Maritime Navigational Risk Analysis of Shipping North Slope Liquefied Natural Gas

Safeguard Marine LLC

Prepared for Alaska Gasline Port Authority Presented at the Alaska LNG Summit, 2012

Sea Bulk Pride Feb. 3, 2006

•

Purpose

• Identify and analyze the risk mitigation factors

associated with LLNG tankers • Compare and contrast maritime risk limitations of

navigating LLNG tankers in Cook Inlet and Valdez, Alaska

• Comparing contributing factors for shipping LNG in LLNG ships for Nikiski and Valdez:

– Weather patterns

– Tides and Currents

– Ice navigation

– Geographical obstructions

– Depths of water

– Present infrastructure available

Overview

• Alaskan natural gas has been shipped since 1969 using shuttle tankers from Nikiski

• Shipping large volumes will require larger ships creating need for large LNG tankers

• Development of natural gas resources will drive future of Alaskan economy

• Developing these resources requires shipping of natural gas either through Cook Inlet or Prince William Sound

Liquefied Natural Gas Shipping in Alaska

• Most Northern ice free port in North America

• Tides and Currents are minimal

• Deep water port with no draft restraints

• Approaches to Port are all deep water

• Valdez Narrows navigation consideration

• Moderate temperatures winter

• Winds can be significant for periods of time

• Security for tank ships already in place

Valdez

• Coast Guard established scenario for tank ship transits

• SERVS used to escort tankers is not being fully utilized as TAPS output declines

• Cost of oil tanker escorts shared with LLNG, may reduce transportation cost for TAPS

• Tug assist infrastructure in place for large tank ships

• VLCC size tankers have frequented this port

Valdez

• Nikiski docks do not appear to have shoaling problems, no maintenance dredging occurs

• Large tides and currents normal occurrence

• Depth of water for transit dependent on tides to cross shoal area with tankers

• Current dictates when ship traffic can occur

• Minimal Coast Guard presence

• Operational port area for over 40 years

• Vessels' frequenting port shuttle size

Nikiski

• Ice is a navigational occurrence most winters

• Temperatures can be extremely cold

• Ice has impact on shipping protocol

• USCG implements special rules for shipping during winter months due to ice floes

• Safely mooring of ships during ice is critical

• Number of tug assist availability is minimal

• Tug assist in current and ice reduces effectiveness

Nikiski

• Port of Anchorage transit involves navigating shoal area that requires more dredging

• Ice navigation can be more difficult than Nikiski due to the volume and size of ice

• Ice season is typically longer than Nikiski

• Anchorage tides and currents are extreme

Anchorage

• LNG tankers safely calling Nikiski for over 40 years

• Tankers of shuttle size and specifically made for the terminal and port

• Exporting North Slope gas will require larger ships due to the volume of gas

• Year round operations with LLNG size ships at the Nikiski docks may cause undue risk

• Enough risk mitigation factors may not be available to facilitate a safe mooring

Discussion

• North Slope gas export volume will dictate the use of LLNG ships

• These ships will require significant infrastructure capability

• Valdez presently has that capacity in place

• Shuttle tankers have moved crude oil from Valdez to Nikiski refinery supplying the rail belt with refined products

Discussion

• Valdez Port of Preference for export of North Slope Gas from Alaska using LLNG tankers

• Northern most ice free port, already possesses required infrastructure

• LNG terminal in Valdez could be utilized to move LNG to any location at tide water

• Cook Inlet or Southeast or Western Alaska could be alternative receiving ports for North Slope gas

CONCLUSION

Previous Analysis Concluded Valdez presented relative less risk than Cook Inlet

• New research includes survey of 19 Alaska state pilots working in Southwest Alaska

• Major finding of the survey is that Cook Inlet poses greater risk to maritime navigation than Valdez for placement of LNG terminal

Interview of State Pilots

• All active Southwest Alaska State Pilots with over 5 years experience as state pilots

• Interviews of 19 Marine State Pilots total

• Combined Years Piloting Experience: 442 years

• All worked Valdez TAPS and Cook Inlet

• 41 Questions

Water Depth Cook Inlet

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Winter Dredging

Dredging Shoals

Other Shoal Changes

Shoal Changes

Boulder Movement

Actual UKC

10 feet UKC

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Qu

esti

on

s

Tug Assist Cook Inlet

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Conditions prevent Tug Assist Nikiski

Tug Assist Risk Mitigation

Tug Assist During Ice Season

Tug Assist Cook Inlet

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Qu

esti

on

s

Tides, Currents, and Ice Cook Inlet

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Changing Ice Rules

Mitigation Force of Ice

Larger Ships greater effect by Ice

Force of Ice Proportionate to Ship size

Nikiski tides and currents greater risk

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Qu

esti

on

s

Moored LLNG in Cook Inlet

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not Using Engine Effect Safety

Use Engine LLNG Counter Ice Effect

Use Engine to Prevent Ship Break Away

Use Engine to Counter Ice Effect

Risk Mitigation Possible During Heavy Ice

High Risk During Severe Ice

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Qu

esti

on

s

Anchoring of LLNG Ships

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Knowles Head Suitable Anhcorage

Local Communities Negative Perception of

LLNG Anchoring

Kachemak Bay Suitable Anhcorage

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Qu

esti

on

s

Maneuvering of Ships Using Anchor

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Tug Assist Year-Round Possible

Prefer Tug Assist to Anchor

Use Anchor at Nikiski

Anchor Used Control Pivot Reduce Speed

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Qu

esti

on

s

SERVS and Coast Guard

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Increased Traffic in Cook Inlet Require

Traffic Lanes

Would LLNG Terminal Cook Inlet need

SERVS and Coast Guard

SERVS and Coast Guard Provide Adequate

Risk Mitigation

Expansion of SERVS in Valdez for LLNG

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Qu

esti

on

s

LLNG Terminal Locations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

LLNG Terminal Valdez Poses Risk

LLNG Terminal Nikiski Poses Risk

LLNG Terminal North of Forelands Cook

Inlet Poses Risk

Cook Inlet Should Not Be Considered for

LLNG Terminal

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Qu

esti

on

s

Narrative Cook Inlet

• Northern Cook Inlet Terminal: 18 “NO”, 1 “No comment”

• Nikiski: 13 “NO”, 3 conditionally yes, 1 yes

• Risk can’t be mitigated with money

• Mother nature can’t be mitigated

• Risk posed is “Absolutely not [acceptable]”

• “Don’t fly in the face of mother nature”

Narrative Valdez

• All 19 were positive/ Yes

• “Excellent location, deep water, ice free”

• “Where it belongs, Only sensible location”

• “Only Valdez is an option for ships this size”

Mitigating Navigational Risk

• Mitigation of maritime risk starts with location

• Every day decisions made by these mariners

• Tool Box and the Tools to work with when creating a successful outcome

• Art of ship handling/ not a science

Valdez is Safer than Nikiski

• Interview of the boots on the ground

• Valdez is the superior location

• Our obligation to the state as licensed pilots

• Nikiski is proven port for shuttle size ships

• Valdez is proven port for VLCC size ships

Thank you

Safe Guard Marine LLC

Captain Jeff Pierce, jeffpierce78@hotmail.com

Jonathan J. Pierce PhD Jonathan.pierce@ucdenver.edu