maritime navigational risk analysis of shipping north slope liquified natural gas interview results...
DESCRIPTION
Valdez Marine*Valdez Marine Oil terminal*LNG terminal*Valdez infrastructure*Port of Valdez*U.S. Coast Guard & Prince William SoundTRANSCRIPT
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, [email protected] J. Pierce PhD [email protected]