Methane Pioneer Achievement – Revolutionizing Energy and Combating Climate Change

Methane Pioneer Achievement marks a significant milestone in environmental science and energy innovation. This achievement focuses on breakthrough technologies aimed at capturing and utilizing methane emissions effectively. By enhancing energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases, the initiative contributes to global sustainability efforts.

The collaboration between researchers and industries ensures the development of practical solutions that can be implemented on a large scale. As a result, this advancement not only supports energy needs but also addresses climate change proactively. The ongoing commitment to these innovative practices positions us toward a cleaner and more sustainable future.

Hail to the pioneers and their foresight

An introduction from the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO). It is a great pleasure and honour for the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) to be jointly producing this commemorative publication along with our good friends and colleagues at the Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers (GIIGNL).

It really is quite remarkable that liquefied natural gas has been transported by sea for 50 years, but it is an unmistakable fact that Methane Princess discharged the first ever commercial shipment of LNG on 12 October 1964.

Today is a very exciting time to be involved with LNG shipping and terminals and there has never been a period quite like it. Today’s growth is completely unprecedented, with more ships, terminals and SIGTTO members than ever before. I often wonder if the pioneers of half a century ago ever thought about what the future held in store for LNG, indeed about whether an international trade in LNG would establish itself or not.

It is unlikely that the pioneers would have dreamed about LNG carriers the size of today’s Q-max ships or vessels like Prelude that will be able to produce large quantities of LNG while floating at a remote offshore location.

While the increased activity in our industry is to be welcomed, it does bring with it further challenges which need to be tackled. Not least of these is the provision of an adequate supply of properly trained and competent ship crews, shore support staff and trainers to meet the requirements of a rapidly expanding global fleet.

The LNG shipping sector’s safety record is something we are all very proud of and many reading this article will have contributed towards it over the years. This outstanding performance, however, remains our industry’s license to operate and we all have a «collective responsibility» as an industry to maintain it despite the steadily increasing levels of activity.

When mentioning the safety record, we also need to give credit to the pioneers for their contributions to the early days of LNG shipping and to the development of the International Gas Carrier (IGC) Code, with its healthy safety margins and robust design, equipment and construction provisions. I believe that these contributions are directly responsible for the excellent and unprecedented safety record that the LNG industry has achieved over 50 years of commercial operation.

SIGTTO was formed 35 years ago and the Society is as strong now as it has ever been. We remain the industry leader for the provision of best practice guidance and technical support across the Regulations and Guidance for Liquefied Natural Gas Shippingliquefied gas shipping and terminal sectors.

Our membership includes companies responsible for around 97 percent of the world’s LNG vessels and terminals and around one-half of the LPG market. Furthermore SIGTTO’s membership is a committed membership, supplying staff to working groups and SIGTTO’s General Purposes Committee (GPC) in a timely and consistent manner.

SIGTTO Panel Meetings are very popular and well attended and the Society now has Regional Forums across the world, engaging with the membership and ensuring that any concerns are addressed for the benefit of the industry as a whole. Our recent publications have addressed topics such as the gas carrier transits of the Panama Canal, human factors and competencies in the workplace. The Society is also further developing its library of publications with new documents and updated versions of existing ones.

I find the history of liquefied gas shipping fascinating and this publication has many very interesting articles about the early days. I hope you enjoy reading this publication and retain a copy as a keepsake for future reference. Here’s to the next 50!

The complete importation service:

• Largest tank capacity in Europe providing ultimate customer flexibility.
• Connected to the deepest, most liquid and liberalised gas market (NBP).
• Import, store, re-gas, road tanker loading, marine reloading and trans-shipment.
• Resilient, and dependable.
• Proven track record of on time, on budget delivery.
• Over 30 years of LNG expertise.

An achievement worth celebrating

An introduction from the International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers (GIIGNL). The development of energy resources and the exploration and production of hydrocarbons represent one of the epic accomplishments of the modern industrial world. Within this field of endeavour the emergence of the LNG industry over the last 50 years stands out as a success story of exceptional merit.

One of the reasons behind the success of LNG is the excellent body of technical and operational guidance established by those responsible for processing, transporting and handling the product. The strong demand for plentiful, clean-burning natural gas and the infrastructure that has been established for moving it around the globe as LNG are poised to support the continued, impressive growth of this sector well into the future.

Reinforcing this belief, the consensus view among experts is that global LNG trade flows are likely to double within the next 20 years. Trade growth will be accompanied by an increasing number of players and the emergence of new sources and destinations worldwide, especially in Asia but also in Africa and South America.

At this stage – on the occasion of the industry’s 50th anniversary – it is fair and fitting that we pay tribute to all those men and women who have made this adventure possible. These are the ones who faced up to the many technological and business challenges encountered in liquefying natural gas for the mutual benefit of buyers and sellers separated by the world’s oceans.

The pioneers developed and constructed the first LNG supply chains and subsequent generations built on these foundation stones with larger and more sophisticated liquefaction plants, Floating LNG Terminals General Overviewregasification terminals and LNG carriers. We also need to acknowledge the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of the current players who are helping to extend the LNG supply chain into new realms, namely offshore and small-scale LNG, and to develop new market opportunities, not least the use of LNG as marine fuel.

The industry can be justifiably proud of the exemplary safety record that has been built up over its first half century. So far some 77 000 LNG cargoes have been discharged without any major accident attributable to the cargo.

The International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers (GIIGNL) – the worldwide association of importers established in 1971 – has consistently supported the development of the industry and has provided a forum for senior executives of importing companies to meet and contribute to its continued growth. Today GIIGNL has 74 member companies in 24 countries worldwide. The three main regions are well represented, with 10 members in the Americas, 32 in Asia and 32 in Europe. The strength, geographical spread and long-term commitment of this membership are indicative of GIIGNL’s support to the LNG adventure to date and of its confidence in the continued success of the industry.

The LNG industry and GIIGNL have good stories to tell and we are pleased to be part of this commemorative magazine and the celebrations of 50 successful years of LNG transport and handling. We hope you enjoy the stories.

Methane Pioneer sets the scene

Methane Pioneer made history in January 1959 when it departed Louisiana with the first ever seagoing cargo of LNG and opened the door to a whole new world of energy transport

Even Methane Pioneer, the first ship to carry a seagoing cargo of LNG, had a vessel that preceded it. William Wood Prince, president of Chicago’s Union Stock Yard and Transit Co in the early 1950s, is acknowledged as the father of LNG and he pioneered the Pioneer. But he didn’t get there right away.

In 1951, irked at a proposed price rise by his local gas supplier, Prince had the idea of liquefying natural gas in Louisiana and barging the LNG up the Mississippi River to his stockyards. Here the fuel could be used in various meat-processing operations, including in freezing and preserving meat products.

The plan called for liquefaction equipment to be mounted on a barge which could be moved around to remote fields along the Gulf Coast where the cost of gas was very low. Willard Morrison, an engineer, inventor and one of William Wood Prince’s consultants at the time, played a key role in developing the various elements of the project.

In 1954 a barge-mounted liquefaction plant and a 5 500 m³ transport barge, Methane, were ordered at the Ingalls Shipbuilding yard in Pascagoula, Mississippi to carry out test work and enable the scheme to move forward. At about this time Prince decided to seek the involvement of a company familiar with gas processing and found a willing partner in Continental Oil Co of Oklahoma.

Continental Oil reviewed the work of Union Stock Yard’s research team and carried out its own investigations of LNG transport by river barge. The consensus view was that shuttling LNG up the Mississippi River by barge was not an economical proposition but that the ocean transport of LNG was. In 1955 the partners came together to establish Constock International Methane Ltd.

Although the original barging scheme was abandoned, it was decided to use the liquefaction and transport barges building at Ingalls as pilot plants. The vessels were completed in late 1955 and moved to Bayou Long in Louisiana for extensive testing throughout 1956. Methane had been built with five vertical cylindrical tanks internally lined with balsa wood. Amongst the test results, the balsa proved not to be up to the job as an internal tank liner.

It was realised from the outset that the shipment of LNG by sea would pose special technological challenges. For a start the design of the cargo tanks would be complicated by factors such as ship motions and the need to keep tanks firmly in position; independent expansion and contraction; ship hull deflections; and substantial temperature gradients during tank filling and emptying.

Constock Liquid Methane Corp, a subsidiary of Constock International Methane, embarked on an ambitious research programme to verify the commercial feasibility of LNG transport by sea. The investigative work encompassed innovations in:

• gas processing and liquefaction techniques;
• the evaluation of materials;
• ship designs;
• cargo-handling systems and storage tanks.

Consultants from universities were employed on a part-time basis to translate the research results into design criteria for practical applications. One of the lead consultants on the project was Dr Cedomir «Cheddy» Sliepcevich, a chemical engineer and the son of an immigrant from Bosnia-Hercegovina. Dr. Sliepcevich received the 1986 Gas Industry Research Award from the American Gas Association in recognition of his work in coordinating work on the overall project.

Specific assignments involving more detailed work were contracted out to industry specialists, as follows:

• JF Pritchard – focusing on gas processing, liquefaction and plant construction.
• Gamble Brothers – wood and insulation.
• JJ Henry – naval architects and marine engineers.
• AD Little – storage and cargohandling methods.

By 1957 complete designs, specifications and drawings for the liquefaction plant, oceangoing tanker and terminal facilities had been completed. It was at this point that the British Gas Council entered the picture.

The UK was seeking to reduce its heavy reliance on coal, not least by increasing its commitment to gas. At the time, the discovery of North Sea gas was still a decade away and the country had no known natural gas resources. It had to rely on town gas processed from coal for its supplies and this accounted for 6 percent of the country’s energy mix in the 1950s.

The UK’s predicament had come sharply into focus in December 1952 when the Great Smog hit London. Over a period of five days a combination of coal smoke and the climatic conditions produced a smog so thick that it brought road, rail and air traffic to a halt and literally choked people to death. Some 4 000 fatalities were directly linked to the smog and it is likely that a further 8 000 deaths recorded in the following weeks and months could be attributed to exposure to the Great Smog.

That episode is one of the key reasons the UK Parliament passed the 1956 Clean Air Act. Amongst its many measures, the legislation encouraged the use of gas for domestic heating and cooking. The search was on for other sources of gas as the process of producing town gas from the distillation of coal gave rise to considerable air pollution in its own right and town gas possessed only one-half the calorific heating value of natural gas.

As part of the search the North Thames Gas Board sent Dr James Burns, its chief engineer, and Leslie Clark, its development engineer, to the US to evaluate the ship design work JJ Henry was carrying out on behalf of Constock. The pair were sufficiently impressed to recommend that a project be mounted to send trial shipments of LNG from the US to the UK on behalf of the British Gas Council (BGC). The trials would be a precursor to the country signing up to buy 100 million ft³/day of natural gas from a suitable source. This volume is equivalent to about 700 000 tonnes per annum of LNG and about 10 percent of the UK’s gas consumption at the time.

To enable the trials to be carried out Constock agreed to provide a barge-mounted liquefaction plant on the Calcasieu River near Lake Charles, Louisiana while the British Gas Council would construct a receiving terminal on Canvey Island near the mouth of the River Thames. Constock and the Gas Council agreed to share the cost of converting a dry cargo ship into the required pilot LNG carrier and British Methane Ltd was established as a joint venture company to own and operate the vessel.

Constock moved its original Bayou Long liquefaction barge to the Calcasieu River to serve as the liquefaction facility for the trials. A flat-bottomed, double-walled, cylindrical tank with an inner shell of aluminium, 1 m of perlite insulation and a capacity of 5 500 m³ was built by Chicago Bridge & Iron for the storage of LNG in a fully refrigerated condition.

The ship chosen for the conversion was Normarti, a World War 2 Victory dry cargo ship of the C1 type, and the work was carried out at the Alabama Drydock & Shipbuilding yard in Mobile, Alabama. A dry cargo ship was chosen because it offered large double bottom and wing tanks for the substantial amount of ballast the ship would be required to carry to achieve a suitable degree of hull immersion with the low-density LNG cargo.

The result of the conversion was the 5 000 m³ Methane Pioneer, a landmark vessel in the annals of LNG shipping. The ship was fitted with five prismatic tanks of aluminium, and balsa wood insulation was fitted to the ship’s inner hull to a thickness of 0,3 m. Balsa was the only material available at the time able to meet the required, stringent performance criteria.

Besides providing good insulating properties, Methane Pioneer’s insulation had to be able to perform as a secondary, liquid-tight barrier in case an aluminium cargo tank should fail. The balsa at the bottom of the tank had to bear the tank’s laden weight and withstand the stresses induced by the ship’s motions in a seaway. It also had to accommodate the thermal stresses associated with ambient temperature on one face and -162 ˚C on the other without yielding. Finally, it had to be able to maintain its structural integrity in a fire situation for a period of four hours.

Methane Pioneer departed the Constock terminal on the Calcasieu River with its first trial shipment on 28 January 1959 and arrived at Regent Oil’s deepwater jetty on Canvey Island on 20 February after a trouble-free, 27-day voyage. The North Thames Gas Board had built two aluminium, single-containment, perlite-insulated storage tanks, each with a capacity of 2 200 m³, to receive the LNG. A temporary aluminium cryogenic pipeline had been installed linking the Regent Oil jetty to the nearby LNG tanks.

Over the next 14 months, to March 1960, Methane Pioneer carried a further six trial shipments across the Atlantic. In 1960 Shell joined Constock as a 40 percent shareholder and the company was renamed Conch International Methane. Shell had been carrying out its own research into LNG transport by sea in the 1950s but broke off the work following the Suez Crisis in 1956.

The Methane Pioneer project and the groundbreaking research and development work carried out by Constock during the 1950s had proven the viability of the carrying LNG on long international voyages by sea. In November 1961 the UK government approved the purchase of 700 000 tonnes per annum of LNG from Algeria for 15 years, commencing in 1964.

The scene had been set for the birth of the commercial LNG industry and the realisation of William Wood Prince’s vision.

Höegh LNG is listed on the Oslo stock exchange and has established presence in:

• Oslo;
• London;
• Singapore;
• Miami;
• Jakarta and Lithuania.

The company employs approximately 100 office staff and 500 seafarers. Höegh LNG is a provider of floating LNG infrastructure services, offering regasification, transportation and production services under long-term contracts. The company operates a fleet of five floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) that act as floating LNG import terminals, and four Liquid Cargo Transportation – Safety and Operational EfficiencyLNG transportation vessels. In addition, Höegh LNG has new FSRUs under construction. The company has also developed a solution for floating LNG production (FLNG).

With a strong emphasis on technological development and operational excellence, Höegh LNG is one of the energy service providers with the most versatile operational experience and substantial know-how, in addition to an impeccable safety record.

FSRU – flexible, low cost and efficient solution for import of natural gas.

The sisters that launched an industry

Methane Princess and Methane Progress went into service 50 years ago carrying cargoes from Algeria to the UK on the LNG industry’s first long-term project.

Contracted in February 1962, the 27 400 m³ Methane Princess and Methane Progress were the first LNG carriers to go into commercial service. The UK, having no known natural gas reserves of its own at the time, was anxious to secure an overseas source of the clean-burning fuel and ease its heavy reliance on coal. Algeria had just discovered the Hassi R’Mel gas field in the Sahara desert and was anxious to monetise this windfall. The two sisterships were the link that established the first LNG supply chain and enabled the needs of the two parties to be met.

Methane Progress and Methane Princess were built following a series of successful transatlantic trial shipments of LNG by the test vessel Methane Pioneer in 1959. These voyages convinced the British Gas Council (BGC) of the viability of transporting LNG by sea and prompted orders for the two sisterships. Methane Pioneer and the background to that historic series of trial cargoes are described above.

In November 1961 the UK Parliament granted approval for BGC’s plan to import Algerian LNG. Algeria agreed to build a pipeline linking the Hassi R’Mel field with a liquefaction plant that the Algerian Liquefied Methane Company (CAMEL) would provide in the port of Arzew. The CAMEL terminal is described below.

For its part BGC would construct appropriate receiving facilities at a site on Canvey Island in the River Thames estuary to the east of London. The Canvey Island import terminal would be erected on land owned and utilised by the North Thames Gas Board. Methane Pioneer had discharged its trial shipments to two small, hastily erected storage tanks at this same site. The facilities that were provided for the Algerian LNG project were of an altogether greater magnitude. Five storage tanks able to hold a total of 22 000 tonnes of LNG were constructed and these were later augmented by four inground LNG tanks.

France also wanted to commence LNG imports and agreed its own gas supply deal with Algeria. As a result CAMEL was designed with a liquefaction capacity of 1,1 million tonnes per annum (mta) of LNG, 0,7 mta of which was for the UK and 0,4 mta for France. The French cargoes were transported by the 25 500 m³ Jules Verne, which, when completed in March 1965, was the third LNG carrier to go into commercial service. Jules Verne discharged its cargoes at a new import terminal at Le Havre.

Both the UK and France signed 15-year LNG purchase agreements with Algeria. For the UK each of the Methane Princess and Methane Progress was able to carry a 12 000-tonne cargo from the CAMEL terminal and to complete a round trip in 12 days, travelling at 17 knots. Between them, the pair were able to deliver a volume equivalent to 10 percent of the UK’s gas consumption at the time.

The newbuilding contract for Methane Princess was placed with the Vickers Armstrong shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness in northwest England while Harland & Wolff in Belfast, Northern Ireland won the order for Methane Progress. The vessels were sisterships, and Vickers Armstrong, as the lead yard, took responsibility for drawing up the working plans and placing material orders for the pair. Each ship was to cost £ 4,75 million to build.

The cargo containment system on the two ships was designed by Conch International Methane Ltd. The system was based on that utilised on Methane Pioneer and for which Conch held the design patents. JJ Henry, the New York-based consulting naval architect firm, was closely involved with the hull design of the two vessels while Shell supervised their construction. The main particulars of Methane Princess and Methane Progress are shown in the accompanying table.

Each ship was fitted with nine 5 083 grade aluminium, free-standing cargo tanks, installed three to a hold in three holds. Each tank weighed about 130 tonnes and was lifted in as a complete unit. «Keys» were fitted to the top of the tank to locate the unit and allowed for expansion and contraction. Each tank had a full height centreline bulkhead with two separate cross-flooding valves near the bottom.

A single JC Carter submerged electric cargo pump, with a capacity of 200 m³/hour and a 82 m head, was placed at bottom of each tank on the port side. This was the first marine application of submerged electric cargo pump technology.

Only one side of each tank had a filling connection. As a result it was necessary to have the cross-flooding valves open throughout loading and discharge operations but closed at sea, for stability reasons.

The tanks were insulated primarily with prefabricated balsa wood panels faced with maple leaf plywood, which was impervious to LNG. On the tanks’ vertical sides the panels were supplemented with glass fibre. The top of the tank was insulated with a loose-laid mineral wool material called Rocksil. The insulation system was also designed to act as a secondary barrier in event of leakage from the primary aluminium tank. In modern parlance these would be described as IMO Type A tanks.

The ships’ cargo-handling system was very similar to that found on a modern LNGC. A single header ran along the main deck pipe rack while tank filling and discharge connections branched off at each tank. The vapour system was different to modern designs in that no vapour return compressors were fitted. During cargo loading operations the vapour was free-flowed to an onshore compressor installation. In practice it was difficult to keep to the required tank pressures during loading without venting vapour from the forward of the two risers on each ship.

Two vapour compressors were installed in a compressor house on deck. They had three duties, the principal one of which was to act as fuel gas compressors for cargo boil-off gas being fed to the boiler plant. Their secondary duty was part of the emergency discharge and cargo tank stripping system. This system served the cargo tanks and the hold spaces in event of cargo tank leakage. It was described as a vapour lift system. The tertiary duty of the vapour compressors was to warm up the cargo tanks by circulating vapour through a heater.

Two liquid nitrogen storage tanks were installed below the forecastle head. These supplied vaporised nitrogen to the hold spaces, which were kept under nitrogen pressure, to the compressors and to the purging arrangements for the fuel gas system. The ships had no inert gas generators. Instead prior to docking at Canvey a temporary steam-heated nitrogen vaporiser was set up on the jetty and liquid nitrogen was delivered by road tanker.

Since inerting following refits was done with pure nitrogen, cooling down operations were performed by directly spraying LNG into the tanks. No LNG vaporisers were installed.

Cargo fill levels were determined by float gauges, one per tank. Back-up level readings were provided by two sets of two sighting ports in each cargo tank dome, one pair on each side of the centreline bulkhead, looking down on an inclined board with ullage markings. Crew would shine a torch through one sighting port and read the level through the other. The sighting ports could only be used for topping off operations.

A comprehensive data-logging system which was state-of-the art for the time was also installed. It was an electromechanical device which covered some 300 points around the ship and included extensive temperature monitoring of the inner hull and cargo tanks. A comprehensive fixed gas detection system was also provided.

Methane Princess and Methane Progress were propelled by steam turbines supplied with steam by dual-fired boilers. The Pametrada turbine on each ship was rated at 12 500 shp (9 325 kW) at 107 rpm while each of the two Foster Wheeler ESD II boilers supplied 20,4 tonnes/hour in normal operating mode. Electrical power was derived from two 600 kW back-pressure turbo generator sets while a 100 kW emergency diesel generator was also provided.

The boilers were front-fired and fitted with three dual-fuel burners. Gas was supplied from the compressor and heater to the boiler front through a pipe in a swept air trunk. The last sections from the air trunk up to the burner nozzles were fitted with nitrogen-pressurised jackets. A hood with its own extraction fan system was positioned over the burners.

Methane Princess and Methane Progress predated engine control rooms. All control of the machinery was from the «plates» forward of the boilers. Automatic combustion control was pneumatic with a 10:1 burner turndown ratio.

The gas-burning system was interlocked such that the gas would automatically trip in the event of a failure of either the forced draft fans or the flame. There was a gas flow control valve and an automatic shutoff valve in series, with a bleed-off to the vent mast in between. In event of a trip both valves closed and the valve to the vent mast opened, thus ensuring a tight shutoff of gas.

A single flame detector was mounted looking through the side wall of the furnace of each boiler. The technology of the period was such that detectors could only discern bright luminous flames such as those generated by fuel oil. They could not detect the gas-only flame. As a result it was stipulated that a minimum of 10 percent fuel oil should be burned at all times and that the gas could not be supplied to a burner without the fuel oil being on first.

The IGC Code was mainly written in the late 1970s and early 1980s and reflected the best practice at the time of its adoption in 1983. It is remarkable that the two Methane ships, designed in the early 1960s, stand up well to assessment against the Code requirements. It is a credit to the ship designers that the final Code should reflect much of their thinking. In particular the design of the cargo containment system would satisfy the cargo tank IMO Type A designation. The gas-burning system would seem to stand up well to the requirements of Chapter 16* of the IGC Code.

The Methane ships fell short of the Code requirements in a few areas. First, there was a lack of any secondary means of disposing of excess boil-off gas, i. e. a steam dump system. In addition, although the ships had a pneumatic Essential Features for Safe Operations: Emergency Shut Down (ESD), Risk Assessment, and Hazard Analysisemergency shutdown (ESD) system, it would not have complied with the Code’s requirements for overfill protection. It was linked to shore.

Methane Princess and Methane Progress operated successfully throughout their service lives. They were easy to operate and popular with their crews, although one or two problem areas came to light. The data-logger, for example, was never very reliable and needed frequent attention from the manufacturer’s representative to keep it working. Both vessels also suffered fatigue cracks in their inner hulls, leading to water ingress to the insulation. Repair techniques were developed for this problem, and accounts at the time claimed that the insulation properties of balsa wood did not seem to degrade when it became soaked.

A more frequent problem was cracks developing in the insulation system. These were indicated by areas of frost on the inner hull, or «cold spots». An in-service technique was developed involving drilling through the inner hull at the site of a cold spot and injecting a resin adhesive to seal the crack. This seemed to work well, but it did mean that there had to be a regular inspection routine for the inner hull to check for cold spots.

In addition there was no way of assessing the ability of the insulation system to act as a secondary barrier. It can now only be a matter of conjecture as to how effective it would have been after these repairs if there had been a leakage of LNG. Fortunately there was no instance of such leakage during the time the pair were in service.

When it comes to LNGC newbuildings today, steam turbine ships have largely been eclipsed by diesel-driven vessels. However, it is interesting to compare Methane Princess and Methane Progress with the latest designs of steam LNGCs built up to about six years ago. Obviously ship size is the biggest change, as modern steam turbine LNGCs have a cargo-carrying capacity which is about five times that of the Methane ships. Service speeds are now a little higher at about 19 knots.

Since the adoption of the IGC Code, no LNG ships have been built with LNG IMO Tanks/Containment SystemsType A tanks. All new LNGCs are fitted with shipboard inert gas generators and vapour return compressors. Nitrogen generators have replaced liquid nitrogen storage. The steam propulsion concept has remained much the same, with two boilers, now roof-fired, supplying steam to the main turbine and, typically, to two turbo generators. These generators are now condensing sets rather than back-pressure sets.

All steam turbine ships are fitted with steam dump systems to provide a secondary means of disposal for cargo boil-off gas. The gas-firing system on modern vessels is very close in concept to that of the Methane ships, with the exception that many have a forcing vaporiser since modern cargo boil-off rates do not supply enough gas to achieve service speeds on gas only.

It still seems amazing that only five years after the successful Methane Pioneer trial shipments and three years after the UK government approved the project, the first two purpose-built LNG carriers should enter service. This start-to-finish timetable compares very favourably with all subsequent LNG projects!

Another indicator that the maritime industry was confident in the ability of these ships to perform as required, despite their novel design and the challenging cargo, was the fact that the insurance market insured Methane Princess and Methane Progress with no additional premium or deductible compared with the going rate for clean product tankers.

CAMEL – the first LNG export terminal

Fifty years ago, when several of the Atlantic Basin’s leading economies realised they would need to begin importing natural gas, Algeria was the go-to country.

The history of Algerian hydrocarbons began in 1956 with the discoveries of the Hassi Messaoud and Hassi R’Mel fields by French oil companies. The development of these deposits, deep in the Sahara desert, was made first within the framework of a Petroleum Code and then with the help of an organisation established to develop the region’s resources. The group included not only Algerian interests but also the French oil companies involved in the exploration work.

The recoverable reserves of the Hassi R’Mel, which is Arabic for «sand well», were determined to be over 50 trillion ft³ (1 400 billion m³) of gas, with the methane content of the gas at about 85 percent. At the time of discovery, these figures put Algeria in fourth place in the world league table of natural gas reserves, after the US, the Russia and Iran.

A first step to amend Algeria’s hydrocarbon legislation was taken following the country’s independence in 1962. Amongst the initial measures was the creation of Sonatrach, the state oil and gas company, at the end of 1963.

A key Sonatrach senior officer during those early years was Nordine Ait-Laoussine. Having completed his studies in 1963 and worked in the country’s Department of Mines for a short period, he joined Sonatrach. By 1969 Ait-Laoussine was the company’s vice-president hydrocarbons and in 1971 he was appointed marketing vice-president. In this position he negotiated various of the gas sale and purchase agreements behind his country’s pioneering LNG export projects.

Looking back at these challenging times, Nordine Ait-Laoussine states, Following independence a few of the persons in charge of developing the Algerian economy, including Belaid Abdessalem, were particularly keen to exploit Algerian gas resources. And, when appointed the first president of Sonatrach, Mr Abdessalem fully supported the then Algerian president Houari Boumedienne in his drive to build Algeria’s oil and gas exports and increase their value to the country in the process. Sonatrach’s control of Algerian gas development, as enshrined in gas policy agreements concluded in 1965, and the improvement of its management resources provided the company with the necessary means to accomplish this task.

«In the early 1960s subsea pipeline technology was not very advanced and negotiations with neighbouring countries on the construction of, and commercial arrangements for, a transit pipeline appeared complicated», continues Mr Ait-Laoussine. «Although the commercial liquefaction of LNG was still considered as experimental at that time, Algeria’s Compagnie Algérienne du Méthane Liquide (CAMEL) project in the early 1960s was to prove its viability on an industrial scale. Gas for the new liquefaction plant at Arzew was supplied from the Hassi R’Mel field via a 500 km pipeline».

The CAMEL project had four participants:

• Conch International Methane;
• the Algerian Development Bank and two oil companies;
• one Algerian and one French.

The Algerian body was the National Society of Exploration and Exploitation of Oil in Algeria (SN Repal) while the other, the Bureau de Recherches Pétrolières (BRP), was a subsidiary of Elf Aquitaine.

«While CAMEL was a modest-size project compared to the liquefaction trains of today, it was a pioneering initiative and the largest industrial undertaking in the LNG sector at the time», adds Mr Ait-Laoussine. «Launched in 1960 the project was initially managed by CAMEL itself but was taken over by Sonatrach following Algeria’s 1965 gas policy agreements».

Read also: Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier Market Insights

«On 14 September 1962 Ahmed Ben Bella, the first president of the newly established Algerian republic, laid the foundation stone at the Arzew plant, and construction work on the CAMEL facility began. The successful completion of the project owed much to the teamwork between French, British, American and Dutch engineers. The first Algerian gas engineers were also assigned to the team».

The cascade technology developed by Technip and Air Liquide was chosen for the CAMEL liquefaction process. This process utilised three separate cooling cycles, employing propane, ethylene and methane as the respective refrigeration media. The liquefaction plant’s three trains had the capacity to produce about 1,2 million tonnes per annum (mta) of LNG. The CAMEL terminal had three 11 000 m³ aboveground storage tanks, an inground tank with a capacity of 38 000 m³ and an impressive 350 km of pipework. Ahmed Ben Bella came back to inaugurate the plant on 27 September 1964.

The UK had signed up for two-thirds of CAMEL’s output and France one-third. To complete the two supply chains that would be served by the world’s first commercial-scale LNG liquefaction plant, reception terminals were built at Canvey Island in the UK and at Le Havre in France. In addition the 27 400 m³ Methane Princess and Methane Progress were built to carry cargoes for the UK while the 25 500 m³ Jules Verne was completed for the French shipments. The capacity of each ship was equivalent to roughly three days of LNG production at the CAMEL plant.

The Canvey Island facilities and the ships are described in other articles in this publication, but it is important to note that CAMEL started loading the first-ever shipment of LNG sold under a long-term contract on 26 September 1964. That milestone cargo was despatched to Canvey Island on Methane Princess.

The Le Havre regasification terminal featured three 12 000 m³ aboveground storage tanks of 9 percent nickel steel. Jules Verne delivered the first CAMEL cargo to the facility on 28 March 1965. Le Havre operated for over 20 years before being dismantled in the late 1980s.

Following the CAMEL project, the wider development of Algeria’s gas resources had to accommodate the choices of the government’s hydrocarbon policy. While French companies wanted to produce more oil, the Algerian authorities were anxious to better monetise the country’s condensate and natural gas resources, and to avoid gas flaring in the process.

«At this point Algeria implemented its Valorisation of Hydrocarbons (VALHYD) programme», comments Nordine Ait-Laoussine. «The objective of this initiative was to optimise the production of Hassi R’Mel by selling all the gas that could be sold and to inject any excess gas volumes back into oil wells to enhance the production of oil and liquids».

At the same time, the Algerians wanted to extend the customer base for their gas exports and to gain independence from their total reliance on French companies. This policy underpinned the construction of the country’s second liquefaction plant, at Skikda. With a capacity of 7,5 mta of LNG, this was a much larger complex than the CAMEL plant, and new contracts were negotiated with US buyers and other European customers, including the Italians and the Spanish.

The 25-year sale and purchase agreement with El Paso in the US was concluded at the ridiculously low price of US $ 0,30/million British thermal units (Btu) – just enough to earn a decent return and make it a commercially more sensible option than flaring the gas. When Houari Boumedienne died in 1978, the new Algerian government immediately cancelled this contract. The famous El Paso project is covered in a separate article else where in this publication.

During the 1970s the Algerian authorities sought to build LNG production capacity to the 22,5 mta mark, a goal which was achieved through the construction of two new liquefaction plants at Arzew rated at an aggregate 16 mta. A series of sales contracts were agreed with the Italians as well as a new one with Gaz de France.

The development of LNG slowed down progressively from the early 1980s as emphasis was placed on the construction of trans-Mediterranean subsea pipelines and the development of new contracts for piped gas. At one point the Algerian government and Sonatrach had declared that they hoped to achieve total gas exports, including LNG and piped gas, of 80 billion m³ a year by the end of the century. However, this target was never reached.

By the late 1970s CAMEL, with its limited production capacity, had become a relatively minor LNG project. When the 15-year gas purchase contract with the UK came up for renewal, it was left to expire at the appointed date in 1979. The UK had discovered significant volumes of gas in the North Sea and no longer had need of LNG imports.

Maintenance work was carried out on the CAMEL plant at the end of the 1980s, with the principal focus on the renewal of the aboveground tanks. More extensive modifications were implemented in 1997–98, including the provision of a new control system. These changes necessitated some targeted training for the plant workers who were not accustomed to these new technologies.

CAMEL’s days were numbered, however, as the plant had become uneconomical to run and customer requirements had changed. In 2004 a decision was taken to decommission the facility. This necessitated, amongst other things, the complete removal of the inground storage arrangements at the site, a task carried out in 2007. The final curtain came down on the CAMEL LNG plant in 2010, some 46 years after it opened for business.