A complete LNG supply solution along waterways

A complete LNG supply solution along waterways

Project outlook

Context - European Directive

� Directive 2014/94/EU - deployment of alternative fuelsinfrastructure:� A core network of refueling points for LNG

• In maritime ports by the end of 2025

• In inland ports by the end of 2030

• Refueling points include LNG terminals, tanks, mobile containers, bunker vessels

and barges.

� Member States ensure an appropriate distribution system between storage

stations and refueling points:

• refueling points accessible to the public along TEN-T Core Network

• Approx. every 400km (minimum range of LNG heavy-duty motor vehicles)

May 2019 2LNG Logistics - project

overview & main results

Goals

� Goals to achieve:� define a global supply solution :

• responding to European Directives,

• regarding barge and terminal,

� develop studies to :

• validate basis,

select technologies for key components : terminals, arms, LNG containment,• select technologies for key components : terminals, arms, LNG containment,

� design a complete solution for a wide scale axis: Medit. Sea to Rhône – Saône:

• based on a modular design,

• establishing standards for future exportation to whole Europe,

• taking into account required flexibility to adapt the concept for future use



Partnership & roles

TL&Associés (2003): consulting in transport & logistics, wide experience in mounting/coordinating R&D innovation

projects � admin coordination, exploitation & business plan, dissemination

d2m engineering (1986): wide experience in naval architecture and marine engineering: offshore Oil & Gas and MRE,

naval, ports and terminals � scientific coordination, barge design and cost estimate

Romane (2005): inventor of a semi submersible barge loader concept (www.romane-bl.com), large experience of project

development in Europe and Africa � logistics concept, exploitation & business plan

Cryogenic containment : LNG tank equipment distributor and integrator � LNG bunkering technologies

� Integration of a High Level Advisory Group (HLAG) including private (ports, logistics association or

clusters, ship-owners, chargers, …) and public organizations (IWW authorities, regional authorities, …),

led by Voies Navigables de France / Rhône-Saône unit

Cryogenic containment : LNG tank equipment distributor and integrator � LNG bunkering technologies

Wärtsila (1834): World leader in LNG technologies � LNG technologies

CFT: ship-owner experienced in inland industrial shipping � inland LNG operations, exploitation & maintenance

GAZOCEAN: seagoing LNG Carrier operator � safety of operations and operational need specification

ENGIE: French leader in electricity and gas supply � expert assessment in energetic field



Work programme



Activities



Activity 2 - Context analysis

� Market assumptions� LNG needs are evenly shared between Pagny and Loire/Rhône

� Demand in 2030 ~60 000m3/year≈ 190km

≈ 330km



Activity 2 - Functional Analysis

� Identify Functions

� User Related (URF)

� Product Related (PRF)

� Constraint (CSF)

� Organize / Characterize

� Order

� Evaluate

� Sea LNG Terminal URF� Receive LNG from LNG Barge

� Supply LNG fueled vessels & vehicles

� Store LNG

� Supply LNG to industrial end-users

� LNG Barge URF� Evaluate

� Sea LNG Terminal URF� Receive LNG from LNG Carrier

� Supply LNG to LNG barges

� Store LNG

� Common CSF

� Comply with applicable rules

� Be integrated into environment

� Deliver LNG to Inland terminals

� Load LNG at Sea terminal

� Transport LNG on IWW from Sea terminal to

inland terminals

� Bunker LNG to LNG fueled vessels

� Store LNG along IWW

� PRF are related to each component’s URF



Activity 2 – Scenarios

� 2 variables

� Containment

• Container

• Bulk

� Propulsion

20' ≈ 22 m3

40' ≈ 47 m3

- 1, 20' container- 1, 40' container

48 m3

61 m3

Fos Sur Mer

• Pushed (convoys possible)

• Self propelled

� Assumptions� 80% mobilization ratio

� Minimize the number of barge(s) and inland storage(s)



Vmax = 3000 m 3Max : 48 x 40' container Vmax = 2000 m 3

Activity 2 – LNG delivering strategies



Activities



Activity 3 - Barge design & certification

� 4 alternatives to discriminate : self-propelled/pushed and bulk/container

� Barge capacity

Barge solutionBulk Container

Non-propelled Self propelled Non-propelled Self propelled

Number of

barge1 1 1 1

LNG volume

carried3000 2500 2800 2304

� Other particulars� Maximum allowable barge length: 185.0 m

� Maximum allowable barge width: 11.45 m

� Maximum allowable barge draft: 3.0 m

� Maximum allowable air draft: 6.3 m

� Minimum required speed: 15 km/h

� Maximum allowable speed: 30 km/h

carried

Market Share 45% 37% 34% 28%



Activity 3 - Barge design

� LNG bulk – Pushed barge

� 2 barges for a total length of 185m (82

+ 82 + 21)

� Definition of available volumes

� Decision needed for containment

� LNG bulk – Self propelled

� Length of 135m

� Definition of available volumes

� Decision needed for containment



Activity 3 – Containment technologies

Containment

technologies assessment

� Technology: pressure tanks

� Shape to be determined

for best cost/volume ratio

� Strong constraint on air

ADN :

� Tank under pressure and independant of the hullstructure

� Max capacity per tank 1000m3

=Type C

draft (dome above the

tank)



Results

Activity 3 – Containments technologies comparison

� Cylindrical: not enough capacity because height limitation

� Bilobic: width constraint leading to height loss

� Round Wall: best result to optimize width

� Corner Wall: best result to optimize length



� Choice of solution� Pushed

+ Modular capacity & more flexibility

+ No immobilization of engines

+ Could be used as temporary storage (?)

+ Maximize of LNG transported

WP3 – Barge design – Choice of solution

� List of main equipment to integrate

� LPV Containment

� Cargo Handling systems

� Gas handling systems

� Dome equipment

� Venting mast

� Round walls LPV or multilobe pressure tanks� Best cost/m3 ratio

� Membrane tanks still forbidden

� 2 x 750 m3� 4 x 375 m3 economically less interesting

� 1 x 1500 m3 not technically viable (free

surface effects, damage stability, etc.)

16LNG Logistics - project

overview & main resultsMay 2019

WP3 – Barge design – 3D Model

17May 2019 LNG Logistics - project


WP3 – Barge design – General Arrangement

� General arrangement� As simple as possible

� Strong constraints on drafts

� Cargo process in the middle

� Machinery forward

� Hydrostatics and Intact Stability� Hydrostatics and Intact Stability� Strong constraints on drafts and light cargo -> Solid Ballast required

� No Intact stability issue following rules & regulations



WP3 – Barge design – main solutions

� Damage Stability:

� Following rules & regulation, lateral damage extend taken into account:

� Bottom damage as well considered � all criteria are fullfilled

� Cargo containment and handling systems

� As few equipments as possible

� Immersed cargo pumps / Vapor compressor (discharge whatever the pressure in the terminal)

� No reliquefaction, no BOG consumerreliquefaction, no BOG consumer

� Systems to be installed in terminals

� N2 for purging (only small storage onboard - bottles) / Gas warm up

� Marine systems:� Ballast system with same mass capacity as cargo -> real time compensation

� Bilge and firefighting system using ballast pumps as far as regulation allows (one bilge pump in cargo

section compulsory)

� Power balance� Rudder and bow thruster power supply from tug boat

� Main consumer (peak power & fuel consumption): cargo and ballast pumps � Energy source: diesel oil



Activities



Activity 4 - IWW terminal concepts

IWW terminal: 4 concepts to discriminate

� CASE A: Inland facilities only considered as container transit area

� CASE B : Inland facilities considered as

� storage of LNG containers

� delivery location of LNG (customer reception, LNG qty metering, etc. )



Activity 4 - IWW terminal concepts

IWW terminal: 4 concepts to discriminate

� CASE C : Inland facilities considered as LNG transfer area

� CASE D : Inland facilities considered as LNG storage area



Activity 4 - IWW terminal search methodology

� It depends on :� Location (What can be done about infrastructures)

� Market (type of comsumption)

� Regulation

� Choice of IWW terminal location� Choice of IWW terminal location� Edit a list of criteria in association with visits and interviews on sites

� For each criterion, define grades to be granted to alternatives

� Affect each criterion with a weighing coefficient reflecting its weight in the

choice

� For each alternative, add the weighed scores

� Compare the alternatives and consult the experts (HLAG) to get their opinion

on the procedure/results



Activity 4 - IWW terminal search methodology

Overview of the notation for Arles

Results



Remind that the market does not count in thenotation while it is a main criterion for the choiceof location.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to quantify the

share of the Rhône/Saône market compared to

the national market.

To go further, hypothesis will be taken.

Activity 4 –Choice of scenario

Why are 2 barges needed for case C ? According to authorities, if a barge is at the dock more than 50% of its operating time then the regulation concerned is the ICPE and the quantity stored has to be assimilated to the inland storage but it is limited to 476m3 for SEVESO Low threslhold. � 2 barges taking turns every 6 days. (rise 3d, down 2d, loading 1d)

Why choosing case C for Pagny-Le-Château ?- Pagny-Le-Château allows us to exploit all the distribution means (container trucks,

containers rail, trucks and barge self-propelled)

- Good example if we want to implement this model elsewhere

- If we want to remain realistic from a consumption point of view, no need to implement large

storage facilities as in case D



Activity 4 – Consumption hypothesis to match the tank

of the barge

� Why a capacity of 450m3 for the intermediate storage ?

� Amount below the SEVESO High threshold

� Why a capacity of 1500m3 for the barge ?

� See below the evolution of the amount of LNG in tanks allowing to respect the regulation �

having 2 barges taking turns every 6 days, the Inland Terminal meets SEVESO Low threshold



Activity 4 – PID from a R-S business case

� LNG DISTRIBUTION NETWORK: PAGNY-LE-CHÂTEAU BUSINESS CASE TO BUILD

THE PID



Activity 4 – Main flow diagram



Activity 4 – Operation & maintenance

Maintenance plan of LNG equipment

Component Sub-component Jobs Periodicity

Cargo

LNG PumpPump overhaul 30 months

Pump replace parts 30 months

Elec.Motor inspection 30 months

Cryogenic valveGeneral inspection 1months

General lubrication 6months

General overhaul 30months

Control valve and actuator General inspection 12 months

VaporizerGeneral cleaning 12months

General inspection 12months

Gas detectionGeneral inspection 1 week /6 months

General replace sensor 3 months

Pressure test Annually

Visual inspection Before use/Annually

equipment Cargo transfer system Flexible hoses

Visual inspection Before use/Annually

Electric continuity test Annually

Withdrawal Between 4 and 6 years

Cargo containment systemSafety valves Pressure test 30 months

Cargo tanks Survey 5 years

Auxiliary

Nitrogen generator

Elect Motor check weekly/monthly

Elect Motor overhaul 30 months

Comp Replace oil 30 months

Comp check weekly/monthly/ 3 monthly

Membrane Replace 5 years

O2 Sensor Calibration test monthly

Carbon filters replacement 6 monthly

Fire pump

Pump overhaul 12 months

Pump maintenance 2 weeks

Pump replace bearing 20000 hours

Elec.Motor check monthly / yearly

Elec.Motor maintenance 24 months



Activities



Activity 5 – Definition of terminal

� Design inspired by existing Wärtsilä projects of similar size

� Modular Capacity of 9000 m3� Possible extensions

� Filling possible from � Offshore : LNG feeder

� Onshore : LNG piping from existing facility � Onshore : LNG piping from existing facility or by trucks

� Discharge possible to � Bays for trucks or ISO containers

� Local consumer or regasification station

� Transfer capacity� 2 bays, 16h working days, 5 days a week →

approx. 160 containers/week

Extension area B

Exten

sion area

A



Activity 5 – Alternative design

� Ship-to-shore or shore-to-ship transfer

through Floating Transfer Terminal (FTT)

� Onshore storage

� Small impacts� Environmental

Hose reels

KHobra

module

Crane

Utility supply from

shore

Floating hose(s)

from shore reel

FTT mooring /

docking station

Alternative innovative design : Jettyless terminal

� Environmental

� Economical

� Functional

� Constructibility (no marine civil works)

� Under development by� Wärtsilä

� Houlder

� Klaw LNG

� Trelleborg

from shore reel

N2 and Compressed air

FTT operation station



Activity 5 – Comparison of the 2 solutions

Conventional vs. Jettyless



Activity 5 – LNG storage

Type: Pressurized Horizontal Vacuum Insulated

Fluid: LNG

Design code: EN

May 2019

1000 CBM LNG tank 3D-model

Design code: EN

MAWP barg 4 - 8 (Shall be decided at latter stage)

Design temperature of Inner vessel: °C -196/+50

Design temperature of Outer Jacket: °C +10/+50

Geometrical volume of inner vessel (Gross): m3 1000

Effective volume of Inner vessel @ 95% filling: m3 950

Type of Insulation: Vacuum + perlite

Main material: Inner shell/Head 1.4301, 1.4306, 1.4307 or corresponding

Outer shell/Head P355NL2 or corresponding

Approximate dimensions:

Outer jacket, internal diameter:

Outer jacket, approx. length:

m

m

6,3

42,0

Approximate weight of empty tank: ton 230



Activities



Activity 6 – Environmental impact of the project

� Litterature review of regulations & initiatives� SPECIAL FOCUS: NATURA 2000 ZONE

• Definition of the European Commission & Conservation objectives

• Natura 2000 zones along the Rhone-Saone river � Screening / Assessing / Deciding

� Maritime transport emissions regulations

• SOx regulations and upcoming SOx constraints worldwide � SECA

• NOx regulations & upcoming NOx contraints in Europe � NECA• NOx regulations & upcoming NOx contraints in Europe � NECA

• CO2 emissions reduction initiative � 50% reduction by 2050

� European inland waterways emissions regulations � Stage V

� Road transport emissions regulations

• Methane emissions

• PM and PN limits

• Noise reduction for the road sector

� Power generation emissions regulations

� Governmental policies and support: ports economic incentives for LNG bunkering



Activity 6 - Risks & impacts / Methodology

� Preliminary risk analysis: barge exploitation cycle

� From then� Operations description

LNG

Loading

LNG

Unloading

StrippingCooling

Down

Gassing

Up*

Warming

Up

Ballast Voyage

Laden Voyage

� Operations description

� Equipment lists

� Hazid

InertingInerting

DryingAerating

Dry Docking

Operation at terminal

Operation at sea



Activity 6 - Risks & impacts / Operations

Operations to be considered� Inerting

� Gassing up

� Cooling down

� Loading

� Navigation

� Unloading

Example of hazard analysis

HazardIncreased pressure in LNG tanks

SafeguardPressure monitoring

� Tank warming up

� Inerting

� Aerating

CauseLow consumption

Temperature increase

Loss of vacuum insulation

ConsequenceWorst case: vessel rupture due to overpressure

eventually causing fire and/or explosion

Alarms

Trips

RecommendationsInvestigate possibility of a mobile flare to burn

boil-off instead of releasing it to atmosphere



Node Number of scenarios

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Node: 1. Navigation 35 29 3

Node: 2. LNG Terminal approach,

mooring and operation 26 22 5

Activity 6 - Risks & impacts / HAZID recommendations

Recommendations Place(s) UsedMaximum Risk

(S&E) (A)

1Define company policy dedicated to LNG barge (including crew training & emergency procedure)

Causes: 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.3, 1.1.8.2, 1.1.9.2, 1.1.9.3, 1.3.1.1, 1.3.2.1,

1.3.2.2, 1.3.3.1, 1.5.2.2, 1.6.1.1, 1.6.1.2, 1.6.1.3, 2.2.2.5, 2.2.2.6,

2.2.2.7, 2.2.2.8, 2.5.2.2, 2.6.2.1, 2.6.2.2, 2.6.2.3

High High

2Investigate the need to install a radar on the LNG barge to avoid collisions as far as possible Causes: 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.3 Medium Medium

3Investigate the need to develop a river information system Causes: 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.3 Medium Medium

4Ensure that an independent power supply is installed on the LNG Barge to supply LNG tank regulation and

instrumentation in order to monitor LNG tank parameters in any situationCauses: 1.1.5.1 Low Low

5Define an operational procedure to ensure that the pressure inside LNG tanks is acceptable prior to passing

sensitive sites lock, bridge, center of population, industrial plantCauses: 1.1.8.2, 1.1.9.3, 1.3.3.1 High Medium

6Ensure that lock national regulation takes into account the LNG specificities Causes: 1.1.8.2 High Medium

7Consider including mitigation in barge design to avoid damages on LNG equipment when passing bridges. Causes: 1.1.9.2 High High

8Define a procedure to ensure that the barge air draft is sufficient to allow passage under each bridge on the

trip prior loading/departureCauses: 1.1.9.2 High High

9Define procedure to follow LNG tanks parameters during voyage Causes: 1.2.1.6, 1.3.3.1 Medium Medium

10Provide a mean to allow controllable venting with associated equipment in accordance with regulation Causes: 1.2.1.8, 1.3.3.1, 2.2.1.8 Medium Medium

11Investigate the possibility to have a common line on LNG tanks linked to a vent mast Causes: 1.2.1.8, 2.2.1.8 Medium Medium

12Adapt maintenance plan according classification societies requirements and makers recommendations Causes: 1.3.1.1 Medium Medium

13Make and label all LNG piping equipment as per ISO 14726 Causes: 1.3.1.2 Low Low

14Define a procedure in case of LNG/NG leak Causes: 1.3.2.1 Low Low

15Investigate the need to install nitrogen/ Inert gas supply to inert the LNG piping Causes: 1.3.2.1 Low Low

16Study with onshore fire department the procedure in case of fire nearby sensitive site Causes: 1.3.4.1 Medium Medium

17

Define a LNG loading and unloading procedures including connection, pressure test, ESD test, cooling-down,

ramp-up, full flow, ramp down, purging, inerting the connection and disconnection, as well as LNG tanks

pressure management

Causes: 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 2.1.1.5, 2.1.1.6, 2.1.1.8,

2.1.1.9High Medium

18Arrange compatibility study between the terminal and the barge operators before the first callCauses: 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 2.1.1.5, 2.1.1.8, 2.1.1.9,

2.2.2.5, 2.2.2.6, 2.2.2.7, 2.2.2.8High High

19Ensure that the nitrogen could be supplied by the barge or the terminal in order to make the pressure test

prior to transfer/ inerting connection after LNG transferCauses: 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.6 High Medium

20Investigate the need to install melting fuses on LNG system Causes: 1.3.4.2 Medium Medium

21Ensure adequate terminal staff watch is permanently guaranteed during cargo operations Causes: 2.1.1.9 Low Medium

22Define weather limitation (current, wind, lightning, tide, flood...) above which cargo operation should be

stopped or cancelled Causes: 2.2.2.5, 2.2.2.6, 2.2.2.7, 2.2.2.8 Medium High

23Arrange pre-meeting between the terminal and the barge operators before each LNG transfer operationCauses: 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 2.1.1.5, 2.2.2.5, 2.2.2.6,

2.2.2.7, 2.2.2.8High High



Activities



Activity 7 – Exploitation&business plan / Markets

Applicable segment Main drivers for small scale LNG uptake

All SSLNG

applications

Corporate image of sustainability

Possible carbon charges/taxes in the future?

Low LNG prices, compared to other complying solutions and oil based products: global LNG oversupply supports long term low LNG prices

Supply volumes guaranteed for centuries

LNG as road fuel

LNG stable and low price levels; the likely upside of a positive balance between depreciation and fuel spread over the time will be shared

Air quality, Climate change, oil dependency…

Increasing number of filling stations and developing infrastructure

No (or low) excise duty on fuel itself: Taxation policies differ per country, but they all favor LNG against diesel

Public funding for investments

Government policies and support (EC Directive about infrastructure)

400 hp power range available in Euro VI: truck performance is good

Noise reduction 50% (71 dB)Noise reduction 50% (71 dB)

Competitive range

Admittance in inner cities and environmental zones, during limited access windows

Sustainable fuel with low fine particle emissions

LNG as marine fuel

Increasing demand from stakeholders for environmental-friendly solutions for shipping

Government policies and support (EC Directive about infrastructure)

Environmental future proofing: new vessels without dual fuel capacities risk to not be future proof and may lose residual value, with regards to future

sulphur caps (2020-2025)

IMO’s emissions restrictions (such as ECAs) and LNG inherent environmental advantages

Impact of IMO’s fuel review in 2018, for 2020

New clear rules, such as IGF code, that levels the playground

The challenges of other emissions abatement technologies (SOx scrubbers, EGR, SCR…): conditions to function, disposal of wastewater and chemicals,

etc.

Increasing availability of LNG around coastal areas, in North East Europe and USA

Increasing availability of LNG bunkering infrastructure in Northern Europe

Shipyards confidence and history in gas technology, expertise from LNG carriers

LNG as energy Isolation of users from access to main gas grid



Activity 7 – Expl.&business plan / Potential volumes

� A preliminary market analysis has been done in the beginning of the project to assess the demand for LNG at various scales:

� Worldwide

� European level

� France

� Rhône-Saône river

Worldwide potential for small scale LNG applications

Market 2025 2030

LNG as energy

Remote islands 10-15 mtpa

20 - 25 mtpa Inland remote areas (off-

grid) 5-10 mtpa

LNG as fuel

Sea-going shipping

worldwide 3 - 92 mtpa 12 - 168 mtpa

� Small scale LNG market in Europe in 2015 was globally of 1.7 mtpa that was distributed as such:

� Industry “LNG to Power” (LNG trucks): 1.5 mtpa

� LNG as marine fuel for ships: 0.2 mtpa

� LNG as road fuel for trucks: 0.02 mtpa

LNG as fuel Inland shipping 2.5 mtpa 5 mtpa

Trucks, buses, rail 13 - 45 mtpa 25 - 80 mtpa



million tonnes per annum

European potential for small scale LNG applications

Market 2025 2030

LNG as energy

Remote islands N.A. N.A.

Inland remote areas (off-

grid) N.A. N.A.

LNG as fuel

Sea-going shipping

worldwide 2 - 18 mtpa 4 - 36 mtpa

Inland shipping N.A. 5 mtpa

Trucks, buses, rail 2 - 18 mtpa 2 - 30 mtpa

Activity 7 – Expl. Plan / Estimate of LNG Logistics costs

� A rough estimate has been done for all components of the system, based on components definition

� LNG barge: ~8 M€ LNG BargeStructure 1 577k€

Hull outfitting 275k€

Room outfitting 37k€

Machinery systems 223k€

Cargo systems 3 414k€

� Inland terminal � 6 M€ (basis small scale terminal Oulu)

� Sea terminal � 36 M€ (basis small/medium scale, 9 000 m3)



Cargo systems 3 414k€

Hull and HVAC 208k€

Electricity 240k€

Navigation & controls 181k€

General service 1 649k€

TOTAL 7 804k€

Activity 7 – Business plan / Costs simulation

� Sea port terminal

� Starting ex : Fos sur Mer

� to Solaize (69), Pagny le

Château

� to Salaize (38), Pagny le

Château

Barges LNG Propelled Barges LNG

RW 2 RW 2

750 Cbm 1310 Wt 750 Cbm 1310 Wt

Barge (76,50mx11,40mx4,20m) , Propelled Barge

(109,00mx11,40mx4,20m) €

800 000 € 3 500 000 €

Inside Wartsila equipment cost € 100 000 € 100 000 €

Tanks cost per spécification € 2 237 113 € 2 237 113 €

Total 3 137 113 € 5 837 113 €

River barges for the Rhône Saône service 2

Total € 6 274 226 € 11 674 226 €

Amortization period (number of years) 20 20

Refund annuity 313 711 € 583 711 €

Annuity for maintenance 10 000 € 10 000 €Château



Annuity for maintenance 10 000 € 10 000 €

Annual cots 323 711 € 593 711 €

Transport Cost Fos / Solaize (48h00) € 5 000 € 5 000 €

Transport Cost Solaize / Pagny (24h00) € 1 500 € 1 500 €

Transport Cost Pagny / Fos (72h00) € 6 500 € 6 500 €

Transport Cost on a round trip service Solaize € 10 000 € 10 000 €

Transport Cost on a round trip service Pagny € 3 000 € 3 000 €

Total rotation costs 13 000 € 13 000 €

Number of annual rotation 33 25

Annual cost 429 000 € 340 € 325 000 €

Cost total annual barges 752 711 € 918 711 €

Annual overall volume on fluvial axis cost €/Wt Wt 50 400 14,93 € 32 750 28,05 €

Delivery Solaize Wt 36 000 20,91 € 18 350 50,07 €

Delivery Pagny Wt 14 400 52,27 € 14 400 63,80 €


� LNG barge

� Inland terminal

Barges LNG Propelled Barges LNG

RW 2 RW 2

750 Cbm 1310 Wt 750 Cbm 1310 Wt

Barge (76,50mx11,40mx4,20m) , Propelled Barge (109,00mx11,40mx4,20m) € 800 000 € 3 500 000 €

Inside Wartsila equipment cost € 100 000 € 100 000 €

Tanks cost per spécification € 2 237 113 € 2 237 113 €

Total 3 137 113 € 5 837 113 €

River barges for the Rhône Saône service 2

Total € 6 274 226 € 11 674 226 €




� Inland logistics cost

� Same calculation with LNG Logistics dedicated barge



LNG Barge Annual Volume 50.400 Wt Port Cost Tps. Cost Inland Term. Total Truck CostSolaize (69) provison on terminal cost in €/18Wt 14.40 € 609.50 € 100.00 € 723.90 € 1 000.00 €

Pagny le Château (21) provision on terminal cost in €/18 Wt 14.40 € 1 523.75 € 456.25 € 1 994.40 € 1 800.00 €

Activity 7 – Dissemination

� Web site:

www.lng-logistics.tl-a.netincluding :

� Presentation of the

project & partners

� A dedicated partner

area for documents area for documents

repository

� A public

dissemination

section

� A news section to

announce events &

achievements of the

project



Discussion

May 2019

More info:

• visit www.lng-logistics.tl-a.net

• ask [email protected]



Documents

A complete LNG supply solution along waterways