receiver for capacity lower than 1.46
MTPA and onshore type is suitable for capacity higher
Throughput (mtpa)
than 1.46 MTPA.
Fig 6 Regasification cost on various throughput on two
regasification type
1,50
Regasification cost for offshore is lying on 0.11 – 1.46
MTPA with lower average regasification cost compare to
onshore. But the cost comes higher when the throughput
passing 1.46 MTPA.
Fuel cost are forming the cost because of the value are
raising in higher throughput, so that this component
become the main factor that forms the onshore is more
profitable than offshore on higher throughput. Not to speak
of, offshore regasification is limited with the LNG vessel
capacity. So that for a high throughput value needed more
than one FSRU carrier to fulfill the Natural Gas demand,
which cause higher regasification cost as well.
Cost pattern for regasification with 0.63 MTPA
through put on offshore type is tend to be higher than other
throughput. This comes from the LNG vessel capacity is
using the existing capacity, because of following the
availability size that can be produced by the shipyard. On
that capacity, the gap between needed carrier capacities
with existing capacity is too far, till 18515 m3, so that the
cost on that throughput is relatively higher based on the
fact that the vessel cost is the dominant cost build up in
regasification.
From the analysis on natural gas supply in Java
will be more economical attractive if using the offshore
regasification for a low capacity, below 1.5 MTPA. While
above 1.5 MTPA is suitable using onshore regasification.
To implement offshore regasification, will take shorter
time than the onshore (around 6-12 months). It becomes
best answer for a time constraint become important for
V. REFERENCE
[1]
Decree of The Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Republic
of Indonesia, “Rencana Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik PT PLN
(Persero) Tahun 2018 – 2027.
[2] Dobrota, Dorde, Branko Lalić and Ivan Komar. (2013). Problem of
Boil-off in LNG Supply Chain. Paper dari TOMS (Transactions on
Maritime Science)
[3] Exmar, Floating Regasification, 2019 (Unpublished)
[4] Kjemperud, A, 2004. Petroleum Economic Modelling in General.
The Bridge Group AS
[5] Ledesma and Corbeau (2016). LNG Markets in Transition the Great
Reconfiguration. Oxford, United Kingdom.
[6] LEMTEK UI. (2017). Feasibility Study Terminal Regasifikasi
LNG untuk Pembangkit Listrik Berbahan Bakar Gas di Jawa
Bagian Timur. Jakarta.(unpublished)
[7] M J Giranza, A Bergman “An Economic evaluation of onshore and
floating liquefied natural gas receiving terminals: the case study of
Indonesia”, The Centre of Energy, Petroleum, Mineral Law, and
Policy, Univerversity of Dundee, United Kingdom, 2017.
[8] Mokhatab, S., Mak, J.Y., Valappil, V.J, Wood, D.A. (2014).
Handbook of Liquefied Natural Gas. Elsevier, Oxford
[9] Prasad V. et al., 2004 Analysis of temperature and pressure changes
in liquefied natural gas (LNG) cryogenic tanks, Cryogenics Vol. 44,
No. 10, pp.701-709
[10] Törnqvist, Patrik. (2016). LNG Safety, Storage, & Regasification.
Wartsila, Finland
[11] Triputra. Eksisting Kapal LNG. 2019 (Unpublished)
[12] Z Dongsha, S Ning, L Jun, L Li, Z Yinghua, R Smith
“Comparative Research on LNG receiving terminals and FSRU,
Australian Institute of Management, The University of Western
Australia, Australia, 2017.