1. Maritime Navigational Risk Analysis of
Shipping North Slope Liquefied Natural Gas
Safeguard Marine LLC
Prepared for Alaska Gasline Port Authority
Presented at the Alaska LNG Summit, 2012

2. Sea Bulk Pride Feb. 3, 2006
•

3. Purpose
• Identify and analyze the risk mitigation factors
associated with LLNG tankers
• Compare and contrast maritime risk limitations of
navigating LLNG tankers in Cook Inlet and Valdez,
Alaska

4. Overview
• Comparing contributing factors for shipping
LNG in LLNG ships for Nikiski and Valdez:
– Weather patterns
– Tides and Currents
– Ice navigation
– Geographical obstructions
– Depths of water
– Present infrastructure available

5. Liquefied Natural Gas Shipping in
Alaska
• Alaskan natural gas has been shipped since
1969 using shuttle tankers from Nikiski
• Shipping large volumes will require larger
ships creating need for large LNG tankers
• Development of natural gas resources will
drive future of Alaskan economy
• Developing these resources requires shipping
of natural gas either through Cook Inlet or
Prince William Sound

6. Valdez
• Most Northern ice free port in North America
• Tides and Currents are minimal
• Deep water port with no draft restraints
• Approaches to Port are all deep water
• Valdez Narrows navigation consideration
• Moderate temperatures winter
• Winds can be significant for periods of time
• Security for tank ships already in place

7. Valdez
• Coast Guard established scenario for tank ship
transits
• SERVS used to escort tankers is not being fully
utilized as TAPS output declines
• Cost of oil tanker escorts shared with LLNG,
may reduce transportation cost for TAPS
• Tug assist infrastructure in place for large tank
ships
• VLCC size tankers have frequented this port

8. Nikiski
• Nikiski docks do not appear to have shoaling
problems, no maintenance dredging occurs
• Large tides and currents normal occurrence
• Depth of water for transit dependent on tides to
cross shoal area with tankers
• Current dictates when ship traffic can occur
• Minimal Coast Guard presence
• Operational port area for over 40 years
• Vessels' frequenting port shuttle size

9. Nikiski
• Ice is a navigational occurrence most winters
• Temperatures can be extremely cold
• Ice has impact on shipping protocol
• USCG implements special rules for shipping
during winter months due to ice floes
• Safely mooring of ships during ice is critical
• Number of tug assist availability is minimal
• Tug assist in current and ice reduces effectiveness

10. Anchorage
• Port of Anchorage transit involves navigating
shoal area that requires more dredging
• Ice navigation can be more difficult than
Nikiski due to the volume and size of ice
• Ice season is typically longer than Nikiski
• Anchorage tides and currents are extreme

11. Discussion
• LNG tankers safely calling Nikiski for over 40 years
• Tankers of shuttle size and specifically made for
the terminal and port
• Exporting North Slope gas will require larger ships
due to the volume of gas
• Year round operations with LLNG size ships at the
Nikiski docks may cause undue risk
• Enough risk mitigation factors may not be
available to facilitate a safe mooring

12. Discussion
• North Slope gas export volume will dictate the
use of LLNG ships
• These ships will require significant
infrastructure capability
• Valdez presently has that capacity in place
• Shuttle tankers have moved crude oil from
Valdez to Nikiski refinery supplying the rail
belt with refined products

13. CONCLUSION
• Valdez Port of Preference for export of North
Slope Gas from Alaska using LLNG tankers
• Northern most ice free port, already possesses
required infrastructure
• LNG terminal in Valdez could be utilized to
move LNG to any location at tide water
• Cook Inlet or Southeast or Western Alaska
could be alternative receiving ports for North
Slope gas

14. Previous Analysis Concluded Valdez
presented relative less risk than Cook Inlet
• New research includes survey of 19 Alaska
state pilots working in Southwest Alaska
• Major finding of the survey is that Cook Inlet
poses greater risk to maritime navigation than
Valdez for placement of LNG terminal

15. Interview of State Pilots
• All active Southwest Alaska State Pilots with
over 5 years experience as state pilots
• Interviews of 19 Marine State Pilots total
• Combined Years Piloting Experience: 442 years
• All worked Valdez TAPS and Cook Inlet
• 41 Questions

16. Water Depth Cook Inlet
10 feet UKC
Actual UKC
Boulder Movement
Questions
Shoal Changes
Other Shoal Changes
Dredging Shoals
Winter Dredging
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

17. Tug Assist Cook Inlet
Tug Assist Cook Inlet
Tug Assist During Ice Season
Questions
Tug Assist Risk Mitigation
Conditions prevent Tug Assist Nikiski
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

18. Tides, Currents, and Ice Cook Inlet
Nikiski tides and currents greater risk
Force of Ice Proportionate to Ship size
Questions
Larger Ships greater effect by Ice
Mitigation Force of Ice
Changing Ice Rules
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

19. Moored LLNG in Cook Inlet
High Risk During Severe Ice
Risk Mitigation Possible During Heavy Ice
Questions
Use Engine to Counter Ice Effect
Use Engine to Prevent Ship Break Away
Use Engine LLNG Counter Ice Effect
Not Using Engine Effect Safety
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

20. Anchoring of LLNG Ships
Kachemak Bay Suitable Anhcorage
Questions
Local Communities Negative Perception of
LLNG Anchoring
Knowles Head Suitable Anhcorage
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

21. Maneuvering of Ships Using Anchor
Anchor Used Control Pivot Reduce Speed
Use Anchor at Nikiski
Questions
Prefer Tug Assist to Anchor
Tug Assist Year-Round Possible
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

22. SERVS and Coast Guard
Expansion of SERVS in Valdez for LLNG
SERVS and Coast Guard Provide Adequate
Risk Mitigation
Questions
Would LLNG Terminal Cook Inlet need
SERVS and Coast Guard
Increased Traffic in Cook Inlet Require
Traffic Lanes
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

23. LLNG Terminal Locations
Cook Inlet Should Not Be Considered for
LLNG Terminal
LLNG Terminal North of Forelands Cook
Questions
Inlet Poses Risk
LLNG Terminal Nikiski Poses Risk
LLNG Terminal Valdez Poses Risk
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Pilots Answering Affirmative

24. Narrative Cook Inlet
• Northern Cook Inlet Terminal: 18 “NO”, 1 “No
comment”
• Nikiski: 13 “NO”, 3 conditionally yes, 1 yes
• Risk can’t be mitigated with money
• Mother nature can’t be mitigated
• Risk posed is “Absolutely not [acceptable]”
• “Don’t fly in the face of mother nature”

25. Narrative Valdez
• All 19 were positive/ Yes
• “Excellent location, deep water, ice free”
• “Where it belongs, Only sensible location”
• “Only Valdez is an option for ships this size”

26. Mitigating Navigational Risk
• Mitigation of maritime risk starts with location
• Every day decisions made by these mariners
• Tool Box and the Tools to work with when
creating a successful outcome
• Art of ship handling/ not a science

27. Valdez is Safer than Nikiski
• Interview of the boots on the ground
• Valdez is the superior location
• Our obligation to the state as licensed pilots
• Nikiski is proven port for shuttle size ships
• Valdez is proven port for VLCC size ships

29. Thank you
Safe Guard Marine LLC
Captain Jeff Pierce, jeffpierce78@hotmail.com
Jonathan J. Pierce PhD Jonathan.pierce@ucdenver.edu