Client - environmentclearance.nic.inenvironmentclearance.nic.in/.../Online/TOR/0_0_16_Dec...FSRU-0003-R… · REGASSIFICATION UNIT (FSRU) IN MUMBAI HARBOUR FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

SETTING UP OF FLOATING STORAGE AND

REGASSIFICATION UNIT (FSRU) IN MUMBAI HARBOUR

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

Consultants

Prof. S. Nallayarasu & Prof. S.A. Sannasiraj

Department of Ocean Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Chennai – 600 036, India

Client

MUMBAI PORT TRUST Port house, 3rd Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg,

Ballard Estate

Mumbai – 4000 001.

JUNE 2014

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY

FOR FSRU IN MUMBAI HARBOUR AREA

DOCUMENT NO. IIT-MBPT-FSRU-001

REVISION : C

PAGE : 2/ 136

JUNE 2014

Prof. S. Nallayarasu

Dept. of Ocean Engg., IIT Madras

Prof. S. A. Sannasiraj


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT .................................................................................................................................. 8

1.4 GAS DEMAND .............................................................................................................................................. 8

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 SITE SELECTION .......................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 WAVE SIMULATION .................................................................................................................................... 11

2.3 MOORING ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 11

2.4 DOWN TIME ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 12

2.5 COST ESTIMATE .......................................................................................................................................... 13

2.6 RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................................... 13

3. SITE DATA............................................................................................................................................. 14

3.1 MUMBAI HARBOUR .................................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 PROPOSED FSRU LOCATION ......................................................................................................................... 16

3.3 WATER LEVELS ........................................................................................................................................... 19

3.4 WAVE PARAMETERS.................................................................................................................................... 19

3.5 CURRENT PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................................... 20

3.6 CLIMATE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 21

3.6.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 21

3.6.2 Wind ........................................................................................................................................ 22

3.7 SOFTWARE ................................................................................................................................................ 22

3.8 REFERENCE CODES, STANDARDS AND REPORT .................................................................................................. 23

4. FSRU REQUIREMENT ........................................................................................................................ 24

4.1 MAIN COMPONENTS ................................................................................................................................... 24

4.2 FSRU VESSELS ........................................................................................................................................... 26

4.3 FSRU PROCESS REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................... 27

4.4 FSRU OPERABILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 28

4.5 LNG VESSELS ............................................................................................................................................ 29

5. SITE REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 31

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 3/ 136

JUNE 2014





5.1 JETTY LOCATION ......................................................................................................................................... 31

5.2 APPROACH CHANNEL .................................................................................................................................. 32

5.3 SECURITY .................................................................................................................................................. 33

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ............................................................................................................................ 34

5.5 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 35

5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL, MARINE AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 36

6. WAVE SIMULATION .......................................................................................................................... 37

6.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................. 37

6.2 PROPOSED LOCATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 37

6.3 BATHYMETRY ............................................................................................................................................. 38

6.4 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 39

6.5 WIND INPUT .............................................................................................................................................. 40

6.6 DISCRETIZATION PARAMETERS ...................................................................................................................... 43

6.7 SIMULATION RESULTS AT KARANJA (FL1) ........................................................................................................ 45

6.8 SIMULATION RESULTS AT JAWAHAR DWEEP (FL2) ............................................................................................ 55

6.9 EXTREME CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 65

7. MARINE TERMINAL CONCEPT ...................................................................................................... 68

7.1 JETTY LAYOUT ............................................................................................................................................ 68

7.2 JETTY ORIENTATION .................................................................................................................................... 70

7.3 FSRU AND LNGC VESSEL DIMENSIONS ........................................................................................................... 73

7.4 DREDGE DEPTH REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................... 73

7.5 DREDGING ................................................................................................................................................ 74

7.6 LANDFALL POINT FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................... 76

7.7 JETTY DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 77

8. MOORING ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 79

8.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................. 79

8.2 DESIGN MOORING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 79

8.2.1 Water Depth ............................................................................................................................ 79

8.2.2 Wind Parameter ...................................................................................................................... 79

8.2.3 Wave Parameter ..................................................................................................................... 80

8.2.4 Current Parameter ................................................................................................................... 80

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 4/ 136

JUNE 2014





8.3 FSRU AND LNGC WINDAGE AREAS ............................................................................................................... 80

8.4 DOUBLE BANKING CONFIGURATIONS .............................................................................................................. 81

8.5 MOORING WIRES ........................................................................................................................................ 83

8.6 MOORING DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................... 83

8.6.1 Safety criteria .......................................................................................................................... 83

8.6.2 API Design Offset ..................................................................................................................... 83

8.6.3 API Design Tension .................................................................................................................. 84

8.7 LIMITING VESSEL MOTION............................................................................................................................ 85

8.8 MOORING ANALYSIS RESULTS – FL1 LOCATION ................................................................................................ 86

8.8.1 Mooring Load .......................................................................................................................... 86

8.8.2 Mooring Hook Load ................................................................................................................. 88

8.8.3 Mooring Line Configuration .................................................................................................... 92

8.9 MOORING ANALYSIS RESULTS – FL2 LOCATION ................................................................................................ 98

8.9.1 Mooring Load .......................................................................................................................... 98

8.9.2 Mooring Hook Load ............................................................................................................... 100

8.9.3 Mooring Line Configuration .................................................................................................. 104

9. FSRU OPERABILITY ......................................................................................................................... 110

9.1 DOWNTIME CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................. 110

9.2 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................. 112

9.3 DOWN TIME FOR LOCATION FL1 .................................................................................................................. 114

9.4 DOWN TIME FOR LOCATION FL2 .................................................................................................................. 114

9.5 MOORING TENSION SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 115

10. JETTY STRUCTURE .......................................................................................................................... 116

10.1 DESIGN BASIS .......................................................................................................................................... 116

10.1.1 Design Life ............................................................................................................................. 116

10.1.2 Design Loads .......................................................................................................................... 116

10.1.3 Dead Loads ............................................................................................................................ 117

10.1.4 Live Load ................................................................................................................................ 117

10.1.5 Wave and Current Load ......................................................................................................... 117

10.1.6 Wind Loads ............................................................................................................................ 118

10.1.7 Berthing Loads ....................................................................................................................... 118

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 5/ 136

JUNE 2014





10.1.8 Mooring Loads ....................................................................................................................... 119

10.1.9 Seismic Loads ......................................................................................................................... 119

10.1.10 RC Design Criteria .................................................................................................................. 120

10.1.11 Reinforced concrete ............................................................................................................... 120

10.1.12 Reinforcement steel ............................................................................................................... 120

10.1.13 Structural steel ...................................................................................................................... 120

10.1.14 Marine growth ...................................................................................................................... 120

10.1.15 Pile Design Safety Factor ....................................................................................................... 121

10.1.16 Deck Level .............................................................................................................................. 121

10.1.17 Berthing Criteria .................................................................................................................... 121

10.1.18 Codes and Standards ............................................................................................................. 122

10.2 PROPOSED STUDIES .................................................................................................................................. 124

11. SUBSEA GAS PIPELINE ................................................................................................................... 125

11.1 SUBSEA PIPELINE ...................................................................................................................................... 125

11.2 DESIGN BASIS .......................................................................................................................................... 125

11.3 PROPOSED PIPELINE DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 126

11.4 SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 126

12. PROJECT COST, SCHEDULE AND VIABILITY .......................................................................... 127

12.1 ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 127

12.2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 127

12.3 DREDGING .............................................................................................................................................. 127

12.4 JETTY AND PIPELINES ................................................................................................................................. 128

12.5 FSRU CHARTERING ................................................................................................................................... 129

12.6 SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................................... 129

12.7 VIABILITY ................................................................................................................................................ 129

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – JETTY DRAWINGS

APPENDIX B – PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

APPENDIX C – MOORING ANALYSIS RESULTS – FL1

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 6/ 136

JUNE 2014





APPENDIX D – MOORING ANALYSIS RESULTS – FL2

APPENDIX E – OFFSHORE WIND-WAVE MODEL (WAM)

APPENDIX F – NEARSHOERE WAVE MODEL (SWAN)

APPENDIX G – OPTIMOOR SOFTWARE

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 7/ 136

JUNE 2014





1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

In order to meet the growing demand of natural gas in the markets along the western coast of

India, Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) has decided to pursue the opportunity of setting up

Floating Storage and Regasification Unit(s) (FSRU) in Mumbai harbour area.

In order to undertake the feasibility study of the project, MbPT had appointed Department of

Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras as a technical Consultant for the proposed FSRU project by

a letter Ref : CE.SCB-PMC/581 Dated 23th Oct 2013.

The initial discussion with MbPT chairman indicates that the output for the proposed FSRU

will be 5 MMTPA initially and subsequently can be increased to 10 MTPA. Hence the

planning for the location and its infrastructure shall be based on 5 MMTPA. Further, it is

envisaged that the project will be implemented on a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) mode.

Hence this feasibility report will form basis for inviting private organisations to participate in

the tendering process.

1.2 Scope of the study

The scope of work is defined as below.

Develop Basis of design for Feasibility

Site visit and collect data from MbPT office

FSRU /LNG carrier survey in the market

Collect existing Environmental Data such as wind, current and tidal

information

Hydrodynamic wave simulation for offshore / coastal region of Mumbai

Harbour

Down time analysis

Location Screening based on acceptable sea state limit

Development of Marine Terminal Concept

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 8/ 136

JUNE 2014





Mooring Analysis

Subsea Pipeline / Onshore pipeline

Project Planning and Execution Methodology

Construction Philosophy and Cost Estimate

Prepare feasibility report

The hydrodynamic simulation will be carried out for the two locations and final selected

location will be used for further analysis and concept development.

1.3 Scope of this report

The Feasibility study is carried out using the methodology explained below.

Selection of site based on environmental conditions and space availability

Selection of Parcel size for LNG import and Vessel Size Regasification Plant

Simulation of hydrodynamic parameters such as wave height, period and associated frequency of occurrences using SWAM model for the two proposed locations.

Derivation of acceptable sea states with respect to operability of the FSRU.

Simulation of mooring characteristics based on the sea states.

Determination of down time based on the above factors.

Establishment of linkages such as pipelines and approach channel etc.

Develop Implementation Plan and execution strategy

1.4 Gas Demand

The projected gas demand in the country is summarised below.

"The overall demand would grow from 293 mmscmd (in 2012-13) to 473 mmscmd (in 2016-17) over the 12th plan period and from 494 mmscmd (in 2017-18) to 606 mmscmd (in 2021-22) over the 13th plan period," according to the projections.

"This represents a compounded annual growth rate of 7.5 per cent over the two plan (10 year) periods".

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 9/ 136

JUNE 2014





Of the 473 mmscmd demand at the end of 12th Five Year Plan period, 207 mmscmd would be from power and another 113 mmscmd from fertilizer plants. Power plant would need 307 mmscmd by 2021-22 while fertilizer units may not see any incremental demand during 2017 to 2022.

Domestic natural gas production currently is about 120 mmscmd and another 46.3 mmscmd is imported in form of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The total availability of 164 mmscmd is short of current demand of 189 mmscmd.

State-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC) produces under 51 mmscmd of gas while output from the prolofic KG-D6 fields of Reliance Industries is about 45 mmscmd. Oil India produces 6.6 mmscmd and another 11.9 mmscmd comes from western offshore Panna/Mukta and Tapti fields.

Of the current supplies, 61.4 mmscmd goes to power sector while fertilizer plants consume 37.7 mmscmd. The remaining is used by city gas projects, refineries, petrochemical plants and sponge iron units.

While KG-D6 gas is priced at USD 4.20 per million British thermal unit, PMT gas is priced at USD 5.57-5.73 per mmBtu. ONGC sells gas to priority sector at USD 4.2 per mmBtu and to non-priority sector at USD 4.2-5.25 per mmBtu. LNG is priced at USD 8.4-16 per mmBtu.

According to the projections, domestic gas ouput would rise to 210 mmscmd by 2016-17 with ONGC's gas production rising to 92 mmsmcd. Private firms including Reliance would produce 107 mmscmd.

LNG imports are projected to rise to 258 mmscmd. The incremental imports would come from Petronet LNG Ltd's currently operational Dahej terminal in Gujarat being expanded to 15 million tons from current 10 million tons and its 5 million tons a year facilities each coming up at Kochi in Kerala and east coast.

New terminals are envisaged at Ennore in Tamil Nadu and Mundra in Gujarat while Royal Dutch Shell's Hazira terminal in Gujarat is projected to be expanded to 10 million tons from current 3.6 million tons.

Hence a detailed market survey by an appropriate survey agency shall be conducted within

the Maharashtra region including Mumbai, Pune and neighboring cities for the gas demand.

This will give a clear mandate for the development of the LNG/FSRU terminal and its

viability.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 10/ 136

JUNE 2014





2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Feasibility study for the proposed FSRU terminal within the Mumbai harbour area has been

carried out considering the market demand in the region. Salient features of the study is

summarised in the section.

2.1 Site Selection

An initial site screening was carried out considering the availability of space, safety and

connectivity to shore and corridor for gas pipeline. Two sites were identified. The first site

(FL1) is near Karanja Spoil Ground on the eastern side of main channel and the second site

(FL2) is located near Pir Pau 1st Chemical jetty. The advantages and disadvantages of both

locations are summarised in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of proposed site locations

No FL1 Site FL2 Site

1 The site located away from existing marine

terminals

This is just 700m away from the existing

chemical berth at Pir Pau.

2 The location is just within the harbour limit

and is away from existing facilities.

However, the location is very close the

existing main channel and the anchorages.

Approaching LNG vessels needs to cross many

existing facilities such as JD4, MOT berths 1, 2

and 3, 1st and 2nd chemical berths. Also FL2 is

near residential area, refinery and BARC.

3 Information on the existing geotechnical

data indicates that the dredging may not

pose as difficult as the soil conditions are

soft in nature.

Preliminary review of existing data on seabed

and bathymetry indicates that the ground

conditions rocky may have problems for

dredging.

4 Connectivity to the coast for gas pipeline is

longer (approximately 7 km) and may pose

challenges during initial public hearing due

to fisherman activities.

May not be a hindrance as the area is normally

not used by the fisher man any activities.

However, the site is located in the vicinity of

tourist Island.

5 The site is located at the periphery of the

port limit and may be exposed to sea swells

during monsoon.

As the location is well within the inner harbour

area and is well protected from any sea swells.

Considering the above, it is felt that though both sites are used for further study, FL1

(Karanja) shall be selected primarily based on its safety to the existing facilities.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 11/ 136

JUNE 2014





2.2 Wave Simulation

A hydrodynamic wave simulation has been carried out using offshore wind-wave model

(WAM) and near shore propagation using shallow SWAN model. Wind and wave statistics

were derived for both normal operating ad extreme criteria for establishing down time and

mooring system analysis. Following important inference can be derived from the study.

The operational (1 year return) and extreme (100 year return) wave heights at FL1

site is 3.5m and 4.9m respectively.

The operational (1 year return) and extreme (100 year return) wave heights at FL2

site is 2.3m and 3.2m respectively.

Effect of long period Sea swells may not pose a threat for pilotage and marine

operations at FL2 location while it may be an issue at FL1 location.

The acceptable sea state for operation (Hs<2.5m) is 95% at FL1 location and 99% at

FL2 location.

2.3 Mooring Analysis

In order to establish technical feasibility with regard to the downtime of the terminal, the

feasibility of station keeping the FSRU at the proposed location has been carried out using

mooring analysis and vessel movement assessment for both FSRU and LNG shuttle tankers.

Following points shall be carried forward while finalizing the location and proposal for

locating the FSRU.

The mooring analysis based on standard mooring configuration indicates that the

feasibility of mooring FSRU and LNG vessel at both locations seems feasible except

during monsoon period at FL1 location.

Berth has been oriented towards the north-east to reduce the effect of current and

wave on the berthing structures and mooring line.

Based on the mooring line tension obtained from the analysis, the FSRU vessel may

require non-standard mooring configuration to avoid line breakage during monsoon

period.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 12/ 136

JUNE 2014





2.4 Down Time Analysis

Down time analysis has been carried out based on the following criteria.

FSRU is able to operate without any hindrance due to environmental conditions

Sufficient LNG is available in the storage tanks.

In order to achieve the above, LNG carriers shall be able berth and unload the cargo to the

FSRU. The unloading operation can be divided in to following three activities.

Berthing and associated peripheral activities such as pilotage, mooring and

connecting loading arms, crew transfer and customs clearance etc. is taken as 6

hours.

Unloading of LNG in to FSRU storage from LNG Carrier is taken as 24 hours.

De-berthing of the LNG carrier is taken as 6 hours.

The LNG import in to the terminal requires every 4.8 days; a LNG vessel shall berth and

unload the cargo. This is to achieve a throughput of 5 MTPA from the FSRU terminal.

Based on the above criteria, operability has been established using the limiting sea state as

listed below.

Significant wave height of 1.5m for berthing,

2.5m for unloading

and 3m for de-berthing.

Using the above, operability time is 95% and 97% for FL1 and FL2 respectively which

indicates a downtime of 5% at the FL1 location and 1% at FL2 location.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 13/ 136

JUNE 2014





2.5 Cost Estimate

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the Mumbai Harbour area is suitable for

locating an FSRU terminal. The development includes the following.

FSRU (Floating Storage and Re-gasification Unit) Capacity, vessel dimensions, its chartering cost and implementation plan.

Marine Terminal inclusive of berthing and mooring facilities for FSRU, LNG carrier, offloading and transfer, riser systems for gas send-out.

Subsea Export System consisting of subsea pipelines to the user interface location

Using the requirement established above, a marine terminal based on concrete structures has

been developed and the cost for the same is summarised below.

Table 2.2 Cost Estimate Summary

No Description Estimated Cost

FL1 FL2

1 Chartering FSRU 3600 Crores 3600 Crores

2 Marine Terminal 360 Crores 360 Crores

3 Dredging and Maintenance 202 Crores 50 Crores*

4 Subsea Pipelines 130 Crores 50 Crores

5 Operations 100 Crores / year 100 Crores / year

* Assumed as no seabed information is available at this location.

2.6 Recommendation

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the Mumbai Harbour area is suitable for

locating the FSRU terminal with the following conditions.

Location near Karanja spoil ground FL1 is preferred than FL2 near Pir Pau.

Market Survey for the customer base and natural gas requirement shall be carried out

to determine the economic feasibility and establish Internal Revenue and Return

(IRR). Preliminary enquiry indicates that the demand for such requirement is

exceeding 10 MTPA.

Suitable Environmental Impact Assessment shall be carried out to assess the impacts.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 14/ 136

JUNE 2014





3. SITE DATA

3.1 Mumbai Harbour

Mumbai harbor is located on west coast of India having Latitude 18 54’ N and Longitude

72 49’E. It is a natural harbor protected by Mumbai Island on the west and mainland on the

east. The entrance to the harbor is from south- west with a natural deep channel along the

longitudinal axis of the harbor. The development of Salsette Island from 17th century

onwards has been large changes. The southern part of Salsette Island was a group of seven

island separated by shallow lagoons, narrow tidal channels and marshes. The East India

Company was instrumental in reclaiming the area between these island and joining them

together and also building docks. The joining of islands created a natural barrier to the ocean

waves predominant from west to southwest directions and provides protection to the docks

from external waves. Thus, Mumbai harbour is a natural harbour and the Salsette / Mumbai

island is a single island separated from mainland by Bassein creek and Ulhas river on north

and by Thane creek and Mumbai harbour on west from main land, two creeks join the

Mumbai harbour; one Panvel creek which joins the thane creek on northern extremity of the

harbour while the other is Dharamtar creek, which joins at southern corner of the harbour.

The entrance to the harbour lies between prongs reef marked by a lighthouse at the

southernmost tip of Mumbai and Thal reef lying off the mainland to the southeast. The

mainland to the cast of harbour is dominated by the hills of Karanja while the Mumbai city

lies to the west. Three main docks viz. Indira, princess and Victoria are located on eastern

coast of Mumbai island. The approach to Indira dock is through a branch channel taking off

from the main channel east of Middle ground while for Princes dock, the approach is from

north of Cross island.

Two islands viz. Jawahar Dweep (Butcher) and Elephanta are located to the north east of the

harbour. The Marine Oil Terminal (MOT) berths (1, 2 and 3) project from Butcher Island

towards east. The fourth oil berth is connected by an approach trestle originating from

Butcher Island in the southward direction with berthing structure located alongside the main

channel. Elephanta Island is about 2 km east of Butcher Island. To the northern extreme of

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 15/ 136

JUNE 2014





Mumbai Harbour is the old Pir Pau pier. Approach to this pier is from the northern reach of

main channel leading to Thane creek. West of this Trombay channel there exists natural

depth, which has been dredged to the required levels. The new Pir Pau pier is 2 Km offshore

of the old Pir Pau pier. Approach to new Pir Pau pier is an extension of the channel leaving

off the MOT berths. The new port viz. Jawaharlal Nehru Port is located on the east of

Elephanta Island. The approach channel to the JN port takes off from the main channel near

Butcher 4th berth (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Mumbai Harbour

The main navigational channel is very wide at its seaward end having width of 1850m and it

reduces to 366m south of Butcher Island. The channel bifurcates into two branches; one

goes to Butcher berths and extends further up to new Pir Pau pier and the other goes to

Jawaharlal Nehru Port (Fig. 3.1). A channel to Indira dock entrance takes off from main

channel at 20 km from Mumbai floating light. The main channel, is general, is maintained at

10.8m below C.D. The Indira dock channel is maintained at 7.6m below C.D (Fig. 3.1)

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 16/ 136

JUNE 2014





Two open berths each of 244m long are at Ballard pier having draft of 9.1m and 9.7m below

CD. Eastern side of Indira dock is used as an open wharf known as Harbour wall berths with

an approximately length of 1000m and alongside depth of -6 to -7m C.D.

Marine Oil Terminal is located at Jawahar Dweep (Butcher Island) where four dolphin berths

are built. The depths of these berths range from -10m to -14m for vessels from 40,000 to

80,000 DWT.

Pir Pau terminal has two dolphin berths; one located in shallower depth of 8m while the other

is in 12m below CD. This terminal is used for handling chemicals and POL. Jawaharlal

Nehru Port (JNPT) is situated on Sheva Island on the east of Mumbai Harbour. The Port has

Container Terminal having five berths, Dry bulk terminal having three berths and one POL

berth.

3.2 Proposed FSRU Location

A site visit was made on 20th November and subsequent discussions on the site location, two

locations have been selected for site screening and detailed feasibility study. These two

locations are within Mumbai Harbour area, and details of which are as below:

Table 3.1 Selected locations for feasibility study

Location ID Latitude & Longitude Water Depth Distance from shore

LOC-FL1 18o 52.9'N & 72° 50.8'E 6m 7 km

LOC-FL2 18°59.7’N & 72°56.0’E 6m 3 km

Further, a meeting was held in Mumbai Port office to locate the FSRU terminal based on

actual site survey and the coordinates were shifted towards the main channel to reduce the

quantity of rock dredging involved. The above coordinates are revised based on the study.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 17/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 3.2 Proposed Locations FL1 and FL2

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 18/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 3.3 Proposed Location FL1

Figure 3.4 Proposed location FL2

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 19/ 136

JUNE 2014





3.3 Water Levels

The highest tide is seen where the influence of bottom relief and the configuration of the

coast are prominent, i.e., in shallow water, in the Bay and estuary. The rise and fall of the

tides play an important role in the natural world and can have a marked effect on maritime-

related activities. The tidal levels are listed in Table 3.2. The water level varies between

MLWS and MHWS for most period of time in a year with a range of variation of 3.66m.

Table 3.2 Tidal levels

Tide Tide Level (in metres)

High-High Water Level HHW +5.38

Mean High Water Spring MHWS +4.42

Mean High Water Neap MHWN +3.30

Mean Sea Level MSL +2.50

Mean Low Water Neap MLWN +1.85

Mean Low Water Spring MLWS +0.76

Low-Low Water Level LLW -0.44

3.4 Wave Parameters

The operability of a navigable vessel at an offshore terminal is mainly governed by the wind-

waves and the vessel at berth is also dictated by the intensity of current. Hence, the statistics

of dynamic waves in a typical annual year has been simulated using the widely adopted

wind-wave model, WAM and the nested SWAN. The model has been driven by the regional

wind obtained from the analyzed wind fields from NCEP. The WAM & SWAN

model describes the effort to depict the sea state and predict the evolution of the

energy of wind waves using numerical techniques. A brief description of WAM model &

SWAN model are given in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. The salient statistical

averages such as significant wave height, mean wave period and mean wave direction are

presented. Further, the extreme wave heights and associated period is also presented for the

two proposed locations.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 20/ 136

JUNE 2014





3.5 Current Parameters

No site specific current data is available for the proposed locations. Hence the current data

has been extracted from previous study carried out by Central Water Power Research Station

(CWPRS) in 2003. The extracted information is used for analysing the proposed facilities

with regards to the orientation and mooring loads. The general flow during Ebb and Spring

tides along the channel is indicated in the figure.

The current along the channel is specified as 1.0 m/sec and 0.68 m/sec at an angle of 210 and

30 during Spring and Neap tides respectively (Reference 11). The wind direction shall be

considered universal and hence an additive effect of current and wind shall be considered in

the calculation of the mooring load. Fortunately, the current direction is closely associated

with the berthing line direction and hence the exposed area for the current is very small. The

berth orientation is acceptable as it produce less effect on the mooring lines. However, the

mooring forces due to the current shall be included. Refer to mooring analysis section.

(a) Flood flow (b) Ebb Flow Figure 3.5 Flow Pattern inside Mumbai Harbour

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 21/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 3.6 Flow Pattern during Flood Flow

Figure 3.7 Flow Pattern during high water slack

3.6 Climate Conditions

3.6.1 General

The climate of the Arabian Sea is characterized by the monsoons. Three periods can be

distinctively identified. South West Monsoon (May-August), Transition period (January-

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 22/ 136

JUNE 2014





April), North East Monsoon (September-December). Part of west coast, in which Mumbai

harbour area is located, is shielded from cyclonic conditions as it lies in the shadow region of

major cyclone systems.

Figure 3.8 Cyclone pattern around the world

3.6.2 Wind

The NCEP-NOAA wind data of three hour interval with the spatial resolution of 1 on

latitude and 1.25 on longitude has been used for the analysis of wind-statistics. The wind

speed and its direction at three hourly intervals have been extracted at the locations near the

proposed FSRU terminal, i.e., FL1 and FL2.

3.7 Software

Following software’s is used for the execution of the work. WAM is a third generation wind-wave model used to generate wind driven waves.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 23/ 136

JUNE 2014





SWAN (Wind-wave modeling) program is used to generate the wave height / period and frequency distribution in the near shore region. OPTIMOOR (Mooring analysis) software is used for mooring analysis of the berthed ship in a jetty. Brief write up is given in Appendix F.

3.8 Reference Codes, Standards and Report

Following references are used in the feasibility study.

[1] The WAMDI Group (1988) The WAM model – A Third Generation Ocean Wave Prediction Model, J. of Physical Oceanography, Vol. 18, pp. 1775-1810

[2] Various reports prepared by the Government, various publications by the IMD and also SAARC Meteorological Research Centre (SMRC, 1998), Das (2000), Bhatta (1997) and Dube et al. (2000a, b).

[3] Admiralty Chart No : WGS 84 - 7336 - 2016, Inner Approaches to Mumbai. [4] Admiralty Chart No : 7334 - 2016, Approaches to Mumbai. [5] Admiralty Chart No : WGS 1984 - 7337 - 2015, Port of Mumbai. [6] Admiralty Chart No : 2001, Mumbai Docks. [7] Optimoor Version 6.2.9 Software and Technical manual. [8] PIANC Guidelines, The guidelines for the design of fender system, 2002. [9] OCIMF, Guidelines and Recommendations for the safe mooring of large ships at

piers and Sea Islands. [10] BS6349, [Parts 1 to 4], Code of practice for maritime structures. [11] Central Water Power Research Station, Technical Report No. 4030, Field

investigations and mathematical model studies for siltation in Mumbai Harbour.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 24/ 136

JUNE 2014





4. FSRU REQUIREMENT

4.1 Main Components

In order to achieve the goal of developing 5 MMTPA capacity re-gasification terminals in

Mumbai harbour area, following elements needs to be defined.

FSRU (Floating Storage and Re-gasification Unit) Capacity, vessel dimensions, its chartering cost and implementation plan.

Marine Terminal inclusive of berthing and mooring facilities for FSRU, LNG carrier, offloading and transfer, riser systems for gas send-out.

Subsea Export System consisting of subsea pipelines to the user interface location

Figure 4.1 Typical LNG process

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 25/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 4.2 Typical FSRU Plant

Figure 4.1 shows the process flow diagram of a typical LNG regasification. The refrigerated

LNG is pumped from the LNG carrier (shuttle tanker) through the dedicated marine loading

arms located on the unloading platform of the jetty. Sufficient number of loading arms shall

be provided to achieve required unloading capacity. In this case at-least 4 loading arms are

required to achieve 5 MTPA. The LNG received at the FSRU stored in the tanks within the

FSRU itself. The stored LNG is passed through the regasification facility and produces

natural gas and pass through the conditioning and metering and sent through the dedicated

loading arm to the unloading platform from which a dedicated riser is taking the gas through

the subsea pipeline to the onshore terminal.

The Boil-Off-Gas (BOG) or some time called Return Vapor is returned to the LNGC vessel

for liquification and storage. BOG can also be used for generating power for supporting the

facility in the FSRU and jetty.

Figure 4.2 shows the arrangement of a FSRU vessel permanently moored at a jetty with LNG

shuttle tanker berthed in the opposite.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 26/ 136

JUNE 2014





4.2 FSRU Vessels

FSRU vessels can be of new build suitable specific needs or can be chartered depending on

the market availability at the time of tender process or by the PPP investor. However, the

feasibility study on the availability of such system shall be carried out by the investor. In this

study, a typical vessel having adequate capacity for storage and re-gasification is selected

based on following parameters.

Table 4.1 FSRU Floater requirements

S.No Description Information

1 Flag Indian

2 Classification Ship with Special class

3 LNG Storage Capacity 170,000 m3

4 Storage Containment System Moss Spherical Type or Membrane type

5 Design Life 25 Years

6 System Availability 95% except down time due to met-ocean

conditions

7 Mooring System Suitability as per OCIMF

8 Length Overall (LOA) (m) 272.40

9 Length Waterline (LWL) (m) 272.40

10 Moulded Breadth (m) 57.00

11 Moulded Depth (m) 27.90

12 Mean Draft (m) 12.65

13 Displacement (Tonnes) 186,602

The storage capacity of 170,000 m3 is adequate for producing 5 MMTPA of gas with a 10%

residual margin in the storage tanks. The FSRU storage tanks shall be design in such a way

that the LNG can be transferred from LNG carriers on to any independent tank and send out

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 27/ 136

JUNE 2014





to re-gasification. This provides the flexibility in operation in case any one of the tanks

requires to be shut down for maintenance work.

The typical water requirement for the 170,000 m3 FSRU vessel is around 15m.

4.3 FSRU Process Requirements

The re-gasification capacity of the FSRU equipment shall be calculated based on 5 MTPA

gas send out requirement.

The FSRU terminal shall be designed in such way that the system will be able to operate

wide range of LNG compositions. Mean characteristics of compositions shall be used for

design purposes as listed in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 LNG Composition

S.No Component Lean Gas

(Mol%)

Rich Gas

(Mol%)

1 Methane 97.15 83.50

2 Ethane 2.62 14.08

3 Propane 0.08 1.09

4 C4+ 0.08 0.20

5 N2 0.01 0.14

6 Molecular weight 16.47 18.44

7 High Heating Value (MJ/Sm3) 38.65 42.57

8 Wobbe Index (MJ/Sm3) 52.21 53.2

The produced gas for domestic and industrial consumption shall satisfy the requirements

listed in Table 4.3.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 28/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 4.3 Send out Natural Gas Composition

S.No Parameter Limit

1 Hydrocarbon Dew Point (Max) 0 C

2 Water Dew Point (Max) 0 C

3 Hydrogen Sulphide (Max) 5 ppm by weight

4 Maximum Total Sulphur 10 ppm by weight

5 Maximum Carbon Dioxide 6 mole %

6 Total Inerts 8 mole %

7 Temperature (Max) 55 C

8 Oxygen (Max) 0.2 mole %

The gas delivery pressure at the tie-in point shall be calculated after the layout and tie-point

location of the pipelines are finalized during the Front End Engineering Design. However, as

a minimum, the PPP investor shall consider a tie-in pressure of 98 BarG.

4.4 FSRU Operability

The re-gasification capacity of the FSRU equipment shall be calculated based on 5 MTPA

gas send out requirement.

The FSRU terminal shall be designed in such way that the system will be able to operate

wide range of LNG compositions. Mean characteristics of compositions shall be used for

design purposes as listed in Table 4.2.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 29/ 136

JUNE 2014





4.5 LNG Vessels

No specific information is available from either IS codes (4651) or other Indian agencies

such as Indian Registry of Shipping on vessel dimensions for the LNG vessels. Hence it is

appropriate to collect such information public domain sources such Lloyd's Register, Fair

play, World Shipping Encyclopedia, etc. and the same is provided in Table 4.4 and Table

4.5 average and maximum particulars within the current fleet.

Table 4.4 LNG carriers - average dimensions

Capacity

(m3)

DWT

(Tonne)

LOA

(m)

Beam

(m)

Draught

(m)

Number of

carriers

1,000-10,000 6,357 113.1 22.5 5.9 12

10,000-20,000 11,785 144.6 23.6 7.8 9

20,000-30,000 15,978 177.9 27.3 8.1 3

30,000-40,000 25,960 204.1 28.2 9.9 5

40,000-50,000 21,623 198.2 29.3 8.7 2

50,000-60,000 32,634 220.0 31.9 9.3 1

60,000-70,000 35,760 215.6 33.9 9.3 2

70,000-80,000 44,637 242.4 34.7 9.7 12

80,000-90,000 50,511 244.3 40.1 10.8 4

120,000-130,000 70,657 280.6 44.3 11.7 53

130,000-140,000 74,601 284.4 44.6 11.8 87

140,000-150,000 80,367 286.2 45.1 12.0 94

150,000-160,000 81,721 287.9 44.6 12.1 43

160,000-170,000 89,272 288.3 45.9 12.3 24

170,000-180,000 90,944 296.6 47.4 11.7 7

200,000-210,000 121,974 315.0 50.0 13.6 5

210,000-220,000 105,991 315.1 50.0 12.5 26

250,000-260,000 155,000 345.0 55.0 13.7 3

260,000-270,000 127,709 345.1 53.8 12.1 11

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 30/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 4.5 LNG carriers - maximum dimensions

Capacity

(m3)

DWT

(Tonne)

LOA

(m)

Beam

(m)

Draught

(m)

Number of

carriers

1,000-10,000 10,500 137.1 29.8 7.3 12

10,000-20,000 12,600 152.3 28.0 8.6 9

20,000-30,000 22,040 201.0 29.1 9.4 3

30,000-40,000 27,235 207.9 29.3 10.9 5

40,000-50,000 21,945 199.6 29.3 9.3 2

50,000-60,000 32,634 220.0 31.9 9.3 1

60,000-70,000 35,760 216.2 33.9 9.5 2

70,000-80,000 51,579 257.2 35.0 10.0 12

80,000-90,000 53,624 249.5 40.1 11.0 4

120,000-130,000 83,296 293.8 47.3 17.8 53

130,000-140,000 81,237 297.5 48.5 12.5 87

140,000-150,000 107,000 292.3 49.3 13.0 94

150,000-160,000 91,201 294.6 49.0 12.8 43

160,000-170,000 159,000 293.0 50.0 17.0 24

170,000-180,000 99,200 300.0 52.0 11.9 7

200,000-210,000 122,079 315.0 50.0 13.6 5

210,000-220,000 121,935 315.2 50.0 13.6 26

250,000-260,000 155,159 345.0 55.0 13.7 3

260,000-270,000 130,442 345.3 53.8 12.2 11

It can be seen from the tables 4.4 and 4.5, the draft varies between 7 to 14m. The range of

vessels that the proposed FSRU terminal considers is in the range of 140,000 to 150,000 m3

and the corresponding draft is around 12 to 13m. The ongoing dredging work at the main

channel may be completed soon and the depth of dredging is planned for -13.5m. Hence the

existing channel and the additional channel including berthing area for the FSRU shall be

dredged to -15m. However, the tide of 2.5m is available and therefore the channel need not

be dredged to -15 m as the vessels can use the high tide to navigate the channel and berth at

jetty where 15m depth will be dredged.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 31/ 136

JUNE 2014





5. SITE REQUIREMENTS

5.1 Jetty Location

Due to the potentially hazardous nature of LNG, site specific environmental conditions and

minimum safe distances would normally be considered when determining the layout and

location of a new terminal. A few examples of exclusion and safety zones imposed at LNG

jetties, navigation channels and at offshore terminals are detailed in the following sections.

Safety distances are often imposed to avoid passing ships posing a collision risk to a moored

LNG vessel. Furthermore, if large ships pass close to a moored LNG vessel at high speed,

the imposed surging effect along the berth can cause problems for LNG loading arms and

mooring lines. Based on previous work and desk study the following safety distances are

typically adopted or conventional shallow water jetties;

Table 5.1. Safe Distances

No. Description Distance

1 Hull of LNG carrier to passing ship 300m

2 Hull of LNG carrier to adjacent moored ship 100 to 300m

3 LNG manifold to shore LNG facilities 150m

4 LNG manifold to navigable channel 250m to 500m

5 LNG manifold to adjacent non-oil/gas ship 500m

It should be noted that there is quite a variation in the above safety clearances. The smaller

of the above distances are generally from previous studies where detailed site information is

available and perhaps modeling and ship simulation work have been carried out. The larger

of the recommendations are detailed in publications such as Thoresen, Port Designer's

Handbook: Recommendations and Guidelines, 2003.

In the UK, Medway Ports imposed a 150 meter arc exclusion zone around the LNG terminal

in at Saltpan Reach when there is no vessel at the berth. The exclusion zone is increased to a

250 m arc when a LNG vessel is at the berth. At Milford Haven in the UK, other vessels are

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 32/ 136

JUNE 2014





not allowed within 100 m of an LNG berth. In addition to a safety distance it may also be

considered necessary to impose a speed limit on passing vessels to limit disturbance from

vessel wash and to reduce the risk of a LNG terminal.

Development of the technology associated with offshore LNG terminals is relatively new and

therefore there are currently not many examples of offshore terminals or required exclusion

and safety zones. For the purposes of this study it is likely to be appropriate for a 500 m

safety zone to be adopted.

Another issue to be considered when choosing a suitable location for an offshore LNG

terminal is the distance of the terminal from the coastline. To reduce the visual impact of

LNG vessels on the horizon it is likely that the terminal should be located at least 5km from

the coast.

5.2 Approach Channel

In addition to the exclusion zones at LNG berths, exclusion zones are also imposed when an

LNG vessel is travelling along a shipping channel.

In the UK, both the Medway Port Authority and the Milford Haven Port Authority impose a

one mile (1.6km) exclusion zone ahead and astern of LNG vessels with the exception of

vessels travelling in the opposite direction to the LNG vessel, which may be permitted to

enter the exclusion zone under the control of Port Authority. Only the tugs escorting the

LNG vessels are permitted to enter the shipping lane within the specified exclusion zone.

With regard to tug assistance, SIGGTO recommend that three or preferably four tugs should

assist an LNG tanker during berthing and de-berthing to provide adequate assistance in the

event that an LNG vessel loses all engine power. In addition SIGGITO also recommend that

at least one tugboat remains on stand- by whilst an LNG tanker is at berth to provide instant

firefighting cover, to enforce an exclusion zone around the terminal and to assist if an

emergency departure is necessary.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 33/ 136

JUNE 2014





At Milford Haven in the UK, LNG tankers are accompanied by two pilot vessels on approach

to the berth and four tugs assist during berthing and de-berthing. All passing ships also

receive a passive escort past the moored LNG ships.

It should be noted that the required width of a shipping channel will depend on the site

specific environmental conditions. Guidance detailing the factors that influence the required

channel width is detailed in PIANC and SIGTTO guidance documents. For this study a

channel of approximately five times the beam (5B) of the design vessel has been

considered, in line with PIANC and SIGTTO recommendations.

For the purposes of this study, and prior to obtaining site specific data to facilitate

navigation simulation studies, it is likely to be appropriate for the following clearance and

safety zones to be adopted:

150 m clearance zone from vessel manifold to shore facilities.

500 m safety distance for proximity to a navigable channel.

1600 m clearance to adjacent people and property (to minimize the potential impact from a large spill resulting from an intentional attack on an LNG vessel).

However, it should be understood that it may be possible to reduce these safety distances at a

later stage when more detailed site information, study and navigation simulation work is

carried out. 5.3 Security

Due to the relatively frequent requirement for shipments of LNG, the perceived importance

and economic value that may be associated with LNG shipments, it is possible that an LNG

vessel could become the target of a terrorist attack or hijacking during navigation or whilst

at a berth.

To reduce the risk of attack or hijacking it may be necessary for security vessels to patrol

the exclusion zone around the terminal and to monitor operations via a surveillance system.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 34/ 136

JUNE 2014





It may also be necessary to ensure that vessels are inspected and armed security deployed

during approach and unloading.

With regard to the safe shipping of LNG, the Lloyd's Register of Shipping paper, Explosion

& Gas Release from LNG Carriers, Gordon Mime, states that the shipping industry has an

excellent safety record and identifies that on the very few occasions when accidental release

of LNG has occurred, the consequences have been minor. The paper also acknowledges

that LNG has specific parameters that make the likelihood of a major explosion remote. In

comparison to LPG; LNG is lighter than air. LNG will therefore warm, rise into the air and

dissipate into the atmosphere. LNG also has a lower calorific value (less explosives energy)

than LPG.

Despite the above, there is still a risk of fire and/or ignition of a dispersing vapor cloud if an

LNG spill occurs which may be a result from a terrorist attack or an accidental vessel

collision. 5.4 Environmental Impact

In 2004, Sandia National Laboratories produced the report Guidance on Risk Analysis and

Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill over water in conjunction

with the United States Coast Guard, the United States Department of Energy and the LNG

industry. In this report, Sandia summarize the likely impacts on public safety that may

occur due to LNG breaches and spills caused by accidental collision and grounding or as a

result of intentional breach from a terrorist attack.

The Sandia report indicates that fires and / or ignition of a dispersing vapor cloud may occur

following an LNG spill. The report indicates that the zones within which high and medium

impacts on people and property are likely are as follows:

1. Accidental release of a small to medium of LNG, resulting from a high speed collision with an LNG vessel:

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 35/ 136

JUNE 2014





High impacts on people and property within 250 m of the release source

Medium impacts on people and property within 750 m of the release source.

2. Release of a large amount of LNG, resulting from an intentional attack on LNG vessel:

High impacts on people and property within 500 m of the LNG vessel due to

large fires and/or the late ignition of the dispersing vapor cloud.

Medium impacts on people and property within 1600 m of the LNG vessel in

the case of a large fire or further afield were the vapor cloud to ignite following

dispersion.

With regard to vessel impacts, the Sandia report indicates that it is unlikely that collisions

occurring at speeds of less at 7 knots will penetrate the hull of a LNG vessel. Hence a

detailed plan shall be worked out during Environmental Impact Assessment study for the

project.

5.5 Site Selection Criteria

The proposed site for the FSRU jetty location and its components shall consider the

following parameters for evaluation.

Proximity to coastline

Proximity to customers

Bathymetry and water depth

Safety to neighboring areas

Topography

Proximity to shipping routes

Sheltered water

Capital Expenditure

Operational Cost

Environmental Impacts

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 36/ 136

JUNE 2014





5.6 Environmental, Marine and Social Impacts

Many of the impacts can be managed and mitigated through the implementation of plane and

process. However, there are impacts which can be minimized through careful site selection,

choice of technology and abatement measures. As part of the environmental and social site

selection process it is important to understand how sensitive the surrounding area is to the

Project - this would include considerations of such aspects as:

Is there enough land available for the terminal and associated infrastructure?

Is there sufficient infrastructure in place to support the development e.g. roads,

electricity, hospitals, accommodation for workers etc?

Will infrastructure need to be developed resulting in further loss of land, resettlement

etc. and the proximity of the nearest tourism community and what will the impact be

on them?

Will the activities have an impact on air quality, noise, existing water quality and

natural resources?

The economic and cultural significance of the marine and terrestrial environment for the site

is also important. Understanding where there may be areas sensitive for marine life such as

feeding, breeding, calving, and spawing should be identified during the site selection process,

furthermore, it would be preferable to avoid if possible beach areas of importance for marine

turtles and other important mammals, avifauna, habitats, protected areas etc. in the area, in

particular internationally protected species e.g. whales, dolphins, dugongs etc.

The nature and extent of population areas between the facility and the end user locations to

which the gas will have to be piped to will also be an important consideration. Are there

local populations who could benefit? What training skills development would they require?

Will the project site require acquisition of private or customary land that people live and / or

work on, how much will this cost?

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 37/ 136

JUNE 2014





6. WAVE SIMULATION

6.1 General

The operability of a navigable vessel at an offshore terminal is mainly governed by the wind-

waves and the vessel at berth is also dictated by the intensity of current. Hence, the statistics

of dynamic waves in a typical annual year has been simulated using the widely adopted

wind-wave model, WAM and the nested SWAN. The model has been driven by the regional

wind obtained from the analyzed wind fields from NCEP. The WAM & SWAN

model describes the effort to depict the sea state and predict the evolution of the

energy of wind waves using numerical techniques.

6.2 Proposed Locations

The proposed offshore locations for the installation of the offshore terminal are presented in

Table 6.1 It is named as FL1 & FL2. Figure 6.1 presents the Google image of the coast

encompassing the Mumbai port trust region. It can be noted that the location FL2 is more

sheltered inside the port than FL1. However, the inner region is relatively shallow.

Table 6.1 Proposed locations

The location at Karanja spoil ground has been shifted towards west by 2km from the initial

location to reduce the dredging cost. However, this may not affect the wave simulation.

S.No Location Latitude °N Longitude °E Water depth (proposed)

1 FL1 18o 52.9'N 72° 50.8'E 15m

2 FL2 18°59.7’N 72°56.0’E 15m

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 38/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 6.1 Selected locations, FL1 & FL2 within Mumbai port limits.

6.3 Bathymetry

The coarse grid bathymetry over the Indian waters is taken from ETOPO5, with 9.0 km

resolution in latitude and longitude (Cartesian grid), covering the region 30oE to 120oE and

70oS to 30oN. The WAM is initially been set-up in Indian Ocean comprises also Bay of

Bengal and Arabian Sea which is bounded by the region 30oE-100oe & 70oS-20oN. Fig. 6.1

depicts the Indian waters domain. A spherical grid resolution of 0.5o x 0.5o with 15o angular

resolution for the directional spectra and 10-minute propagation time step are chosen. A finer

grid model using near shore wave propagation model, SWAN has been setup over the region

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 39/ 136

JUNE 2014





18oN-19.5oN & 72oE-73.5oE with a spatial grid resolution of 1.25' by 1.25'. The near shore

bathymetry has been interpolated from Naval Hydrographic charts and merged with Mumbai

Port Trust supplied bathymetry inside the port limit. Fig. 6.3 presents the finer grid domain

for the nested domain. The wave climate at specified locations off Mumbai coast, i.e., FL1

(72° 50.8'E; 18o 52.9'N) and FL2 (72° 56.0'E; 18°59.7’N) has been extracted. A water depth

of 18m has been taken near the jetty location as a proposed dredged depth zone.

6.4 Methodology

An application of spectral wave prediction model for Arabian Sea has been carried out to

evaluate spectral wave parameters near the proposed FSRU terminal inside the Mumbai port

limit. The global wave model is based on the “WAM Cycle 4” model nested into finer grid

WAM for the wave propagation near the site. These models simulate the evolution of two

dimensional ocean waves using the spectral energy balance equation, in which wave energies

are balanced with the local wind input, wave dissipation and non-linear energy transfer. The

coarser grid model has been executed over a regional domain, which includes Indian Ocean,

Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea. NCEP wind vectors over few years have been obtained for

the interested domain. A finer near shore wave propagation model, SWAN has been set up to

evaluate the wind-waves off Mumbai coast. A brief description of WAM model & SWAN

model are given in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. The objective is the numerical

model studies for predicting the short-term wave climate near an offshore location inside the

Mumbai port limit.

The hind cast period considered is during one typical annual year, i.e., 2011 in six hourly

intervals. The hind cast points, FL1 (72° 50.8'E; 18o 52.9'N) and FL2 (72° 56.0'E;

18°59.7’N) are considered. The salient statistical averages such as significant wave height,

mean wave period and mean wave direction are discussed.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 40/ 136

JUNE 2014





6.5 Wind Input

The NCEP-NOAA wind data of three hour interval with the spatial resolution of 0.5o on

latitude and 0.5 on longitude has been used for the analysis of wind-statistics. The wind

speed and its direction at three hourly interval have been extracted at an offshore location off

the proposed FSRU terminal, i.e., FL1 and FL2. The wind extraction location is (80.5o E,

14oN).

The wind data extracted includes significant wind speed with its direction at the hind cast

point (80.5 E, 14 0’N). Tables 6.2 to 6.5 show the directional distribution of wind speed.

The wind data is collected for every three hours during 2011 and the average values of wind

speed in 2011 with respect to their direction, values are expressed in percentage (%) of the

total number of events and are tabulated based on seasonal variation.

Table 6.2 shows wind speed in transitional period (Feb-May) and more than 50% of

prevailing wind originates from South and south-south-east direction. The wind speed is in

general of less intense with intensity less than 10 m/s.

Table 6.3 shows wind speed during South-West Monsoon (Jun-Sep) and about 60% of

prevailing wind originates between South and West directions. The wind speed intensity

reaches about a maximum of 12 m/s.

Table 6.4 shows wind speed during North East Monsoon period (Oct-Jan) and about 60% of

prevailing wind originates from North and East direction. The maximum wind speed of more

than 12 m/s occurs occasionally from North-East direction. Table 6.5 shows Annual wind

speed.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 41/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.2 Directional distribution of the wind speed during Transitional period (Feb-May). Values are expressed in percentage (%) of the total number of events.

Location (80.5oE, 14oN) - Transition Period (Feb-May) Dir(°) Wind speed (m/s)

<4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 >12 Total 0 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0.3130 1.04 0.21 0.21 0 0 0 1.4660 2.6 2.6 1.25 0.21 0 0 6.6690 3.33 3.96 0.21 0 0 0 7.5

120 4.79 6.15 4.58 0.21 0 0 15.73150 3.23 6.15 8.44 8.96 0.1 0 26.88180 3.23 6.77 10.42 7.4 0.52 0 28.34210 1.15 2.71 2.71 0.83 0 0 7.4240 0.31 0.63 0.52 0.42 0 0.1 1.98270 0.94 0.52 0.83 0.1 0 0 2.39300 0.1 0.42 0.42 0 0 0 0.94330 0.31 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.41

Total 21.34 30.12 29.69 18.13 0.62 0.1 100

Table 6.3 Directional distribution of the wind speed during South West Monsoon

period (Jun-Sep). Values are expressed in percentage (%) of the total number of events. Location (80.5oE, 14oN) - South West Monsoon (Jun-Sep)

Dir(°) Wind speed (m/s) <4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 >12 Total

0 0.72 0.31 0 0 0 0 1.0330 0.51 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.6160 0.72 0.31 0 0 0 0 1.0390 0.72 0.61 0.1 0 0 0 1.43

120 1.64 1.64 2.25 0.1 0 0 5.63150 1.43 1.84 4.3 2.36 0.2 0 10.13180 2.05 2.97 5.53 2.87 0.2 0 13.62210 3.79 4.82 3.89 1.02 0 0 13.52240 4.71 5.02 3.59 0.92 0.1 0 14.34270 4 7.38 7.58 4.61 0.41 0.2 24.18300 3.28 4.71 3.18 1.02 0.61 0 12.8330 0.61 0.72 0.31 0 0 0 1.64

Total 24.18 30.43 30.73 12.9 1.52 0.2 99.96

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 42/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.4 Directional distribution of the wind speed during North East Monsoon period (Oct-Jan). Values are expressed in percentage (%) of the total number of events.

Location (80.5oE, 14oN) -North East Monsoon (Oct-Jan) Direction(o) Wind speed (m/s)

<4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 >12 Total 0 1.22 1.02 0.51 0.2 0.3 0 3.2530 3.15 4.88 8.13 3.46 0.81 0 20.4360 7.11 9.76 6.81 3.66 1.12 0.41 28.8790 8.03 5.18 1.02 0.71 0.41 0 15.35

120 4.27 4.37 0.61 0 0 0.2 9.45150 3.76 1.83 0.91 0.2 0 0.2 6.9180 2.34 1.52 0.61 0.3 0.71 0.2 5.68210 1.22 1.42 1.02 0.2 0.1 0 3.96240 1.12 0.61 0 0 0 0 1.73270 0.61 0.41 0 0 0 0 1.02300 0.51 0.41 0 0 0 0 0.92330 1.02 1.02 0.41 0 0 0 2.45

Total 34.36 32.43 20.03 8.73 3.45 1.01 100.01

Table 6.5 Directional distribution of the wind speed – Annual Data. Values are

expressed in percentage (%) of the total number of events.

Location (80.5oE, 14oN) - Annual Data Direction(o) Wind speed (m/s)

<4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 >12 Total 0 0.75 0.45 0.17 0.07 0.1 0 1.5430 1.58 1.75 2.81 1.16 0.27 0 7.5760 3.49 4.25 2.71 1.3 0.38 0.14 12.2790 4.04 3.25 0.45 0.24 0.14 0 8.12

120 3.56 4.04 2.47 0.1 0 0.07 10.24150 2.81 3.25 4.52 3.8 0.1 0.07 14.55180 2.53 3.73 5.48 3.49 0.48 0.07 15.78210 2.05 2.98 2.53 0.68 0.03 0 8.27240 2.05 2.09 1.37 0.45 0.03 0.03 6.02270 1.85 2.77 2.81 1.58 0.14 0.07 9.22300 1.3 1.85 1.2 0.34 0.21 0 4.9330 0.65 0.58 0.27 0 0 0 1.5

Total 26.66 30.99 26.79 13.21 1.88 0.45 99.98

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 43/ 136

JUNE 2014





6.6 Discretization Parameters

The wave hind casting is being carried out using 24 directional bands, 25 frequency bands

and frequency interval extending from 0.051 to 0.41 Hz. For the coarser grid model, a 10

minutes time step has been used for the integration of advection and source terms,

considering the depth dependent refraction in a finer grid model. The output time step

adopted is 6 hours and the initial condition for the wave model has been setup by executing

the wave model from its calm state for three days.

The wave characteristics such as significant wave height, mean wave period and mean wave

direction at the proposed jetty location have been extracted. The data are sampled at every

six hours. The variation of wave climate over an entire annual year could provide a good

design estimate for the planning and development of FSRU unit. Basically, the wave field

follows the wind pattern and the shoreline configuration. It is noted that the spatial variability

is closely related; the maximums of Hs are associated with maximums of wind speeds. The

Wave data extracted includes significant wave height with its direction at hind cast points

FL1 (72° 50.8'E; 18o 52.9'N) and FL2 (72° 56.0'E; 18°59.7’N).

The wave height is tabulated with respect to its direction. The wave data is collected for

every six hours for an annual period of 2011 and the average values of wave height with

respect to its direction and values expressed in percentage (%) of the total number of events

are tabulated based on seasonal variation.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 44/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 6.2 WAM - Coarser grid model domain

Figure 6.3 WAN - Finer grid domain

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 45/ 136

JUNE 2014





6.7 Simulation Results at Karanja (FL1)

The wave characteristics such as significant wave height, peak wave period and mean wave

direction at the location Karanja (FL1) have been extracted. Values are expressed in

percentage (%) of the total number of occurrences.

6.7.1 Directional distribution of wave height

Tables 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8 presents the directional distribution of significant wave height during

transition, south-west monsoon and north-east monsoon seasons at location FL1. Table 6.9

presents the annual directional distribution of significant wave height at location FL1. The

values are given in percentage of occurrences of individual events chosen at every 6 hours.

The maximum wave energy is from the directional band of 240 to 260. Almost negligible

wave occurrences are represented in north-east direction and scattered occurrences from

north-west direction.

6.7.2 Directional distribution of wave period

Tables 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12 present the directional distribution of mean wave period during


presents the annual directional distribution of mean wave period at location FL1. The values

are given in percentage of occurrences of individual events chosen at every 6 hours. The

frequency wave incidences is from the directional band of 240o and then from 330o. There is

no wave occurrence from north-east direction.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 46/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.6. Directional distribution of significant wave height (Hs) during Transition period

Location FL1 - Transition period (Jan-April) Dir (o)

Hs (m)

0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0 0.21 0.42 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.83180 0 0.21 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.63210 0 0 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21240 0 0.63 1.67 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5270 0 1.46 14.17 3.96 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.79300 0 4.38 13.75 10.83 3.75 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 32.92330 0 7.5 23.13 9.17 2.5 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.13

Omni 0 14.17 53.54 24.58 6.67 1.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Table 6.7. Directional distribution of significant wave height (Hs) during South West Monsoon period

Location FL1 - South West Monsoon (May-August)

Dir (o)

Hs (m)

0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.61 0 0 0 0 0.61210 0 0 0 0.61 2.85 1.63 0.2 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.2 0.41 8.94240 0 0 1.22 6.3 2.03 9.96 5.89 11.38 15.45 10.98 5.69 5.08 73.98270 0 0 8.33 4.67 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 13.21300 0 0 0.61 1.63 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.44330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.61 0.2 0 0 0.81

Omni 0 0 10.16 13.21 5.08 11.59 6.1 13.01 17.28 12.2 5.89 5.49 100

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 47/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.8 Directional distribution of significant wave height (Hs) during North East

Monsoon

Location FL1 - North East Monsoon (Sep-Dec)

Dir (o)

Hs (m)

0.25

0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.41180 0 4.92 4.51 0.6 0.6 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.8210 0 3.48 13.7 0.4 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.8 27.2240 0 2.46 5.94 2.6 1.4 2.0 1.8 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 19.0270 0 1.23 2.66 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.33300 0 2.25 5.33 2.8 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 10.8330 0 6.15 14.7 4.3 0.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.2

Omn 0 20.4 47.1 12. 5.9 4.9 3.0 0.6 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.2 100

Table 6.9 Directional distribution of significant wave height (Hs) –Annual Data

Location FL1 - Annual data

Dir (o)

Hs (m)

0.25

0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0 0.14 0.14 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.41180 0 1.71 1.64 0.21 0.2 0.0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 4.04210 0 1.16 4.66 0.34 1.9 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 12.1240 0 1.03 2.95 3.08 1.1 4.0 2.6 3.9 5.4 3.9 2.0 1.8 32.1270 0 0.89 8.36 3.36 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 12.7300 0 2.19 6.51 5.07 1.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 15.2330 0 4.52 12.5 4.45 1.0 0.4 0 0 0.2 0.0 0 0 23.2

Omn 0 11.5 36.7 16.6 5.8 5.8 3.0 4.5 6.1 4.7 2.4 2.2 100

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 48/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.10 Directional distribution of significant wave period (Tm) during Transition Period

Location FL1 - Transition period (Jan-April)

Dir (o)

Tm (sec)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.83180 0.21 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.63210 0 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21240 0.21 0.83 1.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5270 1.25 12.5 4.38 0.83 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.79300 8.13 21.88 2.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32.92330 17.5 25.21 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.13

Omni 27.29 61.88 9.17 0.83 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Table 6.11 Directional distribution of significant wave period (Tm) during South West Monsoon


Dir (o)

Tm (sec)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0180 0 0 0.2 0.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.61210 0 0.2 0.61 1.83 3.66 2.44 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 8.94240 0 0.61 5.49 17.89 35.77 14.02 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 73.98270 0 8.74 4.27 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.21300 0 2.24 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.44330 0 0 0.2 0.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.81

Omni 0 11.79 10.98 20.93 39.43 16.46 0.41 0 0 0 0 0 100

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 49/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.12. Directional distribution of significant wave period (Tm) during North East Monsoon.

Location FL1 - North East Monsoon (Sep-Dec)

Dir (o)

Tm (sec)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.41180 2.66 1.64 3.48 2.66 0.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.86210 2.46 2.87 3.28 10.04 5.94 2.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.25240 1.43 3.07 4.1 6.35 3.07 1.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.06270 0 3.89 1.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.33300 1.43 7.58 1.43 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.86330 11.07 13.11 1.64 0 0 0.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.23

Omni 19.06 32.38 15.37 19.06 9.84 4.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Table 6.13. Directional distribution of significant wave period (Tm) – Annual Data

Location FL1 - Annual

Dir (o)

Tm (sec)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0.34 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.41180 0.96 0.68 1.23 1.03 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.04210 0.82 1.1 1.3 3.97 3.22 1.71 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 12.19240 0.55 1.51 3.7 8.15 13.08 5.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 32.12270 0.41 8.36 3.36 0.34 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.74300 3.15 10.48 1.51 0 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.27330 9.45 12.67 0.75 0.21 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 23.22

Omni 15.34 35.14 11.85 13.7 16.85 6.99 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 100

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 50/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 6.4 presents the wave direction rose diagram at location FL1 for a typical annual year.

Each bandwidth represents the cumulative 5 wave direction. The length of the bars indicates

the number of occurrences (each data is 6-hourly representation) of events along the

particular direction in a month. Figure 6.5 presents the wave height rose diagram at location

FL1 for a typical annual year. Each wave direction of 6-hourly average wave characteristics

has been presented for the significant wave height. The rose diagram pictorially represents

the predominant wave direction for most of the waves in a month. The variation of wave

climate over an entire annual year could provide a good design estimate for the planning and

development of offshore berthing facility. Basically, the wave field follows the wind pattern.

It is noted that the spatial variability is closely related; the maximums of Hs are associated

with maximums of wind speeds on its upstream side.

The annual mean of the maximum and average values of significant wave height, the

mean wave period and mean wave direction at location FL1 are shown in Tables 6.14 and

6.15 respectively. The average wave height is less than 1m during most of the north-east and

fair weather seasons. South-west monsoon generates relatively higher waves at this location:

the average wave direction exceeds 3m during June and July, indicating rough sustained

wave climate at this location. In overall, south-west monsoon, i.e., from May to September,

experiences wave climate of severe in nature at FL1.

The mean wave period ranges from 5.2sec to 9.3sec and most of the durations, it

would be 8sec or less. Hence, there would less disturbances due to long waves for the

maneuverability of the vessels during the occurrence of long waves. The predominant wave

direction is mainly restricted between 235 to 260, i.e., from south-west direction. However,

the wave approaches from other directions especially North-west during north-east monsoon

period but are only discrete. It may be noted that the season corresponds to north-east

monsoon is not severe in off Mumbai coast location.

Figure 6.6 and 6.12 presents the wave height exceedence in the range less than 0.5m,

05m-1,0m, 1.0m-1.5m, 1.5m-2.0m, 2.0m-2.5m and greater than 2.5m. The absolute total

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 51/ 136

JUNE 2014





number of days (in terms of 6-hr block) that the wave height less than 1.5m is nearly 280

days and the wave height less than 2.5m is nearly 347 days.

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

N

0 40 80 120 160

Figure 6.4 Wave rose diagram @ FL1 for typical annual year. Each bandwidth

represents the cumulative 5 wave direction .The length of the bars indicates the

number of occurrences (each data is 6-hourly representation) of events along the

particular direction in a month

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 52/ 136

JUNE 2014





0

45

90

135

180

225

270

315

N

0 1 2 3 4

Hs (m)

Figure 6.5 Wave height rose diagram @ FL1 for typical annual year. Each wave

direction of 6-hourly average wave characteristics has been presented for the

significant wave height

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 53/ 136

JUNE 2014





Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0

10

20

30

No.

ofd

ays

occu

renc

ein

aye

ar

Hs < 1.0m

1.0m<Hs<1.5m

Hs>2.5m

Figure 6.6 Wave climate existences at FL1 during each month in an annual year.

Table 6.14 Maximum and average values of significant wave height and mean wave

period @ FL1

Month

Mean wave period (sec) Significant Wave Height (m) Maximum Average Maximum Average

January 5.2 4.1 1.12 0.65 February 7.5 4.5 1.44 0.69 March 5.7 4.3 1.27 0.71 April 5.8 4.6 1.39 0.73 May 6.6 5.1 1.45 0.82 June 9.3 7.7 3.23 2.12 July 8.8 7.6 3.62 2.10

August 8.1 7.2 2.71 1.88 September 8.9 7.0 3.26 1.46

October 6.7 5.1 0.95 0.63 November 8.6 4.9 1.53 0.62 December 6.4 4.3 1.14 0.62

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 54/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.15 Mean wave direction and wave direction corresponds to maximum wave energy (clockwise degrees from North)

Month Wave direction corresponds to maximum wave energy

Mean wave direction

January 343 336 February 333 322 March 334 319 April 315 298 May 235 272 June 251 248 July 246 251

August 258 249 September 239 239

October 298 264 November 327 264 December 344 328

Table 6.16 Wave height exceedence at FL1 during an annual year

Month

No. of days existence of wave height

Hs < 0.5m 0.5<Hs < 1.0m

1.0m < Hs < 1.5m

1.5m < Hs < 2.0m

2.0m < Hs < 2.5m

Hs > 2.5m

January 4.5 25.5 1 0 0 0 February 8 16.5 3.5 0 0 0 March 3 27 1 0 0 0 April 1.5 24.75 3.75 0 0 0 May 0 28 3 0 0 0 June 0 0.75 5 4.25 12.25 7.75 July 0 0 3 13 9 6

August 0 0 9.5 6.25 15 0.25 September 0 8.5 10.5 4.25 3.5 3.25

October 6.25 24.75 0 0 0 0 November 9.5 18.25 2 0.25 0 0 December 9.25 21 0.75 0 0 0 Annual 42 195 43 28 39.75 17.25

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 55/ 136

JUNE 2014





6.8 Simulation Results at Jawahar Dweep (FL2)

The wave characteristics such as significant wave height, peak wave period and mean wave

direction at the location FL2 is extracted and presented in this section.

6.8.1 Directional distribution of wave height

Tables 6.17, 6.18 and 6.19 presents the directional distribution of significant wave height

during transition, south-west monsoon and north-east monsoon seasons at location FL2.

Table 6.20 presents the annual directional distribution of significant wave height at location

FL2. The values are given in percentage of occurrences of individual events chosen at every

six hours. Similar to the other relatively near shore location, the maximum wave energy is

from the directional band of 200 to 240. Only less than 11% of waves approach from

north-east direction and only about 10% to 11% wave occurrences have been observed from

the west and north-west directions. This is due to the shadowing effect for the waves from

the north-west direction band.

6.8.2 Directional distribution of wave period

Tables 6.21, 6.22 and 6.23 presents the directional distribution of mean wave period during


presents the annual directional distribution of mean wave period at location FL2. The values

are given in percentage of occurrences of individual events chosen at every six hours. Similar

to the other relatively near shore location, the maximum wave energy is from the directional

band of 240 mainly during south-west monsoon which accounts for more than 70% of wave

occurrences during the severe monsoon season.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 56/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.17 Directional distribution of significant wave height (Hs) during Transition Period

Location FL2 - Transition period (January-April)

Dir. (o) Hs (m)

0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 1.04 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.46180 0 2.29 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.92210 0 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21240 0 0.83 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.04270 0.21 20.21 6.46 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.29300 1.04 15.21 12.9 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.21330 0.42 25.83 8.96 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36.88

Omni 1.67 65.63 29.5 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Table 6.18 Directional significant wave height (Hs) during South West Monsoon

Dir. (o)


0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 0.4 0.41 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.22 210 0 0 2.8 2.0 1.83 2.0 1.22 0.41 0.2 0 0 0 10.5240 0 0. 8.1 12. 11.9 21. 10.9 3.25 1.4 0.61 0.2 0 71.3270 0 7. 6.9 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.2300 0 0 0.8 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.02 330 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.61

Omni 0 8. 18. 15. 14.4 25. 12.4 3.66 1.6 0.61 0.2 0 100

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 57/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.19 Directional distribution of significant wave height (Hs) during North East Monsoon

Location FL2 - North East Monsoon (September-December)

Dir. (o)

Hs (m)

0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 1.02 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.23180 0.82 8.61 1.23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.66210 0 13.11 1.84 4.1 1.64 1.02 0.61 1.43 0.41 0 0 0 24.18240 0.41 11.07 3.07 2.05 1.43 0.82 0.61 0.41 0.2 0 0 0 20.08270 0 4.92 1.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.56300 1.02 8.4 2.87 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.5330 0 19.47 4.92 0.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.8

Omni 2.25 66.6 15.78 6.76 3.07 1.84 1.23 1.84 0.61 0 0 0 100

Table 6.20 Directional distribution of significant wave height (Hs) Annual Data

Location FL2 - Annual data

Dir. (o)

Hs (m)

0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0.68 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.89180 0.27 3.63 0.62 0.14 0.14 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.93210 0 4.45 1.58 2.05 1.16 1.03 0.62 0.62 0.21 0 0 0 11.71240 0.14 4.18 3.84 4.86 4.52 7.6 3.9 1.23 0.55 0.21 0.07 0 31.1270 0.07 10.82 5 0.14 0 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.3300 0.68 7.81 5.48 0.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.45330 0.14 15 4.59 0.68 0.07 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 20.62

Omni 1.3 46.58 21.3 8.36 5.89 9.11 4.59 1.85 0.75 0.21 0.07 0 100

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 58/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.21 Directional distribution of significant wave period (Tm) during Transition Period

Location FL2 -Transition period (January-April)

Dir. (o)

Tm (sec)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 1.25 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.46180 1.88 1.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.92210 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21240 0.42 0.42 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.04270 4.38 18.75 3.33 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.29300 13.33 15.42 1.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.21330 25.63 11.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36.88

Omni 47.08 47.08 5 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Table 6.22 Directional distribution of significant wave period (Tm) during South West Monsoon


Dir. (o)

Tm (sec)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0180 0 0 0.61 0.41 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.22210 0 0.41 3.05 1.63 3.66 1.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.57240 0.2 3.66 5.08 27.85 28.86 5.28 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 71.34270 0.2 12.8 1.42 0.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.24300 0 1.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.02330 0 0 0.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.61

Omni 0.41 17.89 10.77 30.69 32.72 7.11 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 100

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 59/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.23 Directional distribution of significant wave period (Tm) during North East Monsoon

Location FL2 - North East Monsoon (September-December)

Dir. (o)

Tm (sec)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 1.02 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.23 180 6.15 1.84 1.43 1.02 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.66210 4.1 1.64 4.92 9.02 2.87 1.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.18240 1.84 3.48 9.02 4.3 1.23 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.08270 0.41 4.71 1.23 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.56 300 3.89 8.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 330 15.78 8.4 0 0 0.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.8

Omni 33.2 28.48 16.8 14.55 5.12 1.84 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Table 6.24 Directional distribution of Significant wave period (Tm) Annual Data

Location FL2 - Annual

Dir. (o)

Tm (sec)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0.75 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.89180 2.67 0.96 0.68 0.48 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.93210 1.44 0.68 2.67 3.56 2.19 1.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.71240 0.82 2.53 4.79 10.82 10.14 1.85 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 31.1270 1.64 12.05 1.99 0.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.3300 5.68 8.15 0.55 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.45330 13.7 6.51 0.21 0 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.62

Omni 26.71 31.03 10.89 15.48 12.74 3.01 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 100

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 60/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 6.7 presents the wave direction rose diagram at location FL2 for a typical annual year.

Each bandwidth represents the cumulative 5 wave direction. The length of the bars indicates

the number of occurrences (each data is 6-hourly representation) of events along the

particular direction in a month. Figure 6.8 presents the wave height rose diagram at location

FL2 for a typical annual year. Each wave direction of 6-hourly average wave characteristics

has been presented for the significant wave height. The rose diagram pictorially represents

the predominant wave direction for most of the waves in a month. The variation of wave

climate over an entire annual year could provide a good design estimate for the planning and

development of offshore berthing facility. Basically, the wave field follows the wind pattern.

It is noted that the spatial variability is closely related; the maximums of Hs are associated

with maximums of wind speeds on its upstream side.

The annual mean of the maximum and average values of significant wave height, the

mean wave period and mean wave direction at location FL2 are shown in Tables 6.25 and

6.26 respectively. The average wave height is greater than 1m from June to August. South-

west monsoon exhibits maximum wave heights of more than 2m at this location (June, July

and September). However, the maximum Hs is mostly less than 1m during all the months

except south-west monsoon period.

The mean wave period ranges from about 4.6sec to 10.2sec and long waves with

higher energy could not penetrate up to this location, FL2. The predominant wave direction

is either from south or south-easterly direction. However, the waves approach from other

directions which are only discrete and hence, need not be considered.

Figure 6.9 and Table 6.27 presents the wave height exceedance in the range less than

0.5m, 05m-1,0m, 1.0m-1.5m, 1.5m-2.0m, 2.0m-2.5m and greater than 2.5m. The absolute

total number of days (in terms of 6-hr block) that the wave height less than 1.5m is nearly

338 days and the wave height less than 2m during 362 days.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 61/ 136

JUNE 2014





0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

N

0 40 80 120 160

Figure 6.7 Wave rose diagram @ FL2 for typical annual year. Each bandwidth

represents the cumulative 5 wave direction .The length of the bars indicates the

number of occurrences (each data is 6-hourly representation) of events along the

particular direction in a month

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 62/ 136

JUNE 2014





0

45

90

135

180

225

270

315

N

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Hs (m)

Figure 6.8 Wave height rose diagram @ FL2 for typical annual year. Each wave

direction of 6-hourly average wave characteristics has been presented for the

significant wave height

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 63/ 136

JUNE 2014





Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0

5

10

15

20

25

No.

ofd

ays

occu

renc

ein

aye

ar

Hs < 1.0m

1.0m<Hs<1.5m

Hs>2.5m

Figure 6.9 Wave climate existences at FL2 during each month in an annual year.

Table 6.25 Maximum and average values of significant wave height and mean wave

period @ FL2

Month

Mean wave period (sec) Significant Wave Height (m) Maximum Average Maximum Average

January 4.6 3.8 0.77 0.44 February 6.8 4.1 0.91 0.45 March 5.3 4.1 0.85 0.47 April 5.6 4.4 0.97 0.50 May 6.0 4.8 1.05 0.57 June 10.2 7.3 2.63 1.35 July 8.7 7.2 2.46 1.33

August 7.8 6.8 1.81 1.21 September 8.7 6.5 2.16 0.93

October 6.2 4.6 0.63 0.39 November 8.0 4.5 0.78 0.39 December 6.0 3.9 0.75 0.41

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 64/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.26 Mean wave direction and wave direction corresponds to maximum wave energy (clockwise degrees from North)

Month Wave direction corresponds to maximum wave energy

Mean wave direction

January 344 323 February 332 319 March 333 316 April 312 294 May 227 269 June 253 246 July 245 252 August 258 248 September 239 240 October 327 276 November 317 272 December 347 316

Table 6.27 Wave height exceedence at FL2 during an annual year

Month

No. of days existence of wave height

Hs < 0.5m

0.5<Hs < 1.0m

1.0m < Hs < 1.5m

1.5m < Hs < 2.0m

2.0m < Hs < 2.5m

2.5m > Hs

January 24 7 0 0 0 0 February 18 10 0 0 0 0 March 18.75 12.25 0 0 0 0 April 20 10 0 0 0 0 May 10 20.5 0.5 0 0 0 June 0 6.5 12.75 9.25 1.25 0.25 July 0 4.75 19.75 5 1.5 0 August 0 9.75 15.75 5.5 0 0 September 6.25 13.25 6 3.75 0.75 0 October 26.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 November 26.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 December 24.75 6.25 0 0 0 0 Annual year 174.75 108.25 54.75 23.5 3.5 0.25

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 65/ 136

JUNE 2014





6.9 Extreme Conditions

6.9.1 Extreme Value Analysis

The purpose of extreme value analysis is to find reliable estimates of the variable, X(T) for a large T (i.e., rare events), also for T larger than the period of observation including estimates of the uncertainty of X(T). It is achieved through generalized extreme value distribution (GEV) analysis. The Generalized extreme value distribution (GEV) is defined as,

1/( ; , , ) exp {1 ( )}x

GEV x

, such that 1 ( ) 0

x

where , , represents the location, scale, shape parameters respectively. Note that from

GEV, one can obtain the most common distributions like Gumbel, Frechet, Weibull, by setting the shape parameter according to 0, 0, 0 , respectively. Once the GEV

obtained from the time series, one can then use it to calculate the extreme return value for the forthcoming years. Here, Weibull distribution is adopted since wind-wave extremes most commonly follow Weibull distribution. Before, fitting the dataset to the distribution, the block maximum approach is used i.e., say, daily maximum from the three hourly spaced data can be a dataset to predict the return value in a longer period, say yearly. The maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) method is used to find the parameters in GEV from the daily maximum data. Once the cumulative distribution

( )F x is obtained, one can find the value of extremes of any year by inversing the formula, 1

( ) 1F xT

, where T is the time period.

From the hind cast time series, the directional extremes of the significant wind speed and wave height have been assessed for return periods of 1, 50 and 100 years. Extremes to be considered are for non-cyclonic conditions.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 66/ 136

JUNE 2014





As is the case with the indices, changes in rare extreme events may also be difficult to detect locally, even when powerful methods based on extreme value analysis theory are used. One approach that is sometimes used to meet this challenge is to make assumptions about how uncertain parameters in the extreme value distribution vary from one location to the next. It may be appropriate to assume that the shape parameter in the GEV distribution has the same value at all locations. Similarly, in areas with homogeneous climate characteristics, it may be reasonable to assume that all parameters of the GEV distribution are homogeneous across the region, or that the scale and shape parameters are homogeneous. 6.9.2 Procedure

The procedure includes 3 steps following:

Build Blocks i.e., divide full dataset into equal sized chunks of data E.g. yearly blocks of 365/366 daily wind/ wave measurements.

Extract Block Maxima i.e., determine the maximum for each block

Fit GEV to the maximum and estimate X(T)

Estimate the parameters of a GEV fitting to the block maxima. Then calculate the return value function X(T) and its uncertainty.

The dataset considered is 2011 yearly data for wind and wave climate. From the GEV model

parameters, one can derive the expected maximum daily wave height and finally average

values obtained for the required return periods but these points are now evenly spread over

time, indicating that the model with a linear trend.

6.9.3 Wind

Table 6.28 presents wind extreme climate exists at an offshore location off Mumbai port.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 67/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 6.28. The extreme Wind speed (Omni-directional)

Location Return Period (Years) [wind speed, m/s]

1 50 100

72.5oE, 19oN 16.4 24.5 26.0

6.9.4 Wave

Table 6.29 presents wave extreme climate that would occur at the two locations, FL1 and FL2. The occurrences of maximum significant wave height for the return periods of 1, 50 and 100 years are listed. Table 6.29 also presents the extreme mean wave period at FL1 and FL2 for the return periods of 1, 50 and 100 years.

Table 6.29 Extreme Wave Climate (Omni-directional)

Location

Return Period (Years)

(Significant wave height (m))

Return Period (Years)

(Mean wave period (s))

1 50 100 1 50 100

FL1 3.5 4.7 4.9 9.8 11 11.2

FL2 2.3 3.0 3.2 9.4 10.7 10.9

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 68/ 136

JUNE 2014





7. MARINE TERMINAL CONCEPT

7.1 Jetty Layout

The Marine terminal for the FSRU is planned as double banking type. The FSRU will be

berthed on to the one side permanently and the LNG shuttle tankers will be berthing on the

opposite side. Both sides of the unloading platform will be provided with unloading/loading

arms for LNG transfer from shuttle tanker to the FSRU storage tanks.

Similarly, breasting dolphins separately for each side will be provided to assist proper

berthing. Mooring dolphins, though common but provided with two sets of mooring hooks on

opposite faces to provide mooring facility for both. This way, the initial investment cost for

the marine terminal is optimized.

The jetty head has facility to berth ships on both sides and side by side berthing as shown in

figure 7.1. The jetty head shall consists of loading platform to house the loading arm,

manifold and piping facilities, mooring and berthing dolphins to keep the vessel in position

during loading operations. These structures shall be positioned to satisfy the requirements of

relevant Indian and International standards such PIANC and OCIMF (Oil Companies

International Marine forum).

The position of breasting dolphins shall be such that it satisfies the range of tankers arriving at

the jetty. For the typical island jetty, the breasting dolphins shall be positioned at 0.25 to 0.5L

of the vessels. Mooring dolphins shall be positioned such that the stern or bow mooring lines

will be effective in restraining the movement of the vessel away from the jetty. The mooring

angle of 15 degrees is recommended for typical tanker, the angle may slightly exceed the

recommended values. Hence these angles need to be taken in to consideration in the mooring

analysis.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 69/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 7.1 Jetty Layout

Figure 7.2 Jetty Cross section

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 70/ 136

JUNE 2014





7.2 Jetty Orientation

Based on the near shore wave modeling study, the predominant waves approach is from

south to south-south-west during south west monsoon. The wave approaches from and angle

of 210 degrees to 240 degrees in relation to the true north. Similarly, the tidal current follows

the main channel orientation which almost 30 to 40 degrees towards north. Considering the

above, the jetty shall be oriented such that the beam of the moored vessel is along this

predominant wave/current direction so that the load on the vessel mooring and the structures

will be a minimum.

The proposed jetty is orientated towards 30 degree towards East as shown in Figure 7.3.

The orientation of moored vessel with respect to the environmental load directions will

determine the mooring load and the response of the vessel. Following principles shall apply.

The longitudinal axis of the vessel shall be oriented in such a way that the maximum

environmental conditions such as wave, wind and current induce minimum loads on

mooring lines.

The orientation of the vessels beam shall be such that the loads induced on the vessel

shall be a minimum such that the fender breasting loads are smaller than the berthing

loads.

In order to determine the berth orientation, following shall be reviewed.

Annual wave exceedance for each direction for the operational sea state

Mooring loads for various load conditions

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 71/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 7.3 Jetty location

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 72/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 7.4 Jetty orientations at FL1

Figure 7.5 Jetty orientations at FL2

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 73/ 136

JUNE 2014





7.3 FSRU and LNGC vessel dimensions

The ship dimensions used in the mooring analysis of jetty terminal facilities is summarised in

Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Vessel Characteristics

Item FSRU

170,000m³ LNG

216,000m³ LNG

170,000m³ LNG

137,000m³

Length Overall (LOA) (m) 272.40 315.00 272.40 280.00

Length Waterline (LWL) (m) 272.40 302.00 272.40 272.87 Moulded Breadth (m) 57.00 50.00 57.00 41.60 Moulded Depth (m) 27.90 27.00 27.90 27.50 Mean Draft (m) 12.65 12.00 12.65 11.00 Displacement (Tonnes) 186,602 225,000 186,602 92,509

7.4 Dredge Depth requirements

The dredge depth requirement for FSRU and LNG carriers is summarised in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Dredge depth requirements

Item FSRU

170,000m³ LNG

216,000m³ LNG

170,000m³ LNG

137,000m³

Displacement (Tonnes) 186,602 225,000 186,602 92,509

Mean Draft (m) 12.65 12.00 12.65 11.00 Under keel clearance 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 Vessel motion 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 14.91 14.26 14.91 13.26

Hence it can be seen that the FSRU require a minimum dredge depth of 15m in the area

occupied by FSRU and turning circle. However, the approach channel can be dredged to

13.5m utilizing the average tide level of 1.5m during approach of the LNG carriers for

berthing and unloading.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 74/ 136

JUNE 2014





7.5 Dredging

Seabed survey to determine the existing seabed level and rock level has been carried out by

MbPT for the proposed FL1 location. The extent of area of survey is shown in figure 7.6

with seabed level and rock level.

Based on the survey results, using a 250m wide approach channel as the basis, the dredge

volume for the soil and rock has been calculated and summarised in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 Dredge volume

The total volume of dredging of soil and rock is estimated as 3.7 Mm3 and 0.33 Mm3

respectively. This is based on the approach channel depth of 13.5m and turning basin depth

of 15m.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 75/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 7.6 Approach channel seabed and rock level

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 76/ 136

JUNE 2014





7.6 Landfall point facilities

The proposed land fall point is north of Danda village in Karanja. The land fall point is

located in the sea front area and may require landing berthing facility for approach, metering

station etc. MbPT has no onshore land in this area and hence all the space required shall be

managed within the coastal zone by constructing elevated platforms. It is expected to have a

marine structure with a dimension of 50m x 20m for the required facilities.

Figure 7.7 Landfall approach and facilities

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 77/ 136

JUNE 2014





7.7 Jetty drawings

Following drawings have been developed as part of the feasibility study and same has been

used in the schedule and cost estimate for the project.

Table 7.4 Drawing list

S. No DESCRIPTION DRAWING NO REV

1 Drawing Index IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-001 C

2 Location Plan of Proposed FSRU Terminal

( Sheet 1 of 3 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-002 - 01

C


( Sheet 2 of 3 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-002 – 02

C


( Sheet 3 of 3 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-002 – 03

C

5 Jetty Terminal Layout – FL 1 ( Sheet 1 of 3 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-003 – 01 C






11 Typical Section of Jetty Terminal Layout IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-005 C

12 General Arrangement of Mooring Dolphin IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-006 C

13 General Arrangement of Breasting Dolphin IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-007 C

14 General Arrangement of Service Platform

(Sheet 1 of 3 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-008 - 01

C

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 78/ 136

JUNE 2014





S. No DESCRIPTION DRAWING NO REV


(Sheet 2 of 3 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-008 – 02

C


(Sheet 3 of 3 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-008 - 03

C

17 Layout & section of Approach Channel and

Berthing Area ( Sheet 1 of 4 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-009 - 01

C


Berthing Area ( Sheet 2 of 4 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-009 – 02

C


Berthing Area ( Sheet 3 of 4 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-009 – 03

C


Berthing Area ( Sheet 4 of 4 ) IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-009 - 04

C

21 Gas Pipe Line Land Fall Location & Details IITM-MBPT-FSRU-DWG-010 C

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 79/ 136

JUNE 2014





8. MOORING ANALYSIS

8.1 General

Mooring analysis of the berthed FSRU / LNGC vessels has been carried out for Moored

FSRU and Moored LNGC (FSRU-Jetty-LNGC). Mooring analysis has been carried out in

spectral form using P-M spectra.

Each case result is presented in the following form.

Mooring line tensions

Vessels motions in the form of RAO

8.2 Design Mooring conditions

8.2.1 Water Depth

The water depth at the jetty location FL1 and FL2 is given in table 8.1

Table 8.1 Water depth information

Description FL1 FL2

Water Depth (m) 15 15

8.2.2 Wind Parameter

The wind speed used for the Mooring analysis of FSRU terminal is given in table 8.2.

Table 8.2 Wind Speed

Description Operating Storm

Wind Speed (m/sec) 16.4 26.0

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 80/ 136

JUNE 2014





8.2.3 Wave Parameter

The wave data used for the Mooring analysis of FSRU terminal is given in table 8.3.

Table 8.3 Wave Data

Description Operating Condition Storm Condition

FL1 FL2 FL1 FL2

Significant Wave Height (Hs) (m) 2.5 1.2 4.9 3.2

Peak Wave Period Tp (Sec) 7.0 6.7 11.2 10.9

8.2.4 Current Parameter

The current data used for the Mooring analysis of FSRU terminal is 1.0 m/sec.

8.3 FSRU and LNGC Windage areas

The Windage areas are scaled from PIANC guidelines and summarised in Table 8.4.

Table 8.4 Windage areas

Item FSRU

170,000m³ LNG

216,000m³ LNG

170,000m³ LNG

137,000m³

a) Hull Exposed area

Beam 7510 8261 7510 7030

Stern 1860 2046 1860 1730

b) Above Main deck area

Beam 1500 1650 1500 1400

Stern 370 410 370 345

Note :

(a) Hull area is automatically calculated by the program OPTIMOOR as per PIANC guidelines.

(b) Above main deck area is taken approximately 20% of the Hull area.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 81/ 136

JUNE 2014





8.4 Double Banking Configurations

Analysis has been carried out for the following three cases of LNGC vessels moored with

jetty while the FSRU is in place for both FL1 and FL2 locations.

Table 8.5 Vessel Combinations

Double Banking Cases

FSRU and LNG 216,000m³



Figure 8.1 FSRU and LNG 216,000m³

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 82/ 136

JUNE 2014







MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 83/ 136

JUNE 2014





8.5 Mooring wires

The characteristics of mooring wires used in the analysis are given in Table 8.6.

Table 8.6 Mooring wire Characteristics

Description Type Diameter

(mm) Minimum Breaking

Load (kN)

Steel wire (SW) 6 x 36 IWRC 44 mm 1320 (kN)

8.6 Mooring Design

8.6.1 Safety criteria

The criteria are intended for moorings which are properly maintained and inspected and have

breaking hardware with breaking strengths equivalent to the mooring lines:

Table 8.7 Mooring line tension criteria

Analysis method Tension Limit

% MBL Equivalent Safety

Factor (API)

Intact Quasi-static 50 2

Intact Dynamic 50 1.67

8.6.2 API Design Offset

The mean offset is defined as the vessel displacement due to the combination of the steady

components of wind, wave and current.

The API design maximum offset is the mean offset plus appropriately combined wave

frequency (WF) and low frequency (LF) motions. It is the larger of the values determined by:

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 84/ 136

JUNE 2014





Smax = Smean + SLF max + SWF sig

Smax = Smean + SWF max + SLF sig

Where

Smean = Mean vessel offset Smax = Maximum vessel offset

SWF max = Maximum WF motion SWF sig = Significant WF motion

SLF max = Maximum LF motion SLF sig = Significant LF motion

8.6.3 API Design Tension

The mean tension is defined as the line tension corresponding to the mean offset of the

vessels.

The API design maximum tension is the mean offset plus appropriately combined wave

frequency (WF) and low frequency (LF) tensions. It is the larger of the values determined by:

Tmax = Tmean + TLF max + TWF sig

Tmax = Tmean + TWF max + TLF sig

Where

Tmean = Mean vessel offset Tmax = Maximum vessel offset

TWF max = Maximum WF tension TWF sig = Significant WF tension

TLF max = Maximum LF tension TLF sig = Significant LF tension

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 85/ 136

JUNE 2014





8.7 Limiting Vessel Motion

The vessel motion during unloading operation will highly affect the operation of mechanical

systems such as loading arms and ship to shore transfer systems such as gangways etc. Even

though reasonable motion is acceptable, large sway or surge could cause the breakage of the

loading arms resulting in pollution and damage. Hence the mooring system shall be designed

such that the vessel motion during these operations is limited.

No specific motion results were available for verification, the limiting motions adopted from

BS 6349 is listed below.

Heave = 1.0m

Sway = 1.0m

Surge = 1.0m

Roll = 1 degrees

Pitch = 2 degrees

Yaw = 1 degrees

Due to non-specific motion limits to LNGC and FSRU, the above were not used in

determining the down time.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 86/ 136

JUNE 2014





8.8 Mooring Analysis Results – FL1 Location

The mooring analysis is carried out as per OCIMF guidelines using OPTIMOOR software.

The results of mooring analysis carried out for various environmental load directions are

attached in Appendix C .

8.8.1 Mooring Load

The mooring loads for various approach of environmental loads is summarised in Table 8.8

to 8.11. It can be observed from tables 8.8 to 8.11 that the maximum beam loads is around

533 Tonnes and 168 Tonnes for longitudinal loads. It can be observed that the fenders of

sufficient capacity shall be provided to cater for beams loads from the ships.

Table 8.8 – Mooring Loads on FSRU 170,000m3 Vessel

Direction of Environmental

Loads

Mooring Loads (Metric Tonnes) Remarks Longitudinal Loads Beam Loads

0° -53.9 114.4

30° -58.9 -0.1

60° -115.2 28.0

90° -26.7 -244.2

120° -1.1 -294.1

150° 16.5 -269.1

180° 44.9 -120.0

210° 145.7 0.0

240° 168.0 533.4

270° 16.6 268.8

300° -1.1 294.1

330° -27.1 243.6

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 87/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 8.9 – Mooring Loads on LNG 216,000m³ Vessel


Loads


0° 25.4 -41.2

30° 24.5 1..9

60° 12.5 34.0

90° 5.7 36.4

120° 3.7 56.2

150° -9.3 51.7

180° -19.3 39.9

210° -52.4 3.1

240° -53.5 -211.5

270° -9.7 -102.2

300° 8.0 -116.2

330° 16.9 -95.1



Loads


0° 27.4 -36.9

30° 25.6 1.7

60° 13.3 30.0

90° 6.0 32.2

120° 3.9 49.7

150° -9.9 45.7

180° -20.6 35.3

210° -54.7 2.9

240° -56.7 -195.4

270° -10.4 -90.4

300° 8.6 -102.8

330° 18.0 -84.1

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 88/ 136

JUNE 2014







Loads


0° 22.8 -39.4

30° 21.6 1.8

60° 11.1 32.1

90° 5.0 34.4

120° 3.3 53.0

150° -8.3 48.8

180° -17.2 37.7

210° -46.0 3.1

240° -43.3 -135.1

270° -8.7 -96.5

300° 7.2 -109.7

330° 15.0 -89.8

8.8.2 Mooring Hook Load

The mooring points in the analysis are indicated in Figure 8.4 & 8.5. Points A, B, C, H, I & J

correspond to the mooring dolphins and points D, E, F, G, K, L, M, & N correspond to the

mooring points on breasting dolphins.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 89/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 8.4 Mooring point identification for FSRU Vessel

Figure 8.5 Mooring point identification for LNG Vessels

It can be observed from Table 8.12 to 8.15 the maximum mooring hook load at the mooring

dolphins (Points A, B, C, H, I and J) is 366 Tonnes. However, a mooring hook capacity of

360 Tonne (4 x 90 Tonnes) is proposed to account for variations in mooring load due to

weather conditions.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 90/ 136

JUNE 2014





Similarly, the mooring loads at breasting dolphins are considered to take the head sea and

quartering sea and the mooring capacity of 270 Tonne (3x90 Tonnes) will be adequate.

Sufficient number of mooring hooks with 90 Tonne each hook shall be provided at breasting

and mooring dolphins with quick release mooring hooks. The results of mooring analysis

carried out for various environmental load directions are shown in Figures attached in

Appendix C.

Table 8.12 – Mooring Hook Loads for FSRU 170,000m3 Vessels

Direction of Loads

Mooring Hook Loads (Metric Tonnes)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

0° - 55 36 19 17 1 1 9 8 - - - - -

30° - 8 6 28 29 - - - 1 - - - - -

60° - - - 26 34 - - 1 14 - - - - -

90° - - - 11 20 - - - 11 - - - - -

120° - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - -

150° - - - - - 12 6 - - - - - - -

180° - 3 - - - 26 21 - - - - - - -

210° - 7 7 41 47 202 183 20 33 - - - - -

240° - 367 241 112 116 208 205 240 366 - - - - -

270° - 58 48 16 15 16 19 65 89 - - - - -

300° - 85 65 19 15 18 20 59 75 - - - - -

330° - 93 65 18 14 14 14 36 41 - - - - -

Maximum - 367 241 112 116 208 205 240 366 - - - - -

Table 8.13 – Mooring Hook Loads for LNG 216,000m³ Vessels

Direction of Loads



0° 1 - - - - - - - - 1 13 13 - -

30° 4 2 2 - - - - - - 4 12 13 - -

60° 8 8 5 - - - - 1 1 10 6 6 - -

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 91/ 136

JUNE 2014





90° 9 9 5 - - - - 2 2 10 2 2 1 1

120° 10 11 7 - - - - 6 8 17 4 3 1 1

150° 7 8 5 - - - - 6 9 19 1 1 3 3

180° 4 5 3 - - - - 4 6 15 - - 7 7

210° - - - - - - - 4 7 13 - - 35 31

240° 37 31 1 - - - - - - - - - 50 34

270° - - - - - - - - - 9 - - 3 -

300° - - - - - - - - - 2 4 6 - -

330° - - - - - - - - - - 8 10 - -

Maximum 37 31 7 - - - - 6 9 19 13 13 50 34


Direction of Loads



0° - 1 - - - - - - - - 14 14 - -

30° - 3 2 - - - - - - - 12 13 - -

60° - 10 7 - - - - 5 6 - 6 6 - -

90° - 11 8 - - - - 5 7 - 3 3 1 1

120° - 13 10 - - - - 11 15 - 4 4 1 2

150° - 9 7 - - - - 12 17 - 1 1 4 5

180° - 5 4 - - - - 9 13 - - - 9 9

210° - - - - - - - 5 6 - - - 36 33

240° - 11 - - - - - - - - - - 48 35

270° - - - - - - - - 3 - - - 5 5

300° - - - - - - - - - - 4 5 - -

330° - - - - - - - - - - 9 10 - -

Maximum - 13 10 - - - - 12 17 - 14 14 48 35


Direction of Loads



0° - 1 - - - - - - - - 12 12 - -

30° - 7 5 - - - - 3 5 - 10 11 - -

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 92/ 136

JUNE 2014





60° - 11 7 - - - - 5 7 - 5 5 - -

90° - 12 8 - - - - 8 6 - 8 3 3 1

120° - 14 10 - - - - 11 16 - 4 4 2 2

150° - 10 7 - - - - 12 19 - 2 2 4 4

180° - 6 5 - - - - 10 14 - - - 7 7

210° - 1 1 - - - - 14 18 - - - 34 32

240° - 32 4 - - - - 0 4 - - - 38 28

270° - - - - - - - - 3 - - - 4 4

300° - - - - - - - - - - 3 5 - -

330° - - - - - - - - - - 7 8 - -

Maximum - 32 10 - - - - 14 19 - 12 12 38 32

8.8.3 Mooring Line Configuration

Mooring line configuration for FSRU consists of 1-18 lines and for LNGC 19-42 lines.

Table 8.16 Mooring line configuration

Description Number Bollard Structure

FSRU

1,2,3 4,5 6,7 8,9

10,11 12,13 14,15

16,17,18

B C D E F G H I

MD2 MD3 BD1 BD3 BD2 BD4 MD4 MD5

LNG 216,000m³

19,20,21 22,23,24

25,26 27,28 29,30 31,32 33,34 35,36

J I H N L M K C

MD6 MD5 MD4 BD8 BD6 BD7 BD5 MD3

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 93/ 136

JUNE 2014





37,38,39 40,41,42

B A

MD2 MD1

LNG

170,000m³ &

137,000 m³

19,20,21 22,23 24,25 26,27 28,29 30,31 32,33

34,35,36

I H N L M K C B


Table 8.17 Significant Motions - FSRU and LNG 216,000m³

Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 216,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 0.56 0.02 0.36 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.0 0.1 0.0

240° 0.54 0.62 0.80 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.07 0.14 0.26 0.6 0.1 0.0

Table 8.18 Maximum Motions - FSRU and LNG 216,000m³

Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 216,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 1.03 0.0 0.68 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.0 0.2 0.0

240° 1.0 1.15 1.49 2.6 0.6 0.6 0.14 0.29 0.54 1.2 0.2 0.1

Table 8.19 Mooring Line Forces - FSRU and LNG 216,000m³

Line to Bollard

Mooring Line Forces (%)

0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180° 210° 240° 270° 300° 330°

1-B 23 3 - - - - 2 3 188 24 35 39

2-B 23 3 - - - - 1 3 183 24 35 38

3-B 22 4 - - - - 1 3 179 24 34 37

4-C 23 3 - - - - - 4 187 30 41 41

5-C 222 4 - - - - - 5 179 30 40 40

6-D 12 17 16 6 - - - 26 71 10 12 12

7-D 12 17 17 7 - - - 26 69 10 11 11

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 94/ 136

JUNE 2014





8-F 1 - - - - 7 16 125 128 9 11 8

9-F 1 - - - - 7 16 126 130 10 11 9

10-E 10 18 21 12 - - - 29 73 9 10 9

11-E 10 18 21 13 1 - - 29 71 9 9 9

12-G - - - - - 4 13 115 127 12 12 9

13-G 1 - - - - 3 13 114 129 12 13 9

14-H 5 - - - - - - 14 181 40 36 23

15-H 6 - 1 - - - - 11 182 41 37 23

16-I 3 - 5 4 - - - 16 181 36 30 17

17-I 3 - 6 4 - - - 13 183 36 31 17

18-I 3 - 7 5 - - - 11 184 37 31 17

19-J - - - 1 3 3 2 1 - - - -

20-J 1 5 11 11 15 16 14 13 - 11 3 -

21-J - - - 1 3 3 2 2 - - - -

22-I - - 1 1 3 4 2 2 - - - -

23-I - - 1 1 3 4 3 3 - - - -

24-I - - - 1 3 4 3 3 - - - -

25-H - - 1 1 3 4 3 2 - - - -

26-H - - 1 11 3 4 3 3 - - - -

27-N - - - - - 2 5 19 21 2 - -

28-N - - - - - 2 5 19 22 2 - -

29-L 8 8 3 1 2 - - - - - 3 6

30-L 8 8 3 1 2 - - - - - 3 6

31-M - - - - - 2 5 22 30 2 - -

32-M - - - - - 2 5 22 31 2 - -

33-K 8 8 3 1 2 1 - - - - 2 5

34-K 8 8 4 1 2 1 - - - - 2 5

35-C - 1 3 3 4 3 2 - - - - -

36-C - 1 3 3 4 3 2 - 1 - - -

37-B - 1 3 4 4 3 2 - 10 - - -

38-B - 1 3 4 4 3 2 - 13 - - -

39-B - 1 3 4 4 3 2 - 15 - - -

40-A 1 2 3 3 4 3 2 - 13 - - -

41-A 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 - 15 - - -

42-A - 1 3 4 4 3 2 - 17 - - -


Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 170,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 0.56 0.02 0.36 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.05 0.0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0

240° 0.54 0.62 0.80 1.4 0.3 0.3 005 0.08 0.20 0.4 0.0 0.0

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 95/ 136

JUNE 2014






Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 170,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 1.03 0.0 0.68 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.0 0.1 0.0

240° 1.0 1.15 1.49 2.6 0.6 0.6 0.12 0.15 0.39 0.8 0.1 0.1


Line to

Bollard


0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180° 210° 240° 270° 300° 330°

1-B 23 3 - - - - 2 3 188 24 35 39

2-B 23 3 - - - - 1 3 183 24 35 38

3-B 22 4 - - - - 1 3 179 24 34 37

4-C 23 3 - - - - - 4 187 30 41 41

5-C 222 4 - - - - - 5 179 30 40 40

6-D 12 17 16 6 - - - 26 71 10 12 12

7-D 12 17 17 7 - - - 26 69 10 11 11

8-F 1 - - - - 7 16 125 128 9 11 8

9-F 1 - - - - 7 16 126 130 10 11 9

10-E 10 18 21 12 - - - 29 73 9 10 9

11-E 10 18 21 13 1 - - 29 71 9 9 9

12-G - - - - - 4 13 115 127 12 12 9

13-G 1 - - - - 3 13 114 129 12 13 9

14-H 5 - - - - - - 14 181 40 36 23

15-H 6 - 1 - - - - 11 182 41 37 23

16-I 3 - 5 4 - - - 16 181 36 30 17

17-I 3 - 6 4 - - - 13 183 36 31 17

18-I 3 - 7 5 - - - 11 184 37 31 17

19-I - - 3 3 6 7 5 2 - 1 - -

20-I - - 3 3 6 7 5 3 - 1 - -

21-I - - 2 3 6 7 6 3 - 1 - -

22-H - - 3 3 7 7 6 3 - - - -

23-H - - 3 3 6 7 6 3 - - - -

24-N - - - 1 1 3 6 20 21 3 - -

25-N - - - 1 1 3 5 21 23 3 - -

26-L 9 8 4 2 2 1 - - - - 3 6

27-L 9 8 4 2 3 1 - - - - 3 6

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 96/ 136

JUNE 2014





28-M - - - 1 1 2 5 22 30 3 - -

29-M - - - - 1 2 5 22 30 3 - -

30-K 9 8 4 2 3 1 - - - - 2 6

31-K 9 8 4 2 3 1 - - - - 2 5

32-C - 1 4 5 6 4 2 - - - - -

33-C - 1 4 5 6 4 3 - - - - -

34-B 1 1 4 5 5 3 2 - 4 - - -

35-B - 1 4 5 5 4 2 - 5 - - -

36-B - 1 4 5 5 4 2 - 6 - - -


Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 170,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 0.56 0.02 0.36 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.0 0.2 0.0

240° 0.54 0.62 0.80 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.07 0.22 0.34 0.9 0.2 0.1


Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 170,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 1.03 0.0 0.68 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.13 0.02 0.13 0.0 0.3 0.0

240° 1.0 1.15 1.49 2.6 0.6 0.6 0.16 0.51 0.72 2.0 0.3 0.1


Line to

Bollard


0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180° 210° 240° 270° 300° 330°

1-B 23 3 - - - - 2 3 188 24 35 39

2-B 23 3 - - - - 1 3 183 24 35 38

3-B 22 4 - - - - 1 3 179 24 34 37

4-C 23 3 - - - - - 4 187 30 41 41

5-C 222 4 - - - - - 5 179 30 40 40

6-D 12 17 16 6 - - - 26 71 10 12 12

7-D 12 17 17 7 - - - 26 69 10 11 11

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 97/ 136

JUNE 2014





8-F 1 - - - - 7 16 125 128 9 11 8

9-F 1 - - - - 7 16 126 130 10 11 9

10-E 10 18 21 12 - - - 29 73 9 10 9

11-E 10 18 21 13 1 - - 29 71 9 9 9

12-G - - - - - 4 13 115 127 12 12 9

13-G 1 - - - - 3 13 114 129 12 13 9

14-H 5 - - - - - - 14 181 40 36 23

15-H 6 - 1 - - - - 11 182 41 37 23

16-I 3 - 5 4 - - - 16 181 36 30 17

17-I 3 - 6 4 - - - 13 183 36 31 17

18-I 3 - 7 5 - - - 11 184 37 31 17

19-I - 2 3 3 7 8 6 7 1 1 - -

20-I - 2 3 3 7 8 6 7 2 1 - -

21-I - 2 3 3 7 8 6 8 2 1 - -

22-H - 2 3 4 7 8 6 8 - - - -

23-H - 2 3 4 7 8 6 9 - - - -

24-N - - - 1 1 3 5 20 18 3 - -

25-N - - - 1 1 3 4 20 18 3 - -

26-L 8 7 3 2 2 1 - - - - 3 5

27-L 8 7 3 2 3 1 - - - - 3 5

28-M - - - 1 1 2 4 21 23 2 - -

29-M - - - 1 1 2 4 21 24 2 - -

30-K 7 7 3 12 3 1 - - - - 2 5

31-K 7 7 3 2 3 1 - - - - 2 4

32-C - 3 5 5 6 5 3 - 2 - - -

33-C - 3 5 5 7 5 3 1 3 - - -

34-B - 3 4 5 6 4 3 - 12 - - -

35-B - 3 4 5 6 4 3 - 13 - - -

36-B - 3 4 5 6 4 3 - 15 - - -

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 98/ 136

JUNE 2014





8.9 Mooring Analysis Results – FL2 Location

The mooring analysis is carried out as per OCIMF guidelines using OPTIMOOR software.

The results of mooring analysis carried out for various environmental load directions are

attached in Appendix D.

8.9.1 Mooring Load

The mooring loads for various approach of environmental loads is summarised in Table 8.26

to 8.29. It can be observed from tables 8.26 to 8.29 that the maximum beam loads is around

294 Tonnes and 107 Tonnes for longitudinal loads. It can be observed that the fenders of

sufficient capacity shall be provided to cater for beams loads from the ships.

Table 8.26 – Mooring Loads on FSRU 170,000m3 Vessel


Loads


0° 44.9 -120.0

30° 59.7 -0.1

60° 45.0 119.4

90° 16.6 268.8

120° -1.1 294.1

150° -27.1 243.6

180° -53.9 114.4

210° -99.6 -0.1

240° -106.5 -293.0

270° 16.6 268.8

300° -1.1 -294.1

330° 16.5 -269.1

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 99/ 136

JUNE 2014







Loads


0° 19.1 39.4

30° -28.5 3.2

60° -25.2 -46.7

90° -9.7 -102.2

120° 8.0 -116.2

150° 16.9 -95.1

180° 25.7 -41.7

210° 31.2 1.9

240° 20.9 137.4

270° 5.7 36.4

300° 3.7 56.2

330° -9.3 51.7



Loads


0° -20.6 35.3

30° -29.7 2.9

60° -26.8 -41.2

90° -10.4 -90.4

120° 8.6 -102.8

150° 18.0 -84.1

180° 27.4 -36.9

210° 31.9 1.7

240° -0.1 133.0

270° 6 32.2

300° -9.9 45.7

330° 3.9 49.7

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 100/ 136

JUNE 2014







Loads


0° -17.2 37.7

30° -25.1 3.1

60° -22.4 -44.0

90° -8.7 -96.5

120° 7.2 -109.7

150° 15.0 -89.8

180° 22.8 -39.4

210° 27.8 1.8

240° 20.1 104.2

270° -8.7 -96.5

300° 3.3 53.0

330° -8.36 48.8

8.9.2 Mooring Hook Load

The mooring points in the analysis are indicated in Figure 8.6 & 8.7. Points A, B, C, H, I & J

correspond to the mooring dolphins and points D, E, F, G, K, L, M, & N correspond to the

mooring points on breasting dolphins.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 101/ 136

JUNE 2014





Figure 8.6 Mooring point identification for FSRU Vessel

Figure 8.7 Mooring point identification for LNG Vessels

It can be observed from Table 8.30 to 8.33 the maximum mooring hook load at the mooring

dolphins (Points A, B, C, H, I and J) is 163 Tonnes. However, a mooring hook capacity of

180 Tonne (2 x 90 Tonnes) is proposed to account for variations in mooring load due to

weather conditions.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 102/ 136

JUNE 2014





Similarly, the mooring loads at breasting dolphins are considered to take the head sea and

quartering sea and the mooring capacity of 150 Tonne (2x 75 Tonnes) will be adequate.

Sufficient number of mooring hooks with 90 Tonne each hook shall be provided at breasting

and mooring dolphins with quick release mooring hooks. The results of mooring analysis

carried out for various environmental load directions are shown in Figures attached in

Appendix D.

Table 8.30 – Mooring Hook Loads for FSRU 170,000m3 Vessels

Direction of Loads



0° - 3 - - - 26 21 - - - - - - -

30° - 1 - - - 30 28 6 8 - - - - -

60° - 19 16 2 1 17 19 32 47 - - - - -

90° - 58 48 16 15 16 19 65 89 - - - - -

120° - 85 65 19 15 18 20 59 75 - - - - -

150° - 93 65 18 14 14 14 36 41 - - - - -

180° - 55 36 19 17 1 1 9 8 - - - - -

210° - 24 22 89 99 3 1 2 2 - - - - -

240° - - - 79 108 - - 65 163 - - - - -

270° - 59 48 16 15 16 19 64 89 - - - - -

300° - - - - 1.1 - - - - - - - - -

330° - - - - - 12 6 - - - - - - -

Maximum - 93 65 89 108 30 28 65 163 - - - - -


Direction of Loads



0° 4 5 3 - - - - 4 6 15 - - 7 7

30° - 1 - - - - - - 8 - - - 14 13

60° - - - - - - - - - 8 - - 12 11

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 103/ 136

JUNE 2014





90° - - - - - - - - - 9 - - 3 3

120° - - - - - - - - - 2 4 6 - -

150° - - - - - - - - - - 8 10 - -

180° 1 - - - - - - - - 1 13 14 - -

210° 5 5 3 - - - - - - 4 19 21 - -

240° 60 60 36 - - - - 19 27 38 12 11 6 6

270° 9 9 5 - - - - 2 2 10 2 2 1 1

300° 10 11 7 - - - - 6 8 17 4 3 1 1

330° 7 8 5 - - - - 6 9 19 1 1 3 3

Maximum 60 60 36 - - - - 19 27 38 19 21 14 13


Direction of Loads



0° - 5 4 - - - - 9 13 - - - 8 9

30° - - - - - - - 2 3 - - - 15 15

60° - - - - - - - 1 4 - - - 13 13

90° - - - - - - - - 3 - - - 5 5

120° - - - - - - - - - - 4 5 - -

150° - - - - - - - - - - 9 10 - -

180° - 1 - - - - - - - - 14 14 - -

210° - 4 3 - - - - - - - 19 20 - -

240° - 68 45 - - - - 27 37 - 14 12 7 8

270° - 11 8 - - - - 5 7 - 3 3 1 1

300° - 13 10 - - - - 11 14 - 4 4 2 2

330° - 9 7 - - - - 12 17 - 1 1 4 5

Maximum 68 45 - - - - 27 37 - 19 20 15 15


Direction of Loads



0° - 6 5 - - - - 10 14 - - - 7 7

30° - 5 3 - - - - 5 7 - - - 13 12

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 104/ 136

JUNE 2014





60° - - - - - - - 1 3 - - - 11 11

90° - - - - - - - - 3 - - - 4 4

120° - - - - - - - - - - 3 5 - -

150° - - - - - - - - - - 7 8 - -

180° - - - - - - - - - - 12 12 - -

210° - 7 5 - - - - - - - 18 21 - -

240° - 77 47 - - - - 36 59 - 15 15 9 8

270° - - - - - - - - 3 - - - 4 4

300° - 14 10 - - - - 11 16 - 4 4 2 2

330° - 10 7 - - - - 12 19 - 2 2 4 4

Maximum - 77 47 - - - - 36 59 - 18 21 13 12

8.9.3 Mooring Line Configuration

Mooring line configuration for FSRU consists of 1-18 lines and for LNGC 19-42 lines.

Table 8.34 Mooring line configuration – FL2

Description Number Bollard Structure

FSRU

1,2,3 4,5 6,7 8,9

10,11 12,13 14,15

16,17,18

B C D E F G H I


LNG 216,000m³

19,20,21 22,23,24

25,26 27,28 29,30 31,32 33,34 35,36

J I H N L M K C

MD6 MD5 MD4 BD8 BD6 BD7 BD5 MD3

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 105/ 136

JUNE 2014





37,38,39 40,41,42

B A

MD2 MD1

LNG

170,000m³ &

137,000 m³

19,20,21 22,23 24,25 26,27 28,29 30,31 32,33

34,35,36

I H N L M K C B



Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 216,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 0.23 0.01 0.20 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0

240° 0.21 0.26 0.80 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.0 0.0


Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 216,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 0.43 0.02 0.37 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.1 0.0

240° 0.38 0.49 1.49 2.6 0.5 0.3 0.07 0.10 0.16 0.3 0.1 0.1


Line to Bollard


0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180° 210° 240° 270° 300° 330°

1-B 2 - 8 24 35 39 23 9 - 24 - -

2-B 1 - 8 24 35 38 23 10 - 24 - -

3-B 1 - 7 24 34 37 22 11 - 24 - -

4-C - - 10 30 41 41 23 13 - 30 - -

5-C - - 9 30 40 40 22 14 - 30 - -

6-D - - 1 10 12 12 12 56 48 10 - -

7-D - - 1 10 11 11 12 56 50 10 - -

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 106/ 136

JUNE 2014





8-F 16 18 11 9 11 8 1 2 - 9 - 7

9-F 16 18 11 10 11 9 1 2 - 10 - 7

10-E - - 1 9 10 9 10 61 67 9 - -

11-E - - 1 9 9 9 10 61 68 9 1 -

12-G 13 18 12 12 12 9 - 1 - 12 - 4

13-G 13 18 12 12 13 9 1 1 - 12 - 3

14-H - 4 20 40 36 23 5 1 37 40 - -

15-H - 4 20 41 37 23 6 2 44 41 - -

16-I - 4 19 36 30 17 3 1 63 36 - -

17-I - 3 19 36 31 17 3 1 67 37 - -

18-I - 3 19 37 31 17 3 1 70 37 - -

19-J 2 - - - - - - - 11 1 3 3

20-J 14 9 10 11 3 - 1 5 25 11 15 16

21-J 2 - - - - - - - 10 1 3 3

22-I 2 - - - - - - - 11 1 3 4

23-I 2 - - - - - - - 11 1 3 4

24-I 3 - - - - - - - 11 1 3 4

25-H 3 - - - - - - - 12 1 3 4

26-H 3 - - - - - - - 11 1 3 4

27-N 5 8 7 2 - - - - 4 - - 2

28-N 4 8 7 2 - - - - 4 - - 2

29-L - - - - 3 6 8 13 7 1 2 -

30-L - - - - 3 6 8 13 7 1 2 -

31-M 5 9 7 2 - - - - 4 - - 2

32-M 5 9 7 2 - - - - 4 - -

33-K - - - - 2 5 8 12 8 1 2 21

34-K - - - - 2 5 8 12 22 1 2 1

35-C 2 - - - - - - 2 22 3 4 3

36-C 2 - - - - - - 2 22 3 4 3

37-B 2 - - - - - - 2 25 4 4 3

38-B 2 - - - - - - 2 25 4 4 3

39-B 2 - - - - - - 2 25 4 4 3

40-A 2 - - - - - 1 2 24 3 4 3

41-A 2 - - - - - 1 2 24 4 4 3

42-A 2 - - - - - - 2 25 4 4 3


Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 170,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 0.23 0.01 0.20 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0

240° 0.21 0.26 0.80 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.1 0.0 0.0

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 107/ 136

JUNE 2014






Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 170,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 0.43 0.02 0.37 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0

240° 0.38 0.49 1.49 2.6 0.5 0.3 0.05 0.08 0.15 0.2 0.0 0.0


Line to

Bollard


0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180° 210° 240° 270° 300° 330°

1-B 2 - 8 24 35 39 23 9 - 24 - -

2-B 1 - 8 24 35 38 23 10 - 24 - -

3-B 1 - 7 24 34 37 22 11 - 24 - -

4-C - - 10 30 41 41 23 13 - 30 - -

5-C - - 9 30 40 40 22 14 - 30 - -

6-D - - 1 10 12 12 12 56 48 10 - -

7-D - - 1 10 11 11 12 56 50 10 - -

8-F 16 18 11 9 11 8 1 2 - 9 - 7

9-F 16 18 11 10 11 9 1 2 - 10 - 7

10-E - - 1 9 10 9 10 61 67 9 - -

11-E - - 1 9 9 9 10 61 68 9 1 -

12-G 13 18 12 12 12 9 - 1 - 12 - 4

13-G 13 18 12 12 13 9 1 1 - 12 - 3

14-H - 4 20 40 36 23 5 1 37 40 - -

15-H - 4 20 41 37 23 6 2 44 41 - -

16-I - 4 19 36 30 17 3 1 63 36 - -

17-I - 3 19 36 31 17 3 1 67 37 - -

18-I - 3 19 37 31 17 3 1 70 37 - -

19-I 5 1 1 1 - - - - 15 3 6 7

20-I 5 1 2 1 - - - - 15 3 6 7

21-I 6 2 2 1 - - - - 15 3 6 7

22-H 6 1 - - - - - - 17 3 7 7

23-H 6 2 1 - - - - - 17 3 6 7

24-N 6 9 8 3 - - - - 5 1 1 3

25-N 5 9 8 3 - - - - 5 1 1 3

26-L - - - - 3 6 9 12 7 2 2 1

27-L - - - - 3 6 9 12 7 2 3 1

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 108/ 136

JUNE 2014





28-M 5 9 8 3 - - - - 5 1 1 2

29-M 5 9 8 3 - - - - 4 - 1 2

30-K - - - - 2 6 9 12 8 2 3 1

31-K - - - - 2 5 9 11 9 2 3 1

32-C 2 - - - - - - 2 28 5 6 4

33-C 3 - - - - - - 1 28 5 6 4

34-B 2 - - - - - 1 2 27 5 5 3

35-B 2 - - - - - - 2 28 5 5 4

36-B 2 - - - - - - 1 28 5 5 4


Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 170,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.0 0.1 0.0

240° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.13 0.16 0.3 0.1 0.0


Direction of

Loads

FSRU 170,000m3 LNG 170,000m3

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

Surge (m)

Sway (m)

Heave (m)

Roll (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Yaw (deg)

210° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.01 0.11 0.0 0.1 0.0

240° 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.24 0.31 0.6 0.1 0.1


Line to

Bollard


0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180° 210° 240° 270° 300° 330°

1-B 2 - 8 24 35 39 23 9 - 24 - -

2-B 1 - 8 24 35 38 23 10 - 24 - -

3-B 1 - 7 24 34 37 22 11 - 24 - -

4-C - - 10 30 41 41 23 13 - 30 - -

5-C - - 9 30 40 40 22 14 - 30 - -

6-D - - 1 10 12 12 12 56 48 10 - -

7-D - - 1 10 11 11 12 56 50 10 - -

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 109/ 136

JUNE 2014





8-F 16 18 11 9 11 8 1 2 - 9 - 7

9-F 16 18 11 10 11 9 1 2 - 10 - 7

10-E - - 1 9 10 9 10 61 67 9 - -

11-E - - 1 9 9 9 10 61 68 9 1 -

12-G 13 18 12 12 12 9 - 1 - 12 - 4

13-G 13 18 12 12 13 9 1 1 - 12 - 3

14-H - 4 20 40 36 23 5 1 37 40 - -

15-H - 4 20 41 37 23 6 2 44 41 - -

16-I - 4 19 36 30 17 3 1 63 36 - -

17-I - 3 19 36 31 17 3 1 67 37 - -

18-I - 3 19 37 31 17 3 1 70 37 - -

19-I 6 3 1 1 - - - - 25 1 7 8

20-I 6 3 1 1 - - - - 24 1 7 8

21-I 6 3 2 1 - - - - 23 1 7 8

22-H 6 3 - - - - - - 23 - 7 8

23-H 6 3 - - - - - - 22 - 7 8

24-N 5 8 7 3 - - - - 5 3 1 3

25-N 4 8 7 3 - - - - 5 3 1 3

26-L - - - - 3 5 8 13 9 - 2 1

27-L - - - - 3 5 8 13 10 - 3 1

28-M 4 8 - 2 - - - - 5 2 1 2

29-M 4 8 - 2 - - - - 5 2 1 2

30-K - - - - 2 5 7 11 9 - 3 1

31-K - - - - 2 4 7 11 10 - 3 1

32-C 3 2 - - - - - 4 29 - 6 5

33-C 3 2 - - - - - 3 30 - 7 5

34-B 3 2 - - - - - 3 31 - 6 4

35-B 3 2 - - - - - 3 32 - 6 4

36-B 3 2 - - - - - 3 32 - 6 4

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 110/ 136

JUNE 2014





9. FSRU OPERABILITY

9.1 Downtime criteria

The major requirement from the users is to supply natural gas continuously without any

stoppage. Hence the gas production from the FSRU shall satisfy the maximum demand at all

times. Hence it is pertinent to make sure the following.

FSRU is able to operate without any hindrance due to environmental conditions

Sufficient LNG is available in the storage tanks.

In order to achieve the above, LNG carriers shall be able berth and unload the cargo to the

FSRU. The unloading operation can be divided in to following three activities.

Berthing and associated peripheral activities such as pilotage, mooring and

connecting loading arms, crew transfer and customs clearance etc.

Unloading of LNG in to FSRU storage from LNG Carrier

De-berthing of the LNG carrier

The time taken for each of the above activity and the limiting sea state is given Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 FSRU operability criteria

Description Duration (hours)

Limiting sea state Hs, (m) / Tp (sec)

Berthing and associated peripheral activities

6 1.5m / 7.0 sec

Unloading of LNG in to FSRU storage tanks from LNG Carrier

24 2.5m / 7.0 sec

De-berthing of the LNG carrier 6 3.0m

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 111/ 136

JUNE 2014





The above criteria indicate that as soon the sea state exceeds the limiting value of Hs = 2.5m,

the LNG transfer operation shall be stopped. However, the LNG carrier vessel will needs to

de-berthed only when Hs exceeds 3.0. However, FSRU will be at the jetty and need not leave

and the same shall be designed for sea state exceeding the above. Following assumptions are

made in the estimation of downtime in the overall operation of the FSRU including LNG

cargo transfer and production of natural gas.

a) The entire cargo transfer time from LNG carrier to FSRU may be taken as maximum

24 hours. This is assumed that the loading arms will have sufficient numbers and

capacity to transfer the cargo within this stipulated time.

b) The time for berthing and de-berthing operation for LNG ship considered as 6 hours

each including all peripheral activities such as pilotage, mooring and connecting

loading arms, crew transfer and customs clearance etc.

c) Sufficient number of LNG cargo ships shall be chartered such that the cargo ships are

always available to be berthed and unloaded.

d) Maximum Plant capacity is taken as 5 MTPA which correspond to normal gas flow

rate of 15.7 MMSCMD and storage capacity of FSRU vessel as 170000 m3.

e) Residual storage in FSRU is taken as 10% volume of LNG tanks in the FSRU and

this quantity will always shall be available in the Tank which may not be used for re-

gasification purpose.

f) Based on regasification and flow rate, the LNG storage will be exhausted in

approximately 4.8 days (117Hrs) and there will be a requirement of berthing

operations by a new cargo to be started every 4.0 days. Therefore transfer operations

have to be carried out once in 4.0 days.

Sea state (Hs) exceeding 2.5m for 6 hours duration is taken as down time. The above

criteria are investigated for both FL1 and FL2 locations and is summarised.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 112/ 136

JUNE 2014





9.2 Operational Considerations

9.2.1 Marine Operations

Marine operations include the following.

Pilot boarding

Custom clearance

Berthing and De-berthing

Mooring and de-mooring

Loading arm connection and disconnection

The above marine operations shall be carried out in safe manner to avoid any untoward

incident since the operation of FSRU depends on the availability of the LNG.

9.2.2 Pilot boarding Operations

Pilotage is a primary operation of sailing the LNG vessel in to the port and berthing the same

in the terminal safely. The pilot normally travels by pilot boats available with the port

authority and travel to the arriving LNG vessel for boarding the ship. The location of the

proposed FSRU is just within the port limit Inland water limit area which is within the fair

weather limit. However, before LNG ship enters the fair weather are or the port limit, the

pilot shall board the ship. This is normally possible during non-monsoon season. However,

during monsoon season (April to October), the sea swells may be high and may exceed 3m

as indicated in the wave simulation. Hence in this period, Pilot boarding may become a

major issue for operational considerations. Hence it is proposed that the Port Authorities may

consider the hiring of external agencies for such operations wherein latest Pilot boats are

available which can be used to board even during high seas.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 113/ 136

JUNE 2014





9.2.3 Berthing Operations

Berthing operations shall be carried out with the help of tug assistance. The berthing velocity

specified shall not be exceeded at time. In order to assist the pilot and berthing master, state

of the art berthing aid system shall be used. The berthing aid system includes a display

installed at the unloading platform larger enough to be seen by the berthing master from the

bridge of the arriving vessel. The display will show the vessel speed based on laser based

system installed in the berthing dolphins. The display will also show the red, green and

orange depending on the speed of the arriving vessel.

9.2.4 Mooring Operations

Mooring of the berthed vessel is crucial to the overall operations. The mooring boats shall be

able to approach the mooring points in the structure. During monsoon season, this may

become difficult due to sea swells. Hence the modern mooring boats with specialized devises

for shooting the leader lines to the structure shall be used. In addition, each mooring dolphin

may be fitted with V type boat fenders such that the mooring crew can reach the dolphin

without much difficulty.

The mooring hooks shall be fitted with state of the art mooring load monitoring system such

that in case of worsening environmental conditions, the display at the control room will show

the mooring line tensions. Upon indication, the ship mooring lines can be disconnected by

remote means from the control room. This will be useful during fire or other emergencies.

9.2.5 Loading arm Operations

Unloading of the LNG is a critical operation as the faster it is done, it is better. However, the

safe operation is essential to the continuous production of natural gas at the terminal. The

connection of the loading arms to the manifold of the ship shall be automated. This will help

in disconnecting the vessel quickly. Hence loading arms with Quick-Connect-Disconnect

facility shall be used.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 114/ 136

JUNE 2014





9.3 Down time for location FL1

Using the criteria mentioned in section 9.1, the number of days the FSRU can be operated is

given in Table 9.2. It is given as number of days in an annual year.

Table 9.2 FSRU Operability (in days / year)

Description (36 hour block)

First 6-hr: Hs < 1.5m & Tp<9.6s Next 24-hr: Hs<2.5m & Tp<9.6s Next 6-hr: Hs< 4m

347 days

Hence it can be seen that the realistic criteria defined above gives only 347 days (95%).

9.4 Down time for location FL2

Using the criteria mentioned in section 9.1, the number of days the FSRU can be operated is

given in Table 9.3. It is given as number of days in an annual year.

Table 9.3 FSRU Operability (in days / year)

Description (36 hour block)

First 6-hr: Hs < 1.5m & Tp<9.6s Next 24-hr: Hs<2.5m & Tp<9.6s Next 6-hr: Hs< 4m

362 days

Hence it can be seen that the criteria of 30-hr operation gives about 362 days (99%).

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 115/ 136

JUNE 2014





9.5 Mooring Tension Summary

The mooring analysis has been carried out using OPTIMOOR dynamic module software and

special hull confirming to LNG carriers has been used for simulation. The simulation results

at FL1 and FL2 summarizing the mooring line tension for all the cases (maximum) is given

in table 9.4. The mooring line tension is given in terms of % of API limiting values of

Maximum Breaking Limit (MBL) of the mooring line.

Table 9.4 Mooring Line Tension summary

Mooring line

Configuration

Site

Location

Allowable Value

(% of MBL)

FSRU - LNG

216,000m3

FSRU-LNG

170,000m3

FSRU-LNG

137,000m3

FSRU LNGC FSRU LNGC FSRU LNGC

Standard

Mooring lines FL1 60% 188% 31% 188% 30% 188% 24%

Standard

Mooring lines

FL2 60% 70% 25% 70% 28% 70% 32%

Note : MBL – Maximum Breaking Load, criteria is based on API RP 2SK

It shall be noted that the FSRU mooring line shall be designed for 100 year storm condition

with a wave height of 4.9m while the shuttle tankers shall only be designed for a 1 year

return period wave height of 2.5m. This due to the fact the FSRU is permanently moored and

will not relocate unless the emergency situation arises.

It can be observed that the mooring line tension for the FSRU at FL1 location is exceeding

allowable limit of 60% during extreme storm condition. Hence following suggestions can be

implemented during the detailed design.

Special mooring line for FSRU can be arranged in addition to the standard mooring

configuration used in the analysis.

Relocate the FSRU to safe location when the extreme storm during monsoon or

similar condition with sea swells exceeding 3m of significant wave height.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 116/ 136

JUNE 2014





10. JETTY STRUCTURE

10.1 Design Basis

10.1.1 Design Life

The design life of the structure will be 50 years.

10.1.2 Design Loads

The marine structures for the FSRU terminal shall be designed adequately for the following

loads and appropriate combinations of the loads.

Dead loads

Live Loads

Berthing Loads

Mooring Loads

Seismic Loads

Wind Loads

Wave Loads

Current Loads

The above loads shall be evaluated in accordance with the relevant specifications, Indian

codes and international standards.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 117/ 136

JUNE 2014





10.1.3 Dead Loads

The following unit weights are used in the design to assess dead loads i.e. permanent loads

due to self-weight of the structure and permanent equipment.

Reinforced concrete - 25 kN/m3

Structural steel - 78.5 kN/m3

Sea water density - 10.3 kN/m3

10.1.4 Live Load

Uniformly distributed live load of 5 kN/m2 will be applied in the open areas of the dolphin structures.

10.1.5 Wave and Current Load

Wave load on piles shall be calculated using applicable wave theory.

Wave and Current loading can be calculated by Morison equation and Morison equation can be written as:

21

2 4T D W M W

DF C DV V C a

Where FT is the total force, ρw is the density of water, Cd and Cm are the drag and inertia

coefficients respectively, D is the diameter of the member including marine growth, V is the

velocity and a is the acceleration.

The first term in the equation is drag component (FD) and the second term is the inertia

component (FI). This can be expressed as:

FT=FD+FI

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 118/ 136

JUNE 2014





The total force thus calculated shall be maximised either based on maximum base shear

(MBS) or maximum overturning moment (MOM) and the maximum of the two shall be used

for the design.

10.1.6 Wind Loads

Wind loads on the structure is calculated for a basic wind speed of 26 m/sec as per provisions

of IS 875-1987 for this region. Wind load has been estimated based on following

calculations. Wind load has been applied as a joint load in transverse and longitudinal

directions.

The design wind pressure is estimated based on following calculations.

Basic wind speed Vb = 26 m/s Design wind speed Vz = Vb x k1 x k2 x k3 in (m/s) Vz = 25.74 (m/s) Design wind pressure Pz = 0.6 Vz

2 in (N/m2) Pz = 0.397 (kN/m2) Where,

Vb = Basic wind speed. k1 = Probability factor (Risk coefficient) = 1.00 k2 = Terrain, Height and Structure size factor = 0.99. k3 = Topography factor = 1.00

10.1.7 Berthing Loads

It is assumed that during berthing, the vessel comes in contact with the fender at one

location. Berthing load has been taken from VENDOR’s catalogue based on selected fender

size. The berthing energy shall be computed and based on that type of fender system shall be

proposed.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 119/ 136

JUNE 2014





The breasting dolphins shall be designed for a berthing load of and 0.2 times of berthing load

shall be taken as the friction load.

10.1.8 Mooring Loads

The design wind speed for calculating mooring forces has been considered as 16.4 m/sec.

The mooring analysis has been carried out using OPTIMOOR software. Wind, Wave and

Current characteristics including the vessel Windage area and other particulars are required

for the analysis.

10.1.9 Seismic Loads

The design value for the horizontal seismic coefficient Ah shall be computed as per IS:1893-

2002 as explained below:

Ah = (Z*I*Sa) / (2*R*g)

Where

Ah = Design horizontal seismic coefficient

Z = Zone factor

I = Importance factor depending on the functional use of structure

R = Response reduction factor

Sa/g = Average response acceleration coefficient

Mumbai falls under Zone III as per the seismic map of India shown in IS1893 – 2002.

Importance factor of 1.5 has been considered for this structure.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 120/ 136

JUNE 2014





10.1.10 RC Design Criteria

The design of RC structures shall follow relevant Indian Standards such as IS 456, IS 2911

and IS 4369. The proposed RC structures shall be designed with restricted crack width as per

Indian codes and standards. The concrete piles shall be designed with a limiting crack width

calculated as per IS 4651. The crack width shall be taken as 0.004 times the effective cover

to main reinforcement. Hence, the crack width for the RC bored pile will become 0.3mm

(using 75mm cover) and 0.2mm for beams (with cover 50mm).

10.1.11 Reinforced concrete

Grade of concrete for substructure (piles) - M40

Grade of concrete for all superstructures

Precast - M40

Cast – in – situ - M40

The cement shall be of grade 53.

10.1.12 Reinforcement steel

The reinforcement steel shall be of corrosion resistant steel (CRS) of Fe500.

10.1.13 Structural steel

Yield Strength value of all steel work shall be considered as 350 N/mm2

10.1.14 Marine growth

Marine growth of 50 mm thick on the circumference of the piles can be considered for the

area of action while assessing the wave / current forces.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 121/ 136

JUNE 2014





10.1.15 Pile Design Safety Factor

Factor of safety values of 2.5 in compression and 3 in tension will be applied for the pile

design. Axial capacity of bored RC piles shall be calculated as per IS 2911. Piles shall be

loaded tested to prove their capacity during the construction phase. Any adjustment to the

penetration depth shall be made after the result of the pile load test is available.

10.1.16 Deck Level

The design deck level for the berth is taken as (+) 8.75 m CD which is adequate enough as

no wave action is envisaged inside the inner harbor basin. The calculation is summarised

below.

Highest High Water Level = 5.38m

Storm Surge = 0.5m

Depth of Deck beams and slab = 1.5m

Air Gap = 1.5m

Total = 8.88m

Hence a deck level of 9m shall be adequate for the unloading platform. However, the

mooring and breasting dolphin deck levels can be lowered to facilitate operational

requirements of berthing and mooring.

10.1.17 Berthing Criteria

The berth is located in a sheltered location; easy berthing condition can be achieved. The

design berthing velocities to be adopted during the design of berthing structures is

summarised in Table 10.1.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 122/ 136

JUNE 2014





Table 10.1 Berthing Criteria

Item 137,000 m3 170,000 m3 216,000 m3

Dead Weight Tonnage

Displacement

Berthing Velocity (m/sec) 0.15 0.15 0.15

Berthing angle (deg) 10 10 10 Berthing Method 1/3 1/4 1/4

10.1.18 Codes and Standards

Following codes and standards shall be used in the design of proposed structures and its

components. The order of precedence shall be as follows.

Project specifications

Indian Laws and regulations

Indian standards

International standards

Engineering practices

In case of conflict between the above, it shall be brought to the notice of MbPT for

resolution.

Table 10.2 Codes and Standards

Code Description

Marine Facilities IS 4651 Code of Practice for Planning and Design of Port and Harbours.

Part 1 Site Investigation Part 2 Earth Pressure Part 3 Loading Part 4 General design considerations Part 5 Layout and functional requirements

IS 9527 Code of design for planning and design of ports and Harbour Part 3 Sheet pile

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 123/ 136

JUNE 2014





Part 5 Open pile structure BS 6349 Code of practice for maritime structures

Part 1 General Criteria Part 2 Design of Quay walls, jetties and dolphins Part 4 Fendering and Mooring System Part 5 Code of practice for dredging and land reclamation Part 7 Guide to the design and construction of breakwaters

BS EN 1538: 2010 Execution of special geotechnical work. Diaphragm walls BS 6031 Code of practice for earthworks BS 8002 Code of practice for earth retaining structures

BS EN 1536: 2010 Execution of special geotechnical work. Bored piles

Coastal Protection Manuals CIRIA C683 The Rock Manual (The use of rock in hydraulic engineering – 2nd

edition) EM 1110-2-1100 Coastal Engineering manual – US Army Engineer Research and

Development Centre (ERDC)

Structural Steel Design IS 800 - 2007 General Construction in steel – Code of Practice Loading IS 1893 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures.

Part 1:2002 General Provisions and Buildings

IS 875:1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures – Part 3 : Wind Loads,

IRC 6 – 1966 Standard specifications and code of practice for roads, bridges, section II Loads and stresses

RC Design IS 456 - 2000 Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice RC Bored Pile Design IS 2911-1979 Part II Design and construction of Pile Foundations – Concrete Piles

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 124/ 136

JUNE 2014





Mooring OCIMF Guidelines and Recommendations for the safe mooring of large

ships at piers and sea islands Fender system PIANC Guidelines The guidelines for the design of fender system, 2002

Unless otherwise specified, all the latest codes shall be used in the design and construction of

the proposed FSRU.

10.2 Proposed Studies

The proposed FSRU is located in congested harbour area and following additional studies

shall be carried out during the Front End Design of the facility either by MbPT or by the

concession holder.

Market study for gas requirement

Feasibility of connecting the gas pipeline to user community

Bathymetry and seabed survey

Vessel movement and anchoring locations

Geotechnical investigations at the jetty and pipeline corridor

Current pattern study within the harbour area including siltation

Environmental Impact Assessment

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 125/ 136

JUNE 2014





11. SUBSEA GAS PIPELINE

11.1 Subsea pipeline

Subsea pipe line of 24” diameter shall be installed between onshore and FSRU terminal for

transmission of natural gas to users.

11.2 Design Basis

The proposed pipeline from the FSRU terminal is under water submarine pipeline. The

pipeline system shall consist of the following.

A 24” pipeline

Concrete coating for stability purposes

Coal Tar Epoxy coating to protect against corrosion

Anodes to protect against corrosion

Control Valves and shut down valves

The pipelines will be designed as piggable and all bends will be of 5D and all necessary

requirements for intelligent pigging will be provided. The pipelines shall be designed against

the following requirements.

Internal pressure during operation

External pressure during installation and empty condition

Stresses during laying process

Stability of the pipelines during operation and immediately after installation

Stresses during Shut down and transient conditions

Stresses due to thermal variations

The pipelines shall be buried below seabed by at-least 2.5m.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 126/ 136

JUNE 2014





11.3 Proposed Pipeline Design

The preliminary design of subsea pipeline has been carried out and the proposed system is

summarised in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1. Proposed Subsea Pipeline

Diameter 24”

Wall Thickness 19.05mm

Material API 5L X65

Concrete Coating 100mm Thick, 3040 kg/m3

CP System Bracelet Anodes

Burial 2.5m below seabed

Length 5 km Approximately

11.4 Specifications

The specifications for the fabrication and installation of the subsea pipelines developed

during the preliminary design are listed in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2. Specifications for Subsea Pipelines

1 Specification for supply of carbon steel line pipe for offshore pipelines

2 Specification concrete weight coating of offshore pipelines

3 Specification coal tar enamel coating of offshore pipelines

4 Specification for anodes for offshore pipelines

5 Specification for Specification for Field Welding and NDT of offshore pipelines

6 Specification for Field Joint Coating of offshore pipelines

7 Specification For cleaning and hydro-testing and pre-commissioning of offshore pipelines

8 Specification for installation of offshore pipelines

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 127/ 136

JUNE 2014





12. PROJECT COST, SCHEDULE AND VIABILITY

12.1 Assumptions

The preliminary cost estimate is based on the following assumptions.

The cost estimate is approximate based on preliminary sizing of berth and shall be

subjected to a variation of 20%

Unit rates for concrete, steel and pile installation is taken from in-house data using

Indian projects.

Cost of fenders and bollards is taken from previous projects.

Cost escalation due to price increase is not included in this estimate

12.2 Methodology

The estimation is divided in following groups.

Dredging

Berth Structure

Civil and outfitting works

Subsea Pipelines

Engineering and Management.

FSRU Chartering 12.3 Dredging

The estimated cost of dredging for 3.7 Mm3 of soil and 0.33 Mm3 of rock is approximately 206.6 Crores assuming a dredging cost unit rate of Rs.200 and Rs.4000 for soil and rock respectively.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 128/ 136

JUNE 2014





12.4 Jetty and Pipelines

The estimated cost of jetty and subsea pipelines is given in Table 12.1.

Table 12.1 Project Cost Estimate – Fixed Cost

SL Component Quantity Rate Total

No Nos Length (m) (Rs in Lakh) (Rs in Crores)

A Preliminaries

Survey Lumpsum 2.00

Soil investigation Lumpsum 4.00

B Subsea Pipelines

24" Subsea Pipeline Supply 1 7000 0.50 35.00

Coating, Transport and Delivery 1 7000 0.50 35.00

Subsea Pipeline Installation 1 Lumpsum 60.00

C Berth Facility

Unloading Platform 1 2000 20.00

Mooring Dolphins 6 600 36.00

Breasting Dolphins 8 800 64.00

Port Control Building Lumpsum 5.00

Pump House Building Lumpsum 5.00

Walkways Lumpsum 4.00

Port Craft Jetty Lumpsum 5.00

Navigational Aids Lumpsum 6.00

Shore approach facility Lumpsum 25.00

D Mechanical, Piping and Electrical Facilities

Mechanical / Equipment Lumpsum 75.00

Fire Fighting facilities Lumpsum 25.00

Piping (Material Supply) Lumpsum 15.00

Piping Installation Lumpsum 15.00

Cables and installation Lumpsum 8.00

Supports and Installation Lumpsum 12.00

E Miscellaneous

Engineering & management 9.00

Contingencies 25.00

Total Cost (Indian Rs Crores) 490.00

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY



REVISION : C

PAGE : 129/ 136

JUNE 2014





12.5 FSRU Chartering

The project can consider two options for the proposed FSRU to produce natural gas at the

rate of 5 MTPA.

Chartering and operating the FSRU by third party

Custom building new FSRU hull and outfitting topsides

Chartering option reduces the time line by at least 5 years as the custom design, building the

hull and topsides may take considerable time. However, this option may have the flexibility

of operating the FSRU at different gas requirements. For the proposed FSRU in Mumbai

harbour, it is proposed to charter a typical FSRU with 170,000 m3 capacity of storage and 5

MTPA capacity to produce gas, which may take shorter duration to float tender and mobilise

within 24 months. The schedule required to construct the fixed assets such as jetty and

submarine pipelines may also take similar time line and hence considered to be best option.

Based on market rate in the recent chartering rate from various agencies including Golar

LNG and other, the chartering FSRU of this capacity may cost around US$ 600 Million

(approximately Rs 3600/- Crores).

12.6 Schedule

The project duration of 36 months is required to establish the FSRU at the proposed location

after the obtaining necessary EIA clearances.

12.7 Viability

A detailed study of gas requirement and business model studies shall be carried out by

interested parties prior to any investment on the proposed FSRU project.

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FSRU IN MUMBAI HARBOUR AREA


REVISION : C

PAGE : 130/ 136

JUNE 2014





ANNEXURE A

JETTY DRAWINGS

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST



REVISION : C

PAGE : 131/ 136

JUNE 2014





ANNEXURE B

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST



REVISION : C

PAGE : 132/ 136

JUNE 2014





ANNEXURE C

MOORING ANALYSIS RESULTS – FL1

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST



REVISION : C

PAGE : 133/ 136

JUNE 2014





ANNEXURE D

MOORING ANALYSIS RESULTS – FL2

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST



REVISION : C

PAGE : 134/ 136

JUNE 2014





ANNEXURE E

OFFSHORE WIND-WAVE MODEL (WAM)

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST



REVISION : C

PAGE : 135/ 136

JUNE 2014





ANNEXURE F

NEARSHOERE WAVE MODEL (SWAN)

MUMBAI PORT

TRUST



REVISION : C

PAGE : 136/ 136

JUNE 2014





ANNEXURE G

OPTIMOOR SOFTWARE

Documents

Client - environmentclearance.nic.inenvironmentclearance.nic.in/.../Online/TOR/0_0_16_Dec...FSRU-0003-R… · REGASSIFICATION UNIT (FSRU) IN MUMBAI HARBOUR FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT