maritime navigational risk analysis of shipping north slope liquified natural gas interview results...

Maritime Navigational Risk Analysis of Shipping North Slope Liquefied Natural Gas

Interview results State Pilots

Safeguard Marine LLC

Prepared for Alaska Gasline Port AuthorityPresented at the Alaska LNG Summit, 2012

Purpose

• Identify and analyze the risk mitigation factors

associated with LLNG tankers

• Compare and contrast maritime risk limitations of navigating LLNG tankers in Cook Inlet and Valdez, Alaska

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

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

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

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

Liquefied Natural Gas Shipping in Alaska

• LNG tankers safely calling Nikiski for over 40 years• Tankers of shuttle size and specifically made for

the terminal and port• Exporting North Slope gas will require larger ships

due to the volume of gas• Year round operations with LLNG size ships at the

Nikiski docks may cause undue risk • Enough risk mitigation factors may not be

available to facilitate a safe mooring

Discussion

Previous Analysis Concluded Valdez Presented Relative Less Risk Than Cook Inlet

Issues Examined

–Weather patterns– Tides and Currents – Ice navigation – Geographical obstructions – Depths of water– Present infrastructure available

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

• Northern most ice free port, already possesses required infrastructure

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

• Shuttle ships from Valdez could deliver LNG to Cook Inlet or Southeast or Western Alaska

CONCLUSION

Ship in Cook Inlet Ice

Interview of State Pilots

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

• Interviews of 19 Marine State Pilots total • Combined Years Piloting Experience: 442 years• All worked Valdez TAPS and Cook Inlet

• 41 Questions

Questions Summary

• Questions divided into 8 groups• Answers shown as % by graph• Assumption made creating questions:• Due to size of these ships:• LLNG will not utilize anchor maneuvering• LLNG will not utilize ships engines alongside

Water Depth Cook Inlet

Winter Dredging

Dredging Shoals

Other Shoal Changes

Shoal Changes

Boulder Movement

Actual UKC

10 feet UKC

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

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Que

stio

ns

Tug Assist Cook Inlet

Conditions prevent Tug Assist Nikiski

Tug Assist Risk Mitigation

Tug Assist During Ice Season

Tug Assist Cook Inlet

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

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Que

stio

ns

Tides, Currents, and Ice Cook Inlet

Changing Ice Rules

Mitigation Force of Ice

Larger Ships greater effect by Ice

Force of Ice Proportionate to Ship size

Nikiski tides and currents greater risk

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

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Que

stio

ns

Moored LLNG in Cook Inlet

Not Using Engine Effect Safety

Use Engine LLNG Counter Ice Effect

Use Engine to Prevent Ship Break Away

Use Engine to Counter Ice Effect

Risk Mitigation Possible During Heavy Ice

High Risk During Severe Ice

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

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Que

stio

ns

Port Anchorage Docks

Anchoring of LLNG Ships

Knowles Head Suitable Anhcorage

Local Communities Negative Perception of LLNG Anchoring

Kachemak Bay Suitable Anhcorage

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

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Que

stio

ns

Maneuvering of Ships Using Anchor

Tug Assist Year-Round Possible

Prefer Tug Assist to Anchor

Use Anchor at Nikiski

Anchor Used Control Pivot Reduce Speed

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

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Que

stio

ns

SERVS and Coast Guard

Increased Traffic in Cook Inlet Require Traffic Lanes

Would LLNG Terminal Cook Inlet need SERVS and Coast Guard

SERVS and Coast Guard Provide Adequate Risk Mitigation

Expansion of SERVS in Valdez for LLNG

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

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Que

stio

ns

LLNG Terminal Locations

LLNG Terminal Valdez Poses Risk

LLNG Terminal Nikiski Poses Risk

LLNG Terminal North of Forelands Cook Inlet Poses Risk

Cook Inlet Should Not Be Considered for LLNG Terminal

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

Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

Que

stio

ns

Shuttle Tanker Loading Nikiski, Cook Inlet

Overall Impressions About Cook Inlet

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

• Nikiski: 13 “NO”, 3 conditionally yes, 1 yes• Risk can’t be mitigated with money• Mother nature can’t be mitigated• Risk posed is “Absolutely not [acceptable]”• “Don’t fly in the face of mother nature”

Overall Impressions About Valdez

• All 19 were positive/ Yes

• “Excellent location, deep water, ice free”• “Where it belongs, Only sensible location”• “Only Valdez is an option for ships this size”

Mitigating Navigational Risk

• Mitigation of maritime risk starts with location• Every day decisions made by these mariners• Tool Box and the Tools to work with when

creating a successful outcome• Art of ship handling/ not a science

Valdez is Safer than Nikiski

• Interview of the boots on the ground• Valdez is the superior location • Nikiski is proven port for shuttle size ships • Valdez is proven port for VLCC size ships

Thank you

Safe Guard Marine LLC

Captain Jeff Pierce, jeffpierce78@hotmail.comJonathan J. Pierce PhD Jonathan.pierce@ucdenver.edu