25

A publication of

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS

VOL. 103, 2023 The Italian Association
of Chemical Engineering
Online at www.cetjournal.it

Guest Editors: Petar S. Varbanov, Panos Seferlis, Yee Van Fan, Athanasios Papadopoulos
Copyright © 2023, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
DOI: 10.3303/CET23103005
ISBN 979-12-81206-02-1; ISSN 2283-9216

Liquefied Natural Gas Regasification Terminals: Life Cycle

Assessment/Carbon Footprint Tool and Proposal for
Decarbonization Solutions
Compassions Talla Takama, Antoine Ghorayebb, Chakib Boualloua,*
a
MINES Paris, PSL - Research University, CES - Centre d’Efficacité Energétique des Systèmes, 60 Boulevard Saint Michel,
75006 Paris, France
b
Saipem SA, 7 avenue de San Fernando, 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France
chakib.bouallou@mines-paristech.fr

As the world contemplates a more sustainable future, energy systems and value chains’ decarbonization has
been thrown into the spotlight. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is considered the cleanest fossil fuel, but
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are produced during its value chain. For an advanced engineering platform
in the oil and gas sector that plays a leading role in the new global low-carbon energy and industrial ecosystem,
there is a need to strengthen this role by developing a methodology, a database, and an explicit tool that guides
their approach when tendering or designing and building LNG regasification terminal projects. This tool will be
developed based on regulations and standards related to GHG emissions, which are the Kyoto Protocol and
ISO 14067 standards, respectively. Therefore, the objective of this work is to carry out a lifecycle analysis in
order to estimate the carbon footprint of a typical LNG regasification terminal, based on which a list of
decarbonization solutions would be proposed and analyzed considering the major’s emissive items, to
determine their effect on the terminal’s Capital Expenses (CAPEX) and Operating Expenses (OPEX).

Introduction
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), replacing coal with gas at power plants could help reduce
CO2 emissions by 5 Gt/y, where, for example, switching just 20 % of coal-fired power in Asia to gas can
potentially save up to 680 Mt/y (MTPA) of CO2 emissions (equivalent to all emissions in Germany), and switching
10 % of heavy goods vehicles and 10 % of shipping fleet to run on gas can potentially save up to 75 MTPA of
CO2 (equivalent to 16.3 million cars being taken off-road). This strengthens the position of natural gas in the
energy sector and would likely increase the global demand for LNG in the market because of its relatively lower
cost and lower contribution of emissions from production and combustion. The use of green gas is also clearly
increasing, and for producers located geographically far from natural gas grid infrastructure, the most profitable
way of transportation for the biomethane is as liquefied biomethane (Oudghiri et al., 2018). Comer et al. (2022)
predict that by 2030 global LNG demand will increase to 36.2 Mt, about three times higher than in 2019.
Assuming the European Union (EU) will maintain its 2019 share of global demand (20.5 %), it is anticipated that
ships travelling to, from, and between EU ports will require 7.42 Mt of LNG in 2030. Roman-White et al. (2021)
highlighted the importance of customized life-cycle assessments in improving GHG emission estimations and
differentiating supply chains to provide business and policy decisions related to the transition to a low-carbon
future.
Despite LNG’s reputation as the cleanest burning fossil fuel, its GHG emissions during its value chain are under
increased scrutiny (Bordage, 2019). The present work aims to assess an explicit methodology for the life
cycle/carbon footprint estimation of a typical regasification terminal. Furthermore, the study will identify the major
emissive sources and propose applicable decarbonization solutions considering Capital Expenses (CAPEX)
and Operating Expenses (OPEX). The regasification terminal in this study is a receiving/import facility located
in Europe with a capacity of 12 Billion Cubic Meter (BCM) nominal per year (equivalent to 8.7 MTPA LNG),

Paper Received: 05 April 2023; Revised: 09 June 2023; Accepted: 19 July 2023
Please cite this article as: Takam C.T., Ghorayeb A., Bouallou C., 2023, Liquefied Natural Gas Regasification Terminals: Life Cycle
Assessment/Carbon Footprint Tool and Proposal for Decarbonization Solutions, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 103, 25-30
DOI:10.3303/CET23103005
26

which entails two LNG tanks with a net-working capacity of 240,000 m3 and all associated regasification facilities
and infrastructure. This study has been highlighted for the sake of the project’s environmental perspective.

Estimation method
To perform the LCA, a carbon footprint estimation tool should be developed following the American Petroleum
Institute (API) and ISO 14060 standards methodology for oil and natural gas. The GHGs concerned are CO2
emissions. Typically, a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) includes the manufacturing and transportation of each
equipment and component that will be used to construct and operate the terminal, the construction which
includes all activities and operations that will take place before the commissioning and start-up phases, the
operation and maintenance phases and decommissioning which are activities involved at the end of life of the
terminal. However, our scope work will focus on manufacturing (scope 3), transportation (scope 3), and
operation (scope 2) phases because of project boundaries and the battery limit of the Engineering Procurement
and Construction (EPC) contract. The estimation method used is based on Eq.(2):
Emission = 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗ 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (2)

✓ Activity data is a measure of human activity that generates GHG emissions. Activity data include tons
of fuel used, kWh of energy purchased, miles driven, etc.
✓ Emission factors are pollutant-specific coefficients that quantify their emissions per unit of activity data.
✓ Emission represents the carbon footprint estimated value in tonnes CO2-eq
Figure 1 gives an overview of the entire terminal system, showing the battery limit of the project. Our scope of
work would be inside this defined battery limit.

Figure 1: Boundary system and functional unit

2.1 Assessments and hotspots emissions

The LCA includes the equipment and component with important volume or quantity. So, referring to the previous
formula, the main outcomes obtained for the CO2 emissions estimation are presented for each phase of the life
cycle. These are the points that need our attention for the different phases. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show each phase’s
items with important emissions which will require our attention for the investigation step.
The previous step has presented the major emissive sources, and a list of mitigation solutions has been
proposed to reduce them. However, they need more investigation considering the effects of CAPEX and OPEX.
To be more aware of mitigation measures and demonstrate the feasibility of their implementation, more details
should be clarified and studied according to the specificity of the terminal. Thus, the effects of some of these
decarbonization solutions on CAPEX-OPEX and return on investment were evaluated. Then, a preliminary list
of solutions with their associated effects on CAPEX and OPEX in percentage or unit rate form was established,
thus creating an internal reference of decarbonization solutions that will be ready to be proposed to clients in
upcoming bids and projects of LNG regasification terminals.
 27

Table 1: Hotspots emissions

Phases Manufacturing Transportation Operation
(scope 3 upstream) (scope 3 upstream) (scope 1&2)
LNG Concrete Insulation Low cap. LP pump
storage Reinforcing steel Reinforced steel High cap. LP pump
tank
Equipment ORV (Open Rack BOG compressor HP pump
Vaporizer) ORV Low cap HP pump
BOG compressor LNG HP pumps LP BOG compressor
LNG HP pumps LP/HP hybrid BOG compressor
Let down water heater
Let down electrical

Table 2: Mitigations solutions

Manufacturing (scope 3 upstream) Transportation (scope 3 upstream) Operation
(scope 1&2)
Consider for each material, if possible, supplier The alternatives either for sea or road Refer to the table
that has more sustainable (CCS plan). transportation can considering the of BAT (Table 3)
Optimize the storage tanks design (dimensions, nearest supplier who will deliver over
thickness, weight) the shortest distance
Evaluate location for storage tanks with better Apply for sustainable fuels
geotechnical conditions, to reduce the piles Prioritizing sea or river transport
configuration. whenever applicable

Table 3: Mitigations solutions for operations (BAT) (Dorosz et al., 2018)

Best Available Technology for BAT description
Energy Efficiency (BAT)
Boil-off and loading arm gas Boil-off gas and gas inventory included in the loading arm shall be recovered
recovery (e.g., recirculated back to the process or used as fuel).
Light Emitting Diode (LED) Use of LED lights at indoor and outdoor when possible.
Lights
Variable-speed drives - The control of electrical VFD is accomplished by converting the fixed
Variable Frequency Drives frequency of incoming alternating current (AC) voltage to direct current (DC)
(VFD) — and then reconverting it back to AC voltage by varying the frequency with
solid state electronics. Typically, application are electric motors on
centrifugal pumps, centrifugal compressor, air coolers, etc...
Flare/Vent Recovery Unit Deployment of a system to capture and reuse LP discharges to the flare or
(VRU) the application of closed flare system.

Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine Consider a CCGT plant (Gas turbine + steam turbine combined cycle) for
(CCGT) main power generation.
Full Electric Consider a full-electric approach (all machines driven by electric motor) to
have a single CO2 emission point.
Renewables Evaluate integration with renewable energy (solar PV) even at small scale,
in consideration of layout constraints at offshore, as long as reasonably
feasible (e.g., small-scale PV for civil uses).

Decarbonization solution
Different ways were studied for lowering CO2 emissions at the major point of our typical terminal lifecycle. They
intend to identify the adequate method and system to perform the terminal at appropriate costs and in
sustainable way. In the estimation method part, some mitigation solutions were presented. The following section
will consist of choosing and applied adequate and affordable mitigation techniques for each phase, considering
the technology level maturity and the state of ongoing R & D.
28

3.1 Manufacturing and transportation

The major sources of emissions are concrete, steel, vaporizers and compressors. These sources represent
more than 82.43 % of the overall manufacturing emission phase. For clarity, concrete and steel here include the
quantity of the following components: storage tanks, buildings, pipe racks, foundations, etc. The source of these
emissions at this phase is mainly produced by the fabrication of raw materials. Selection of raw materials with
low carbon emissions can have a significant impact on the manufacturing of a certain product. Hence,
considering some assumptions, two scenarios were carried out. Scenario 1 is a set of conventional items, and
scenario 2 is based on low-carbon items (low-carbon concrete and recycled steel). Scenario 2 allows for a
reduction of 60 % of the emissions of Scenario 1. There is no issue with having the nearest supplier; the better
way to lower emissions is by considering a sustainable fuel. Two scenarios of vessel fuel consumption were
considered: MGO and LNG. The LNG fuel scenario helps us to reduce approximately 20 % of the MGO fuel
scenario.
3.2 Operations
3.2.1 Electricity consumption
All the equipment is needed for the terminal operation. Among them, the most electricity consumer are pumps
and BOG compressors (over 70 % for this study case). The mode which requires attention is the one when NG
sends out simultaneously loading and unloading mode, and the main issue is BOG management. The maximum
permitted value for BOG seems to differ from case to case. In fact, there is no consensus regarding standard
values, knowing, logically, that the lower the daily BOG, the less energy losses will be with this mode. However,
for our case study, the daily BOG rate has been estimated at 0.05 %. BOG remains a key issue for economic
and technical reasons, as its rate also influences the safety (pressure increase inside the tank) and total cost of
the terminal. The operation phase is the major source of energy consumption and, therefore, CO2 emissions.
The main issue to address to lower them is proposing a good BOG management, which is a scope of work
granted to process team.
3.2.2 LNG Vessel rotation
Good management of ship trips for LNG delivery can significantly influence CO2 emissions. Figure 2 and Figure
3 will consider two scenarios for two export countries to evaluate the vessel rotation emission for the lifetime of
the terminal (25 y). The terminal capacity is 8.7 MTPA = 21.5 million m 3 of LNG. The fuels considered are MGO
(Marine Gasoil) and LNG.

Figure 2: Different Vessel’s rotation emission (25 years)

Figure 3: Two scenarios for emissions per labor

 29

3.2.3 Labor impact

Calculating an employee’s carbon footprint can also be essential to know the impact of that work on our
environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. However, calculating the carbon footprint of an LNG
terminal employee can be complicated because of the variety of parameters to be considered. In our case, the
two most emissive points are considered: electricity and fuel consumption on site. For each of them, different
scenarios are proposed.

Table 4: CAPEX estimation for manufacturing (p: piece)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Equipment Unit Price Total Prices ∆ price Price Total Prices
(€/unit) (€) (€/unit (€/unit) (€)
Concrete m³ 187 16,233,544 10.7 % 207.01 17,970,534
Steel t 830 7,512,711 12.6 % 453.58 3,732,328
BOG ORV 6p 3,370,000 20,220,000 4.94 % 3,504,800 21,028,800
Compres- Desuperheater 1p 161,000 161,000 161,000 161,000
sor LP/HP & LP Hybrid 6 p 2,910,000 2,910,000 2,910,000 2,910,000 2,910,000
BOG compressor
Compressor drum 1 p 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000
Venting drum heater & KO 2 p 269,542 269,542 269,542 269,542
drum
Recon- BOG recondenser 1 p 523,700 523,700 523,700 523,700
denser
Let pressure Electrical & water 2 p 1,425,304 1,425,304 1,425,304 1,425,304 1,425,304
down heater
LNG Pump HP pump 7p 1,200,000 8,400,000 1,200,000 8,400,000
low-capacity &7 p 1,200,000 8,400,000 1,200,000 8,400,000
blending pump
Tank Low cap LP Pumps 8 p 1,100,000 8,800,000 1,100,000 8,800,000
High cap LP pumps 4 p 1,100,000 4,400,000 1,100,000 4,400,000
Total (€) 83,080,529 83,228,908

Table 5: CAPEX estimation for transportation

Items Quantities (pieces) Units Weight Freight Tons Costs (€)
LP/HP Hybrid BOG compressor 2 t 365 1460 553,340
LP BOG Compressors 1 t 250 1000 173,500
BOG Compressor drum 1 t 10.3 41.2 6,715.6
Liquid Accumulator 1 t 2.85 11.4 1,550.4
ORV (Open Rack Vaporizer) 6 t 78 514.8 535,906.8
Foam glass / m³ 489.55 36,200
Expanded Perlite / m³ 12,900 418,500
Bituminous Felt / m³ 159.91 12,400
Resilient Blanket / m³ 67.27 6,200
Total 1,745,312.8

Capital Expenses and Operating Expenses Investigation

4.1 CAPEX Breakdown
Usually, this exercise evaluates the capital expenditure of the overall EPC project. However, in our scope of
work, only the CAPEX of some items will be addressed. The objective is to compare the initial CAPEX
(scenario 1) with a new CAPEX (scenario 2). Scenario 2 considers items with low carbon impact. The two
points of our CAPEX study will be based on the manufacturing (Table 4) and transportation (Table 5) phases.
30

4.2 OPEX breakdown

The terminal’s operating cost will consider the majors following points: vessel ship rotation costs, electricity
consumption costs (Table 6) on the terminal, and labor costs.

Table 6: Electricity Costs

Components Power (kWh) Unit prices (€/kWh) Total prices (€)
Low-Capacity LP Pump 462 0.15 554.4
LNG TANK
High-Capacity LP Pump 316 0.15 189.6
LNG TANK
Vicinity let down 3,500 0.15 525
electrical heater
LP/HP Hybrid BOG 2,115 0.15 634.5
compressor
LP BOG Compressors 2,115 0.15 634.5
High Pressure pump 2,015 0.15 1,813.5
low-capacity HP pump 969 0.15 145.35
blending pump 205 0.15 30.75
Total 11,697 4,527.6

Conclusion
The LCA/Carbon footprint assessment was performed based on an estimation approach that revealed the
following outcomes for the 3 scopes: Scope 1: 0.19 %, Scope 2: 99.79 %, and Scope 3: 0.013 %. Based on
various assumptions detailed in this study, two investigations have been carried out. For the manufacturing
phase, a mature solution has been investigated to produce items through recycled material. It is less emissive,
and the items keep the same properties. Using items manufactured by recycling raw materials can reduce 50 %
of emissions for the entire manufacturing phase. For the transportation phase, two types of fuels (LNG & MGO)
for vessels have been explored. As most of the equipment would be delivered from the USA and east ASIA, it
can be clearly concluded that the LNG solution is the more suitable one. It came out to a reduction of around
19.85 % in CO2 emissions. For the operation phase, the major source of energy consumption and CO2
emissions, the main issue to address is proposing a balanced BOG management, which is a scope of work
under the process design team. Also, two scenarios are proposed for LNG delivery by ship, thus noticing a
reduction of 12.8 % if Nigeria is taken as the exporting country instead of Qatar. Concerning the electricity
consumption by the working resources within an operating terminal (administrative, operational labor, etc.),
photovoltaic energy can decrease consumption by approximately 55.72 % compared to the national grid. The
results showed that the CAPEX would marginally increase by around 0.17 % if complete low-carbon emission
items were considered for the project. Concerning the OPEX outcomes, based on the assumptions adopted
during the operation stage, particularly the power consumption, a decrease of 0.015 % has been noticed if low-
carbon emissions items were considered. For higher accuracy, the results of OPEX would need more
development at a further stage.

References
Bordage F., 2019, The environmental footprint of the digital world, GreenIT.fr, <https://www.greenit.fr/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/GREENIT_EENM_etude_EN_accessible.pdf>, accessed 04.04.2023.
Comer B., O’Malley J., Osipova L., Pavlenko N., 2022, Comparing the future demand for, supply of, and life-
cycle emissions from bio, synthetic, and fossil LNG marine fuels in the European Union, International Council
on Clean Transportation (ICCT), Washington, DC, US.
Dorosz P., Wojcieszak P., Malecha Z., 2018, Exergetic Analysis, Optimization and Comparison of LNG Cold
Exergy Recovery Systems for Transportation. Entropy, 20(1), 59.
Oudghiri I., Tinoco R.R., Bouallou C., 2018, Exergy analysis, optimization approach and transient mode
operation study of non-flammable biomethane liquefaction process. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 70,
1537-1542.
Roman-White S.A., Littlefield J.A., Fleury K.G., Allen D.T., Balcombe P., Konschnik K.E., Ewing J., Ross G.B.,
George F., 2021, LNG Supply Chains: A Supplier-Specific Life-Cycle Assessment for Improved Emission
Accounting. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 9, 10857−10867.