LNG

CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL
FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table of Contents

i
CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRANSMITTAL LETTER

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

NOMENCLATURE

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Scope of Study
1.3 Summary of Results
1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
1.5 Next Steps for the Project

2 GAS MARKET ASSESSMENT
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Island Electric Utility (Aqualectra)
2.3 Isla Refinery (CRUC)
2.4 Seasonal, Daily and Hourly Demand Fluctuation
2.5 Demand Growth
2.6 Neighbouring Islands
2.7 Natural Gas and Fuel Oil Price Forecasts
2.8 Gas Quality Requirements

3 GAS SUPPLY CONCEPTS
3.1 Introduction
3.2 CNG Option
3.3 LNG Options
3.4 Gas Import Pipeline Options

4 COMMERCIAL EVALUATION
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Commercial Evaluation Basis
4.3 CAPEX and OPEX Estimates
4.4 Delivered LNG Price (C.I.F. Curacao Terminal)
4.5 Curacao Average Delivered Gas Price
4.6 Curacao Gas Cost vs. Gas Rate
4.7 Risk Matrix Analysis
4.8 Conclusions

5 LNG SUPPLY
5.1 Introduction
5.2 LNG Industry Overview
5.3 LNG Quality Specification
5.4 Typical LNG Supply Contract Terms
5.5 Potential LNG Suppliers
Table of Contents

ii
5.6 Pooling LNG Supply With Neighbouring Islands
5.7 Conclusions

6 LNG SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTATION
6.1 Overview
6.2 Availability of Ships
6.3 Shipping Costs and Losses
6.4 Port Requirements
6.5 Conclusions

7 TERMINAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT
7.1 Introduction
7.2 LNG Terminal Site Locations
7.3 Bullen Bay Site Option
7.4 Schottegat Harbor Site Option
7.5 LNG FSRU Option
7.6 Advantages / Disadvantages
7.7 Conclusions

8 CONCEPTUAL CURACAO LNG TERMINAL
8.1 Overview
8.2 Marine and Unloading Facilities
8.3 LNG Storage
8.4 BOG and Ship Vapor Return System
8.5 LNG Pumps, BOG Condenser and LNG Sendout System
8.6 LNG Vaporization System
8.7 Gas Sendout System
8.8 Operations Control System
8.9 Utility Systems
8.10 Safety Systems
8.11 Security Systems
8.12 Buildings and Infrastructure
8.13 Layout Plot Plan

9 CONCEPTUAL CURACAO GAS SENDOUT PIPELINE
9.1 Overview
9.2 Route
9.3 Size, Capacity and Design Parameters
9.4 Constructability
9.5 Pipeline Operations Control

10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
10.1 Overview
10.2 Personnel Training
10.3 Owner Staffing and Labor Costs
10.4 Operations and Maintenance Budget

Table of Contents

iii
11 INTEGRATED SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
11.1 Reliability
11.2 Backup Fuel Supply
11.3 Turndown Flexibility
11.4 Expandability
11.5 Conclusions

12 PROJECT EXECUTION PLANNING
12.1 Execution Plan Framework
12.2 Development Planning
12.3 Construction Strategy / Philosophy
12.4 Typical Project Schedule

13 REGULATORY AND PERMITTING
13.1 Environmental, Social, Health and Safety
13.2 Environmental Regulations and Global Standards
13.3 Curacao Permitting Requirements
13.4 Financial Institution Requirements
13.5 ESHS Issues of Concern
13.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

14 COMMENTS ON PROJECT FINANCING
14.1 Overview
14.2 Equity Requirements
14.3 Typical Lending Organizations
14.4 Terms and Criteria
14.5 Risk
14.6 Equator Principles
14.7 Lenders Due Diligence Report

15 APPENDIX
A. Conceptual Basis of Design
B. Process Flow Diagram With Heat & Material Balance
C. Terminal Layout
D. Major Equipment List
E. Utility Load Summary
F. Key Milestone Project Schedule
G. LNG Shipping Route Charts
H. Historical Hurricane Tracking Charts

Disclaimer Notice
This document was prepared by Shaw Consultants International, Inc. (Consultant) for
the benefit of the Refineria di Korsou N.V. (Company) and their respective lenders
(collectively, the Beneficiaries). With regard to any use or reliance on this document
by any party other than the Beneficiaries and those parties intended by the Beneficiaries
to use this document (Additional Parties), Consultant, its parent, and affiliates: (a)
make no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information or
methodology disclosed in this document; and (b) specifically disclaims any liability with
respect to any reliance on or use of any information or methodology disclosed in this
document.
Any recipient of this document, other than Beneficiaries and the Additional Parties, by
their acceptance or use of this document, releases Consultant, its parent, and affiliates
from any liability for direct, indirect, consequential, or special loss or damage whether
arising in contract, warranty, express or implied, tort or otherwise, and irrespective of
fault, negligence, and strict liability of Consultant.

Nomenclature

CRUACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY

AAV Ambient Air Vaporizer
ABS American Bureau of Shipping
ACI American Concrete Institute
ACQ Annual Contract Quantity
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APCI Air Products & Chemical Inc.
API American Petroleum Institute
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASNT American Society for Non-Destructive Testing
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWS American Welding Society
BACT Best Available Control Technology
bcf Billion Cubic Feet
BOG Boil Off Gas from LNG
Bscfd or Bcfd Billion Standard Cubic Feet per Day
Btu British Thermal Unit
bpd Barrels per Day
BOE Barrel Oil Equivalent
CAER Community Awareness and Emergency Response
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCR Central Control Room
CO Carbon Monoxide
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CP Conditions Precedent LNG Contract. Also Curacao Peil Reference Datum
CPI Consumer Price Index Published by U.S. Department of Labor Statistics
CRUC Curacao Refinery Utility Company
CSP Contract Sales Price
DCS Distributed Control System
DNV Det Norske Veritas (A Ship Classification Society)
DWP Deep Water Port
F&G Fire and Gas Detection
ECA Export Credit Associations
EDIN Energy Development in Island Nations
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EIB European Investment Bank
EIAS Environmental Impact Assessment Study
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
ESD Emergency Shut Down
ESHS Environmental, Social, Health and Safety
ETA Estimated Time of Arrival
FEED Front End Engineering Design
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FI Financial Intermediaries. Also Flow Indicator
FPSO Floating Production Storage Offloading (Associated With Oil Production)
FSRU Floating Storage Regasification Unit for LNG
Nomenclature

ft Feet
GOC Government of Curacao
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HAZOP Hazards and Operability
HHW High High Water
HM Heating Medium (fluid used for heat transfer)
hp Horsepower
HP High Pressure
HSFO High Sulfur Fuel Oil
HTF Heat Transfer Fluid
HWS High Water Spring
Hz Hertz (frequency cycles per second)
IAS Integrated Automation System
IBC International Building Code
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
ICSS Integrated Control and Safety System
IDB Inter-America Development Bank
IDA International Development Association
IDC Interest During Construction
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IFC International Finance Corporation
IMO International Maritime Organization
IRR Internal Rate of Return
ISA Instrument Society of America
ISO International Standards Organization
ITC Independent Technical Consultant
ITS Interruptible Transportation Service
J BIC J apan Bank for International Cooperation
J V J oint Venture
kV Kilovolt
kW Kilowatt
LLW Low Low Water
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LNGC LNG Carrier
LS Lump Sum
LSFO Low Sulfur Fuel Oil
LWS Low Water Spring
m
2
Square Meter
m
3
Cubic Meter
m
3
/hr Cubic Meter per Hour At Actual Flowing Conditions
MAOP Maximum Allowed Operating Pressure (for pipelines)
MCC Motor Control Center
MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MMBtu Million British Thermal Units
MMscfd Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
MP Mile Post
MPHEN Curacao Ministry of Public Health, Environment and Nature
Nomenclature

MSS Manufacturer Standardization Society
mtpa Million Tonnes per Annum
MW Megawatt
N2 Nitrogen
NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers
NBP National Balancing Point in the UK
NDE Non-Destructive Examination
NEMA National Electric Manufacturers Association
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NOx Nitrous Oxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOR Notice of Readiness
NOT Notice of Termination
NPV Net Present Value
NTP Notice To Proceed
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OBE Operating Basis Earthquake
OC Operations Center
OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine Forum
OD Outside Diameter
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
ORV Open Rack Vaporizer
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OPEX Operating Expenditure
PDVSA Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
PLEM Pipeline End Manifold (Used in Subsea Pipelines)
PMT Project Management Team
PO Purchase Order
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
ppmv Parts per million by volume
PSA Purchase Sales Agreement
PSC Project Services Contractor
psia pounds per square inch (absolute)
psig pounds per square inch (gauge)
PSV Pressure Safety Valve
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
RAM Reliability, Availability and Maintainability
RDK Refineria di Korsou N.V.
ROW Right of Way
SC Shipping Charge (LNG shipping cost)
SCF or scf Standard Cubic Feet @ 14.65 psia and 60
o
F
SCV Submerged Combustion Vaporizer
SIGTTO Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operations
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SPA Sales Purchase Agreement
SPCC Spill Prevention and Containment Control
SPL Sabine Pass Liquefication LLC
SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake
Nomenclature

SSPC Steel Structures Painting Council
STL Submerged Turret Loading
STS Side-to-Side LNG Transfer
TCF or tcf or Tcf Trillion Standard Cubic Feet @ 14.65 and 60
o
F
TEMA Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association
UCC Unit Capacity Charge (for Liquefaction)
UK United Kingdom
UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply
USCG United States Coast Guard
V Volt
VIP Vacuum Insulated Pipe
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
W Watt
WBG World Bank Group

Section 1 Executive Summary

1 - 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In order to improve its international competitiveness and reduce its dependence on imported petroleum,
the Government of Curacao (GOC) has implemented a strategy to diversify its energy supply. The
strategy aims at introducing imported natural gas into Curacaos energy supply mix to improve security of
supplies, achieve long-term stability in energy prices and to improve the environmental sustainability of
providing energy. Importation of natural gas to Curacao could conceivably be by means of liquefied
natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG) or a gas import pipeline.
Environmental issues in Curacao stem from stack gas emissions containing significant quantities of sulfur
dioxide (SO
2
). No. 6 high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) is the primary fuel used to generate electrical power
on the island with minor quantities of No. 2 HSFO. The HSFO is supplied by Isla Refinery, the local
Curacao refinery currently being operated under a lease agreement with Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.
(PDVSA). Aqualectra, the local public utility company, provides electrical power and water to the
citizens of Curacao. The Curacao Refinery Utility Company (CRUC) operates electrical power
generation facilities to supply the Isla Refinery with electric power. Also contributing to stack gas
emissions is the Isla Refinery process steam boilers which burn high sulfur bitumen; essentially the
bottom of the barrel.
The stated goals and objectives of GOC include the following:
Convert Curacaos power generation and refinery fuel to lower-cost, clean-burning natural gas;
Reduce fuel cost for electric power generation and refinery operations;
Reduce electrical power costs paid by the citizens of Curacao; and
Reduce SO
2
emissions to clean-up Curacao air pollution.
Refineria di Korsou N.V. (RDK) has undertaken the lead role in advancing the goals and objectives for
the GOC. It is a nonprofit, government owned refining company in Curacao. RDK owns the Isla
Refinery and the crude oil terminal and storage facilities located at Bullen Bay. These facilities are
currently under long-term lease to PDVSA which expire in 2018. The Isla Refinery is an old refinery
designed to process heavy Venezuelan crude originally owned and operated by Shell. The refinery was
constructed and started up in 1918. Several years ago, Shell decided to abandon operation of the refinery
and conveyed ownership of the facility to the GOC which was subsequently structured in ownership to
RDK by the GOC.
In March 2012, RDK solicited competitive bids from multiple engineering firms to perform a study to
evaluate the feasibility of bringing natural gas to Curacao. Shaw Consultants International, Inc. (Shaw
Consultants) was the successful bidder and was awarded a contract for the study on March 12, 2012.
Shaw Consultants has completed the study and this report documents the work, conclusions and
recommendations.
1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY
RDK requested that Shaw Consultants evaluate the fundamental options for bringing natural gas supply to
Curacao. Three gas supply options were evaluated including LNG, CNG, and natural gas import by
pipeline. The scope of work for this study involved a broad examination of both technical and
commercial aspects of the gas supply options.


1 - 2
The starting point for the study was an assessment of the potential local market demand for natural gas.
Gas demand forecasts were prepared for Aqualectra, CURC and the Isla Refinery process steam boiler
system (collectively referred to as the Curacao Demand). The assessment also considered potential gas
demand loads from neighboring islands including Aruba and Bonaire.
Energy pricing forecasts were developed for natural gas at Henry Hub and UK National Balancing Point
(NBP). LNG netback pricing mechanisms were evaluated for both UK NBP and Henry Hub
indexation. Fuel oil price forecasts for No.6 and No.2 LSFO were also developed. Price forecast data
published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) served as the basis for such forecasts.
As part of this study, Shaw Consultants made a site selection study of alternative terminal site locations
on Curacao including jetty sites at Schottegat Harbor and Bullen Bay.
One of the primary objectives of the study was to determine the delivered cost of gas for each of the gas
supply options. A matrix of cases were defined and analyzed for each of the various gas supply options
which included a total of 17 scenario cases. Rough CAPEX and OPEX estimates (+/-40%) were prepared
for each of the scenarios. The delivered gas costs to the Curacao customers were then calculated for each
scenario case. In determining the delivered gas costs, the CAPEX costs were amortized on a 10-year
straight line basis and rolled in with the purchase costs the gas (or LNG) plus OPEX cost to obtain the all-
in delivered cost of gas for each case.
An overview of LNG trade/shipping costs was prepared using Shaw Consultants in-house shipping
model and data taken from the LNG Shipping Market 2011 Annual Review and Forecast published by
Drewry Maritime Research J une 13, 2011. The terms and provisions of a typical LNG purchase and
sales agreement (PSA) were summarized and included in this report. Potential LNG supply sources for
Curacao were identified and listed.
Shaw Consultants provided discussion of fuel supply reliability and suggestions for back-up fuel
parameters. A preliminary risk assessment was made to identify project risks and mitigation steps were
developed to minimize project risks.
Conceptual design documents were prepared for a conventional onshore LNG terminal including a
preliminary basis of design, process flow diagrams, heat and material balances, layout drawing,
equipment list, and utility load summaries.
To round out the study, Shaw Consultants prepared discussion on the following topics which are included
in this report:
Integrated Operations/Maintenance Support;
Integrated System Performance;
Project Execution and Schedule Planning;
Regulatory Issues; and
Comments on Project Financing.

1 - 3
1.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Curacao Gas Demand
If Aqualectra, CRUC, and the Isla Refinery process steam boilers were converted to natural gas fuel their
combined current demand would average approximately 110 MMscfd with 19 MMscfd attributed to
Aqualectra, 55 MMscfd attributed to CRUC and 36 MMscfd attributed to Isla Refinery process boiler
fuel. Looking forward, the total Curacao demand is projected to grow to an average demand rate of
120.7 MMscfd by the year 2031. From historical records it was determined that the peak hourly demand
rate for Aqualectras customer service load was approximately 25% above the annual average daily rate.
Peak hourly demand for CRUC and Isla Refinery steam boiler fuel demand was assumed to be 10%
above their respective annual average daily demand rates. To accommodate hourly peaking demand, a
peak delivery capacity of 137.2 MMscfd would be required by the year 2031 based on Shaw Consultants
analysis. The decision to switch CRUC and Isla Refinery to natural gas fuel was assumed to be deferred
until 2018 based on the guidance provided by RDK. Figure 1.3-1 illustrates the Curacao gas demand
forecast developed from this study.
Figure 1.3-1 Curacao Natural Gas Demand

Shaw Consultants note that there is risk of uncertainty in the Curacao demand forecast. At this time there
is no surety that the Isla Refinery will continue to be in operation for the long-term. An expensive
upgrade to the Isla Refinery will be needed to meet potential new air emissions standards for SO
2
and to
improve product quality slate for producing low sulfur fuel oil products. Until it is confirmed that the Isla
Refinery will continue to operate long-term, the Curacao Demand Forecast should likely be risk weighted
downward with a biased toward the Aqualectra demand load only. RDK will need to weigh the risks of
potential closure of the Isla Refinery as it advances a project to bring natural gas to Curacao.
137.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
M
M
s
c
f
d
Aqualectra CRUC Refinery TotalPkHour
120.7

1 - 4
Driving Force for Switching to Natural Gas
This study is based on the premise that Curacao environmental emission standards will be tightened to
limit SO
2
emissions form combustion gas stack discharge sources. If new tighter emission standards are
adopted by the Curacao authorities, stack gas emissions will either have to be treated and cleaned-up to
reduce SO
2
emission levels or alternatively low sulfur content fuels will be mandated for used in
combustion services (i.e. boilers, engines, turbines, etc.). This study assumes that existing combustion
services will either have to burn No.2 or No.6 LSFO or otherwise convert to clean-burning natural gas in
order to comply with potentially new tighter emission standards. Since No.6 LSFO has historically
always been less expensive than No.2 LSFO, it is presumed in this study that the fuel cost comparison for
natural gas conversion logically must be compared to the alternative of burning No.6 LSFO.
In this study, Shaw Consultants used the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasted
prices for No.6 LSFO and Natural Gas at Henry Hub as reported in the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2012
Early Release Report. The UK NBP price forecast was developed assuming that the recent historic
differential between Henry Hub and UK NBP (~US$5.00/MMBtu) is maintained throughout the forecast
period. Figure 1.3-2 illustrates the forecasts.
Figure 1.3-2 Price Forecast of No.6 LSFO and Natural Gas

An evaluation period from 2015 to 2031 was used to analyze the various gas supply options. The average
price of No.6 LSFO over the evaluation period was determined to be US$153/Bbl or converted to Btu
pricing US$24.36/MMBtu based on the forecasted prices illustrated in Figure 1.3-2.
The average delivered gas cost for each option was calculated over the evaluation period and compared to
the corresponding average price of No.6 LSFO over such period (i.e. US$24.36/MMBtu). The delivered
gas costs for each option were calculated with a base starting price indexed to Henry Hub with CAPEX

1 - 5
amortization and OPEX costs added in to determine the total delivered gas costs. Liquefaction fees,
FSRU rental costs, and LNG shipping fees for the LNG options were added to the CAPEX amortization
and OPEX costs in calculating the delivered gas costs for the LNG options. In principle, the difference
between the average price of No.6 LSFO and the average delivered gas costs are the fuel cost savings
realized in switching from No.6 LSFO to natural gas.
Switching from LSFO to natural gas fuel will, however, involve some conversion cost to modify the fired
equipment to burn natural gas. These conversion costs will need to be deducted from the calculated fuel
savings in order to derive the overall net fuel saving costs. The net fuel cost saving is the Driving Force
for Switching to Natural Gas.
Estimating the cost of converting fired equipment from fuel oil to natural gas was not within the scope of
this study. Separate studies have been made by others to quantify the fuel conversion costs. The results
of these third-party studies will need to be integrated with the results of Shaw Consultants study in order
to determine the overall net fuel saving costs for switching to natural gas.
Gas Supply Options
Figure 1.3-3 illustrates the average delivered gas cost for the scenario cases calculated for the various gas
supply options.
Figure 1.3-3 Curacao Average Delivered Gas Cost
Gas Import Pipeline Option: The gas import pipeline option yields the lowest delivered gas cost to the
Curacao customers. The calculated delivered cost of gas to serve the Curacao demand for this option
ranged between US$7.82 to US$8.16/MMBtu. These costs reflect the average delivered price over the

1 - 6
evaluation period from 2015 to 2031 assuming gas supply is contracted at a purchase price (F.O.B.
Columbia or Venezuela) equal to 100% of the Henry Hub forecasted price. Compared to the average
price of No.6 LSFO (US$24.36/MMBtu or $153/Bbl), this option yields an average fuel cost savings of
approximately US$16/MMBtu.
If Curacao and Aruba were to both participate and share costs in a gas import pipeline project, the
delivered cost of gas to Curacao would be lower. The delivered cost of gas estimated for an Aruba-
Curacao coop pipeline is US$7.56 to US$7.75/MMBtu depending on whether the supply is from
Venezuela or Colombia.
If only the Aqualectra demand is served, the delivered cost of gas increases to a range of US$8.58 to
US$9.20/MMBtu. With only the Aqualectra demand load, the average fuel cost savings is more than
US$15/MMBtu compared to burning No.6 LSFO.
The estimated CAPEX for the gas import options range between US$193 to US$292 million depending
on whether the supply is sourced from Venezuela or Colombia. If the pipeline is extended to include
supply to Aruba, the CAPEX cost increases to US$328 million. If the pipeline is sized for only the
Aqualectra demand load, the CAPEX cost is US$162 million. The pipeline project completion schedule
is estimated to require approximately 42 months after obtaining an MOU for a gas supply contract.
Installing the gas import pipeline is clearly feasible. The maximum water depth of the subsea gas import
pipeline would be approximately 4,000 feet which is well within the current capability of deep-water
pipeline lay vessel companies such as AllSeas and Eni Saipem. Pipelines have been successfully installed
in water depths up to 9,000 feet.
The major challenge for the pipeline option will be contracting for a long-term reliable gas supply. Both
Venezuela and Columbia have gas supply that could potentially be tapped for export to Curacao via
pipeline. It is uncertain how much time it would take to successfully negotiate a gas supply contract.
However, until Curacao officials set down and discuss potential gas supply contracts with Columbian and
Venezuelan producers, gas supply availability is only conjecture at this time.
Shaw Consultants research indicates in Columbia that the Guajira Basin has the greatest potential for
exportable gas. Also, a recent press release by Pacific Stratus Columbia Corporation (a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp.) indicates that incremental gas supply could potentially be
available for export from the La Creciente Field. Regarding possible Venezuelan gas supply, the new
Cardon IV Block discovery may offer the best potential for a long-term gas contract supply.
To meet the total Curacao demand for 25 years requires approximately 1.1 tcf of natural gas. Total gas
reserves reported for Columbia and Venezuela are 4 tcf and 179 tcf, respectively. Shaw Consultants note
that Venezuela has the second largest proven natural gas reserves in the Western Hemisphere, but the
pace of development of such resources has been very slow.
Onshore LNG Terminal Option: The onshore LNG terminal option, although not as attractive as the gas
import pipeline option, also yields a considerable cost savings in comparison to burning No.6 LSFO. For
this option, the calculated delivered cost of gas to serve the Curacao demand is approximately
US$12.88/MMBtu. Again, cost reflects the average delivered price of gas over the evaluation period
from 2015 to 2031. This option yields an average fuel cost savings of approximately US$11.50/MMBtu
versus the alternative of burning No.6 LSFO.
If only the Aqualectra demand is served, the delivered cost of gas increases to US$14.86/MMBtu which is
approximately US$9.50/MMBtu lower than the average cost of burning No.6 LSFO.

1 - 7
The estimated CAPEX for this option is approximately US$433 million based on a terminal equipped
with a 160,000m
3
LNG storage tank. The project completion schedule is estimated to require
approximately 50 months.
If the terminal were sized with sendout capacity to supply gas for both Curacao and Aruba, the estimated
CAPEX (including the cost of the export gas pipeline from Curacao to Aruba) is approximately
US$567 million. The economy of scale and incremental gas delivery volumes to Aruba act to reduce the
overall delivered gas cost for Curacao customers by approximately US$0.42/MMBtu.
FSRU LNG Terminal Option: The LNG FSRU option also yields a considerable cost savings in
comparison to burning No.6 LSFO. The calculated delivered cost of gas to serve the Curacao demand for
this option is US$13.92/MMBtu. Again, this cost reflects the average delivered gas price over the
evaluation period from 2015 to 2031. This option indicates an average fuel cost savings of approximately
US$10.44/MMBtu compared to burning No.6 LSFO.
If only the Aqualectra demand is served, the delivered cost of gas for this option increases to
US$18.32/MMBtu. Even with only the Aqualectra demand load, the average fuel gas cost is
approximately US$6.00/MMBtu lower than No.6 LSFO.
The estimated CAPEX for this option is approximately US$87 million which is significantly lower than
the onshore LNG terminal option. The LNG FSRU would be leased from one of the leading vendors
possibly Excelerate Energy, Hoegh, Exmar or Golar. The out-of-pocket CAPEX covers the cost for the
jetty facility to permanently moor the FSRU and onshore gas handling systems. The project completion
schedule for this option is estimated to require approximately 36 months.
A scenario case was also evaluated for an offshore submerged turret moored FSRU LNG terminal with a
short (1.5 mile) interconnecting gas sendout pipeline to shore. The offshore moored scenario offers no
apparent benefit over the jetty moored scenario and costs approximately US$45 million more than the
jetty moored alternative.
CNG Option: The CNG option was dropped from consideration as a potential alternative for bringing
natural gas to Curacao. The use of large CNG ships has never been applied in a commercial scale
operation. Although the technology is theoretically sound on paper and the CNG ships can receive
certified Class approval from both DNV and ABS, it has yet to be deployed in any commercial project
application of this scale. If Curacao were to engage in using the CNG ship technology, it would be the
first application. In Shaw Consultants opinion, there are technical and commercial risks in using
unproven technology. Obtaining bank financing would be difficult to impossible. As a result, a decision
was made to drop the CNG option from further consideration as a practical alternative.
Terminal Site Location Selection
Shaw Consultants considered several site locations for the terminal. After initial screening, two site
locations were identified for further review, namely a site at Bullen Bay and one at Schottegat Harbor at
Willemstad.
After careful review and consideration, the site at Bullen Bay was selected as the preferred location for
the terminal. The Schottegat Harbor site was deemed less desirable since the Curacao Port Authority
advised that it would impose restrictions and rules of navigation on LNG ships entering Schottegat
Harbor. During the peak tourist season, large cruise ships frequent the Willemstad area and often moor at
the wharf located in the narrows entry to Schottegat Harbor. LNG ships could be delayed as a result of
the cruise ship traffic and the navigation rules/restrictions.

1 - 8
The site at Bullen Bay, on the other hand, is remotely located from the major population centers of
Curacao and will have easy access for approach and departure of LNG ships with no interference from
cruise ship traffic. J etty #1 at Bullen Bay was selected as the preferred jetty for access to the site.
Adequate space is available onshore from J etty#1 to easily accommodate thermal and gas dispersion
zones required for a 160,000m
3
full containment LNG tank and the LNG spill impoundment sumps.
There is adequate space available to accommodate all of the terminal process equipment and operating
infrastructure (control room, workshop, and vehicle parking) required by the terminal. The site is cleared
and will require minimal site preparation. There is adequate space at this site to accommodate the future
installation of a new power plant should a decision be made to do so. Figure 1.3-4 illustrates a Google
Earth view of the proposed Bullen Bay terminal site.
Figure 1.3-4 Bullen Bay Proposed Terminal Site

Onshore Customer Gas Delivery Pipeline System
The power generation facilities for both Aqualectra and CRUC are located within the Isla Refinery
complex at Willemstad. An existing crude transfer pipeline traverses from Bullen Bay to the refinery. A
new gas pipeline will be installed from Bullen Bay to the refinery complex using the right-of-way
easement of the existing crude transfer pipeline (see Figure 1.3-5).


1 - 9
Figure 1.3-5 Onshore Customer Gas Delivery Pipeline Route

The existing crude pipeline is above ground except at street crossings. The new gas delivery pipeline
system will be buried the entire route to assure public safety and compliance with typical pipeline codes.
The gas pipeline will be approximately 8 miles in length and will be a nominal 12OD line. Gas delivery
pressure to the customers will not be less than 500 psig. Capacity of the new gas delivery pipeline will be
approximately 137 MMscfd.
CAPEX and OPEX costs for this new gas pipeline have been included in calculating the delivered cost of
gas for each of the options previously discussed. The estimated CAPEX for the new gas pipeline is
approximately US$12 million. The estimated project completion schedule including FEED, equipment
and material procurement, delivery, pipeline construction, hydro-testing and commissioning is
approximately 24 months.
1.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the study, Shaw Consultants offer the following conclusions and observations.
Based on the evaluation results of the gas supply options, Shaw Consultants conclude that
importing natural gas or LNG to Curacao is technically and economically feasible. All of the
options evaluated will yield significant fuel cost savings compared to the alternative of burning
No.6 LSFO.

1 - 10
The gas import pipeline option will yield the lowest delivered gas cost to Curacao. Securing a
contract commitment for long-term reliable gas supply will likely be challenging and may take an
extended effort.
In comparison to the conventional onshore LNG terminal option, the estimated delivered cost of
gas for the gas import pipeline option is US$4.50 to US$5.50/MMBtu lower than gas delivered
via LNG. This is a significant incentive to pursue a gas import pipeline supply.
The traditional onshore LNG terminal option yields a lower delivered gas cost to Curacao
customers than the LNG FSRU option since the OPEX cost are not burdened with the high daily
rental lease cost of the FSRU vessel. However, the initial CAPEX cost for the onshore LNG
terminal is higher than any other gas supply option evaluated. The advantage of the onshore
LNG terminal option is that after 10 years of operation, the CAPEX amortization will be
complete and Curacao will own a fully paid asset. From a long-term perspective, the traditional
onshore LNG terminal is a good investment that will yield lower cost gas benefits to Curacao.
The advantage of the LNG FSRU option is its significantly lower CAPEX commitment compared
to the traditional onshore LNG terminal option. However, the rental cost of the FSRU will be
expensive (US$130,000 to US$140,000 per day) and the resulting average delivered cost of gas
will be approximately US$1.05/MMBtu higher than the traditional onshore LNG terminal option.
If RDKs objective is to minimize the amount of its initial CAPEX commitment, then the LNG
FSRU option should be given priority consideration. With respect to asset ownership, Curacao
will not be accumulating equity ownership in the FSRU facility. At the end of a 10-year lease
agreement, Curacao will have paid approximately US$500 million in rental payments for the
FSRU and will not have accumulated any equity in an asset.
The term of the FSRU rental agreement is flexible ranging from 5-years to 20-years. A longer
term lease agreement generally results in a lower cost for the FSRU rental day rate fee. Based on
discussions with the vendors, the daily rental cost under a 20-year lease could be 20% lower than
that of a 10-year lease.
The typical LNG FSRU is designed for large gas sendout rates (500 to 800 MMscfd). At sendout
rates below 70-80 MMscfd, handling boil off gas (BOG) becomes problematic for the typical
FSRU. The sendout rates for Curacao could range from a low of 19 MMscfd up to 137 MMscfd.
Modifications and onshore BOG compression equipment will be required for an FSRU capable of
serving the full range Curacao demand.
Although the LNG supply volumes required to service Curacao demand are small when
compared to most LNG terminals, it will be feasible to obtain LNG supply for transport and
delivery to Curacao. A slight premium (US$0.40 to US$0.50/MMBtu) will likely have to be paid
for LNG supply due to small annual volumes. Shaw Consultants conclude that a good strategy
for Curacao LNG supply management might involve either
- Contracting with major LNG suppliers such as BP, BG, Shell, etc.; or
- Contracting with an LNG marketer/terminal operator such as Gas Natural (e.g. the Puerto
Rico LNG terminal operating strategy).
With the recent large-scale shale gas development projects in the U.S., gas production has
exceeded demand and prices at Henry Hub have declined significantly during the past few years.
As a result, new liquefaction projects are being advanced to produce LNG for export from the

1 - 11
existing LNG receiving terminals at U.S. Gulf Coast locations such as Sabine Pass, Freeport, and
possibly others. As new U.S. Gulf Coast LNG export supply comes on stream during 2016 to
2018, it is anticipated that LNG prices in the Atlantic Basin marketing region will remain stable
at current pricing levels or perhaps experience some slight downward pricing pressure due to
LNG on LNG competition. The LNG market conditions will likely make LNG imports to
Curacao attractive since Atlantic Basin LNG pricing is not linked to crude oil and fuel oil prices.
Historically LNG pricing mechanism for Atlantic Basin LNG sources have a market clearing
netback price based on the UK or European NBP gas prices. However, LNG supply is currently
being contracted from U.S. Gulf Coast LNG suppliers with pricing provisions linked to 110% to
120% of Henry Hub monthly gas prices plus liquefaction fees of approximately
US$2.50/MMBtu. These Gulf Coast LNG contract terms reflect calculated netback clearing
prices exceeding the UK or European NBP price. Shaw Consultants used the Henry Hub pricing
mechanism for LNG to assure that the calculated delivered gas costs are conservative.
Shaw Consultants, in collaboration with RDK representatives, developed the following recommendations:
1. The gas pipeline options yield lowest delivered gas cost, but development lead time and EIAS
could be long and politics could take time. However, the fuel cost savings is US$4.50 to
US$5.50/MMBtu or approximately $197 to $240 million per year. This is a significant potential
savings and should be pursued further to determine gas supply feasibility.
2. Make initial inquiries to producers and determine their level of interest in supplying gas for
pipeline export to Curacao. Make inquiries to following producers: a) Repsol; b) Eni; c)
Chevron; d) Pacific Stratus Energy Colombia Corp and e) PDVSA.
3. If, after extensive discussions with the producers, it is confirmed that a reliable long-term gas
supply can be contracted (confirmed by MOU), make a decision to go with the gas import
pipeline option and then:
a. Proceed with FEED for gas import pipeline and onshore customer delivery pipeline.
b. Prepare EIAS and file for permits.
c. After completing FEED, obtain competitive bids for EPC.
d. With a firm budget in hand, rework economics and if attractive, make FID.
4. On the other hand, if after extensive discussion with Venezuelan / Columbian producers it
becomes apparent contracting for gas supply is not feasible within a reasonable timeline; then
pursue either the conventional onshore LNG terminal option or the FSRU LNG option. The
FSRU option has significantly lower initial CAPEX exposure and if RDKs objective is to
minimize CAPEX, then pursue the FSRU option. Otherwise, Shaw Consultants recommends the
traditional onshore LNG terminal option. Either of the LNG options will significantly reduce fuel
cost compared to burning No. 6 LSFO.
5. Pursue negotiations for an FSRU rental agreement with at least three FSRU vendor/operators and
execute a MOU for an FSRU conditioned on completion of FEED to define the jetty design and
modifications required to solve BOG handling issues at the low sendout rates. With a MOU in
hand for a FSRU lease agreement, then:
a. Prepare Plans for Project Execution and Operation.

1 - 12
b. Prepare documents required for FEED, prepare the RFQ package and obtain bids for
FEED. Evaluate the bids.
c. Proceed with FEED for the FSRU jetty, onshore BOG handling equipment and the
onshore customer delivery pipeline.
d. Prepare the EIAS and file for permits.
e. After completing FEED, obtain competitive bids for EPC.
f. With a firm budget in hand, rework economics and if attractive, make FID.
1.5 NEXT STEPS FOR THE PROJECT
Shaw Consultants note that there will be significant engineering work and preparation required on the part
of RDK to complete the future tasks required in project execution. RDK may want to consider engaging
a company to assist in project management (PMT) and to serve as Owners Engineer. Following is a list
of project execution tasks that will be required in executing a project.
FEED Tasks
Preparing, reviewing and confirming a Plan of Execution and Master Schedule;
Obtaining all site information, surveys, geotechnical studies and other technical information
required for executing the FEED;
Setting up project management controls, QA/QC procedures and document approval procedures;
Preparing RFQ documents and packages required for soliciting bids for FEED;
Identifying and pre-qualifying engineering firms to be included in the FEED bid list;
Tendering and evaluating bids for FEED including both technical and commercial;
Monitoring progress and interfacing with FEED contractor;
Checking FEED contractor technical data, calculations, drawing and specification performance;
Preparing documents for soliciting bids for EIAS;
Identifying and pre-qualifying firms to be included in the EIAS bid list;
Tendering and evaluating bids for EIAS;
Interfacing and monitoring EIAS contractor progress;
Manage and monitor permitting activities and regulatory compliance; and
Managing and monitoring cost and schedule.
EPC Tasks
Preparing documents and contracts for soliciting bids for EPC;
Identifying and pre-qualifying contractors to be included in the EPC bid list;
Tendering and evaluating bids for EPC;

1 - 13
Monitoring progress and interfacing with EPC contractor;
Checking EPC contractor technical data, calculations, drawing and specification performance.
Reviewing and approving technical detail design documents and drawings;
Monitoring QA/QC of equipment fabrication, welding, and construction;
Monitoring procurement activities;
Witnessing equipment testing and performance run tests;
Monitoring field construction; and
Monitoring costs and schedule.
Facility Operations
Preparing Startup and Operation Manuals;
Preparing Plan of Operation for Facilities;
Preparing Plans for Managing LNG or Gas Supply;
Preparing Plans for Maintenance and Repair Programs;
Coordinating staffing plans;
Coordinating operator training program; and
Preparing Procedures for Managing Health, Safety and Environmental Compliance for the
Project.

Section 2 Curacao Gas Market Assessment

2 - 1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
An assessment of the Curacao gas market has been performed to determine the peak gas demand
requirements. Shaw Consultants has based its assessment on data provided by Aqualectra, the local
utility company in Curacao, together with independent review of information available through online
resources.
2.2 ISLAND ELECTRIC UTILITY (AQUALECTRA)
Power on the island of Curacao is currently generated by Aqualectra using No. 6 high sulfur fuel oil
(HSFO) supplied by the Isla Refinery. Based on the government of Curacao initiative to diversify its
energy supply, Aqualectra has developed an estimate of the natural gas quantities needed to satisfy the
power generation needs of the island of Curacao over the next twenty years. This estimate is based on an
assumed power demand growth of two percent per annum starting in 2016. The US Energy Information
Agencys (EIA) International Energy Outlook 2011 report notes natural gas fired electricity generation
worldwide is expected to increase 2.6 percent annually over the 2008 to 2035 period. The EIA report
attributes this increase to the relatively low emissions, low capital costs, fuel efficiency and operating
flexibility that make natural gas fired electricity generation an attractive choice for new power plant
installations. Thus, Aqualectras assumed growth of 2.0 percent annually, as shown in Figure 2.2-1, is
conservative and generally in accordance with expected trends worldwide.

Figure 2.2-1 Aqualectra Forecasted Power Demand

The average rate shown in Figure 2.2-2 is the required natural gas supply condition to meet the
Aqualectra power demand noted in Figure 2.2-1. A review of the Aqualectra electricity dispatch
quantities conveyed the peak rate is normally no more than 25 percent above the average daily rate. Thus,
to ensure power generation capability, Shaw Consultants has assumed a peaking rate of 25 percent above
the average daily rate shown in Figure 2.2-2.

2 - 2
Figure 2.2-2 Aqualectra Forecasted Natural Gas Demand

2.3 ISLA REFINERY (CRUC)
There are two main power consumers in the Isla refinery, namely the refinery electric utility power
generation operated by CRUC and the refinery process steam boiler system. Electric power generation
for the refinery is currently fueled by No.6 HSFO. The process steam boiler system is currently fueled by
bitumen asphalt and other heavy hydrocarbon streams leftover from the refinery processing applications.
These streams are commonly termed the bottom of the barrel streams in the refinery industry. Some
modifications to the existing equipment may be needed to permit electricity and steam generation via
natural gas. In addition, Shaw Consultants understands that the Isla Refinery would require a significant
investment to process and refine these bottom of the barrel streams into saleable products. The required
modifications are currently being studied by the Isla Refinery, who anticipates completing the required
changes by 2018 if delivery of natural gas for power and steam generation is pursued. Based on
discussions between the Isla Refinery and Aqualectra, it is estimated the natural gas demand needed to
satisfy the Isla Refinery systems will be as shown in Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2. Peak utilization in each
case was assumed to be 10 percent above the annual average rate.
The viability of the Isla Refinery long-term is uncertain. Originally built in 1918 by Shell, the Isla
Refinery is currently leased through 2019 to Venezuelan state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A.
(PDVSA). PDVSA has operated the facility under a lease agreement with the Government of Curacao
since 1985, when Shell sold its interest in the Isla Refinery to the Curacao Government. Shaw
Consultants note that conversion of the refinery fuel systems to natural gas will essentially eliminate the
current environmental issues and the operation of the Isla Refinery will likely continue beyond 2018.


2 - 3
Figure 2.3-1 Refinery Utility System ( CRUC ) Natural Gas Demand Forecast

Figure 2.3-2 Refinery Processes Natural Gas Demand Forecast

2.4 SEASONAL, DAILY AND HOURLY DEMAND FLUCTUATION
Shaw Consultants was provided with the electricity dispatched by Aqualectra on four separate days of
operation. This data is presented on an hourly basis for October 11, 2011 and March 10
th
through 12,
2012. As seen in Figures 2.4-1 through 2.4-4 the electricity demand has a little fluctuation on a daily
basis and relatively similar demand seasonally.

2 - 4

Figure 2.4-1 Electricity Dispatch October 11, 2011 (Weekday max 2011)

Figure 2.4-2 Electricity Dispatched March 10, 2012 (Saturday)


2 - 5
Figure 2.4-3 Electricity Dispatched March 11, 2012 (Sunday)

Figure 2.4-4 Electricity Dispatched March 12, 2012 (Weekday)

In addition, Aqualectra states that electricity demand over the course of a year does not vary significantly
as the island of Curacao has a temperate climate with little variation in temperatures year round. Shaw
Consultants notes that based on limited amount of data points provided for review, this assertion by
Aqualectra seems quite reasonable.

2 - 6
2.5 DEMAND GROWTH
Based on the Aqualectra data, peaking above the average rate was determined to be approximately 25
percent for the worst case scenario. Thus, to accommodate peak sendout gas demand, Shaw Consultants
has assumed that the highest reasonably likely peak demand during any 24 hour period will be as follows:
Aqualectra Maximum Peak Rate: 25 Percent above the annual average daily rate
Refinery Process Heat Maximum Peak Rate: 10 Percent above the annual average daily rate
CRUC Maximum Peak Rate: 10 Percent above the annual average daily rate
The assumptions detailed above result in the natural gas demand forecast presented in Figure 2.5-1.

Figure 2.5-1 Total Curacao Natural Gas Demand Forecast

2.6 NEIGHBORING ISLANDS
Natural gas supply via CNG or LNG may be more economically feasible to implement in Curacao if the
adjacent islands of Aruba and Bonaire develop mutual natural gas power generation capability in
coordination with the island of Curacao.
Aruba
As of 2009, Aruba has 0.266 GW (2330 GWh per year) of installed power generation capacity. Annual
power generation and consumption in Aruba was 880 GWh and 818GWh, respectively, in 2009
suggesting Arubas infrastructure adopted an N+2 philosophy, which Shaw Consultants confirms is
common practice. Arubas power generation, consumption and capacity have nearly tripled in the past
twenty years, as shown in Figure 2.6-1.
Power generation in Aruba is achieved currently through the combustion of petroleum products (likely
No.6 HSFO) rather than natural gas. Thus, like Curacao, investment to modify/upgrade existing power

2 - 7
generation systems may be necessary in Aruba. Figure 2.6-2 depicts the predicted natural gas
requirements in Aruba assuming the 2009 demand of 880 GWh increases by two percent per year
compared to the Aqualectra natural gas demand in Curacao.

Figure 2.6-1 Arubas Annual Historical Power Demand

Source: EIA International Energy Statistics

Figure 2.6-2 Natural Gas Demand for Public Power Generation (Aruba and Curacao)


2 - 8
If Curacao were to build an LNG import terminal, it is conceivable that Curacao could possibly supply
natural gas by pipeline to Aruba for power generation. This may be a challenging proposition since a
project to build a LNG import terminal in Aruba already exists.
Bonaire
Shaw Consultants gathered information on Bonaires power generation from the public domain. In effect,
Bonaire has become the first country to be powered almost exclusively by clean energy. Thus, natural
gas supply to Bonaire from Curacao is an unlikely scenario given the apparent success of their clean
energy initiative. The Bonaire power demand is only 10 percent of the power demand seen in Curacao,
thereby needing a very small quantity of natural gas to satisfy Bonaires power generation needs. Figure
2.6-3 compares the forecasted natural gas demand in Curacao to that of Bonaire, which is based on a
power demand growth rate of two percent per annum.
Figure 2.6-3 Forecasted Natural Gas Demand Comparison between Bonaire and Curacao

In Shaw Consultants opinion, the minute power demand requirements in Bonaire do not justify the costs
to lay a pipeline from Curacao to Bonaire.

2.7 NATURAL GAS AND FUEL OIL PRICE FORECAST
The price of natural gas, supplied to Curacao (via pipeline, LNG or CNG), will likely be indexed to the
Henry Hub price. Historical Henry Hub pricing is shown in Figure 2.7-1.
The price at Henry Hub has declined sharply starting in 2008. A key driver for the decrease in the natural
gas Henry Hub pricing in recent years has been the shale gas development within the continental US.
Shaw Consultants anticipates exploration, development and production from shale gas plays will
continue. Thus, it is anticipated Henry Hub natural gas prices will remain relatively stable in the
upcoming years, likely increasing at rate of one percent per annum.

2 - 9
Figure 2.7-1 Henry Hub Spot Natural Gas Price (January 1997 February 2012)

Source: Henry Hub Gulf Coast Natural Gas Spot Price, EIA

The Henry Hub price forecast published in the EIAs Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release utilizes
a similar pricing assumption as illustrated in Figure 2.7-2.

Figure 2.7-2 Henry Hub Natural Gas Price Forecast
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
5
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
%
)
P
r
i
c
e
(
U
S
$
/
M
M
B
T
U
)
HenryHubPrice PriceIncrease

Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release, EIA

2 - 10
Figures 2.7-3 and Figure 2.7-4 depict the EIA forecast of low sulfur spec fuel oil for No.2 (Distillate) and
No.6 (Heavy Fuel Oil) used to generate power.
Figure 2.7-3 No.2 LSFO (Distillate) Price Forecast
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
5
P
r
i
c
e
(
U
S
$
/
M
M
B
T
U
)
P
r
i
c
e
(
U
S
$
/
b
b
l
)
US$/bbl US$/MMBTU


Figure 2.7-4 No.6 LSFO (Heavy Fuel Oil) Price Forecast
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
P
r
i
c
e
(
U
S
$
/
b
b
l
)



2 - 11
2.8 GAS QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
The commercial quality natural gas specifications for the Curacao Feasibility Study are listed in Table
2.8-1.
Table 2.8-1 Gas Delivery Specifications
PARAMETER \ SITE BULLEN
BAY
SCHOTTEGAT
HARBOR
Max. Sendout Gas Pressure 780 psig 550 psig
Peak Sendout Gas Rate 137 MMscfd*
Minimum Sendout Gas Rate 15 MMscfd*
Sendout Gas Temperature Minimum: 60
o
F Maximum: 120
o
F
HHV 1,000 - 1,150 Btu/scf
Max. N
2
2.00 mol%
Max. CO
2
2.00 mol%
Max. Non-Hydrocarbon Content 4.00 mol%
Max. O
2
10 ppm by volume
Max. H
2
S 0.25 grains/100 scf
Max. Mercaptans 0.25 grains/100 scf
Max. Total Sulfur 0.50 grains/100 scf
Max. Water Vapor Content 7.0 lbs/MMscf
HC Dewpoint Less than 30
o
F @ 500 psig
*Sendout rate is based on gas equivalent assuming HHV of 1,000 Btu/scf.
Section 3 Gas Supply Concepts

3 - 1
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the report documents the gas supply concepts that were considered and evaluated for
Curacao in the study. Three basic supply options were analyzed including CNG, LNG, and Gas Import
Pipeline option. With respect to the LNG option, two configurations were considered including a
traditional onshore LNG terminal facility and a LNG FSRU jetty facility.
What Is Commercial Quality Pipeline Natural Gas
Commercial quality pipeline natural gas is predominately methane with small amounts of ethane,
propane, and butanes. It can contain up to 2 mol% nitrogen and 2 mol% carbon dioxide. Hydrogen
sulfide must be less than 0.25 grains/100scf and total sulfur compound content must be less than
0.50 grains/100scf. The water content is typically less than 7 lbs/MMscf. The commercial gas pipeline
pressure is typically less than 1,440 psig with the temperature of the gas ranging between 40
o
F to 120
o
F.
The hydrocarbon dew point temperature of the gas must be sufficiently low to assure that no hydrocarbon
liquids will condense in the pipeline over its range of operating pressure and temperature. The higher
heating value (HHV) of commercial quality natural gas is dependent on the quantity of ethane and heavier
hydrocarbon content. Typically, the HHV ranges between a minimum of 950 Btu/scf to a maximum of
1,150 Btu/scf.
What Is CNG
CNG is commercial quality natural gas which has been compressed to 4,000 psig. After compression the
CNG is cooled, stored and transported at a temperature ranging between 60
o
F and 120
o
F.
What Is LNG
LNG is liquefied commercial quality natural gas with essential all of the water and carbon dioxide
removed. The C6+hydrocarbon content is less than 1 to 2 ppm by volume. It is a cryogenic liquid at a
bubble point temperature of approximately -259
o
F stored at essentially atmospheric pressure.
3.2 CNG OPTION
In the Scope of Work, Shaw Consultants was requested to consider and evaluate CNG technology
offered by Sea NG Corporation. Shaw Consultants contacted Sea NG and requested that they furnish
information on their patented CNG Coselle delivery system. The following is a recap of the
information obtained from Sea NG.
NOTE: INFORMATION FURNISHED BY SEA NG IS SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN SEA NG, SHAW CONSULTANTS, REFINERIA DI
KORSOU, AND SOLOMON ASSOCIATES. THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE TREATED AS
CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANY OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY
THAT HAS NOT EXECUTED A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT WITH SEA NG.
Compared to an LNG system, a CNG delivery system avoids liquefaction, regasification and onshore
storage of gas. The gas is compressed into ships which provide both the storage and transportation. The
system is illustrated schematically Figure 3.2-1.

3 - 2
Figure 3.2-1 CNG Delivery System Schematic
Sea NGs CNG transportation solution is based on the Coselle System, which is an integrated system
that combines loading and unloading facilities with transportation and storage in specially designed CNG
ships. These ships provide marine transport of natural gas for distances up to 1,000 nautical miles. The
system is based on Sea NGs patented Coselle technology. It uses coiled pipe to safely and effectively
store gas at high pressure (4,000 psig). The CNG is transported in the CNG Coselle ships to receiving
destinations where it is decompressed for delivery.
A Coselle is a coiled pipeline contained within a supporting structure mounted within a ships hull as
illustrated in Figure 3.2-2.
Figure 3.2-2 Schematic of Coselle and Ship Structure


3 - 3
A Coselle is Sea NGs patented storage vessel comprised of approximately 17 km (13 miles) of
168 mm (6 in) diameter ERW high-strength steel pipe that has been coiled into a reel-like support
structure called a carousel. The name Coselle is derived from a coil in a carousel. Coselles can
be stacked up to seven units high, as required to meet the ships design. Each container is designed to be
integrated into the ships structure. The Coselles are stacked within the vessels hold, and connected
together using a proprietary manifold and control system. The unique, patented part of the cargo system is
the use of high and low pressure manifolds to efficiently load and unload the Coselles (or Coselle
stacks) in a cascade fashion allowing more rapid loading and unloading while maintaining control of the
temperatures and using less compression horsepower.
Coselle CNG ships have been fully approved for construction by the American Bureau of Shipping
(ABS). To achieve this approval a full design of a C16 ship and a full design of the mid-body of a C25
ship (integrated design) was carried out. These designs, plus all supporting safety studies, plus all of the
Coselle analysis and testing, plus HAZIDs and HAZOPs were submitted to ABS for formal review. The
achievement of full class approval is the final step before construction. This guarantees that a Coselle
CNG ship can be constructed and receive full Class Approval. Once a ship has Class Approval it is then
internationally accepted as a safe means of shipping and will receive the international certificates.
In 2008, representatives Sea NG visited Curacao to investigate the potential of delivering CNG to the Isla
Refinery. The concept at the time was to import 30 MMscfd. The current delivery requirements assume
a peak rate of 137 MMscfd by year. To accommodate the current peak rate requirements, four C16 ship
would be required with a ship arriving daily at Curacao. Two ships will load and two ships will discharge
each day. At the Curacao discharge terminal there would be substantial overlap of the ships. This means
that 50% of the time there will be two ships at the discharge terminal, one full and one discharging. Both
the export and import receiving terminals will require berths for two ships.
Sea NG has a web site which provides access to computer modeling software that can be used to analyze
the shipping and terminal facility tariff fees for CNG delivery using the patented CNG Coselle ships.
Shaw Consultants used this web site to prepare an analysis of the shipping and terminal facility tariff fees
for gas supplies from Trinidad, Venezuela, and Columbia. The results are illustrated in Figure 3.2-3.
Figure 3.2-3 CNG Tariff Fees vs. Transport Distance
NOTE: The tariff fees include cost for both shipping and terminal facilities

3 - 4
The CNG tariffs illustrated in Figure 3.2-3 include costs for CNG ships and the facilities at both the
export and import terminals. As noted in the figure, CNG tariff cost for importing gas from Trinidad is
approximately US$3.75/MMBtu which has a transport distance of 560 nautical miles. As the transport
distance is reduced, the tariff costs decline. For gas supply transported from Venezuela and Columbia,
the calculated tariff costs are US$2.05/MMBtu and US$2.30/MMBtu, respectively.
Sea NGs business model for deploying the CNG Coselle gas delivery system is structured around a
time charter agreement. Sea NG retains ownership of the CNG ships and will lease CNG ships under a
long term charter agreement. A day rate will be charged for each CNG ship required to service the gas
delivery capacity required by the project. A minimum 10-year charter will be required. On-loading
facilities will be the responsibility of the producer (or alternatively Sea NG). The Off-loading facilities
will be the responsibility of the gas customer (or alternatively Sea NG).
Based on Shaw Consultants review of the Sea NG information and after analyzing the CNG Coselle
delivery system concepts, the following conclusions were developed.
Technical Feasibility
- Design safety of CNG Coselle containment has been confirmed by ABS and DNV.
- CNG ships with the Coselle containment system can be Classed.
- CNG delivery to Curacao is theoretically feasible.
Potential Gas Supply
- Trinidad, Columbia and Venezuela have potential gas supply that might be tapped. However,
contract negations with producers could require a long-lead time.
- Gas supply may be available, but infrastructure may not exist. Pipelines, treating,
dehydration, and CNG compression will be needed at the CNG export terminal.
Schedule
- Likely to have a schedule of 30 to 40 months.
- Schedule driven by fabrication of multiple CNG ships (4 to 6).
Economic Viability
- Significant uncertainty exists in costs of CNG ships and export infrastructure. No actual
fabrication history is available for CNG ships. No CNG ships have ever been built.
- Tariff calculations by Sea NG indicate CNG is competitive with LNG.
Operability
- Scheduling and ship logistics will be challenging and complex.
- Lot of equipment to operate and maintain.
- One ship arriving daily makes for potential complex shipping.
Reliability
- High frequency arrival schedule makes this option less reliable.

3 - 5
- Not as reliable as the LNG and Gas Import Pipeline options.
Historical Track Record
- No CNG Coselle ships have been built.
- Curacao would be the first application of this technology.
- Technology is unproven in real commercial application.
- This option has high risk from both a commercial and technical perspective.
Based on Shaw Consultants analysis, it was recommended that the CNG option be dropped from
consideration because of the risks and lack of having any commercial projects in service.
3.3 LNG OPTIONS
Two LNG terminal configurations were considered including the traditional onshore LNG terminal and
the LNG FSRU jetty terminal.
Onshore LNG Terminal Option
The onshore LNG terminal option is based on the traditional LNG regas terminal design. Open Rack
Vaporizer (ORV) technology was selected for this conceptual design since it is highly reliable and has the
lowest OPEX costs. A 160,000m
3
full containment LNG storage tank is assumed in this option. All
critical equipment has been spared and the expected on-line reliability is 99%. Design life is based on 25
years. Gas sendout capacity is 137 MMscfd at pressures up to 780 psig.
A simplified process flow diagram for the terminal is illustrated in Figure 3.3-4.
Figure 3.3-4 Typical LNG Regas Terminal Simplified PFD

BOG PIPELINE
COMPRESSOR
SENDOUT GAS
SUPERHEATER

3 - 6
The Curacao onshore LNG terminal option includes the following major systems and equipment:
Berthing J etty for LNG Ship Ranging from 80,000m
3
to 155,000m
3
.
Unloading Platform Equipped With 2-LNG Arms (16 inch), 1-Hybrid LNG/Vapor Arm (16 inch),
and 1-Vapor Arm (16 inch) Designed for an Offloading Rate of up to 12,000m
3
/hr.
One LNG Drain Drum and LNG Drain Drum Pumps (2x100%) At Unloading Platform.
LNG Transfer Line (36), Ship Vapor Transfer Line (12) and LNG Cool Down Circulation Line
(3).
One LNG Storage Tank (160,000m
3
capacity).
LNG In-Tank Pumps (2x100%) and HP LNG Sendout Pumps (2x100%).
Small BOG Compressors (2x100%), Large BOG Compressor (1x100%), BOG Pipeline
Compressor (1x100%) and Ship Return Vapor Blowers (2x100%).
BOG Condenser/Absorber.
LNG Vaporizers Using Open Rack Vaporizer (ORV) Technology (2x100%).
Sendout Gas Superheaters (2x100%).
Seawater Lift Pumps for ORVs (3x50%).
Gas Sendout Metering and Odorization.
Process Control System.
Flare/Vent/Drain Systems.
Safety Systems Including Fire Protection, Gas/Smoke/Fire/Spill Detection, Emergency Shut
Down (ESD), LNG Spill Impoundment, Emergency Generator, and UPS Emergency Power.
Miscellaneous Utility Support Systems Including Electrical Power (Purchased from Aqualectra),
Process Utility Heat Medium, Fuel Gas, Nitrogen Supply, Instrument and Utility Air, Plant
Lighting, etc.
Infrastructure at the terminal will include a control room, operating offices, a laboratory,
workshop/warehouse, employee parking area, potable water supply and sewage treatment. Security
fencing and guarded entry are required to control access to the terminal facilities.
LNG Vaporization Technology
CH-IV International, a company recognized within the industry as having expertise in LNG, published a
technical paper on LNG vaporizer alternatives in 2007 which is still valid today. The following
discussion draws from the information contained in CH-IVs technical paper.
The choice of a vaporization system is an important first step in the development of a LNG import
terminal, since it impacts capital expenditure, operating costs, operating flexibility and reliability,
emissions as well as public perception and regulatory compliance.
Historically, LNG import terminals have generally used either Open Rack Vaporizers (ORV) or
Submerged Combustion Vaporizers (SCV) for LNG regasification purposes. ORVs are widely used in

3 - 7
Asia and Europe, and are well proven in baseload LNG regasification service. SCVs have been used in
the four existing import terminals in the U.S. When compared to other vaporization technologies, the
higher emissions from SCVs have prompted requirements to evaluate alternative vaporization systems.
Recent developments in alternative vaporizer technologies include ambient air vaporizers and shell and
tube vaporizers with or without intermediate fluid and/or combinations of each and there now exists
proven design and operating experience.
The process of returning LNG to a gaseous state requires the introduction of heat energy. Heat sources
include ambient temperature sources (air or seawater) or above-ambient temperature sources such as
burning fuel either directly or to heat an intermediate fluid. In either arrangement, LNG absorbs heat as it
passes through thermal conductors that are surrounded by a higher temperature medium. As the LNG is
heated, it vaporizes into natural gas, which is then delivered to customers via distribution pipelines at
controlled flow rates, pressures and temperatures. There are many heating mediums in general use for this
type of process and the particulars of the energy exchange process may be governed by any number of
alternative vaporization processes currently available.
The various vaporization technologies include:
Open Rack Vaporizers (ORVs).
Submerged Combustion Vaporizers (SCVs).
Shell and Tube Vaporizer.
Ambient Air Vaporizers (AAVs) including
- Direct Natural draft Ambient Air Vaporizer and
- Direct Forced Draft Ambient Air Vaporizer.
Air-Water Tower Vaporization Technology
Open Rack Vaporizers: The ORV is commonly considered in the design of LNG import terminals. The
relatively low mechanical, electrical, and process complexity and reduced air emissions present good
engineering arguments in its favor. However, life-cycle operating costs must also be considered. The
ORV uses seawater as the sole heat source to vaporize LNG. The vaporizer consists of a heat conductor
panel with multiple tubes through which the LNG passes. A typical ORV arrangement is illustrated in
Figure 3.3-5.
LNG enters at the bottom of the vaporizer through a distribution header and moves up through the tubes
while seawater flows down along the outer surface of the tube panels. Vaporized natural gas is removed
from the top of the vaporizer and is sent to the distribution pipeline. The cooled seawater collects in a
trough at the bottom of the vaporizer and is discharged to an outfall.
Chlorination of the seawater is used to prevent bio-fouling. Typically, sodium hypochlorite would be
injected continuously to maintain a concentration of 0.2 ppm. In order to shock the system, elevated
concentrations of 2.0 ppm would be injected for 20 minutes every 8 hours, during ORV operation. De-
chlorination of the effluent may also be required to meet environmental standards.


3 - 8
Figure 3.3-5 Open Rack Vaporizers (ORVs)

Submerged Combustion Vaporizer (SCV): SCV systems are also commonly considered in the design of
LNG import terminals. Their proven operational history, low capital cost, simplicity in design and
operational flexibility combine to make this an attractive option. The SCV system uses natural gas as its
heat source and requires electrical power to operate combustion air blowers and circulating water pumps.
LNG is routed to a stainless steel tube bundle that is submerged in a water bath heated with flue gases
generated by a submerged combustion burner. A schematic of typical SCV operation is presented in
Figure 3.3-6.
Figure 3.3-6 Submerged Combustion Vaporizers


3 - 9
The forced air draft combustion burner is fueled by low-pressure gas from either the Boil-Off Gas (BOG)
header or from the natural gas sendout pipeline. Hot exhaust gases from combustion are sparged into the
water bath creating a relatively low temperature (typically in the range of 55 to 90F) thermally stable
heat source for the vaporization of LNG flowing through the coil bundle. Natural gas exits the coils at
pipeline pressure and temperature for pipeline distribution.
Shell and Tube Vaporizer: There are many configurations of shell and tube vaporizer technologies that
are available for LNG applications. One such system uses a closed loop heated water-glycol system to
provide heat to vaporize the LNG using a shell and tube exchanger design patented by Chicago Power &
Process, Inc. A Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) warmed from an external heat source, is used to vaporize the
LNG. For the vertical configuration shell and tube LNG vaporizer illustrated in Figure 3.3-7, LNG
enters the exchanger tubes from the bottom and vaporized natural gas exits from the top. The HTF is split
fed to the shell side of the vaporizer from both the bottom and top. In the bottom section of the
exchanger, the heat transfer is achieved from co-current exchange while the top section is in counter-
current exchange. This vaporization technology is used by Excelerate Energy and Exmar on their LNG
FSRU facilities.
Figure 3.3-7 Shell and Tube LNG Vaporizer
Ambient Air Vaporizers (AAVs): Direct AAVs transfer heat from the ambient air directly into the LNG
through a heat exchanger heat transfer surface. In typical Direct AAVs, the LNG is passed through a
manifold that divides the flow into a number of vaporizer units where a series of smaller flows are
directed through individual heat transfer tubes. Each tube has aluminum fins for increased heat exchange
area and is in direct contact with the ambient air. Figure 3.3-8 illustrates the Direct AAVs.

3 - 10
Figure 3.3-8 Ambient Air Vaporizers (AAVs)
There are two types of direct ambient air vaporizers natural draft and fan induced forced draft air flow.
These units typically are designed with a thaw cycle to remove ice buildup. In forced draft AAVs,
airflow into the unit is controlled by fans installed on top of the vaporizer. Each unit can be equipped with
shrouds on each side to direct airflow through the vaporizer. Direct forced draft vaporizers are
approximately 1.7 times more effective than natural draft AAVs becaus they move 1.7 times more air
across the tubes of the unit. AAVs installed at locations having a cool to cold winter require supplemental
heating during cool weather operation.
AAVs produce a substantial flow of fresh water which is condensed from the moisture in the air. Up to
100 gpm of pure fresh water is produced for each 100 MMscfd of vaporized LNG. The production rate of
fresh water, of course, is dependent on the relative humidity and ambient air temperature. For the forced
draft units, electrical power required for the fan motors adds operating cost for vaporization. Overall,
AAVs have low OPEX and minimal fuel requirements during cool weather periods of operation.
However, the natural draft AAVs required proportionally a much larger area plot space than the other
types of vaporizers. A large number of AVVs must be installed to provide the vaporization duty. Since
the airflow through the forced draft units is higher than natural draft units, fewer forced draft units are
required to achieve the same duty.
Emissions and effluents for forced draft and natural draft units are similar, except that with forced draft
AAVs the formation of fog is diminished by the forced airflow. There is also more ice formed in forced
draft units because the increased air flow over the tubes increases the rate of water condensation and
consequently the rate of ice formation. The shrouds around the tube bundles impede the amount of radiant
heat reaching the ice forming on the tubes, which can increase the ice buildup rate.
Air-Water Tower Vaporization Technology: This type of vaporization system consists of shell and tube
vaporizers, air-water towers (i.e a reverse cooling water tower), plate frame water/heat medium heat
exchangers, and a heat medium circulation loop with direct fired heaters. The heat medium is typically a
water-glycol solution. A schematic of this process is illustrated in Figure 3.3-9.

3 - 11
Figure 3.3-9 Ambient Air-Water Tower Vaporization System Schematic

The LNG Terminal at Freeport, Texas selected the air-water tower vaporization technology. The Freeport
vaporization air-water towers are shown in Figure 3.3-10.
Figure 3.3-10 Freeport LNG Terminal Air-Water Tower Vaporization System


3 - 12
LNG FSRU Option
This option involves the leasing of a LNG Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU). There are
four leading vendors that have experience in LNG FSRUs including Excelerate Energy, Hoegh, Exmar,
and Golar.
Shaw Consultants contacted Excelerate Energy and Hoegh to obtain information on LNG FSRU vessels.
Both companies responded with information for their respective FSRU vessels. Following is a recap of
the information obtained from these two vendors.
Excelerate Energy LNG FSRU Information
NOTE: INFORMATION FURNISHED BY EXCELERATE ENERGY IS SUBJECT TO
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN EXCELERATE ENERGY,
SHAW CONSULTANTS, REFINERIA DI KORSOU, AND SOLOMON ASSOCIATES. THIS
INFORMATION SHALL BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE
DISCLOSED TO ANY OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY THAT HAS NOT EXECUTED A
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT WITH EXCELERATE ENERGY.
History and Background
Excelerate is a provider of LNG storage and regasification services, an importer of LNG, and a developer
of unique market access points around the world (see Figure 3.3-11). In 2001, Excelerate placed the first
shipyard order to incorporate regasification equipment into the design of a new type of LNG vessel that
would be referred to as Energy Bridge Regasification Vessels or across the industry today as FSRUs. As
of 2011, Excelerate operates a fleet of eight purpose-built FSRUs, three with an LNG cargo capacity of
138,000m and five with a capacity of 150,900m. Excelerate has also taken the conventional LNG carrier
(LNGC) Excalibur under long term charter to support our global efforts and is currently developing the
largest FSRU in the industry for Petrobras, expected to enter into service in May 2014.
Figure 3.3-11 Excelerate Energy Historical Milestones
Since taking delivery of the first FSRU in J anuary 2005, Excelerate has been at the forefront of technical
innovation in the LNG industry, achieving several World Firsts in the process. These include Excelerate
being the first company in the world to design, build, and operate offshore and dockside LNG
regasification terminals (Gateways and GasPorts respectively). In addition, Excelerate was the first to

3 - 13
utilize its own fleet of LNG regasification vessels to service these facilities, and the first in the industry in
developing side-to-side (STS) LNG transfer capabilities to maximize the efficiency of its fleet.
Excelerate developed, owns and operates two offshore LNG regasification terminals, Gulf Gateway
(GGEB) Deepwater Port in the US Gulf of Mexico and Northeast Gateway(NEG) Deepwater Port in
Massachusetts, as well as the Teesside GasPort (TGP) dockside regasification terminal at Teesside in the
UK. Internationally, Excelerate developed, operates, and provides LNG storage and regasification
services at three GasPorts, the Bahia Blanca (BBGP) and GNL Escobar (GNLE) GasPorts in Argentina
and at the Mina Al Ahmadi GasPort (MAAGP) in Kuwait.
In the course of developing and operating these terminals, Excelerate has amassed a highly experienced
group of project management and operations professionals to design, permit, construct, and operate the
port facilities and associated vessels. Excelerate brings this experience, as well as excellent long standing
relationships with critical equipment manufacturers, design consultants, installation contractors, and
operations and maintenance contractors to each project we develop.
With eight FSRUs currently in service, Excelerate is the unquestioned world leader in floating offshore
and dockside regasification solutions. This, in conjunction with unique design, construction and
operational experience derived from the completion of six such facilities worldwide, leaves Excelerate
uniquely suited to manage the challenges involved with the timely implementation and safe, efficient
operation of the LNG importation infrastructure for the Curacao GasPort or Gateway. Furthermore,
Excelerates global reputation for utilizing available local resources in facilitating the development of the
facilities will allow the seamless integration of many qualified local businesses and personnel as progress
is made in the design, fabrication, installation and operation of the LNG terminal.
Energy Bridge Terminal Technology
Energy Bridge is the propriety offshore LNG regasification and delivery system developed by Excelerate.
This system involves the use of the purpose-built FSRUs for the transportation and vaporization of LNG
through specially designed offshore and near shore receiving facilities. Energy Bridge is a combination of
proven technology and equipment in a new application and represents an innovative step forward in LNG
importation technology.
Gateways (see Figure 3.3-12), such as Excelerates Gulf Gateway and Northeast Gateway, consist of:
One or more submerged turret loading (STL) buoys that connect to the FSRU and serve as
both a mooring for the vessel and a conduit for the discharge of natural gas;
Chains, wire rope, and anchors used to secure each of the buoys to the seabed;
A flexible riser designed to connect the buoy to a seabed pipeline end manifold (PLEM)
allowing tie-in to a subsea pipeline;
A subsea PLEM that incorporates necessary control instrumentation and related valves; and,
An interconnecting subsea pipeline to tie into downstream delivery infrastructure.

3 - 14
Figure 3.3-12 Excelerate Energy Bridge Terminal Gateway System

GasPorts (see Figure 3.3-13), such as Excelerates Bahia Blanca GasPort, are dockside applications of
Excelerates Energy Bridge technology. Using the dockside delivery method, the FSRU moored at the
GasPort is connected to a shore-mounted high-pressure gas unloading arm via the vessels gas manifold.
Natural gas vaporized onboard is delivered from the FSRU at a prescribed pipeline pressure. Effectively,
this allows an FSRU to function as a highly flexible LNG receiving terminal, and the low cost of
construction of a GasPort allows for short-term, seasonal, or peaking service, in addition to long-term
base load deliveries. The FSRU, permanently moored at the GasPort, receives LNG supplies from
conventional LNGCs utilizing Excelerates STS transfer procedure.
Figure 3.3-13 Excelerate Energy Bridge Terminal GasPort System

3 - 15
FSRU Technology. FSRUs are new, purpose-built LNG tankers that incorporate onboard equipment for
the vaporization of LNG and delivery of high pressure natural gas. Excelerate currently has eight FSRUs
in its young fleet (the oldest vessel delivered in J anuary 2005).
Excelerate initially developed the FSRU to facilitate its trading activities and to supply LNG to its own
Gateway and GasPort importation terminals, but a greater potential for this technology was recognized.
Today, Excelerate also makes its FSRUs available to third parties under LNG storage and regasification
agreements as part of a complete floating LNG importation solution. Excelerate FSRUs are currently
providing storage and regasification services for Repsol-YPF at the Bahia Blanca and GNL Escobar
GasPorts in Argentina and to Kuwait National Petroleum Corporation at the MAAGP Project in Kuwait.
In May 2014, Excelerate will be providing storage and regasification services for Petrobras at Guanabara
Bay Terminal in Brazil.
As all vessels in Excelerates FSRU fleet are built essentially the same and positioned strategically around
the globe, they can be interchanged and substituted as needed, avoiding the need for a facility to be down
while a vessel conversion or FSRU is sent to a shipyard. This inventory of vessels allows our clients
unsurpassed regasification up-time, and virtually eliminates gaps in service. This cannot be said of
competing companies who may provide a single, older converted LNG carrier, constituting a single point
of failure mode.
LNG STS Transfer. Excelerate can affect the transfer of LNG cargos from a traditional LNG carrier to
Excelerates FSRU utilizing its proprietary, commercial STS transfer process (see Figure 3.3-14).
Excelerate has undertaken over 142 STS transfers using flexible hoses, transferring almost 14 million
cubic meters of LNG in the process. The STS System is capable of transferring up to 1,000 cubic meters
of LNG per hour per line on each of six liquid lines and two vapor lines to manage vapor transfer between
the two vessels involved in the STS transfer. The maximum transfer rate of 6,000 cubic meters per hour is
the design rate of the system due in part to the assumption that two (2) cargo tanks with four (4) cargo
tank pumps in operation at 1,500 cubic meters per hour each. The transfer rate has proven to be the most
optimal rate while maintaining a safety margin to manage tank pressures and minimize the BOG
generated.
Figure 3.3-14 STS LNG Transfer Hoses and Manifolds


3 - 16
Mooring Arrangements. The FSRU requires a 16 line configuration 2-4-2 (2 head, 4 breast and 2 springs
forward 2 springs aft, 4 breast and 2 stern lines). In regard of the mooring configuration with the supply
vessel, Excelerate recommends to have availability to send 2 shore lines at head and stern, although
detailed mooring arrangements for STS will provide the mooring configuration for each class of supply
vessel (see Figure 3.3-15).
Figure 3.3-15 Mooring Arrangement For STS Transfer

In order to allow the mooring arrangement described above, the berth will be provided with the following
set of quick release hooks:
Mooring Dolphins (MD1, MD2, MD3 and MD4): 4 x 150 t each
Berthing Dolphins (BD1 and BD4): 2 x 150 t each
Vaporization and Regasification System. Each FSRU is capable of three modes of LNG vaporization:
Closed-Loop, Open-Loop, and Combined Mode.
In the Closed-Loop mode, steam from the FSRU propulsion steam boilers is used to heat fresh water
circulated through the shell-and-tube vaporizers to regasify the LNG. There is no seawater intake or
discharge used specifically for the regasification process in the Closed-Loop mode.
In Open-Loop mode, the basic process is much the same as Closed-Loop with the exception that seawater
is drawn in through the FSRUs sea chests near the stern of the vessel. This seawater is used as a heat
source and passed through the shell of the vaporizers. LNG is fed to the tubes of the vaporizer where it
contacts the inner surface of the tubes and the heat required for vaporization is transferred. For this
reason, the FSRUs are constrained from operating in the Open-Loop mode when water temperatures are
below 45
o
F to minimize the risk of icing within the vaporizers.
In Combined Mode of operation, seawater at temperatures between 45 and 58
o
F can be used and is further
heated using steam from the FSRUs boilers to provide sufficient heat for the vaporization of the LNG.
A simple block flow diagram of the Excelerate Energy vaporization and regas system is illustrated in
Figure 3.3-16.

3 - 17
Figure 3.3-16 Excelerate Energy FSRU LNG Vaporization Block Flow Diagram

LNG Vaporizers. The FSRUs incorporate six LNG vaporizers. The vaporizer is a shell-and-tube heat
exchanger where the LNG is vaporized to natural gas and heated to approximately 1C (35F) minimum
by the seawater (open loop) or by the vessels internal heating system (closed loop). On leaving the LNG
Vaporizer, natural gas flows through a Pressure Regulating Station that maintains a minimum pressure of
approximately 75 barg in the regasification system, through a metering station and into the export pipeline
and finally through the HP gas arm.
Operation and Control. The regasification and gas delivery operation is continuously manned and is
controlled utilizing the ships Integrated Automation System (IAS). The high pressure gas system is
protected by means of high pressure trips, low temperature trips, and relief valves. The FSRU Emergency
Shut Down (ESD) system will activate to shut down the regasification process in the event that a ship or
shore side, including the power plant, ESD condition is present. The FSRUs IAS ensures the safe
operation of the regasification plant within the system design parameters.
For each regasification nomination the FSRU operator will utilize a configuration screen to input three
ordered parameters:
1. Required discharge rate.
2. Maximum discharge pressure.
3. Minimum discharge temperature.
The GasPort or Gateway facility design provides for the following Operating Modes:
Inerting
Warm Startup
Cold Startup
Startup from ambient temperature with air atmosphere within system
Steady-state Operation
Operation at minimum send out (turndown)

3 - 18
Normal shutdown and Warm-up
Emergency Shutdown
Depressurizing
Flexibility for LNG Supply Sources: The Excelerate LNG FSRU will be capable of handling and
vaporizing a wide range of LNG supply sources. Data from various LNG supply sources that may
supply/utilize the GasPort or Gateway terminal has been collected and is tabulated in Table 3.3-1.
Table 3.3-1 LNG Supply Properties

Charter Lease Agreements and Customer CAPEX Costs: Excelerate Energy advised Shaw Consultants
that they lease their LNG FSRU vessels under charter agreements. They are flexible with regard to the
term of the lease which can range from 5-year to 20-year lease agreements. Typical indicative day rates
for Excelerates 138,000m
3
LNG FSRU ranges from US$125,000 to US$145,000 per day. The jetty and
associated onshore facilities CAPEX costs are funded by the customer. As a reference, Excelerate was
directly involved in the development of several LNG receiving terminals. Development of a GasPort
starting from an existing jetty as in Bahia Blanca, the terminal infrastructure CAPEX cost paid by the
customer was approximately US$50 million. In the case of a single buoy offshore Gateway configuration
installed in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, the CAPEX cost paid by the customer was approximately US$80
million.
An FSRU connected to a Gasport can provide at base load rate up to 500 MMscfd in Open-Loop mode
depending on downstream pipeline entry requirements. If pipeline pressure at the system entry point is
between 65 bar (~940 psig) and 100 bar (or ~1450psig), then 500 MMscfd can be delivered. Each FSRU
is provided with six independent LNG vaporizers and associated high pressure pumps. Each of these
trains is rated for a nominal send-out capacity at 115 MMscfd, providing a high level of redundancy for
Curacaos 120 MMscfd base load capacity.
BOG Handling Issues: When operating in Closed Loop mode at sendout rates in excess of
approximately 200 MMscfd any boil off gas (BOG) generated onboard is used as fuel gas in the boilers
and therefore there is no excess BOG that has to be processed. At lower sendout rates BOG will be
generated in excess of what is normally consumed by the boilers. Given that sendout rates in the first
years of the Curacao Project could be as low as 20 MMscfd, there will be excess BOG generated that will
need to be handled in order to improve the efficiency of the facility.
Excelerate Energy advises that gas sendout delivery rates less than 70 MMscfd will result in uncondensed
BOG that must be handled onshore. During the first three years of operation with only the Aqualectra
demand load, sendout gas rate is approximately 20 MMscfd. To accommodate low sendout rates, a BOG
transfer arm and BOG pipeline compression equipment will have to be installed onshore. Without such
onshore BOG equipment and modifications, the uncondensed BOG would otherwise have to be flared or
vented. Shaw Consultants has estimated the CAPEX cost for the onshore BOG equipment required to
achieve low gas sendout rates would be approximately US$25 million. Also, several modifications will
Properties Trinidad Idku Damietta Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Malaysia Oman Qatar Qatar
(lean)
M.W. 16.82 16.55 16.39 17.44 17.64 17.51 18.05 18.20 18.24 17.02
LNGSpGr
0.44 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.46

NGSpGr 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.63
HHV 1056 1037 1028 1084 1095 1086 1114 1119 1127 1052
Wobbe 1385 1375 1367 1396 1402 1397 1410 1410 1420

3 - 19
have to be made to Excelerates standard FSRU design in order to maintain steady operational control of
the low sendout delivery rates.
The expected BOG rate during FSRU normal operation is expected to be 0.155% of the total LNG
volume for the membrane tank containment system. The BOG generated during STS transfer is
significantly higher and is impacted by a number of factors including the saturation vapor pressure of the
FSRU LNG in storage, liquid temperature of the LNG cargo just prior to the start of the transfer on both
the discharging and receiving vessel, the ambient temperature, and the transfer rate achievable based on
the inventory of cargo on the receiving vessel.
The FSRU does not require fuel oil as long as the vessel has LNG onboard to use for power production
through consumption of natural and forced BOG. If the FSRU does not have sufficient LNG onboard
beyond any heel retention that may be required, it consumes around 40 metric tons of fuel oil per day.
On-Line Reliability: Reliability and availability guarantees will be based on final agreements for the
installation and operation of the facility. For similar Excelerate facilities, availability is upwards of 98%
including regularly scheduled maintenance of equipment.
The FSRUs, as presently Classed, require dry-docking every 5 years and have maintenance requirements
similar to a land based industrial facility. As an alternative, it is possible to add an additional Class
notation to the FSRUs designating them as offshore facilities and allowing for extended periods of
stationary service (10 to 20 years) without the need for dry-docking. The implementation of this
additional Class notation can be elected upon finalization of the terminal requirements.
Hoegh LNG FSRU Information
NOTE: INFORMATION FURNISHED BY HOEGH IS SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN HOEGH, SHAW CONSULTANTS, REFINERIA DI
KORSOU, AND SOLOMON ASSOCIATES. THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE TREATED AS
CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANY OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY
THAT HAS NOT EXECUTED A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT WITH HOEGH.
History and Background
Leif Hoegh & Company (Hoegh) was established in 1927 as a shipping company. The original
company was subsequently restructured. Currently, there are now two shipping companies namely
Hoegh LNG and Hoegh Autoliners.
Hoegh LNG offers a complete package of floating LNG services as depicted in Figure 3.3-17. Hoeghs
business lines include:
Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) for Oil and Gas Development Projects;
Maritime Transport Including LNG Carriers and Shuttle Regas Vessels (SRV);
LNG Regasification Floating Storage Regas Units (FSRU); and
Market Access by Deep Water Ports (DWP) or Dock Side Facilities.
Hoegh LNG existing fleet and customers are summarized in Figure 3.3-18.

3 - 20
Figure 3.3-17 Hoegh Services

Figure 3.3-18 Hoegh Existing Customers & Fleet

Experience: Hoegh LNG has a proven track record in executing complex LNG regas projects.
The Neptune SRV Project is an example. The Neptune SRV Project involved two LNG shuttle regas
vessels (SRVs), one offshore terminal with two buoys and a gas pipeline to shore. GDF Suez Neptune
was delivered November 30, 2009 and GDF Suez Cape Ann was delivered J une 2, 2010. Operations
meet design expectations. Another example is the Port Meridian Deep Water Port Project (see Figure 3.3-
19). This project involved a stationary LNG FSRU offshore terminal located in UK waters. This project
was fully funded by Hoegh LNG.

3 - 21
Figure 3.3-19 Hoeghs Port Meridian LNG FSRU Project

Port Dolphin Deep Water Port Project is also another example project (see Figure 3.3-20). This project
involved a stationary LNG FSRU offshore terminal located offshore Gulf of Mexico near Tampa Florida.
This project was approved by U.S. authorities and was fully funded by Hoegh LNG. Port Dolphin
Energy LLC filed an application to construct and own the Port Dolphin Deepwater Port on March 29,
2007 and on J anuary 31, 2011 it was announced that key environmental permits were receive for the
project. The unloading facility of this new deepwater port would be located approximately 28 miles
southwest of Tampa Bay. The terminals pipeline would be capable of transporting up to 1,200 MMscfd
of natural gas per day, enough to serve more than one million homes. The Florida Public Service
Commission predicted continued growth in Floridas demand for natural gas, particularly for use in
electric power generation. However, the recent downturn in U.S. gas prices has caused execution of this
project to be suspended.
Figure 3.3-20 Hoeghs Port Dolphin LNG FSRU Project

3 - 22
Hoegh also has significant experience in side-to-side (STS) LNG cargo transfer (see Figure 3.3-21).
Operation history of Hoegh Galleon and Pioneer Knutsen have totaled 47 STS transshipments of LNG
without any incidents.
Figure 3.3-21 Hoegh Making STS LNG Cargo Transfer
Newbuilding Program: Hoegh has three purpose-built FSRUs are in queue at Hyundai Heavy Industries.
Delivery of the three FSRUs is anticipated Q4 2013, Q1 2014, and Q2 2014. Hoegh has firm options for
two additional FSRU newbuilds. These FSRU have flexible final specifications that can be tailored to
specific projects. The base specifications call for 170,000m3 capacity, modular regas equipment and
suitable for either jetty or offshore mooring (see Figure 3.3-22).
Figure 3.3-22 Hoegh FSRU Newbuilt General Arrangement Plan

3 - 23
Regasification Facilities: The regasification facilities is an open loop system with seawater as the
heating medium. An intermediate propane circuit is provided between the seawater and LNG for
minimizing freezing risks. A modular design is used containing the required pumps, motors, heat
exchangers, instrumentation and control systems to provide the required capacity with interconnecting
piping between regas trains. Three regas trains each having 125 MMscfd of sendout capacity will be
provided. An N+1 sparing philosophy is used in sparing critical equipment. A simplified process flow
diagram of the LNG regasification system is illustrated in Figure 3.3-23.
Figure 3.3-23 Hoegh Regasification Process Flow Diagram

STS LNG Transfer Equipment: Hoegh STS transfer system uses four flexible hoses for LNG cargo
transfer from LNG carriers to the FSRU (2 for liquid and 2 for vapor return). The size and length of the
hoses are 10 inches diameter and approximately 25 m long. The hoses are designed to EN-1474-II
standards for cryogenic transfer hoses in offshore applications. Maximum LNG transfer rate is
9,000m
3
/hr. Emergency release couplers (ERC) are provided on each hose. Ship to ship communication
link is provided by fiber optic and electric systems.
Hoegh FSRU Charter Lease Agreements and Customer CAPEX Costs: Hoegh representatives advised
Shaw Consultants that they lease their LNG FSRU vessels under charter agreements. They are flexible
with regard to the term of the lease which can range from 5-year to 20-year lease agreements. Typical
indicative annual lease fees for Hoeghs LNG FSRU included US$50 million per annum based on a 10-
year lease term. Lease rate can be discounted by approximately 20% for a 20-year term. OPEX cost for
the FSRU will be billed to customer in addition to the annual lease fee at actual costs which are estimated
to be approximately US$20,000 per day. The customer would pay for the jetty or offshore mooring
CAPEX cost. Hoegh estimates that the jetty option would cost approximately US$50 million and the
offshore buoy option would cost approximately US$100 million.

3 - 24
BOG Handling Issues: Hoegh advises that gas sendout delivery rates less than 70 MMscfd will result in
uncondensed BOG that must be handled onshore. During the first three years of operation with only the
Aqualectra demand load, sendout gas rate is approximately 20 MMscfd. To accommodate low sendout
rates, a BOG transfer arm and BOG pipeline compression equipment will have to be installed onshore.
Without such onshore BOG equipment and modifications, the uncondensed BOG would otherwise have
to be flared or vented. Shaw Consultants has estimated the CAPEX cost for the onshore BOG equipment
required to achieve low gas sendout rates would be approximately US$25 million. Also, several
modifications will have to be made to Hoeghs standard FSRU design in order to maintain steady
operational control of the low sendout delivery rates.
The expected BOG rate during FSRU normal operation is expected to be designed for the membrane tank
containment system at 0.155% of the total LNG volume. The BOG generated during STS transfer is
significantly higher and is impacted by a number of factors including the saturation vapor pressure, liquid
temperature of the LNG cargo just prior to the start of the transfer on both the discharging and receiving
vessel, the ambient temperature, and the transfer rate achievable based on the inventory of cargo on the
receiving vessel.
The FSRU does not require fuel oil as long as the vessel has LNG onboard to use for power production
through consumption of natural and forced BOG.
On-Line Reliability: The FSRU annual on-line availability is 99% at a sendout rate of 92 MMscfd per
train.
The Hoegh FSRUs, as Classed, require dry-docking every 5 years and have maintenance requirements
similar to a land based industrial facility. As an alternative, it is possible to add an additional Class
notation to the FSRUs designating them as offshore facilities and allowing for extended periods of
stationary service (10 to 20 years) without the need for dry-docking. The implementation of this
additional Class notation can be elected upon finalization of the terminal requirements.
3.4 GAS IMPORT PIPELINE OPTIONS
The import of natural gas via pipeline from gas rich neighboring countries of either Colombia or
Venezuela was evaluated as part of this study. This section discusses the results of research on the
reported natural gas resources that may be considered as potential supply for Curacao and the gas import
pipeline systems required.
Colombian Supply
Colombias natural gas reserves have declined from about 132 Bcm (4.6 Tcf) in 2002 to around 112 Bcm
(4.0 Tcf) in 2010, as seen in Table 3.3-1 below.
Table 3.4-2 Colombia Proved Reserves (CIA World Factbook)
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2010
Bcm 132 132 132 114 123 112

About 90 percent of Colombias natural gas reserves originate from two main fields, the Guajira and
Cusiana fields. In 2009 Guajira supplied 65 percent of the countrys production, while Cusiana contributed
about 25 percent. Guajira produced 663,000 MMBtud and Cusiana supplied about 250,000 MMBtud, on
average in 2009. The producers active in Colombia at 2009, are as identified in the following table:

3 - 25
Table 3.4-3 Colombia Gas Supply by Company in 2009
Company MMBtu/D Share %
Ecopetrol 670,000 63
Chevron 236,000 22
BP 62,000 6
Tepma/Total 28,000 3
Pacific Rubiales 42,000 4
Others 25,000 2
Total 1,063,000 100

As a potential gas supplier to Curacao, it appears that the Guajira basin of Colombia would be
geographically suited. The Guajira basin is located in the northeasten region of the country and produces
natural gas from offshore as well as onshore fields. The Figure 3.4-24 identifies the location of the Guajira
basin.
Figure 3.4-24 Guajira Basin of Colombia

By comparison, the next largest natural gas producing region of Colombia is located in the eastern central
region of the country from the Cusiana-Cupiagua fields, as depicted in Figure 3.4-25.


3 - 26
Figure 3.4-25 Cusiana Region of Colombia

Chevron discovered gas at Guajira in 1972. The Ballena onshore field began production in 1977, and the
Chuchupa offshore field started up in 1979. Chevron is the operator of the fields at Guajira with a net
interest of 43 percent and with Ecopetrol holding the remaining 57 percent interest. Despite the fields
decline in recent years, Chevron has been able to slow the decline with improved production and recovery
methods. Also, recent seismic tests indicated untapped potential in Guajiras Riohacha field. In 2010
gross average production achieved by Chevron was 714 MMscfd.
In 2003 Chevron was granted indefinite field concession as long as its fields remained productive. By
comparison, most contracts in Colombia are limited to 20 or 30 year terms. Chevron remains Colombias
largest natural gas producer, providing about two-thirds of the countrys needs from the Guajira fields.
In 2007 a 225 km bi-national gas pipeline was commissioned to ship up to 250 MMscfd from the Guajira
gas fields to industrial customers around Maracaibo, Venezuela. Shipments at the end of 2011 have
averaged 200 MMscfd whereas the original agreement called for the reverse flow of gas from Venezuela
to Colombia by 2012. The reverse flow has not materialized due to the delay in Venezuelas development
of its own substantial natural gas reserves. As conditions around the Venezuelan gas reserves have not
improved, the agreement to ship gas from Colombia to Venezuela has been extended by 2.5 years through
mid 2014. In response to this development and to meet rising domestic demand in Colombia, Chevron is
reviving its Riohacha field in Guijara to provide a boost in its overall production by about 8 percent. In
November 2011 Chevron saw production from its Guajira interests at only 600 MMscfd (information
source, Platts).
Problems to the sale of natural gas in Colombia have been identified as those seen in European countries
before gas release programs were implemented. In Colombia the upstream market is constricted by a
single dominant producer (Ecopetrol) causing an apparent under-supply of long-term firm gas contracts
with consequential repercussions in the transport market. Loopholes in regulations have allowed
producers to declare most/all available supplies as interruptible, to avoid selling gas in auctions, while

3 - 27
special treatment of Guajira gas distorts the Colombian gas market and producers incentives. There is no
market price for gas established in Colombia. This information was taken from a paper entitled
Upstream Issues in the Colombian Natural Gas Market by David Harbord, Market Analysis Ltd,
Oxford; Congreso Annual de Naturgas, Certegana, 26 March 2010.
While the geographic location of the predominant country reserves are favorable to the export of gas to
Curacao, the diminishing supply and increasing demand, in addition to the evolving gas market politics in
Colombia, relegate this supply option to being possible but unlikely.
Venezuelan Supply
Venezuelas proven natural gas reserves have been reported by OGJ at 5,072 Bcm (179 Tcf) in 2011,
making it the second largest in the Western Hemisphere after the US. Table 3.4-4 below identifies the
natural gas reserves for Venezuela over the years from 2002 to 2010.
Table 3.4-4 Venezuela Proved Reserves (CIA World Factbook)
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2010
Bcm 4,202 4,202 4,190 4,276 4,708 4,983
It is estimated that 90 percent of Venezuelas reserves are associated gas. PDVSAs plans over 2006-
2012 were to be producing 11.5 Bcfd by 2012, with the additional discoveries of non-associated gas.
However, because the plans did not materialize, the country is producing only 6.96 Bcfd, according to
official figures (source: Platts).
It is reported that PDVSA uses the majority of Venezuelas natural gas to produce its heavy oil from the
Orinoco Basin. Since 2005, the use of natural gas for enhanced oil recovery has increased by more than
50 percent. In addition, to meet the demand from industrial clients in the western region, Venezuela is
importing gas from Colombia via the pipeline discussed above. The deficit production for the country is
seen in Figure 3.4-26, where deficits are met with gas imports.
Figure 3.4-26 Venezuela Consumption and Net Imports
Recent discoveries of natural gas offshore Venezuela are planned to be available in the future for oilfield
operations and for the rising domestic consumption. In November 2009, Repsol announced its Perla 1X
well, in the Cardon IV block, had discovered natural gas to the equivalent of 1 to 1.4 billion BOE (6 to

3 - 28
8.4 Tcf), among the fifth largest hydrocarbon discoveries in 2009. Additional drilling by ENI in the
Cardon IV block has confirmed the discovery with a potential size of 14 Tcf of natural gas. The field of
the Cardon IV block is found in relatively shallow water of 70 m, on the western side of Venezuelas
Paraguana Peninsula, as seen in Figure 3.4-27.
Figure 3.4-27 Location of the Cardon IV Block

The resources discovery in the Cardon IV block encountered 840 ft (260 m) of net pay in carbonate
sequence confirmed by 700 ft (210 m) of bottom hole recovered logs of the Perla-2 well. Production tests
had the well flowing at 50 MMcfd and 1,500 bopd of condensate. Per well production is estimated at 70
MMcfd and 2,000 bopd of condensate. Formation depths and pressures were not available.
ENI and Repsol jointly operate the Cardon IV block, each with an ownership of 50 percent. PDVSA
owns a 35 percent back-in right, to be exercised in the development phase.
In areas off of Venezuelas northeast coast, PDVSA has awarded exploration blocks such as at Mariscal
Sucre, where the Aban Pearl semi-submersible drilling rig sank in May 2010. This area was slated to
begin production in 2012, with an ultimate target rate of 1.2 Bcfd delivered to shore with a 70-mile subsea
pipeline. Since the sinking of the Aban Pearl, PDVSA has contracted with Technip to build a production
platform for field development. The location of the Mariscal Sucre area is depicted in Figure 3.4-28.
Figure 3.4-28 Location of the Mariscal Sucre Field

3 - 29
With immense potential for producing natural gas, Venezuela has talked of developing LNG export
facilities. Three possible projects were cited by the EIA, and as late as 2010, a letter of intent had been
signed with Iran for assistance in building an LNG plant in the Delta Caribe area (source, Tech Talk
Venezuelan Natural Gas Prodution; J anuary 23, 2011). It is also noted that Venezuela has long-term
contracts with Argentina and Cuba to supply these countries with their required gas by 2013. Under the
agreement between Iran and Venezuela, part of these supply arrangements will be sourced by Irans LNG
plant, where PDVSA has a 10 percent interest share (source, PressTV; Iran to Export LNG to Cuba,
Argentina; December 5, 2010).
In conclusion, Venezuela has significant reserves potential near Curacao at the Cardon IV block offshore
of the northwestern edge of Venezuelas Paraguana Peninsula. These resources are certain to be
developed as Venezuelas natural gas demand is greater than its current production capacity and imports
from Colombia are expected to extend to only mid 2014. Due to the proximity and the sheer volume of
resources, the potential to supply for Curacao is greater than other options reviewed. The uncertainty lies
with the demand requirements of Venezuelas domestic and export market commitments and the political
environment/relationship.
One final point, it would be of interest to know whether the productive interval found at Cardon IV
extends to the waters of Curacao. It is not an unrealistic stretch to believe that hydrocarbon bearing
carbonates, similarly as that encountered off of Venezuelan shores, are also present near Curacao.
Gas Import Pipeline Cases
Two gas import pipeline scenarios for Curacao were considered including a pipeline from Colombia and
one from Venezuela. For each of these two scenarios, three cases were evaluated including:
Gas Import Pipeline For Aqualectria Load Only;
Gas Import Pipeline For Curacao Demand (Including Aqualectra Plus Isla Refinery); and
Gas Import Pipeline For Curacao Demand Plus Aruba.
The pipeline systems required for these scenario cases are described in Table 3.4-5. The routes for the
Colombia gas import pipeline scenarios are illustrated in Figure 3.4-29 and the routes for the Venezuela
gas import pipeline scenarios are illustrated in Figure 3.4-31 and Figure 3.4-32.

Table 3.4-5 Gas Import Pipeline Scenario Case Descriptions


3 - 30
Figure 3.4-29 Colombia to Curacao (Cases 1aa and 1aaa)

Figure 3.4-30 Colombia to Aruba to Curacao (Case 1a)

3 - 31
Figure 3.4-31 Venezuela to Curacao (Cases 1bb and 1bbb)

Figure 3.4-32 Venezuela to Aruba to Curacao (Case 1b)
Section 4 Commercial Evaluation

4 - 1
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the reports documents the commercial evaluation of the gas supply options for Curacao
including:
CNG;
LNG; and
Gas Import Pipelines From Colombia and Venezuela.
The evaluations should be considered to have screening level accuracy with CAPEX and OPEX estimates
within +/-40%.
4.2 COMMERCIAL EVALUATION BASIS
Each of the gas supply options were evaluated using a consistent set of assumptions. An evaluation
period from 2015 to 2031 served as the evaluation basis for each case. A spreadsheet was developed to
calculate the year-to-year delivered cost of gas to the Curacao customers taking into consideration gas
purchase cost at the source, OPEX costs, and CAPEX amortization. The delivered cost of gas included
local distribution cost required to deliver the gas to the customers gas purchase and sales meter located at
their respective facility site. The evaluations assumed 100% equity funding and therefore no interest
costs were incurred. Labor and material expenses were escalated annually based on an assumed CPI
growth rate of 4% per annum.
Gas purchase costs at the source were based on the following assumptions:
For the CNG and Gas Import Pipeline options, the gas purchase price (F.O.B. at the source) was
assumed to be 100% of the Henry Hub price forecast as described and shown in Section 2 of this
report.
For the CNG option Trinidad, Colombia, and Venezuela supply sources were considered.
For the Gas Import Pipeline option, a pipeline to Trinidad was determined to be too long and
uneconomic. Only Colombian and Venezuelan gas sources were assumed to be viable for the
Gas Import Pipeline option.
4.3 CAPEX AND OPEX COST ESTIMATES
The CAPEX and OPEX were estimated for each scenario case. Accuracy of these estimates is believed to
be +/-40%. CAPEX estimates reflect 1
st
Qtr 2012 costs.
Local Sendout Gas Pipeline
Two CAPEX cost estimates were prepared for the local sendout gas pipeline; one estimate assuming an
8-mile pipeline from the Bullen Bay terminal site to the gas customers located in the Isla Refinery area
and another estimate assuming a mile pipeline within the Isla Refinery area from the alternate
Schottegat terminal site. The estimated CAPEX costs are summarized in Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2.

4 - 2
Table 4.3-1 CAPEX Estimate for Local Sendout Gas Pipeline (From Bullen Bay Terminal Site)
Cost Item US$
MOB 100,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST / DAMAGES 132,000
PIPE MATERIAL COST 2,904,041
PIPE COATING COSTS 264,000
VALVES & FITTINGS 500,000
PIG LAUNCHER / RECEIVER 180,000
METERING / CONTROLS SKID 525,000
FREIGHT / SHIPPING 94,287
SHORE CROSSING (TUNNEL BORING) 0
SPREAD / LAYBARGE COST 4,400,000
LABOR COST 274,560
COMPRESSOR STATION COST 0
DEMOB 100,000
SURVEY 16,000
PIPE STORAGE & ONSHORE SUPPLY BASE 158,400
PROJ ECT ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 1,157,795
TOTAL COST w/o CONTINGENCY 10,806,083
CONTINGENCY 1,080,608
TOTAL COST w/ CONTINGENCY 11,886,691
Table 4.3-2 CAPEX Estimate for Local Sendout Gas Pipeline (From Alternate Schottegat Site)
Cost Item US$
MOB 100,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST / DAMAGES 0
PIPE MATERIAL COST 272,254
PIPE COATING COSTS 24,750
SHORE CROSSING (TUNNEL BORING) 0
SPREAD / LAYBARGE COST 618,750
LABOR COST 38,610
DEMOB 100,000
SURVEY 1,500
PIPE STORAGE & ONSHORE SUPPLY BASE 14,850
PROJ ECT ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 286,146
CONTINGENCY 267,070
CNG Option
Since CNG tariff fees were calculated using the software posted on Sea NGs web site, recovery of
CAPEX and OPEX for the CNG export terminal facility, the CNG import terminal facility, and the CNG
ships are embodied in the tariff fees. Therefore, the other CAPEX and OPEX costs stem from the
installation and operation of the gas sendout pipeline installed from the terminal site to the Curacao
customers. The estimated CAPEX for the local sendout gas pipeline from the Bullen Bay is US$11.9
million which is summarized in Table 4.3-1. If the terminal is located at the alternate Schottegat site, the
estimated CAPEX for the local sendout gas pipeline is US$2.9 million which is summarized in Table 4.3-
2.
The OPEX was based on the following assumptions:
Calculated tariff fees for export terminal, import terminal and CNG ships

4 - 3
- Trinidad Supply US$3.75/MMBtu.
- Colombia Supply US$2.20/MMBtu.
- Venezuela Supply US$2.05/MMBtu.
RDK operating staff annual expense of US$1.70 million inclusive of all benefits escalating
annually with CPI of 4% per annum.
Annual maintenance and repair of the local sendout gas pipeline system equal to 0.25% of
CAPEX escalating with CPI of 4% per annum.
Fuel costs based on 2% of throughput volume at purchased gas price.
Electrical power costs are covered within the contingency.
Conventional Onshore LNG Terminal Option
The Bullen Bay site location was assumed in estimating the conventional onshore LNG terminal costs.
The CAPEX costs were estimated using an in-house proprietary LNG terminal facility cost estimating
spreadsheet. Input to the spreadsheet includes a complete equipment list with sizes and materials of
construction for both equipment and interconnecting piping. Budget costs were obtained from vendors for
most of the major equipment. LNG tank costs were bench marked against current cost data furnished by
CB&I and other in-house LNG tank cost data. The budget equipment costs received from the vendors
were used to calibrate the cost estimating spreadsheet to yield estimates based on 1
st
Qtr 2012 costs. The
estimate accuracy is believed to be better than +/-40%. The estimated CAPEX for the LNG terminal
sized for a sendout rate to serve the Curacao demand of 137 MMscfd with a 160,000m
3
full containment
LNG storage tank is US$421.3 million which is summarized in Table 4.3-3.
Table 4.3-3 CAPEX Estimate Onshore LNG Terminal (137 MMscfd, 160,000m
3
LNG Tank)
CATEGORY US$k % Notes and Comments
CONTRACTOR DIRECT COSTS
Equipment 225,523 65.84 Includes 160,000M
3
LNG Tank
Bulk Materials 40,878 11.93
Labor 8,978 2.62
Subtotal Direct Costs 275,380 80.40
CONTRACTOR UNDIRECT COSTS
Engineering, Procurement & EPC Management 33,046 9.65 12% Of Direct Costs
Temporary Camp / Housing 5,000 1.46 Import Welders for 9% Ni Welding
Construction Equipment Rental 13,320 3.89 5% Of Equip +Bulks
Site Grading & Preparation 2,000 0.58
Transport & Unload - - N/A Offshore Only
Hook-Up - - Included In Direct Costs
Commissioning & Start-Up 2,754 0.80 1.0% Of Direct Costs
Spare Parts 1,476 0.43
Freight 6,660 1.94 2.5% Of Equipment +Bulks
MOB / DMOB 1,500 0.44 Rough Estimate
Duties & Taxes - - Govt Project, No Duties and Taxes
Insurance 1,377 0.40 0.5% Of Direct Costs
Other - -
Subtotal Other Costs 67,133 19.60
Total Prime Contract 342,513 100.00
Owner's PMT 6,850 2.00 2% Of Total Prime Contract
Owner's Startup Cost 1,713 0.50 0.5% Of Total Prime Contract
Subtotal w/o Contingency 351,076
Owner's Contingency 70,215 20.00
TOTAL ERECTED COST $ 421,291

4 - 4
The estimated CAPEX for the LNG terminal sized for a sendout rate of 137 MMscfd with an 80,000m
3

full containment LNG storage tank is US$318.4 million which is summarized in Table 4.3-4.
3
LNG Tank)
Equipment 165,523 63.95 Includes 80,000m
3
LNG Tank
Labor 8,978 3.47
CONTRACTOR OTHER COSTS
Other - -

3
LNG Tank)
Equipment 227,245 65.75 Includes LNG Tank
Labor 9,406 2.72
CONTRACTOR OTHER COSTS
Other - -

4 - 5
A cost estimate was also prepared assuming that the conventional terminal is sized for a sendout rate of
177 MMscfd with a 160,000m
3
full containment LNG storage tank. This sendout capacity is adequate to
serve the Curacao demand plus provide 40 MMscfd of export gas to Aruba. The estimated CAPEX for
this LNG terminal is US$425.1 million which is summarized in Table 4.3-5 above.
The local onshore sendout pipeline CAPEX associated with each of the conventional LNG terminal
estimates is US$11.9 million for the Bullen Bay site and US$2.9 million for the alternate Schottegat site.
The sendout pipeline estimates were summarized previously in Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2 above.
The estimated CAPEX cost for a gas export pipeline from the Bullen Bay LNG terminal to Aruba is
US$130.0 million which is summarized in Table 4.3-6. An estimate for the Aruba export pipeline was
not made for the alternate Schottegat terminal site.
Table 4.3-6 CAPEX Estimate for Gas Export Pipeline from Bullen Bay to Aruba
Cost Item US$
MOB 10,100,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST / DAMAGES 82,500
PIPE MATERIAL COST 22,172,947
PIPE COATING COSTS 4,653,000
SHORE CROSSING (TUNNEL BORING) 20,000,000
SPREAD / LAYBARGE COST 30,866,000
LABOR COST 3,732,960
DEMOB 10,100,000
SURVEY 690,000
PIPE STORAGE & ONSHORE SUPPLY BASE 1,445,400
PROJ ECT ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 12,665,125
CONTINGENCY 11,820,783
The OPEX costs for the conventional onshore LNG terminal were based on the following assumptions:
Annual maintenance and repair of the LNG terminal and gas pipeline system equal to 0.25% of
CAPEX costs escalating with CPI of 4% per annum.
Fuel costs based on 0.15% of throughput volume.
Electrical power costs are covered within contingency.
LNG FSRU Jetty Terminal Option
Bullen Bay was only considered for the LNG FSRU option. The LNG FSRU option has relatively low
initial CAPEX costs. Based on information furnished by Excelerate Energy and Hoegh, the estimated
CAPEX cost for the LNG FSRU configuration is US$50.0 million for the jetty, US$25.0 million for the
onshore BOG compression equipment required to handle excess BOG produced at low gas sendout rates,
and US$11.9 million for the local sendout gas pipeline yielding an estimated total CAPEX of
US$86.9 million.

4 - 6
The OPEX cost, however, are relatively high due to the FSRU rental fees which were assumed to be
US$135,000 per day escalating at 1.5% per annum. Maintenance and operating cost for the FSRU were
assumed to be included in the rental day rate. Other OPEX costs were based on the following
assumptions:
Annual maintenance and repair of the gas pipeline system equal to 0.25% of CAPEX costs
escalating with CPI of 4% per annum.
LNG FSRU Offshore Buoy Terminal Option
Based on information furnished by Excelerate Energy and Hoegh, the estimated CAPEX cost for the LNG
FSRU configuration moored offshore is US$80.0 million for the buoy mooring system, US$39.5 million
for the offshore delivery pipeline, and US$11.9 million for the local sendout gas pipeline yielding an
estimated total CAPEX of US$131.4 million.
Shaw Consultants note that the basic FSRU facility for the offshore buoy moored system would have to
be modified to include BOG compression equipment onboard to handle excess BOG during low sendout
gas rates. If this option is pursued, handling excess BOG could be a major issue and the required
modifications would need to be reviewed by the FSRU vendor.
The OPEX cost assumptions for this option assumed the FSRU rental fees to be US$135,000 per day
escalating at 1.5% per annum. Maintenance and operating cost for the FSRU were assumed to be included
in the rental day rate. Other OPEX costs were based on the following assumptions:
Annual maintenance and repair of the buoy mooring and gas pipeline system equal to 0.25% of
Shaw Consultants note that the FSRU rental fees assumed in this option are probably low since the
vendor will have to increase the rental fees to recover cost for onboard BOG compression equipment.
Gas Import Pipeline Option
CAPEX cost estimates were prepared for six import pipeline cases:
Import Pipeline from Colombia for Aqualectra Demand Only (Option 1aaa; 30 MMscfd))
Import Pipeline from Colombia for Curacao Total Demand (Option 1aa; 137 MMscfd)
Import Pipeline from Colombia for Curacao +Aruba Demand (Option 1a; 177 MMscfd)
Import Pipeline from Venezuela for Aqualectra Demand Only (Option 1bbb; 30 MMscfd)

4 - 7
Import Pipeline from Venezuela for Curacao Total Demand (Option 1bb; 137 MMscfd)
Import Pipeline from Venezuela for Curacao +Aruba Demand (Option 1b; 177 MMscfd)
The CAPEX cost estimates are summarized in Table 4.3-7 and include the costs for the local onshore
sendout pipeline for gas delivery to the Curacao customers.
Table 4.3-7 CAPEX Estimate for Gas Import Pipeline Options

Cost Item US$
Colombia Venezuela
Option 1aaa
30 MMscfd
Option 1aa
137 MMscfd
Option 1a
177 MMscfd
Option 1bbb
30 MMscfd
Option 1bb
137 MMscfd
Option 1b
177 MMscfd
MOB 10,200,000 10,200,000 10,300,000 10,100,000 10,100,000 10,200,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST / DAMAGES 297,000 297,000 379,500 132,000 132,000 214,500
PIPE MATERIAL COST 50,420,673 75,475,436 79,609,250 35,937,509 46,538,741 51,591,180
PIPE COATING COSTS 10,362,000 10,362,000 10,791,000 6,534,000 6,534,000 6,930,000
VALVES & FITTINGS 3,250,000 3,250,000 3,500,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 3,750,000
PIG LAUNCHER / RECEIVER 270,000 270,000 360,000 270,000 270,000 450,000
METERING / CONTROLS SKID 675,000 675,000 825,000 675,000 675,000 975,000
FREIGHT / SHIPPING 1,637,035 2,450,501 2,584,716 1,166,802 1,510,998 1,675,038
SHORE CROSSING (TUNNEL BORING) 20,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 25,000,000
SPREAD / LAYBARGE COST 73,785,800 73,785,800 78,515,800 45,346,400 45,346,400 51,638,400
LABOR COST 8,798,328 8,798,328 9,220,728 5,461,104 5,461,104 5,904,624
COMPRESSOR STATION COST - 16,647,525 24,949,195 - 13,584,225 24,095,563
DEMOB 10,200,000 10,200,000 10,300,000 10,100,000 10,100,000 10,200,000
SURVEY 1,516,000 1,516,000 1,566,000 966,000 966,000 996,000
PIPE STORAGE & ONSHORE SUPPLY BASE 3,286,800 3,286,800 3,465,000 2,039,400 2,039,400 2,257,200
PROJ ECT ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 23,363,836 28,465,727 31,963,943 15,837,386 18,780,944 23,505,301
TOTAL COST w/o CONTINGENCY 218,062,472 265,680,117 298,330,131 147,815,601 175,288,812 219,382,806
CONTINGENCY 21,806,247 26,568,012 29,833,013 14,781,560 17,528,881 21,938,281
TOTAL COST w/ CONTINGENCY 239,868,720 292,248,128 328,163,144 162,597,161 192,817,694 241,321,087
The OPEX costs for gas import pipeline options were based on the following assumptions:
Annual maintenance and repair of the LNG terminal and gas pipeline system equal to 0.50% of
Fuel costs based on operating compression horsepower consuming 9,000 Btu/hp-hr valued at the
gas purchase price (F.O.B.).
4.4 DELIVERED LNG PRICE (C.I.F. CURACAO TERMINAL)
The delivered LNG prices (C.I.F. Curacao) were calculated using the following method:
LNG supply was assumed to be sourced from the Atlantic LNG Plant located in Trinidad. The
LNG purchase price (F.O.B. the Plant) was assumed to be priced at 115% of the Henry Hub price
forecast plus a UCC liquefaction fee of US$2.50/MMBtu. Fifteen percent (15%) of the UCC
liquefaction fee was assumed to escalate annually with the CPI which was assumed to be 4% per
annum.
LNG shipping costs were calculated using Shaw Consultants shipping model based on a ship
charter rate of US$120,000 per day for standard 140,000m
3
capacity LNG carriers. LNG losses
during transshipment were assumed to be 0.145% of the cargo volume per day. The LNG ship
charter day rate was assumed to escalate with the CPI of 4% per annum. Cruse speed of the LNG
ship was assumed to be 17 knots.

4 - 8
This LNG pricing mechanism was compared to an alternate pricing mechanism where LNG pricing was
based on clearing the European gas market price at the UK National Balancing Point (NBP) plus a
premium to pull small volumes for Curacao from Trinidad. The premium was assumed to be the
difference between the shipping cost to Europe versus shipping cost to Curacao. It was determined that
the Henry Hub indexing formula yielded a higher delivered LNG cost to Curacao (see Figure 4.4-1 and
Figure 4.4-2). Therefore to be conservative, the Henry Hub pricing formula was used in this study.
Figure 4.4-1 Henry Hub and UK NBP Gas Price Forecast

Figure 4.4-2 LNG Pricing Mechanism

4 - 9

4.5 CURACAO AVERAGE DELIVERED GAS PRICE
The average delivered gas price over the evaluation period (2015 to 2031) was calculated for each of the
gas supply option cases. Although the CNG option was dropped from consideration as a viable delivery
option due to the high commercial and technical risks, the results have been reported below for
documentation purposes. The following results were calculated.

CNG Option
CASE DESCRIPTION
Gas
Capacity
MMscfd
CAPEX
US$MM
Gas
Purchase
Price
$/MMBtu
CAPEX +
OPEX
Recovery
$/MMBtu
Deli vered
Gas
Price
$/MMBtu
% Parity
To #2
LSFO
% Parity
To #6
LSFO
CNG Venezuela
Curacao Demand
137 11.90 6.90 4.63 11.53 36.5 47.3
CNG Colombia
Curacao Demand
137 11.90 6.90 4.94 11.84 37.5 48.6
CNG Trinidad
Curacao Demand
137 11.90 6.90 8.24 15.14 47.9 62.1
Conventional Onshore LNG Terminal Option
CASE DESCRIPTION
Gas
Capacity
MMscfd
CAPEX
US$MM
LNG
Purchase
Price
$/MMBtu
CAPEX +
OPEX
Recovery
$/MMBtu
Deli vered
Gas
Price
$/MMBtu
% Parity
To #2
LSFO
% Parity
To #6
LSFO
Bullen Bay Site
Aqualectra Demand Only
137 (30) 433.2 10.58 3.91 14.86 47.0 61.0
Bullen Bay Site
Curacao Demand
137 433.2 10.58 1.94 12.88 40.8 52.9
Schottegat Site
Curacao Demand
137 424.2 10.58 1.90 12.85 40.7 52.7
Bullen Bay Site
Curacao Demand
80,000m3 Tank
137 330.3 10.58 1.57 12.56 39.7 51.5
Bullen Bay Site
Curacao +Export To Aruba
177 567.1 10.58 1.51 12.46 39.4 51.1
LNG FSRU Terminal Option
CASE DESCRIPTION
Gas
Capacity
MMscfd
CAPEX
US$MM
LNG
Purchase
Price
$/MMBtu
CAPEX +
OPEX
Recovery
$/MMBtu
Deli vered
Gas
Price
$/MMBtu
% Parity
To #2
LSFO
% Parity
To #6
LSFO
Bullen Bay J etty Option
137 (30) 86.9 10.58 7.38 18.32 58.0 75.2
Bullen Bay J etty Option
Curacao Demand
137 86.9 10.58 2.98 13.92 44.1 57.1
Bullen Bay Buoy Option
Curacao Demand
137 131.4 10.58 3.14 14.08 44.6 57.8

4 - 10

Gas Import Pipeline Option
CASE DESCRIPTION
Gas
Capacity
MMscfd
CAPEX
US$MM
Gas
Purchase
Price
$/MMBtu
CAPEX +
OPEX
Recovery
$/MMBtu
Deli vered
Gas
Price
$/MMBtu
% Parity
To #2
LSFO
% Parity
To #6
LSFO
Colombia
30 239.9 6.90 2.30 9.20 29.1 37.8
Colombia
Curacao Demand
137 292.3 6.90 1.26 8.16 25.8 33.5
Colombia
Curacao +Aruba Demand
177 328.2 6.90 0.85 7.75 24.5 31.8
Venezuela
30 162.6 6.90 1.68 8.58 27.2 35.2
Venezuela
Curacao Demand
137 192.8 6.90 0.92 7.82 24.7 32.1
Venezuela
Curacao +Aruba Demand
177 241.3 6.90 0.66 7.56 23.9 31.0

The average delivered gas costs for the case study results are illustrated graphically in Figure 4.5-3.

Figure 4.5-3 Case Study Results


4 - 11
Shaw Consultants note that the average delivered cost of gas was less than the average cost of No.6 LSFO
for all the scenario cases.
4.6 DELIVERED GAS COST VS. GAS RATE
A series of cases were calculated to evaluate the relationship between delivered gas cost and gas rate.
The two gas import pipeline options and the two LNG options were considered in the analysis. The
results are illustrated in Figure 4.6-4.
Figure 4.6-4 Delivered Gas Cost vs. Gas Rate

The delivered gas costs shown in the graph are the calculated costs averaged over the evaluation period
from 2015 to 2031. As a comparison, the average forecast price of No.6 LSFO over the evaluation
period is US$153/Bbl. Using a thermal conversion factor of 6.287 MMBtu/Bbl, the Btu equivalent price
of No.6 LSFO is US$24.36/MMBtu which is shown as the black dashed line in the graph.
4.7 RISKS MATRIX ANALYSIS
A risk analysis was made for the gas supply options. This analysis was not Quantitative but rather
Qualitative in nature reflecting the general judgments of Shaw Consultants. The risk matrix is shown in
Figure 4.7-5.


4 - 12
Figure 4.7-5 Risk Matrix Analysis
CNG
RISK LEVEL
Low ----------------> High
Overall Risk Rating X
CAPEX Costs X
OPEX Costs X
Technology X
Environmental and Permitting X
Gas Supply X
Facility Reliability X
Turndown Flexibility X
Project Schedule X
Operating Performance X
Geo-Political X
GAS IMPORT PIPELINE - COLOMBIA
RISK LEVEL
Low ----------------> High
CAPEX Costs X
OPEX Costs X
Technology X
Gas Supply X
Project Schedule X
Geo-Political X
GAS IMPORT PIPELINE - VENEZUELA
RISK LEVEL
Low ----------------> High
CAPEX Costs X
OPEX Costs X
Technology X
Gas Supply X
Project Schedule X
Geo-Political X
ONSHORE LNG TERMINAL
RISK LEVEL
Low ----------------> High
CAPEX Costs X
OPEX Costs X
Technology X
LNG Supply X
Project Schedule X
Geo-Political X
LNG FSRU TERMINAL
RISK LEVEL
Low ----------------> High
CAPEX Costs X
OPEX Costs X
Technology X
LNG Supply X
Project Schedule X
Geo-Political X

4 - 13

CNG Option
As noted in the Risk Matrix, the CNG option is judged to have High overall risk. This judgment stems
from the fact that this would be a First Time application of the technology and no CNG ships have ever
been fabricated. As a result of the high risk rating, the CNG option has been dropped from further
consideration.
Gas Import Pipeline Options
The Colombia and Venezuela gas import pipeline options are judged to have Moderately Low to
Moderate overall risk. The Venezuela option has a slightly higher risk rating than the Columbia option
due to assumed higher geo-political and project schedule risks.
LNG Options
The onshore LNG terminal and LNG FSRU options are judged to have Low to Moderately Low
overall risk. The risk of the LNG FSRU option is rated slightly higher than the onshore LNG terminal
option due to uncertainty of the FSRU rental day rates after the initial lease term expires. The FSRU
option also has a higher risk ranking because of uncertainty in operating flexibility at low turndown rates.
4.8 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the commercial evaluations, Shaw Consultants has developed the following conclusions:
The CNG option should be dropped from further consideration because of high technical and
commercial risks.
The calculated average delivered gas cost for all options is lower than the average forecast price
for No.6 LSFO. Therefore, conversion from No.6 LSFO to natural gas should reduce the fuel
costs for electric power generation and the Isla Refinery process steam boilers.
The gas import pipeline options will provide the lowest delivered cost of gas. However,
contracting for a long-term reliable gas supply will likely be challenging and may require a
long-lead time to obtain a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) on a gas purchase contract.
In comparison to the conventional onshore LNG terminal option, the estimated delivered cost of
gas for the gas import pipeline option is US$4.50 to US$5.50/MMBtu lower than gas delivered
via LNG. This is a significant incentive to pursue a gas import pipeline supply.
The traditional onshore LNG terminal option yields a lower delivered gas cost to Curacao
customers than the LNG FSRU option since the OPEX cost are not burdened with the high daily
rental lease cost of the FSRU vessel. However, the initial CAPEX cost for the onshore LNG
terminal is higher than any other gas supply option evaluated. The advantage of the onshore
LNG terminal option is that after 10 years of operation, the CAPEX amortization will be
complete and Curacao will own a fully paid asset. From a long-term perspective, the traditional
onshore LNG terminal is a good investment that will yield lower cost gas benefits to Curacao.
The advantage of the LNG FSRU option is its significantly lower CAPEX commitment compared
to the traditional onshore LNG terminal option. However, the rental cost of the FSRU will be
expensive (US$130,000 to US$140,000 per day) and the resulting average delivered cost of gas
will be approximately US$1.05/MMBtu higher than the traditional onshore LNG terminal option.

4 - 14
If RDKs objective is to minimize the amount of its initial CAPEX commitment, then the LNG
FSRU option should be given priority consideration. With respect to asset ownership, Curacao
will not be accumulating equity ownership in the FSRU facility. At the end of a 10-year lease
agreement, Curacao will have paid approximately US$500 million in rental payments for the
FSRU and will not have accumulated any equity in an asset.

Section 5 LNG Supply

5 - 1
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of this report provides an overview of the LNG industry and addresses the LNG supply
issues for Curacao. These include the typical LNG quality specifications, principal LNG Sales and
Purchase Agreement contract terms, potential LNG suppliers, the potential for partnering in LNG
procurement with neighboring islands or the potential for the sale and export of regasified LNG to
neighboring islands.
5.2 LNG INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
LNG is simply natural gas that has been chilled to approximately -161C (-259F) to its liquid state via a
special refrigeration process. In order to liquefy natural gas, it must first be produced from a field and
then piped to a LNG Liquefaction Plant. The gas goes through a liquefaction process that, in addition to
chilling the gas, removes the small quantities of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, and
water that are typically found in "pipeline" natural gas.
The LNG delivery value chain is comprised of three principle segments including a Liquefaction Plant,
LNG Ships and LNG Regas Terminal. The LNG delivery value chain is illustrated in Figure 5.2-1.
Figure 5.2-1 LNG Delivery Value Chain

In the liquefaction process, the natural gas is chilled by large refrigeration systems to a temperature where
the natural gas remains in the liquid state at atmospheric pressure. This liquid is called LNG.
After liquefaction, the LNG occupies only 1/600
th
of the original natural gas volume making it compact
and easier to transport in large LNG ships. LNG is stored as a "boiling cryogen liquid," a very cold liquid
at its boiling point at storage tank pressure which is slightly above atmospheric pressure. Because LNG

5 - 2
must be kept very cold in order to remain a liquid, LNG storage requires heavily insulated tanks at the
Liquefaction Plant, in the LNG Ships and at the LNG Regas Terminal.
A typical LNG ship transport capacity ranges from 125,000m
3
to 150,000m
3
of LNG, the equivalent of
approximately 60 to 70 Olympic size swimming pools. There are both larger and smaller capacity ships
in the LNG fleet, but approximately 63% of the ships are in the capacity range mentioned above. LNG
that evaporates during the journey is used by the LNG ship to fuel its engines.
At the receiving terminals, the LNG is unloaded from the LNG ship, stored, and the regasified for sendout
by gas pipeline to meet the gas customers daily demands.
Based on data published by Drewry Maritime Research in 2011, the range of sendout gas prices
worldwide ranged from an average low of US$3.21/MMBtu to an average high of US$7.24/MMBtu. The
regasification fees charged at the LNG Regas Terminals ranged from US$0.50 to US$1.00/MMBtu. Cost
of shipping LNG is dependent upon the transport distance between the Liquefaction Plant and the LNG
Regas Terminal. Drewry reported for 2011 that LNG shipping costs ranged between US$0.21 to
US$1.64/MMBtu. The fees charged for liquefying the natural gas at the Liquefaction Plants ranged from
US$1.75 to US$2.55/MMBtu. Taking into consideration all of the costs and fees in the LNG value chain,
the gas producers behind the Liquefaction Plants realized wellhead netbacks prices ranging between
US$0.75 to US$2.05/MMBtu.
LNG Historical Track Record
LNG has had a long track record of successful and safe operations. Natural gas liquefaction dates back to
the 19th century when British chemist and physicist Michael Faraday experimented with liquefying
different types of gases, including natural gas. German engineer Karl Von Linde built the first practical
compressor refrigeration machine in Munich in 1873. The first LNG plant was built in West Virginia in
1912 and began operation in 1917. Since that early beginning, the LNG industry has experienced solid
growth and expansion. LNG technology has a proven track record in liquefaction, shipping and
regasification applications worldwide.
Several liquefaction processes have been developed and patented. Among them, two of the most prevalent
are the Air Products & Chemicals Inc. (APCI) Propane Pre-Cooled MCR process and the
ConocoPhillips Cascade process. Although the APCI liquefaction process technology has been selected
for the vast majority of LNG liquefaction plants, several recent plants to come on stream, used the
optimized ConocoPhillips Cascade process. There are currently 31 liquefaction plants in operation
worldwide and 10 liquefaction plants under construction. Another 15 liquefaction projects are in the
planning stage.
The number of ships in the LNG fleet has also experienced significant growth over the years. At the end
of 2011, there were 352 LNG ships in service 9% with capacity ranging between 18,000 to 125,000 m
3
,
63% ranging between 125,000 to 150,000 m
3
, and 28% ranging between 150,000 to 250,000+m
3
.
The number of LNG regas terminals around the world has exhibited significant growth over the years as
well. There are currently 85 LNG regas terminals in operation worldwide and 21 terminals under
construction. Another 28 terminals are in the planning stage.
The price of natural gas in the U.S. market has been on a roller coaster ride from 2000 to 2011. In 2002,
domestically produced natural gas in the U.S. was declining and a gas shortage was looming on the
horizon. U.S. gas prices at Henry Hub strengthened to a level attracting LNG imports back to the U.S.
market. A flurry of applications for new LNG import terminals were submitted to F.E.R.C. and several

5 - 3
new LNG terminals were constructed including Sabine Pass Terminal, Golden Pass Terminal, Cameron
LNG Terminal, Gulf Gateway GasPort, Gulf LNG Terminal, Neptune Deepwater LNG Port, Northeast
Gateway GasPort, and Freeport LNG Terminal. A major recent trend impacting Atlantic Basin LNG
trade has been shale gas development in the U.S. New drilling and completion technology for developing
shale gas has been a game changer. A flurry of shale gas development projects starting in mid-2008 to
2011 dramatically increased U.S. natural gas production capacity driving gas prices below the threshold
required to attract LNG imports into the U.S. (see Figure 5.2-2). Today, several of the U.S. LNG import
terminals have filed applications to produce and export LNG. Sabine Pass and Freeport are now in FEED
for liquefaction facilities to be installed at their respective terminals which were originally permitted for
importing LNG.
Figure 5.2-2 Recent Global Natural Gas Price History

The downward pressure on Henry Hub gas prices will likely impact the Atlantic Basin LNG trade. As
LNG supplies come into the market place from new liquefaction facilities located in the U.S. Gulf Coast,
Shaw Consultants would anticipate slight downward pressure on LNG prices in the Atlantic Basin. If this
occurs, it will have favorable impact on the potential LNG import project being considered for Curacao.
In summary, LNG has a proven track record in liquefaction, shipping, and regasification projects
worldwide. LNG technologies are well established. LNG trade today currently accounts for over 31% of
the total international gas market. At the end of 2011, LNG global statics were published by Drewry
Maritime Research:
LNG Liquefaction Capacity 277.4 mtpa
Regas Terminal Capacity 514.0 mtpa
LNG Fleet 352 ships
SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT
CREATES EXCESS GAS
SUPPLY IN U.S.

5 - 4
Historical charts for LNG Exports and LNG Imports volumes illustrating a breakdown by country are
shown in Figure 5.2-3 and Figure 5.3-4, respectively.
Figure 5.2-3 Global LNG Export (Billion m
3
/Yr)

Figure 5.3-4 Global LNG Import (Billion m
3
/Yr)
5.3 LNG QUALITY SPECIFICATION
Recently executed LNG Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPA) for LNG off-take have included the
following general specification for the LNG to be regasified or vaporized into the gaseous phase by the
Buyer:
Minimum Gross Heat Content (dry) 1,000 Btu/scf
Maximum Gross Heat Content (dry) 1,150 Btu/scf
Minimum methane (C1) 84.0 Mol%

5 - 5
Maximum H
2
S 0.25 grains per 100 SCF
Maximum Sulfur 1.35 grains per 100 SCF
Maximum N
2
1.5 Mol%
Maximum Ethane (C2) 11 Mol%
Maximum Propane (C3) 3.5 Mol%
Maximum Butane (C4) and heavier 2.0 Mol%

LNG shall contain no water, active bacteria or bacterial agents (including sulfate-reducing bacteria or acid
producing bacteria) or other contaminants or extraneous material. SCF means standard cubic foot of
natural gas obtained by vaporizing the LNG, with such natural gas under the standard conditions of sixty
degrees Fahrenheit (60F) and at a pressure of fourteen decimal six nine six pounds per square inch
absolute (14.696 psia).
5.4 TYPICAL LNG SUPPLY CONTRACT TERMS
Typical LNG Sale and Purchase Agreements generally contain the following principal terms and
provisions:
Approvals and Conditions Precedent
Buyer shall obtain all governmental and regulatory Approvals and Permits required to engineer, procure,
construct, and operate the LNG Receiving and Regasification Facilities (the Facilities) and any other
required facilities necessary for the full and complete operation of the Facilities and for the performance
of this Agreement.
Buyer has secured the necessary financing arrangements to construct and operate the Facilities and any
other additional facilities required for the performance of this Agreement. Buyer has taken a positive
Final Investment Decision (FID) to construct the Facilities and any other required facilities, and the
Buyer has issued an unconditional Notice To Proceed (NTP) to the EPC Contractor(s) to commence
with the execution of such EPC Contracts to design and construct all such facilities. Note: the Conditions
Precedent typically also contain a CP Deadline date, such the LNG Seller may terminate this Agreement
if all Conditions Precedent have not been satisfied (typically no more than one year after the scheduled
CP completion date.
Term
Until very recently, most LNG SPAs were negotiated with a Term of twenty (20) years following the
Date of the First Commercial Delivery, which will follow the official Commercial Operation Date
(COD), when all Project Finance Completion requirements, including Performance Testing, etc. has
been concluded, taking into account development and construction schedules. However, more recently
LNG suppliers have been increasingly reluctant to execute LNG SPAs with Terms lasting longer than ten
(10) years, but with provisions included for extension of the Term. Note: project finance Lenders will
likely insist on a Term at least as long as the loan term, typically ten (10) years. Contract Years
correspond to calendar years.
Shaw Consultants would anticipate that the duration of the EPC Contract schedule to design and construct
the Regas Terminal and other additional facilities from NTP to the Commercial Operation Date would be
approximately forty-two (42) months. Thus, the First Window Period for the Date of the First
Commercial Delivery would commence approximately forty-two (42) months after NTP and extend for

5 - 6
180 days. Successive Window Periods would gradually decrease the widow periods to ninety days, sixty
days, thirty days, and then the specific delivery date. LNG to be used for commissioning and testing shall
be subject to analogous window periods for its delivery date. The LNG tanker delivering commissioning
LNG shall be in the cargo size range of 120,000 to 150,000 cubic meters (m
3
).
Annual Contract Quantity (ACQ)
The ACQ for any Contract Year shall be approximately [45,000,000] MMBtu/year, which is
approximately equivalent to [120.3] MMscfd of exported natural gas from the Regas Terminal. The
Adjusted Annual Contract Quantity will be the ACQ plus any Round-Up Quantity in the current Contract
Year and any Round-Down Quantity carried forward from the previous Contract Year, as necessary to
receive full-cargo lots of LNG less scheduled Major Maintenance Quantities for the Contract Year.
It would be advantageous for RDK to utilize a Flexible LNG SPA that would allow RDK to reduce the
ACQ by the 325,000 tonnes per annum amount to be supplied to CRUC, in the event that PDVSA ends its
CRUC Lease Agreement and the refinery shuts down. Thereafter, the LNG SPA should allow RDK to
increase or decrease the ACQ unilaterally by at least ten percent per annum, and by more if by mutual
consent.
Annual Delivery Program
At least one hundred twenty (120) days before the start of each Contract Year, Buyer will notify the Seller
in writing (i) the LNG quantity in MMBtu that the buyer expects to receive for the coming year (ii) and
any scheduled maintenance periods for the Regas terminal. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this
information Seller shall propose to Buyer the Annual Delivery Program (ADP). The ADP will specify
the (a) number of LNG cargoes required to deliver the LNG quantity specified in (i), (b) the proposed
delivery windows for each cargo, (c) the name of the LNG Tanker to be utilized for each cargo (the
Scheduled LNG Tankers), the tanker cargo size, and the proposed Loading Port for each Scheduled
LNG Tanker. The SPA will also include terms under which the ADP may be amended.
No later than the twenty-fifth (25
th
) day of each Month, the seller shall issue a forward plan for deliveries
for the next three-month period of deliveries (the Ninety Day Schedule), which shall follow the ADP
with the same but updated LNG cargo information provided under the ADP.
Contract Sales Price
The LNG purchase price shall be comprised of the total the Contract Sales Price (CSP) for the natural
gas feedstock energy cost, the Unit Capacity Charge (UCC) imposed by the Seller, and the LNG
Shipping Charge (SC), as follows:
Contract Sales Price =[Henry Hub x 1.15]
Where Henry Hub is the final settlement price in USD per MMBtu for the New York Mercantile
Exchanges Henry Hub natural gas futures contract for the Month in which the relevant cargos
Delivery Window is scheduled to begin.
UCC =[0.85 x BASE +0.15 x BASE x CPI
y
/CPI
0
]
BASE =the base Seller Capacity Charge (typically) ranging from [US$2.50 to US$5.00]
CPI
y
=The simple average of the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
CPI (All Urban Consumers, U.S., All Items, 1982 1984, Not Seasonally

5 - 7
Adjusted, Series I.D. CUUR0000SA0) for the twelve (12) Months immediately
preceding the beginning of the relevant Contract Year; and
CPI
0
=The simple average of the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
CPI (All Urban Consumers, U.S., All Items, 1982 1984, Not Seasonally
Adjusted, Series I.D. CUUR0000SA0) for the twelve (12) Months immediately
preceding the Month during which the Date of First Commercial Delivery occurs.
SC =Depends on Seller and Loading Port (typically) ranging between [US$0.50 to US$1.50] per
MMBtu.
Total LNG Price =CSP +UCC +SC
Invoices
Seller shall issue to Buyer by the tenth (10
th
) day of the Month an Invoice for LNG delivered and received
by Seller in the immediately preceding Month. In the event that any of the relevant pricing information is
unavailable in final form to calculate an accurate Total LNG Price, Seller may issue a provisional Invoice
(Provisional Invoice) best estimate of the unavailable information. A Provisional Invoice shall be due
and payable as a regular Invoice, subject to subsequent adjustment as soon as reasonable practicable after
the Seller receives the unavailable information required to issue an accurate Invoice. Seller and Buyer
shall settle or reconcile such debit or credit amounts as soon as reasonable practicable in subsequent
Invoices. Invoices issued shall be due and payable by the Buyer by the twentieth (20
th
) day of the Month
in which the Invoice was issued.
Transportation and Unloading
(a) Buyer shall make available, or cause to be made available, port facilities at the
Regasification Terminal capable of safely receiving LNG Tankers for the discharging of LNG
purchased hereunder. Port facilities shall be constructed such as to permit all maneuvers to be
carried out in accordance with Maritime Best Practices and applicable law within a reasonable
time.
(b) Buyer shall receive LNG at a safe berth which Buyer shall provide or cause to be provided
free of charge at the Regasification Terminal which the LNG Tankers can safely reach and leave
and at which they can lie and unload always safely afloat and safely moored alongside.
(c) Any expense of the LNG Tankers shifting away from the Regasification Terminal berth at
Buyers direction shall be for Buyers account except for shifting required in order to comply with
port rules and/or for safety reasons and only to the extent that the need for such shifting did not
arise as a result of (i) the act or omission of Seller or its agents or contractors (including, for the
avoidance of doubt, the failure of the LNG Tankers Master to issue a Notice of Readiness on
or prior to the Scheduled Unloading Date) or (ii) any modification of a Scheduled LNG Tanker
and/or the Regasification Terminal.
(d) Buyer shall make available or cause to be made available to Seller at no cost to Seller at the
Unloading Port in which the Regasification Terminal is situated berthing and discharging facilities
(Unloading Port Facilities) which are compatible with the equipment on the LNG Tankers
used by Seller including:
(i) mooring equipment;
(ii) lighting sufficient to permit customary docking and undocking maneuvers by day or by night;

5 - 8
(iii) unloading arms, pipes and other appropriate facilities permitting the discharging of LNG at
an average rate of twelve thousand (12,000) cubic meters per hour against a head of one
hundred twenty-five (125) meters of LNG at the Delivery Point, provided that the maximum
operating pressure of the such facilities shall be 19 bar;
(iv) vapor delivery and return facilities (including pipelines and compressors) adequate to
maintain appropriate operating pressure in the tanks of the LNG Tanker during full rate
cargo transfer between one thousand eighty (1,080) and one thousand two hundred (1,200)
millibars absolute;
(v) safe access for personnel between the LNG Tanker and the jetty of the Regasification
Terminal;
(vi) terminal operating personnel capable of writing, understanding and speaking fluently the
English language;
(vii) line handling boats, if necessary, and mooring personnel capable of understanding
and speaking fluently the English language;
(viii) an appropriate security system to protect the LNG Tanker at berth, which is compliant with
ISPS Code and certified by the relevant Competent Authority; and
(ix) emergency shut-down systems that can be linked to and are compatible with LNG
Tankers.
(e) The facilities described in paragraphs (d)(i) to (iv), (viii) and (ix) above shall be provided,
operated and maintained in good working condition at no cost to Seller and shall not be modified
in a manner so as to be incompatible with any Scheduled LNG Tanker.
Unloading Port Obligations
(a) LNG Tankers shall utilize the Unloading Port Facilities subject to observance of all relevant port
and terminal regulations and procedures. Any tugs, pilots or escort vessels required (or other support
vessels and personnel required in connection with the safe berthing of an LNG Tanker) shall be
employed by Seller, with Seller being responsible for all variable costs related to its usage and
the lesser of (i) all fixed costs related to its usage and (ii) a portion of the fixed costs proportionate
to the quantity of all deliveries of LNG by Seller to Buyer under this Contract at the Delivery
Point as a percentage of the Initial Maximum ACQ. The specifications reasonably required for
all such vessels shall be notified by Seller to Buyer in writing by the date that is no later than
twelve (12) Months after the Effective Date.
(b) Seller shall be responsible for payment of amounts due for supplies and services requested by
Masters of LNG Tankers, for port charges and for any other charges incurred during the safe
transportation of LNG from the Unloading Port Facilities to the Delivery Point.
(c) Seller shall obtain or cause to be obtained all Approvals required for each LNG Tanker to enter and
travel in the territorial waters of the Republic of Curacao, to berth and unload its cargo and to
depart from the Regasification Terminal and Unloading Port and leave the territorial waters of
the Republic of Curacao. Each LNG Tanker shall comply with all laws, rules, regulations,
authority instructions and interpretations to which it is subject in the Republic of Curacao, including
those for the protection of the environment. If requested to do so by Seller, Buyer shall use
reasonable efforts to assist Seller in complying with this paragraph (c).

5 - 9
(d) Buyer shall provide reasonable assistance to Seller, at Sellers expense, in coordinating delivery of
equipment, supplies and services for the LNG Tankers.
(e) The Unloading Port Facilities shall conform to the specifications and standards set out in Clause 6.3.
Unloading of LNG at the Regasification Terminal shall be carried out in accordance with all
safety rules, regulations and procedures of the Regasification Terminal and the LNG Tankers, as
the same may be amended from time to time, and with all applicable safety laws, rules, authority
instructions and regulations (collectively, Maritime Best Practices).
(f) Seller shall have the right at any reasonable time during the period of this Contract, at Sellers
risk, time and expense, to inspect the Regasification Terminal. After reasonable notification, and
in any case not less than three (3) Business Days, has been given to Buyer by Seller of such
intention to inspect the Regasification Terminal, Buyer shall afford Seller all reasonable
cooperation and accommodation. Such inspection shall be made without undue interference
with, delay to or hindrance to the Regasification Terminals safe and efficient operation. Neither
the exercise nor the non-exercise, or anything done or not done by Seller in the exercise or non-
exercise of such right shall in any way reduce Buyers authority over or responsibility for the
Regasification Terminal nor increase Sellers responsibility to Buyer or any third parties for
the same; provided that Seller complies with all of Buyers and the Regasification Terminal
Companys safety rules and regulations during such inspection. Following Sellers inspection
of the Regasification Terminal, and in the event the Regasification Terminal (whether in whole
or in part) does not meet the criteria in this Clause, Seller may so notify Buyer in writing and
Buyer shall as soon as practicable procure the remedy of the defect so notified.
(g) Buyer shall ensure that any terminal operator complies with the ship-shore interface and safety
specifications stated herein (or any applicable future ship-shore interface and safety specification/s)
throughout the term of this Contract.
(h) Seller shall cause the owner of any Scheduled LNG Tanker to comply with the ship-shore interface
and safety specifications stated herein (or any applicable future ship-shore interface and safety
specification/s) and any applicable conditions of use for the Unloading Port throughout the term of
this Contract.
Notifications of ETA
(a) Promptly after departing from the Loading Port, the Scheduled LNG Tankers Master shall give
Buyer notice by facsimile, e-mail or other mutually agreed form of communication of the date
and hour on which such Scheduled LNG Tanker departed from the Loading Port and the
estimated time of arrival at the Unloading Port (the Estimated Time of Arrival or ETA). If
thereafter the ETA changes by more than twenty-four (24) hours, the Scheduled LNG Tanker
Master shall give notice of the corrected ETA promptly to Buyer. The Scheduled LNG Tankers
Master shall include in such notice a statement of any operational deficiencies in the Scheduled
LNG Tanker that may affect its performance in the Unloading Port or at berth.
(c) Nine (9) Days prior to the Scheduled LNG Tankers arrival at the Unloading Port and each Day
thereafter until ninety-six (96) hours prior to the Scheduled LNG Tankers arrival at the
Unloading Port, the Scheduled LNG Tankers Master shall give notice by facsimile, e-mail or
other mutually agreed form of communication to Buyer stating its then ETA.
(d) Ninety-six (96) hours prior to the Scheduled LNG Tankers arrival at the Unloading Port, the
Scheduled LNG Tankers Master shall give notice by facsimile, e-mail or other mutually agreed

5 - 10
form of communication to Buyer stating its then ETA. If thereafter this ETA changes by
more than nine (9) hours, the Scheduled LNG Tankers Master shall give notice of the corrected
ETA promptly to Buyer.
(e) Forty-eight (48) hours prior to the Scheduled LNG Tankers arrival at the Unloading Port, the
form of communication to Buyer confirming or amending the previous ETA notice. If thereafter this
ETA changes by more than six (6) hours, the Scheduled LNG Tankers Master shall give
notice of the corrected ETA promptly to Buyer.
(f) Twenty-four (24) hours prior to the Scheduled LNG Tankers arrival at the Unloading Port, the
form of communication and radio to Buyer confirming or amending the last ETA notice. If
thereafter this ETA changes by more than three (3) hours, the Scheduled LNG Tankers Master
shall give notice of the corrected ETA promptly to Buyer in the same manner.
(g) The Scheduled LNG Tankers Master shall give a final ETA notice to Buyer by facsimile, e-
mail or other mutually agreed form of communication and radio six (6) hours prior to the
Scheduled LNG Tankers arrival at the Unloading Port.
(h) The Scheduled LNG Tankers Master shall give notice of its arrival to Seller by facsimile, e-
mail or other mutually agreed form of communication and radio immediately upon the
Scheduled LNG Tankers arrival at the PBS at the Unloading Port.
Notice of Readiness (NOR)
(a) As soon as the Scheduled LNG Tanker has arrived at the PBS or an agreed location off the
Unloading Port and is ready to unload LNG and follow Buyers instructions in accordance with the
provisions hereof, the Scheduled LNG Tankers Master shall so notify Buyer (with such
other information as Buyer may reasonably request) via facsimile, e-mail or other mutually
agreed form of communication (such notification constitutes a Notice of Readiness).
(b) Notice of Readiness shall not be effective, and the Scheduled LNG Tanker shall not proceed to
berth, (1) prior to the start of the Delivery Window without Buyers prior written agreement or (2)
if another LNG Tanker delivering cargoes under this Contract is proceeding to or occupying the
Regasification Terminal berth and has not exceeded its applicable Allotted Unloading Time. If
the Scheduled LNG Tanker arrives at the Unloading Port prior to the start of the Delivery
Window and tenders Notice of Readiness prior to the start of the Delivery Window and Buyer
agrees to permit such Scheduled LNG Tanker to berth at such time in accordance with the
previous sentence, Notice of Readiness shall be deemed effective at the earlier of (i) the
commencement of the start of the Delivery Window and (ii) the time the LNG Tanker is all
fast at the Regasification Terminal berth. In all other cases a Notice of Readiness shall be
deemed effective at the later of (A) the time at which the Notice of Readiness is given and (B) the
commencement of the start of the Delivery Window.
(c) In the event of a failure to issue the Notice of Readiness by the end of the Delivery Window,
Buyer shall advise Seller of Buyers reasonable estimate of its ability, from both a timing and
physical perspective, to berth and unload the Scheduled LNG Tanker without materially
adversely affecting any other scheduled deliveries at the Regasification Terminal or any
deliveries of natural gas to Gas Buyers. Bearing this estimate in mind, the Scheduled LNG
Tankers Master may tender a Notice of Readiness to Buyer. If such Notice of Readiness is

5 - 11
tendered it shall be deemed effective upon the later of (i) the time at which such Notice of
Readiness is issued and (ii) Buyers notice to the Scheduled LNG Tanker that Buyer is ready to
receive the Scheduled LNG Tanker at the Regasification Terminal berth, provided the Scheduled
LNG Tanker is then ready to follow Buyers instructions in accordance with the provisions hereof.
Buyer shall use reasonable efforts to receive and unload the Scheduled LNG Tanker; provided that
Seller shall reimburse Buyer for all reasonable additional costs incurred by Buyer in receiving
and unloading such Scheduled LNG Tanker that are attributable to the Scheduled LNG
Tankers having failed to provide a Notice of Readiness on or prior to the end of the Delivery
Window scheduled for such Scheduled LNG Tanker.
(d) For the avoidance of doubt, Buyer has no obligation to take any cargo for which Notice of
Readiness is provided after the end of the relevant Delivery Window as provided in the
relevant 90 Day Schedule.
Allotted Berth Time, Allowed Bert Time & Unloading Time
The allotted berth time for each LNG Tanker (Allotted Berth Time) shall be (i) for an LNG Tanker
with an LNG cargo containment capacity of one hundred forty thousand (140,000) Cubic Meters or less,
thirty-six (36) hours and (ii) for an LNG Tanker with an LNG cargo containment capacity of greater than
one hundred forty thousand (140,000) Cubic Meters, according to the following formula:
36 +x = Allotted Berth Time (in hours)
Where:
x = y/12,000 Cubic Meters; and
y = the LNG cargo containment capacity of the LNG Tanker in excess of one hundred forty
thousand (140,000) Cubic Meters)
Allotted Berth Time shall be extended by any period of delay that is caused by:
1. Reasons attributable to Buyer, a Governmental Authority, Transporter, the LNG Tanker or its
master, crew, owner or operator or any Third Party outside of the reasonable control of Seller
(but excluding the operator of the Sabine Pass Facility, Sabine Pass Tug Services, LLC and
any other Affiliate of Seller);
2. Force Majeure;
3. Unscheduled curtailment or temporary discontinuation of operations at the Sabine Pass
Facility necessary for reasons of safety, except to the extent such unscheduled curtailment or
temporary discontinuation of operations is due to Sellers or Sellers Affiliates failure to
operate and maintain its facilities as a Reasonable and Prudent Operator;
4. Time at berth during cool-down; and
5. Nighttime transit restrictions.
The actual berth time for each LNG Tanker (Actual Berth Time) shall commence when the NOR is
effective and shall end when the LNG transfer and return lines of the LNG Tanker are disconnected from
the Sabine Pass Facilitys LNG transfer and return lines and the LNG Tanker is cleared for departure and
able to depart.

5 - 12
In the event Actual Berth Time exceeds Allotted Berth Time (including any extension in accordance with
Section 0) (Demurrage Event), Seller shall pay to Buyer, as liquidated damages, demurrage in USD
(which shall be prorated for a portion of a Day) calculated pursuant to the following formula:
Daily Demurrage Rate =USD 64,000 +(USD 16,000 x (CPI
M
/CPI0))
Where:
CPI
M
: the monthly Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, U.S. city average for all
items, not seasonally adjusted (base period: 1982-1984 =100), as published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics for the U.S. Department of Labor for the third (3rd) Month prior to the Month in
which the Delivery Window occurs; and
CPI0: the CPI applicable to the Month and year in which the Date of First Commercial Delivery
occurs.
An LNG Tanker shall complete LNG transfer and vacate the berth as soon as possible but not later than
the following allowed berth time:
1. Twenty-four (24) hours from the time the LNG Tanker is all fast at the berth, in the case of an
LNG Tanker with an LNG cargo containment capacity less than or equal to one hundred forty
thousand (140,000) Cubic Meters; or
2. In accordance with the following formula, in the case of an LNG Tanker with an LNG cargo
containment capacity greater than one hundred forty thousand (140,000) Cubic Meters:
24 +x = allowed berth time (in hours)
Where:
y = the LNG cargo containment capacity of the LNG Tanker in excess of one
hundred forty thousand (140,000) Cubic Meters.
Provided that the Sabine Pass Facility supplies a suitable vapor return line meeting the requirements set
forth herein, then:
1. An LNG Tanker with an LNG cargo containment capacity less than or equal to one hundred forty
thousand (140,000) Cubic Meters shall be capable of loading a full cargo of LNG in a maximum
of fifteen (15) hours; and
2. An LNG Tanker with an LNG cargo containment capacity greater than one hundred forty
thousand (140,000) Cubic Meters shall be capable of loading a full cargo of LNG in the number
of hours derived after applying the following formula:
15 +x = maximum LNG UnloadingTime (in hours)
Where:
y = the LNG cargo containment capacity of the LNG Tanker in excess of one hundred forty
thousand (140,000) Cubic Meters.

5 - 13
Time for connecting, cooling, draining, purging and disconnecting of liquid arms shall not be included in
the computation of pumping time.
Each LNG Tanker shall procure and maintain Hull and Machinery Insurance and P&I Insurance.
Measurements, Tests, and Analysis
Typical measurement, testing and analytical procedures are voluminous but can be supplied, if requested,
separately from this Report.
Force Majeure
Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for any delay or failure in performance under this
Agreement if and to the extent such delay or failure is a result of Force Majeure. To the extent that the
Party so affected fails to use commercially reasonable efforts to overcome or mitigate the effects of an
event of Force Majeure, it shall not be excused for any delay or failure in performance that would have
been avoided by using such commercially reasonable efforts. Subject to the provisions of this Section, the
term Force Majeure shall mean any act, event or circumstance, whether of the kind described herein or
otherwise, that is not reasonably within the control of, does not result from the fault or negligence of, and
would not have been avoided or overcome by the exercise of reasonable diligence by, the Party claiming
Force Majeure or an Affiliate of the Party claiming Force Majeure, such Party and, as applicable, its
Affiliate having observed a standard of conduct that is consistent with a Reasonable and Prudent
Operator, and that prevents or delays in whole or in part such Partys performance of one or more of its
obligations under this Agreement.
Force Majeure may include circumstances of the following kind, provided that such circumstances satisfy
the definition of Force Majeure set forth above:
1. Acts of God, the government, or a public enemy; strikes, lockout, or other industrial disturbances;
2. Wars, blockades or civil disturbances of any kind; epidemics, Adverse Weather Conditions, fires,
explosions, arrests and restraints of governments or people;
3. The breakdown or failure of, freezing of, breakage or accident to, or the necessity for making
repairs or alterations to any facilities or equipment;
4. In respect of Seller: (i) loss of, accidental damage to, or inaccessibility to or inoperability of the
terminal facility or any connecting pipeline or the liquefaction and loading facilities at the
alternate source agreed by the Parties, but only with respect to those cargoes that Buyer has
agreed may be supplied from such alternate source; and (ii) any event that would constitute an
event of force majeure under any of the Common Facilities Agreements, provided, however, that
an event of force majeure under any of the Common Facilities Agreements affecting Seller or an
Affiliate of Seller shall constitute Force Majeure under this Agreement only to the extent such
event meets the definition of Force Majeure in this Section; and
5. In respect of Buyer: (i) loss of, accidental damage to, or inoperability of any LNG Tanker; (ii)
events affecting the ability of LNG Tankers to reach the Regasification Terminal or any alternate
source agreed by the Parties not arising from loss of, accidental damage to or inoperability of
such LNG Tanker; (iii) loss of, accidental damage to, or inaccessibility to or inoperability of a
Discharge Terminal; or (iv) the unavailability of services provided by the Tugboat Services
Supplier or the failure of the Tugboat Services Supplier to provide such tug, fireboat and/or escort
vessel services.

5 - 14
5.5 POTENTIAL LNG SUPPLIERS
LNG World Trade
LNG world trade is divided into basically two LNG marketing regions the Atlantic Basin and the Asia-
Pacific Basin (see Figure 5.5-5).
Figure 5.5-5 LNG Market Regions

With regard to the world LNG supply/demand balance, the combination of increased new LNG supplies
becoming available, the current economic slow-down, and increased unconventional natural gas
production in the U.S. from shale gas and coal seam gas will introduce new dynamics into Global LNG
markets for the time period spanning beyond 2012.
The Atlantic Basin provides a great deal of flexibility with access to natural gas hubs in the worlds two
largest natural gas markets (Europe and the U.S.). Spare import terminal capacity is available offering
ample market entrance for LNG. Europes gas import requirements are likely to increase which in turn
will result in greater demand for LNG in this market region. Europe is particularly in need of LNG
during winter and will have to compete with the Asia-Pacific market to attract the required quantities.
The U.S. will have ample domestic production from its conventional and unconventional sources to serve
its domestic demand and will have additional significant quantities of gas available for export as LNG.
The traded natural gas hubs in the U.S. (Henry Hub) and Europe (UK NBP) will offer swift market
response and price will determine the balancing point for LNG export/import volumes within the Atlantic
Basin.
The Asia-Pacific Basin is still dominated by long-term contracts based on prices linked to oil. Surging
LNG demand in the Asian-Pacific region has shocked global market dynamics, sending Asian-Pacific
prices soaring and driving global price spreads. Increased gas consumption in the wake of J apans nuclear
disaster has increased demand from the worlds largest, most mature LNG market, while a wave of
ASIA-PACIFIC
BASIN
ATLANTIC
BASIN

5 - 15
demand from emerging and new markets including China, India and Thailand is being accelerated by
economic growth. The result is unprecedented cargo diversions and re-exports, the results of which are
being felt worldwide.
New Australian LNG liquefaction projects will have a competing role with existing Middle East LNG
sources in serving the Asia-Pacific markets in the future. Currently, the Asia-Pacific supply/demand
balance is somewhat volatile due to the surge in LNG shipments to J apan. Longer term, it is anticipated
that some LNG producers will take advantage of the liquidity of the Atlantic Basin markets as the Asian-
Pacific markets stabilize. A list of the LNG liquefaction plants are shown in Table 5.5-1.
Table 5.5-1 LNG Liquefaction Plants

ON-STREAM UNDER CONSTRUCTION PLANNED
Adgas LNG Plant (UAE) Angola LNG Plant (Angola) Abadi LNG Plant (Indonesia)
Algeria LNG Plants (Algeria) Gladstone LNG Plant (Australia) Arrow LNG Plant (Australia)
Arun LNG Plant (Indonesia) Gorgon LNG Plant (Australia) Australia Pacific LNG Plant (Australia)
Atlantic LNG Plant (Trinidad & Tobago) Pluto LNG Plant (Australia) Baltic LNG Plant (Russia)
Bontang LNG Plants (Indonesia) PNG LNG Plant (Papua New Guinea) Brass LNG Plant (Nigeria)
Brunei LNG Plant (Brunei) Queensland Curtis LNG Plant (Australia) Browse LNG Plant (Australia)
Damietta LNG Plant (Egypt) Wheatstone LNG (Australia) Cameron Liquefaction Plant (USA)
Darwin LNG Plant (Australia) Cove Point Liquefaction Plant (USA)
EG LNG Plant (Equatorial Guinea) Donggi-Senoro LNG Plant (Indonesia)
Egyptian LNG Plant (Egypt) Fishermans Landing LNG (Australia)
Kenai LNG Plant (Alaska, USA) Freeport Liquefaction Plant (USA)
Marsa El Brega LNG Plant (Libya) Gulf LNG Plant (Papua New Guinea)
MLNG Satu Plant (Malaysia) Gulf LNG Liquefaction Plant (USA)
MLNG Dua Plant (Malaysia) Ichthys LNG Plant (Australia)
MLNG Tiga Plant (Malaysia) J ordan Cove Liquefaction Plant (USA)
Nigeria LNG Plant (Nigeria) Kitimat LNG Plant (Canada)
Nordic (Skangass) LNG Plant (Norway) Lake Charles Liquefaction Plant (USA)
North West Shelf LNG Plant (Australia) Olokola LNG Plant (Nigeria)
Oman & Qalhat LNG Plant (Oman) Prelude LNG Plant (Australia)
Peru LNG Plant (Peru) Sabine Pass Liquefaction Plant (USA)
Qatargas I LNG Plant (Qatar) Scarborough LNG Plant (Australia)
Qatargas II LNG Plant (Qatar) Shtokman LNG Plant (Russia)
Qatargas III & IV LNG Plant (Qatar) Sunrise LNG Plant (Australia)
RasGas I LNG Plant (Qatar)
RasGas II LNG Plant (Qatar)
RasGas III LNG Plant (Qatar)
Sakhalin LNG Plant (Sakhalin, Russia)
Snohvit LNG Plant (Norway)
Tangguh LNG Plant (Indonesia)
Yemen LNG Plant (Yemen)

Integrated LNG projects designed with the physical and commercial flexibility to serve volatile market
conditions will likely do well as the spot LNG market develops. LNG world trade will also likely
become more complex when LNG shipments through the Panama Canal ensue after the canal expansion
project is completed. Currently, the Asia-Pacific market offers a premium price for LNG. As Atlantic

5 - 16
Basin LNG producers gain better access to the premium Asian-Pacific markets, the equilibrium balancing
price for these two market regions may tend to converge.
LNG Supply for Curacao
Curacao is in the Atlantic Basin marketing region. LNG supply and pricing for Curacao will be driven by
conditions and LNG market forces prevalent in the Atlantic Basin. The most desirable source for LNG
supply will likely be Atlantic LNG, located at Point Fortin, Trinidad and Tobago, as it is only 560
nautical miles from Curacao (see Figure 5.5-6). The short distance will greatly reduce shipping costs.
Atlantic LNG Company consists of four LNG trains with a combined LNG production capacity of
approximately 14.8 million tonnes per annum (mtpa). Shaw Consultants does not know how much of
this capacity is locked up in long-term contracts, but it is not inconceivable that the small ACQ required
for Curacao might be available from this source. The three principal equity owners of Atlantic LNG are
British Petroleum (BP), British Gas (BG) and Repsol.

Figure 5.5-6 Shipping Route (Atlantic LNG Curacao)

Another existing LNG Liquefaction plant that might also be a viable source of LNG supply is Peru LNG.
While Peru is in the Asia-Pacific region, the expansion of the Panama Canal, which is to be completed by
the end of 2014, will permit LNG carriers to traverse the Panama Canal. Such passages have been
heretofore denied. Peru LNG is reasonable close to Curacao at only 2,485 nautical miles (see Figure 5.5-
7).


5 - 17
Figure 5.5-7 Shipping Route (Peru LNG Curacao)

Due to increased production and supply of natural gas derived from the development of shale gas
resources in the U.S., several LNG liquefaction plants permits have been filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). Most of the current FERC permit applicants currently own LNG
receiving and regasification terminals in the U.S. that have been made idle by natural gas prices too low
to attract LNG imports. Seven U.S. based LNG import terminals that have submitted permit applications
to FERC for the construction of liquefaction facilities for exporting LNG including:
Sabine Pass Lousiana (Cheniere Energy);
Lake Charles Louisiana (Southern Union and BG);
Cameron Louisiana (Sempra Energy);
Freeport Texas (Macquarie Group and ConocoPhillips);
Gulf LNG Pascagoula Mississippi (Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company, LLC)
J ordan Cove Oregon (Fort Chicago Energy Partners and Energy Projects Development); and
Cove Point Maryland (Dominion).
The Sabine Pass Liquefaction LLC (SPL) project is further along than the other competing projects.
SPL will initially consist of two LNG liquefaction trains, each with a capacity of approximately 4.4 mtpa.
SPL is approximately 2,040 nautical miles from Curacao (see Figure 5.5-8).

Two identical additional trains are to be added in due course. SPL already has executed LNG off-take
contracts for all four trains: with BG for Train 1, Gas Natural for Train 2, Kogas for Train 3, and Gail for
Train 4. SPL is currently the lone applicant that has received approval from the U.S Department of
Energy (DOE) to export LNG to all international markets. Subsequent applicants may receive approval
to export only to countries having free trade agreements with the U.S.

5 - 18

Figure 5.5-8 Shipping Route (Sabine Pass LNG Curacao)

Other potential LNG suppliers that are already in operation include several West African LNG
liquefaction plants: Nigerian LNG, Angola LNG, and Equatorial Guinea LNG, but these are all over
5,000 nautical miles away, as are several LNG liquefaction plants in North Africa, in Algeria, Libya, and
Egypt.

An existing LNG liquefaction plant in Norway, Snohvit LNG will soon be joined by another Norwegian
LNG liquefaction plant Skangass LNG, would also be potential LNG suppliers.

RDK would likely find that both BG and Gas Natural would be receptive to supplying LNG to Curacao.
Gas Natural operates and maintains the LNG Regas Terminal in Puerto Rico, and thus might also be quite
comfortable and receptive to operating and maintaining a LNG terminal in Curacao. Having a proven
supplier and operator would be quite beneficial in terms of obtaining project financing as well.

5.6 POOLING LNG SUPPLY WITH NEIGHBORING ISLANDS
In Shaw Consultants opinion, constructing separate LNG terminals at each of the ABC Islands makes no
sense, given the high capital cost for the LNG terminals. However, if an LNG terminal is built in
Curacao, it could perhaps provide sendout gas to the other islands.
Aruba is approximately sixty-two nautical miles away from Curacao over an ocean span with a maximum
water depth of approximately 4,000 feet. Bonaire is 45 nautical miles away with a maximum water depth
of 5,350 feet. It is technically feasible to lay pipeline in these water depths. However, the potential
Bonaire gas demand is too small to be considered economically feasible.
If Curacao were to construct an LNG terminal sized to handle both the Curacao and Aruba gas demand
load, a subsea natural gas pipeline could be constructed to export sendout gas from Curacao to Aruba.

5 - 19
With the refinery in Aruba now idle, the potential natural gas demand from Aruba would be for power
generation only. The additional natural gas consumption from Aruba when added to the Curacao demand
would help justify the investment for an LNG terminal in Curacao. This is especially the case if the Isla
Refinery in Curacao is also idled.
5.7 CONCLUSIONS
With respect to LNG supply, Shaw Consultants has developed the following conclusions.
Although the Curacao LNG annual supply requirement is relatively small when compared to the
traditional large LNG regas terminal contracts, it will be feasible to contract for LNG supply.
Since the annual quantities are small, Curacao may have to pay a slight premium for the LNG
(US$0.40 to US$0.50/MMBtu).
Atlantic LNG in Trinidad will likely be the most attractive LNG supply source considering the
short transport distance. However, LNG supply from Sabine Pass and Freeport Liquefaction
Plants will be competitive alternatives.
Curacao should consider either contracting with a major LNG supplier (such as BP, BG, Shell,
Total, etc.) or perhaps contracting with a reputable marketer/terminal operator such as Gas
Natural (e.g. the Puerto Rico LNG Terminal operating strategy).
Based on the Curacao gas demand forecast, the LNG supply requirements will be as follows:
Years 2015 to 2018 Aqualectra Only (20 MMscfd)
- Approximately 0.138 mtpa LNG.
- One LNG ship load every 5 months based on 140,000m
3
capacity ship.
Years 2018+With Aqualectra +CRUC +Refinery Steam Boiler Loads (110 to 120 MMscfd)
- Approximately 0.759 to 0.833 mtpa LNG.
- One LNG ship load every 28 to 26 days based on 140,000m
3
capacity ship.
With the recent large-scale shale gas development projects in the U.S., gas production has
exceeded demand and prices at Henry Hub have declined significantly during the past few years.
As a result, new liquefaction projects are being advanced to produce LNG for export from the
existing LNG receiving terminals at U.S. Gulf Coast locations such as Sabine Pass, Freeport, and
possibly others. As new U.S. Gulf Coast LNG export supply comes on stream during 2016 to
2018, it is anticipated that LNG prices in the Atlantic Basin marketing region will remain stable
at current pricing levels or perhaps experience some slight downward pricing pressure due to
LNG on LNG competition. The LNG market conditions will likely make LNG imports to
Curacao attractive since Atlantic Basin LNG pricing is not linked to crude oil and fuel oil prices.
Historically LNG pricing mechanism for Atlantic Basin LNG sources have a market clearing
netback price based on the UK or European NBP gas prices. However, LNG supply is currently
being contracted from U.S. Gulf Coast LNG suppliers with pricing provisions linked to 110% to
120% of Henry Hub monthly gas prices plus liquefaction fees of approximately
US$2.50/MMBtu. These Gulf Coast LNG contract terms reflect calculated netback clearing
prices exceeding the UK or European NBP price. Shaw Consultants used the Henry Hub pricing
mechanism for LNG to assure that the calculated delivered gas costs are conservative.
Section 6 LNG Shipping and Transportation

6 - 1
6.1 OVERVIEW
Worldwide events in the natural gas and LNG sectors over the last five years have triggered major
changes in the overall framework for LNG shipping. The LNG industry and gas markets have seen
increased production from Nigeria, Peru, Qatar, and Yemen. In addition, major increases in production of
shale gas in the United States and worldwide are impacting the global gas industry and the LNG shipping
sector. Several projects to export LNG from the U.S. Gulf Coast are moving forward and will impact the
LNG market in the Atlantic Basin. The companies producing LNG on the Gulf Coast and shipping the
LNG eastward into the Atlantic basin will be potential sources of supply for the Curacao LNG project.
The following table provides a snapshot of the worldwide LNG fleet, the order book for new vessels, and
spot and long-term freight rates.
Table 6.1-1 Worldwide LNG Fleet
Another major change over the last five years is a shift in emphasis in the LNG value chain from
companies concentrating on access to natural gas resources over to companies emphasizing the ability to
control LNG shipping. Only about 25% of the current LNG Carrier (LNGC) new buildings shown in the
table above are dedicated to specific projects. The remainder of the vessels on order is either speculative,
without specific charter trades, or dedicated to trading companies for use in their short and medium-term
trading activities. The secondary market for LNGCs has become more active. The LNG shipping market
is splitting into long-term, medium-term, and spot access to shipping. However, it will be more difficult
for small LNG import projects such as Curacao to get direct access to LNG shipping.
Concurrent with changes in the overall worldwide supply and distribution of natural gas and LNG, and
from a cost perspective the LNG shipping industry has gone through a period of oversupply of shipping
five years ago to a situation today where access to shipping has become very tight. Over the last five
years spot charter rates for LNG carriers have increased from approximately $50,000 per day in 2007 to
spot charter rates in the range of $100,000 to as high as $130,000 per day in 2012. This analysis is based,
in part, on information derived from the following sources:
Drewry LNG Shipping Market 2011 Annual Review and Forecast;
Drewry Shipping Insight Monthly Analysis May 2012;
Zeus Development Corp LNG Ship Database;
Update on LNG Shipping February 2012 Platou LNG; and
Port to Port Distance Tables UK Hydrographic Office.
Source: Drewry Monthly Analysis of Shipping Markets, May 2012

6 - 2
The ship databases from the Drewry Report and Zeus Development Corporation are included in the
appendices for future reference.
6.2 AVAILABILITY OF SHIPS
As of April 2012, the worldwide LNG fleet has 357 ships with an additional 76 ships on order. It is
important to note that only vessels in the size range of 75,000 to 140,000 m would be suitable for
delivering LNG cargoes into Curacao (see Figure 6.2-1). Approximately 2/3rds of the current LNGC
fleet is in this range:

Ship Size Range Number of Ships
75,000m
3
to 120,000m
3
15
125,000m
3
to 140,000m
3
221
Total Ships Within Target Window 236

Figure 6.2-1 LNG Fleet Size Distribution and Vessel Count

Figure 6.2-2 is taken from the February 2012 presentation Update on LNG Shipping: What a
Difference a Year Makes by Platou LNG. Over the next five years in this projection, control of
shipping would be approximately 290 ships (76%) dedicated to projects; 60 ships (16%) controlled by
traders; and 30 ships (8%) open for charter.
The most likely scenarios for getting access to LNG shipping for the Curacao project will be by
purchasing the LNG either directly from a project or an LNG trader with access to shipping.


6 - 3
Figure 6.2-2 Total LNG Fleet Historical Control

Potential shippers associated with projects or traders who might provide LNGC capacity to deliver
cargoes into Curacao include:
Teekay;
Bonny Gas Transport;
BW Gas;
BG Group;
Shell Group;
Exmar;
GDF Suez;
Golar; and
Hoegh.
As noted previously, only ships in the size range from 75,000 m to 140,000 m would be acceptable for
delivering LNG to the Curacao terminal assuming the terminal is equipped with a 160,000m
3
LNG
storage tank. Approximately 2/3 of the worldwide LNG shipping fleet fit within this size range. For ship
sizes above 145,000 m the Curacao terminal would not have enough ullage to completely discharge the
cargo.

6 - 4
Table 6.2-2 provides a listing of all LNGC owners, ranked by sizes of their fleets as of April 2011.
Table 6.2-2 LNG Fleet Ownership Summary

6 - 5
Table 6.2-3 lists LNGCs available on the spot market last year and provides a perspective on the
relatively small numbers of LNG carriers available in the worldwide spot market. In this case only 8% of
worldwide LNG ships were available on the spot market.

Table 6.2-3 Vessels That Were Available On March 15, 2011
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

The availability of spot LNGCC tonnage is very unpredictable and cannot be relied on for planning
longer-term cargo deliveries to the terminal at Curacao.
Table 6.2-4 extracted from the Zeus Database shows the LNGC fleet operating in the Atlantic Basin.
Each of these operators are potential sources of LNG shipping capacity for cargo deliveries into Curacao.

6 - 6
Table 6.2-4 LNG Fleet Operating In Atlantic Basin
Operator
Number
of
Ships
Average
Size
(m
3
) Route
Anglo Eastern Group 5 135,000 Nigeria-Europe
BW Europe Ltd. 1 145,000 Nigeria-Various
BW Gas ASA 1 138,000 Algeria-Various
BW Gas ASA 7 145,000 Nigeria-Various
Exmar NV 1 131,000 Algeria-Spain
Golar LNG 2 132,000 Trinidad & Tobago-USA
Hegh LNG 2 107,000 Trinidad & Tobago-Spain
Hyproc Shipping Co. 8 116,000 Algeria-Turkey
Hyproc Shipping Co. 2 132,000 Algeria-France
Knutsen OAS Shipping 2 138,000 Trinidad & Tobago-Spain
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha 2 150,000 Nigeria-Various
Shell 9 132,000 Nigeria-Europe
Sovcomflot 2 72,000 Trinidad & Tobago-Spain
Teekay Corporation 2 139,000 Trinidad & Tobago-Spain

Target Delivery Window
The 160,000 m storage tank proposed for Curacao provides approximately 29 days storage at a sendout
rate 120 MMscfd (0.828 mtpa LNG). In order to completely discharge an LNGC, ullage (space available
in tank) approximately equal to the ship parcel size will be required. In the case of a 135,000m ship, for
example, the operator of the Curacao terminal must schedule ship arrivals such that the LNGC cannot
arrive until the level in the LNG storage tank is below 28,000m, or about a 6 day storage margin. This
will require tight scheduling of arrival of the incoming LNG carrier.
Table 6.2-5 below shows the impact, in terms of additional scheduling flexibility, when smaller ship sizes
are used for importing LNG. This table shows the tank ullage required to discharge an LNGC and storage
margin at the time the ship is scheduled to arrive at the terminal.
Table 6.2-5 Analysis of Ship Size and Required Ullage
Ship Size
(m
3
)
Tank Ullage
Required
(m
3
)
Max LNG
Inventory on
Arri val (m
3
)
Days
Storage
Remaining
90,000 86,400 73,600 14.3
125,000 120,000 40,000 7.8
135,000 129,600 30,400 5.9
The potential shipping fleets described above should be considered in developing a list of LNG supply
strategies. As the project approaches a final investment decision (FID), the analysis of LNG supply
options must be closely integrated with obtaining LNG shipping for the project. The most likely
supply/shipping scenario will be one in which project/producers with control over shipping also provide
shipping for the project.
The figure at the left is taken from the February 2012 presentation Update on LNG Shipping: What a
Difference a Year Makes by Plateau LNG.
6.3 SHIPPING COSTS AND LOSSES
Shipping costs have increased significantly over the last five years. Figure 6.3-3 is taken from the
February 2012 presentation Update on LNG Shipping: What a Difference a Year Makes by Platou
LNG which illustrates this point.

6 - 7
Figure 6.3-3 LNG Charter Rate Trend
Movements in LNG tanker charter day rates over the next year will provide insight and perspectives as to
whether or not LNG tanker prices have leveled out at values comparable to the historic highs.
Considering the recent LNGC ship order book, it is likely that charter day rates will not increase
significantly beyond current levels. Shipbuilding costs have come down slightly over the last four years
(see Figure 6.3-4). This is one leading indicator for future LNCG charter costs and an indication that
charter costs in the near future will be no higher than current levels.
Figure 6.3-4 Newbuilding Orders and Price Trend
The Drewry 2011 LNG shipping analysis provides generic estimates of LNG transportation costs based
on round-trip distances between loading and discharge ports (see Table 6.3-6 below). This is an excellent
"rule of thumb for LNG shipping costs for medium to long-term charters, but not spot charter rates.

6 - 8
LNGSOURCE
ROUNDTRIP
DISTANCE
NatucalMiles
TOTAL
SHIPPING
COST
US$
UNIT
SHIPPING
COSTS
US$/MMBTU
Atl anti cLNG,Tri ni dad 1,006 495,225 0.16
Sabi nePassLNG,Texas 3,564 1,186,577 0.38
Freeport 3,636 1,206,036 0.39
PeruLNG 4,336 1,395,225 0.43
Al geri anLNG,ArzewAl geri a 8,686 2,570,901 0.79
BonnyLNG,Ni geri a 9,224 2,716,306 0.83
Angol a 10,182 2,975,225 0.91
QatarLNG 17,546 4,965,495 1.53
LNGSOURCE
ROUNDTRIP
DISTANCE
NatucalMiles
TOTAL
SHIPPING
COST
US$
UNIT
SHIPPING
COSTS
US$/MMBTU
Freeport 3,636 1,292,745 0.42
PeruLNG 4,336 1,498,627 0.47
Angol a 10,182 3,218,039 0.99
QatarLNG 17,546 5,383,922 1.66
Table 6.3-6 Generic LNG Transportation Costs (US$/MMBtu)

Shaw Consultants developed a shipping cost model which reflects LNGC charter rates, all costs
associated with LNG routes including port fees, and LNG characteristics (heating value / specific
gravity). The model also estimates shipping costs for a range of potential LNG supply locations. The
shipping route charts are included in Appendix G of this report.
Table 6.3-7 Ship Model Results (US$120k/Day; 17 knots)
The shipping cost shown in Table 6.3-7 is based on
a charter rate of $120,000 per day and an average
cruse speed of 17 knots. This is a conservative
"high" estimate in that it is likely that ships can
achieve average cruse speeds above 17 knots. Also,
with longer-range planning the project will likely be
able to avoid having to charter shipping on the high
cost spot term market.

Table 6.3-8 Ship Model Results (US$120k/Day; 18.5 knots)
A sensitivity case based on an average cruse speed
of 18.5 knots and a charter rate of $120,000 per day
was calculated using the shipping model. The results
of this sensitivity case are shown in Table 6.3-8.
Although this is not as conservative as the 17 knot
case, it is likely that the LNGCs can be chartered on
the basis of achieving an 18.5 knot average speed.


6 - 9
LNGSOURCE
ROUNDTRIP
DISTANCE
NatucalMiles
TOTAL
SHIPPING
COST
US$
UNIT
SHIPPING
COSTS
US$/MMBTU
Freeport 3,636 1,025,030 0.33
PeruLNG 4,336 1,182,688 0.37
Angol a 10,182 2,499,354 0.77
QatarLNG 17,546 4,157,913 1.28
Table 6.3-9 Ship Model Results (US$100k/Day, 18.5 knots)
Table 6.3-9 shows another sensitivity case based on
a ship average speed of 18.5 knots and a charter rate
of $100,000 per day which is more consistent with
day rates for mid-term to long-term charters
agreements. It is reasonable to assume that the
Curacao LNG project will be able to contract for
mid-term charters for LNG shipping and achieve
charter costs below the spot charter rates.

6.4 PORT REQUIREMENTS
An assessment of the port requirements and port characteristics was made based on Bullen Bay J etty
No. 1 as the port location (see Figure 6.4-5).
Figure 6.4-5 Bullen Bay


6 - 10
The general approaches to Curacao are excellent with no significant marine risks or hazards. Bullen Bay
is an open, large bay on the southwest side of Curacao, where the biggest vessels can enter safely. This
naturally sheltered, deep-water bay is an excellent location for LNG shipping operations.
The port has a state-of-the-art, fully-equipped Vessel Traffic Control Center (VTCC). Maximum draft of
LNG carriers is typical 12m. To provide a margin for maneuvering and bottom clearance, a minimum
water depth of approximately 15m is typical needed for midsized LNG carriers. This includes both water
depth at the jetty and also turning basin water depths to allow for maneuvering the ship during approache
to and at the berth. J etty No. 1 at Bullen Bay is in a water depth of 21m. This depth is more than
adequate for all LNG carriers in current service. Considering the fact that future LNG carrier
construction will likely be for ship sizes below 200,000m, any future LNG carrier will also be able to
operate within the water depths available at Bullen Bay.
Pilotage is compulsory. The pilots are employed by the Curacao Pilots Organization (CPO), which offers
a 24 hour pilotage service. Discussions with the pilots Association will be required during next phases of
the project in order to establish all parameters associated with LNG carrier operations.
It is anticipated that LNGCs, similar to worldwide practice, will be able to berth at night as well as during
daylight hours. This should be verified in next phases of the project studies.
Tugs are required for crude, product, and gas carriers. For planning purposes, it is estimated that three
tugs will be required for berthing operations.
Limits on wind, wave height, and visibility conditions must be considered when determining when
LNGCs can safely approach the berth.
The following table lists typical wind speed thresholds which would limit ship operations.
Table 6.2-10 Wind Speed Thresholds
Vessel Acti vity Wind Speed Threshold (knots) Vessel Action
Berthing 25.0 Berthing prohibited
Loading 30.0 Stop cargo transfer
Loading 35.0 Disconnect arms
Loading 40.0 Leave berth
Typical wave limits for LNGCs approaching and mooring at the berth are in the range of 2.5m with an
upper limit of 3.0m Hs (significant wave height).
A minimum visibility of approximately 1.0 nautical mile.
It is not anticipated that wind, wave height or fog and reduced visibility will significantly impact shipping
operations. However, a review of historical data for wind, wave and visibility conditions should be
included in next phases of project studies in order to estimate what, if any, impact these weather
conditions will have on the LNG carrier operations.
Appendix H contains plots of the most severe hurricane years in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico over
the last decade. Nearly all hurricanes tracked north of Curacao. It is not anticipated that hurricanes will
have a significant impact on imports of LNG into the terminal.
6.5 CONCLUSIONS
The Bullen Bay terminal, from a perspective of LNG ship operations, is among the best worldwide
terminals for overall LNGC operations.

6 - 11
Weather conditions (wind, waves, visibility, and hurricanes) will not likely significantly impact shipping.
The "window" when ship operations might be restricted due to weather conditions is likely on the order of
5%. The schedules for receiving cargo can accommodate a one or two day delay due to weather. It is
recommended that a more detailed analysis of overall weather conditions be conducted in next phases of
the project.
LNG shipping costs will not likely vary significantly from current estimates in the Shaw Consultants
shipping cost model. In any case, total cost to deliver LNG will be dominated by the F.O.B. price at the
LNG liquefaction plant, with LNG shipping only a minor complement of total LNG costs at the Curacao
terminal.
Establishing access to shipping will be critical. The project will require approximately one delivery by an
LNGC in the 125,000m
3
to 135,000m
3
size range approximately every 25 to 27 days. Relying on spot
charters is not an option. It is recommended that access to shipping be closely integrated with obtaining
the LNG supply for the project. A preferred supply and shipping scenario will be to find a producer
(which also controls its shipping) in the Atlantic Basin and which has the flexibility to integrate a small
LNG purchase on a fixed delivery schedule, into their overall portfolio of LNG deliveries. Trading
companies which currently control shipping will provide another option.

Section 7 Terminal Location Assessment

7 - 1
7.1 INTRODUCTION
During the meetings and site visit to Curacao on March 15 and 16, 2012, various potential site locations
were discussed and reviewed with representatives of RDK, Department Environmental Services of
Curacao and the Curacao Port Authority. Two sites were selected for further evaluation including Bullen
Bay and Schottegat Harbor. Other potential sites that were considered, discussed, and eliminated
included:
Strip of land at Mansalina Bay which was eliminated due to low water depth for LNG ships;
Vaersen Bay and Mansalina Bay which was eliminated since it is considered to be a tourist site
area and only applicable for an offshore FSRU option; and
Caracas Bay which was eliminated since it too is designated as a tourist development area and has
issues with pipeline routing to the refinery and Aqualectra power plant sites..
Key requirements for the establishing suitable LNG terminal site include:
Sea access with a minimum water depth of 12m at low tide for the large LNG transport ships;
Ability to install the required ship LNG offloading dock near the LNG Terminal site;
Reasonable distance for installing the LNG transfer lines from the offloading dock to the LNG
storage tank;
Suitable site area and subsurface conditions for development and installation of required LNG
storage tank and process facility;
Ability to maintain required safe distance radii for thermal and vapor dispersion zones from the
LNG facility to adjacent occupied facilities; and
Ability to permit and construct the gas pipeline from the LNG terminal site to the power plant
delivery locations within the Isla Refinery area.
To further assess the LNG Terminal and FSRU options, additional design criteria has been evaluated for
Curacao, including:
Meteorological Conditions;
Tide and Current Conditions;
Hurricanes and Tropical Storms;
Geologic Conditions;
Seismicity and Tectonics; and
Tsunami Hazard.
Meteorological Conditions
Curacao is an island located in the so called Southern Caribbean Dry Zone and is characterized by a semi-
arid to arid climate with a distinguishable dry and rainy season. Winds are sustained moderate to fresh
easterlies. The dry season runs from February through J une, whereas the rainy season starts in September

7 - 2
and ends in J anuary. The island is characterized by warm tropical temperatures with the highest mean
temperatures occurring in September.
The prevailing trade wind directions vary slightly East North East to East South East, with an average
velocity of 5.2 to 6.6 m/s.
The seawater around the island averages around 27 C and is coldest (average 25.9 C) around February-
March and warmest (average 28.2 C) around September-October.
Design criteria considerations for the ambient air temperatures and relative humidity are:
PARAMETER Max Min Avg.
Ambient Air Temperature -
o
C 36.9 20.3 27.9
Average Relati ve Humidity - % 89 74 80
Design criteria considerations for wind and weather design data are:
PARAMETER Design Value
Prevailing Wind Direction
The prevailing trade wind directions vary slightly East North East to East South East, with an average velocity of
5.2 to 6.6 m/s. Maximum gust to 25.7 m/s.
Maximum Design Wind Load (Hurricane) 67 m/s
Wind Rose Data
North =0 deg & clockwise Wind Direction %
0 22.5 45 TBD TBD TBD
67.5 90 112.5 TBD TBD TBD
135 157.5 180 TBD TBD TBD
202.5 225 247.5 TBD TBD TBD
270 292.5 315 TBD TBD TBD
337.5 TBD
Rainfall Rate
Maximum 1- Hour 4.5 inches
Maximum 24 - Hour 10.1 inches (September)
Average Annual 21.3 inches
Maximum Annual 42.9 inches
Barometric Pressure
Maximum 30.61 Hg
Mean 30.13 Hg
Minimum 29.64 Hg
Maximum Rate Of Change (Assumed) 0.5Hg/hr

Tide and Current Conditions
Tide measurement data has been evaluated using summary documents titled Subject: The Tides of
Curacao, dated J une 14, 1998 and Some Notes on Tide in Annabaai Harbour, Curacao, Netherlands
Antilles, Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf of Caribbean, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp 224-236, J une 1959.
Under normal meteorological conditions (wind barometric pressure) there are two high tides every day.
There heights are not the same for there is a higher high water (HHW) or high water spring (HWS) and a
lower low water (LLW) or low water spring (LWS). For Curacao, the maximum difference between the
HHW (or HWS) and LLW (or LWS) is 80cm. The tidal differences generally range between 30 and

7 - 3
35cm. In Curacao, the tide fluctuation levels are measured from the Curacao Peil (CP) reference datum
level. For Curacao, the HWS is +47 cm CP and LWS is -33cm CP.
The near shore current of Curacao usually sets a West North West direction, with a maximum velocity of
0.5 m/s. The regular velocity is generally not more than 0.26 m/s.
Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
The data source for evaluating hurricanes and tropical storms was the Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
in the Netherland Antilles and Aruba, dated April 2010. Curacao is not outside of the hurricane belt
and history indicates that roughly once every 100 years, considerable damage is experienced by a tropical
cyclones passing over or just south of the island. A major hurricane passed just south of Curacao on
September 23, 1877 causing considerable structural damage. On the average, once every four years a
tropical cyclone occurs within a radius of 150 km, but passing mostly north of the island without causing
serious bad weather conditions. Hurricane Hazel passed approximately 90 km to the north on October 7,
1954 and wind speeds at Curacao were observed at 50 km/h with gusts to 90km/h. Curacao received
approximately 125 mm of rain within a 48 hour period, which resulted in local flash floods. Hurricane
charts are included in Appendix H of this report.
Eight tropical storms passing near the island since 1988 have caused structural damage and rough seas
pounding exposed harbors and beach facilities. Excessive rains have caused widespread flooding over the
island for several days. Wind gusts of form 75 to over 90 km/h are typically recorded.
The storm surge during a hurricane or major tropical storm event can result in a storm surge of
approximately 6 m along the coast of Curacao.
Geologic Conditions
Curacao geology is characterized by two main rock types, Cretaceous basalt (lava) and Tertiary
limestone. The basalt (diabase) is of deep sea volcanic origin and represents the oldest geologic unit of
the island. The limestone represents fossil reef and fore-reef deposits. The limestone units form the
seaward-dipping limestone hogbacks seen on the leeward side of the island. The island of Curacao is a
result of tectonic uplift that initiated in the Middle Miocene and continued into the Pleistocene and
Holocene periods. The geologic map of Curacao is presented in Figure 7.1-1.
Figure 7.1-1 Geologic Map of Curacao


7 - 4
The majority of bedrock observed at Bullen Bay, along the proposed gas pipeline route and in the
Schottegat Harbor area appears to be weathered, moderately hard and slightly porous coral limestone near
surface. At Bullen Bay, massive limestone beds were exposed as a cliff face at the water edge, at the
J etty 1 location. The geologic map in Figure 1 indicates that the diabase may be encountered along some
sections of the proposed gas pipeline. The diabase is generally weathered and highly fractured where
encountered near surface.
Seismicity and Tectonics
No major tectonic fault zones are located near Curacao. The nearest distance to the Caribbean Plate
contact is in northern Venezuela. A check with the US Geological Survey National Earthquake
Information Center (NEIC) indicates that Curacao can experience nearby random earthquakes with
earthquake magnitudes of 4.6. Also larger magnitude earthquakes in the Venezuela have resulted in
measured ground shaking with a magnitude of 3 and 4 in Curacao.
The seismic design for design criteria, per NFPA 59A, for a LNG tank and plant is based on an Operating
Basis Earthquake (OBE) defined as the ground motion having a 10 percent probability of exceedance
within a 50-year period (mean return interval of 475 years). The design for Safe Shutdown Earthquake
(SSE) is defined as the ground motion that has a 2 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year period.
In this Standard, the LNG facility is designed to contain the LNG and prevent catastrophic failure of
critical facilities under an SSE event. The facility is not required to remain operational following the SSE
event.
No specific earthquake seismic design code could be found for Curacao. The Uniform Building Code
1997 (UBC97) is a well respected design code and lists an OBE earthquake magnitude of 0.30g for
Curacao. For this feasibility study, this seismic design value should be sufficient.
It is recommended that a site specific seismic and tectonic assessment be performed for Curacao in
accordance with current industry practice to develop OBE and SSE seismic design criteria, should the
LNG tank and process facility optimum be selected for use.
Tsunami Hazard
The Tsunami Hazard for the Territory of Curacao (2010) was used as the source to evaluate the tsunami
hazard for the proposed site locations. This study is based on three different major earthquakes events
occurring within the Caribbean:
1. An earthquake of magnitude M =7.5 in the Southern Caribbean Deformation zone (SCDB)
2. An earthquake of magnitude M =8.0 in the subduction zone south of Puerto Rico (MT)
3. An earthquake of magnitude M =8.0 in the subduction zone east of the island arc (PT/LAT)
These three events are considered reasonable to establish the maximum probable tsunami runoff that
could occur along the Curacao coast. This study is considered to use for design of a near shore LNG tank
and facility. It is not necessary to consider these tsunami events for design of the offloading jetty.
Based on the results and recommendations of this study, the design level tsunami for the Bullen Bay site
should be designed for a tsunami wave run-up inundation limit of 7.68m, which is based on the MT
earthquake event. The eastern portion of Schottegat Harbor would be protected from surge flooding by
the narrow and curved St. Anna Bay (6.93m at Bay inlet) and areas adjacent to the Willemstad coast
(6.75m) near the inlet, thus minimizing any wave run-up at the proposed LNG site location within the
Schottegat Harbor area.

7 - 5

7.2 LNG TERMINAL SITE LOCATIONS
Evaluating the above siting and design criteria with the various site locations screened during these
meetings, only two site options appear to be feasible for consideration for a LNG terminal location. The
two site locations that may be suitable for the Curacao LNG terminal include a site on Parcel A at the
existing Bullen Bay Oil Storage Terminal and a fill area within Busca Bay in the Schottegat Harbor area.
Figure 7.2-2 illustrates the general location of these site options.
Figure 7.2-2 Curacao LNG Terminal Location Options
A LNG FSRU could be berthed at the J etty No.1 location at Bullen Bay or at an offshore single point
buoy mooring location along the coast connected by a gas pipeline to the Curacao customer end-use
locations. The FSRU offshore buoy site could be located 1 to 1.5 miles offshore from Bullen Bay or
along the coast to near the inlet of Schottegat Harbor at St. Anne Bay. The offshore FSRU buoy site
locations will be limited along the section of coast identified since massive limestone cliffs and rock
outcrops will limit where offshore to onshore gas pipelines can be installed from the offshore buoy
locations. Installation of the buoy gas pipeline will likely involve tunnel boring at the shore crossing.
7.3 BULLEN BAY SITE OPTION
The Bullen Bay LNG terminal site location at the south end of the existing Curacao Oil Storage Terminal
is shown in Figure 7.3-3. The LNG tank and process facility are proposed to be located on Parcel A,
shown in Figure 7.3-5 and Figure 7.3-6. There is adequate area to place the LNG tank, process facility
and, if desired, a gas fired generating power plant at this location. J etty No.1 will require total redesign
and upgrading to handle offloading of a LNG carrier or the mooring of a LNG FSRU.

7 - 6
Figure 7.3-3 Bullen Bay Site Option

A new buried gas sendout pipeline will be installed from this site location and will follow the presently
purchased right-of-way (ROW), which contains the existing oil pipeline from Bullen Bay Oil Storage
Terminal to the Isla Refinery at Schottegat Bay (see Figure 7.3-4 below).
Figure 7.3-4 New Gas Sendout Pipeline Route from Bullen Bay Site to Refinary

7 - 7
Figure 7.3-5 shows a plot of Parcel A located adjacent to J etty No.1 at Bullen Bay. This plot is
available and could be used for a LNG terminal. A close-up of the proposed Bullen Bay facilities
location is shown in Figure 7.3-6 with Parcel A outlined. The previous tanks and foundations in Parcel
A were removed a few years ago. Boring logs near this location at the site visit indicate that the
proposed LNG tank, process facility, and a possible future gas fired power plant in Parcel A will be
founded on competent limestone rock. It is anticipated that minimal site preparation will be required for
construction of the LNG facility.
The existing site grade is at approximately elevation +7m. A retention berm will be required around the
perimeter of the tank and process area, which can be built to an elevation to prevent overtopping for the
design tsunami run-up elevation.
J etty No.1 can be redesigned for offloading LNG transport ships or for a FSRU docking berth and gas
offloading. J etty No.1 will require total redesign and rebuilding to accommodate a larger LNG transport
ships and the special LNG unloading facility. The water depth at J etty No.1 is 21 m, which is more than
adequate for the large LNG tankers and an FSRU (can accommodate 400m long ships). This jetty can be
designed and built to accommodate both LNG and oil tanker offloading systems, if necessary. Presently
it is Shaw Consultants recommendation to use J etty No.1 only for LNG ships, to keep the LNG facility
totally separate from the Oil Storage Terminal operation. Ship approach and exit is excellent for this jetty
location and operation.
Figure 7.3-5 Bullen Bay Site Parcel A Plot


7 - 8
Figure 7.3-6 Bullen Bay Site Aerial View

Figure 7.3-7 Bullen Bay Site Thermal Exclusion/Gas Dispersion Zones

7 - 9
Preliminary thermal exclusion and gas dispersion zones for the onshore LNG terminal option at Bullen
Bay (based on NFPA 59A requirements) are illustrated in Figure 7.3-7 above. The zones plots assume a
160,000m
3
full containment LNG tank is installed. As noted from the illustration, the Bullen Bay site
provides adequate space to safely operate the terminal. The thermal exclusion zone required for a single
containment LNG tank will be significantly larger and Shaw Consultants anticipates that the site will not
be large enough to safely accommodate a single containment type LNG tank.
7.4 SCHOTTEGAT HARBOR SITE OPTION
The Schottegat Harbor Site Option is illustrated in Figure 7.4-8 through Figure 7.4-11. The jetties
identified for the Schottegat site option are potentially available for conversion/upgrade for use as both an
LNG unloading terminal and refinery product ship loading. The proposed LNG facility option location is
also shown.
LNG pipelines will run from the offloading jetty to a LNG tank and process facility location. The
Schottegat Harbor is not considered suitable for a FSRU location and operation due to major limitations
for Harbor operation and safety reasons. Gas lines will run from the LNG facility location to the power
plants at the refinery location.
Figure 7.4-8 Schottegat Harbor Site Overview

The approach to the Schottegat Harbor from the Caribbean through the narrow St. Anna Bay inlet has
water depths ranging between 13 to 23 meters.
The bridge over the St. Anna Bay has a maximum air draft (height above water level) of 55 meters.
The Harbor water depths traversing from the narrow Bay entry to the jetty sites ranges from 13 to 23
meters and can just accommodate the minimum draft requirements of the large LNG transport ships. The
two jetties identified are presently being used for refinery product ship loading and should be considered

7 - 10
for dual use for new design and upgrading if this location is chosen for an LNG offloading and storage
facility.
Figure 7.4-9 Schottegat Harbor Entry

The entry into and exit from the Schottegat Harbor by a LNG transport ship will require the narrow St.
Anna Bay entrance to be cleared of all ships during the entry and exit. Also all other ship movement
within the Schottegat Harbor will be restricted when the LNG ship is moving.
The narrow St. Anna Bay entrance is presently used to dock cruise ships and is the location of major
Curacao tourist businesses along each side of the Bay. Restricting use of cruise ship docking in the Bay
during LNG delivery will also present a restriction for the tourist business.
The March 13, 1976 Map for Sint Anna Bay and Schottegat Bay which indicates sounding depths in
meters for low tide conditions, was used to identify depths within the Harbor and narrow entrance. The
Harbor Master has indicated that the large LNG ships can be moved into the identified jetty locations
shown on the figures. These water depths will have to be confirmed to determine that adequate draft for
the LNG ships is available.


7 - 11
Figure 7.4-10 Schottegat Harbor Jetty Options

Figure 7.4-11 Schottegat LNG Terminal Facilities Site

7 - 12

The site area identified is the only location within this working Harbor that has an adequate area for
locating an LNG tank and process facility, along with the ability to maintain the required safe distance
radii for thermal and vapor dispersion zones from the LNG Terminal facility to adjacent occupied
facilities. Preliminary thermal exclusion and gas dispersion zones for the onshore LNG terminal option at
Bullen Bay (based on NFPA 59A requirements) are illustrated in Figure 7.4-12 below. The zone plots
assume a 160,000m
3
full containment LNG tank is installed. As noted from the illustration, the
Schottegat site provides adequate space to safely operate the terminal. The thermal exclusion zone
required for a single containment LNG tank, however, will be significantly larger and Shaw
Consultants anticipates that the site will not be large enough to safely accommodate a single
containment type LNG tank.
Figure 7.4-12 Schottegat Site Thermal Exclusion/Gas Dispersion Zones

Dredging in this area of the Harbor is not recommended since the bottom sediments are expected to be
contaminated and it is also located in the area of the intake for the refinery cooling water system. The
cooling water system cannot tolerate an increase in suspended solids that would occur if dredging is
required to increase water depth. Also suspected contamination of bottom sediments would be difficult to
control and prevent from entering the intake for the cooling water system.
Available site photographs for the land area defined for the proposed LNG Facility Option indicates that it
is a random fill area, with large rock blocks visible on the surface. The 1976 Map indicates that this land
area had from less than 1 m to over 4 m of water depth prior to fill placement within the present land area.
On this basis it is anticipated that from approximately 2 to 6 m of random fill may have been place at this
location.
A detailed geotechnical exploration program will be required to define the thickness of random fill at the
LNG tank and process facility locations. Only then can the type of foundation system and site preparation
requirements be defined to adequately support the LNG tank and facilities for static and seismic design

7 - 13
requirements. It is known that soft marine bottom sediments are present within the Bay, just south of this
fill area. Based on limited geologic information for this area, it is assumed that the depth to bedrock is
not deep, but the fill may still be overlying soft marine sediments that may be contaminated.
It is anticipated that general site grading, roads, parking areas and perimeter berms can be constructed on
top of the present fill, since it has been place for several years. Berm heights will be low and settlement is
anticipated to be minor. Site preparation and foundation treatment required for the LNG tank and process
facility foundation support is expected to be extensive.
The control room and other type of maintenance and support facilities will be located on the west side of
the cooling water intake water way, across from the LNG Tank and process facility.
A bridge will be required across the cooling intake canal to provide access for heavy equipment and
construction loads for installation of the LNG facility and to provide access during plant operation. The
design and construction of a heavy duty access bridge over the intake water canal is estimated to add cost
above the base development cost for development of the Schottegat Harbor LNG site.
The LNG pipeline from the LNG transport ship to the LNG tank will also require a special pipe bridge
across the intake water canal. It is anticipated that this special pipe bridge will add cost above the base
development cost for development of the Bullen Bay LNG site.
Gas pipelines from the LNG facility to the relative short and within a present industrial to the existing
power plants.
It is estimated that the site preparation and development cost to provide suitable foundation support for
critical LNG facility structures will add cost well above the base development cost for development of the
Bullen Bay LNG site. The site development cost increase for developing the Schottegat Harbor LNG site
will be offset by the cost of the gas pipeline from the Bullen Bay LNG site.
7.5 LNG FSRU OPTION
The LNG FSRU option is considered a suitable option located either at J etty No.1 of the Bullen Bay Oil
Storage Terminal or offshore using a buoy mooring system. The Schottegat site was not considered to be
viable for a LNG FSRU operation.
The location of the LNG FSRU buoy mooring system could conceivably be any location along the coast
where a convenient connection can be made to the new onshore gas sendout pipeline. A tentative
offshore location for a buoy moored facility is shown in Figure 7.5-13. This location can be revised as
may be required to minimize traffic impact for ship movement along the coast and to optimize a gas
pipeline connection to the new land based gas sendout pipeline.
The location shown in Figure 7.5-13 is such that a gas pipeline connection from the buoy can installed to
the new sendout gas pipeline that is tentatively planned from the Bullen Bay Oil Storage Terminal to the
Isla Refinery (refer to Figure 7.3-4).
The offshore site would be located approximately 1.0 to 1.5 miles offshore from Bullen Bay as illustrated
in Figure 7.5-13. The offshore site contemplates mooring the FSRU using a single point buoy or turret
type mooring system with a single gas pipeline from the offshore mooring to shore. Water depths in this
area are 300 to 400 meters. As can be seen from Figure 7.5-13, there is adequate depth to locate and moor
the FSRU in the general area shown.
This option eliminates the need to establish an onshore jetty, LNG storage tank and process facility for
offloading and processing the LNG. The shoreline in this area has rock cliff features, so further study will

7 - 14
be required to establish a suitable pipeline construction method for shoreline crossing should this option
be considered feasible. The offshore mooring and gas pipeline design will need to consider the shoreline
terraine avoiding rock cliffs, sensitive environmental reefs, fisheries, and popular local and tourist coastal
and beach areas.
Figure 7.5-13 LNG FSRU Offshore Buoy Location Near Bullen Bay

Environmental studies will be required for any of the offshore mooring and gas pipeline routing options.
Since rock can be very shallow along this coastline section, a geotechnical exploration program with
geophysical seismic profiles will be required to determine the feasibility of mooring location and the gas
pipeline routing and burial requirements. These offshore studies will be costly and require considerable
time to complete.

7 - 15
7.6 ADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES
Bullen Bay LNG Site Option
Advantages
1. Base LNG facility cost can be used for design/construction of LNG tank, process, support
facilities and protective berms.
2. Short access length for jetty redesign and upgrade for handling LNG.
3. J etty redesign and construction considered to be within base cost rate with Schottegat Bay
Option.
4. Good LNG transport ship access and depth.
5. Short LNG transfer line length from ship to tank.
6. Minimal site preparation cost.
7. Can be used for a jetty location to moor a LNG FSRU.
8. Site space available for adding a future gas fired power generation plant.
Disadvantages
1. Requires construction of a new gas sendout pipeline (8 miles long) site to Isla Refinery which
passes through and adjacent to some urban housing areas.
2. Ocean cooling water intake and discharge construction required near shoreline rock cliffs.
Schottegat Harbor Site Option
Advantages
1. Base LNG facility cost can be used for design/construction of LNG tank, process, support
facilities and protective berms.
2. Short access length for jetty redesign and upgrade for handling LNG.
3. J etty redesign and construction considered to be within base cost rate with Bullen Bay option.
4. Short sendout gas pipeline required for delivery of gas to the Curacao customers located at the
Isla Refinery.
Disadvantages
1. Higher initial base cost than Bullen Bay site.
2. Marginally meets the water depth requirements for LNG carriers at the jetty locations.
3. Poor foundation conditions with unknown random fill and possible contaminated soft marine clay
below fill.
4. Substantial geotechnical studies and costly site preparation work required to provide adequate
foundation support for critical LNG tanks, process and other operating equipment.

7 - 16
5. Heavy load capacity bridge required across cooling water intake water canal to access LNG site
area.
6. LNG pipeline crossing bridge required across cooling water intake water canal to access LNG site
area.
7. Potential dredging may be required of closest jetty site, which is not considered practical in
cooling water intake area.
8. Items 3-7 have potential to add considerable cost above base cost for LNG facility.
9. Narrow access into Harbor entrance requires clearing of all ships for access and stoppage of all
ship movement in harbor area until LNG ship is docked.
10. Cruise ships could limit harbor entrance where tourist business are located as well as other
impacts to industrial shipping.
11. Items 9 and 10 have undesirable local cost impacts to other business sectors important to
Curacao.
12. Schottegat Harbor is not considered suitable for LNG FSRU mooring location.
LNG FSRU Offshore Buoy Moored Option
Advantages
1. No jetty work required.
2. Onshore gas power plant can still be installed in Parcel A at Bullen Bay Oil Storage Terminal.
Disadvantages
1. More costly than the jetty moored LNG FSRU alternative.
2. Limited locations for establishing offshore to onshore gas pipeline route from mooring location.
3. Costly environmental and geotechnical studies will be required for offshore mooring and offshore
to onshore gas pipeline.
4. Shallow bedrock expected to increase cost for installing buried sections of offshore gas pipeline.
5. Long term operation cost is expected to be higher.
7.6 CONCLUSIONS
No site conditions were identified that would preclude installation of an LNG terminal at either Bullen
Bay or Schottegat Harbor.
The Bullen Bay option provides the best overall conditions for design and installation of an onshore LNG
terminal facility.
The Schottegat Bay site has significant issues including higher site development costs, marine traffic rules
that may hamper access for LNG carriers to reach the jetty and unload its cargo, and more public
visibility which could result in public opposition to the Curacao LNG terminal project.

7 - 17
Shaw Consultants believe that the installation of a new sendout gas pipeline from Bullen Bay to the
Curacao gas customers located at the refinery area will not have significant issues making the Bullen Bay
site the better choice.
Limitation of cruise ships and other marine terminal traffic issues for the Schottegat Harbor LNG site
make this site location unattractive. Shaw Consultants recommends that the Bullen Bay site be selected.
The offshore buoy moored LNG FSRU options presents more risks that cannot be defined without further
study due to environmental and geotechnical issues for buried offshore gas pipeline installation.
The sendout gas pipeline will require minimum soil coverage of at least 30 inches (750mm). Weathered
rock is expected to be encountered over much of the pipeline length. It is anticipated that much of the
pipeline can be installed using conventional trenching methods for weathered and fractured rock. Where
harder rock is encountered, it is anticipated that rock excavation can be achieved using backhoe mounted
hydraulic rams and conventional excavators.
Section 8 Conceptual Curacao LNG Terminal

8 - 1
8.1 OVERVIEW
As part of Shaw Consultants scope of work, a conceptual design was developed for a traditional onshore
LNG Regasification Terminal for Curacao (Terminal). The Terminal is assumed to be located in Parcel
A at the Bullen Bay site and includes all systems and equipment required for a fully functional LNG
receiving, storage, and regasification facility.
The Terminal will be equipped with a 160,000m
3
full containment LNG storage tank. Marine jetty and
LNG transfer facilities are provided at the Terminal to unload LNG carriers at a rate of 12,000m
3
/hr.
LNG ships ranging in size from 75,000m
3
to 150,000m
3
will be able to berth and unload LNG cargo at
this facility.
The Terminal is sized to meet a maximum gas sendout demand of 137 MMscfd providing gas capacity to
serve Curacaos energy demand for natural gas through 2031 assuming Aqualectra, CRUC, and Isla
Refinery convert from fuel oil to natural gas.
Interconnecting piping and the vent/flare system within the facility were sized to accommodate future
capacity expansion requiring minor pre-investment costs. The Terminal sendout gas capacity can easily
be doubled by adding LNG pumps, vaporizers (ORVs), seawater pumps, and larger capacity sendout
metering equipment.
Operation and control of the facility will be from a central control room equipped with state-of-the-art
computerized DCS control systems requiring minimal number of operating personnel to safely operate the
Terminal. Infrastructure required to operate and maintain the Terminal is provided in the design.
The Terminal will be designed and equipped with all necessary security, safety, and fire protection
systems as required to meet NFPA 59A requirements. The facilities will be designed to meet all
environmental and regulatory requirements necessary to comply with local, national, and global
standards.
The following conceptual design documents are included in the Appendix of this report:
Conceptual Design Basis (Appendix A);
Process Flow Diagrams With Heat & Material Balances (Appendix B);
Terminal Layout Drawing (Appendix C);
Major Equipment List (Appendix D);
Utility Load Summary (Appendix E); and
Project Schedule Illustrating Key Milestones (Appendix F).
Following is a brief description of the typical facilities and systems that will be included in the Terminal
design. Please refer to the process flow diagrams in Appendix B.
8.2 MARINE AND UNLOADING FACILITIES
LNG will be delivered to the terminal in 75,000 - 150,000 m
3
LNG tankers. LNG will be unloaded from
the tankers via the ship in-tank pumps through three 16" LNG Unloading Arms located on the jetty and
routed to the LNG Storage Tanks. A 16" vapor return arm will also be provided at the jetty for return of
vapor from the storage tanks to replace the LNG volume pumped from the ship. A total of 4-16 arms will
be provided including two LNG arms, one hybrid LNG/vapor return, and one vapor return. All four

8 - 2
cryogenic arms are of identical design. A removable spool piece will be provided to allow one arm to be
used as vapor return arm.
Each arm is provided with a bolted flange coupler and a PERC (Powered Emergency Release System).
The PERC provides a spill free break between the tanker and the shore in the event of an emergency
disconnection. It is comprised of a break flange connection between two ball valves at the tanker end of
the unloading arm. In the event of disconnection, the ball valves close rapidly and the break flange
connection parts.
LNG discharged from the LNG unloading arms will be carried in one 36" vacuum jacket insulated
transfer line from the jetty to the LNG storage tank. The LNG transfer line will be provided with
cryogenic internal bellows to compensate thermal contraction due for the cryogenic temperature of the
LNG. Vacuum insulated pipe does not require the bulky thermal expansion loops and therefore reduces
the cost of the jetty and pipe supports. At the design unloading rate of 12,000 m
3
/hr, the largest ship can
be unloaded in approximately 11 to 13 hours.
A 3 chill-down recycle line (vacuum jacket insulated) will be provided from the In-Tank LNG Pump
discharge header to the unloading jetty to provide LNG circulation to maintained cryogenic temperatures
in the LNG transfer line during periods when a ship is not offloading cargo.
At the beginning of unloading, the liquid arms must be cooled down using LNG from the ship. This is
done by starting one pump on the ship and utilizing the 2" bypasses provided around the isolation valves
at the base of the unloading arms. Once the arms have cooled down, more pumps can be started and the
isolation valves can be opened fully to unload LNG at the design rate. At the end of the unloading
operation the liquid unloading arms must be drained. With the unloading arm isolation valve closed on
the jetty, the LNG is drained to the LNG tanker using nitrogen pressure. With the tanker isolation valve
closed the remaining LNG is gravity drained to the LNG Drain Drum (V-2). Nitrogen pressure is
available to assist the draining operation, if required. LNG in the drain drum is pumped into the LNG
unloading lines by a small pot-mounted LNG pump (P-3A/B).
The 36 LNG unloading line carry the LNG from the LNG Dock to the LNG Storage Tank (TK-1) over a
length of approximately 1,050 feet. The LNG transfer line will be vacuum jacket insulated and the pipe
material will be Stainless Steel ASTM 304L.
No ship bunkering facilities will be provided at the Curacao marine terminal. Neither ship stores supply,
ship fresh water supply, ship bilge water handling, nor ship sewage disposal will be provided at the
marine terminal.
Secured access between the Terminal and the marine facilities will be provided for Terminal personnel.
A separate controlled entry/departure point to the marine facilities that complies with Curacao Port
Authority and immigrations control requirements will be provided for ship personnel and services so that
access through the Terminal is avoided.
8.3 LNG STORAGE
One LNG Storage Tank (TK-1) will be provided. The tank will be a nominal 160,000m3 full
containment type design and will hold a net volume of approximately 153,800m
3
(minimum to
maximum level). The tank is above ground, double walled construction by API 620 Appendix Q
definition, with the two walls separated by insulation material. The tank meet "Double Containment"
design as defined by EEMUA 147. The inner tank is made of 9% nickel steel and the outer tank is made
of pre-stressed concrete with a carbon steel plate roof.

8 - 3
All connections to the tank are through the roof. There are no penetrations through the sides or the bottom
of the tank. This configuration is made possible by use of submerged In-Tank LNG Pumps (P-1 A/B) for
LNG sendout. The tank is provided with both top and bottom filling connections to alleviate the
possibility of roll-over conditions. Multiple temperature detectors will be furnished in the wall and the
floor of the storage tank to monitor the temperature profile. A density monitoring system will be provided
to detect stratification and potential roll-over conditions. The tank will be equipped with independent
level transmitters, to protect against overfilling during unloading. A high-high level, if detected by the
level instruments, will lead to closing of the inlet valve delivering LNG to the tank. The tank will also be
provided with overpressure and vacuum relief valves.
The design pressure of the LNG storage tank will be 2.8 psig (190 mbarg). The tank will generally
operate in a pressure range of 0.7 to 2.0 psig (50 to 140 mbarg). The pressure in the tank will be
maintained by sending gas to the boil-off gas compressor system. During upset situations the BOG will be
vented to the flare/vent system. If the pressure drops to 0.6 psig (40 mbarg), the BOG compressors (K-2
A/B/C) will be stopped, and at 0.45 psig (30 mbarg) the vacuum break gas will be introduced into the
tanks to avoid lifting the vacuum relief valve. If the pressure continues to drop, at -0.22 psig (-15 mbarg)
the vacuum breaker introduces atmospheric air into the tank. If the pressure goes above 2.2 psig
(150 mbarg), the standby BOG compressor will start. If the pressure continues to rise, at 2.5 psig
(170 mbarg) the flare control valve opens to send gas to the flare/vent system. If the pressure rises above
2.8 psig (190 mbarg), the pressure safety valves release gas to the atmosphere from the tank top. The
maximum estimated boil-off gas from the LNG storage tank inventory is 0.05% of the tank volume per
day.
The storage tank contains two submerged motor low pressure send-out pumps. Each pump is designed for
100% of the required design sendout capacity. To meet the 137 MMscfd of natural gas sendout capacity
from the Terminal, one pump is required and one pump is for standby. These pumps serve the following
functions:
LNG send-out;
Circulation of the LNG in the unloading line system from the tank area to the dock and back;
Condensation of boil-off gas; and
Re-circulation of the tank inventory, if required to prevent roll-over conditions.
8.4 BOG AND SHIP VAPOR RETURN SYSTEM
At atmospheric pressure LNG boils at about 256 F. BOG is continuously generated in the tanks due to
the following reasons:
Heat leak from the atmosphere through the insulation in the tanks and the unloading/re-
circulation lines;
Electrical energy supplied to the LNG tanker pumps;
Electrical energy supplied to the send-out pumps;
A small quantity of BOG is also generated when the barometric pressure decreases; and
Displacement of gas from the storage tanks during ship unloading.

8 - 4
BOG Compression
The BOG quantity created during unloading operation is significantly larger than that created during
normal sendout operations.
The BOG handling system will be designed for these vastly different quantities and is comprised of the
following elements:
Three BOG compressors ( Two equal size small compressors one operating and one standby for
normal operation and large compressor for unloading operation);
Ship Vapor Return Blower system;
BOG Condenser;
BOG Pipeline Compressor; and
Flare/Vent System.
The BOG from the tank is sent to the BOG compressors. LNG injection spray is provided at inlet of BOG
Compressor Suction Drum (V-3) to reduce the temperature of BOG from tank. The discharge of the Small
BOG Compressors (K-1A/B) is normally directed to the BOG Condenser or, if fuel gas is required for the
Heat Medium Heaters (HTR-1A/B), it is partially directed to the fuel gas heater and the fuel gas
distribution system.
The BOG Pipeline Compressor (K-3) is provided to compress the BOG generated during normal
operation for low gas sendout scenarios and during ship unloading operations when all of the BOG cannot
be recondensed by the BOG Condenser (V-1). The BOG Pipeline Compressor takes suction from the
Small and Large BOG Compressor discharge and compresses the gas to the pipeline sendout pressure of
800 psig at the battery limit. The BOG flow rate is higher, when the tank is operated at the lower end of
the pressure range due to the larger amount of flashed vapor.
LNG Unloading Operation
During the unloading operation BOG is displaced from the LNG storage tank and the Ship Vapor Return
Blower is used to return cold BOG to the ship, this gas replaces the volume of the liquid pumped out by
the ship pumps. The vapor return rate is volumetrically equivalent to the unloading rate of 12,000m
3
/hr to
maintain pressure in the ship tanks. A 12 vacuum jacket insulated line fabricated from 304L stainless
steel is provided for vapor return to the ship. The ship can only accept LNG vapors at -220 F or colder.
The BOG is compressed and returned to ship. In order to insure required cooldown of return vapors to
ship, LNG injection spray into the vapor return stream is provided at jetty upstream of LNG drain drum.
8.5 LNG PUMPS, BOG CONDENSER, AND LNG SENDOUT SYSTEM
LNG is first pumped out from the storage tank to the BOG Condenser (V-1). The pumps are of the
submerged in-tank type with the motor and pump mounted as one enclosed unit in wells installed inside
the tank. Two such cryogenic pumps (In-Tank LNG Pumps P-1A/B) will be installed in the tank. LNG
from the In-Tank LNG Pumps is sent to the BOG Condenser (V-1).
The BOG compressor (K-2 A/B/C) discharge is fed to the BOG Condenser where it is condensed back
into the main LNG sendout stream. The BOG Condenser has a packed section on the top of the
horizontal drum at the bottom. The horizontal drum provides surge volume to the LNG Sendout Pumps
(P-2A/B).

8 - 5
BOG enters at the bottom of the packed bed, to be absorbed into the LNG sendout liquid in the packed
section of the vessel. LNG from the sendout pumps is divided into two parts, one entering the top of the
packed bed under flow control, through a liquid distributor ring and the other entering the top of the
horizontal drum, under level control. The flow controller feeding LNG to the top is in cascade pressure
control and is automatically adjusted as required to maintain pressure control on the BOG Condenser
assuring an equilibrium balance required to totally condense the BOG. This is the primary pressure
control circuit is set to maintain 100 psig. If all of the BOG cannot be condensed under the primary
control circuit, the pressure on the BOG Condenser will start to increase. If the BOG Condenser pressure
reaches 10 psig above the primary pressure control set point, a secondary pressure controller assume
control. A control valve on the vapor overhead line leaving the BOG Condenser is provided which will
be throttled by the secondary pressure controller to release uncondensed BOG from the BOG Condenser
as required to maintain pressure at the secondary pressure set point of 110 psig. When BOG cannot be
totally condensed in the BOG Condenser, the BOG Pipeline Compressor must be started to compress the
uncondensed BOG to 800 psig and deliver it for pipeline sendout. Otherwise, the excess BOG will be
flared/vented.
The LNG Sendout Pumps (P-2A/B) take liquid from the bottom of the BOG Condenser surge drum and
boost the pressure to 820 psig. These pumps are 2-100% multi-stage LNG pot mounted pumps.
Discharge from the LNG Sendout Pumps is routed to the LNG Vaporization System.
8.6 LNG VAPORIZATION SYSTEM
In the Curacao LNG Terminal, seawater will provide the heat to vaporize LNG using traditional Open
Rack Vaporizers (E-1A/B). The ORV data sheet furnished by Kobe Steel is shown in Table 8.6-1.
Table 8.6-1 Curacao ORV Performance Data Sheet

8 - 6
Two 100% ORVs are provided in the design each rated for 78.34 MMBtu/Hr (22.96 MW). Kobe Steel,
one of the largest manufacturers of open rack vaporizers, was requested to provide a preliminary design
for the Curacao ORV units.
Seawater enters the top of the ORV under flow control at a temperature of 78
o
F (25.6
o
C) and is uniformly
distributed over the five heat exchange panels. LNG is fed into the ORV panels from the bottom at a
temperature of approximately -192
o
F (-124
o
C). As seawater flows down the outside of the panels, the
LNG is vaporized and natural gas exits from the top of the ORV panels at a temperature of approximately
40
o
F (4.4
o
C).
This cool temperature creates a need for a superheater to raise the gas temperature to 60F before sending
it to the pipeline. This is accomplished by the two 100% Sendout Gas Superheaters (E-2A/B). These
exchangers are a conventional shell and tube design and are heated by a separate Heating Medium (HM)
circulation system which circulates a water/glycol solution through two 100% direct gas fired HM
Heaters (HTR-1A/B) and returns it hot to the heat exchanger units.
8.7 GAS SENDOUT SYSTEM
After superheating, the sendout gas then passes through the Terminal gas metering station where the flow
is recorded before entering the pipeline system. An automated gas sampler is provided to collect and
measure the heating value of the gas for use in monthly custody transfer accounting.
The natural gas is transported in the Curacao sendout pipeline and delivered to the meter station at each
respective gas customer. The sendout system has a robust design pressure rated to ANSI 600 pressure
class (1,440 psig). At the peak sendout rate of 137 MMscfd of gas, the calculated inlet pressure to the
pipeline is 780 psig.
Pressure control of the pipeline is achieved by controlling the LNG flow feeding the Vaporization System
with cascade reset of the LNG flow set point being automatically adjusted by the Terminal gas pressure
control unit which monitors the sendout gas pressure to the pipeline.
8.8 OPERATIONS CONTROL SYSTEM
Operations control and shutdown of the Terminal facilities will be conducted from a Central Control
Room (CCR) located at the Terminal site. The Terminal will incorporate world class integrated control
and safety systems (ICSS) and an information management system that will provide the capability to
operate the facility safely, reliably, and at optimum operating conditions at all times. Multiple operator
consoles will be provided in the CCR for monitoring and controlling Plant operations. Graphical display
of the process flow and operating conditions will be provided from the operator interface consoles. This
system will maximize the use of automation to the extent economically justified and minimize local
manual control and the need for operator intervention. It will include interfaces to a comprehensive suite
of applications for use in monitoring, reporting, troubleshooting, planning, accounting, communicating,
etc. The systems will be completely functional for initial facility start-up and will enable the Terminal
operator to achieve its objectives for the entire life of the facilities. The operations control system and the
CCR are designed for easy integration if the Terminal capacity is expanded.
Key objectives of the operating and control design philosophy are as follows:
Safety of personnel;
Protection of the environment;
Remote monitoring and diagnosis of the facility and equipment;

8 - 7
Start-up and shutdown of all LNG Plant facilities from the CCR;
Maximum use of automation as practicable; and
Independent design of the telecommunications system for ship-to-shore communications, LNG
unloading activities, Terminal operations and sendout pipeline control.
Operation will be completely automated with separate control and shutdown systems. The Terminal will
control the total delivery rate for the pipeline based upon pipeline operating pressure and customer
demand. The facility will operate as an integrated system including the Terminal and sendout pipeline
facilities.
8.9 UTILITY SYSTEMS
Process Heating Medium System
A process Heating Medium System (HM) will be provided to service the process utility heating
requirements. The heat transfer fluid will be 30 wt% ethylene glycol aqueous solution used in the closed
loop system. Operating conditions for the HM are as follows:
Hot Supply Temperature: 180F
Hot Supply Pressure: 55 psig
The equipment comprising the HM System includes:
1x100% HM Surge Drum (V-5)
2x100% HM Circulation Pumps (P-5A/B)
1x100% HM Storage Tank (TK-2)
1x100% HM Transfer/Unloading Pump (P-6)
2x100% Slip stream HM 5 micron Filters (F-1A/B)
2x100% Direct Fired HM Heaters (HTR-1A/B)
Seawater System
A Seawater System will be provided to supply seawater to the LNG Open Rack Vaporizers.
Three 50% Seawater Pumps (P-7A/B/C) will be installed on the jetty platform. These pumps will be a
vertical can pump design driven by a top mounted electric motor. Minimum flow control protection will
be provided.
Large self-cleaning seawater intake screen will be provided surrounding the pump inlets. The screens
will be designed to meet environmental criteria to prevent small sea life and other biological materials
from entering the Seawater System. Velocity through the screens will be limited to 0.5 feet/second. A
manual filter screen trap will also be installed at the discharge side of each Seawater Pump.
A hypochlorite unit will be provided to chlorinate the seawater which prevents the growth of algae and
other biological life forms within the system. Chlorination injection points will be provided at the suction
of each Seawater Pump and at the ORVs for shock chlorination. Chlorination concentrations will be
controlled to comply with the environmental regulations.

8 - 8
Warm seawater is supplied by the pumps at a pressure of 50 psig and flows to the ORV units. Cool
seawater exits from the bottom collection basin of the ORV at a temperature of approximately 65
o
F
(18.3
o
C) and flows by gravity to the seawater outflow discharge back into the sea. The seawater outflow
discharge pipe returns will be designed to discharge the cool seawater at a subsea depth of approximately
250m where the ambient seawater temperature is approximately equal to the seawater effluent discharge
temperature. Environmental regulation guidelines for thermal discharge require that the temperature at
the edge of the thermal mixing zone (defined to be 100m from the point of discharge) be within +/-3
o
C of
the natural ambient temperature. A site specific EIAS will need to be prepared to validate compliance
with environmental regulation guidelines.
Pressure Relief and Flare/Vent Systems
Flares/Vents will be sized for the maximum credible relief scenario. The following flare systems are
provided:
HP flare/vent designed for dry and cold vapor and blowdown; and
LNG marine/storage flare/vent designed for low pressure boil-off gas from the storage and jetty.
Flare/Vent systems will be designed for long term reliable operation from the minimum to the maximum
flaring/venting rate. Flared/Vented gas will be metered to support environmental reporting requirements.
Design of the flare/vent stacks should make allowance for a solar radiation contribution of 0.8 kW/m
2
.
The flare/vent tips will be located such that the radiation limits specified in API RP 520 and API RP 521
are not exceeded. Radiation level from the flares/vents will be limited to the following maximum radiant
heat exposure criteria:
Base of flare/vent stack 9.46 W/m
2

Sterile area boundary 6.31 W/m
2

Flare/Vent knock-out drum 4.73 W/m
2

Nearest process equipment limit 3.15 W/m
2

Areas where operators work continuously 1.58 W/m
2

The HP flare/vent stack will be an elevated derrick supported structure. All flare/vent stacks will be
retractable type that provides flexibility to lower down tips for maintenance. The HP flare/vent system
will be designed to accommodate future expansion.
The HP flare/vent system design will also facilitate controlled depressurisation of the sendout pipeline
and pig launcher.
A mechanical interlock PSV valve locking system (uniquely keyed) will be installed for pressure relief
services equipped with multiple PSVs to ensure clear indication to operating personnel that an adequate
number of PSVs are on-line.
Fuel Gas System
The Fuel Gas Supply System will be designed in combination with all consumers to enable all possible
fuel gas composition changes due to operational upsets to be effectively managed without resultant loss of
consumers. Fuel gas heaters will be provided for both cold start and normal operation.

8 - 9
The Fuel Gas System provides gas for the HM Heaters as well as blanket gas and purge gas for to the
flare headers. Where possible, blanketing gas/pad gas uses nitrogen rather than fuel gas. The required
minimum fuel gas pressure is 30 psig.
For startup, fuel gas is provided from the BOG system. Since electrical power will be supplied from the
Aqualectra power grid, BOG compressors (driven by electric motors) will be operable for cold start.
Utility and Instrument Air System
Compressed air will be provided to supply utility air and to feed the instrument air-dryer package for the
production of instrument air and nitrogen for the Terminal. Compressed air will be supplied from two
electric motor driven air compressor packages, each of which is capable of supplying 100% of the total air
required for the Terminal. All compressors will supply oil-free air.
Utility Air will meet the following specifications:
Pressure 140 psig
Maximum Temperature 130F
Instrument quality air will be produced by an instrument air-dryer package (2 x 100% packages).
Instrument Air will meet the following specifications:
Normal Pressure 125 psig
Minimum Pressure 85 psig
Maximum Dew point -40F
The Instrument Air Receiver and Plant Air Receiver will be sized to provide a minimum of 15 minutes of
surge capacity between the normal and minimum operating pressures based on the design air flow rates
including design margin. Compressed air prioritization and secured instrument air supplies shall be
implemented to maximize instrument air availability.
Nitrogen System
A nitrogen generating system will be furnished to supply the nitrogen requirement for the equipment
purging, pad gas, compressor gas seal, blanketing, inerting and additional requirements during shutdown
and turnarounds.
The primary system (a membrane-type, or equal) will use instrument air for nitrogen generation, and shall
contain multiple membrane units such that one individual membrane unit can be removed from service
while the balance of the membranes continue to supply nitrogen at the full design rate. Nitrogen
produced will meet the following specifications:
Supply pressure 110 psig
Maximum Oxygen Content 1.5% - 4%
Minimum Nitrogen Content 96% - 98.5%
Oil & Hydrocarbon Content None
Maximum Water Content 30 ppmv

8 - 10
The nitrogen generating system uses dehydrated instrument air as feed gas. The instrument air is from an
instrument air-dryer package that continuously delivers -40F dew point air at normal operating pressure.
Using the dried instrument air as the feed to the nitrogen generator ensures that the nitrogen produced is
sufficiently dry for the various applications and operations within the LNG Plant.
A secondary (back-up) liquid nitrogen system may be provided, designed to furnish the nitrogen
requirements for startup purging.
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater generated from the operation of the Terminal will include sanitary sewage, oily storm water,
process oily water and clean storm water runoff. The collection, treatment, reuse and/or discharge of the
wastewater shall be designed to meet the effluent discharge limits established by the regulatory authority.
Bulk Storage
HM storage (ethylene glycol/water solution) will be sized based on 6 months of average HM losses,
considering that the volume of the standard delivery container is 20 m
3
.
Diesel fuel will be stored on site for supply to diesel engine driven equipment including the firewater
pumps and the emergency generator. Storage volume shall be sized to hold the volume from one large
road tankers (34 m
3
capacity).
Storage for other miscellaneous bulk chemicals required in operating the facility such as lube oil will be
provided.
Electric Power Supply and Distribution
Primary electric power required during the construction and operational phases of the project will be
supplied from Aqualectras power grid. The maximum peak power demand for the Terminal will be
approximately 5,250kW when a ship is unloading. During normal operations, power demand will be
approximately 1,800kW. The electrical power distribution will be supplied at the voltages and frequency
listed in Table 8.9-2.
Table 8.9-2 Electrical Power Distribution
Service Voltage Phase
Frequency
(Hz)
Medium Voltage Power 6.6 kV
11 kV
3
3
50
50
Low Voltage Power 220 V
380 V
1
3
50
50
Emergency power will be supplied from a diesel driven Emergency Generator to be installed at the
Terminal. The calculated emergency power load is approximately 625kW. The critical services that are
included in the emergency power load are shown in Table 8.9-3.
An uninterruptible power supply (UPS) will be installed to provide a reliable source of power for:
Critical instrumentation and control;
Security;
The telecommunication systems;
Fire and gas detection;

8 - 11
ESD systems; and
Emergency lighting.
The batteries for all of the UPS systems will be sized based on supplying the rated load of the UPS for a
minimum of 30 minutes.

Table 8.9-3 Emergency Power Distribution
Frequency
(Hz) kW
Instrument Air Package 380V 3 50 75
J ockey Water Pump 220V 3 50 2
Large Stormwater Sump Pump 380V 3 50 105
Small Stormwater Sump Pump 380V 3 50 10
Unloading Platform 220V/110V 1 50 20
Control Room 220V/110V 1 50 36
Office 220V/110V 1 50 36
Workshop/Warehouse/Lab 220V/110V 1 50 96
Terminal & J etty Lighting 220V 1 50 200
MCC Building 220V/110V 1 50 36
Guard House 220V/110V 1 50 9
Total Emergency Load 625
Lightning protection and transient over-voltage will be provided in accordance with applicable codes and
standards.
Water Supply Systems
There is no identified source of ground or well water available at the Terminal site. Water supply to the
Terminal will be required for wash water, potable water and sanitary use. Additional information must be
gathered to determine the best method for supplying water to the Terminal. Aqualectra may currently
have water supply sources currently available at the existing Bullen Bay Oil Terminal Facility which can
be tapped into for use at the LNG Terminal.
8.10 SAFETY SYSTEMS
Fire Protection System
The fire protection system will comprise a combination of passive techniques and active techniques.
Passive fire protection functions without relying on external intervention and is implemented where
immediate protection is required. Passive protection operates only for a limited period of time. In case of
a long duration fire, active fire protection and fire-fighting must also be deployed. The design of the
active fire protection system is based on the assumptions that (i) there will be only one major fire at any
one time and fires will not occur simultaneously at different places within the facility, and (ii) external
fire-fighting resources are not available in case of an emergency within the premises.
The system will be designed around maximum use of fixed fire-fighting systems such as water spray
systems, which do not require fire-fighting vehicles or trained personnel for water or foam solution

8 - 12
supply. In addition to the facility fire water system described previously, additional fixed and portable
fire-fighting equipment is provided at identified potential hazards. The Marine Terminal Control Shelter
at the jetty which is remote from the main facility will be provided with a fixed clean agent fire
extinguishing system, as are any sub-floors in local MCC rooms that cannot be quickly accessed.
The overall arrangement for the firewater system will provide deluge systems in selected areas, remote
controlled fire monitors, and fire hydrants. A firewater ring main will cover the Terminal vaporization
and sendout facilities, the LNG storage area, marine jetty facilities, and infrastructure buildings. A
firewater storage tank will be provided with a total combined capacity for 8 hours of firewater supply.
Two 100% percent freshwater main firewater pumps (diesel) rated at 5,000 gpm each will be provided
along with two 100% freshwater jockey pumps. In case of a prolonged incident where the firewater
requirement exceeds the storage capacity, an auxiliary firewater connection is provided at the jetty for
external seawater supply from fire fighting marine vessels. All main firewater pumps will have the
capability of being automatically started upon low ring main pressure and manually by switches for each
pump located local to the pump and in the control room. Portable foam units located on the jetty and
around the Terminal will be used to control spills and fires in LNG spill containment areas (at the LNG
storage area, LNG loading platform, and spill containment sumps).
Portable fire extinguishers will also be located strategically throughout the facility. A Terminal fire truck
will be provided for response to incipient fires and grass fires.
Fire and Gas Detection System
A fire and gas detection system (F&G system) will be provided to continuous monitor and alert personnel
when fire, smoke or gas release is detected. The function of the F&G system will be to:
Detect the presence of fire or loss of containment of flammable gas and the ingress of smoke or
flammable gas into areas where it may present a hazard;
Allow manual alarm initiation by personnel throughout the installation by means of manual alarm
call points;
Alert the central control room of any fire or flammable gas leak;
Give local warning alarm to the specific area/building where the alarm initiating device(s) is
activated; and
Provide a plant-wide warning alarm upon confirmed fire or gas alarm.
In general, the F&G system raises alarms only, rather than directly initiating executive actions.
Automatic activation of fire protection systems is determined on an individual basis.
Emergency Shutdown System
The Emergency Shutdown System (ESD) will be designed to provide for the protection of personnel,
environment, and equipment by providing the safe shutdown of the Plant and/or process equipment
during a hazardous event. Shutdown, isolation of process inventories into manageable volumes and
depressuring will be used to manage and limit escalation of any event.

8 - 13
Emergency Evacuation
The plot plan and layout will be designed to ensure adequate emergency escape routes. A minimum of
two evacuation routes must be provided for pipe racks, structures, and major access platforms. Escape
routes of all buildings will be designed in accordance with NFPA 59A.
LNG Spill Impoundment System
NFPA 59 A (2009 Edition) section 5.3.2.1 specifies that each impounding system serving an LNG storage
tank must have a minimum volumetric liquid capacity of 110 percent of the LNG tanks maximum design
liquid capacity for an impoundment serving a single tank. This design for the Curacao Terminal proposes
to use a full containment LNG storage tank in which the outer tank wall serves as the impoundment
system. The volumetric capacity of the outer concrete wall will exceed the 110% percent requirement.
The process area impoundment basin will be located in the process area, and spills from the LNG tanks,
process area equipment, and portions of the unloading line will be routed to the process area
impoundment basin by a series of collection troughs. An impoundment basin will not be required for the
LNG transfer lines and jetty since vacuum jacketed insulated pipe will be used. The outer wall of the
vacuum jacketed insulated LNG transfer line will serve as the secondary containment in the event of
failure of the inner pipe. Both the inner pipe and outer pipe of the vacuum jacket insulated pipe will be
fabricated from 304L stainless steel and will therefore have a minimum design temperature rating well
below the LNG temperature. Both the Darwin and Freeport LNG facilities have used vacuum jacketed
insulated pipe with excellent results and no issues.
The impoundment basin in the process area will be sized for a design spill rate based on Section 5.3
NFPA 59A (2009 Edition). A spill of a 10-minute duration at the design spill rate will define the volume
required for the process area impoundment sump. This volume is relatively small. The maximum LNG
sendout rate to the BOG Condenser and LNG Vaporization system is 250m
3
/hr. A 10-minutes spill
would result in a required impoundment volume of approximately 41m
3
. The approximate dimensions of
the process LNG impoundment sump would be approximately 12x12 and approximately 10 deep.
The proposed terminal would also be designed to provide drainage of water to disposal areas in
accordance with NFPA 59 A (2009 Edition) section 5.3.2. Drainage and disposal of water would be
accomplished by a series of ditches and swales. Water that is collected within the curbed LNG
containment areas would be directed by gravity to the LNG impoundment trenches and eventually to the
impoundment basin. Stormwater pumps in the impoundment basins would remove the water at a rate
equal to or greater than 25% percent of the 10-year frequency, one-hour duration storm. The pumps
would discharge the water into the Terminal storm drainage system. The stormwater pumps would be
automatically operated via level control and would be interlocked using low temperature detectors to
prevent the pumps from operating if LNG would be present.
LNG Hazards
LNGs principal hazards result from its cryogenic temperature (-260F), flammability, and vapor
dispersion characteristics. As a liquid, LNG will neither burn nor explode. Although it can cause freeze
burns and, depending on the length of exposure, more serious injury or death, its extremely cold state
does not present a significant hazard to the public, which rarely, if ever, comes in contact with it as a
liquid. As a cryogenic liquid, LNG will quickly cool materials it contacts, causing extreme thermal stress
in materials not specifically designed for such conditions. These thermal stresses could subsequently
subject the material to brittleness, fracture, or other loss of tensile strength. These hazards, however, are
not substantially different from the hazards associated with the storage and transportation of liquid

8 - 14
oxygen (-296F) or several other cryogenic gases that have been routinely produced and transported in
world trade.
LNG vaporizes rapidly when exposed to ambient heat sources such as water or soil. When released from
its containment carrier and/or transfer system, LNG will generally produce approximately 600 standard
cubic feet of natural gas for each cubic foot of liquid. A large quantity of LNG spilled without ignition
would form a vapor cloud that would travel with the prevailing wind until it either dispersed below the
flammable limits or encountered an ignition source. If a large quantity of LNG is spilled in the presence
of an ignition source, the resulting pool fire would produce high levels of radiant heat in the area
surrounding the LNG pool.
A rapid phase transition (RPT) can occur when a portion of LNG spilled onto water changes from liquid
to gas, virtually instantaneously. Unlike an explosion that releases energy and combustion products from
a chemical reaction, an RPT is the result of heat transferred to the liquid inducing a change to the vapor
state. The rapid expansion from the liquid to vapor state can cause locally large overpressures. RPTs
have been observed during LNG test spills onto water. In some test cases, the events were strong enough
to damage test equipment in the immediate vicinity of the LNG release point. The sizes of the
overpressure events have been generally small and are estimated to be equivalent to several pounds of
trinitrotoluene (TNT).
Although such a small overpressure is not expected to cause significant damage to an LNG carrier, the
RPT may increase the rate of LNG pool spreading and the LNG vaporization rate for a spill on water.
Methane vapors, the primary component of natural gas, are colorless, odorless and tasteless, and are
classified as a simple asphyxiant. Methane vapors may cause extreme health hazards, including death, if
inhaled in significant quantities within a limited time. Although very cold methane vapors may cause
freeze burns, any cloud resulting from an LNG spill would be continuously mixing with the warmer air
surrounding the spill site. Dispersion modeling indicates the majority of the cloud would generally be
within 25F of the surrounding atmospheric temperature, with colder temperatures closest to the spill
source. In addition, this modeling estimates that most of the cloud would be below concentrations
resulting in oxygen deprivation effects, including asphyxiation, with the highest methane concentrations
closest to the spill source. Therefore, asphyxiation and freezing normally represent a negligible risk to the
public from LNG facilities.
Although LNG will not burn, methane vapors in a 5% to 15% mixture by volume with air are flammable.
Once a flammable vapor-air mixture from an LNG spill has been ignited, the flame front will propagate
back to the spill site if the vapor concentration along this path is sufficiently high to support the
combustion process. Combustible materials within the flammable portion of the cloud may be within the
flame and could be ignited. However, any events leading to a containment failure would most likely be
accompanied by a number of ignition sources. The result would be an LNG pool fire, and subsequent
radiant heat hazards, rather than the formation of a large unconfined vapor cloud.
Although, LNG is not explosive as it is normally transported and stored, natural gas vapors (primarily
methane) can explode if contained within a confined space, such as a building or structure, and ignited.
Occasionally, various parties have expressed the energy content of an LNG storage tank or LNG carrier in
equivalent tons of TNT, as an implied measure of explosive potential. However, such a simplistic analogy
fails to consider that explosive forces are not just a function of the total energy content but also of the rate
of energy release. For a detonation to occur, the rate of energy release must be nearly instantaneous, such
as with a TNT charge initiated by a blasting cap. Unlike TNT or other explosives which inherently
contain an oxidizer, an unconfined vapor cloud must be mixed with oxygen within the flammability range
of the fuel for combustion to occur. For a large unconfined vapor cloud, the flammability range tends to

8 - 15
exist at the mixing zone at the edges of the cloud. When ignited, flame speeds about 20 to 25 meters per
second (66 to 82 feet per second) and local over pressures up to 0.2 psig have been estimated for
unconfined methane-rich vapor clouds. These are well below the flame speeds and over pressures
associated with detonation.
The potential for unconfined LNG vapor cloud detonations was investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard in
the late 1970s at the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, California. These experiments, as well as
other subsequent tests, are mentioned in Appendix C of the Sandia National Laboratories report entitled,
Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over
Water, December 2004 (2004 Sandia Report). Using methane, the primary component of natural gas,
several experiments were conducted to determine if unconfined vapor clouds would detonate. The tests
indicated unconfined methane-air mixtures could be ignited, but no test produced unconfined detonation.
There is no evidence suggesting that methane-air mixtures will detonate in unconfined open areas.
Further tests were conducted in the late 1970s to examine the level of sensitivity of an unconfined cloud
to the presence of heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane and propane. As stated in Section 5 of Appendix
C of the 2004 Sandia Report, detonation sensitivity is affected by the level of refinement of natural gas
stored as LNG. The series of tests on ambient-temperature fuel mixtures of methane-ethane and methane-
propane indicated that the addition of heavier hydrocarbons influenced the tendency of an unconfined
vapor cloud to detonate. Less processed product with greater amounts of heavier hydrocarbons is more
sensitive to detonation. During these experiments, all successful detonations were initiated with an
explosive charge in well mixed vapor clouds at correct stoichiometric proportions. These are not
representative of conditions which would be expected during a large-scale LNG spill. The precise timing,
necessary mixing, and required amount of initiating explosives render the possibility for detonation of a
large unconfined vapor cloud as unrealistic. Detonation of the unconfined natural gas cloud is extremely
difficult to achieve and is generally considered by scientists and researchers to be very unlikely to occur
during an LNG spill.
Consequently, the primary hazards to the public from an LNG spill either on land or water would be from
dispersion of the flammable vapors or from radiant heat generated by a pool fire.
Thermal Exclusion Zone
If a large quantity of LNG is spilled in the presence of an ignition source, the resulting LNG pool fire
could cause high levels of radiant heat in the area surrounding the impoundment. Exclusion distances for
various flux levels will need to be calculated during FEED according to NFPA 59A (2009 Edition)
section 5.3.3 using available software models such as the "LNGFIRE III" computer program model
developed by the Gas Research Institute. NFPA 59A establishes certain atmospheric conditions (0 mph
wind speed, 70F, and 50 percent relative humidity), which are to be used in calculating the distances.
However, Part 193.2057 supersedes these requirements and stipulates that wind speed, ambient
temperature, and relative humidity which produce the maximum exclusion distances must be used, except
for conditions that occur less than 5% of the time based on recorded data for the area.
Based on preliminary estimates, Shaw Consultants concluded that the thermal exclusion zone from a fire
centered at the LNG storage tank would present no issues based on the size of Parcel A and the proposed
location of the LNG tank assuming that a full containment type tank is installed. However, rigorous
thermal exclusion zone calculations have not been performed. Thermal exclusion zones will need to be
confirmed by rigorous calculations in subsequent design work.

8 - 16
Vapor Dispersion Zone
A large quantity of LNG spilled without ignition would form a flammable vapor cloud that would travel
with the prevailing wind until it either dispersed below the flammable limits or encountered an ignition
source. Sections 5.3.3.6 of NFPA 59A (2009 Edition) require that provisions be made to minimize the
possibility of flammable vapors reaching a property line that can be built upon and that would result in a
distinct hazard. Code requires that dispersion distances be calculated for a 2.5% average gas concentration
(one-half the lower flammability limit [LFL] of LNG vapor) under meteorological conditions which result
in the longest downwind distances at least 90% of the time. Alternatively, maximum downwind distances
may be estimated for stability Class F, a wind speed of 4.5 mph, 50% relative humidity, and the average
regional temperature. The section allows the use of the DEGADIS (Dense Gas Dispersion) Model, or the
FEM3A model, to compute dispersion distances. Design spills into impounding areas serving LNG
containers, transfer systems, and piping are to be determined in accordance with Table 5.3.3.7 of NFPA
59A (2009 Edition). In accordance with the code, an average concentration of methane in air of one-half
of the LFL cannot cross the property line from a design spill into the tank impoundment.
Based on preliminary estimates, Shaw Consultants concluded that the vapor dispersion zones around the
spill impoundment sumps as located in the layout will meet these requirements. However, rigorous vapor
dispersion calculations have not been performed. Vapor dispersion zones will need to be confirmed by
rigorous calculations in subsequent design work.
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) Study
A HAZOP will need to been performed during FEED for each of the systems that comprise the Terminal
facility. A full QRA study will need to be completed during detail design.
8.11 SECURITY SYSTEMS
The Terminal will have an 8-foot high security fence surrounding the facility. Access to the facility will
be controlled by guarded entry. Video security cameras will be provided at key locations to allow the
security guard to monitor the Terminal from the guard access building. Display from the security
cameras will also be provided in the central control room. Lighting will be provided through out the
Terminal and at the marine jetty facilities.
8.12 BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The following infrastructure will be provided at the Terminal:
Office/Central Control Room Building with Employee Parking;
Parking Area for J etty;
Work Shop/Warehouse/Lab Building;
MCC Building;
Sheds for BOG Compressors and Ship Vapor Return Blowers; and
Entry Guard House.
8.13 LAYOUT PLOT PLAN
Layout drawings were developed for the Curacao LNG Terminal. The layout was based on using Parcel
A located adjacent to J etty No.1 at Bullen Bay. The drawings are included in Appendix C of this

8 - 17
report. Since the LNG FSRU option is still being considered as the leading option, a layout drawing was
prepared for that option. The layout drawings should be considered as CONCEPTUAL in nature and
subject to change as future detail design work is completed.

Section 9 Conceptual Curacao Gas Sendout Pipeline

9 - 1
9.1 OVERVIEW
A gas sendout pipeline will need to be constructed to transport gas from the LNG Terminal at Bullen Bay
to the Curacao customers located in and around the Isla Refinery. The Curacao customers include:
Aqualectra Power Plant(s);
CRUC Power Plant(s); and
Isla Refinery Process Utility Steam Boilers.
This section of the report provides a brief description of the new Curacao gas sendout pipeline. This is a
very preliminary conceptual design and significant additional work is required to fully define the sendout
pipeline. A new survey will be required to confirm right-of-way, topography, possible encroachment, and
soil characteristics along the route.
9.2 ROUTE
The new gas sendout pipeline will utilize the right-of-way of the existing oil pipeline which traverses
from the Curacao Oil Terminal at Bullen Bay to the Isla Refinery. The existing oil pipeline is still in
service to deliver crude from Bullen Bay to the Isla Refinery. The measured length of the route is
7.86 miles. The overall pipeline route is shown in Figure 9.2-1. Mile Posts are shown in Figure 9.2-2
through Figure 9.2-9.
The oil pipeline is above ground except at road crossings. The new gas sendout pipeline will be a buried
line with minimum backfill cover of 1 meter. Each road crossing will be cased and vented. There are
approximately twelve road crossing.
Figure 9.2-1 New Gas Sendout Pipeline Route
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0 7.0
0.0
7.9

9 - 2

The pipeline route between mile posts (MP) 0.0 and 1.0 is in open country. The pipeline comes within
approximately 80 meters of a small residential area located approximately half way between MP0.0 and
MP1.0.

Figure 9.2-2 Gas Sendout Pipeline Mile Post 0.0 1.0


9 - 3

The pipeline route between mile posts MP1.0 and MP2.0 is in open country. The pipeline comes within
approximately 95 meters of a small rural residence located south of MP2.0.



9 - 4

The pipeline route between mile posts MP2.0 and MP3.0 parallels the highway crossing St. Michiels Bay
on the bridge sholder. The pipeline comes within approximately 115 meters of a residential area north of
St. Michiels Bay. At MP3.0, the pipeline route enters a dense residential area.



9 - 5

From MP3.0 to MP4.0, the pipeline route passes through a dense residential area.



9 - 6

From MP4.0 to MP5.0, the pipeline route is passes on the north side of Piscadera Bay. The Google
satellite photo indicates the area to be open, but it was taken October 2, 2007. Since that time, there may
have been residential development in this area. Piscadera Bay area is used for recreation.



9 - 7

Most of the pipeline route from MP5.0 to MP6.0 appears to be in open country with the last 1/3 mile
passing through a commercial/residential area. MP6.0 is within the security fence of the Isla Refinery.



9 - 8

MP6.0 to MP7.9 is on Isla Refinery property. The route of the pipeline shown is preliminary. Additional
work with Isla Refinery will be required to identify the actual path of the pipeline. It is very likely that
the pipeline will be above ground using existing pipe rack space available.



9 - 9


Shaw Consultants did not walk the existing pipeline route. However, Right-of-Way drawings were
furnished by RDK and were used to prepare the preliminary pipeline route figures. RDK advised Shaw
Consultants that there may be some minor encroachment on the pipeline easement, but this will not be an
issue that will impede construction of the new gas sendout pipeline based on discussion with RDK.
9.3 SIZE, CAPACITY AND DESIGN PARAMETERS
The new gas sendout pipeline is designed to provide a gas delivery capacity of up to 137 MMscfd of
natural gas based on an inlet pressure of 780 psig at Bullen Bay and a minimum outlet delivery pressure
of 500 psig at the customers meter stations located in the vicinity of MP7.9 in the Isla Refinery. The
size of the pipeline will be a 12.75-inch OD line.
The design of the pipeline outside the Isla Refinery fence will be designed in conformance with ANSI
B31.8. Wall thickness calculations (ANSI B31.8) have assumed that the entire pipeline route could
eventually be a densely populated residential area requiring greater wall thickness for public safety than

9 - 10
pipe laid in open country. Inside the refinery fence, the pipeline will be designed in conformance with
ANSI B31.3.
The pipe required for this pipeline will be a 0.500-inch wall thickness grade X-65 seamless steel pipe.
A minimum corrosion allowance of 0.050-inch is provided. The pipeline will also be protected from
corrosion by an electrically induced cathodic protection system. The pipe joints will all be coated with a
robust epoxy coating system.
The MAOP of the pipeline outside the refinery fence will be 1,440 psig and will be buried to a minimum
depth of 1.0 meter from Bullen Bay to the Isla Refinery pipe rack. Within the refinery fence the MAOP is
derated to 1,245 psig since it is design rated per the refinery piping code (ANSI B31.3).
A pig launcher and receiver will be provided such that the pipeline can be pigged from the inlet at Bullen
Bay to the Isla Refinery fence. The system is designed to accommodate smart pigs.
9.4 CONSTRUCTABILITY
The sendout gas pipeline will be designed with back fill coverage of 1.0 meter. Weathered rock is
expected to be encountered over much of the pipeline length. It is anticipated that much of the pipeline
can be installed using conventional trenching methods for weathered and fractured rock. Where harder
rock is encountered, it is anticipated that rock excavation can be achieved using backhoe mounted
hydraulic rams and conventional excavators.
The width of the existing Right-of-Way (ROW) easement from Bullen Bay to the Isla Refinery fence is
10 meters wide. This is a relatively narrow ROW and it will be challenging pipe lay construction.
However, Shaw Consultants is of the opinion that it will not present significant constructability issues.
The oil pipeline is not buried and is sitting on ground sleeper supports. Depending on the position of the
existing oil pipeline, the oil line may have to be moved to facilitate ditching equipment for installing the
new gas sendout pipeline. The oil line is fairly old and RDK may want to consider replacing it when the
new gas pipeline is installed. However, no costs have been included to replace the existing oil pipeline.
9.5 PIPELINE OPERATIONS CONTROL
Pressure letdown regulators will be provided at each of the customers meter delivery stations to maintain
fuel pressure supply to the customers facility. Inlet pressure to the gas sendout pipeline at Bullen Bay
will be controlled by pressure control within the LNG Terminal. Telecommunication systems will be
installed at each of the customer meter stations to monitor gas delivery volumes, pressure, and
temperature. This data will be transmitted to the central control room at the LNG Terminal and available
to the operator from the display control consoles.
If in the unlikely event the LNG Terminal experiences an outage, the LNG Terminal operators will
contact each gas customer to alert them as to how long gas deliveries will be interrupted. Each customer
is expected to have a backup fuel oil system capable of fueling its facilities for a period of up to seven (7)
days without gas supply.
Section 10 Operations and Maintenance

10- 1

10.1 OVERVIEW

In developing guidelines for the planned the operation and maintenance of Curacao LNG Project, Shaw
Consultants has limited its focus to the stand-alone LNG import terminal. The FSRU option will likely
be contracted to include operations and maintenance of the facilities and the pipeline has lower
operational staff requirements the terminal provides the largest responsibility to the RDK organization.
We anticipate that the majority of the terminal O&M staff personnel will be permanent employees of
RDK. However, we also expect that major maintenance and surveillance activities will be subcontracted
out to original equipment manufacturers and specialty maintenance organizations generally following the
patterns and practices established at the refinery. Operations and maintenance (O&M) programs,
including proposed O&M budgets are very preliminary at this point and will depend on the mixture of
permanent personnel and contract operators actually employed. Nevertheless, since this is a new grass-
roots facility, all personnel will be new and will require comprehensive training during the construction,
and mechanical acceptance periods.

10.2 PERSONNEL TRAINING

The presence of a mature operating refinery on Curacao provides a legacy of workers with experience in
operations and maintenance of petroleum facilities. Requirements at an LNG regasification terminal are
different from those of a refinery but are in many cases intrinsically simpler. Shaw Consultants does not
consider that developing a workforce with the necessary skills will be a major problem. In our new
owners with no previous LNG regasification experience often include a substantial amount of the training
both for operations and maintenance as part of the EPC Contract to be provided by the Contractor. At
least one year ahead of the expected completion date, the EPC contractor can provide a complete
technical training plan outlining the curriculum, content and schedule of the training program. This
program can also include as part of the contract price the following manuals and training:

Startup manual and startup procedures;
Operating procedures including startup, shutdown, normal, upset, and emergency procedures;
Initial training for all operations personnel;
Accommodations in which to conduct the training;
Equipment training, maintenance training, maintenance procedures;
Equipment training provided by vendor specialists.

Such training would conform to normal industry practices, and could also include support or onshore
pipeline operations and metering at customer sites.

In addition to the Operations and Maintenance RDK will also require staff for normal business and
accounting functions as well as analytical and general office administration to ensure the efficient and
cost effective operation of the business. Again, these aspects are not considered unduly onerous nor
likely to present problems to RDK.

10.3 OWNER STAFFING AND LABOR COSTS

The overall staffing plan for the terminal facility has not been developed at this stage of the Project.
However, based on information from recent terminals an initial schedule has been formulated below.
This schedule includes those permanent employees in the administrative, operations, and maintenance

10- 2

departments that we would expect to be hired. The schedule may be modified depending on the level of
out-sourcing normally accepted in Curacao but it provides RDK with a sanity check when considering
development of alternatives.

We estimate that a grass-roots terminal with the small send-outs proposed will require between 50 and 70
people. The range recognizes that many of the administrative functions by be efficiently combined with
existing RDK administration if the volume of work does not justify duplication at the terminal site. At
this time, Shaw Consultants has not calculated the costs of this organization but based on wages and
salaries applicable along the US Gulf Coast we expect costs to average about $3.5 million per year at
current prices.

Table 10.3-1 Curacao LNG Terminal Initial Staffing

Position/Job Function
(* Shift Position)
Employee
Count
Plant Manager 1
Admin Asst 1
Admin Manager 1
Admin Assistant 1
Accounting/Procurement 2
Warehouse Supt 1
Stock Clerk 2
EHS Superintendent 1
Safety Technician 1
*Security officers 12
Administrative Subtotals 23
Marine Manager 1
Admin Assistant 1
Engineering Manager 1
Admin Assistant 1
Plant Engineer 1
DCS Technician 1
IT Technician 1
Chemist/Environ Tech 2
Document Clerk 1
Operations Manager 1
*Shift Supervisor 4
*Panel Operator 4
* Loading Operator 4
*Field Operator 4
Operations Subtotals 27

10- 3

Position/Job Function
(* Shift Position)
Employee
Count
Maintenance Manager 1
Maintenance Engineer 1
Admin Assistant 1
Bldg & Grounds Supt 1
Laborer/Roustabout 4
Mechanics/Millwrights 2
Asst Mechanics 2
I&E Technicians 2
Electricians 2
Pipefitter/Welder 2
CMMS Planner 1
Maintenance Subtotals 19
GRAND TOTALS 69

10.4 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE BUDGET

Overall operations and maintenance costs for the terminal will vary depending on the activity. The
throughput of the facility is expected to grow as time progresses but is always likely to be lower than
most comparative LNG regasification terminals. Based on Shaw Consultants experience at similar LNG
receiving and regasification terminals of similar design, the average O&M cost appears to equate to
approximately US$0.04 per MMBtu.

Section 11 Integrated System Performance

11 - 1
11.1 RELIABILITY
Conceptual design of the LNG Terminal embodies an N+1 sparing philosophy for all major equipment
critical for maintaining gas sendout. Although a RAM analysis has not been made, Shaw Consultants
estimates that the online-reliability of the Curacao integrated gas delivery system to be 99.0% based the
conceptual design developed for this study. The only failure within the LNG Terminal that could result in
an extended outage would be a failure of the LNG storage tank. It is highly unlikely after commissioning
that an LNG tank failure might occur with the probability of occurrence estimated to be 1x10
-4
.
Delays in LNG cargo delivery due to tropical storms or hurricanes are not expected to have any impact on
gas sendout reliability. The 160,000m
3
LNG storage tank, planned ullage, and the shipping schedule will
assure a minimum storage margin of at least 5 to 8 days which will provide more than enough time for
rerouting the LNG ship around the storm event. Shaw Consultants estimate that LNG supply reliability
should be at least 99.5% taking into consideration a ship load of LNG will only be required every 27 to 29
days based on 135,000m
3
cargo sizes.
It will be critical to contract with a reputable company to assure reliable supply and scheduling of LNG
deliveries to Curacao. In selecting a LNG supplier, RDK will want to obtain information on the
companys track record performance for meeting LNG delivery obligations. The objective would be to
select a company having a 99
+
% on-time delivery track record.
The gas sendout pipeline will be a typical pipeline system which historically has extremely high
reliability (greater than 99.5%).
11.2 BACKUP FUEL SUPPLY
The gas customers are expected to have a backup fuel supply system for each of their facilities. Since
fuel oil is currently being used in these facilities, it is assumed that the existing fuel oil tankage and
supply pumps will be available for use as a backup to natural gas. This assumes that upon conversion to
natural gas, the converted facilities have dual fuel capability (natural gas and LSFO).
The backup fuel supply should be designed to provide up to seven (7) days of continuous operation
without natural gas.
11.3 TURNDOWN FLEXIBILITY
The LNG Terminal is designed to have a minimum turndown capacity of 20 MMscfd of sendout gas.
When a ship is unloading LNG, the offloading rate must be reduced to approximately 4,500m
3
/hr.
Otherwise, the BOG exceeds the gas sendout rate of 20 MMscfd. At an LNG unloading rate of
4,500m
3
/hr, charges for demurrage will likely be incurred. No LNG is required from the LNG tank at this
low turndown rate when a ship is unloading cargo. All of the sendout gas is provided from BOG which
must be compressed by the BOG Pipeline Compressor to sendout gas pressure.
When no ship is unloading, the sendout gas rate can be reduced to 20 MMscfd by adjusting the LNG flow
to the vaporization system. At this rate, pumps and control valves are operating at approximately 15% of
the design rates which is the lower limit for control stability of the system.
11.4 EXPANDABILITY
The LNG Terminal has been designed with flexibility to easily increase gas sendout capacity. The major
flowlines and the flare/vent system have been sized to accommodate double the current sendout capacity.
This required a small pre-investment in piping which had virtually insignificant impact in the total
Section 11 Integrated System Performance

11 - 2
CAPEX. To double capacity while maintaining the N+1 sparing philosophy requires the installation of
the following equipment items:
Add One In-Tank LNG Pump (P-1C);
Add One LNG Sendout Pump (P-2C);
Add One LNG Open Rack Vaporizer (E-1C);
Add One Sendout Gas Superheater (E-2C);
Add Two Seawater Pumps (P-7D/E);
Add One HM Transfer Pump (P-5C); and
Add One HM Heater (HTR-1C).
To accommodate future expansion, two spare pump wells have been provided in the LNG Storage Tank.
The manifold of all the equipment (pumps, vaporizers, and heat exchangers) include blind flange
connections for adding future equipment. Layout space in the Terminal has been reserved for the
additional equipment listed above.
The LNG Terminal, as currently designed, has the capability to maintain gas sendout at 150% of the
design rate (or approximately 205 MMscfd) without installation of additional equipment. However,
equipment sparing is less than the N+1 philosophy. The on-line reliability for the integrated LNG
Terminal would be approximately 85% at 205 MMscfd sendout if no spares are added.
The gas sendout pipeline would have to be looped or a new line laid to the market requiring the expanded
sendout capacity.
11.5 CONCLUSIONS
The conceptual designs of the LNG Terminal and gas sendout pipeline are robust and highly reliable. A
99.0% on-line availability can be expected at the design sendout rate.
The Terminal sendout can be turned down to 20 MMscfd. At this minimum turndown rate, ship
unloading rates will have to be reduced and demurrage charges will likely be incurred. Alternatively,
smaller capacity ships could possibly be used during extended periods of low sendout demand to reduce
the cost of demurrage.
The system can easily be expanded to accommodate future growth and potential other markets such as gas
export to Aruba.

Section 12 Project Execution Planning

12 - 1
12.1 EXECUTION PLAN FRAMEWORK
The scope of the Curacao LNG Import Project includes supply of the LNG, business development of
natural gas use in Curacao together with design, construction and installation of import and regasification
facilities and the distribution pipelines to the core users. The development of the on-island facilities is
expected to be funded and executed as one project by a new business venture that will be responsible for
the long-term operations of the facility. The project effort to design and construct the correct facilities to
support the business is a significantly different endeavor from the day-to-day operations. The skills
required for this part of the venture are not required once the facility is operation. Classic project
execution practices therefore separate these activities enabling each to staff with the appropriate skills at
the required point in the business cycle. In the simplest organization a Venture Team is appointed to
implement the Business. This team defines the requirements, sets the schedules and will operate the
business for the duration. The Venture Team appoints a Project Team to design and construct the
facilities to meet the business requirements in accordance with the defined schedule and budgets. The
Project Team completes this task using external contractors and returns an operating facility to the
Venture team. The Project Team then disbands its goal is to go out of business -successfully.

The table below sets out in broad terms the principle activities and philosophies that are generally adopted
at each stage of the project as it has moved from initial feasibility to the current state.

Feasibility Basic Development Execution Start-up
Venture
Management
Identify business
opportunities
Define project scope
& optimize processes
Provide assets to
support execution
Implement start-up
plans and business
systems
Assess business
alternatives
Set schedules &
budgets to meet
Business Drivers
Develop Start-up
plans
Perform and
acceptance tests
Identify required
commercial
agreements
Negotiate required
commercial contracts
Monitor project
progress, cost, quality
and timing
Operate Business
Project
Management
Evaluate technologies
and execution
strategies
Front end engineering
and design (FEED)
Award contracts for
engineering,
procurement and
construction
Prepare end-of-job
documents and
reports
Set specifications to
meet regulatory and
reliability
requirements
Implement Quality
Assurance & Control
to meet specifications
Hand over facility to
Venture Management

Disband
Prepare
Environmental Impact
Assessment
Implement
Environmental
Management Plans

A system of formal approvals (Management Decision Gates) should be implemented as the Project
advances from one phase to the next. These formal reviews ensure that appropriate strategies and
conclusions have been developed at each point in the project and provide management with a regular
assurance that the final Project continues to meet the business need and has the best chance to:


12 - 2
Meet the gas supply, sales and availability commitments within the timescale established by the
Venture Team and the overall Business Plan;
Provide a reliable development program, regasification facilities and pipeline system that
complies with all applicable project specifications, Curacao and industry standards and regulatory
requirements;
Design and Construct cost effective facilities that are safe, operable, and maintainable and are
consistent with existing infrastructure while conforming to applicable safety, health and
environmental standards;
Minimizes impacts to any stakeholder during installation, commissioning and operation of the
system.

12.2 Development Planning
As the Project moves from one stage to the next, the focus of the Venture and Project Management teams
changes. Different skills are required and a dynamic organization is normal, consistent with good
management and delegation of authority. An important consideration in developing the Owner
organization is the role that the Owners staff will play in the overall management of the Project. Shaw
Consultants considers the current organization may not be the best group to staff a Project Management
Team (PMT). Projects of the magnitude contemplated for an onshore regasification terminal normally
require full time multi-discipline teams to provide effective oversight and stewardship of the owners
resources during the Basic Development and Execution phases. The skills required for this period are
unlikely to be present in the current RDK organization. A core Project Management team of about eight
senior individuals with different areas of expertise will be required for the Projects development, with a
probable need for additional personnel as the Project progresses through engineering into construction.
This PMT could be developed by one (or a combination) of the three basic strategies:

build an in-house project development group by hiring permanent staff and supplement this core
team with short-term agency or contract staff. However, we note that if recruited, this PMT is
unlikely to be fully utilized once the Project is complete ;
engage a Project Services Contractor (PSC) to which overall project management duties and
responsibilities are delegated. The PSC would act on behalf of the Venture organization for all
aspects of the work including development of engineering and construction contracts, selection of
qualified contractors, and oversight of the Project through engineering, procurement,
construction, commissioning and start-up leading to final handover to the permanent business
organization.
form a joint venture or partnership arrangement with a large existing gas producer (or distributer)
which can provide the appropriate owner management expertise to supplement the RDK
organization and assume the role of a PSC and perhaps develop the operating company.
Of these options, the most common route for new Owners is to hire an experienced engineering,
procurement and construction (EPC) contractor as a PSC. However, assigning large areas of
responsibility to a PSC can also be difficult. Shaw Consultants notes that a PSC may not make its best
personnel available to a once-off project such as this as most qualified PSCs are often EPC Contractors.
They not unnaturally want to keep their best personnel for the execution of their own lump sum EPC
contracts. However, successful PSC have the in-house project management systems (procedures and
software required to manage large projects) and the experience to successfully implement these
procedures and systems in many different environments including those similar to the Curacao
regasification terminal.

12 - 3
In the absence of a J oint Venture with a recognized international gas provider/distributer, Shaw
Consultants recommends the appointment of a qualified PSC as the next step should RDK elect to
proceed with an onshore regasification terminal. The initial PSC responsibilities should include:

development of Plant Performance Specifications and guarantees;
development of detailed execution plan including contracting strategy
potential bidder prequalification and development of Contract terms;
issue Invitations to Tender;
evaluation and clarifications of the technical and commercial bid submissions;
review of bids with Owners;
prepare recommendation of Contractor;
provide assistance with contract and negotiations;
provide technical and, as appropriate, commercial support to contracts and agreements required to
support the project including feedstock supply, off-take agreements, operating agreements, and
dealings with insurance, financial and government entities, etc.

12.3 CONSTRUCTION STRATEGY / PHILOSOPHY
Implementation of the Floating Regasification Option provides a relatively simple forward execution
path. However, the Owner remains responsible for the development of the jetty and the export pipeline.
For the full onshore regasification facilities this scope is supplemented by the addition of the storage tank
and the terminal. Effective implementation of either option requires a defined program to ensure that the
work is cost effectively completed according to the schedule. The typical execution stages are:

Stage 1 Front End Engineering and Design (FEED). A qualified EPC contractor is engaged to
develop the design for the LNG terminal and prepare the engineering definition, budgets and
documentation to allow permitting and regulatory approvals to be initiated and to serve as a basis to
solicit bids for the detailed engineering, procurement and construction of the Terminal. Concurrent
with this effort geotechnical studies of the site are concluded and a separate FEED package for the
jetty and marine facilities may be developed. .
Under the same (or a different) contract another engineering company would be engaged to develop
the FEED package for the pipeline and support construction permits for that portion of the work.

Stage 2 Bid, Procurement and Permitting. Normal practices include competitive bids for the award
of the contract for detailed engineering, procurement and construction of the facilities. This provides
transparency in award of the contract and in some locations such competitive bidding is required by
local regulations. However, rather than solicit competitive tenders from several qualified engineering
and construction contractors, organizations have opted to negotiate a lump sum turnkey contract with
the successful FEED contractors. The natural pressures of competition typically yield the best prices
on lump sum projects but it is often suggested that the period of several months required for tender
development and subsequent evaluation of bids by the owner can extend the overall project schedule.
Also, attempts by owners to minimize this period by continuing project development during the
bidding period can be counterproductive as engineering progress during this time must be
communicated to the successful bidder making it difficult to finalize the contract scope and costs. For
the current project where RDK may not be able to commit to a lump sum EPC contract immediately

12 - 4
after the FEED, a decision to negotiate a price with the FEED contractor could represent a realistic
approach to maintaining project momentum by defining the costs to be financed.

Stage 3 Detailed Engineering, Construction and Installation. The scope of the EPC contract
includes all engineering, procurement, construction, precommissioning, commissioning, start-up and
testing of the LNG storage and vaporization facility. The contract should also require the contractor
to procure all spare parts and if possible, to train Owners operating personnel. The construction of
the LNG tank is a specialized skill and depending on the selected contractor, a subcontractor may be
appointed with responsibility for design, procurement, construction and cool-down of the LNG tanks.
Separate subcontracts are also likely for the construction for the marine facilities. Substantial
completion of the terminal facility is likely to be about 36-40 months after a Notice to Proceed is
issued to the EPC contractor (normally, at contract award or when finance commitments are
obtained).
A separate contract (or additional subcontract) may be awarded for the EPC of the gas transmission
pipeline. Decisions on the exact execution strategy for the construction and installation of the
remainder of the pipeline will depend on the availability of local qualified contractors and it is
possible a small number of lump-sum or unit rate contracts with local qualified contractors may be
adopted.

As noted earlier, RDK does not have in-house corporate departments with the necessary experience and
expertise to oversee the project implementation. This is not uncommon for newly formed or government
agencies. To overcome this potential shortcoming, we recommend the appointment of a PSC which will
to be a significant benefit to the Project and expect that it will facilitate prompt resolution of the detailed
technical and execution queries that inevitably arise during execution of a Project of this nature and
provide comfort to potential finance organizations.

All recommended options for the Project will utilize established technology. Meteorological conditions
for the site are not severe and are well understood. A temporary construction jetty may be fabricated to
aid delivery of major equipment and any heavy lifts removing any concerns relating to road access or
weight limitations on internal roads. However, this will not obviate the need for increased road traffic
throughout the construction period and regular deliveries of materials by road can also be expected.

Except for specialized equipment, the majority of the engineering, procurement and fabrication efforts
will likely be completed in the Gulf Coast oil patch bringing the support of an experienced
infrastructure for transport, communications and services. Also, in spite of any up-tic in the general
economy, the construction labor market in the vicinity of Curacao remains generally weak and contractors
should have little difficulty in importing sufficient workers (in the region of 500) with the appropriate
level of skills in a timely manner. Given the proper planning and conscientious execution, Shaw
Consultants does not expect logistics to be a major concern or to detrimentally impact timely project
execution or costs.

The proposed site for the overall LNG Terminal layout includes sufficient physical space for all the
necessary equipment and utility systems required for the Project. In addition, the overall plot provides
adequate space to allow various construction activities to proceed in parallel, i.e., there is adequate
construction laydown area and construction access.

Although construction activities will occur throughout the plant site, the most labor-intensive activities
are generally focused in specific areas. This will allow the EPC Contractors personnel to enforce the

12 - 5
requisite safety and security management during construction. Individual aspects of the construction
activities include:

Temporary Facilities: The Project will utilize dedicated areas suitable for equipment and supply
laydown, and temporary facilities will be needed to provide power, water, communications and
waste control during the construction phase of the Project. Access to the site is available by road,
or by barge if a construction dock is installed. The EPC Contractor will provide independent
security and safety control for construction traffic and materials.
LNG Storage Tanks: The location for the storage tank has adequate access although we expect
that tank plate may well be delivered by barge. The tanks will be constructed a sufficient distance
from the other process areas to allow piling for foundations and the tank construction activities to
proceed without interference to other construction activities.
Vaporization Area: This vaporization area will likely be position to be open on two sides,
thereby providing good construction access while enabling appropriate security and safety
controls to be enforced during construction as well as operations.
Transfer Pumps: LNG transfer pumps will be in-tank pumps submerged within deepwells
extending from the top of the domed roof to the floor of the storage tank. The pump deep wells
will be constructed as part of the tank construction. There will be three deepwells installed in
each tank, each containing a transfer pump. Close coordination between the tank fabricator and
the main EPC contractor will be required to ensure that installation of these pumps is properly
scheduled to minimize delays.
Receiving Facilities: For the full terminal a single LNG unloading berth will be constructed close
to the storage and vaporization site. LNG receipt piping together with vapor return lines will run
above a concrete spill trough. Again, close coordination during the installation of the send-out
pipeline, the jetty and the terminal will be essential to minimize interference between the different
workforces.
Pipeline: The installation of the send-out pipeline should present no construction problems other
than the normally recognized and accepted challenges associated with installation close to urban
areasterrain.
In summary, Shaw Consultants confirms that it has identified no construction risks that are could have a
detrimental impact on the proposed Project or are outside the experience levels of typical contractors
selected for this type of project.

12.4 TYPICAL PROJECT SCHEDULE
Overall project durations for an LNG regasification terminal including a full containment tank are about
40 months from award of the EPC contract. FEED durations range from eight months to about one year
and bidding and award of a competitive EPC contract can require a further six to nine months giving a
reasonable overall program of about 54 months from the initial decision to proceed. These durations
might be shortened by proceeding with several activities in parallel. This reduces management flexibility
but given the relatively simple technology associated with the project and the ability to select experienced
and well qualified EPC contractors to perform the work this option is realistic providing the risks are
accepted. The schedule below assumes this execution strategy.
The critical path for the construction of the terminal is likely to be defined by the time required for design,
material procurement, construction, cool-down and commissioning of the LNG tank. These activities can

12 - 6
proceed largely independently from work at the rest of the site. However, purchase commitments on 9-
Nickel steel are unlikely to be made before the tank contract is signed or project finance is fully
committed and available. Additionally, final foundation designs will depend on results from test piles
driven in the tank area. Installation of the send-out pipeline is not expected to be on the critical path and
can be accomplished with the time available. Similarly, the construction of the jetty is not expected to
define the completion date as long as the procurement of the loading arms is progressed in a timely
manner.
The schedule below shows the relationship between the various activities.
Figure 14.4-1 LNG Terminal Outline Schedule

Management and co-ordination of construction activities present challenges that can generally be
overcome by early planning. This is especially true at locations where portions of the skilled workforce
must be imported. However, subject to timely allocation of appropriate resources, in Shaw Consultants
opinion, the necessary interfaces and systems to facilitate project execution integration can be established
to successfully complete either of the LNG regasification scopes.

Section 13 Regulatory and Permitting

13 - 1
13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY
This section discusses the environmental, social, health and safety (ESHS) issues which are potentially
applicable to the Project. ESHS issues may be defined as follows:
Environmental issues include the Projects ecological setting in terms of its physical, climatic and
biotic properties;
Social issues include the needs, concerns and expectations of the Projects host community,
including property acquisition and Project security;
Health issues include potential risks to the Projects host community (i.e., people and property
located outside the Project fenceline); and
Safety issues include potential risks to the Project itself (i.e., Project workers and equipment).
All of these ESHS aspects need to be addressed in order for the Project to be successful.
13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND GLOBAL STANDARDS
Shaw Consultants envisions that the following sets of governmental regulations and other standards are
potentially applicable to the Project:
Curacao laws and regulations
Kingdom of the Netherlands laws and regulations
European Union laws and regulations
United States of America laws and regulations
Financial institution standards and guidelines
Recognized industry codes and standards
The sets of governmental regulations and other standards which will guide implementation of the Project
need to be defined at the very onset of the Project.
13.2.1 Curacao Ministry of Public Health, Environment and Nature
Shaw Consultants understands that the Curacao Ministry of Public Health, Environment and Nature
(MPHEN) is the agency within Curacao which will be responsible for Project review, authorization and
supervision. However, Shaw Consultants also understands that the environmental regulatory regime in
Curacao is a work in progress with respect to design standards, permitting and monitoring
requirements. Accordingly, the Project will need to work closely with MPHEN in order to help develop a
regulatory system which is protective of the environment, sensitive to the needs of the community and
beneficial to the Project.
13.2.2 Kingdom of the Netherlands
Curacao is a self-governing country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Accordingly, the
Netherlands retains the responsibility for foreign affairs and defense, while Curacao has the right to
develop its own laws and international agreements.
In the process of developing its own laws and regulations, Curacao tends to mimic the existing laws and
legal structure of the Netherlands. Accordingly, where the Curacao regulations are silent on an issue, the
Project will first look to the laws and regulations of the Netherlands for guidance.

13 - 2
Curacao is an independent signatory to a number of international agreements, including the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL), as is the Netherlands. Conversely, Curacao is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol
regarding climate change, whereas the Netherlands is such a signatory.
13.2.3 European Union
Since the Netherlands is a member of the European Union (EU), Curacao and the Project will also look
to the EU regulations for guidance in order to supplement and/or reinforce the Netherlands regulations.
13.2.4 United States of America
Since Shaw Consultants is headquartered in the United States of America (USA) and is most familiar
with its laws and regulations, the Project has directed Shaw Consultants to use the USA regulations as our
primary reference for the purposes of this study. In our experience, Shaw Consultants has determined that
the USA regulations are generally equivalent to the laws and regulations of the EU in general and the
Netherlands in particular. In addition, the USA regulations are generally accepted for use as a reference
worldwide.
13.2.5 Financial Institutions
Shaw Consultants understands that the Project is considering financing from global financial institutions
such as the following:
Multi-lateral financial institutions e.g., World Bank Group (WBG) and Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB);
Export Credit Associations (ECA) e.g., Export-Import Bank of the United States (US Ex-Im
Bank) and J apan Bank for International Cooperation (J BIC); and
Private-sector development banks e.g., banks which have adopted the Equator Principles.
Each of these financial institutions has developed its own set of ESHS standards to guide its internal
processes. However, most of these are based upon and/or derived from the WBG standards and
guidelines. More information on the various types of financial institutions and their standards and
guidelines is provided below.
World Bank Group
The World Bank Group consists of five closely associated institutions, all owned by member countries
that carry ultimate decision-making power. Each institution plays a distinct role in the World Bank
Groups mission to fight poverty and improve living standards for people in the developing world.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) The IBRD aims to reduce
poverty in middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries by promoting sustainable
development through loans, guarantees, risk management products, and analytical and advisory
services. Established in 1944 as the original institution of the World Bank Group, IBRD is
structured like a cooperative that is owned and operated for the benefit of its 185 member
countries. Income generated by IBRD loans over the years has allowed the agency to fund
important development activities and ensures the agencys strong financial position. This enables
borrowing in capital markets at low cost. Thus, IBRD is able to offer its clients good borrowing
terms.
International Development Association (IDA) The IDA offers interest-free credits and grants
to the worlds poorest countries. This highly concessional financing is vital because these

13 - 3
countries have little or no capacity to borrow on market terms. IDA resources and technical
assistance support country-led poverty reduction strategies in key areas: increased productivity,
better governance and accountability, improved private investment climate, and access to
education and health care for poor people.
International Finance Corporation (IFC) The IFC fosters sustainable economic growth in
developing countries by financing private sector investment, mobilizing private capital in local
and international financial markets, and providing advisory and risk mitigation services to
businesses and governments. IFCs vision is that people should have the opportunity to escape
poverty and improve their lives. It seeks to reach businesses in regions and countries that have
limited access to capital and provides finance in markets deemed too risky by commercial
investors. IFC also adds value to the projects it finances through its corporate governance,
environmental and social expertise. It is the largest multilateral source of debt and equity
financing for private enterprise in developing countries.
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) Concerns about investment environments
and perceptions of political risk often inhibit foreign direct investment, a key driver of economic
growth in developing countries. The MIGA addresses these concerns by providing political risk
insurance (guarantees), offering investors protection against noncommercial risks such as
expropriation, currency inconvertibility, breach of contract, war and civil disturbance. MIGA
also provides advisory services to help countries attract and retain foreign investment, mediates
investment disputes to keep current investments intact and remove potential obstacles to future
investment, and disseminates information on investment opportunities to the international
business community.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) The ICSID is an
institution specifically designed to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes between
governments and private foreign investors through conciliation and arbitration. Its aim is to
foster an atmosphere of mutual confidence between states and investors in order to promote
increased flows of international investment. Recourse to ICSID conciliation and arbitration is
entirely voluntary. ICSID also issues publications on dispute settlement and foreign investment
law.
The term World Bank Group encompasses all five institutions. The term World Bank refers
specifically to two of the five, IBRD and IDA. Depending on whether the Project is structured as a
private or public sector project, either the World Bank or the IFC would be the corresponding group to
provide project finance to the Project. For the purposes of this study, Shaw Consultants has assumed that
financing will come from the IFC.
IFC fosters sustainable economic growth in developing countries by financing private sector investment,
mobilizing capital in the international financial markets, and providing advisory services to businesses
and governments. IFC applies environmental and social standards to all the projects it finances to
minimize project-related impacts on the environment and affected communities. In February 2006, IFC
completed a rigorous process of updating its standards:
Policy on Social and Environmental Sustainability defines IFCs role and responsibility in
supporting project performance in partnership with clients.
Policy on Disclosure of Information defines IFCs obligations to disclose information about
itself as an institution and its activities.

13 - 4
Environmental and Social Review Procedure gives direction to IFC officers in implementing
the Polity on Social and Environmental Sustainability and reviewing compliance and
implementation by private sector projects.
Performance Standards defines clients roles and responsibilities for managing their projects
and the requirements for receiving and retaining IFC support. The standards include
requirements to disclose information.
Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines technical guidance informing those parts of the
new policy structure related to environmental, health and safety issues.
IFCs Policy on Social and Environmental Sustainability and Policy on Disclosure of Information are
collectively referred to as IFCs Sustainability Framework, which articulates IFCs strategic
commitment to sustainable development and is an integral part of IFCs approach to risk management.
The Sustainability Framework provides guidance on how to develop a management system approach to
identify risks and deal with them, and is designed to help clients avoid and mitigate adverse impacts and
manage risk as a way of doing business in a sustainable way. IFCs Sustainability Framework is now
considered to be a leading benchmark for environmental and social risk management for private sector
investors worldwide. The Equator Principles, a voluntary set of standards developed by private sector
banks based on IFCs Performance Standards, are evidence of this global recognition.
IFC recently completed a fresh revision to its Sustainability Framework and Performance Standards:
April 14, 2011 IFC posted its revised policies, procedures and standards on its web site;
May 12, 2011 These revisions were formally approved by IFCs Board of Directors; and
J anuary 1, 2012 These revisions become effective.
These revisions are summarized below:
Sustainability Policy
o Strengthens IFCs commitments to climate change, business and human rights, corporate
governance and gender
o Revises and strengthens categorization system
Greater emphasis on inherent risks and project context
Categorizes actions by Financial Intermediaries (FIs) according to the level of
their environmental and social risks
o Strengthens due diligence for FIs
o Clarifies due diligence for Advisory Services
o Strengthens disclosure requirements for extractive industry projects
Performance Standard 1
o Changes name to Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and
Impacts
o Refers to private sector responsibility to respect human rights
o Introduces better applicability to investments other than project finance (non-defined
assets concept)
o Requires stakeholder engagement beyond Affected Communities
o Clarifies levels of stakeholder engagement under different circumstances
o Requires development of a formal environment and social policy reflecting principles of
the Performance Standards
o Introduces participatory monitoring (when appropriate) as an option during
implementation

13 - 5
o Requires period performance reviews by senior management
o Establishes requirement for comparable terms and conditions for migrant workers
compared to non-migrant workers
o Introduces quality requirements for workers accommodation
o Requires ongoing monitoring of working conditions for workers under the age of 18
o Requires establishing policies and procedures to manage and monitor compliance of third
parties with Performance Standard 2
o Requires alternatives analysis in case of retrenchment
o Requires ongoing monitoring of primary supply chain
o Introduces safety trigger in primary supply chain
o Changes name to Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention
o Introduces a resource efficiency concept for energy, water and core material inputs
o Strengthens focus on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas measurement
o Reduces greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for reporting to IFC from 100,000 tons of
CO
2
to 25,000 tons of CO
2
per year
o Requires determination of accountability with regards to historical pollution
o Introduces concept of duty of care for hazardous waste disposal
o Considers risks to communities associated with use and/or alteration of natural resources
and climate change through an ecosystems approach
o Extends scope of application to restrictions on land use
o Strengthens requirements regarding consultations
o Introduces a requirement for a completion audit under certain circumstances
o Changes name to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living
Natural Resources
o Clarifies definitions of and requirements for various types of habitats
o Introduces stronger requirements for biodiversity offsets
o Introduces specific requirements for plantations and natural forests
o Introduces specific requirements for management of renewable natural resources
o Strengthens supply chain scope
o Expands consideration of Indigenous Peoples specific circumstances in developing
mitigation measures and compensation
o Introduces requirement for land acquisition due diligence with regards to lands subject to
traditional ownership or under customary use
o Introduces the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) under certain
circumstances
o Requires clients to allow access to cultural sites
The 2011 revisions became effective on J anuary 1, 2012. Significantly, the 2011 revisions to IFCs
Sustainability Framework do not preclude the IFC from participating in oil and gas exploration and

13 - 6
development, mining and other extractive projects. In addition, the IFCs 2011 revisions discussed
above do not affect the EHS Guidelines.
IFC applies its Performance Standards to manage social and environmental risks and impacts and to
enhance development opportunities in its private sector financing in its member countries eligible for
financing. The Performance Standards may also be applied by other financial institutions electing to
apply them to projects in emerging markets. Together the IFCs eight Performance Standards establish
standards that the client must meet throughout the life of an investment by IFC or other relevant financial
institution (the term client is used throughout the Performance Standards broadly to refer to the party
responsible for implementing and operating the project that is being financed, or the recipient of the
financing, depending on the project structure and type of financing).
Performance Standard 1 Social and Environmental Assessment and Management System
Performance Standard 2 Labor and Working Conditions
Performance Standard 3 Pollution Prevention and Abatement
Performance Standard 4 Community Health, Safety and Security
Performance Standard 5 Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement
Performance Standard 6 Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource
Management
Performance Standard 7 Indigenous Peoples
Performance Standard 8 Cultural Heritage
The Social and Environmental Assessment conducted in compliance with Performance Standard 1 is
analogous to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
required by other financial institutions.
In meeting the requirements of the IFC Performance Standards, clients must comply with applicable
national laws, including those laws implementing host country obligations under international law.
As of April 30, 2007, new versions of the World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety
Guidelines (EHS Guidelines) are now in use. The EHS Guidelines replace those documents previously
published in Part III of the Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook and on the IFC website.
The EHS Guidelines are technical reference documents with general and industry-specific examples of
good international industry practice as defined in IFCs Performance Standard 3. The EHS Guidelines
contain performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in new facilities
at reasonable costs by existing technology. When host country regulations differ from the levels and
measures presented in the EHS Guidelines, projects are expected to achieve whichever is more stringent.
If less stringent levels or measures are appropriate in view of specific project circumstances, a full and
detailed justification for any proposed alternatives is needed as part of the site-specific environmental
assessment. This justification should demonstrate that the choice for any alternate performance levels is
protective of human health and the environment.
Shaw Consultants identified the following EHS Guidelines which are relevant to this Project:
Environmental, Health and Safety General Guidelines contain information on cross-cutting
environmental, health and safety issues potentially applicable to all industry sectors. These
guidelines should be used together with the relevant industry sector guideline.

13 - 7
Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for LNG Facilities include information relevant to
base load liquefaction plants, transport by sea, and regasification and peak shaving terminals.
Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Ports, Harbors and Terminals are applicable to
commercial ports, harbors and terminals for cargo and passengers transfer.
Compliance with the appropriate World Bank Group standards and guidelines will be determined by the
World Bank Group lending institution, provided that the World Bank Group is participating in a given
projects financing. Otherwise, the World Bank Group will withhold comment on a given projects
compliance with the World Bank Group standards and guidelines.
Export Credit Associations
The mission of Export Credit Associations (ECAs) is to assist in financing the export to international
markets of goods and services produced in each ECAs home country. The intent is to enable home
country companies to turn export opportunities into real sales which will help and maintain home country
jobs and contribute to a stronger home country economy. ECAs do not compete with private sector
lenders, but provide export financing products which fill gaps in trade financing. Specifically, ECAs
assume credit and country risks which the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept. ECAs also help
to level the playing field for home country exporters by matching the financing that other governments
provide to their home country exporters. To this end, ECAs provide working capital guarantees (pre-
export financing), export credit insurance, and loan guarantees and direct loans (buyer financing).
To further promote a level playing field worldwide, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) sponsored an agreement among its member organizations regarding Common
Approaches on the Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits (the Common Approaches).
The general objectives of the Common Approaches are listed below:
Promote coherence between policies regarding officially supported export credits and policies for
the protection of the environment, including relevant international agreements and conventions,
thereby contributing towards sustainable development;
Develop common procedures and processes relating to the environmental review of new projects
and existing operations benefiting from officially supported export credits, with a view to
achieving equivalence among the measures taken by OECD members and to reducing the
potential for trade distortion;
Promote good environmental practice and consistent processes for new projects and existing
operations benefiting from officially supported export credits, with a view to achieving a high
level of environmental protection;
Enhance efficiency of official support procedures by ensuring that the administrative burden for
applicants and export credit agencies is commensurate with the environmental protection
objectives of the Common Approaches;
Promote a level playing field for officially supported export credits and increase awareness and
understanding, including both OECD and non-OECD member economies, of the benefits of
applying the Common Approaches.
To achieve these objectives, OECD members should:
Foster transparency, predictability and responsibility in decision making by encouraging
disclosure of relevant environmental information with due regard to any legal stipulations,
business confidentiality and other competitive concerns;

13 - 8
Encourage prevention and mitigation of adverse environmental impacts of new projects and the
environmental risks associated with existing operations, and take into account the benefits of any
new projects and existing operations supported;
Enhance financial risk assessment of new projects and existing operations by taking into account
environmental aspects; and
Build a body of experience on the practical application of the Common Approaches.
Some ECAs have developed their own sets of ESHS standards and guidelines, while others simply
reference the IFC standards and guidelines. In either case, each ECA is responsible for determining a
given projects compliance with the appropriate ESHS standards and guidelines.
13.2.6 Recognized Industry Codes
Several international trade groups have developed their own sets of standards for use by their members
worldwide in the absence of or to supplement the host country regulations. Examples follow:
American Petroleum Institute (API) process equipment design and operation;
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) piping design and operation, both inside
the plant and cross-country; and
Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) design and operation
of ships and terminals, including LNG ships and terminals.
Shaw Consultants anticipates that the Project will compile a comprehensive set of industry codes and
standards which will be used to guide Project designs and operations.
13.3 CURACAO PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
Shaw Consultants understands that the permitting regime within Curacao is still developing. Currently,
the Project would require the following permits from MPHEN:
Safety Permit,
Construction Permit,
Public Nuisance Permit, which would include the following:
o Air emission limits and
o Waste disposal requirements; and
Wastewater Disposal Permit.
In order to obtain a Public Nuisance Permit, Shaw Consultants understands that public notice is required
and a public hearing may be required.
Conversely, Shaw Consultants understands that an EIA would not be required in order to satisfy
Curacaos current permitting requirements.
13.4 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION REQUIREMENTS
As mentioned previously, Shaw Consultants understands that the Project is considering financing from
global financial institutions; i.e., project finance. The concept of project finance and the associated
requirements of the financial industry, which may be imposed upon a project in addition to the
requirements of the projects host country, are discussed in the following sections.

13 - 9
13.4.1 Project Finance
Project finance is a method of funding in which the Lender looks to the revenues generated by a single
project both as the source of repayment and as security for the exposure. This type of financing is usually
for large, complex and expensive installations that might include, for example, power plants, chemical
processing plants, mines, transportation infrastructure, environment and telecommunications
infrastructure. Project finance may take the form of financing of the construction of a new capital
installation or refinancing of an existing installation, with or without improvements. In such transactions,
the lender is usually paid solely or almost exclusively out of the money generated by the contracts for the
facilitys output, such as the electricity sold by a power plant. The borrower is usually a Special Purpose
Entity (SPE) that is not permitted to perform any function other than developing, owning and operating
the installation. The consequence is that repayment depends primarily on the projects cash flow and
collateral value of the projects assets. the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, International
Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards (Basel II), November 2005.
Shaw Consultants understands that the Project will be implemented by a SPE which will be wholly
owned by the Curacao government, but which will be operated similarly to a private company (as
opposed to a government agency).
13.4.2 Project Exclusions
The following types of projects are typically not eligible for project finance:
Production or trade in any product or activity deemed illegal under host country laws or
regulations or international conventions and agreements, or subject to international bans, such as
pharmaceuticals, pesticides/herbicides, ozone depleting substances, PCBs, wildlife or products
regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES);
Production or trade in weapons and munitions;
Production or trade in alcoholic beverages (excluding beer and wine);
Production or trade in tobacco;
Gambling, casinos and equivalent enterprises;
Production or trade in radioactive materials this does not apply to the purchase of medical
equipment, quality control (measurement) equipment and any equipment where the radioactive
source is trivial and/or adequately shielded;
Production or trade in unbonded asbestos fibers this does not apply to purchase and use of
bonded asbestos cement sheeting where the asbestos content is less than 20%; and
Drift net fishing in the marine environment using nets in excess of 2.5 km. in length.
As far as Shaw Consultants can determine, none of the foregoing exclusions applies to the Project.
13.4.3 Project Screening
Projects which are not excluded from financing must be screened in accordance with criteria established
by the financial community in order to determine if a sensitive environmental or social receptor may be
impacted by the project. Typical criteria used by the financial community include a given projects
potential impact on any of the following:
Tropical forests or other areas with high biological diversity;

13 - 10
Nationally or internationally designated protected areas (e.g., wetlands, seashores, wildlands,
refuges or national parks);
Habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species;
Indigenous, tribal or other vulnerable populations;
Cultural, historical or archaeologically significant properties;
Residential areas which will need to be resettled (moved); and
Properties on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
World Heritage list.
The presence of one or more of these features within a given projects area of influence does not exclude
the project from obtaining financing from the worldwide community, although it does complicate the
matter. If one or more of these features is present, the projects sponsor will need to document the
following:
Location, spacial extent and temporal nature of the feature;
Ecological, social, economic and/or cultural importance of the feature;
Relationship of the feature with respect to the project (e.g., distance from the project);
Potential impacts which implementation of the project may have upon the feature;
Avoidance and/or mitigation measures which the project will implement in order to eliminate or
minimize its impacts upon the feature,
Monitoring measures to document the projects impacts for an appropriate period of time (up to
and including the life of the project), and
Compensation which the project will implement in recompense for its impacts (if impacts cannot
be suitably eliminated or avoided).
Enforceable commitments, bonds, insurance or some other form of financial guarantee may be required
by the financing institution(s), depending upon the relative importance of the feature and the potential
impacts associated with the project.
Initial screening of the Project by Shaw Consultants indicates that none of the features listed above are
present within the Projects area of influence.
13.4.4 Project Categorization
Based upon screening results, the Project will need to be categorized in accordance with the following
criteria (or similar criteria used by the financial institutions involved) to determine the type and degree of
review to which the project will need to be subjected:
Category A Projects with potentially significant adverse social or environmental impacts that
are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented;
Category B Projects with potential limited adverse social or environmental impacts that are few
in number, generally site-specific, largely reversible and readily addressed through mitigation
measures; and
Category C Projects with minimal or no social or environmental impacts.
Based upon our initial review of the Project, Shaw Consultants believes that the Project should be
characterized as a Category B project for the following reasons:

13 - 11
The Project will reuse existing infrastructure, including jetty, terminal and pipeline right-of-way
(ROW);
The Projects risks are well known, making quantification and assessment straightforward;
The Projects risks can be readily eliminated or minimized through mitigation measures;
The Project should not involve any involuntary resettlement as defined by the financial
community (removal of unauthorized pipeline ROW encroachment is not defined as involuntary
resettlement);
The Project should not impact any critical or unique habitats; and
The Project does not require dredging.
However, the financial institutions involved will ultimately make their own decision regarding the
Projects categorization.
13.4.5 Environmental Impact Assessment
All Category A and some Category B projects will require a comprehensive Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) to document their potential ESHS impacts, guide public consultation, revise project
designs in order to eliminate or minimize potential impacts to the extent practicable, prepare socially
acceptable compensation plans, and prepare project management and monitoring plans for use throughout
operations.
EIAs are of two types:
1. Project-specific EIA, where the EIA focuses on the projects potential impacts within its area of
influence, only; and
2. Non-project-specific EIA; i.e., cumulative, regional, sectoral or strategic EIAs, such as master
economic development plans that encompass multiple projects in order to better assess the
cumulative impacts of projects within a defined physical and/or economic area.
An EIAs scope and level of detail should be commensurate with the projects potential impacts.
Typically, an EIA will comprise the following elements:
Executive Summary Concisely discusses significant findings and recommended actions.
Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework Discusses the policy, legal and administrative
framework within which the EIA is conducted.
Project Description Describes the proposed project and its geographic, ecological, social and
temporal context, including any offsite investments that may be required (e.g., dedicated
pipelines, access roads, power plants, water supply, housing, and raw material and product
storage units). Indicates the need for any resettlement or social development plan. Normally
includes a map showing the project site and the projects area of influence.
Baseline Data Assesses the dimensions of the study area and describes the relevant physical,
biological and socio-economic conditions, including any changes anticipated before the project
commences. Also takes into account current and proposed development activities within the
project areas, but not directly connected to the project. Data should be relevant to decisions about
project location, design, operation or mitigation measures. Documents the relative accuracy,
reliability and sources of the data.
Environmental Impacts Predicts and assesses the projects likely positive and negative
impacts in quantitative terms to the extent possible. Identifies mitigation measures and any

13 - 12
residual negative impacts which cannot be mitigated. Explores opportunities for environmental
enhancement. Identifies and estimates the extent and quality of available data, key data gap and
uncertainties associated with predictions, and specifies topics which do not require further
attention.
Analysis of Alternatives Systematically compares feasible alternatives to the proposed project
site, technology, design and operation, including the without project situation, in terms of their
potential environmental impacts, the feasibility of mitigating these impacts, their capital and
recurrent costs, their suitability under local conditions, and their institutional, training and
monitoring requirements. For each of the alternatives, quantifies the environmental impacts to
the extent possible and attaches economic values where feasible. States the basis for selecting the
particular project design proposed and justifies recommended emission levels and approaches to
pollution prevention and abatement.
Environmental Management Plan Describes mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures
to be taken during construction and operation to eliminate adverse impacts, offset said impacts or
reduce said impacts to acceptable levels.
Consultation Record of consultation meetings, including consultations for obtaining the
informed views of the affected people, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
regulatory agencies.
For the Project, the EIA will need to encompass the unloading and storage terminal, the regasification
plant and the pipeline to deliver natural gas to the power plant, refinery and other designated industrial
users.
13.4.6 Public Consultation
For all Category A and, as appropriate, Category B project located in non-OECD countries and OECD
countries not designated as High-Income as defined by the World Bank Development Indicators
Database, the Borrower must consult with affected individuals and communities in a structured and
culturally appropriate manner. Affected communities are communities of the local population within a
given projects area of influence who are likely to be affected by the project, either adversely or
beneficially. Where such consultation needs to be undertaken in a structured manner, the financial
institution(s) may (read: will) require the preparation of a Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan.
The intent of the public consultation process goes well beyond simple distribution of information
regarding the project by the Borrower to the community. Rather, the intent is for the Borrower to solicit
comments, concerns, preferences and other information regarding the project, its proposed location and its
interaction with affected communities from the affected communities for the purposes of project
development and refinement. In other words, a proper public consultation process means that the affected
communities will have a say as to how, when and where the project is implemented.
For projects with potentially significant adverse impacts on affected communities, the process will ensure
free, prior and informed consultation, and facilitate informed community participation as a means to
establish, to the satisfaction of the financial institution, that a project has adequately incorporated
concerns of the affected communities.
Consultation should be free (free of external manipulation, interference or coercion, and intimidation),
prior (timely disclosure of information) and informed (relevant, understandable and accessible
information), and apply to the entire project process and not only to the early stages of the project. The
Borrower must tailor its consultation process to the language preferences of the affected communities,
their decision making processes and the needs of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups.

13 - 13
In order to accomplish this, the EIA documentation must be made available to the public by the Borrower
for a reasonable minimum period in the relevant local language and in a culturally appropriate manner.
The Borrower must take account of and document the process and results of the consultation, including
any actions resulting from the consultation on which the community and the Borrower have agreed. For
projects with potentially adverse social or environmental impacts, disclosure must occur early in the EIA
process and, in any event, before commencement of project construction as well as on an ongoing basis.
13.5 ESHS ISSUES OF CONCERN
Shaw Consultants has reviewed the Project and identified a number of ESHS issues which may be of
concern and which warrant further investigation by the Project.
13.5.1 LNG Regasification
There are a number of technologies used worldwide to regasify LNG, depending upon the technical,
social and environmental conditions extant at each location. The primary technologies in use are listed
below:
Open cycle heat exchange with adjacent surface water;
Closed cycle heat exchange with recirculating heating water;
Open cycle heat exchange with ambient air; and
Submerged combustion.
The conventional technology used to regasify LNG is an open cycle heat exchange system, whereby the
LNG is contacted with a stream of water which is sourced from and discharged to adjacent surface water.
Open cycle water systems regasify LNG by transferring heat from the surface water to the LNG. In so
doing, open cycle water systems cause a resulting decrease in the temperature of the surface water
(analogous to the increase in temperature resulting from open cycle systems associated with power
plants). In order to minimize thermal effects upon biota resident within the surface water, the Project
would be required to maintain the decrease in temperature attributable to the Project to less that 3C at the
outer boundary of a 100 meter diameter mixing zone about the Projects open cycle water discharge point.
However, even if the thermal effects of an open cycle water system are maintained within acceptable
limits, such a system may continue to adversely impact its environment due to impingement and/or
entrainment of aquatic organisms within the water cycle. In order to minimize such impacts, the open
cycle water intake units must be designed to minimize impingement of aquatic organisms on intake
screens and entrainment of organisms within the system itself. Among other constraints, this entails
keeping the intake velocity below 0.5 feet per second in order to allow aquatic organisms the opportunity
to escape and avoid capture.
Closed cycle water systems use a tower to heat a stream of recirculating water which has been cooled by
contact with LNG against ambient air, so that the water may be recirculated on a continuous basis. In this
manner, heat is drawn from the atmosphere with minimal effects upon the environment. However, the
recirculating water must be chemically treated with biocides and corrosion inhibitors, and a percentage of
the recirculating water must be purged periodically from the system in order to maintain chemical
concentrations within prescribed ranges. This purge stream must be treated prior to discharge to the
environment and represents a potentially adverse impact.
Open cycle air systems use a tower to heat LNG directly without the use of a recirculating water stream.
Such a unit eliminates the potential impacts associated with both open and closed cycle water systems.
However, open cycle air systems typically require the use of massive fans to move the quantities of

13 - 14
ambient air necessary to regasify the LNG. As a result, open cycle air systems may have a greater energy
demand than either open or closed cycle water systems. In addition, open cycle air systems are not
effective within colder climates (which is not a concern for the Project).
Submerged combustion units burn vaporized LNG within a tank of water to heat the water which is then
used to regasify the LNG. Submerged combustion units actually create significant quantities of fresh
water through the combustion process by converting methane (CH
4
) and atmospheric oxygen (O
2
) to
carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and water (H
2
O). However, submerged combustion units also cause emissions
of various air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NO
x
) and greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO
2
.
Submerged combustion units also consume significant quantities of fuel (LNG).
Each feasible regasification technology will need to be assessed so that the best technology for the
Project may be selected. This assessment process will need to be documented for agency and public
review within the EIA.
13.5.2 Transportation and Infrastructure
LNG carriers (ships) are typically massive vessels which require extensive, dedicated harbor facilities,
including specialized jetties and tugs. In addition, LNG carriers are typically provided with a buffer
zone during transit within designated harbors, harbor entrances and other channels. As a result, harbor
congestion and maritime traffic congestion associated with LNG carrier transits must be investigated.
Typically, this involves computer modeling and consultation with harbor pilots as well as with the Harbor
Master.
13.5.3 LNG Risk
The potential risks associated with the shipment, unloading, storage and regasification of LNG and
distribution of natural gas via cross-country pipeline with regard to human health and welfare as well as
upon the environment must be assessed. Fortunately, the risks associated with LNG regasification
terminals are well documented, understood and quantifiable. In addition, these risks are amenable to
mitigation.
The risks associated with LNG and natural gas are largely a function of their physical and chemical
properties as presented below:
Physical properties LNG and natural gas are colorless and odorless (for this reason, natural gas
is commonly odorized prior to distribution). LNG, as a liquid, is heavier than air. However,
natural gas is significantly lighter than air and disperses quickly.
Toxicity LNG and natural gas are classified as simple asphyxiants and are otherwise relatively
non-toxic.
Corrosivity LNG and natural are non-corrosive with regard to metal piping and structures.
Temperature LNG is typically transported and stored at cryogenic temperatures (minus 260F).
Accordingly, LNG will adversely affect humans, wildlife and vegetation upon dermal/surface
contact. In addition, LNG will adversely affect unprotected equipment and piping due to
embrittlement effects.
Pressure LNG is stored at atmospheric pressure, whereas the Project pipeline will be operated
within the range of 10 to 15 bar (500 to 750 psig).
Flammability In order to burn, LNG must be vaporized into natural gas, which has a relatively
narrow flammability range; i.e., the lower explosive limit (LEL) for methane is 5% by volume
in air, while its upper explosive limit is 15%. However, public perception is that LNG is an

13 - 15
explosive material. This perception will need to be addressed during the public consultation
process.
The Projects risks will need to be assessed in terms of two simultaneous variables: (1) the severity of
consequences in the event an incident occurs and (2) the probability that such an event could occur. In
other words, a highly significant incident that would pose the greatest risk is one which would result in
dire consequences and which is highly likely to occur. Conversely, an insignificant incident is one which
would result in minimal consequences and is unlikely to occur. Potential incidents will need to be
identified, their consequences quantified and their probabilities calculated/estimated based upon data
compiled by industry and government. Attention can then be focused on eliminating or at least
minimizing the consequences and/or probabilities of significant incidents on a site specific basis to levels
which are acceptable to the Projects government and host communities.
13.5.4 Mitigation and Control
There are two basic types of controls which can be applied to the Project to mitigate its potential risks: (1)
passive controls and (2) active controls.
Passive controls are related to equipment design and construction features which inherently reduce either
the severity or probability of an incident occurring. Examples of passive controls include the following:
Piping wall thickness and strength per class designation;
Additional piping wall thickness and strength at locations where people and/or wildlife are likely
to be present (e.g., road crossings); and
Natural gas odorizing for leak detection.
Active controls are related to operating and maintenance procedures in that they require human interface
in order to function. Examples of active controls include the following:
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems;
Emergency Shutdown (ESD) systems for jetty, regasification and pipeline; and
Emergency Preparedness and Response system.
The Project will need to establish and maintain an Emergency Preparedness and Response system to
prevent and respond to various emergencies. This system will need to be prepared in collaboration with
local governments and affected communities, particularly where the participation of such parties is
required to ensure an effective response. In the case of the Project, there is an existing infrastructure for
emergency response already in place, which can be supplemented to encompass the Project.
13.5.5 Property Acquisition
Project-related property acquisition and restrictions on land use can have adverse impacts on communities
and persons that use the property in question. Involuntary resettlement refers both to physical
displacement (relocation or loss of shelter) and to economic displacement (loss of assets or access to
assets that leads to loss of income sources or other means of livelihood). Resettlement is considered
involuntary when affected persons or communities do not have the right to refuse land acquisition or
restrictions on land use that result in physical or economic displacement. This includes the following:
Lawful expropriation of temporary or permanent restrictions on land use; and
Negotiated settlements in which the buyer can resort to expropriation or impose legal restrictions
on land use if negotiations with the seller fail.

13 - 16
In the case of the Project, the properties in questions are already the property of the government.
Accordingly, property acquisition should not involve the general public.
In the event that the Project discovers that there are unauthorized structures constructed on the pipeline
ROW, removal of these structures does not constitute involuntary resettlement.
13.5.6 Dredging
Shaw Consultants understands that the Project will be able to use existing harbors and that dredging of
new harbors or approaches will not be required for this Project.
13.5.7 Security
Use of public and/or private security forces to safeguard personnel and property associated with the
Project carries the risk that these forces may overstep their authority in conflict with individual rights. In
order to avoid this situation, the Project should align its security procedures with the Voluntary Principles
on Security and Human Rights (VPSHR) which have been adopted by governments of the United
States and the United Kingdom, companies in the extractive and energy sectors and several non-
governmental organizations (NGOs). The VPSHR incorporate international law enforcement
principals, such as the United Nations (UN) Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the
UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
13.5.8 Environmental and Social Management System
The Project will need to prepare and implement an Environmental and Social Management System
(ESMS) to ensure compliance with the Projects permits and other governmental authorizations.
13.5.9 Non-Governmental Organizations
There are several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which will be interested in the Project.
Typically, NGOs focus upon a particular issue. Some of these NGOs will be supportive of the Project,
while others may not. In either case, the Project will need to reach out to the NGOs active within Curacao
to solicit their input and cooperation regarding the Project.
13.6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Shaw Consultants reviewed the environmental laws and regulations promulgated by Curacao, the
Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Union, the United States of America in order to determine
what the Projects statutory requirements would be. In addition, since we understand that the Project is
considering project finance as a method of funding the Project, we reviewed the standards and guidelines
developed by multi-lateral financial institutions, export credit associations and private sector banks.
Furthermore, we reviewed codes and standards developed by relevant industry groups.
Shaw Consultants reviewed the permitting requirements within Curacao with regard to the Project. We
also reviewed documentation requirements of the financial community. Based on this brief analysis,
Shaw Consultants determined that Curacao does not currently require the Project to conduct a
comprehensive EIA; however, the financial community does. This EIA should be commensurate with the
requirements for a Category B project.
In concert with preparation of the Curacao permitting documents and the financial community EIA, the
Project needs to conduct a public consultation process to (1) inform the governmental agencies and
general public regarding the Project specifics (to the extent that they are currently known); (2) solicit
input from the affected communities on how the Project should be located structured, designed and

13 - 17
operated; (3) counter misinformation regarding the Project which has been accidently or purposely
distributed; and (4) reach a mutually agreeable resolution with the Projects host communities.
Shaw Consultants identified a number of ESHS issues which may be of concern for the Project.
Alternatives were discussed in terms of their relative impacts upon sensitive receptors.
In summary, Shaw Consultants believes that the Project can be successfully implemented with minimal
adverse impacts upon environmental and social receptors. However, the potential adverse impacts
associated with the Project cannot be eliminated altogether. Accordingly, the Project will need to
mitigate its adverse impacts to the extent practicable. To this end, the Project will need to prepare an
ESMS Plan to document and monitor its efforts to mitigate its potentially adverse environmental and
social impacts throughout Project design, construction and operation.
Section 14 Comments On Project Financing

14 - 1
14.1 OVERVIEW
In this section of the report, Shaw Consultants provides a brief overview of Project Finance and its
potential application to the Curacao LNG Project.
Shaw Consultants has been actively engaged in providing due diligence support since the mid-1980s
when the emergence of independent power projects became a catalyst for Project Financing. Until then
utility companies used corporate finance for the development of new assets. Loans for new infrastructure
were part of the public utility companys debt. As security, the lenders had full recourse to the assets and
revenue stream of the public utility, not just those associated with the new infrastructure (the project).
Project Finance is a method of funding in which the Lenders rely on the revenues generated by a single
project both as the source of repayment and as security for the exposure. A special purpose vehicle
generally a Project Company is established to own the Project assets. Power industry transactions
generally use non-recourse Project Finance Lenders carry full risk at Financial Close. Conversely,
process industries transactions generally use limited recourse Project Finance Sponsors provide
financial guarantees which fall away once the project is constructed and tested and Completion Criteria
have been met. Thereafter the Lenders security is limited to the physical asset and associated permits
and contracts.
Shaw Consultants has acted as the Lenders Independent Technical Consultant (ITC) on 20 LNG
receiving terminals worldwide. In our opinion, the Project is a suitable candidate for some form of
Project Finance funding.
14.2 EQUITY REQUIREMENTS
A Project Finance transaction will generally utilize funds from two sources Debt (the Lenders) and
Equity funds contributed by the owners (shareholders) of the Project. Equity takes risk and in return
receives dividends and capital gains based on net profits. Traditionally, the shareholders would have been
one or more utility companies with a vested interest in the function of the Project, e.g. LNG supplier, gas
offtaker and electricity generator. Recently, equity houses have demonstrated an appetite for buying into
Project Companies.
Typically, equity input is likely to be at least 20-percent of total installed cost, although some projects
achieve a 15 percent equity infusion requirement. The typical range is between 20 and 40 percent of total
installed cost. As a general observation, Lenders prefer high equity participation as an indication of
Sponsor commitment whereas Sponsors prefer a relatively low equity participation to minimize utilization
of corporate resources. Factors that influence the acceptable debt to equity ratio include project location,
sponsor creditworthiness and the overall risk determined by the lenders and their advisors.
Table 14.2-2 provides an example of sources and uses for the financing of a LNG terminal. In this case
the debt to equity ratio is 70:30. In Shaw Consultants this would be a reasonable assumption for Project
Finance funding of the Curacao Project. It should be noted that the Project will incur substantial fees and
interest during the construction period. In this instance, we have assumed that some of the equity will be
derived from income generated in the period between start-up and Completion. Even so, hard equity
requirements would be of the order of US$140 million.

14 - 2
Table 14.2-2 Example Sources and Uses

SOURCES
Senior Facilities Committed
Debt

Debt tranche 1 240
Debt tranche 2 115
Project's Debt 355

Equity injected
Project Equity
Owner #1 80
Owner #2 60
Sum Equity injected 140
Pre-Completion revenue (less Operating
Costs) 14
Project's Equity 154
SOURCES 509

USES
Construction Capex 430
Senior Debt Financing interest & fees 62
Pre-FID costs 2
DSRA 15
USES 509

14.3 TYPICAL LENDING ORGANIZATIONS
The financial community comprises a broad range of institutions. These include:
Multilateral Development Agencies (MDAs) which include global institutions, such as the
World Bank and its affiliates (the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the International
Development Association (IDA) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
(MIGA)), the international Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and regional
development agencies such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the European
Investment Bank (EIB). Typically MDAs will provide a relatively small proportion of the
funding of the project (unless it is state-sponsored) but their involvement provides considerable
comfort to both equity and commercial lenders
Export Credit Associations (ECAs), a subset of Bilateral Agencies, include US Ex-Im Bank,
J apan Bank for Industrial Cooperation (J BIC) and the Korea Eximbank (K-Exim). These
agencies participation is normally linked to their national involvement in a project. This can
include the supply of equipment and materials and the supply of LNG;
Commercial Lenders such as ING, Credit Suisse, CitiBank, HSBC, Barclays, BNP Paribas,
Societe Generale, Credit Agricole Commercial and Industrial Bank;
Equity Houses there are a growing number of equity houses. These include investment banks,
private equity funds, pension funds and foreign investment arms of state-owned oil and gas
companies;

14 - 3
Participating contractors and suppliers major EPC contractors can often arrange financing
packages from the above.
The IDB is the oldest regional development agency. It was established in 1959 and has 46 member
countries, 17 of which are non-regional industrialized countries. Loans are made to public entities but
must be backed by a government guarantee. IDB has established two affiliates to facilitate loans to the
private sector. These are the Inter-American Investment Corporation (IIC) and the Multilateral
Investment Fund. The IIC provides equity and loans to private companies without a requirement for
government support. Moreover, it is able to arrange syndicated loans. This is advantageous to
commercial banks within the syndicate as the IIC is the Lender of Record and administers the loan.
Therefore, any default is a default against the IIC.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) was established in 1958 to finance capital investment projects
that promote balanced development throughout the European Union. It has participated in projects in
Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Rim.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was established in 1961 and
currently has 34 members. All member countries have substantial investment and technical development
assistance programs which are administered through various bilateral agencies. Typically, the functions
of bilateral agencies are one of the following:
Provision of grants and concessional loans to developing countries based on economic, social and
political considerations by way of example the US Agency for International Development
(USAID);
Provision of loans, guarantees and insurance to promote the export of goods and services
(including EPC of the Project) from the donor country by way of example the US Export-
Import Bank (US Exim).
14.4 TERMS AND CRITERIA
In Shaw Consultants experience, the criteria and terms that would most likely apply to the Curacao LNG
Project include:
Term 12 to 25 years;
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) must be submitted and preferably
approved see Section 14.6;
Primary permits obtained (prior to Financial Close);
Low Environmental and Social risk reputation issue for Equator Principles Finance Institutions
(EPFI);
Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) complete;
Use of proven technology;
Lump sum contracting strategy (preferred but not essential);
CAPEX profile developed;
Schedule developed;
Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) or Lease Contract invitation to bid (ITB)
package developed and preferably issued;
Bids received prior to Financial Close;
LNG SPA negotiated for a term that exceeds the life of loan;
Gas reserves to LNG supplier must exceed life of loan;
Gas Offtake Agreement with credit rating agency(Moodys or Standard and Poors) rated entity;

14 - 4
Operations philosophy established;
Operation and Maintenance Contract Term Sheet developed in the event of contracted-out
operations;
OPEX profile developed;
Realistic financial model developed that reflects the above;
Completion support package identified.
The lenders will require surety over the Project assets, including the facilities and supporting permits and
contracts.
14.5 RISK
Lenders to Project Finance transactions undertake a careful and robust assessment of risk. Therefore, the
Owner/Developer must prepare a robust definition of the Project and progress early critical path items
such as undertaking environmental impact assessments and applying for long-lead permits. An LNG
Import Project will be subject to due diligence review by legal, technical, environmental and social,
market, shipping and insurance consultants. Independent Technical Consultants such as Shaw
Consultants will assess different aspects of the implementation and operation and assign risk categories.
These in turn are assessed by the potential lenders deal teams and used in their applications to their
respective credit committees. Table 14.5-1 presents a typical risk summary for a LNG regasification
terminal project.
Table 14.5-1 Typical Risk Assessment Results
Project Risk
Component
Risk Category Project Risk
Component
Risk Category
Project Definition Low Interface Management Medium
Lng Supply Low Schedule Medium
Regasification
Technology
Low Capex Low To Medium
Independent Power
Supply
Low Opex Low To Medium
Scale-Up Low To Medium Operations Medium
Regulatory Low Operations Logistics Medium
Effluents And Emissions Low Operations
Performance
Medium
Contracting Strategy Low To Medium Product Offtake Low
Facility Implementation Medium Completion And
Performance
Low To Medium
Construction Logistics Low To Medium Geography Low To Medium
Supporting
Infrastructure
Implementation
Low To Medium

Each risk category would be supported by a narrative explaining the nature of the risk and the associated
mitigation measures that are in place or planned to be put into place.

As a general observation, high risks are not financeable.


14 - 5
14.6 EQUATOR PRINCIPLES
14.6.1 Background
On J une 4, 2003, ten leading banks from seven countries adopted the Equator Principles.
Implementation of these principles promotes responsible environmental stewardship and socially
responsible development, particularly on projects within developing countries. The number of financial
institutions which have adopted the Equator Principles, hereafter referred to as Equator Principles
Financial Institutions (EPFIs), has since grown to over 60 financial institutions, representing over 85
percent of the global project loan market. Therefore, it is likely that any project funded through project
finance will involve one or more of the banks which have adopted the Equator Principles.
Compliance with the requirements of the Equator Principles is a fundamental requirement of any credit
application to these banks.
The Equator Principles are based on the policies and guidelines of the World Bank Group in general and
those of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private-sector investment arm of the World
The Equator Principles are applicable to projects with a capital cost of US$10 million or more and are
intended to serve as a common baseline and framework for implementation of each adoptive banks
individual, internal environmental and social procedures and standards for project financing activities
across all industry sectors. In adopting the Equator Principles, a bank undertakes to provide loans only to
those projects whose sponsors can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the bank, the sponsors ability and
willingness to comply with comprehensive processes aimed at ensuring that projects are developed in a
socially responsible manner and according to sound environmental management practices. In
implementing the Equator Principles, banks must establish internal policies and processes consistent with
the principles.
EPFIs will only provide loans to projects which conform to the following Equator Principles:
Equator Principle 1 - Review and Categorization - Each project must be categorized according
to the magnitude of its potential impacts and risks in accordance with the environmental and
social screening criteria of the IFC:
o Category A Projects with potentially significant adverse social or environmental impacts
that are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented;
o Category B Projects with potential limited adverse social or environmental impacts that are
few in number, generally site-specific, largely reversible and readily addressed through
mitigation measures; and
o Category C Projects with minimal or no social or environmental impacts;
Equator Principle 2 - Social and Environmental Assessment - The borrower must conduct a
Social and Environmental Assessment (Assessment) process to address the relevant social and
environmental impacts and risks of the proposed project. The Assessment must also propose
mitigation and management measures relevant and appropriate to the nature and scale of the
proposed project;
Equator Principle 3 - Applicable Social and Environmental Standards - The Assessment
must establish the projects overall compliance with, or justified deviation from, the applicable
IFC Performance Standards and the World Bank Group Industry-Specific EHS Guidelines;
Equator Principle 4 - Action Plan and Management System - The borrower must prepare an
Action Plan which addresses the relevant findings and draws on the conclusions of the
Assessment to describe and prioritize the actions required to implement mitigation measures,

14 - 6
corrective actions and monitoring measures necessary to management the impacts and risks
identified in the Assessment. The borrower must establish a project management system to
implement the action plan;
Equator Principle 5 - Consultation and Disclosure - The borrower, government or third party
expert must consult with communities potentially affected by the proposed project in a structured
and culturally appropriate manner. For projects with significant adverse impacts on affected
communities, the consultation process must ensure free, prior and informed consultation and
facilitate informed participation to establish that a project has adequately incorporated affected
community concerns. The borrower must document the consultation process, including any
agreed actions resulting from the consultation. Disclosure of potential impacts must occur early
in the Assessment process (i.e., before project construction commences) and continue on an
ongoing basis throughout the construction and operation phases of the project;
Equator Principle 6 - Grievance Mechanism - The borrower must establish a grievance
mechanism as a part of the projects environmental and social management system to allow the
borrower to receive and resolve concerns and grievances concerning the projects social and
environmental performance raised by individuals or groups from project-affected communities;
Equator Principle 7 - Independent Review - An independent social or environmental expert not
directly associated with the borrower must review the Assessment, action plan and consultation
process documentation in order to assist the EPFIs due diligence and assess compliance with the
Equator Principles;
Equator Principle 8 Covenants - The borrower must covenant, as part of its financing
documentation, to the following:
o Comply with all relevant host country social and environmental laws, regulations and
permits;
o Comply with the project-specific action plan during construction and operation;
o Provide periodic reports (not less than annually) to the EPFI to document compliance
with the action plan and relevant host country social and environmental laws, regulations
and permits;
o Decommission the project facilities in accordance with an agreed decommissioning plan;
Equator Principle 9 Independent Monitoring and Reporting - The EPFIs must appoint, or
the borrower must retain, qualified and experienced external experts to verify the projects
monitoring information as shared with the EPFIs; and
Equator Principle 10 EPFI Reporting - Each EPFI adopting the Equator Principles commits
to periodic public reports (at least annually) concerning its Equator Principles implementation
processes and experience, taking into account appropriate confidentiality considerations. At a
minimum, this reporting must include the number of transactions screened by each EPFI,
including the categorization accorded to transactions (and may include a breakdown by sector or
region), and information regarding implementation.
Category A, B and C projects must comply with the Equator Principles listed above in accordance with
the following conditions:
Equator Principle 1 applies to all projects;
Equator Principles 2 through 9 do not apply to Category C projects;
Equator Principle 2 applies to all Category A and B projects;

14 - 7
Equator Principles 3 through 6 do not apply to projects located in countries which are defined by
the World Bank Development Indicators Database as High-Income Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The regulatory, permitting and public
comment requirements in High-Income OECD countries generally meet or exceed the
requirements of the IFC Performance Standards and the WBG EHS Guidelines. Accordingly,
successful completion of an Assessment (or its equivalent) process in compliance with host
country laws in High-Income OECD countries is considered to be an acceptable substitute for
Equator Principles 3 through 6. However, the OECD currently lists Mexico as an upper middle
income country eligible for borrowing from the IDA. Consequently, Equator Principles 3
through 6 apply to the Project;
Equator Principles 7 through 9 apply to all Category A projects and, as appropriate, Category B
projects; and
Equator Principle 10 applies to the EPFIs, rather than to the borrower.
14.6.2 World Bank
The World Bank Group consists of five closely associated institutions, all owned by member countries
that carry ultimate decision-making power. Each institution plays a distinct role in the World Bank
Groups mission to fight poverty and improve living standards for people in the developing world.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) The IBRD aims to reduce
poverty in middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries by promoting sustainable
development through loans, guarantees, risk management products, and analytical and advisory
services. Established in 1944 as the original institution of the World Bank Group, IBRD is
structured like a cooperative that is owned and operated for the benefit of its 185 member
countries. Income generated by IBRD loans over the years has allowed the agency to fund
important development activities and ensures the agencys strong financial position. This enables
borrowing in capital markets at low cost. Thus, IBRD is able to offer its clients good borrowing
terms;
International Development Association (IDA) The IDA offers interest-free credits and grants
to the worlds poorest countries. This highly concessional financing is vital because these
countries have little or no capacity to borrow on market terms. IDA resources and technical
assistance support country-led poverty reduction strategies in key areas: increased productivity,
better governance and accountability, improved private investment climate, and access to
education and health care for poor people;
International Finance Corporation (IFC) The IFC fosters sustainable economic growth in
developing countries by financing private sector investment, mobilizing private capital in local
and international financial markets, and providing advisory and risk mitigation services to
businesses and governments. IFCs vision is that people should have the opportunity to escape
poverty and improve their lives. It seeks to reach businesses in regions and countries that have
limited access to capital and provides finance in markets deemed too risky by commercial
investors. IFC also adds value to the projects it finances through its corporate governance,
environmental and social expertise. It is the largest multilateral source of debt and equity
financing for private enterprise in developing countries;
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) Concerns about investment environments
and perceptions of political risk often inhibit foreign direct investment, a key driver of economic
growth in developing countries. The MIGA addresses these concerns by providing political risk
insurance (guarantees), offering investors protection against noncommercial risks such as
expropriation, currency inconvertibility, breach of contract, war and civil disturbance. MIGA

14 - 8
also provides advisory services to help countries attract and retain foreign investment, mediates
investment disputes to keep current investments intact and remove potential obstacles to future
investment, and disseminates information on investment opportunities to the international
business community;
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) The ICSID is an
institution specifically designed to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes between
governments and private foreign investors through conciliation and arbitration. Its aim is to
foster an atmosphere of mutual confidence between states and investors in order to promote
increased flows of international investment. Recourse to ICSID conciliation and arbitration is
entirely voluntary. ICSID also issues publications on dispute settlement and foreign investment
law.
The term World Bank Group encompasses all five institutions, while the term World Bank refers
specifically to two of the five, IBRD and IDA.
The IFC fosters sustainable economic growth in developing countries by financing private sector
investment, mobilizing capital in the international financial markets, and providing advisory services to
businesses and governments. It applies environmental and social standards to all the projects it finances
to minimize project-related impacts on the environment and affected communities. In February 2006, the
World Bank Group completed a rigorous process of updating its standards, namely:
IFC Sustainability Framework, which includes the following policies, procedures and standards:
o Policy on Social and Environmental Sustainability defines IFCs role and responsibility
in supporting project performance in partnership with clients;
o Disclosure Policy defines IFCs obligations to disclose information about itself as an
institution and its activities;
o Environmental and Social Review Procedure gives direction to IFC officers in
implementing the Polity on Social and Environmental Sustainability and reviewing
compliance and implementation by private sector projects;
o Performance Standards defines clients roles and responsibilities for managing their
projects and the requirements for receiving and retaining IFC support. The standards
include requirements to disclose information; and
World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines industry sector
specific technical guidance informing those parts of the new policy structure related to
environmental, health and safety issues (replaces and combines the World Bank Group Pollution
Prevention and Abatement Handbook and the IFC EHS Guidelines).
The IFC applies its Performance Standards to manage social and environmental risks and impacts and to
enhance development opportunities in its private sector financing in its member countries eligible for
financing. Performance Standards may also be applied by other financial institutions electing to apply
them to projects in emerging markets. Together, the IFCs eight Performance Standards establish
standards that the client must meet throughout the life of an investment by IFC or other relevant financial
institution (the term client is used throughout the Performance Standards broadly to refer to the party
responsible for implementing and operating the project that is being financed, or the recipient of the
financing, depending on the project structure and type of financing).

14 - 9
Performance Standard 1 Social and Environmental Assessment and Management System;
Performance Standard 2 Labor and Working Conditions;
Performance Standard 3 Pollution Prevention and Abatement;
Performance Standard 4 Community Health, Safety and Security;
Performance Standard 5 Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement;
Performance Standard 6 Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource
Management;
Performance Standard 7 Indigenous Peoples; and
Performance Standard 8 Cultural Heritage.
In meeting the requirements of the IFC Performance Standards, clients must comply with applicable
national laws, including those laws implementing host country obligations under international law.
IFC recently completed a fresh revision to its Sustainability Framework:
April 14, 2011 IFC posted its revised policies, procedures and standards on its web site;
May 12, 2011 These revisions were formally approved by IFCs Board of Directors; and
J anuary 1, 2012 These revisions become effective.
These revisions are summarized below:
Sustainability Policy
o Strengthens IFCs commitments to climate change, business and human rights, corporate
governance and gender
o Revises and strengthens categorization system
Greater emphasis on inherent risks and project context
Categorizes actions by Financial Intermediaries (FIs) according to the level of
their environmental and social risks
o Strengthens due diligence for FIs
o Clarifies due diligence for Advisory Services
o Strengthens disclosure requirements for extractive industry projects
o Changes name to Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and
Impacts
o Refers to private sector responsibility to respect human rights
o Introduces better applicability to investments other than project finance (non-defined
assets concept)
o Requires stakeholder engagement beyond Affected Communities
o Clarifies levels of stakeholder engagement under different circumstances
o Requires development of a formal environment and social policy reflecting principles of
the Performance Standards
o Introduces participatory monitoring (when appropriate) as an option during
implementation
o Requires period performance reviews by senior management
o Establishes requirement for comparable terms and conditions for migrant workers
compared to non-migrant workers

14 - 10
o Introduces quality requirements for workers accommodation
o Requires ongoing monitoring of working conditions for workers under the age of 18
o Requires establishing policies and procedures to manage and monitor compliance of third
parties with Performance Standard 2
o Requires alternatives analysis in case of retrenchment
o Requires ongoing monitoring of primary supply chain
o Introduces safety trigger in primary supply chain
o Changes name to Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention
o Introduces a resource efficiency concept for energy, water and core material inputs
o Strengthens focus on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas measurement
o Reduces greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for reporting to IFC from 100,000 tons of
CO
2
to 25,000 tons of CO
2
per year
o Requires determination of accountability with regards to historical pollution
o Introduces concept of duty of care for hazardous waste disposal
o Considers risks to communities associated with use and/or alteration of natural resources
and climate change through an ecosystems approach
o Extends scope of application to restrictions on land use
o Strengthens requirements regarding consultations
o Introduces a requirement for a completion audit under certain circumstances
o Changes name to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living
Natural Resources
o Clarifies definitions of and requirements for various types of habitats
o Introduces stronger requirements for biodiversity offsets
o Introduces specific requirements for plantations and natural forests
o Introduces specific requirements for management of renewable natural resources
o Strengthens supply chain scope
o Expands consideration of Indigenous Peoples specific circumstances in developing
mitigation measures and compensation
o Introduces requirement for land acquisition due diligence with regards to lands subject to
traditional ownership or under customary use
o Introduces the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) under certain
circumstances
o Requires clients to allow access to cultural sites
Although the 2011 revisions are not technically effective until J anuary 1, 2012, Shaw Consultants notes
that several of these revisions have already been implemented by IFC staff on an unwritten rule basis.
Significantly, the 2011 revisions to IFCs Sustainability Framework do not preclude the IFC from
participating in oil and gas exploration and development, mining and other extractive projects. In
addition, the IFCs 2011 revisions discussed above do not affect the EHS Guidelines.

14 - 11
As of April 30, 2007, new versions of the EHS Guidelines are now in use. The EHS Guidelines replace
those documents previously published in Part III of the Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook
and on the IFC website.
The EHS Guidelines are technical reference documents with general and industry-specific examples of
good international industry practice as defined in IFCs Performance Standard 3. They contain
performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in new facilities at
reasonable costs by existing technology. When host country regulations differ from the levels and
measures presented in the EHS Guidelines, projects are expected to achieve whichever is more stringent.
If less stringent levels or measures are appropriate in view of specific project circumstances, a full and
detailed justification for any proposed alternatives is needed as part of the site-specific environmental
assessment. This justification should demonstrate that the choice for any alternate performance levels is
protective of human health and the environment.
Shaw Consultants identified the following EHS Guidelines which are relevant to the Project:
Environmental, Health and Safety General Guidelines contain information on cross-cutting
environmental, health and safety issues potentially applicable to all industry sectors. These
guidelines should be used together with the relevant industry sector guideline; and
Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Onshore Oil and Gas Development include
information relevant to seismic exploration; exploratory and production drilling; development and
production activities; transportation activities including pipelines; other facilities including
pump stations, metering stations, pigging stations, compressor stations and storage facilities;
ancillary and support operations; and decommissioning.
14.7 LENDERS DUE DILIGENCE REPORT
A typical due diligence review of a LNG regasification project entails the following:
Review of the condition of any existing facilities that required rework, repair and/or
refurbishment prior to their inclusion into the Project;
Review of technology, engineering design and specifications for the proposed new facilities;
Review of interfaces with existing infrastructure;
Review of the Sponsors overall Project execution strategy;
Review of the Project capital cost estimate and supporting data for completeness and
reasonableness;
Review of LNG supply market and shipping logistics;
Review of the Sponsors forecast operating and maintenance costs for reasonableness;
Review of projected performance data utilized in economic analyses to assess the facilities
ability to meet minimum net outputs and performance standards during the term of the debt;
Review of the technical aspects of all major contracts currently available pertaining to the Project
for compatibility of contract terms and conditions with the design objectives and with the forecast
operating parameters of the facility;
Review of the Projects ability to obtain and comply with the requirements of applicable permits
and licenses for construction and operation of the Project facilities;
Review of compliance with the requirements of the Equator Principles;
Review of the reasonableness of the technical inputs to the pro forma economic model;

14 - 12
Recommendation of sensitivity analyses to be undertaken on the input assumptions to the
financial model and comment on their impact on debt service coverage ratios; and
Preparation of a written report describing the results of the reviews above.
The ITC has to ensure that the individual technical and commercial components of the Project are
consistent. Shaw Consultants likens this to assembling a jigsaw puzzle, see Figure 14.7-1.
Figure 14.7-1 Due Diligence Process

The output from the review process provides a check on the inputs to the financial model.

CURACAO LNG TERMINAL
ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN BASIS

Project No. 145790

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 5
2. LNG TERMINAL DESIGN CAPACITY .............................................................................. 5
3. LNG FEEDSTOCK DESIGN COMPOSITION .................................................................. 5
4. LNG SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................................................... 6
5. TERMINAL SITE LOCATION ........................................................................................... 7
6. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................... 9
6.1 Sendout Gas Capacity and Quality Specifications ................................................ 9
6.1 On-Line Availability ............................................................................................... 9
6.2 Sendout Gas Demand Forecast ............................................................................ 9
6.3 Design Life .......................................................................................................... 10
6.4 General Requirements ........................................................................................ 10
6.4.1 J etty, Berthing and Cargo Unloading Facility .......................................... 10
6.4.2 LNG Storage ........................................................................................... 11
6.4.3 Boil Off Gas Handling System ................................................................. 12
6.4.4 LNG Pumping and Sendout System ....................................................... 12
6.4.5 LNG Vaporization System ....................................................................... 12
6.4.6 Gas Sendout System .............................................................................. 13
6.4.7 Operations Control System ..................................................................... 13
6.4.8 Process Heating Medium System ........................................................... 14
6.4.9 Seawater System .................................................................................... 14
6.4.10 Pressure Relief and Flare/Vent Systems ................................................ 15
6.4.11 Fuel Gas System ..................................................................................... 16
6.4.12 Utility and Instrument Air System ............................................................ 16
6.4.13 Nitrogen System ...................................................................................... 17
6.4.14 Wastewater Treatment ............................................................................ 18
6.4.15 Bulk Storage ............................................................................................ 18
6.4.16 Electric Power Supply and Distribution ................................................... 18
6.4.17 Water Supply Systems ............................................................................ 19
6.5 Safety System Requirements .............................................................................. 20

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 3
6.5.1 Fire Protection System ............................................................................ 20
6.5.2 Fire and Gas Detection System .............................................................. 21
6.5.3 Ignition Source Control ............................................................................ 21
6.5.4 Emergency Shutdown System ................................................................ 21
6.5.5 Emergency Evacuation ........................................................................... 22
6.5.6 LNG Spill Impoundment System ............................................................. 22
6.5.7 Thermal Exclusion Zone .......................................................................... 23
6.5.8 Vapor Dispersion Zone ............................................................................ 23
6.5.9 Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) Study ........................................... 24
6.6 Security Systems ................................................................................................ 24
6.7 Buildings and Infrastructure ................................................................................ 24
7. SITE DESIGN DATA ....................................................................................................... 24
7.1 Location ............................................................................................................... 24
7.2 Ambient Air Temperatures and Relative Humidity .............................................. 25
7.3 Bathymetric Design Data .................................................................................... 25
7.4 Wind and Weather Design Data .......................................................................... 25
7.5 Seawater Physical Properties ............................................................................. 26
7.6 Seismic Design Criteria ....................................................................................... 26
8. ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING .................................................................................. 26
9. DESIGN STANDARDS AND CODES ............................................................................. 26
9.1 Marine Facilities (Dock, Mooring Systems, Berthing and J etty) .......................... 27
9.2 Onshore Facilities within Terminal Fence ........................................................... 27
9.3 Onshore Gas Pipelines Outside Terminal Fence ................................................ 28
10. GAS SENDOUT PIPELINE TIE-IN ................................................................................. 28
11. PRIME MOVERS ............................................................................................................ 28
12. NOISE ABATEMENT ...................................................................................................... 28
13. MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................ 29
13.1 Corrosion Allowance ........................................................................................... 29
13.1.1 Equipment Corrosion Allowance ............................................................. 29
13.1.2 Piping Corrosion Allowance .................................................................... 29
13.2 Unloading Transfer Lines .................................................................................... 30

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 4
13.3 Sendout Heat Exchangers .................................................................................. 30
13.3.1 Open Rack Vaporizers (ORVs) ............................................................... 30
13.3.2 Gas Sendout Superheater Shell & Tube Exchanger ............................... 30
13.4 BOG Condenser .................................................................................................. 30
13.5 Line Sizing Criteria .............................................................................................. 31
13.5.1 Vapor Lines ............................................................................................. 31
13.5.2 Liquid Lines ............................................................................................. 31
14. DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................ 32

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 5
1. OVERVIEW
In order to improve its international competitiveness and reduce its dependence on imported
petroleum, the Government of Curacao (GOC) has implemented a strategy to diversify its energy
supply. The strategy aims at introducing imported natural gas into Curacaos energy supply mix to
improve security of supplies, achieve long-term stability in energy prices and to improve the
environmental sustainability of providing energy.
Under this strategy, it is proposed to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Curacao under long-term
contractual arrangements to initially meet the needs of the local power generation and expandable to
meet the needs of the Isla Refinery operation and its associated utility plant.
Refineria di Korsou N.V. (RDK) owns the refinery in Curacao which is currently leased and operated
by PDVSA. RDK is owned and controlled by the GOC. RDK engaged Shaw Consultants
International, Inc. (Shaw Consultants) to complete a conceptual design for a conventional onshore
LNG receiving and regasification terminal (LNG Terminal).
This document is the Design Basis (DB) used in the conceptual design of the LNG Terminal. This DB
is CONCEPTUAL in nature and may be subject to change as more information is gathered and the
project is more clearly defined.
2. LNG TERMINAL DESIGN CAPACITY
The Design Capacity of the Curacao LNG Terminal shall be 137,000 MMBtu per day. The Terminal
shall be designed to accommodate a range of LNG feedstock compositions with the higher heating
value (HHV) of the resulting sendout gas ranging between a maximum of 1,150 Btu/scf and a
minimum of 1,000 Btu/scf.
Based on processing LNG supplied from Atlantic LNG Trinidad with an average HHV of approximately
1,024 Btu/scf, the volumetric gas sendout rate will be approximately 133.7 MMscfd. Actual volumetric
sendout rate will depend on the HHV of the LNG feedstock.
3. LNG FEEDSTOCK DESIGN COMPOSITION
The Terminal shall be designed with the flexibility to process LNG feedstock ranging from rich to lean
compositions as listed in Table 1. The Design Composition is noted in the table. Contractor shall
make heat and material balance calculations for the Design Composition and shall verify that the
equipment provided in the design is capable of processing the richest LNG feedstock composition
shown in Table 1 at the Design Capacity throughput.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 6

Table 1 Range of LNG Feedstock Compositions
PROPERTIES Trinidad Idku Damietta Nigeria Oman Al geria Peru
Sabine
Pass DESIGN
Molecular Weight 16.82 16.55 16.39 17.44 18.20 18.34 17.55 16.51 16.67
LNG Density lb/ft
3
27.46 26.83 26.83 28.08 29.32 29.60 28.42 27.14 27.09
NG Sp.Gr. 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.57 0.57
HHV Btu/scf 1,056 1,037 1,028 1,084 1,119 1,110 1,083 1,027 1,044
Wobbe Index 1,385 1,375 1,367 1,396 1,410 1,396 1,391 1,360 1,376
COMPOSITION Mole% Mole% Mole% Mole% Mole% Mole% Mole% Mole% Mole%
CO
2
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N
2
0.01 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.43 1.40 0.55 0.50 0.00
C
1
96.07 97.06 97.81 92.85 89.68 86.90 89.20 97.19 95.50
C
2
2.75 2.41 2.01 4.69 6.19 9.00 10.21 1.92 4.50
C
3
0.77 0.36 0.07 1.93 2.31 1.95 0.04 0.25 0.00
i-C
4
0.21 0.08 0.04 0.24 0.71 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.00
n-C
4
0.18 0.07 0.01 0.19 0.66 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.00
i-C
5
0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
n-C
5
0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
C
6
+
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
4. LNG SPECIFICATIONS
The LNG Terminal shall be designed to accept both Lean and Rich LNG cargoes. The terms Lean
and Rich in this context are used to characterize the relative quantity of ethane and heavier
components (C
2
+
) contained in the LNG.
LNG cargoes unloaded from an LNG ship into the Curacao LNG Terminal shall meet or exceed the
quality LNG specifications given in Table 2.
Table 2 LNG CARGO QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS
LNG CARGO QUALITY SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION VALUE
Ship LNG Saturation Pressure Less than 16.2 psia
N
2
Less than 1.50 Mol %
O
2
Less than 1 ppm by vol
H
2
S Less than 0.25 grains/100 scf (vaporized)
Total Sulfur Less than 0.5 grains/100 scf (vaporized)
Mercaptans Less than 0.25 grains/100 scf (vaporized)
C
5
+
Less than 0.3 mol %
C
6
+
Less than 1.0 ppm by volume
Water, CO
2
or Mercury None
Hazardous or Toxic Substances None
Higher Heating Value Between 1,150 and 1,000 Btu/scf

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 7
5. TERMINAL SITE LOCATION
Wind: The prevailing trade wind directions vary slightly East North East to East South East, with an
average velocity of 11 to 16 knots.
Tides: The tidal range in the Ports of Curacao rarely exceeds two feet.
Currents: The current usually sets about West North West near the shores of Curacao, with a
maximum velocity of 3 knots for short periods. The regular velocity is not more than 0.5 knots.
Sometimes an easterly current occurs, but this is of lesser strength.
Pilot: Pilot is compulsory for vessels of 50 GT and higher. Pilots are provided from Schottegat for all
ports. Arrival time should be sent 72, 48, 24 and 12 hours in advance via the local agent and when in
radio range to Fort Nassau Traffic Control.
The Bullen Bay site has been selected for the Curacao LNG Terminal and is illustrated in Figure 1 and
Figure 2. The Terminal facilities will be installed on Parcel A located adjacent to J etty No.1.
J etty No.1 is potentially available for use in this project and will be upgraded / modified for a LNG
unloading facility. J etty No.1 has sufficient clearance and access for accommodating carrier up to 400
meters in length with a maximum draft of 21 meters.
Figure 1 Bullen Bay Site

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 8
Figure 2 Bullen Bay Site Option Close-up

J etty No. 1 will be upgraded for LNG service and shall be dedicated to serve the Curacao LNG
Terminal.
With respect to tug assistance at Bullen Bay, tugs are compulsory and availably from the Schottegat
Harbor at Willemstad, although there is a tugboat jetty at Bullen bay for tugs, which can accommodate
tugs up to 7 meters in draft. Tug support current requirements are summarized as follows:
Arrival Support
Tankers up to 150,000 SDW 2 tugs;
Tankers over 150,000 SDW up to 350.000 SDW 3 tugs; and
Tankers over 350,000 SDW 4 tugs.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 9
Departure Support
On departure 2 tugs for all tankers.
6. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The Curacao LNG Terminal shall be designed to meet the following functional requirements.
6.1 Sendout Gas Capacity and Quality Specifications
The sendout gas capacity and quality specifications for the LNG Terminal are given in Table 3.
Table 3 Sendout Gas Capacity and Specifications
PARAMETER \ SITE BULLEN BAY
Max. Sendout Gas Pressure 780 psig
Peak Sendout Gas Rate 137,000 MMBtu/Day
Minimum Sendout Gas Rate 20,000 MMBtu/Day
Sendout Gas Temperature Minimum: 60
o
F Maximum: 120
o
F
HHV 1,000 - 1,150 Btu/scf
Max. N
2
2.00 mol%
Max. CO
2
2.00 mol%
Max. Non-Hydrocarbon Content 4.00 mol%
Max. O
2
10 ppm by volume
Max. H
2
S 0.25 grains/100 scf
Max. Mercaptans 0.25 grains/100 scf
Max. Total Sulfur 0.50 grains/100 scf
Max. Water Vapor Content 7.0 lbs/MMscf
HC Dew Point Less than 30
o
F @ 500 psig
6.1 On-Line Availability
It is desired that the sparing philosophy and design configuration used in the Curacao LNG Terminal
will yield a highly reliable operating facility. The target on-line availability of the integrated gas
sendout system is 99.0%.
Certain situations and equipment failures shall be considered as conditions of Force Majeure. These
shall include Hurricanes and severe weather, explosions, fire, acts of terrorism, and other events that
are not within the direct control of the Terminal operations. This facility shall not be designed to
prevent outages that may occur resulting from conditions of Force Majeure.
6.2 Sendout Gas Demand Forecast
The Curacao LNG Terminal sendout gas demand forecast is illustrated in Figure 3. The Terminal
shall be designed taking into consideration the sendout demand forecast illustrated below.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 10
Figure 3 Curacao Sendout Gas Demand Forecast

NOTE: Volumes shown in Figure 3 are based on a gas equivalent HHV of 1,000 Btu/scf.
6.3 Design Life
The design life of this Terminal shall be 25 years.
6.4 General Requirements
Some of the more important design criteria established for the Terminal include the following.
6.4.1 J etty, Berthing and Cargo Unloading Facility
A single berth shall be provided at the Terminal dedicated for LNG operations. The marine berthing
facility will include the berth, jetty, breasting dolphins, mooring dolphins, dock drain trough and sump,
catwalks to dolphins, approach and pipe trestles, shoreline protection, and navigation aids (as
needed). Handrails, a gangway, gangway access tower, concrete insert installation for topsides,
mooring hooks, and a complete vessel approach, mooring line load monitoring system will be included
in this scope. Electrical, lighting, and power will be provided for the docking area.
The jetty facilities shall be designed to accommodate LNG cargo transfer from LNG Carriers in the
75,000 m
3
class up to the new 150,000 m
3
class.
Four standard size 16 LNG unloading arms shall be provided at the platform jetty 2 liquid, 1 hybrid
liquid/vapor and 1 vapor.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 11
The LNG Terminal shall be designed to receive LNG cargo transfer from the LNG carriers at a
maximum unloading rate of 12,000 m
3
/hr to facilitate LNG carrier unloading within a 14 to 18 hour
period.
The following requirement shall apply at the LNG carrier interface;
BOG Vapor Return Conditions at Ship Flange 2.0 psig, Max Temperature -220
o
F.
LNG Unloading Minimum Pressure at Ship Flange 80 psig.
6.4.2 LNG Storage
One LNG Storage Tank will be provided. The tank shall be a nominal 160,000m
3
full containment
type design and shall hold a net volume of approximately 153,800m
3
(minimum to maximum level).
The tank shall be above ground, double walled construction per API 620 Appendix Q definition, with
the two walls separated by insulation material. The tank shall meet "Double Containment" design
criteria as defined by EEMUA 147. The inner tank shall be made of 9% nickel steel and the outer tank
shall be made of pre stressed concrete with a carbon steel plate roof. However, a single containment
type tank will be considered if Contractor can demonstrate that the thermal and gas dispersion zones
fit within the terminal plot space in compliance with NFPA 59 A requirements.
All connections to the LNG tank shall be through the roof. There will be no penetrations through the
sides or the bottom of the tank. This configuration is made possible by use of submerged In-Tank
LNG Pumps for LNG sendout. The tank shall be provided with both top and bottom filling connections
to alleviate the possibility of roll-over conditions. Multiple temperature detectors shall be furnished in
the wall and the floor of the storage tank to monitor the temperature profile. A density monitoring
system shall be provided to detect stratification and potential roll-over conditions. The tank shall be
equipped with independent level transmitters, to protect against overfilling during unloading. A high-
high level, if detected by the level instruments, shall lead to closing of the inlet valve delivering LNG to
the tank. The tank shall also be provided with overpressure and vacuum relief valves.
The design pressure of the LNG storage tank shall be 2.8 psig (190 mbarg). The tank will generally
operate in a pressure range of 0.7 to 2.0 psig (50 to 140 mbarg). The pressure in the tank will be
maintained by sending gas to the boil off gas (BOG) compressor system. During upset situations the
BOG will be vented to the flare/vent system. If the pressure drops to 0.6 psig (40 mbarg), the BOG
compressors will be stopped, and at 0.45 psig (30 mbarg) the vacuum break gas will be introduced
into the tanks to avoid lifting the vacuum relief valve. If the pressure continues to drop, at -0.22 psig (-
15 mbarg) the vacuum breaker introduces atmospheric air into the tank. If the pressure goes above
2.2 psig (150 mbarg), the standby BOG compressor will started. If the pressure continues to rise, at
2.5 psig (170 mbarg) the flare control valve opens to send gas to the flare/vent system. If the pressure
rises above 2.8 psig (190 mbarg), the pressure safety valves release gas to the atmosphere from the
tank top. The LNG tank insulation system shall be designed to limit BOG generated from ambient
heat influx to 0.05% of the tank volume per day.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 12
6.4.3 Boil Off Gas Handling System
During unloading operations, no BOG shall be flared or vented. The BOG system located in the
Terminal shall be designed and sized to compress and recover all BOG to prevent flaring or venting of
gas at any time during LNG cargo transfer or during normal sendout operations. Flaring or venting will
only be permitted during emergency conditions when the sendout pipeline is unavailable.
Contractor shall calculate the maximum BOG produced during LNG unloading operations and size the
BOG compressors and other BOG handling equipment accordingly.
During the unloading operation BOG will be displaced from the LNG storage tank and Ship Vapor
Return Blowers shall be provided to return cold BOG to the ship. This gas replaces the volume of the
liquid pumped out by the ship pumps. The vapor return rate should be volumetrically equivalent to the
unloading rate up to 12,000m
3
/hr to maintain pressure in the ship tanks. The ship can only accept
LNG vapors at -220 F or colder. The BOG to be returned to the ship shall be compressed and chilled.
In order to chill the return vapors to ship, LNG injection spray into the vapor return stream shall be
provided at the jetty. A LNG drain drum shall be located on the ship vapor return downstream of the
spray to separate any liquids from the vapor prior to entering the vapor return arm.
6.4.4 LNG Pumping and Sendout System
LNG shall be pumped out from the LNG storage tank to the BOG Condenser. The pumps shall be of
the submerged in-tank type with the motor and pump mounted as one enclosed unit in wells installed
inside the tank. Two 100% pumps shall be provided in the tank. For future expansion, two spare in-
tank wells shall also be provided in the LNG tank design.
A BOG Condenser/Absorber shall be provided to re-condense BOG produced from the LNG Storage
Tank. LNG from the In-Tank LNG Pumps shall be sent to the BOG Condenser to condense the BOG
vapors.
LNG from the bottom of the BOG Condenser/Absorber shall be pumped to sendout pressure by two
100% multi-stage pot mounted LNG Sendout Pumps and sent to the Vaporization System.
6.4.5 LNG Vaporization System
In the Curacao LNG Terminal, seawater shall provide the heat to vaporize LNG using traditional Open
Rack Vaporizers (ORVs). Two 100% ORVs shall be provided in the design. The ORVs shall be
designed by Kobe Steel or an approved alternate vendor.
Seawater shall enter the top of the ORV under flow control at a temperature of approximately 78
o
F
(25.6
o
C) and shall be uniformly distributed over the heat exchange panels. LNG shall be fed into the
ORV panels from the bottom at a temperature of approximately -192
o
F ( -124
o
C). As seawater flows
down the outside of the panels, the LNG shall be vaporized and natural gas shall exit from the top of
the ORV panels at a temperature of not less than 40
o
F (4.4
o
C).

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 13
This cool temperature creates a need for a superheater to raise the gas temperature to 60F before
sending it to the pipeline. This shall be accomplished by two 100% Sendout Gas Superheaters.
These exchangers shall be a conventional shell and tube design and shall be heated by a separate
Heating Medium (HM) circulation system which circulates a water/glycol solution through two 100%
direct gas fired HM Heaters and returns it hot to the heat exchanger units.
6.4.6 Gas Sendout System
After superheating, the sendout gas shall then passes through the Terminal gas metering station
where the flow will recorded before entering the pipeline system. An automated gas sampler shall be
provided to collect and measure the heating value of the gas for use in monthly custody transfer
accounting.
The natural gas from the LNG Terminal shall be transported in the Curacao sendout pipeline and
delivered to the meter station at each respective gas customer. The sendout system shall have a
robust design pressure rated to ANSI 600 pressure class.
Pressure control of the pipeline shall be achieved by controlling the LNG flow feeding the Vaporization
System with cascade reset of the LNG flow set point being automatically adjusted by the Terminal gas
pressure control unit which monitors the sendout gas pressure to the pipeline. Normal gas sendout
pressure will be approximately 780 psig.
6.4.7 Operations Control System
Operations control and shutdown of the Terminal facilities shall be conducted from a Central Control
Room (CCR) located at the Terminal site. The Terminal will incorporate world class integrated
control and safety systems (ICSS) and an information management system that will provide the
capability to operate the facility safely, reliably, and at optimum operating conditions at all times.
Multiple operator consoles shall be provided in the CCR for monitoring and controlling Plant
operations. Graphical display of the process flow and operating conditions shall be provided from the
operator interface consoles. This system shall maximize the use of automation to the extent
economically justified and minimize local manual control and the need for operator intervention. It
shall include interfaces to a comprehensive suite of applications for use in monitoring, reporting,
troubleshooting, planning, accounting, communicating, etc. The systems shall be completely
functional for initial facility start-up and shall enable the Terminal operator to easily and efficiently
conduct operations for the entire life of the facilities. The operations control system and the CCR
shall be designed for easy integration with future equipment controls if the Terminal capacity is
expanded.
Key objectives of the operating and control design philosophy are as follows:
Safety of personnel;
Protection of the environment;

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 14
Remote monitoring and diagnosis of the facility and equipment;
Start-up and shutdown of all LNG Terminal facilities from the CCR;
Maximum use of automation as practicable; and
Independent design of the telecommunications system for ship-to-shore communications, LNG
unloading activities, Terminal operations and sendout pipeline control.
Operation will be completely automated with separate control and shutdown systems. The Terminal
will control the total delivery rate for the pipeline based upon pipeline operating pressure and
customer demand. The facility will operate as an integrated system including the Terminal and
sendout pipeline facilities.
6.4.8 Process Heating Medium System
A process Heating Medium System (HM) shall be provided to service the process utility heating
requirements. The heat transfer fluid will be a 30 wt% ethylene glycol aqueous solution used in the
closed loop system. Operating conditions for the HM shall be as follows:
Hot Supply Temperature: 180F
Hot Supply Pressure: 55 psig
As a minimum, the equipment comprising the HM System shall include:
1x100% HM Surge Drum;
2x100% HM Circulation Pumps;
1x100% HM Bulk Storage Tank;
1x100% HM Transfer/Unloading Pump;
2x100% Slip stream HM (5 micron) Filters; and
2x100% Direct Gas-Fired HM Heaters.
6.4.9 Seawater System
A Seawater System shall be provided to supply seawater to the LNG Open Rack Vaporizers.
Three 50% Seawater Pumps shall be installed on the jetty platform. These pumps shall be a vertical
can pump design driven by a top mounted electric motor. Minimum flow control protection shall be
provided.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 15
Large self-cleaning seawater intake screen shall be provided surrounding the pump inlets. The
screens shall be designed to meet environmental criteria to prevent small sea life and other biological
materials from entering the Seawater System. Velocity through the screens shall be limited to 0.5
feet/second. A manual filter screen trap shall also be installed at the discharge side of each Seawater
Pump.
A hypochlorite unit shall be provided to chlorinate the seawater which prevents the growth of algae
and other biological life forms within the system. Chlorination injection points shall be provided at the
suction of each Seawater Pump and at the ORVs for shock chlorination. Chlorination concentrations
shall be controlled to comply with the environmental regulations.
Warm seawater shall be supplied by the pumps at a pressure of 50 psig and will flow to the top of the
ORV units. Cool seawater shall exit from the bottom collection basin of the ORV at a temperature not
colder than 65
o
F (18.3
o
C) and shall flows by gravity to the seawater outflow discharge pipe back into
the sea. The seawater outflow discharge pipe return shall be designed to discharge the cool
seawater at a subsea depth of approximately 250m where the ambient seawater temperature is
approximately equal to the seawater effluent discharge temperature (65
o
F). Environmental regulation
guidelines for thermal discharge require that the temperature at the edge of the thermal mixing zone
(defined to be 100m from the point of discharge) be within +/-3
o
C of the natural ambient temperature.
A site specific EIAS will need to be prepared to validate compliance with environmental regulation
guidelines.
6.4.10 Pressure Relief and Flare/Vent Systems
Flares/Vents shall be sized for the maximum credible relief scenario. The following flare/vent systems
shall be provided:
HP flare/vent designed for dry and cold vapor and blowdown; and
LNG low pressure marine/storage flare/vent designed for boil-off gas from the storage and
jetty.
Flare/Vent systems shall be designed for long term reliable operation from the minimum to the
maximum flaring/venting rate. Flared/Vented gas shall be metered to comply with environmental
reporting requirements.
Design of the flare/vent stacks should make allowance for a solar radiation contribution of 0.8 kW/m
2
.
The flare/vent tips shall be located such that the radiation limits specified in API Standards 520 and
521 are not exceeded. Radiation level from the flares/vents shall be limited to the following maximum
radiant heat exposure criteria:
Base of flare/vent stack 9.46 W/m
2

Sterile area boundary 6.31 W/m
2

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 16
Flare/Vent knock-out drum 4.73 W/m
2

Nearest process equipment limit 3.15 W/m
2

Areas where operators work continuously 1.58 W/m
2

The HP flare/vent stack shall be an elevated derrick supported structure. All flare/vent stacks shall be
retractable type that provides flexibility to lower down tips for maintenance. The HP flare/vent system
shall be designed to accommodate future expansion.
The HP flare/vent system design shall also be designed to facilitate controlled depressurisation of the
sendout pipeline and pig launcher.
A mechanical interlock PSV valve locking system (uniquely keyed) shall be installed for pressure relief
services equipped with multiple PSVs to ensure clear indication to operating personnel that an
adequate number of PSVs are on-line.
6.4.11 Fuel Gas System
The Fuel Gas Supply System shall be designed in combination with all consumers to enable all
possible fuel gas composition changes due to operational upsets to be effectively managed without
resultant loss of consumers. Fuel gas heaters shall be provided for both cold start and normal
operation.
The Fuel Gas System shall provide gas for the HM Heaters as well as blanket gas and purge gas for
to the flare headers. Where possible, blanketing gas/pad gas shall use nitrogen rather than fuel gas.
The required minimum fuel gas pressure shall not be less than 30 psig. A high pressure fuel system
will not be required since all prime movers will be electric motor drive. No gas-fired turbine units are
envisioned to be installed at this facility.
For startup, fuel gas shall be provided from the BOG system. Since electrical power will be supplied
from the Aqualectra power grid, BOG compressors (driven by electric motors) will be operable for cold
start.
6.4.12 Utility and Instrument Air System
Compressed air shall be provided to supply utility air and to feed the instrument air dryer package for
the production of instrument air and nitrogen for the Terminal. Compressed air shall be supplied from
two electric motor driven air compressor packages, each of which is capable of supplying 100% of the
total air required for the Terminal. All compressors shall supply oil-free air.
Utility Air shall meet the following specifications:
Pressure 140 psig

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 17
Instrument quality air shall be produced by an instrument air dryer package (2 x 100% packages).
Instrument Air must meet the following specifications:
Normal Pressure 125 psig
Minimum Pressure 85 psig
Maximum Dew point -40F
The Instrument Air Receiver and Plant Air Receiver shall be sized to provide a minimum of 15 minutes
of surge capacity between the normal and minimum operating pressures based on the design air flow
rates including design margin. Compressed air prioritization and secured instrument air supplies shall
be implemented to maximize instrument air availability.
6.4.13 Nitrogen System
Nitrogen generating systems shall be furnished to supply nitrogen requirements for equipment
purging, pad gas, compressor gas seal, blanketing, inerting and additional requirements during
shutdown and turnarounds.
The primary system (a membrane-type nitrogen generator, or equal) shall use instrument air for
nitrogen generation, and shall contain multiple membrane units such that one individual membrane
unit can be removed from service while the balance of the membranes continue to supply nitrogen at
the full design rate. Nitrogen produced must meet the following specifications:
Supply pressure 110 psig
Maximum Oxygen Content 1.5% - 4%
Minimum Nitrogen Content 96% - 98.5%
Oil & Hydrocarbon Content None
Maximum Water Content 30 ppmv
The nitrogen generating system shall use dehydrated instrument air as feed gas. The instrument air
shall be from an instrument air dryer package that continuously delivers -40F dew point air at normal
operating pressure. Using the dried instrument air as the feed to the nitrogen generator ensures that
the nitrogen produced is sufficiently dry for the various applications and operations within the LNG
Terminal.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 18
Connections shall be provided for a temporary (back-up) liquid nitrogen system designed to furnish
nitrogen requirements for startup purging of the LNG Storage Tank.
6.4.14 Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater generated from the operation of the Terminal shall include sanitary sewage, oily storm
water, process oily water and clean storm water runoff. The collection, treatment, reuse and/or
discharge of the wastewater shall be designed to meet the effluent discharge limits established by the
regulatory authority in Curacao and must meet global environmental performance standards (Equator
Principles).
6.4.15 Bulk Storage
HM storage (ethylene glycol/water solution) shall be sized based on 6 months of average HM losses,
considering that the volume of the standard delivery container is 20 m
3
.
Diesel fuel shall be stored on site for supply to diesel engine driven equipment including the firewater
pumps and the emergency generator. Storage volume shall be sized to hold the volume from one
large road tankers (34 m
3
capacity).
Storage for other miscellaneous bulk chemicals required in operating the facility such as lube oil shall
be provided.
6.4.16 Electric Power Supply and Distribution
Primary electric power required during the construction and operational phases of the project shall be
supplied from Aqualectras power grid. Contractor shall calculate and guarantee the maximum peak
power demand for the Terminal when a ship is unloading and during normal operation when a ship is
not unloading cargo. The electrical power distribution shall be supplied at the voltages and frequency
listed in Table 4.
Table 4 Electrical Power Distribution
Frequency
(Hz)
Medium Voltage Power 6.6 kV
11 kV
3
3
50
50
Low Voltage Power 220 V
380 V
1
3
50
50
Emergency power shall be supplied from a diesel driven Emergency Generator to be installed at the
Terminal. Contractor shall calculate and guarantee the emergency power loads. The critical services
that shall be included in the emergency power load are listed in Table 5.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 19
Table 5 Emergency Power Distribution Services
Frequency
(Hz)
Instrument Air Package 380V 3 50
J ockey Water Pump 220V 3 50
Large Stormwater Sump Pump 380V 3 50
Small Stormwater Sump Pump 380V 3 50
Unloading Platform 220V/110V 1 50
Control Room 220V/110V 1 50
Office 220V/110V 1 50
Workshop/Warehouse/Lab 220V/110V 1 50
Terminal & J etty Lighting 220V 1 50
MCC Building 220V/110V 1 50
Guard House 220V/110V 1 50
An uninterruptible power supply (UPS) shall be installed to provide a reliable backup source of
power for:
Critical instrumentation and control;
Security;
The telecommunication systems;
Fire and gas detection;
ESD systems; and
Emergency lighting.
The batteries for all of the UPS systems shall be sized based on supplying the rated load of the UPS
for a minimum of 30 minutes.
Lightning protection and transient over-voltage shall be provided in accordance with applicable codes
and standards.
6.4.17 Water Supply Systems
There is no identified source of ground or well water available at the Terminal site. Water supply to the
Terminal will be required for wash water, potable water and sanitary use. Additional information must
be gathered to determine the best method for supplying water to the Terminal. Aqualectra may

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 20
currently have water supply sources currently available at the existing Bullen Bay Oil Terminal Facility
which can be tapped into for use at the LNG Terminal.
6.5 Safety System Requirements
6.5.1 Fire Protection System
The fire protection system shall be comprised of a combination of passive techniques and active
techniques. Passive fire protection functions without relying on external intervention and is
implemented where immediate protection is required. Passive protection operates only for a limited
period of time. In case of a long duration fire, active fire protection and fire-fighting must also be
deployed. The design of the active fire protection system shall be based on the assumptions that (i)
there will be only one major fire at any one time and fires will not occur simultaneously at different
places within the facility, and (ii) external fire-fighting resources are not available in case of an
emergency within the premises.
The system shall be designed around maximum use of fixed fire-fighting systems such as water spray
systems, which do not require fire-fighting vehicles or trained personnel for water or foam solution
supply. In addition to the facility fire water system, additional fixed and portable fire-fighting
equipment shall be provided at identified potential hazards. The Marine Terminal Control Shelter at
the jetty which is remote from the main facility shall be provided with a fixed clean agent fire
extinguishing system, as well as any sub-floors in local MCC rooms that cannot be quickly accessed.
The overall arrangement for the firewater system shall provide deluge systems in selected areas,
remote controlled fire monitors, and fire hydrants. A firewater ring main shall be provided to cover the
Terminal vaporization and sendout facilities, the LNG storage area, marine jetty facilities, and
infrastructure buildings. A firewater storage tank shall be provided with a total combined capacity for
8 hours of firewater supply. At least two 100% percent freshwater main firewater pumps (diesel) shall
be provided along with two 100% freshwater jockey pumps. Contractor shall calculated the required
firewater rate and size the firewater system as appropriate. If a three 50% firewater configuration
makes more sense, then the Contractor should opt for that configuration. In case of a prolonged
incident where the firewater requirement exceeds the firewater storage capacity, an auxiliary firewater
connection shall be provided at the jetty for external seawater supply from fire fighting marine vessels.
All main firewater pumps shall have the capability of being automatically started upon low ring main
pressure and manually by switches for each pump located local to the pump and in the control room.
Portable foam units located on the jetty and around the Terminal shall be used to control spills and
fires in LNG spill containment areas (at the LNG storage area, LNG loading platform, and spill
containment sumps).
Portable fire extinguishers shall also be located strategically throughout the facility. A Terminal fire
truck shall be provided for response to incipient fires and grass fires.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 21
6.5.2 Fire and Gas Detection System
A fire and gas detection system (F&G system) shall be provided to continuously monitor and alert
personnel when fire, smoke or gas release is detected. The function of the F&G system will be to:
Detect the presence of fire or loss of containment of flammable gas and the ingress of smoke
or flammable gas into areas where it may present a hazard;
Allow manual alarm initiation by personnel throughout the installation by means of manual
alarm call points;
Alert the central control room of any fire or flammable gas leak;
Give local warning alarm to the specific area/building where the alarm initiating device(s) is
activated; and
Provide a plant-wide warning alarm upon confirmed fire or gas alarm.
In general, the F&G system alarms only, rather than directly initiating executive actions. Activation of
fire protection systems will be determined on an individual basis by operating personnel.
6.5.3 Ignition Source Control
Smoking and non-process ignition sources within the protective enclosures shall be prohibited.
Smoking shall be permitted only in designated and properly signposted areas. Welding, cutting and
similar operations shall be conducted only at times and in places specifically authorized and then in
compliance with NFPA 51B. Vehicles and other mobile equipment that constitute potential ignition
sources shall be prohibited within impounding areas or within 50 feet of containers or equipment
containing LNG, flammable liquids, or flammable refrigerants except when specifically authorized and
under constant supervision or when at loading or unloading facilities specifically for the purpose.
6.5.4 Emergency Shutdown System
An Emergency Shutdown (ESD) system shall be designed and installed to provide for safety of
operating personnel and to protect equipment from abnormal operating conditions that could result in
mechanical damage to such equipment. Design of the ESD system shall comply with the
requirements of Chapter 9 of NFPA 59A. The ESD system shall be an independent and failsafe
design. Activation of the ESD system shall either be manual, automatic, or both manual and
automatic, depending upon the potential consequence of the defined event and a system analysis.
The design logic of the ESD system shall be described in the form of a Safe Chart (or ESD Logic
Diagram), which defines the events, and resultant actions that will be taken by the ESD system when
activated by such events. The ESD shall be capable of automatically performing the following
functions when activated:

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 22
Close isolation valves as required to shut-off a source of LNG, flammable liquid, flammable
refrigerant or flammable gases;
Shutdown equipment whose continued operation could add to or prolong an emergency
condition; and
De-pressure vessels that are subject to metal overheating and catastrophic failure from fire
exposure if not otherwise protected.
A detailed emergency procedure shall be developed to describe the potential emergency conditions
that may develop whether or not a fire has occurred. Such procedure shall describe as a minimum the
following:
Shutdown or isolation of various portions of the equipment and other steps so that escape and
release of gas or liquids are stopped or minimized;
Activation and use of the fire protection facility and equipment;
Notification of public authorities;
First aid; and
Operations personnel responsibilities.
6.5.5 Emergency Evacuation
The plot plan and layout shall be designed to ensure adequate emergency escape routes. A
minimum of two evacuation routes must be provided for pipe racks, structures, and major access
platforms. Escape routes of all buildings shall be designed in accordance with NFPA 59A.
6.5.6 LNG Spill Impoundment System
NFPA 59 A (2009 Edition) section 5.3.2.1 specifies that each impounding system serving an LNG
storage tank must have a minimum volumetric liquid capacity of 110% of the LNG tanks maximum
design liquid capacity for an impoundment serving a single tank. This design for the Curacao Terminal
proposes to use a full containment LNG storage tank in which the outer tank wall serves as the
impoundment system. The volumetric capacity of the outer concrete wall should exceed the 110%
percent requirement. Contractor shall calculate and verify the outer containment volume and assure
that it complies with NFPA 59 A.
The process area impoundment basin will be located in the process area and any spills from the BOG
Condenser and LNG Vaporization system shall be routed to the impoundment basin by a series of
collection troughs.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 23
The LNG transfer line and the LNG recycle line traversing from the marine unloading platform to the
LNG Storage Tank shall be vacuum jacketed insulated piping. Both the internal and external pipes of
the vacuum jacketed lines shall be fabricated from 304L stainless steel. Therefore, the outer pipe
shall serve as a secondary containment in the even the inner pipe fails. This eliminates the need for a
large LNG impoundment sump for the jetty and LNG transfer lines.
Contractor shall calculate the design spill volume over a 10-minute period and use the volume to size
the process area LNG spill impoundment to contain such design spill as defined by NFPA 59A (2009
Edition).
The LNG Terminal shall be designed to provide drainage of water to disposal areas in accordance
with NFPA 59 A (2009 Edition) section 5.3.2. Drainage and disposal of water shall be accomplished
by a series of ditches and swales. Water that is collected within the curbed LNG containment areas
shall be directed by gravity to the LNG impoundment trenches and eventually to the impoundment
basins sump. Stormwater pumps in the impoundment basins shall remove the water at a rate equal
to or greater than 25% percent of the 10-year frequency, one-hour duration storm. The pumps shall
discharge the water into the Terminal storm drainage system. The stormwater pumps shall be
automatically operated via level control and shall be interlocked using low temperature detectors to
prevent the pumps from operating if LNG is present.
6.5.7 Thermal Exclusion Zone
If a large quantity of LNG is spilled in the presence of an ignition source, the resulting LNG pool fire
could cause high levels of radiant heat in the area surrounding the impoundment. Exclusion distances
for various flux levels will need to be calculated by the Contractor during FEED according to NFPA
59A (2009 Edition) section 5.3.3 using available software models such as the "LNGFIRE III" computer
program model developed by the Gas Research Institute. NFPA 59A establishes certain atmospheric
conditions which are to be used in calculating the distances.
Thermal exclusion zones will need to be confirmed by Contractor using rigorous calculations in
subsequent design work. Contractor shall overlay the calculated Thermal Exclusion zones on the
layout drawing and shall be responsible for assuring the facility complies with NFPA 59A Thermal
Exclusion zone requirements.
6.5.8 Vapor Dispersion Zone
A large quantity of LNG spilled without ignition would form a flammable vapor cloud that would travel
with the prevailing wind until it either dispersed below the flammable limits or encountered an ignition
source. Sections 5.3.3.6 of NFPA 59A (2009 Edition) require that provisions be made to minimize the
possibility of flammable vapors reaching a property line that can be built upon and that would result in
a distinct hazard. Code requires that dispersion distances be calculated for a 2.5% average gas
concentration (one-half the lower flammability limit [LFL] of LNG vapor) under meteorological
conditions which result in the longest downwind distances at least 90% of the time. Alternatively,
maximum downwind distances may be estimated for stability Class F, a wind speed of 4.5 mph, 50%
relative humidity, and the average regional temperature. The section allows the use of the DEGADIS

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 24
(Dense Gas Dispersion) Model, or the FEM3A model, to compute dispersion distances. Design spills
into impounding areas serving LNG containers, transfer systems, and piping are to be determined in
accordance with Table 5.3.3.7 of NFPA 59A (2009 Edition) by the Contractor. In accordance with the
code, an average concentration of methane in air of one-half of the LFL cannot cross the property line
from a design spill into the tank impoundment.
Rigorous vapor dispersion calculations shall be performed by Contractor and overlaid on the Terminal
layout drawing. Contractor shall confirm and verify that the vapor dispersion zones calculated for the
LNG Terminal comply with the requirements of NFPA 59A.
6.5.9 Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) Study
A HAZOP will need to been performed by Contractor during FEED for each of the systems that
comprise the LNG Terminal facility. A full QRA study will need to be completed by Contractor during
detail design.
6.6 Security Systems
The Terminal shall have an 8-foot high security fence surrounding the facility. Access to the facility
shall be controlled by guarded entry. Video security cameras shall be provided at key locations to
allow the security guard to monitor the Terminal from the guard access building. Display from the
security cameras shall also be provided in the central control room. Lighting shall be provided
through out the Terminal and at the marine jetty facilities.
6.7 Buildings and Infrastructure
The following infrastructure shall be provided at the Terminal:
Office/Central Control Room Building with Employee Parking;
Parking Area for J etty;
Work Shop/Warehouse/Lab Building;
MCC Building;
Sheds for BOG Compressors and Ship Vapor Return Blowers; and
Entry Guard House.
7. SITE DESIGN DATA
7.1 Location
The Terminal shall be located in Curacao at Bullen Bay as discussed in Section 4 of this document.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 25
7.2 Ambient Air Temperatures and Relative Humidity
PARAMETER Max Min Avg.
Ambient Air Temperature -
o
C 36.9 20.3 27.9
Average Relati ve Humidity - % 89 74 80
7.3 Bathymetric Design Data
PARAMETER Bullen Bay
Site
Highest Astronomical Tide (Above MSL) +0.52 m
Mean Sea Level (MSL) 0.00 m
Lowest Astronomical Tide (Below MSL) -0.35 m
Normal/Typical Wave 1.2 - 1.5 m
Maximum Design Wave 2.1 m
Storm Surge (Category 3 Hurricane) +5.8 m
Maximum Current 3.0 knots
Bay Water Surface Temperature
o
C (
o
F)
Maximum
Minimum
Average

28.3 (83)
25.6 (78)
27.2 (81)
7.4 Wind and Weather Design Data
PARAMETER Design Value
Prevailing Wind Direction
The prevailing trade wind directions vary slightly East North East to East South East, with an average velocity of 5.2
to 6.6 m/s. Maximum gust to 25.7 m/s.
Maximum Design Wind Load (Hurricane) 67 m/s
Wind Rose Data
North =0 deg & clockwise Wind Direction %
0 22.5 45 TBD TBD TBD
67.5 90 112.5 TBD TBD TBD
135 157.5 180 TBD TBD TBD
202.5 225 247.5 TBD TBD TBD
270 292.5 315 TBD TBD TBD
337.5 TBD
Rainfall Rate
Maximum 1- Hour 4.5 inches
Maximum 24 - Hour 10.1 inches (September)
Average Annual 21.3 inches
Maximum Annual 42.9 inches
Barometric Pressure
Maximum 30.61 Hg
Mean 30.13 Hg
Minimum 29.64 Hg
Maximum Rate Of Change (Assumed) 0.5Hg/hr

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 26
7.5 Seawater Physical Properties
SEAWATER PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Suspended Solids and Organic Materials TBD
Total Dissolved Solids 39,391 mg/l
Sp. Gr. @ 60
o
F Relative to Fresh Water 1.025
pH 6.98
7.6 Seismic Design Criteria
Curacao seismic design acceleration is in the range of 0.8 to 1.6 m/sec
2
for 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years, 475-year return period. Earthquake tremors of less than magnitude 3 on the
Richter scale have been recorded on Curacao. [HOLD. Subject to confirmation]
8. ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING
The Ministry of Public Health, Environment and Nature in Curacao is the regulatory authority having
jurisdiction over permitting of the Terminal. There is currently no requirement to prepare and submit
an Environmental Impact Assessment Study (EIAS). However, an EIAS will be prepared and the
following permits will be required:
Safety Permit;
Construction Permit;
Nuisance Permit (Requiring Public Notice and Possibly A Public Hearing); and
Waste Water Disposal Permit.
This Terminal will require bank financing. Since there is no requirement for issuing an EIAS, the
facility design will need to conform to the criteria defined in the Equator Principles which have been
adopted for projects located in countries not requiring an EIAS.
9. DESIGN STANDARDS AND CODES
In addition to the permits and agency consultations listed in the sections above, the Curacao Terminal
and associated pipeline facilities shall comply with all applicable standards and codes.
The Terminal design and operation shall be compliant with the Curacao Ports Authority rules and
regulations as well as all local and national environmental regulations, codes and permitting
requirements applicable to Curacao. The facility must also be compliant with Equator Principles
since the GOC regulations do not require an Environmental Impact Assessment Study (EIAS).
The LNG Terminal shall be designed in compliance with NFPA 59A (2009 Edition) and all of the
codes and standards referenced therein.

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 27
Flare/Vent system shall be designed to comply with API Standard 521 and 520.
9.1 Marine Facilities (Dock, Mooring Systems, Berthing and Jetty)
Design of all structures shall be carried out and comply with the following codes and standards:
American Institute of Steel Construction
- Manual of Steel Construction
- Allowable Stress Design, 9th Ed.
- Load and Resistance Factor Design, 3rd Ed.
American Concrete Institute
- Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02)
American Society of Civil Engineers
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures SEI/ASCE 7-02
American Petroleum Institute
- API LRFD RP2A, 2002
- API ASD RP2A, 2002
Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses
- Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems, 2002
Society of International Gas Tankers and Terminal Operators, Ltd.
- Prediction of Wind Loads on Large Liquefied Gas Carriers, 1985
- SIGTTO/OCIMF
Oil Companies International Marine Forum
- Prediction of Wind and Current Loads on VLCCs, 1995
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
- Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Ed.-2002
9.2 Onshore Facilities within Terminal Fence
NFPA 59A Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas
API Standard 521 and 520 For Flare/Vent Systems

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 28
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) pressure vessels
American Petroleum Institute (API) hydrocarbon storage, processing, transportation
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) piping codes ANSI B31.3.
9.3 Onshore Gas Pipelines Outside Terminal Fence
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) pipeline codes ANSI B31.8.
10. GAS SENDOUT PIPELINE TIE-IN
The natural gas from the LNG Terminal shall be connected to the gas sendout pipeline at the
Terminal fence line downstream of the Terminals custody transfer metering and sampling skid. An
ESDV shall be provided at the tie-in point.
11. PRIME MOVERS
Prime movers including pumps, compressors, fans, and other equipment that requires mechanical
drive shall be powered by electric motor drives. Use of electric motor driven equipment reduces the
CO
2
and NO
x
emissions for the facility since the primary source of electrical power for the Terminal
can be provided from the existing electrical power grid.
12. NOISE ABATEMENT
The most significant noise levels in the Terminal will correspond to those produced by the following
equipment:
Generators and gas turbine drivers;
Emergency generator (diesel);
Compressors and drivers;
Flare, vent and pressure relief systems;
Pumps and motors;
Diesel firewater pump;
Air-coolers (vents and motors);
Control valves in gas service with large pressure drops in emergency operations only; and

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 29
Gas piping with high velocity flowrates.
Table 6 below shows the recommended limits of daily exposure (per OSHA Regulations,
Occupational Noise Exposure 1910.95) at various levels of noise for normally unmanned areas or with
intermittent entry of personnel.
Table 6 Noise Exposure Guidelines
NOISE LEVEL (db @ A)
PERSONNEL MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
(Hours per Day)
90 8
92 6
95 4
97 3
100 2
102 1.5
105 1
110 0.5

Design of facilities installed in the Terminal shall allow operation of the Terminal in compliance with
the noise exposure criteria contained in OSHA Regulations, U.S. CFR 29 Part 1910 Occupational
Safety and Health Standards and EEMUA 140/141 for Measuring and Calculating Noise or as
required by local code and regulations, whichever is more restrictive.
13. MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
13.1 Corrosion Allowance
13.1.1 Equipment Corrosion Allowance
CS Non Corrosive Service 0.125 in
CS Water/Glycol System 0.125 in
Stainless and Other Alloys 0.000 in
13.1.2 Piping Corrosion Allowance
CS Non Corrosive Service 0.125 in
CS Water/Glycol System 0.125 in
Stainless and Other Alloys 0.000 in

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 30
13.2 Unloading Transfer Lines
Transfer Lines One Primary LNG Transfer Line;
One LNG Recirculation Line; One
Ship Vapor Return Line
Size 36-in Primary LNG; 4-in Recirculation;
12-in Ship Vapor Return
Material of Construction 304L Stainless Steel
Insulation Vacuum Insulated Pipe (VIP) shall
be used to insulate the LNG
Transfer and Recycle Lines. Foam
glass insulation will be used to
insulate the Ship Vapor Return Line.
13.3 Sendout Heat Exchangers
13.3.1 Open Rack Vaporizers (ORVs)
ORV Panel Tube Pressure Drop at Design Flow Rate 10 psi
Manufacturer Kobe Steel or
Approved Equal
Fouling Factor Mfg Standard
Gas Outlet Temperature (Minimum) 40
o
F
Seawater Temperature
Inlet
Outlet (Minimum)

78
o
F
65
o
F
13.3.2 Gas Sendout Superheater Shell & Tube Exchanger
Tube Side Pressure Drop at Design Flow Rate
Shell Side Pressure Drop at Design Flow Rate
10 psi
15 psi
Fouling Factor
Tube Side (Gas)
Shell Side (HM)
0.001
o
F-ft
2
-hr/Btu
0.001
o
F-ft
2
-hr/Btu
Gas Outlet Temperature (Minimum) 60
o
F
13.4 BOG Condenser
Absorber Section Packing Packing #50
IMPT (Norton)
Random
Absorber Section Pressure Drop (Maximum) 0.25 in WC per foot
Pump Drum Section Liquid Residence Time (Minimum) 5 minutes

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 31
13.5 Line Sizing Criteria
13.5.1 Vapor Lines
Line Sizing Method Darcy Equation
Service P (psi/100)
Velocity (ft/s)
Normal Maximum
Compressor Piping
Recip Suction Header 0.15 20 to 40 7% sonic
Recip Suction Branch 0.25 20 to 40 7% sonic
Recip Discharge Header 0.60 20 to 40 7% sonic
Recip Discharge Branch 0.60 20 to 40 7% sonic
Centrifugal Suction Over 50 psig 0.50 40 to 80 13% sonic
Centrifugal Suction Under 50 psig 0.25 40 to 80 13% sonic
Centrifugal Discharge 0.60 40 to 80 13% sonic
In Plant Piping
Vacuum 0.016 to 0.20 150 to 250 50% sonic
0 to 50 psig 0.08 to 0.20 100 to 150 50% sonic
Over 1000 psig 0.20 to 2.0 30 to 50 50% sonic
Any Pressure below -50
o
F 0.50 to 1.0 30 to 50 50% sonic
Maximum Velocity (ft/sec) - Continuous 100/
0.5
lb/ft
3

Maximum Velocity (ft/sec) - Intermittent 150/
0.5
lb/ft
3

13.5.2 Liquid Lines
Line Sizing Method Darcy Equation
Service P (psi/100)
Velocity (ft/s)
Normal Maximum
Centrifugal Pump Suction
Liquids Close or At Bubble Point 0.05 to 0.25 3 to 4 4
Other Liquids 0.20 to 0.40 5 6
Centrifugal Pump Discharge
Liquids Close or At Bubble Point 0.40 to 1.50 16 100/
0.5
lb/ft
3

Other Liquids 0.80 to 2.00 16 100/
0.5
lb/ft
3

Recip Pump
Suction All Liquids 0.05 to 0.25 1 to 3 5
Discharge All Liquids 0.80 to 2.00 5 to 6 100/
0.5
lb/ft
3

13.6 Cold Insulation
Process Area Cryogenic Piping,
Cryogenic Exchangers, Cryogenic
Separators and Other Pressure
Vessels.
Foam Glass w/ thickness to yield
U<0.10 Btu/hr-ft
2
-
o
F

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 32
14. DEFINITION OF TERMS
Barrel or Bbl 42 US gallons or 5.615 ft
2

Bbl/D Barrels per day at standard conditions of
14.696 psia and 60
o
F
Building and Area Classification The fire hazard classification for a Building or
Area as established in accordance with NFPA
recommendations
Bunkering The loading of a ships bunker or tank with fuel oil
for use in connection with propulsion or auxiliary
equipment
C2+ Ethane and heavier hydrocarbons
C3+ Propane and heavier hydrocarbons
CPA Curacao Ports Authority which operates the Ports
at Bullen Bay and Schottegat Harbor
Commercial Natural Gas Gaseous form of petroleum consisting of a
mixture of light hydrocarbons predominately
comprised of methane that has been processed
as required to meet commercial quality pipeline
specifications
Design Pressure The pressure used in the design of equipment, a
container, or a vessel for the purpose of
determining the minimum allowable thickness or
physical characteristics of its parts; were
applicable, static head is included in the design
pressure to determine the thickness of any
specific part
Dike A structure used to establish an impounding area
ESD Emergency Shut Down
Exclusion Zone (Marine) A perimeter around a LNG vessel through which
other vessels not directly involved in the
maneuvering of the LNG vessel are not allowed to
operate

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 33
Exclusion Zone (Thermal) Area surrounding an LNG impoundment assumed
to be holding an LNG spill that is on fire with such
area defined by radiant heat flux limits as
specified in NFPA 59A.
Exclusion Zone (Gas Dispersion) Area surrounding an LNG impoundment assumed
to be holding an LNG spill (not on fire) with such
area defined to be that area which has an
average concentration of methane in air
exceeding 50% of the lower flammability limit
determined in accordance with NFPA 59A
Failsafe A design feature that provides for the
maintenance of safe operating conditions in the
event of malfunction of control devices or the
interruption of an energy source
Fired Equipment Any piece of equipment in which the combustion
of fuels takes place

FSRU Floating Storage and Regasification Unit
g The normal or standard constant of gravity at sea
level, g equal approximately 32.2 ft/sec
2
.
gpm gallons per minute at flowing temperature and
pressure
HHV or Higher Heating Value The amount of heat obtained from the total
combustion of one standard cubic foot of gas at a
pressure of 14.696 psia with the resulting
products of combustion being cooled to 60
o
F and
the water vapor formed during such combustion
being totally condensed (expressed in Btu/scf)
Ignition Source Any source of energy, such as welding activities,
flames or unclassified electrical equipment, that
could cause the initiation of combustion of an air
fuel mixture
Impounding Area An area defined through the use of dikes or site
topography for the purpose of containing any
accidental spills of LNG or refrigerants

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 34
LHV or Lower Heating Value The amount of heat obtained from the total
combustion of one standard cubic foot of gas at a
pressure of 14.696 psia with the resulting
products of combustion being cooled to 60
o
F and
the water vapor formed during such combustion
not being condensed (expressed in Btu/scf)
Liquefied Natural Gas or LNG A fluid in the liquid state that is composed
predominantly of methane and that can contain
quantities of ethane, propane, nitrogen, or other
components normally found in natural gas
Maximum Allowable Working Pressure (MAWP) The maximum guage pressure permitted
at the top of completed equipment, a container, or
vessel in its installed operating position at design
temperature
m
3
/hr Cubic meters per hour at flowing temperature and
pressure
MMscf Million standard cubic feet at standard conditions
of 14.696 psia and 60
o
F
MMscfd Million standard cubic feet per day at standard
conditions of 14.696 psia and 60
o
F
NGL or Natural Gas Liquids Mixtures of light hydrocarbons including ethane,
propane, butanes and natural gasoline in liquid
state with potentially small amounts of methane
psia Pounds pressure per square inch absolute
psig Pounds pressure per square inch gauge
RDK Refineria di Korosou N.V.
Scf or Standard cubic foot The quantity of gas that occupies one cubic foot
of volume at standard conditions of pressure and
temperature of 14.696 psia and 60
o
F
Sendout Gas Regasified LNG product at pipeline quality heat
value, pressure and temperature ready for export
to the gas pipeline network
Standard Conditions Pressure of 14.696 psia and temperature of 60
o
F

ONSHORE OPTION
DESIGN BASIS
CONCEPTUAL
Date REV:
06/25/12 B

Page 35
Transfer Area That portion of an LNG plant containing a piping
system were LNG, flammable liquids, or
flammable refrigerants are introduced into or
removed from the facility such as truck loading or
ship unloading areas or were piping connections
are connected or disconnected routinely
Section 15 Appendix B


PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS
HEAT & MATERIAL BALANCES

NOTES: CK #1 REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE REV
SCALE:
FILE:
DATE:
By:
JOB NO.:
DWG NO.: REV
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
LNG UNLOADING AND STORAGE SYSTEMS
None
PFD-01-01 REVA.VSD 145790
PFD-01-01 A
CK #2 CK #3 Approve
A 04-02-2012 Internal Review
04-02-2012
ARM-1,2,3,4
LNG LOADING
ARMS
CURACAO CONCEPTUAL LNG TERMINAL
BULLEN BAY PORT
CURACAO, NETHERLAND ANTELIES
1. Cargo transfer arms comprised of 2 liquid, 1 vapor and 1 hybrid liquid/vapor. Offloading capacity
is 10,000 m
3
/hr.
2. Two 100% capacity in-tank pumps are provided. In addition, two spare pump wells are provided
in TK-1 for future capacity expansion.
3. The LNG Chill-Down Recycle Line normally has no flow. Before the LNG cargo ship arrives,
LNG is circulated to chill-down the LNG Transfer Line.
4. Temperature of Ship Vapor Return maintained at -220
o
F.
5. During periods when the ship is offloading and low sendout gas rate, the K-2C and K-3 are
required to dispose of the excess BOG. Otherwise, these compressor are out of service.
LNG From Ship
K-1A/B
Vapor To Ship
PIC
V-3
P-2A/B
FIC
Cascade Reset
LIC
N2
PSVs
Bottom
Filling
Top
Filling
HC
PFD-01-02
K-2A/B
LI
TI
LNG Chill-Down Recycle Line (NOTE 3)
PIC
P-1A/B
(NOTE 2)
Sampler
TK-1
LNGTransfer Line
Ship Vapor Retrun Line
CONCEPTUAL
ARM-4
ARM-1,2,3
TK-1

LNG STORAGE TANK
P-1A/B
IN-TANK LNG
PUMPS
V-2
LNG DRAIN DRUM
K-1A/B
SHIP VAPOR
RETURN BLOWER
V-3
BOG COMPRESSOR
SCRUBBER
K-2A/B
SMALL BOG
COMPRESSORS
K-3
BOG PIPELINE
COMPRESSOR
PIC
Pump Min Flow Recycle
FIC
FIC
FI
V-2
P-3A/B
TIC
LIC
Start/Stop Pump
PIC
Arm Drains
N2
Purge
N2
Purge
Arm Drain
Elec
FIC
Blowcase
FIC
Elec
FIC
TIC
K-2C
Ground Flare
FIC
K-3
PFD-01-02
LIC
V-1
NC
PIC
P-3A/B
LNG DRAIN DRUM
PUMP
(NOTE 1)
FI
Sampler
K-2C
LARGE BOG
COMPRESSOR
P-2A/B
LNG SENDOUT
PUMPS
V-1
BOG
CONDENSER
(NOTE 4)
(NOTE 5)
001
002
003
008
015
009 014
020
010
013
004
005
006
007
011
012
018
022
PFD-01-02
023
Vacuum Break Gas from LP Fuel
PIC
017
016
019
021
DH - - HGW
Shaw Consultants
Elec
Elec
PIC
SCALE:
FILE:
DATE:
By:
JOB NO.:
DWG NO.: REV
LNG VAPORIZATION AND GAS HEATING
SYSTEMS
None
PFD-01-02 REVA.VSD
PFD-01-02 A
CK #2 CK #3 Approve
04-02-2012
BULLEN BAY PORT
PFD-01-01
Sampler
CONCEPTUAL
E-1A/B
LNG OPEN RACK
VAPORIZERS
E-3
LP FUEL GAS
HEATER
FIC
PFD-01-01
E-2A/B
SENDOUT GAS
SUPERHEATERS
007
022
E-1A/B
024
TIC
FIC
FR PR TR PIC
TIC
To Pipeline
PFD-01-03
Seawater (Warm)
PFD-01-03
Seawater (Cool)
PFD-01-01
023
E-2A/B 025 026 027
PFD-01-03
PFD-01-03
EG/Water Ht Medium (Hot)
TIC
E-3
PIC
EG/Water Ht Medium (Cool)
LP Fuel Gas
028 029
Custody Transfer
Measurement
PFD-01-03
Sendout Gas
SW1
SW2
HM4
HM5
HM2
HM3
LIC
PIC
Backup LP
Fuel Supply
HM1
HM6
145790
Shaw Consultants
DH - - HGW
TIC
High Signal
Select
Normally No Flow
E-4
BOG PIPELINE COMPRESSOR
DISCH COOLER
E-4
SCALE:
FILE:
DATE:
By:
JOB NO.:
DWG NO.: REV
HEAT MEDIUM AND FUEL GAS SYSTEM
None
PFD-01-03 REVA.VSD 145790
PFD-01-03 A
CK #2 CK #3 Approve
04-02-2012
BULLEN BAY PORT
CURACAO, NETHERLAND ANTILLIES
1.
CONCEPTUAL
V-6
LP FUEL GAS
SCRUBBER
HTR-1A/B
HM HEATERS
PFD-01-02
PFD-01-02
EG/Water Ht Medium (Hot)
EG/Water Ht Medium (Cool)
LP Fuel Gas
029
PFD-01-02
TIC
PIC v
PIC
N2
FIC
P-5 Minimum Flow Recycle
P-5A/B
V-6
Vacuum Break Gas To BOG Header
Water/Glycol Heaters
Vent/Flare Header Purge and Pilot Fuel
Miscellaneous Fuel
V-5
P-6
TK-2
HTR-1A/B
FIC
P-6 Minimum
Flow Recycle
HM1
HM6
V-5
HM SURGE
DRUM
P-5A/B
HM PUMPS
TK-2
HM STORAGE
P-6
HM TRANSFER
PUMP
HM8
DH - - HGW
Shaw Consultants
PFD-01-02
Seawater (Warm)
PFD-01-02
Seawater (Cool)
SW1
SW2 P-7A/B/C
SEAWATER INTAKE SCREEN
(Velocity Not to Exceed 0.5 feet/sec)
Cool Seawater Discharge Outlet At
Ocean Depth Where Temperature
Difference of Ocean and Seawater
Discharge Is +/- 3
o
C
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
65
o
F
80
o
F Surface
400 m
250 m Water Depth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FIC
P-7 Minimum Flow
~
+ -
Chlorination
Unit
P-7A/B/C
SEAWATER
PUMPS
HM7
CURACAOCNGLNGFEASIBILITYSTUDY
HEATANDMATERIALBALANCE
CASE:Lean137NoShipUnloading.xlsx
StreamID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Temperature[F] 254.9 0.0 256.1 256.1 256.1 250.1 244.9 227.5 227.6 174.7 175.0 0.0 0.0 227.6 5.3 227.6 0.0 5.7 200.5 200.5 28.7 28.1 5.7 244.9
Pressure[psia] 85.0 0.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 112.0 835.0 15.2 15.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 130.0 15.0 130.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 815.0 805.0 125.0 815.0
MolarFlow[lbmole/h] 0 0 14333 1258 13075 14548 14548 228 0 0 0 0 0 228 228 0 0 214 0 0 0 0 14 14548
MassFlow[lb/hr] 0 0 239090 20989 218101 242530 242530 3657 0 0 0 0 0 3657 3657 0 0 3440 0 0 0 0 217 242530
MolecularWeight 16.67 0.00 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.67 16.67 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.67 0.00 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.05 16.05 16.05 16.05 16.04 16.67
MassDensity[lb/ft3] 27.09 0.00 27.17 27.17 27.17 26.85 26.89 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.44 0.10 0.00 0.43 0.74 0.74 2.96 2.92 0.43 26.87
StdGasFlow[MMSCFD] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.08 0.00 0.00 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00
ActualGasFlow[ACFM] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 608 0 0 0 0 0 616 138 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 8 0
ActualLiquidFlow[m3/h] 0.0 0.0 249.2 21.9 227.3 255.8 255.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 255.6
HeatFlow[MMBtu/hr] 0.00 0.00 556.56 48.86 507.70 563.63 562.02 7.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.91 7.52 0.00 0.00 7.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 562.02
MoleFrac(Nitrogen) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(CO2) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(Methane) 0.9550 0.0000 0.9545 0.9545 0.9545 0.9552 0.9552 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9550 0.0000 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9993 0.9993 0.9993 0.9993 0.9999 0.9552
MoleFrac(Ethane) 0.0450 0.0000 0.0455 0.0455 0.0455 0.0448 0.0448 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0450 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0001 0.0448
MoleFrac(Propane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(iButane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(nButane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(iPentane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(nPentane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(EGlycol) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(H2O) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
TotalMoleFraction 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
StreamID 25 26 27 28 29 HM1 HM2 HM3 HM4 HM5 HM6 HM7 HM8 SW1 SW2
Temperature[F] 40.0 40.0 60.0 11.2 100.0 180.0 180.0 110.0 180.0 110.0 117.4 117.4 117.4 78.1 65.0
Pressure[psia] 805.0 805.0 795.0 60.0 45.0 70.0 70.0 25.0 70.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 80.0 65.0 15.0
MolarFlow[lbmole/h] 14548 14548 14548 14 14 2212 9 9 2203 2203 2212 2212 2212 329586 329586
MassFlow[lb/hr] 242530 242530 242530 217 217 50620 204 204 50415 50415 50620 50620 50620 5937528 5937528
MolecularWeight 16.67 16.67 16.67 16.04 16.04 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 18.02 18.02
MassDensity[lb/ft3] 2.96 2.96 2.74 0.20 0.12 62.33 62.41 64.40 62.41 64.40 64.12 64.12 64.13 62.23 62.33
StdGasFlow[MMSCFD] 132.50 132.50 132.50 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ActualGasFlow[ACFM] 1363 1363 1473 18 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ActualLiquidFlow[m3/h] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.1 0.1 22.9 22.2 22.4 22.4 22.4 2701.6 2697.6
HeatFlow[MMBtu/hr] 483.74 483.74 480.55 0.45 0.43 284.63 1.15 1.16 283.19 286.39 287.55 287.55 287.54 40378.58 40456.86
MoleFrac(Nitrogen) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(CO2) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(Methane) 0.9552 0.9552 0.9552 0.9999 0.9999 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(Ethane) 0.0448 0.0448 0.0448 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(Propane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(iButane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(nButane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(iPentane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(nPentane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(EGlycol) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(H2O) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 1.0000 1.0000
SHAWCONSULTANTSINTERNATIONAL,INC.
HOUSTON,TEXAS
6/5/2012
HEATANDMATERIALBALANCE
CASE:Lean137ShipUnloading.xlsx
StreamID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Temperature[F] 254.9 254.8 256.1 256.1 256.1 199.6 192.2 256.0 256.1 211.3 193.5 254.7 220.1 256.1 58.2 256.1 58.2 58.7 200.5 200.5 28.7 28.1 58.7 192.2
Pressure[psia] 85.0 33.5 120.0 120.0 120.0 112.0 835.0 15.0 14.8 27.3 21.5 84.9 16.4 14.8 130.0 14.8 130.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 815.0 805.0 125.0 815.0
MolarFlow[lbmole/h] 689112 688889 10351 10351 0 11357 11357 6565 2217 2217 2217 241 2440 275 275 4073 4073 4333 3327 3327 3327 3327 15 11357
MassFlow[lb/hr] 11490329 11486693 172661 172661 0 188767 188767 105324 35573 35573 35573 4011 39209 4404 4404 65347 65347 69519 53414 53414 53414 53414 233 188767
MolecularWeight 16.67 16.67 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.62 16.62 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.67 16.07 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.04 16.05 16.05 16.05 16.05 16.04 16.62
MassDensity[lb/ft3] 27.09 27.06 27.17 27.17 27.17 23.90 24.02 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.12 27.08 0.11 0.11 0.51 0.11 0.51 0.49 0.74 0.74 2.96 2.92 0.49 24.00
StdGasFlow[MMSCFD] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.79 20.19 20.19 20.19 0.00 22.22 2.50 2.50 37.09 37.09 39.46 30.30 30.30 30.30 30.30 0.13 0.00
ActualGasFlow[ACFM] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15387 5268 3484 4797 0 6224 652 144 9677 2141 2370 1202 1202 301 305 8 0
ActualLiquidFlow[m3/h] 12011.2 12020.2 179.9 179.9 0.0 223.7 222.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 222.7
HeatFlow[MMBtu/hr] 26745.77 26737.71 401.93 401.93 0.00 431.53 430.12 229.27 77.43 76.68 76.34 9.33 84.54 9.59 9.18 142.25 136.18 144.87 115.27 115.27 110.28 110.28 0.48 430.12
MoleFrac(Nitrogen) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(CO2) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(Methane) 0.9550 0.9550 0.9546 0.9546 0.9546 0.9587 0.9587 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9550 0.9982 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9993 0.9993 0.9993 0.9993 0.9999 0.9587
MoleFrac(Ethane) 0.0450 0.0450 0.0454 0.0454 0.0454 0.0413 0.0413 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0450 0.0018 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0001 0.0413
MoleFrac(Propane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(iButane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(nButane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(iPentane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(nPentane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(EGlycol) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(H2O) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
StreamID 25 26 27 28 29 HM1 HM2 HM3 HM4 HM5 HM6 HM7 HM8 SW1 SW2
Temperature[F] 40.0 37.3 60.0 65.5 100.0 180.0 180.0 110.0 180.0 110.0 117.4 117.4 117.4 78.1 65.0
Pressure[psia] 805.0 805.0 795.0 60.0 45.0 70.0 70.0 25.0 70.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 80.0 65.0 15.0
MolarFlow[lbmole/h] 11357 14684 14684 15 15 2502 14 14 2488 2488 2502 2502 2502 221903 221903
MassFlow[lb/hr] 188767 242180 242180 233 233 57259 322 322 56936 56936 57259 57259 57259 3997598 3997598
MolecularWeight 16.62 16.49 16.49 16.04 16.04 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 22.89 18.02 18.02
MassDensity[lb/ft3] 2.95 2.94 2.70 0.23 0.12 62.33 62.41 64.40 62.41 64.40 64.12 64.12 64.13 62.23 62.33
StdGasFlow[MMSCFD] 103.43 133.74 133.74 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ActualGasFlow[ACFM] 1066 1371 1493 17 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ActualLiquidFlow[m3/h] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.1 0.1 25.8 25.0 25.3 25.3 25.3 1819.0 1816.2
HeatFlow[MMBtu/hr] 377.41 487.69 484.08 0.48 0.46 321.96 1.81 1.83 319.82 323.43 325.26 325.26 325.25 27185.95 27238.65
MoleFrac(Nitrogen) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(CO2) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(Methane) 0.9587 0.9679 0.9679 0.9999 0.9999 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(Ethane) 0.0413 0.0321 0.0321 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(Propane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(iButane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(nButane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(iPentane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(nPentane) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(EGlycol) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.1106 0.0000 0.0000
MoleFrac(H2O) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 0.8894 1.0000 1.0000
HOUSTON,TEXAS
6/5/2012
Section 15 Appendix C


TERMINAL LAYOUT DRAWINGS

SCALE:
FILE:
DATE:
By:
JOB NO.:
DWG NO.: REV
PLOT PLAN LAYOUT
CURACAO ONSHORE LNG TERMINAL
1" = 100'-0"
LAY-01-01 REV A.VSD
LAY-01-01 A
CK #2 CK #3 Approve
05-31-2012
BULLEN BAY PORT
145790
Shaw Consultants
DH - - HGW
TK-1
PIG-1
Gas Meter Skid
MTR-1
LP BOG Vent
HP Vent
TK-2
Firewater Tank
P-12A/B
Elec Substation
G-1 MCC
EQUIPMENT LIST
1 P-1A/B IN-TANK PUMPS
2 P-2A/B LNG SENDOUT PUMPS
3 P-5A/B HM PUMPS
4 P-6 HM TRANSFER PUMP
5 P-7A/B/C SEAWATER PUMPS
6 P-8 HC SUMP PUMP
7 P-9 SLOP OIL TRANSFER PUMP
8 P-10 NON-HAZARDOUS SUMP PUMP
9 P-11A/B JOCKEYWATER PUMPS
10 P-12A/B FIREWATER PUMPS
11 P-13A/B LARGE STORMWATER SUMP PUMPS
12 P-14A/B SMALL STORMWATER SUMP PUMPS
13 P-15 DIESEL TRANSFER PUMP
14 K-1A/B SHIP VATOR RETURN BLOWERS
16 K-2A/B SMALL BOG COMPRESSORS
16 K-2C LARGE BOG COMPRESSOR
17 K-3 BOG PIPELINE COMPRESSOR
18 K-100A/B INSTRUMENT AIR PACKAGE
19 K-200A/B NITROGEN GEN PACKAGE
20 V-1 BOG CONDENSER
21 V-2 LNG DRAIN DRUM
22 V-5 HM SURGE DRUM
23 V-6 LP FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
24 V-7 HP FLARE KO
25 V-8 CRYOGENIC CLOSED DRAIN SUMP
26 V-9 NON-HAZARDOUS DRAIN SUMP
27 V-10 INSTRUMENT AIR RECEIVER
28 V-11 UTILITY AIR RECEIVER
29 V-12 NITROGEN RECEIVER
30 F-1A/B HM FILTERS
31 E-1A/B LNG OPEN RACK VAPORIZERS
32 E-2A/B SENDOUT GAS SUPERHEATERS
33 E-3 LP FUEL GAS HEATER
34 E-4 BOG PIPELINE DISCH COOLER
35 HTR-1A/B HM FIRED HEATERS
36 TK-1 LNG STORAGE TANK
37 TK-2 HM STORAGE TANK
38 TK-5 FIREWATER TANK
39 G-1 EMERGENCY GENERATOR
40 VENT-1 HP VENT TOWER
41 VENT-2 BOG/LP VENT TOWER
42 ARM-1/2/3/4 LNG UNLOADING ARMS
43 MTR-1 GAS SENDOUT METER/SAMPLER
44 PIG-1 SENDOUT GAS PIPELINE PIG LAUNCHER
V-3
P-1A
P-1B
P-7A/B/C
ARM-1/2/3/4
V
-
2
P
-
3
A
/B
TK-6
P-15
255.00
TK-7
P-9
P-11A/B
Storm
Sump
P
-
1
3
A
P
-
1
4
A
P
-
1
3
B
P
-
1
4
B
LNG Spill
Sump
E-1A
E-1B
Future
V-1
P-2A/B
V-7
K-1A
K-1B
K-2A
K-2B
K-2C
K-3
P-8
V-8
NEW GAS SENDOUT PIPELINE
B
O
G

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r

S
h
e
d
E-2A/B
E-4
V-5
HTR-1A
HTR-1B
P-5A
P-5B
TK-2
P-6 P-10
HM System
V-9
F-1A/B
V-6
LP Fuel
System
InstAir/Nitrogen
Systems
K-100A
K-100B
K-200A
K-200B
V-10
V-11
V-12
O
f
f
ic
e

C
C
R
S
h
o
p
/L
a
b
W
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
P
A
R
K
IN
G
100'-0"
200'-0"
300'-0"
400'-0"
500'-0"
600'-0"
700'-0"
800'-0"
900'-0"
1000'-0"
1100'-0"
1200'-0"
1300'-0"
1
0
0
'-
0
"
2
0
0
'-
0
"
3
0
0
'-
0
"
4
0
0
'-
0
"
5
0
0
'-
0
"
6
0
0
'-
0
"
7
0
0
'-
0
"
8
0
0
'-
0
"
9
0
0
'-
0
"
1
0
0
0
'-
0
"
1
1
0
0
'-
0
"
1
2
0
0
'-
0
"
1
3
0
0
'-
0
"
1
4
0
0
'-
0
"
1
5
0
0
'-
0
"
1
6
0
0
'-
0
"
1
7
0
0
'-
0
"
1
8
0
0
'-
0
"
1
9
0
0
'-
0
"
2
0
0
0
'-
0
"
2
1
0
0
'-
0
"
2
2
0
0
'-
0
"
2
3
0
0
'-
0
"
2
4
0
0
'-
0
"
2
5
0
0
'-
0
"
0ft. 150ft. 250ft. 500ft.
SCALE
P
R
E
V
A
IL
IN
G

W
IN
D
P
A
R
K
IN
G

A
R
E
A
SCALE:
FILE:
DATE:
By:
JOB NO.:
DWG NO.: REV
PLOT PLAN LAYOUT
CURACAO ONSHORE LNG TERMINAL
1" = 100'-0"
LAY-01-02 REV A.VSD
LAY-01-02 A
CK #2 CK #3 Approve
05-31-2012
BULLEN BAY PORT
145790
Shaw Consultants
DH - - HGW
TK-1
PIG-1
Gas Meter Skid
MTR-1
LP BOG Vent
HP Vent
TK-2
Firewater Tank
P-12A/B
Elec Substation
G-1 MCC
EQUIPMENT LIST
1 P-1A/B IN-TANK PUMPS
2 P-2A/B LNG SENDOUT PUMPS
3 P-5A/B HM PUMPS
4 P-6 HM TRANSFER PUMP
5 P-7A/B/C SEAWATER PUMPS
6 P-8 HC SUMP PUMP
8 P-10 NON-HAZARDOUS SUMP PUMP
9 P-11A/B JOCKEYWATER PUMPS
10 P-12A/B FIREWATER PUMPS
13 P-15 DIESEL TRANSFER PUMP
14 K-1A/B SHIP VATOR RETURN BLOWERS
16 K-2A/B SMALL BOG COMPRESSORS
16 K-2C LARGE BOG COMPRESSOR
17 K-3 BOG PIPELINE COMPRESSOR
20 V-1 BOG CONDENSER
21 V-2 LNG DRAIN DRUM
22 V-5 HM SURGE DRUM
23 V-6 LP FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
24 V-7 HP FLARE KO
25 V-8 CRYOGENIC CLOSED DRAIN SUMP
26 V-9 NON-HAZARDOUS DRAIN SUMP
30 F-1A/B HM FILTERS
31 E-1A/B LNG OPEN RACK VAPORIZERS
32 E-2A/B SENDOUT GAS SUPERHEATERS
33 E-3 LP FUEL GAS HEATER
34 E-4 BOG PIPELINE DISCH COOLER
35 HTR-1A/B HM FIRED HEATERS
36 TK-1 LNG STORAGE TANK
37 TK-2 HM STORAGE TANK
38 TK-5 FIREWATER TANK
41 VENT-2 BOG/LP VENT TOWER
42 ARM-1/2/3/4 LNG UNLOADING ARMS
V-3
P-1A
P-1B
P-7A/B/C
ARM-1/2/3/4
V
-
2
P
-
3
A
/B
TK-6
P-15
255.00
TK-7
P-9
P-11A/B
Storm
Sump
P
-
1
3
A
P
-
1
4
A
P
-
1
3
B
P
-
1
4
B
LNG Spill
Sump
E-1A
E-1B
Future
V-1
P-2A/B
V-7
K-1A
K-1B
K-2A
K-2B
K-2C
K-3
P-8
V-8
B
O
G

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r

S
h
e
d
E-2A/B
E-4
V-5
HTR-1A
HTR-1B
P-5A
P-5B
TK-2
P-6 P-10
HM System
V-9
F-1A/B
V-6
LP Fuel
System
InstAir/Nitrogen
Systems
K-100A
K-100B
K-200A
K-200B
V-10
V-11
V-12
O
f
f
ic
e

C
C
R
S
h
o
p
/L
a
b
W
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
P
A
R
K
IN
G
100'-0"
200'-0"
300'-0"
400'-0"
500'-0"
600'-0"
700'-0"
800'-0"
900'-0"
1000'-0"
1100'-0"
1200'-0"
1300'-0"
1
0
0
'-
0
"
2
0
0
'-
0
"
3
0
0
'-
0
"
4
0
0
'-
0
"
5
0
0
'-
0
"
6
0
0
'-
0
"
7
0
0
'-
0
"
8
0
0
'-
0
"
9
0
0
'-
0
"
1
0
0
0
'-
0
"
1
1
0
0
'-
0
"
1
2
0
0
'-
0
"
1
3
0
0
'-
0
"
1
4
0
0
'-
0
"
1
5
0
0
'-
0
"
1
6
0
0
'-
0
"
1
7
0
0
'-
0
"
1
8
0
0
'-
0
"
1
9
0
0
'-
0
"
2
0
0
0
'-
0
"
2
1
0
0
'-
0
"
2
2
0
0
'-
0
"
2
3
0
0
'-
0
"
2
4
0
0
'-
0
"
2
5
0
0
'-
0
"
0ft. 150ft. 250ft. 500ft.
SCALE
P
R
E
V
A
IL
IN
G

W
IN
D
P
A
R
K
IN
G

A
R
E
A
SCALE:
FILE:
DATE:
By:
JOB NO.:
DWG NO.: REV
PLOT PLAN LAYOUT
CURACAO FSRU LNG TERMINAL
1" = 100'-0"
LAY-02-01 REV A.VSD
LAY-02-01 A
CK #2 CK #3 Approve
05-31-2012
BULLEN BAY PORT
145790
Shaw Consultants
DH - - HGW
PIG-1
Gas Meter Skid
MTR-1
HP Vent
Elec Substation
G-1 MCC
V-1
ARM-1/2/3
TK-1 P-2
Storm
Sump
P
-
3
A
P
-
4
A
P
-
3
B
P
-
4
B
Storm
Sump
K-1
K-3
P-1
B
O
G
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r
S
h
e
d
E-2
O
f
f
ic
e

C
C
R
S
h
o
p
/L
a
b
W
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
P
A
R
K
IN
G
100'-0"
200'-0"
300'-0"
400'-0"
500'-0"
600'-0"
700'-0"
800'-0"
900'-0"
1000'-0"
1100'-0"
1200'-0"
1300'-0"
1
0
0
'-
0
"
2
0
0
'-
0
"
3
0
0
'-
0
"
4
0
0
'-
0
"
5
0
0
'-
0
"
6
0
0
'-
0
"
7
0
0
'-
0
"
8
0
0
'-
0
"
9
0
0
'-
0
"
1
0
0
0
'-
0
"
1
1
0
0
'-
0
"
1
2
0
0
'-
0
"
1
3
0
0
'-
0
"
1
4
0
0
'-
0
"
1
5
0
0
'-
0
"
1
6
0
0
'-
0
"
1
7
0
0
'-
0
"
1
8
0
0
'-
0
"
1
9
0
0
'-
0
"
2
0
0
0
'-
0
"
2
1
0
0
'-
0
"
2
2
0
0
'-
0
"
2
3
0
0
'-
0
"
2
4
0
0
'-
0
"
2
5
0
0
'-
0
"
0ft. 150ft. 250ft. 500ft.
SCALE
P
R
E
V
A
IL
IN
G

W
IN
D
P
A
R
K
IN
G

A
R
E
A
V-2
V-3
E-1
E-3
K-2
V-4
LP BOG
Vent
InstAir/Nitrogen
Systems
K-100A
K-100B
K-200A
K-200B
V-5
V-6
V-7
EQUIPMENT LIST
1 P-1 HC DRAIN SUMP PUMP
5 K-1 1st STAGE BOG COMPRESSOR
6 K-2A/B 2nd STAGE BOG COMPRESSOR
7 K-2C 3rd STAGE BOG COMPRESSOR
10 V-1 BOG SUCTION SCRUBBER
11 V-2 HP VENT KO
12 V-3 HC DRAIN SUMP
13 V-4 BOG VENT KO
17 E-1 1st STAGE BOG COMPRESSOR DISCH COOLER
18 E-2 2nd STAGE BOG COMPRESSOR DISCH COOLER
19 E-3 3rd STAGE BOG COMPRESSOR DISCH COOLER
22 VENT-2 LP BOG VENT TOWER
23 ARM-1/2/3 GAS AND BOG UNLOADING ARMS
26 TK-1 SLOP OIL TANK
Section 15 Appendix D


MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST

CURACAO CNG-LNG FEASIBILITY STUDY
Heat Duty
One Unit
Power
One Unit
Gas
MMscfd
Liq
m
3
/hr
Aqueous
m
3
/hr
P
psig
T
o
F
P
psig
T
o
F MMBtu/Hr kW
Height
feet
W or Dia
feet
Length
feet Dry Oper
G1 EMERGENCYGENERATOR 1 100 DIESELENGINE 625 7.0 7.8 11.0 13.8 14.2
SWITCHGEARANDMCCBUILDING 64.0 32.0 59.9 59.9 DIMENSSIONSAREFORMCCBLDG.
K1A/B SHIPVAPORRETURNBLOWER 2 100 CENTRIFUGALBLOWER SS304L 20 275 260 12 256 250 5.5 5.5 11.0 20.2 20.8
K2A/B SMALLBOGCOMPRESSOR 2 100 RECIPROCATING SS304L 2.5 275 260 115 58 150 5.5 5.5 11.0 16.8 17.3
K2C LARGEBOGCOMPRESSOR 1 100 RECIPROCATING SS304L 37 275 260 115 58 1,800 7.5 7.5 18.0 26.2 27.0
K3 BOGPIPELINECOMPRESSOR 1 100 RECIPROCATING SS304L 30 1,440 260 790 200 1,500 7.5 7.5 18.0 29.8 30.7
K100A/B INSTRUMENTAIRPACKAGE 2 100 RECIPROCATING CS 285 350 150 290 75 4.5 4.5 9.4 12.2 12.6
K200A/B NITROGENGENERATORPACKAGE 2 100 RECIPROCATING CS 285 350 150 290 75 4.5 4.5 9.4 12.2 12.6
P1A/B INTANKLNGPUMP 2 100 CRYOSTORAGEDEEPWELL AL 250 275 260 120 256 100 1.1 1.1
P2A/B LNGSENDOUTPUMP 2 100 CRYOMULTISTAGECAN AL 260 1,440 260 820 250 480 4.7 4.8
P3A/B LNGDRAINDRUMPUMP 2 100 CRYOMULTISTAGECAN AL 23 275 260 115 220 6 1.0 1.3
P-5A/B HM PUMP 2 100 INLINECENTRIFUGAL CS 25 260 200 65 117 0.5 0.5
P-6 HM TRANSFER PUMP 1 100 INLINECENTRIFUGAL CS 12 260 150 65 80 0.4 0.4
P-7A/B/C SEAWATER PUMP 3 50 DEEPWELLVTOPDRIVE NiBzAl 1,350 150 100 50 78 2.8 2.8
P-8 HC SUMP PUMP 1 100 DEEPWELLVTOPDRIVE CS 26 150 100 50 80 0.5 0.5
P-9 SLOP OIL TRANSFER PUMP 1 100 HCENTRIFUGAL CS 26 150 100 50 80 1.0 1.0
P-10 NON-HAZARDOUS SUMP PUMP 1 100 DEEPWELLVTOPDRIVE CS 26 150 100 50 80 0.5 0.5
P-11A/B J OCKEY WATER PUMP 2 100 INLINECENTRIFUGAL NiBzAl 5 200 100 150 80 0.5 0.5
P-12A/B FIREWATER PUMP (DIESEL) 2 100 HCENTRIFUGAL(DIESELENGINE) NiBzAl 1,150 200 100 150 80 5.7 5.9
P-13A/B LARGE STORMWATER SUMP PUMP 2 50 DEEPWELLVTOPDRIVE NiBzAl 575 150 100 50 80 1.5 1.5
P-14A/B SMALL STORMWATER SUMP PUMP 2 50 DEEPWELLVTOPDRIVE NiBzAl 58 150 100 50 80 0.5 0.5
P-15 DIESELTRANSFERPUMP 1 100 HCENTRIFUGAL CS 5 150 100 50 80 1.0 1.0
V-1 BOGCONDENSER 1 100 H2PHASE SS304L 260 150 260 100 250 9.5 24.0 8.5 18.5 ABSORBERMOUNTEDATOPVESSEL
V-2 LNGDRAINDRUMPUMP 1 100 H2PhaseSep SS304L 23 150 260 7 220 5.5 12.0 1.6 2.9
V-3 BOGCOMPRESSORSCRUBBER 1 100 HScrubber SS304L 1 150 260 0.5 228 6.3 14.0 2.7 3.5
V-5 HM SURGE DRUM 1 100 H 2-Phase Sep CS 25 260 200 10 117 5.3 12.0 3.6 8.6
V-6 LP FUEL GAS SCRUBBER 1 100 V Scrubber CS 0.5 150 150 30 100 2.0 8.0 0.3 0.4
V-7 HP FLARE/VENT KO 1 100 H Scrubber SS304L 250 23 150 260 50 200 7.5 30.0 6.5 6.9
V-8 CRYOGENIC CLOSED DRAIN SUMP 1 100 H Scrubber SS304L 2 23 150 260 5 260 7.5 30.0 6.5 6.9
V-9 NON-HAZARDOUS DRAIN SUMP 1 100 H Scrubber CS 2 25 150 200 5 180 5.7 12.0 2.8 12.3
V-10 INSTRUMENT AIR RECEIVER 1 100 H Scrubber CS 175 150 125 120 7.0 14.0 5.3 5.6
V-11 UTILITY AIR RECEIVER 1 100 H Scrubber CS 175 150 125 120 7.0 14.0 5.3 5.6
V-12 NITROGEN RECEIVER 1 100 H Scrubber CS 175 150 125 120 7.0 14.0 5.3 5.6
F1A/B HMFILTER 2 100 CharcoalBedLiquidFilter CS 3 260 299 50 117 0.7 4.1 0.2 0.3
Sp SEAWATERPUMPINTAKESCREEN 1 100 SelfCleaning(0.5fpsvelocity) NiBzAl 2,700 SCREENSERVESALLSWPUMPS
Sp SEAWATERPUMPFILTERTRAPS 3 50 FilterTrapManualCleanout NiBzAl 1,350 FILTERTRAPONPUMPDISCHARGE
E2A/B SENDOUTGASSUPPERHEATER 2 100 Shell&Tube CS 137 1,440 200 790 60 3.20 17in 20.0 3.1 4.3
E3 LPFUELGASHEATER 1 100 BrownFinTube CS 0.5 150 200 30 100 0.10 4in 6.0 0.4 0.4
E4 BOGPIPELINECOMPRESSORDISCHCOOLER 1 100 AirFanCooler CS 20 1,440 300 790 250 3.14 8 7.3 11.7 13.0 0.9 1.0 AirTempDelta=50DegF
HEAT EXCHANGERS
Design Notes
POWER GENERATION
COMPRESSORS
PUMPS
PRESSURE VESSELS
Dimension of One Unit
Total Weight
Metric Tons
FILTERS
Material
Capacity of One Unit
(Max for Each Phase) Design Operating
Tag ID Service Drawing No. Qty % Type
EquipmentListRev1.xlsx6/7/2012
CURACAO CNG-LNG FEASIBILITY STUDY
Heat Duty
One Unit
Power
One Unit
Gas
MMscfd
Liq
m
3
/hr
Aqueous
m
3
/hr
P
psig
T
o
F
P
psig
T
o
F MMBtu/Hr kW
Height
feet
W or Dia
feet
Length
feet Dry Oper Design Notes
Dimension of One Unit
Total Weight
Metric Tons
Material
Capacity of One Unit
(Max for Each Phase) Design Operating
Tag ID Service Drawing No. Qty % Type
E-1A/B LNG OPEN RACK VAPORIZER 2 100 ORV AL6XN 137.00 1,440 260 800 245 78.28 29.0 15.0 23.0 42.2 99.6
HTR-1A/B HM GAS FIRED HEATER 2 100 HorizontalFireTubeBathHeater CS 23 245 250 65 180 2.91 6.3 6.5 16.0 14.8 15.4
TK-1 LNG STORAGE TANK (160,000 M3) 1 100 FullContainmentTypeTank 9%Ni 2.8 260 1.0 256 129.0 255.4
TK-2 HM STORAGE TANK 1 100 API CS 2 100 0 80 8.0 10.0 2.1 20.3 100BblCapacity
TK-3 FIREWATER PUMP DIESEL DAY TANK 2 100 PipeTank CS 2 100 0 80 3.0 17.7 1.8 7.6 20BblCapacity
TK-4 EMERGENCY GEN DIESEL DAY TANK 1 100 PipeTank CS 2 100 0 80 3.0 17.7 1.8 7.6 20BblCapacity
TK-5 FIREWATER TANK (8HR @ 5,000gpm) 1 100 API CS 2 100 0 80 45.4 100.0 455.2 10,554.1 57,200BblCapacity
TK-6 SLOP OIL TANK 1 100 API CS 2 100 0 80 8.0 10.0 2.1 16.2 100BblCapacity
TK-7 DIESEL STORAGE TANK 1 100 API CS 2 100 0 80 8.0 10.0 2.1 16.4 100BblCapacity
sP HP FLARE/VENT TIP AND TOWER 1 SonicTip;TowerStructure 250
sP LP BOG FLARE/VENT TIP AND TOWER 1 TowerStucture 60
sP OFFICE / CONTROL ROOM BUILDING 1 ModularUnit 36.0 72.0 2,600SquareFeet
sP WORKSHOP / LAB / WAREHOUSE 1 ModularUnit 36.0 72.0 2,600SquareFeet
sP MCC ROOM +EMERG GEN ROOM 1 CenderBlockBuilding 35.0 64.0 2,050SquareFeet
sP BOG & SHIP VAPOR COMPRESSOR SHED 1 OpenSideBuilding 32.0 150.0 4,800SquareFeet
sP SENDOUT GAS CUSTODY METER 1 Ultrasonicw/GasAnalyzer 140
sP COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM 1 ShiptoShore,InPlantPA
sP UPS SYSTEM 1 30MinuteBackupCriticalServices
sP DCS COMPUTER SYSTEM & PROGRAMING
sP LNG UNLOADING ARMS (STD. 16") 4 2LNG,1HybridLNG/Vapor,1Vapor
sP LNG UNLOADING PLATFORM / STRUCTURE 1 100'X60'PiledTubularSubstructure
sP GUARD HOUSE 1 14'X14'ModularUnit
sP LNG J ETTY AND MOORING EQUIPMENT
sP SEAWATER PUMP PLATFORM 1 SupportedFromLNGUnloadingPlatform
sP FIREWATER RING MAIN/LATERIALS W/ DELUGE
sP FIRE/SMOKE/GAS DETECTION & ESD SYSTEM
sP MISC PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
sP CO2 SYSTEM FOR MCC BUILDING
sP Sewage Treatment Unit 1 100 ConventionalAerobicSewagePlant
VAPORIZERS AND HEATERS
MISC. EQUIPMENT
SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION
POTABLE WATER & SEWAGE TREATMENT
TANKS
EquipmentListRev1.xlsx6/7/2012
Section 15 Appendix E


UTILITY LOAD SUMMARY

ELECTRICALUTILITYLOADSUMMARY
Units Connected
Ship
Unload Normal Emergency
Tag ID Service Qty % Duty hp
Ship
Unload
Run
Normal
Run Duty kW Load kW Load kW Load kW Load kW
K-1A/B SHIP VAPOR RETURN BLOWER 2 100 300 1 - 224 448 224 -
K-2A/B SMALL BOG COMPRESSOR 2 100 200 1 1 149 298 113 149
K 2C LARGE BOG COMPRESSOR 1 100 2 385 1 1 779 1 779 1 779
ElectricalEquipment
ElectricalLoadSummaryRev1.xlsx6/7/2012
K-2C LARGE BOG COMPRESSOR 1 100 2,385 1 - 1,779 1,779 1,779 -
K-3 BOG PIPELINE COMPRESSOR 1 100 1,965 1 - 1,466 1,466 1,466 -
K-100A/B INSTRUMENT AIR PACKAGE 2 100 100 1 1 75 149 75 75 75
K-200A/B NITROGEN GEN PACKAGE 2 100 100 1 1 75 149 75 75
P-1A/B IN-TANK LNG PUMP 2 100 120 1 1 90 179 90 90
P-2A/B LNG SENDOUT PUMP 2 100 640 1 1 477 955 477 477
P-3A/B LNG DRAIN DRUM PUMP 2 100 8 1 - 6 12 6 -
P-5A/B HMPUMP 2 100 5 1 1 4 7 4 4 P-5A/B HM PUMP 2 100 5 1 1 4 7 4 4
P-6 HM TRANSFER PUMP 1 100 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
P-7A/B/C SEAWATER PUMP 3 50 240 2 2 179 537 358 358
P-8 HC SUMP PUMP 1 100 5 1 1 4 4 4 4
P-9 SLOP OIL TRANSFER PUMP 1 100 5 1 1 4 4 4 4
P-10 NON-HAZARDOUS SUMP PUMP 1 100 5 1 1 4 4 4 4
P-11A/B J OCKEY WATER PUMP 2 100 3 1 1 2 4 2 2 2
P-13A/B LARGE STORMWATER SUMP PUMP 2 50 70 2 2 52 104 104 104 104
P-14A/B SMALL STORMWATER SUMP PUMP 2 50 7 2 2 5 10 10 10 10
E-4 BOG PIPELINE COMPRESSOR DISCH COOLER 1 100 10 7 7 - -
HTR-1A/B HEATING MEDIUM FIRED HEATER 2 100 6 1 1 4 9 4 4
UNLOADING PLATFORM 1 100 30 1 1 22 22 22 22 22
CENTRAL CONTROL ROOM 1 100 48 1 1 36 36 36 36 36
OFFICE 1 100 48 1 1 36 36 36 36 36
WORKSHOP / LAB / WAREHOUSE 1 100 129 1 1 96 96 96 96 96
PLANT LIGHTING 1 100 265 1 1 198 198 198 198 198 PLANT LIGHTING 1 100 265 1 1 198 198 198 198 198
MCC BUILDING 1 100 48 1 1 36 36 36 36 36
GUARD HOUSE 1 100 12 1 1 9 9 9 9 9
6,562 5,234 1,795 625 TOTALS
ElectricalLoadSummaryRev1.xlsx6/7/2012
Section 15 Appendix F


KEY MILESTONE PROJECT SCHEDULE

Act
ID
Description
1
MONTH
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
1000
Start FEED
1010
FEED Engineering
1020
Commence EPC Contract Effort
1030
EPC Contract Bid and Award
1040
Award EPC Contract
1050
Detailed Engineering
1060
Engineering 50% Model Review
1070
P&IDs Issue for Cnstruction
1080
1090
Procurement
1100
Award PO Vaporizers
1110
Award PO LNG Pumps
1120
Commence Delivers - Steel
1130
Award Tank Subcontract
1140
Tank Engineering and Construction
1150
Commence Tank Piles / Foundation
1160
Mobilize Mechanical Construction
1170
Foundations - Balance of Terminal
1180
Construction - Balance of Terminal
1190
Ready for Cooldown
1200
Cool Down - Mechanical Completion
1210
Start-up
1220
Gas Sendout
Start FEED
FEED Engineering
Commence EPC Contract Effort
EPC Contract Bid and Award
Award EPC Contract
Detailed Engineering
P&IDs Issue for Cnstruction
Procurement
Award PO Vaporizers
Award PO LNG Pumps
Commence Delivers - Steel
Award Tank Subcontract
Tank Engineering and Construction
Commence Tank Piles / Foundation
Mobilize Mechanical Construction
Foundations - Balance of Terminal
Construction - Balance of Terminal
Ready for Cooldown
Cool Down - Mechanical Completion
Start-up
Gas Sendout
Start date 09MAY12
Finish date 16AUG16
Data date 09MAY12
Run date 07J UN12
Page number 1A
Primavera Systems, Inc.
Curacao LNG Terminal
Early bar
Progress bar
Critical bar
Summary bar
Start milestone point
Finish milestone point
Section 15 Appendix G


LNG SHIPPING ROUTE CHARTS

FreeporttoCuracao
SabinePasstoCuracao
AtlanticLNGPointFontintoCuracao
QatartoCuracao

PeruLNGtoCuracao

NigeriaLNGtoCuracao

AlgeriaLNGtoCuracao

AngolaLNGtoCuracao
Section 15 Appendix H


HURRICANE HISTORICAL TRACKING CHARTS

2005
1
Source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks/
2006
2
2007
3
2008

4
2009
5
2010
6

1430 Enclave Parkway Houston, TX 77077-2023
Tele: 281.368.4000 Fax: 281.368.4488
Offices:

Cambridge, MA
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Milton Keynes, UK
Singapore

LNG

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

LNG

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CURACAO CNG-LNG TERMINAL

0.44 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.46

Anda mungkin juga menyukai