Remote Region LNG Supply Study - Makassar Project

PT Bayu Buana Gemilang
Remote Region LNG Supply
Makassar Project
CONCEPTUAL STUDY
(DRAFT)
0 Jul -11 First Issue
REV DATE DESCRIPTION Rico P

Table of Content
1. Introduction
1.1.Site Location
Supply Locations (Jakarta Hub, Energy Equity Sengkang, Bontang, Tangguh)
Offtake Locations
1.2.Study Background
1.3.Study Objective
2. Pre-screening Studies
2.1. Supply Location Selection
2.2. Offtake Location Selection (Pertamina Port, Pautere, Utea, etc)
2.3. Gas Demand Study (Tello PP – off take sizing, etc)
2.4. Transport Moda Selection (Type of ship/barge, Size, no. of ship, speed, indicative
price, etc)
2.5. Regas Moda Selection (hybrid, land base, platform jetty, etc)
2.6. Storage Requirement Study (small scale FSRU, gravity base storage, onshore
storage, etc)
2.7. Gas Transport to Customer (why pipeline is the only workable choice)
2.8. Barrier to Entry Study (existing players, market intelligent, existing energy price, etc)
3. Scenario Comparison
3.1. Qualification Criteria (Tello PP requirements, site location situation, social condition,
whether condition, sea condition, etc)
3.2. Scenario Pre-selection (scoring table)
3.3 Scenario Evaluation (Technical, economic/financial pre-studies, etc)
4. Recommended Scheme
4.1. Technical Cost
4.2. Execution Plan
4.3 Summary
5. Follow up Actions / Outstanding Issues
5.1. Detail ship specification (ship particular) + charter rate
5.2. Barge option (particular requirements, mode cost, etc)
5.3. Power Plant Profile (Turbine specification, future development, existing pipe route,
current energy supply, gas supply specification, PLN approach, etc)
5.4. Potential Pipeline Route
5.5. Potential Terminal Location
5.6. Source of Supply (detail of supply potential)
5.7. Permiting (Location permit – Pemda, Terminal location permit – Dep. Hub, etc)

Figure List
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Attachments
Attachment 1 -
Attachment 2 -
Attachment 3 -
Attachment 4 -
Attachment 5 -

1. Introduction
1.1 Site Location
In order to support The Indonesian Government to maintain and to keep the stage of
Energy Sustainability especially in eastern part of Indonesia, BBG is pro-actively taking
part in to the campaign, by providing an alternative solution as to give an answer of short
energy supply in the East Indonesian areas nowadays.
After resuming from The Jatim - Jateng Project, and it’s first Micro LNG Project, BBG
plans to develop 2nd
Micro LNG (“Remote region LNG Supply”) Business in some pre-
targeted markets / areas, that is expected to be able to start delivering (supply) LNG for
several local Power Plants in east Indonesia areas in the forthcoming 2015.
BBG intent to utilize necessary free cash flow for the operation research and competency
development for the purpose stated above.
BBG’s targeted delivery points will be Makassar, Pomalaa, Bali, Mataram, Kupang,
Menado, Ternate and Ambon. Whilst several supply points indicated as Jakarta FSRU
Hubs, Equity Energy Sengkang, Donggi Senoro, Bontang as well as Tangguh are taken in
to consideration.
The BBG objective in 2025 (or earlier) is to reach a state where the company can supply a
demand of 400 Bbtud of LNG to islands of Indonesia for power generation and industries.
However on its first stage of development, adopting Blue ocean strategy, BBG decided to
focus only on certain markets where it’s relatively less developed by virtue of its less
competition.
Of which as to initiate the Study, it’s decided to chose Makassar with the demand of abt.
32 mmscfd Natural gas, consumed for the Tello Power generation (State owned Power
Plant / PLN Makassar)
1.2 Study Background
The BBG strategy is to develop the most optimized solution that able to deliver an un-
interruptible service of abt. 32 mmscfd gas supplies to The Tello Power Plant at Makassar,
at a reasonable economic cost by constructing the most suitable infrastructures as well as
utilizing the right assets that’s fit to its entirely logistic design calculation.
Thus included but not limited to chartering and deploying an FSRU (Floating Storage &
Regasification unit), developing small scale land-based Terminal, or gravity based
Terminal, developing mooring Terminal, jetty & platforms, pipeline (sub-sea and onshore),
onshore receiving facilities, chartering the right size & types of the transporting vehicles
(i.e. Small scale LNG vessels, LNG barges), etc
1.3 Study Objective
The conceptual study was aimed to propose the most optimized solutions to develop
Makassar LNG terminal to be able to supply natural gas at 32 mmscfd to local power
plants and Industries starting 2015 onwards.

2. Pre-screening Studies
2.1 Supply Location Selection
There are several sources of supply locations in Indonesia taken in to consideration, such
as;
- Jakarta FSRU Hub, distance abt. 600 NM away from Makassar
- Energy Equity Sengkang, distance abt. 100 NM away
- Donggi Senoro, distance abt. 300 NM away
- Bontang Kaltim, distance abt. 500 NM away
- Tangguh Papua, distance abt. 900 NM away
The availability of all would be still subject to the firmed allocation from BP MIGAS
Indonesia in regard to the Domestic market obligation
2.2 Off take Location Selection
At this preliminary stage study, there are 3 proposed locations available for the off take
Terminal at Makassar, i.e;
a) In way of Pertamina Depot 7 UPMS Makassar Port
b) In way of Paotere Port
c) In way of Untea Port
All of them are having each advantages and disadvantages, further detailed as follows;
Pertamina Depot 7 UPMS
Advantages Disadvantages
Crowded International Port
Abt 10 km away from PLTG Tello High Potential social challenges
Close to the existing UPMS 7 Depot facility
supplying fuel oil (HSD) to PLTG Tello
International navigational channel
Too many interests involved
Paotere
Abt 9 km away from PLTG Tello Crowded traditional boat terminal
High Potential social challenges
Untea
Abt 15 km away from PLTG Tello Green-field not developed yet
Initially designed and planned for fisheries port

Figure 1. Map of Makassar
Beside the above advantages and disadvantages as a preliminary study for location
selection. Further, crossing to existing pipelines or cables, traffic, pipeline routing safety
shall be put in to consideration on the further study.
Last but not least The Latest updated and approved by Local Government Makassar City
MasterPlan has to be put in to consideration for the location choices.
As to summarize, at this preliminary stage, the location in between Paotere port and Untea
Port is believed to be the most suitable for the purposes, considering all the aspects
involved, however detailed proposed pipe route still need to be further defined in the next
stages of study.
2.3. Gas Demand Study
The preliminary data obtained from The PLN Power Plant Sector Tello Makassar, the
following demand are figured out.
No Power Plant
Unit
Type Existing
Fuel
Installed
Capacity
(MW)
Capacity
(MW)
Gas
Demand
(MMSCFD)
1. Westcan Gas Firing HSD 14.5 9 2.30
2. Alstom#1 Gas Firing HSD 21.4 12 3.07
3. Alstom#2 Gas Firing HSD 20.1 12 3.07
4. GE – 2 x 33,4 Gas Firing HSD 66.8 55 14.07
5. Mitsubishi 2 x
12,6
Diesel
Firing
MFO 25.2 18 4.61
6. SWD 2 x 12,4 Diesel
Firing
HSD 24.8 18 4.61
172.8 124 31.73

The above were calculated based on the requirement of both power plants which so far
consumed diesel oil as well as those which are originally designed for gas consumed
engines.
From which at this preliminary stage, for the sake of Preliminary Study supply unit size
was defined at abt. 32 MMSCFD.
Figure 2. Location of PLTD/PLTG PLN Sektor Tello Makassar

2.4. Transport Modal Selection
There are several marine based modes of gas transportation put in to consideration as
follows;
2.4.1. Mini / Small Scale Gas carrier
There are several ship’s (vessel’s based) designs which were developed from the
originally conventional LNG carrier, with however small scale capacity (sizes) that is
considered to be fit for the purposes.
Those designs are as follows
a) MV. Pioneer Knutsen
So far known to be the World smallest LNG Carrier that performs Norwegian west
coastal service. It was designed by MARINTEK with the total cargo capacity of
1,100 CBM, consists of two each 550 CBM C Type Cargo Tanks. The vessel’s
detailed particular are as follows;
- LOA : 69 m
- Beam : 11.8 m
- Draft : 3.3 m
- DWT : 640 T
- Class : DNV Class
Figure 3. 1,100 CBM LNG Carrier MV. Pioneer Knutsen

b) MV. Shinju Maru No.1
She was performing Japanese coastal service since 2003. It was designed by one
Japanese Ship Designer and Classed by NKK. The vessel total capacity is 2513
CBM, consists of two C Type Cargo Tanks.
The vessel’s detailed particular are as follows;
- LOA : 86.29 m
- Beam : 15.10 m
- Draft : 4.17 m
- DWT : 1,781 T
- Class : NKK Class
Figure 4. 2,513 CBM LNG Carrier MV. Shinju Maru No.1

c) MV. Coral Methane
A 7500 CBM Coral Methane was the first multipurpose gas carrier built for Holland
based company named Anthony Veder, who owned and operated fleet of LNG
carriers of various size. This vessel was built at one Polish shipyard and delivered
in the year of 2009. She is flying Dutch flag, and classed under BV Class. The
cargo containment system is using IMO Type C Tank.
The vessel under long time (15 years) chartered by Norwegian Gas Utility, Gasnor
AS, and served LNG distribution along the rugged coast of Norway.
Technology application & design wise pretty close and similar to those IM Skaugen
SE / Norgas’s vessels.

Figure 5. 7,500 CBM Coral Methane with 2 x Azipull Thruster Total 5,000 kW
d) MV. Norgas Innovation & Norgas Creation
Design was developed by I.M Skaugen SE; the design was developed in to two
basic designs of each 10,000 CBM as well as 12,000 CBM Multigas Carriers.
They’re using Type C cargo tank / containment systems. A DNV Classed vessel.

Figure 6. 10,000 & 12,000 CBM Multigas Carrier by IM. Skaugen SE
2.4.2. Mini / Small Scale LNG Barges
Several designs of Small scale LNG Barges were taken in to consideration such as
Waller marine designs as well as IM. Skaugen barge designs. The followings are
typical of the barge designs.

Figure 7. Typical of abt. 4,000 to 5,500 CBM LNG Barge designs
All above mentioned modes of transportation are having each advantage and
disadvantages, further detailed as follows;
Mini / Small Scale LNG Carriers
Navigationally safe for ocean going voyages Relatively more costly, and took longer time for
fabrication
High speed more TRV’s Carry relatively less cargo tonnage
Draft constraints
Mini / Small Scale LNG Barges
Relatively cheaper, and faster to fabricate Not so safe for ocean going voyages due to stability
issues, more fit for coastal sails only
Carry relatively more cargo tonnage Having less speed, longer TRV days
Able to reach area with less water depth due
to minim draft
Beside the above advantages and disadvantages as a preliminary study for
transportation modal selection, the cargo sizing vs the available vessel’s space / capacity
for cargo would be the next crucial issues in the logistic service design and calculation.

The IM Skaugen SE design for the 10,000 CBM Multigas Carrier has been selected
preliminary as the marine transportation modal, since it’s designed size was believed to
be the most ultimate suits to deliver and perform an uninterruptable supply of 32
MMSCFD gas to the Plant.
2.5. Regas Modal Selection
There are several Regassification Technologies taken in to consideration as follows;
2.5.1. Land-based Regassification Plant

Figure 8. Typical Small Scale Receiving Terminal at Norwegian Coast
2.5.2. Mini Scale Regassification Plant on top of Jetty Platform/Barge

Figure 9. SBM Offshore solution for Mini Scale Regassification Plant on top of Jetty
Platform/Barge complete with Cryonom inset
2.5.3. Hybrid Floating Storage and Re-gasification Vessel
Figure 10. TGE Concept Design for Hybrid LNG-FSRU

Land Based Re-gasification Plants
Cheaper to construct Land Acquisition to meet safety criteria will be
difficult to get
Easier to construct Land acquisition will be pricy
More difficult to get permit
Small Scale Re-gasification on Barges
Quicker to implement Location selection in relation with permit to be
considered as a barrier
Cost relatively moderate
No land acquisition is required
Hybrid Floating Storage & Regas Vessel
Compact / Sophisticated design The most expensive
Longest time to build
2.6. Storage Requirement Study
At this preliminary stage, selection was made toward the available options of the LNG
storage system on the basis of the most suitable choices to the requirement (fit for
purposes)
The available options are detailed as follows;
2.6.1. Small Scale FSRU
Figure 11. IM Skaugen SE Small Scale FSRU

This concept was first introduced and developed by Waller Marine of US and IM
Skaugen SE, with the LNG capacity ranged from 6,000 CBM up to 10,000 CBM.
2.6.2. Gravity Based Floating Storage
Figure 12. BW Terminal Gravifloat
Concept first introduced and developed by BW Group, offering stage of flexibility
in sizing and relocation after decommissioning. Flexible in handling due to its

modular forms, construction on shipyard, towed, installed and commissioned on
site.
2.6.3. On-Shore / Land-based Storage
Figure 13. IM Skaugen SE Small Scale Land based Terminal using Modular Tanks
The concept is offering advantages such as flexibility in sizing and relocating
the assets due to its modular forms, relatively cheaper and faster to build, in
fact is a solution that is more endurable to the bad weather compare to any
typical floating assets.

Small Scale FSRU
Compact / Sophisticated design Longer time needed to design and build
Flexible in deployment Relatively costly to build
No land acquisition involved and away from
public, less potential social cost
Vulnerable to Bad weather
Existing LNGC convertible
Gravity Based Floating Storages
Quicker to implement Location selection in relation with permit to be
Cost relatively moderate Vulnerable to Bad weather
No land acquisition is required, away from
public, less potential social cost
Flexible in re-deployment
Land based Storages
Lower Capital cost Land acquisition involved, within range to the
nearest public
Less time required to build
Tank modules could be relocated, possible for
truck transporting
Location selection in relation with permit to be
Bad weather endurable Maintain relatively long cryogenic LNG pipe could
be costly
2.7. Gas Transport to Customer
At this preliminary stage of study, it’s defined that the gas transport modal to the customer
would be through pipeline network. The choice was made on the basis of the followings:
 Distance from re-gasification terminal to power plant is considered short. Range
distance between 10-15km.
 Topographic from re-gasification terminal to power plants relatively flat. No
hydraulic issue to supply using pipeline.
 Continuous gas supply to power plant is expected – supply using pipeline will have
a reliability on continues supply
 Supply volume is expected to be 30mmscfd. In this case investment cost to build
pipeline will be the lowest compare to other alternative of supply.
2.8. Barrier to Entry Study
It’s known that PERTAMINA & PLN (Indonesia Power) have entered in to an MOU, enable
PERTAMINA or it’s later joint ventures will supply gas to the PLN (IP) power plant at
Makassar area as well as Pomalaa, however till to date there has been nothing
progressing.

In the mean time, one local natural gas Producer, Energy Equity Sengkang have delivered
presentation to the local South Sulawesi Province government to deliver their produced
gas of abt. 70 mmscfd to Bali in the form of LNG through it’s LNG vehicle i.e. SS LNG
Sengkang irrespective of local demand of abt. 32 mmscfd to Makassar.
The gas demand of abt. 32 mmscfd for Makassar city have been well known in the market,
according to the Local government owned company (Perusda) there have been at least 8
parties (including BBG) who have declared their interest to develop LNG trade to
Makassar, and offering cooperation-ship with local government owned vehicle for joint
study.
One of them is Prodigy (owned by Bakrie Group who owned of abt. 30% shares of Energy
equity Sengkang), the other parties beside BBG are BOSOWA, TONASA, etc.
One advantage out of BBG was that BBG had once delivered presentation to The Local
Province Governor, and managed to get a positive respond.
Another issues would be again the current price of The Natural Gas at the producer’s end
against the PLN (IP) ability to absorb the price of natural gas at their end, after considering
all the transport, ragas cost fee plus some risk margin of the traders.
3. Scenario Comparison
3.1. Qualification Criteria
The criteria used to qualify the scenario were as follow:
1. FSRT be located in Muara Tawar at water depth 15-16 m
2. Charted FSRT with capacity 125,000-138,000m3
3. Mooring system: Side by side or mooring tower system
4. Pig launcher, pipeline and pig receiver facility to be installed
5. ORF in Muara Tawar
3.2. Scenario Pre-selection
3.3. Scenarios Evaluation

The pre-selected scenarios were evaluated in order to select the most appropriate concept based on the
following criteria: technical risk, operating constraint, process flexibility, and impact of construction,
environmental value, safety issues, cost and planning
4. Recommended Scheme
4.1. Technical Costs
The below attached project budget estimate is not fully adequate and thus the reported costs are subject to
detailed review, and should only be considered as a very preliminary assessment.
Reported costs integrate main equipment and bulk procurement, pre-fabrication and site
construction/installation. Cost related to land acquisitions, tie-ins to existing facilities and permits are also
excluded as well as contingencies.

Remote Region LNG Supply Study - Makassar Project

4.2. Execution Plan
An Indicative planning is illustrated below
4.3. Summary
5. Outstanding Issues
The following items should be further followed up/checked/analyzed at pre-project / FEED
level:
5.1. Detail ship specification (ship particular) + charter rate
5.2. Barge option (particular requirements, mode cost, etc)
5.3. Power Plant Profile (Turbine specification, future development, existing pipe route,
current energy supply, gas supply specification, PLN approach, etc)
5.4. Potential Pipeline Route
5.5. Potential Terminal Location
5.6. Source of Supply (detail of supply potential)
5.7. Permiting (Location permit – Pemda, Terminal location permit – Dep. Hub, etc)

ATTACHMENT 1 – PHASE OF DESIGN STAGE
ATTACHMENT 2 – TIME FRAME OF DESIGN FACILITIES

ATTACHMENT 3 – PIPELINE DESIGN PROCESS
ATTACHMENT 5 – TYPICAL PICTURE OF PIG RECEIVING ON ORF - SSWJ

ATTACHMENT 7 – LOCAL LINE PIPE MANUFACTURER
PT KHI PIPE INDUSTRIES

Attachment 8 - FSRT and facilities budget estimate (supporting data’s)

Remote Region LNG Supply Study - Makassar Project

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Remote Region LNG Supply Study - Makassar Project

Similar to Remote Region LNG Supply Study - Makassar Project (20)

Remote Region LNG Supply Study - Makassar Project