elba lng from import to export facility - igu
TRANSCRIPT
Confidential 1
March 15-18th meeting
The Woodlands, Texas
International Gas Union Study Group 3:
ELBA LNG – From Import to Export Facility
2
CAUTIONARY NOTE
The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this [report] “Shell”, “Shell group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refer to companies over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. Entities and unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint control are generally referred to “joint ventures” and “joint operations” respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control are referred to as “associates”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in a venture, partnership or company, after exclusion of all third-party interest.
This presentation contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’, ‘‘plan’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘risks’’, “schedule”, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘should’’, ‘‘target’’, ‘‘will’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell’s 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward looking statements contained in this presentation and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this March 15, 2016 presentation. Neither Royal Dutch Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this [report].
We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this [report] that United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
Agenda
From LNG import to export for US/Canada; a short history
US (pipeline) gas quality
Converting LNG import terminal to export – First done in industry w/ US Projects
US Regulatory code/standard implications
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
Maturity and Excess of US Natural Gas
Low gas price since 2009 (shale gas growth)
Extensive pipeline network; Easy access for gas for LNG import and export
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
2006: Many existing/planned; ALL as import terminals
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
2014: Large amount of export (construction; awaiting approval) Note: some planned LNG export locations are not shown
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
US Pipeline Gas Quality Low heating value; no significant change in last 2-3 years with gas plants still removing LPG’s even w/ lower LPG price
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
btu/
scf
Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers
Texas
Louisiana
Pennsylvania
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
Project Overview - Elba Island Quick Facts
Elba Island is ~7 miles from downtown Savannah, GA Regas terminal 100% owned and operated by KM (Southern LNG) Reactivated in October 2001 with expansions in 2006 and 2010 Total Capacity: 11.4 mtpa Terminal is connected to the Elba Express Pipeline also owned and operated by KM
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
Project Overview – Elba LNG
Based on Modular Moveable LNG System (MMLS) technology —10 Units - 2.5 mtpa LNG Export
— Build at vendor shop before regulatory Approval to Construct (ATC)
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
Current Scope Overview
LNG
To LNG/MR impoundments,
stormwater basins, and CPI
Firewater
iC5 Storage
C3 Storage
Reverse Osmosis
Demin and Degasser
Skid
Acid Gas Thermal
Oxidizers
Fuel gas
High Pressure
Header
Low Pressure
Header
Waste Water
Stabilized Condensate
Existing
LNG Tanks
Amine
Heat medium Potable water
NEW Added Instrument Air System
Common Pipe-Rack
Rental Nitrogen
Generation
Feed gas
Separate High and Low Temp Flares and KO Drums
Fuel gas
To fuel
Fuel gas
C2= Storage
Mixed Refrigerant
Storage
Power Import
New Control Room
Boil Off Gas Compressors
LNG Pumps
Dem
in Water to
amine treaters
Debut Vent Gas
Excess BOG to MMLS or
spare pipeline
Normally no flow
x2
x3
x2
To MR impoundment
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
ISBL: MMLS Technology (10 Units)
Converting Import Terminal to Export – Surge Overpressure Study
— Mitigations to prevent surge overpressure for export:
— Add surge drum with very large trip valve , or
— Upgrade flange class, or
— Loading pump shutdown w/ PERC activation
Import Export
Dock piping to/from on-shore tank
150# class 300# class (if greenfield)
Surge Volume and Overpressure
Small (PERC valve is close to ship)
Large (PERC valve is far from pumps at tank)
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
Converting Import Terminal to Export
Import Export Issue/Mitigation
Dock piping codes & standards
Check valve to prevent backflow to ship
No check valve requirements
• Remove check valve • If maintain import needs, large
bypass piping may be space limited
• Vendors have de-featable check valve (w/ sensor) to allow export
Emergency Dock and Tank Shutdown
Proper shutdown systems
Proper shutdown systems
• Need integration of export EDS to import’s.
• If maintain import capability, “switch” to allow proper activation for import mode or export mode
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
Converting Import Terminal to Export
Import Export Issue/Mitigation LNG pumps Small (for
vaporizer feed) Large (+10,000 m3/hr LNGC needs) for ship loading
Added pumps
LNG tank nozzles w/ external pumps
Flow design limit basis low feed to vaporizer feed pumps
Flow needs to ship loading pumps are above tank nozzle design
• Upgrade/add nozzles for higher design flow
• Suction from multiple tanks
BOG Generation Small Large (higher LNG rates)
Potential added BOG compressor(s) and dock-to-BOG piping upsize
Nitrogen in BOG Low (boils off on shipment)
Possibly high - higher BOG rates
• Meet 1% max export spec • Build up if low fuel gas
consumption • Potential added equipment (End
Flash, BOG N2 separation) Copyright of Shell Oil Company
US Regulatory Code/Standard Implications
General US Regulatory Challenges for Export LNG
—FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has overall jurisdiction over other agencies (DOT, EPA, etc.). Focus on safety impact to the public.
—LNG to Free Trade Agreement (FTA) nations: approval per Department of Energy —Typically a given and done early (2 month process; ~Early Select phase)
—LNG to non-FTA countries: per DOE approval; —Highly contested and after FERC Order (right before Approval to Construct, ATC). +2 years.
—Potential large impacts to economics due to LNG destination price.
—Regulatory approval duration: —FERC filing to ATC time about 2.5 years for export vs 1.5 years for import. For all US projects.
—Reasons: higher complexity of design & higher safety risks and emissions; overload of FERC; FERC high level of detail on reviews
—FEED/EPC contractors lack understanding of FERC deliverables: need for specialty contractors
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
US Regulatory Code/Standard Implications Import to Export
Import Export Vapor Cloud Explosion Risk
Relatively Low: • Slow LNG vapor flame front
Higher: • LPG streams such as refrigerant and
condensate; • Impact to separation distances
Air Emissions Low/Medium: • Mostly from vaporizer firing
Higher: • Fugitive Emissions w/ higher design
complexity • CO2 w/ acid gas
Stormwater & Impoundment
Simple: • Lack of large volume of
chemicals & heavy hydrocarbons
Complex: • Volumes of amine and heavier
hydrocarbons • Possible storm water treatment and
segregation needs • Requires larger LNG impoundment
basins
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
US Regulatory Code/Standard Implications; Added vs Outside US
US Non US
LNG and Refrigerant Impoundment Trenches and Basins
Required by code (NFPA 59). Collection areas under all LNG/refrigerant equipment including piping
Generally, not required
Habitable Zone Outside of 50% Lower Flammability Limit (LFL)
Generally less stringent
Vapor Explosion/Blast & Thermal Radiation Modeling
FERC requires “event/scenario based” or “deterministic” approach
More so a QRA (qualitative) approach
Copyright of Shell Oil Company
Summarizing
Change in business environment can change the landscape dramatically in relatively short time.
Conversion from Import to Export more involved than initially thought.
Conversion has inherent constraints in plot layout, size and safety distances requirements. —Flexible applications requires upfront thinking which can easily mitigate some of the
challenges
Permitting and regulatory requirements
Public acceptance of Export vs Import and implications on environment
Copyright of Shell Oil Company