LNG Risks Harri Kytomaa

8/10/2019 LNG Risks Harri Kytomaa

1/53

Evaluating risk management and

reliability for safe, continuous and

efficient LNG operationsLNG TECH Global Summit 2013

Harri Kytmaa, Ph.D., P.E. |Corporate Vice President |[email protected]

Trey Morrison, Ph.D., P.E. |Principal Engineer |[email protected]


2/53

Who We Are

Exponent is a multi-disciplinary consulting firmdedicated to addressing important science,engineering and regulatory issues

for our clients


3/53


4/53


5/53

LNG Safety Fundamentals


6/53

LNG Hazards

Onsite personnel Asphyxiation

Cryogenic contact

Fire & explosion

Adjacent populations Vapor cloud ignition

Pressurized jets

Liquid spills

Pool evaporation

Pool fire


7/53


8/53

LNG Accident History

Approximately 200 peakshaving and LNGstorage facilities worldwide (113 in the U.S.)

13 serious accidents Cleveland, Ohio, 1944

Storage tank failure caused leak. Subsequent fire killed 128people. Tank material was inadequate for cryogenic storage

Skikda, Algeria, 2004 Ingestion of hydrocarbon spill by forced draft boiler fan

resulting in boiler explosion

Source: Univ. of Houston Institute for Energy, Law and Enterprise (IELE)(2003),LNG Safety and Security


9/53

East Ohio Gas CompanyCleveland, Ohio, USA


10/53

Cleveland Accident October 20, 1944

Source: Cleveland Press Collection, The Cleveland Memory Project


11/53

Skikda LNG Algeria

Power

Plant

Train

30Train

40

Town of Skikda


12/53

Incident at Skikda LNG, 19 Jan 2004


13/53

Types of Releases

Liquid spill scenarios Pipe ruptures where liquid spills onto

the ground. The liquid conveyance in trenches

and troughs, and intoimpoundments.

Pressurized jetting and

flashing release scenarios: Little or no liquid from the fluid jet

reaches the ground.


14/53

US DOE LNG Spill Test


15/53

Jetting and Flashing Release

Source: Cleaver P, Johnson M, Ho B. A summary of Some Experimental Data on LNG Safety Journal ofHazardous Materials, Volume 140, Issue 3, pgs. 429-438, 2007


16/53

Dense Cloud Spreading

Incident in Seward, Illinois, USA, 2007, anhydrous ammonia


17/53

Analyzing Risk


18/53

Objectives

Ensure adequate measures to protect: People

Environment

Assets

from undesirable consequences of activitiesundertaken at the facility

Avoid occurrences

Mitigate consequences

ALARP and tolerability


19/53

Technical Risk Management Model

Planning

Risk Analysis

Risk Evaluation

Risk Treatment

Mo

nitorandReview

CommunicationandConsultation

RiskAssessment

Adapted from ISO 31000:2009, Risk ManagementPrinciples and Guidelines


20/53

Technical Risk Management Model

Planning

Risk Analysis

Risk Evaluation

Risk Treatment

Mo

nitorandReview

CommunicationandConsultation

RiskAssessment

Adapted from ISO 31000:2009, Risk ManagementPrinciples and Guidelines

Risk Analysis


21/53

Risk Analysis

Hazard

Identification

Frequency Analysis

Consequence Analysis

Identify

Initiating

Events

Estimate

Likelihoods

Risk

Evaluation

Model the

Outcomes

Estimate

Impacts


22/53

Risk Evaluation

Authority having jurisdiction, regulatory criteria

Prescriptive versus performance-based

U.S. Prescriptive, 49CFR193, NFPA 59A Prescribed scenarios, flammable vapor cloud must

remain within facility property boundary

International performance-based

EN-1473 ISO TC 67 Working Group

Hazard identification, risk assessment

Tolerable risk guidelines


23/53

Key Elements of Risk Analysis

Comprehensive identification of scenarios

Accurate modeling of releases

Evaluating consequences Suitable criteria for risk tolerance


24/53

Case Study: Passive

Mitigation


25/53

Example LNG Facility


26/53

Passive Mitigation Systems

Examples:

Vapor barriers

Turbulence generators

Pipe in Pipe


27/53

Modeling Vapor Barriers

Analyticallychallenging

Site/systemuniqueness

ComputationalFluid Dynamics(CFD)


28/53

Pressurized Release

Vapor Cloud

Without Barriers

Wind Direction


29/53

Vapor Cloud With Vapor Fences

Wind Direction


30/53

Effect of Turbulence Generators


31/53

Momentum Barrier


32/53

Turbulence Generators


33/53

Open Shrouds


34/53

Pipe-in-Pipe Technology

Carrier

Pipe

Vacuum /

Insulation

SystemFiber Optic

Leak

DetectionInner

Pipe


35/53

Case Study: LNG Bunkering

& Fueling


36/53

LNG Bunkering

Onshore LNG terminal to ship

Truck tanker to ship

Ship to ship


37/53

Potential Risks Associated with

BunkeringProduction

Storage

Marine Loading Ship to Ship

Truck Logistics Truck to Ship


38/53

LNG Bunkering Ship to Ship

Areas of Concern: Large T of tubing, components, couplings, etc.

Control of ignition sources

Containment of spilled liquids Dense gas dispersion

Personnel

Spills on land

Spills on water Between vessels

First LNG Ship-to-Ship Transfer, 2007

http://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.html
http://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.htmlhttp://www.worldoil.com/April-2007-Breaking-the-offshore-LNG-stalemate.html


39/53


40/53


41/53

Hull protection

Spill mitigation Personnel protection

Passengers/public?


42/53

Truck Logistics

Distributed small LNG facilities

Valley Metro/City of Tempe/City of Scottsdale LNG Fueling Station, installed in August 2007

Northstar, Inc. Project History, May 19, 2011


43/53

LNG Bunkering Transport Incident

LNG Road Tanker incident, 2012, USA

No injuries, 7 miles of major interstate shutdownfor several hours


44/53

Chinese Road Tanker Incident


45/53

Case Study: FLNG


46/53

Shell Prelude


47/53


48/53

How do the Risks Compare?

Risk analysis process is typical

No adjacent public populations

Allisions & collisions with LNG carrier and othervessels

Onboard congestion and confinement

Weather vaning: difficulty in protecting personnel

Effects and needs for passive mitigation


49/53

HAZID - Personnel Operations


50/53


51/53


52/53


53/53

Questions?

Harri Kytmaa, Ph.D., P.E. |+1 508-652-8519 |[email protected]

Trey Morrison, Ph.D., P.E. |+1 630-658-7508 |[email protected]

Thank You

LNG Risks Harri Kytomaa

Documents