LNG Bunkering Feasibility: An Analytical Framework

Following the previous Developing LNG Bunkering Facilities in Ports: Governance and Good Practicearticle, where the Ports Role could be explored in support of Gas bunkering development, the present section is focused of the Feasibility Analysis of LNG Bunkering projects from the perspective of PAAs. The multi-dimensional structure of Feasibility Analysis is here addressed without, however, focusing in depth the economic aspects, considered outside the scope of the present Guidance.

Aspects related to Economic Feasibility of LNG nevertheless highly relevant in the establishment of LNG bunkering business models and should be a great attention by Operators. In generic terms the aspects covered in this Section relate to the Technical and Operational Feasibility of prospective LNG Bunkering projects, with the outline of elements considered relevant to PAAs in the evaluation of these projects within the frame of their jurisdiction and competencies.

Having PAAs involved in the Feasibility Evaluation of LNG bunkering projects, from a very preliminary stage, either at concept or front end engineering development (FEED) it will be possible to early mitigate any risks of incompatible or unrealistic solutions, failing to meet PAAs requirements or to address any possible technical or operational constraints imposed by the administrative, physical or safety environment within the port.

The present section includes:

1. Elements to be considered by PAAs for Feasibility Analysis;
2. Main elements with a potential impact on Feasibility for a given LNG bunkering project;
3. SWOT and Multi-Criteria Analysis as tools for Feasibility Analysis and, finally, a set of recommended good practice elements that PAAs may use to support prospective LNG bunkering projects, towards the improvement of the feasibility prospects for a given project.

LNG Bunkering Project dimensions

There are several distinct dimensions for an LNG bunkering project that need to be included into a Feasibility Study, as presented in the diagram in figure 1, below.

A complete Feasibility Analysis of LNG bunkering projects will be the analytical, qualitative and, where possible, quantitative, evaluation of proposed projects covering at least the dimensions presented in the diagram of figure 1, all collectively contributing to the development and implementation of LNG bunkering projects and should be taken into consideration by PAAs at the earliest possible moment from the presentation of the project.

Addressing adequately all dimensions will be, primarily, of interest to the Bunker Facility Operator and associated direct/indirect economic operators. Whether an LNG bunkering project initiative is more or less successful will, in fact, impact first on those who commit to capital investment and initiate the venture towards implementation. Notwithstanding this may be the first relevant perception from the feasibility prospects of LNG bunkering projects it is not the only side. PAAs should also be not only implied but also, perhaps moreover, involved in the early evaluation of these specific projects. LNG bunkering constitutes an important add-on service to any Port’s service portfolio. It has the potential to differentiate any Port in a positive way, to attract further investment, defining new ship routes and increasing the potential options for local air quality improvement, in support of shipping and local, near-port populations. LNG bunkering as an economic differentiator for ports should here be regarded as a fundamental driver that may lead Ports to support such projects from an early Feasibility Analysis approach.

Read also: LNG Bunkering Guide – What It Is and How to Use It

For a Port, the Feasibility Analysis, divided into each one of its dimensions (as presented in figure 1), will provide an early evaluation study on the prospects of any LNG bunkering project. It is also possible to demonstrate through this structured exercise whether the proposed project will aggregate value to the Port service portfolio, along with an indication on risk, economical cost-benefit, and Energy consumption Optimization and Improvements in the Natural Gas Liquefaction Processoperational process optimization, amongst other important indicators.

Being involved from early stages in the Feasibility Analysis for an LNG bunkering project will allow PAAs to provide input, indicate potential restrictions, provide relevant statistical data, and even promoting the alignement between private, or public-private, initiatives with the port strategic vectors. These may vary significantly from one port to another, remarkably so if we acknowledge that ports have very different sizes, management models, operational and market contexts. Ports may be located in the overlapping between ocean-borne navigation, inland and other relevant multi-modal transportation hubs. LNG is a relevant fuel for transport on a wider perspective. PAAs may find therefore relevant and advantageous to integrate the wider scope in the early stage of LNG bunkering feasibility studies.

It is nevertheless important to underline that Feasibility Analysis will, in principle, represent an instrument to support business decision from the BFO side, including or not agreement with specific RSOs. When, how and to which extent PAAs are consulted in the context of Feasibility Studies will depend largely if a first contact/initiative have been established by the economic operators. The platform for this initiative should be created by PAAs. Promoting the early collaborative environment will allow the opportunity for PAAs to work closely with the BFO for the onset of an optimized permitting process.

Cumulative involvement of other competent authorities would further allow minimizing any elements in the concept design that could potentially impose delays in the permitting process, other than those already related to the administrative process flows. How, and how much, PAAs should support LNG bunkering operators is, in summary, a function of the level of involvement allowed during the concept definition and early project development stages.

Information on location or operational restrictions, big-data Big data is a term that describes a large volume of data – both structured and unstructured – that results from any monitored system, process or operation.x, Comprehensive Guide to Risk Assessment and Process Safety Managementrisk acceptance criteria or other relevant elements that can be provided to operator are likely to have a significant impact in the early stages of concept exploration and project development.

Figure 2, in the next page, includes a suggested generic LNG bunkering project development flow diagram which is included to highlight the different stages where PAAs are likely to play a very relevant role. Feasibility of an LNG bunkering project can, as expressed in the diagram, develop from concept study down to operational and process analysis through staged typical project development logic, with the support from PAAs being possible in different stages, depending how successful has been the establishment of a collaborative environment between operators and competent authorities. In LNG bunkering projects, as with other projects of relevance to the port’s service portfolio, the outcome of collaboration between operators and PAAs will derive in positive outcomes for all parties involved.

Collaboration and integration are very likely to pay dividends to all parties even if it may be considered that commercial/industry sensitive information is sometimes not shared in advance. Information and transparency, together with non-disclosure agreements should be able to allow for the necessary early trust and engagement to be developed.

Elements for Feasibility Analysis

Following the different dimensions presented in figure 1, defining LNG bunkering project dimensions, table 1, below, lists some suggested elements that PAAs may use not only in the support of Feasibility Analysis studies but also as a direct contribution to the feasibility prospects for any LNG bunkering project.

For each selected project dimension the suggested elements indicate which aspects PAAs may provide support with.

All elements from the table above should be addressed in the context of the desired earliest involvement of PAAs in the feasibility discussion of prospective LNG bunkering projects. This may not always be possible, and LNG bunkering proposed solutions may be presented in a stage of development such that less flexibility to accommodate proposed recommendations may become a problem in the permitting and/or implementation stages. PAAs have here an opportunity to engage early, participate and through collaborative support be able to potentiate the Resource Reserve Estimate in LNG Project Development PhasesLNG bunkering project as a port service adding value to a specific port economy profile.

Factors affecting LNG Bunkering feasibility in the Port Area

Following from the previous section, where the main elements for Feasibility Analysis where listed and detailed, for each LNG bunkering project dimension, it is now possible to identify the essential aspects which can be either relevant aspects or “showstoppers” in the development of prospective LNG bunkering facilities. PAAs may take this for reference when evaluating LNG bunkering projects and should, in principle, be able to provide support in the clarification of any possible restrictions and, at the same time, support with the possible drafting of alternative options/possibilities.

The diagram in figure 3, below, presents the main factors and how they can, potentially, pose a negative impact in the Feasibility of LNG bunkering projects.

Whilst the diagram in figure 3 identifies some of the most relevant challenges to feasibility of LNG bunkering projects, it is important to note that today there are many technical options available to operators. As the market moves from smaller capacities (typically TTS mode) to higher LNG volumes (STS or PTS modes) there is a change in paradigm which will inevitably reflect in future LNG bunkering projects. Feasibility of different LNG bunkering projects will therefore be a characteristic to evaluate in increasingly relevant solution, remarkably in terms of the LNG quantities involved.

It will be interesting: LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) as Fuel

How PAAs should support operators, and when, is difficult to define. The only possible guidance advice is that it should happen at the earliest possibility in the project development, with operators having to disclose early concept lines of the projects, in exchange for support from PAAs with aspects related to the feasibility prospects of each project.

Analytical Tools

Whilst the previous sections listed the different dimensions in LNG Bunkering Projects, together with the different factors affecting Feasibility Analysis, the present section features three different analytical tools that may be helpful in the evaluation, decision-making and support to prospective LNG bunkering projects:

1. SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats);
2. Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) and;
3. Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA):

1. The SWOT analysis has the potential to identify different critical aspects of the LNG bunkering, considering the external and internal factors which may impact on the feasibility of any specific project. Intrinsic strengths and weaknesses of the project are also identified and a SWOT matrix is built to support the analysis.
2. The LCA analysis focuses on the structured life-cycle evaluation of the LNG bunkering project as any other engineering development, incorporating:
   1. Concept,
   2. Development,
   3. Implementation,
   4. Operation and,
   5. Decommissioning.
3. The MCA analysis used in decision-making, which may be regarded as particularly useful for PAAs faced with different options for LNG bunkering projects (such as deciding which bunkering mode to allow, bunkering parameters, and others).

To which extent PAAs may get involved in the feasibility evaluation of LNG bunkering projects will depend on the level of understanding and collaboration between competent authorities and operators.

SWOT, LCA and MCA tools will be some of the possible instruments for a transparent and structured evaluation of LNG bunkering projects feasibility, in all project’s dimensions.

SWOT Analysis

SWOT is a typical strategic planning tool used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to a project. It involves specifying the objective of the project and identifying the internal and external factors that are favourable and unfavourable to achieving that objective. The strengths and weaknesses usually arise from within the project details and organisation, and the opportunities and threats from external context. SWOT analysis is adopted from strategic planning to project feasibility analysis but, in practice, it can be used widely in many other practical applications.

The SWOT analysis is, in this sense, an important part of the project planning and feasibility analysis process:

• Strengths: attributes of the project and operator(s) that are understood to have a direct impact in the feasibility of the project.
• Weaknesses: attributes of the project and operator(s) that have to potential to stop, or significantly diminish, the achievement of the project objective/implementation.
• Opportunities: external conditions, including port-specific conditions, which help achieve the LNG bunkering project objective.
• Threats: external conditions, including port-specific conditions, which have the potential to endanger the full achievement of the LNG bunkering project objectives/ implementation.

Table 2, below, represents a SWOT matrix, with a few examples of what can be considered in the context of LNG bunkering projects. The qualitative approach of a SWOT allows for the analysis to be used in a multi-variable context.

PAAs, in the course of a SWOT-assisted feasibility analysis for any given LNG bunkering project, should, as far as possible and appropriate, Common LNG Support Systemssupport operators in the adequate definition of the external environment factors (a large majority of them likely to be port-specific).

LCA Analysis

Every engineering project, or product development, will have in principle to be evaluated on the basis of its anticipated Life-Cycle. Not only are the costs a relevant aspect to evaluate through the life of the project but also the performance, environmental impact and other operational aspects. For LNG bunkering projects the same will apply and a Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) may be one of the instruments to support the evaluation of feasibility for any prospective LNG bunkering project. The table 3, below, proposes an indicative structure for LCA of LNG bunkering projects, suggesting a few relevant questions to be asked by PAAs for each different phase.

Table 3. LNG bunkering projects – elements for Life Cycle Analysis
	1	Scope	Adequate definition of the project scope, including business plan, pre-requisites for the project, pre-contractual agreement. Demand characterization, including technological elements for compatibility.	– Data on possible LNG market potential. – Support in scope definition – Potential estimated demand – Economic data that may be of support in the business plan. – Info on possible funding/financing – Check for compatibility of Project execution plan
	2	Requirements
	3	Business Plan
	4	Project execution Plan
	5	Concept design	Concept design description of the LNG bunkering project, including the proposed LNG bunkering mode, anticipated LNG bunkering volumes. Anticipation of Feasibility prospects for the project. Engineering solution, considering different options for possible MCA Analysis.	– Concept design evaluation. – Support in Feasibility Analysis – Identification of technical critical elements. – Verification of earlier success elements – Is the solution adequate to required bunkering demand? – Are all elements for feasibility analysis ready at this stage? (reference may be made to Table).
	6	Pre-Feasibility
	7	Feasibility
	8	Engineering Concept
	9	Options
	10	HAZID	HAZID workshop with widest possible stakeholders’ representatives, resulting in first risk ranking on different risk scenarios. First recommendations from HAZID. Risk Assessment against specified risk criteria. MAP whenever required. All elements to be prepared at this stage, anticipating permitting.	– Participate in HAZID – Evaluate HAZID team composition and realized risk scenarios. – Check for critical risk scenarios and evaluate defined safeguards. – Ensure critical scenarios, from PAA perspective, are included from HAZID scoping. – Provide Risk Criteria whenever QRA is required. – Provide risk contour charts of port are whenever hazardous activities or MAP classification risk assessments exist for the port area. – Assist operators, facilitating through MAP or EIA processes, in advance to the permitting process. – Review initial documentation.
	11	Risk Assessment
	12	Safeguards
	13	Major accident Prevention
	14	Permitting	Preparation of all documentation for Permitting. Procurement for construction and equipment. Construction phase, followed by reception and trials.	– Support operators throughout the permitting process, either establishing a single-desk/single-permit approach, or through the establishment of the relevant channels with different competent permitting authorities (Point of Contact approach). – Have clear structured BFO certification scheme, including all necessary references for certification (standards, rules, port regulations, etc.). – Evaluate impact of construction phase. – Support with Trials execution and Assess results.
	15	Procurement
	16	Certification
	17	Construction
	18	Trials
	19	Commissioning	Preparation of all documentation for Permitting. Procurement for construction and equipment. Construction phase, followed by reception and trials.	– Evaluate commissioning program. – Check for all elements in the LNG Bunkering Management Plan. – Verify Competences and Training Certificates for all personnel involved. – Check for streamlined procedures and implementation of the relevant check-lists for the LNG bunkering activities.
	20	Procedures
	21	Maintenance
	22	Modifications
	23	Decommissioning preparation	Elements relevant for phase-out or decommissioning.	– Evaluate end-of-life impact of the project.
	24	Close-out actions
	25	Decommissioning

MCA Analysis

Whilst SWOT is a typical tool, adapted from strategic planning, used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) stands for a project-focused analysis establishing a comparative framework for different parametric options for the same project. In the case of LNG bunkering this may be useful in particular for PAAs to support operators in the location selection for a prospective LNG bunkering facility.

Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), or Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), is a discipline aimed at supporting decision makers who are faced with making numerous and conflicting evaluations. MCA aims at highlighting these conflicts and deriving a way to come to a compromise in a transparent process. MCA methods have been developed to improve the quality of decisions involving multiple criteria by making choices more explicit, rational and efficient. The goal is to create a structured process to identify objectives, create alternatives and compare them from different perspectives.

Read also: The Role of LNG Bunkering Infrastructure

MCA may be of particular interest, for instance, in the selection of alternatives for a designated LNG bunkering location. In this context MCA can be used to establish a clear and structured decision-support to the selection, with the impact of the analysis depending on a wider involvement of stakeholders and on the consensus reached for the selection of evaluation criteria. The MCA for site selection will, in the case of LNG bunkering, be inevitably related to Risk Assessment, Logistics and Operations.

General steps in an MCA process adapted to risk assessment, selection of alternatives and site selection are an adaptation of the standard MCA frame, fully adapted. The steps in a general MCDA and spatial MCDA are similar. First, the objective of the analysis is defined (step 1). Next, the key stakeholders that should be involved in the analysis process are identified (step 2). The following steps involve defining all possible alternatives under consideration (step 3) and all of the relevant criteria for evaluating these alternatives (step 4). These steps are interchangeable and may lead to an iterative process of refining which stakeholders to involve. Next, the alternatives are assessed based on the identified criteria (step 5). Performance indicators or decision variables are created for each intersecting pair of alternative and criteria.

For spatial MCA, evaluation criterion maps are generated to evaluate the performance of alternatives. Constraint maps can also be generated to display the limitations of the values that decision variables may assume. Following this, all criteria are weighted by participating stakeholders in order to reflect the preference values of those involved (step 6). It should be noted that not all MCDA approaches make use of weighting; other ordering techniques such as pair-wise comparison can be used. Next, a mathematical combination of the criteria is performed using a decision rule and effectively combines the results of the preceding four steps (step 7). The combined criteria produce an ordering of alternatives.

Finally, a sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the robustness of the ranking outcome (step 8).

The end result of the MCA process is a recommendation consisting either of the best-ranked alternative or group of alternatives.

The diagram below, in figure 5 identifies the different steps in MCA Analysis, whilst Table 4, structures the adaptation of the MCA tool to LNG bunkering site selection.

Table 4. LNG bunkering projects – Multi Criteria Analysis flow procedure
Adapting The MCA methodology for LNG bunkering location selection
General MCA steps	Risk Assessment	Selection of Alternatives	Location Selection	Strengths
	Define the Scope for the Risk Assessment Identify risk determinant factors. (LNG bunkering parameters, traffic, nautical, local weather patterns).	Define the Objective for the MCA exercise.	Which Location for LNG bunkering facility/ operation?	Implemented by decision-makers, actual questions reflecting the needs of PAAs.
	This step can be run as a single-stakeholder process or as a group process. Stakeholders can include: Operators; Terminals, PAAs, other competent authorities, research community; scientific and engineering experts; representatives of local administration bodies.			Able to include views from multiple stakeholders (operators, PAAs, other competent authorities, NGOs, private organizations).
	What is the Risk ranking for the different options? What is the spatial individual and societal risk distribution for the different locations?	What are the spatial effects (consequence modelling) of the different alternatives? Identify potential choices & alternatives.	Identify potential locations for LNG bunkering (all viable locations to select from).	Allows comparison between a large range of alternatives.
	Examples of Criteria for evaluation: Impact on local port traffic and logistics; LNG bunkering turn-around (per m3 LNG); public perception; risk ranking; public and private costs, human resource needs, impact on construction, impact on through-life operation).			Able to integrate multiple considerations or criteria (economical, environmental, social, amongst other).
	Calculation of the effect s of each alternative on all criteria using current data from literature, consultation with experts or surveys.			Synthesis of current knowledge, using both quantitative and qualitative data.
	Stakeholder determination of the relative importance of all criteria by survey. How much each individual criterion will contribute for the final result in the determination of the LNG bunkering location will be dictated by the relative weighting of each criteria. Different routes can be followed to determine the weighting for the criteria, through stakeholders’ direct contributions.			Enables exploration of disciplinary, organisational, cultural preferences and values.
	Application of MCA decision rule and analysis of results. Decision Analysis will be quantitative (in the sense that it will be supported by a mathematical formulation) and qualitative (since it includes judgement and prioritization selected by participating stakeholders). The decision rule will be a mathematical calculation which will have only inputs the evaluated alternatives, weighted according to stakeholders’ preferences. When evaluating alone, PAAs should allow for the involvement of operators, other competent authorities, RSO representatives or other service providers existing in the port area.			Captures complexity. Exploration and comparison.
	Simulations of extreme effects on ranking and assessment of the robustness of results. Variations on the Risk Assessment, for the different parametric variations should be documented. A cost-benefit analysis may be possible before implementation of recommended safeguards.			Allows exploration of the relative importance of criteria and effect on the efficiency ranking of an alternative.

The use of MCA methodology, adapted to any decision in LNG bunkering projects (location for LNG bunkering, in the case presented above, used as an example) is possible to scale and adapt to other decision-making aspects (such as deciding on the LNG bunkering mode). The adoption of such tool by PAAs will be limited to the type of cooperation established with operators. It will enable not only a more transparent decision-process but also allow for a structured approach in a complex multi-variable context.

The tool, as presented in the present Guidance, can in itself be also significantly helpful for operators in a variety of other decision making contexts. The approach is multi-disciplinary.

In the way of illustrating how the MCA can be used as an instrument by PAAs, an example is demonstrated below, including only a limited set range of parameter and criteria, with 4 (four) LNG bunkering locations subject to analysis, all defined options by applicant operator for the establishment of a wide LNG bunkering service in the Ports, Terminals and Jetties – Role and Significanceport area.

Table 5. LNG bunkering location – Example for the application Multi Criteria Analysis flow procedure
Example for the application of Multi-Criteria Analysis to the selection of LNG bunkering location within the port area PAA application of MCA for approval of LNG bunkering location.
Description Four proposed bunkering locations are indicated in the figure above. 1) Containership terminal 2) Cruise ship terminal 3) and 4) Ro-Pax terminals
The exercise proposed underlines the fact that many different ship types, with different operational profiles will turn out to be potential clients to LNG fuel. It will therefore be very difficult to imagine a scenario where a dedicated location would be used for bunkering, especially for ships with limited/reduced turn-around times. The exercise is therefore focused on the selection between locations 3 and 4, for TTS bunkering mode, supplying LNG fuel to RO-PAX ferries. With locations 1 and 2 fixed by force of the operational profile of the ships involved (containerships and cruise ships respectively) the exercise is now where to consider the location for RO-PAX TTS LNG bunkering. The procedure to be followed will be that of table 4, with all 8 steps followed until decision-making is reached. The problem is defined, focused on the decision-making process to select between locations 3 and 4, for RO-PAX LNG bunkering service, via shore-side LNG truck. Selection of stakeholders follows, to participate in the definition of the alternative solutions. The alternatives are then subject to risk assessment, definition of individual and societal risk contours to support risk-based decision. Criteria are then identified, with a scoring range for each. According to an agreed prioritization the different criteria is weighted accordingly. A mathematical agreed formulation will then assist decision through analytical approach. A final sensitivity analysis is possible but not provide for in the featured example.
	Decide on which LNG bunkering location for TTS bunkering of RO-PAX ferries – (locations presented in figure 6). Locations 1 and 2 are restricted to STS bunkering mode, accounting for the operational nature of the ships illustrated (containership and RO-PAX). Location 3 and 4 are the locations to decide from, both with TTS bunkering mode arrangement.
	Stakeholders to share the MCA process with would involve, for instance:	PAAs
		Operators (BFO, RSO, other)
		Competent Authorities (other than PAAs)
		Local traffic authority
		Commercial areas (representatives)
		Local police
		Fire Department/ Brigade
	Alternatives indicated in figure 6, location 3 and 4.
	Location 3:	Close to the port basin entry, in the riverfront, facing a commercial and estate development.
	Location 4:	Inside the port basin.
	For each alternative the risk contours are presented, to allow for a risk assessment against the criteria suggested by ISO 18683 (as presented in the table below, Table A-1 taken from the technical standard). Criteria to be used is identified in red boxes below:
	The alternatives are characterized according to their individual aspects, with the pros and cons of each location, from a risk & safety, operational and logistic perspectives.
	Example of criteria for classification of the alternatives may be:
	C1. Houses and commercial spaces inside individual risk contour IR10-5 (total area, m2)
	C2. Other activities inside IR 10-5 contour – road traffic, crane operation, other ships:		Road length (in Km)
			Number of operating cranes and equipment (unit quantity)
			Number of berthing positions (unit quantity)
	C3. Distance to LNG terminal (in Km)
	C4. Nautical Risk (NR) (qualitative) – scale of 1 to 5 – “1” to minimum risk up to “5” to maximum risk.
	For the evaluation of alternatives the criteria, all the identified stakeholders participate in the application of the agreed criteria to the two options:
	Criteria	Location 3	Location 4
	C1	Over 5 000 m2 of commercial areas and estate development in riverfront. All within IR10-5.	No houses or commercial areas within IR10-5
	C2a	No roads crossing IR10-5.	5km of road length within IR10-5.
	C2b	No cranes or relevant working equipment within IR10-5.	1 overhead crane other side of the basin
	C2c	No additional berthing positions inside IR10-5.	3 additional berthing positions inside IR10-5
	C3	35 (distance from Terminal to proposed LNG bunkering location).	30 (distance from Terminal to proposed LNG bunkering location).
	C4	NR = 4 TTS bunkering mode less exposed to nautical risks. Bunkering location is however more exposed to incoming/outgoing traffic, into and out from the basin.	NR = 2 TTS bunkering mode less exposed to nautical risks. Nevertheless bunkering location inside protected harbor basin, with only risk related to maneuvering inside the basin. Very-low speed transit inside basin.
	Stakeholders provide for weighting of criteria, with agreed factors, as indicated in the table below. Stakeholders, in this sense, decide on which criteria are to be prioritized. It is, in this particular case, important to note the relevance of the individual risk contours (assuming these were calculated for both proposed LNG bunkering locations 3 and 4, supporting now in the decision making process. This may not always be the case, being here taken only as an example.
	Criteria	Weighting (0 to 1)
	C1	w1	1
	C2a	w2a	0,8
	C2b	w2b	0,6
	C2c	w2c	0,6
	C3	w3	0,5
	C4	w4	0,8
	To reach a full analytical indicator for decision making, the final step of the MCA approach. The highest value is the MCA decision.
	$Decision = 1/\left(\left(C1.w1 + C2a.w2a + C2b.w2b + C.w3\right) · {10}^{–3} + C2c.w2c + C4.4\right)$
	With the calculation results presented below:
	The result from the MCA indicates Location 4 as the preferred location for LNG bunkering of RO-PAX ferries, with a result that clearly expresses the evaluation of the two alternatives, using the agreed criteria, weighed in accordance to the relative importance of each criterion, as agreed by the participating stakeholders.

Open table in new window

The example in table 5 illustrates some practical aspects behind MCA methodology. Notwithstanding its simplicity, the example illustrates the flexibility of MCA, its structured workflow, and the ability to integrate several alternative solutions, to be assessed by different criteria, weighted according to stakeholders review and assessment of the situation.

Important final additional notes regarding the example demonstrated:

• The example is the result of several simplifications, only valid for the demonstration of the MCA methodology for decision-making support.
• Locations 1 and 2 are the example of LNG bunkering locations which are dictated by the operational profiles of the ships at berth (containerships and cruise ships). SIMOPS are, for these ships inevitable operational aspects to address. In the case for locations 1 and 2, the choice/selection of a preferred bunkering location is not the central problem – it is rather more on how to make the;
• Locations 3 and 4 are indicated already with individual risk contours, following from risk quantification/ risk assessment in support of decision-making. This will not always be the case, even if the baseline for an adequate comparison of the proposed locations should preferably be risk-based.

Good Practice in the evaluation and support to prospective projects

Feasibility Evaluation of prospective LNG bunkering projects is a relevant step of every project development, with the objective of verifying whether a given LNG bunkering facility/service will, in one hand, be supported by sound, feasible and demonstrated technical/engineering aspects and, on the other hand, representing a safe and sustainable activity as a relevant port service.

A complete Feasibility Analysis of LNG bunkering projects will be the analytical, qualitative and, where possible, quantitative, evaluation of proposed projects covering at least the dimensions presented in the diagram of figure 1, all collectively contributing to the development and implementation of LNG bunkering projects and should be taken into consideration by PAAs at the earliest possible moment from the presentation of the project.

It will be interesting: LNG IMO Tanks/Containment Systems

PAAs should get involved in the Feasibility Evaluation of LNG bunkering project at the earliest possibility. This will greatly increase the possibilities for early mitigation of any risks of incompatible or unrealistic solutions, failing to meet PAAs requirements or to address any possible technical or operational constraints imposed by the administrative, physical or safety environment within the port.

This involvement will, despite all good practice indications, be subject to multi stakeholder initiative, disclosure and to the establishment of an early collaborative environment, favourable to sharing of information related to concept project stage. The initial stages of an LNG bunkering project (as shown in figure 2) are fundamental for the adequate shaping of a feasible solution. PAAs should, to the extent adequate and possible, participate and support operators with information, data sharing, facilitation with the wider community of stakeholders, competent authorities and other service providers within the port area.

Direct support from PAAs to prospective LNG bunkering feasibility can be materialized through the provision of different elements, relevant to the different project dimensions.

These are listed in table 1, and can be summarized in the following categories:

a. Rules and Regulations – through clear Port Regulations, where LNG bunkering related provisions are included, PAAs support prospective projects through transparency. In addition to design codes, standards, it is possible that port-specific requirements may have to be considered at the earliest stage by operators in order to avoid negative impact further down towards development stages.

b. Restrictions – Any restrictions that may apply to LNG bunkering (or fuelling) scenarios should be made very clear, along with possible alternatives that may ensure the safe and necessary development of alternative fuels infrastructure within the port area.

c. Data – In the initial stages of concept and project development, data availability is one of the key success factors for LNG bunkering developments. Risk Studies require data for probabilistic calculations. Data on bunkering related incidents and near-misses is, in this regard, important to be available. Demand forecast and compatibility will require data on the profile of the different ships visiting the port and, finally, spatial planning, existing risk contours and area classification will further assist operators in the design of a feasible LNG bunkering location.

d. Information – Informative elements should be made available actively or on request, regarding:

1. possible incentives, funding, special conditions for the establishment of potential environmental sound technologies;
2. administrative aspects related to permitting procedure;
3. general port service portfolio, with specific information on any specific service which might be of interest in the context of LNG bunkering.

e. Facilitation – PAAs may develop support vectors to prospective LNG bunkering projects through facilitation between all relevant stakeholders, in particular throughout the permitting process.

f. Analysis – In support to operators, in the early stages of LNG bunkering project development, PAAs may.

PAAs, whenever engaged in the evaluation of prospective LNG bunkering project LNG bunkering projects may be supported through one or more of the following methodologies:

1. SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats);
2. Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) and;
3. Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA):

a. The SWOT analysis to identify different critical aspects of the LNG bunkering, considering the external and internal factors which may impact on the feasibility of any specific project. Intrinsic strengths and weaknesses of the project are also identified and a SWOT matrix is built to support the analysis.

b. The LCA analysis focused on the structured life-cycle evaluation of the LNG bunkering project as any other engineering development, incorporating:

a) Concept,

b) Development,

c) Implementation,

d) Operation and,

e) Decommissioning.

c. The MCA analysis, to be used in direct support to decision-making, which may be regarded as particularly useful for PAAs faced with different options for LNG bunkering projects (such as deciding on proposed bunkering location, which bunkering mode to allow, Examples and Methods Liquefied Natural Gas Bunkeringbunkering parameters, and others).

Author

Olga Nesvetailova

Freelancer

Literature

1. Study on the completion of an EU framework on LNG-fuelled ships and its relevant fuel provision infrastructure, LOT 1 Position paper: Towards harmonized EU LNG bunkering guidelines, DNV-GL, 2016.
2. Study on the completion of an EU framework on LNG-fuelled ships and its relevant fuel provision infrastructure, LOT 1 Final Report, DNV-GL, 2016.
3. LNG Bunkering Guidelines IACS Recommendation n. 142, on LNG Bunkering, IACS, 2016.
4. ISO/TS 18683:2015. (15-Jan. 2015). Guidelines for systems and installations for supply of LNG as fuel to ships. Technical Specification.
5. Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel (SGMF). (2015). Gas as a marine fuel, safety guidelines, Bunkering. Version 1.0, February 2015.
6. ISO 20519:2017. Ships and marine technology – Specification for bunkering of gas fuelled ships. (International Standard).
7. IEC 60079-10-1. (2015). Explosive atmospheres – Part 10-1: Classification of areas – Explosive gas atmospheres.
8. Directive 1999/92/EC – ATEX of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).
9. API RP-500. 1997. Recommended practice for classification of locations for electrical installations at petroleum facilities classified as CIass 1, Division 1 and Division 2. Washington. D.C: API.
10. API RP-505. 1997, Recommended practice for classification of locations at petroleum facilities classified as Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1 and Zone 2. Washington, D. C. API.
11. NFPA 497. 2012, Recommended practice for the classification of flammable liquids, gases or vapours and of hazardous (classified) locations for electrical installations in chemical process areas. Quincy, MA: NFPA.
12. IEC EN 60079-10-1 Ed.1.0, 2008. Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres – Part 10-1: Classification of areas – Explosive gas atmospheres. International Electrotechnical Commission.
13. Commission Decision 2010/769/EU of 13 December 2010 on the establishment of criteria for the use by liquefied natural gas carriers of technological methods as an alternative to using low sulphur marine fuels meeting the requirements of Article 4b of Council Directive 1999/32/EC relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sulphur content of marine fuels (OJL 328, 14.12.2010, p. 15).
14. USCG CG-OES Policy Letter 02-14 – Guidance Related To Vessels And Waterfront Facilities Conducting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Marine Fuel Transfer (Bunkering) Operations.
15. ADN – European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland waterways (Update version ADN January 2017).
16. ADR – European agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (Update version ADR January 2017).
17. Rhine Vessel Inspection Regulations (RVIR).
18. EU general risk assessment methodology (Action 5 of Multi-Annual Action Plan for the surveillance of products in the EU (COM(2013)76) – Document 2015-IMP-MSG-15 – 16 October 2015.
19. Safety Study, Chain analysis: Supplying Flemish ports with LNG as a marine fuel, Analysis of safety aspects, June 2012.
20. EN 1160 – Installations And Equipment For Liquefied Natural Gas – General Characteristics Of Liquefied Natural Gas, NBN, 1st edition, August 1996.
21. ESD Arrangements & Linked Ship/Shore Systems for Liquefied Gas Carriers, SIGTTO First Edition 2009 – SIGTTO.
22. M. Kofod & S. Hartman, T. Mundt – Review of Recent Well-to-Wake Greenhouse Gas Studies evaluating the use of LNG as a marine Fuel, IMO MEPC/INF.15.
23. LNG Access Code for Truck Loading for The Zeebrugge LNG Terminal – Based on version approved by the CREG on September 19th 2013 – Applicable as of January 1st 2014 – FLUXYS.
24. Guidance for the Prevention of Rollover in LNG Ships – SIGTTO – First Edition 2012.
25. Wang, Siyuan & Notteboom, Theo – The role of port authorities in the development of LNG bunkering facilities in North European ports, 14 January 2015, World Maritime University 2015.
26. Verhoeven P (2010) A review of port authority functions: towards a renaissance? Marit Policy Manag 37:247-270.
27. Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel (SGMF). (2017). Gas as a marine fuel, safety guidelines, Bunkering. Version 2.0, February 2015.
28. COM(2003) 515 final – Communication from The Commission concerning the non-binding guide of good practice for implementing Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres, Brussels, 25.8.2003.
29. Davies, P. (2016) – Bunkering LNG: Setting the Safety Zone, 7th Motorship Gas Fuelled Ships Conference, November 2016.
30. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. (1-Mar 2010). Risk Assessment Data Directory – Process Release Frequencies. Report No. 434 – 1, 1 March 2010). Pertinent data from this report is summarised in: Davies & Fort, (Sept 2012), LNG as Marine Fuel – Likelihood of LNG Releases, Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology.
31. PGS2 – TNO Yellow Book – Methods for the calculation of physical effects, due to releases of hazardous materials (liquids and gases) – CPR 14E (3rd Edition, 2005) – TNO – The Netherlands Organization of Applied Scientific Research.
32. OECD Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness and Response, Guidance for Industry (including Management and Labour), Public Authorities, Communities, and other Stakeholders – 2nd Edition (2003) – OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications.
33. DNVGL-RP-G105 Edition October 2015 – Development and operation of liquefied natural gas bunkering facilities, Recommended Practice, DNV GL, 2015.
34. USCG CG-OES Policy Letter No. 01-17 – Guidance for Evaluating Simultaneous Operations (SIMOPS) during Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Fuel Transfer Operations.
35. LGC NCOE Field Notice 01-2017 – 14-Aug-17 – Recommended Process For Analysing Risk Of Simultaneous Operations (SIMOPS) During Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Bunkering.
36. An Overview of Leading Software Tools for QRA, American Society of Safety Engineers – Middle East Chapter (161), 7th Professional Development Conference & Exhibition, March 18-22, 2005.
37. Walter Chukwunonso Ikealumba and Hongwei Wu (2016) Some Recent Advances in Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Production, Spill, Dispersion, and Safety School of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Curtin University.