Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Comparison NG Export project to Turkey An Interactive Workshop Ronen Hadash Amirim Management
Marine CNG
Technology mature, not yet deployed in marine applications. Ready for construction. Backed by serious companies. Difficulty & footprint low. Time to market fast. Drawback - no one had the balls to implement (so far)
Target
To compare alternative supply chain costs:
Minimum supply chain cost = max netback to supplier = min price to offtaker / market Information from 3rd parties
Project fundamentals:
Distance ~ 600km Capacity ~ 6-8 BCM / annum or ~5-6 MTPA
The Model
Comparison: LNG / Pipeline / CNG
8 Annual quantity Distance: Cost of Capital Ammortization Pipeline / LNG - 8 BCM 285,714,286 mmBTU 600 km 12% 20 Years LNG - TPA 6.00 MTPA 15.00 15.00 Pipeline - inch/meter 24.00 inch - m' $/km NA $ $ $ $ NA NA $ $ $ 10.00 10.00 $ $ $ CNG - 6 BCM 6 214,285,714 mmBTU 600 km 12% 15 years CNG - Ship 5.00 Ships Included Included 10.00 10.00
CAPEX
Load / Discharging Capex Return OPEX Total Costs (annual) $ / MMbtu Shipping Discharging fee Total supply chain market price netback
$ existing $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $
LNG OPEX
Length (KM) 210 925 1222 217 396 670 642 840 1166
Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost (m' US$) (US$/Inch/m) (US$ m'/km) 806 160 3.8 12,800 108 13.8 11,264 96 9.2 640 92 2.9 1,700 89 4.3 3,750 140 5.6 1,690 63 2.6 1,866 53 2.2 2,720 53 2.3 95 5
CNG
CNG 2
Conclusions
Need to assess the three delivery solution, Pipeline, CNG, and LNG. Results surprising. Footprint for loading/unloading facilities is a consideration Flexibility and scalability which are difficult with alternative solutions. Time to market !!! Size and method of investment (how much, who is investing) Pipelines and CNG work best for regional markets, while LNG works best for global reach. CNG provides flexibility to redeploy the assets (smaller reserves or geopolitical issues) CNG complement LNG projects.