1 INTRODUCTION

Shipping is the driving force behind the global

economy. The sea carries out nearly 90% of world

trade. More than 60,000 sea-going vessels are

transporting various goods (1 976 48 thousand DWT

in 2019), passengers, and conducting offshore works

navigating in the sea area [3,8,10,11]. Hence, ensuring

safety in sea regions is a priority aspect of all sea

users. Any disturbances in the functioning of the

complex transport and organizational system may

lead to various adverse effects, including threats on a

global or local scale, the event of potentially

dangerous situations, and even generate an economic

crisis.[5] Diversification of LNG supply sources in the

current global situation is one of the important goals

for countries

The problem will be considered in terms of the

appropriate choice of terminal location FSRU, taking

into account the aspects of safe port manoeuvres as

well as the availability and operability of the FSRU

terminal.

In general, international maritime security

concerns all beneficiaries of the seas and oceans; is the

safety of life and property by protecting the marine

environment against the undesirable effects of human

activity. The result of which may be an incorrect

selection of the location of the FSRU terminal, which

may result in an environmental catastrophe, risk to

the safety and security of the terminal itself and

neighbouring areas, as well as failure to use the full

potential of the investment. The international nature

of maritime security means that when building

Method for Determining Location of FSRU Terminal

P. Mrozowski

Gdynia Maritime University, Gdynia, Poland

ABSTRACT: The article concerns the process of determining the safe location of the FSRU (floating storage

regasification unit) terminal. The article introduces the process of analysis both in the context of navigation and

manoeuvrability, as well as the process of analysing the movement of the ship's hull at the quay in order to

determine the operability criteria of the terminal. The article indicates that in order to determine, a safe location

for the FSRU terminal in the context of gas storage and regasification, many aspects should be analysed, in

terms of weather, safe navigation, environmental and security conditions especially in present military situation

i Europe. Therefore, a brief review of the type of FSRU terminals, the review input data for analyses, and the

type of simulations to be carried out, also review of the current security situation in sea areas. The final result of

the work will be create algorithm which will be as a help hand in process for safe selection the location of the

FSRU terminal, as well it will be define a catalogue of anticipated risks in the sea areas, and indicate areas of

particular sensitivity, i.e., what to put the most significant emphasis on to prepare for the occurrence of a given

risk and what are the possibilities of reducing it to an acceptable level or even reversing the trend of increasing

threats.

http://www.transnav.eu

the

International Journal

on Marine Navig

ation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 18

Number 1

March 2024

DOI: 10.12716/1001.18.01.

regulations on maritime security issues, we must take

into account already existing international concepts

and procedures in such a way as to safeguard and

take into account national interests. The maritime

security of the state is a component of national

security. It is a matter of national policy and strategy

and safe interaction between land and sea users.

[2,4,14]. Determining the appropriate location for the

FSRU terminal where it will be safely operational for

at least 97% of the time, a year (frequent requirements

of investors) requires many simulations and technical

analyses as well as analysis of regulations and legal

requirements.

2 METHODOLOGY AND REVIEW OF THE

SUBJECT LITERATURE

2.1 The research problem

The main research problem is the develop a algorithm

aimed at providing tools for efficient determination

of, a safe location and type of FSRU terminal, taking

into account the hydro-meteorological conditions,

existing infrastructure and the intensity of ship traffic

in the area.

To achieve the main objective, it is worth breaking

matters down into the following specific goals, the

chronological implementation of which is discussed in

the content of individual subsections of the paper. The

basic research method used to achieve the aim of this

paper is the analysis of source materials, scientific

papers, carried out simulations on relevant

simulators.

The collected data indicated areas of particular

vulnerability to ensure safety in marine areas, where

will be the terminal and implementation of effective

preventive measures and response to increase

availability and operability of the FSRU.

The general process of carrying out the investment

construction of the FSRU terminal is shown on

figure 1.

Figure 1. The process of carrying out the investment -

construction of the FSRU terminal.

Source: Author elaboration

2.2 Methodology of research

The algorithm cannot be built without identifying of

type of LNG terminals installed on the world.

Depends to hydrometeorological and geotechnical

conditions we can identify three general type of LNG

terminals.

Important aspects is also identification of hazards

and assessing the risk of their occurrence. This chapter

is devoted to a reminder of the methodology for

carrying out a risk assessment. Following the IMO

resolution, indicators for the impact on the safety of

human life and health, environment, and property

protection of high value (in this case, a FSRU) have

been implemented from its provisions. The

foundation for further elaboration of the problem is to

define the principles of risk index determination. It

will be a reference point for additional modelling of

the defined risks. This area’s scope is dictated by the

rationale of highlighting preventive actions before

they could enter the “Not Acceptable” range.

However, predicted risks might be challenging and

not applicable in their occurrence due to the

complexity and differentiation of the phenomenon

from the previously assumed assumptions. [1].

To carry out the most effective risk assessment, it is

important first to rank them. In this way, it is possible

to understand whether the identified risk is minor or

major. By taking this decision, one can achieve a more

effective result, ultimately affecting the decision-

making process. A crucial step for the success of the

analysis process is to identify and prioritize scenarios

for the problem under consider-action. This will allow

prioritizing and rejecting scenarios that are considered

to be of minor importance, and it will helps make

decision regarding to localization and type of terminal

LNG in considered localization.

2.3 Types of FSRU terminals according to the mooring

method

FSRU is a floating storage regasification unit using for

storage of liquid natural gas and also as distributor of

natural gas after regasification process. FSRU usually

is connected from one side to the shore gas

transportation infrastructure and from other side to

the LNGC by manifold with arms or cryogenic hoses.

Figure 2 shows FSRU.

Figure 2. FSRU floating storage regasification unit.

Source:https://www.offshore-energy.biz/hongkong-lng-

terminal-charters-mols-fsru-challenger [17]

There are three main methods of mooring FSRU

and LNG carriers.

1. Side-by side jetty;

2. Cross jetty;

3. Weathervaning.

1. Side-by side jetty – FSRU is moored to the jetty and

LNGC is moored double bank to FSRU.

Advantages of the side by side jetty are:

− low construction cost

− simpler jetty

− no LNGC directly alongside jetty

Disadvantages:

− longer mooring and unmooring operations

− larger possibility of collision with moored

FSRU

− less operability criteria

Figure 3 shows side-by side jetty.

Figure 3 Side-by side jetty.

Source: https://www.econnectenergy.com/solutions/lng/lng-

terminal [15]

2. Cross jetty -FSRU is moored on one side of the jetty

and LNGC is moored in opposite side of the jetty.

Advantages of the cross jetty are:

− greater distance between jetty and breakwater,

− safer LNGC berthing (collision with FSRU

eliminated),

− higher operability criteria,

Disadvantages:

− higher cost of construction

− larger dredging area

Figure 4 shows cross jetty.

Figure 4 Cross jetty.

Source:https://www.econnectenergy.com/solutions/lng/lng-

terminal [15]

3. Weathervaning - FSRU is moored her bow to turret

system. The Submerged Swivel and Yoke (SSY) is a

cost-efficient system for mooring of a floating

LNGC (FLNGC) vessel, floating storage and

regasification unit (FSRU), or a floating storage

and offloading (FSO) vessel in shallow water. The

SSY provides an innovative solution, transporting

gas directly through a subsea pipeline without the

need for a jetty. SSY is based on APL’s proven

technology components and is designed to last for

the field or terminal lifetime. The yoke weight is

adjusted to the vessel size and environmental

condition of the field or terminal. The system can

be designed with dual risers and umbilical for

redundancy and control on the pipeline end

manifold. The SSY can be designed for

disconnection in cyclone/hurricane environments

without tug assistance.

Figure 5 shows cross jetty.

Figure 5 Weathervaning

Source: https://www.nov.com/products/submerged-swivel-

and-yoke [14]

3 THE DETERMINATION OF USED

SIMULATIONS

This chapter presents the navigational simulations in

manoeuvrability aspects and ship hull motion study.

For manoeuvrability simulations can be used full

mission bridge navigational simulators. For ship

motion study can be used CFD simulation with

appropriate programs.

3.1 CFD computational fluid dynamics 3D simulations

The scope of ship motion analysis included examining

the behaviour of the ships hull in the least favourable

weather conditions. For the simulation, the least

favourable directions of the hydro-meteorological

conditions must be assumed. The simulations were

carried out on the constructed digital simulation area,

equipped with hydro technical structures (break

weather, mooring dolphins, jetty shape). Scope of ship

motion analyses covered simulation for FSRU

260.000m

stay alone, and with double banking with

LNGC 175.000m

in two configuration for loading

conditions (full loaded and ballast condition).The aim

of ship motion analysis is to support availability jetty

assessment, it can be done only when we will have

knowledge about ship’s hull movements in various

weather and loading conditions. To achieve goal,

results of ship motion movement simulations were

compared with established jetty moored vessel

criteria The CFD (computational fluid dynamics 3D)

software utilized in the presented research was Flow

Vision HPC (High-Performance Computing), which

code is based on the finite volume method (FVM) and

uses the VOF (volume of fluid) method for the free

surface problems solutions. The simulations were

performed using the overlapping mesh technique.

The assumption of this approach is that one of the

meshes is stationary in the whole computational

domain, related to the global reference system. The

second mesh modelling the ship is related to a local

reference system, which movement is determined by

six degrees of freedom (6DOF) model implemented

into the program, with special consideration of three

degrees of freedom (3D) – pitch, roll and heave. The

high accuracy of computation is achieved by solving

the governing equations in the 'free surface' cells (the

cells partly filled with liquid). The simulations of

turbulent flows were based on the eddy viscosity

concept and k-ε semi-empirical turbulence model was

applied. The practical application of the Flow Vision

software is based on the consecutive steps

performance. They are related to the geometry

identification, modelling, pre-processing, solving the

equations and post-processing (figure 6). The software

“Flow vision HPC” and used methodology are

suitable for ship motion response assessment.

Figure 6 Computational grid - 10 million finite volumes, and

adopted computational domain.

Source Author elaboration

To perform CFD numerical simulation for moored

FSRU and LNGC, assumptions were made to

changing the direction of waves, wind and current on

the hull for moored ships. CFD simulation can be

performed in various mooring configurations for

moored ships in loaded and ballast conditions.

Simulation performed for waves and winds from

south, westerly, easterly and northerly directions are

usually as a general. The direction and force of wind,

wave and current, can be selected based on data from

the Metocean database for interested area. Example of

Metocean data shows figure 7.

Figure 7 Current direction and speed, wind direction and

speed, wave high and direction.

Source: Metocean data OF1-ABP-10-J00-RA-00002EN_Rev.2

[12]

3.1.1 CFD simulation process

By carrying out CFD numerical simulations for

moored Q-max size using the adopted methodology

and solver settings, solutions were obtained in the

form of draft changes, considered as equivalent to

vessel dynamic response motions at 4 points on the

hull (figure 8) and wave distribution in the water area

with assumed depth 14.5m. Figure 9 shows LNGC

model used for CFD simulations.

Figure 8 Draft reading points on the FSRU model hull.

Source: Author elaboration

Figure 9 Model of LNGC used for CFD simulation.

Source: Author elaboration based on CFD database

Example CFD simulation for two vessels moored

side by side, the following motion parameters had

been observed: rolling, pitching, fwd draft, aft draft,

heave, under keel clearance. The simulation results

have shown that the hull motion for moored FSRU

260.000m

and LNGC 175.000m

caused by the

Northerly wind 7-8°B, current and the wave adopted

to simulation is within the accepted limits for hull

movements. Distance between ships wings oscillates

in the range between 3.3m-4.7m. Vertical movements

for manifolds <1m. Simulations indicated that due to

strong winds and waves from NNE direction

increasing rolling for both vessels. LNGC in ballast is

more sensitive for weather conditions and she has

bigger rolling then FSRU, but still is on acceptable

levels (rolling < 2°), however weather conditions reach

adopted operability limits condition for terminal and

it is recommended to stop cargo operation with

LNGC (side by side/ wind limit 30kts , 15,4 m/s.,

hs=1.5m). Figure 10 shows wave process simulation

and figure 11 shows hull movements parameters.

Figure 10 Wave system simulation.

Source: Author elaboration CFD simulations FSRU and

LNGC

11.9

12.1

12.2

12.3

12.4

12.5

12.6

12.7

12.8

12.9

60 70 80 90 100

110 120

130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

draft [m]

time [s]

Midship draft

midship port

midship starbord

12.1

12.2

12.3

12.4

12.5

12.6

12.7

12.8

12.9

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

draft [m]

time [s]

Fore and aft draft

aft draf t

fore draft

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

pitch [deg]

time [s]

pitch

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

roll [deg]

time [s]

roll

Figure 11 FSRU rolling and pitching caused by simulated

waves.

In Table 1 had been show result for simulation

CFD for hull movements for FSRU and LNG carrier

double bank mooring.

Table 1. Results for CFD simulations

Source: : Author elaboration CFD simulations FSRU and

LNGC

3.2 Navigational simulations – manoeuvrability

The subject of navigational simulation studies was the

implementation of approach and port manoeuvres

with the selected LNGC model for the navigation

basin on section of the fairway located on an approach

to the newly planned FSRU terminal, in accordance to

the scenarios provided by the Ordering Party. The

aim of the research was to evaluate the performed

manoeuvres by determining the safe trajectory of the

ship, taking into account the adopted assumptions for

selected environmental and operational parameters.

The assessment is made in terms of the selection of the

best location variant for the planned investment. The

research was carried out on the basis of the simulation

method. The use of a device based on extensive

mathematical models made it possible to map the

reactions of the ship and its surroundings in a manner

similar to the phenomena observed in real conditions.

Approach manoeuvres of ships on the fairway, taking

into account the time in which the simulation takes

place, were carried out on the basis of real time

simulation (RTS) methods, using a non-autonomous

model in terms of manage the ship's movement.

Hydro-meteorological conditions in the measurement

area, including the parameters of wind and waves,

which are the main environmental factor influencing

the correct course of port manoeuvres, were designed

in accordance with the study provided by the

contracting authority. The simulation tests were

carried out with the use of a test stand located in the

laboratory at the Faculty of Navigation at the Gdynia

Maritime University. The measurements were

performed with use of TRANSAS devices and

software: NaviTrainer 5000 Professional navigation,

manoeuvring simulator, NaviSailor 4000 ECDIS

simulator as well as Model Wizard and Virtual

Shipyard applications. The selected research stand has

been used many times in scientific research,

development and expert works. The simulator is used

to conduct didactic classes at the operational and

management level as well as specialist courses for

bridge officers and captains. The most important

regulations and standards met by the simulation

software used:

− International Convention on Training

Requirements,

− seafarers, certification and watch keeping (STCW),

− The International Convention for the Safety of Life

at Sea (SOLAS),

− Model courses to conduct specialist training

courses by IMO,

− Additional regulations regarding specialist

training, e.g. marine

− fishing operations and vessel traffic control (VTS)

operators

The research consisted in carrying out the

approach and port manoeuvres with the LNGC ship

model for the fairway concept presented by the

contracting authority. Measurement sessions were

carried out according to standardized simulation

scenarios, during which the following dynamic

parameters of models and the environment were

recorded in 1-second intervals in graphic and text

form:

− simulation time,

− latitude (Lat.) and longitude (Lon.),

− actual course (HDT),

− road angle over the bottom (COG),

− speed above ground (SOG),

− longitudinal speed over the bottom,

− lateral speed (measured at the bow and stern of the

vessel),

− the depth of the body of water (measured at the

bow and stern of the vessel),

− rudder deflection,

− heel angle,

− pitching,

− wave height.

Example of manoeuvre simulation for cross jetty

shows table 2.

Table 2. Example simulation for maneuverer to cross jetty

approach

Simulation no:

Approach 01

Weather conditions:

Wind : „S” - 180° / 4-5°B / 16-21 kts

Surface current: 1 kt - 120° / Hs=1.5m

Model:

LNGC (260.000m3) – Loading condition draft 12.5m

Case Conditions:

Case 1,2,5,10,13 – Approaching from pilot station to LNG terminal "cross

jetty" use of turning room at the fairway. Mooring STB/S alongside. 4 tugs

connected.

simulation screenshot:

Manoeuvre category:

Comments /conclusions:

Safe

From navigational point of view, the assessment of the trajectory of the

approaching vessel, taking into account the adopted assumptions for selected

environmental and operational parameters, showed that the simulation was

classified as safe. When the manoeuvre was performing, no contact of the

model with the seabed was recorded, no contact of the vessel with the hydro

technical structure was noted, and the model remained within the set limits

along the entire length of the fairway. Forces creating by wind, wave and current

didn't disturb mooring operations, use of engines power was on acceptable safe

levels with margin of power reserve.

Source: Author elaboration - approach simulation

Example of weathervaning simulation shows

table 3.

Table 3. Example of weathervaning simulation

Simulation No:

Weathervaning 03

Weather conditions:

Wind: NNE / 7-8°B/ 27-41 kts

Surface current: 1 kt direction according to wind and waves Hmax=6m

Model:

FSRU 260.000m3 loaded condition draft 12.5m.

Case Conditions:

Case 7 Weathervaning, at the “FB2 extended” position, Survival condition.

Bow connected via Yoke system. Depths at surrounding area 17,5m.

During test increase wind speed up to 41 kts, wave high 6 m. Wind and

wave high according to operability criteria – limit for survival condition.

simulation screenshot:

Maneuver category:

Comments /conclusions:

Aacceptable

A continuous time band with a nominal length of 01:00:00 [hh: mm: ss] was

built, in which, for a given wave spectrum, wind speed and wave height

constitute continuous non-decreasing functions. The parameters of the

generated undulations were adopted in accordance with the provided

"Metocean" study. Taking into account the adopted assumptions for selected

environmental and operational parameters, showed that the simulation was

classified as acceptable. When the simulation was performing, at depth area

with 17.5m no contact of the model with the seabed was recorded. Forces

creating by wind, wave and current generate following motion parameters :

Under keel clearance FWD 3.3m

Source: Author elaboration – weathervaning simulation

4 RESEARCH RESULTS

The analysis of the results of the simulations carried

out and the determination of best location of terminal,

operating limits and availability of a given terminal in

the tested lo-cations can be carried out when followed

analyses have been performed: Use of data from

hydrometeorological analysis

− Cumulative results from CFD simulations

− Accumulation of results from manoeuvring

simulations

− Analysis of ship traffic intensity in a given area

− Analysis of scenarios related to the orientation of

the berth and options for reloading gas on the

LNGC - FSRU

When performing analytical research regarding the

selection of a safe location for the FSRU terminal, the

algorithm should have following steps:

− perform navigational analysis;

− perform analysis of hydrometeorological

conditions in a given basin;

− perform analysis of ship traffic intensity in a given

basin;

− perform analysis of scenarios related to the

orientation of the berth and options for reloading

gas on the LNGC - FSRU line;

− perform CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics)

analysis of the impact of hydrometeorological

conditions on the hull of the moored FSRU and

LNGC in various loading conditions;

− perform analysis of simulations of approach

manoeuvres, mooring and unmooring operations;

− perform environmental analysis;

− perform security analysis

− perform analysis of current regulations, ordinances

and guidelines.

Creating a risk matrix in order to select a safe

location of the FSRU terminal on the basis of a

summary of simulation results and the final

determination of the operational and accessibility

parameters of the terminal allows for the selection of

the most advantageous of the proposed variants of

terminal location.

The use of the proposed tools/methods translates

into cost reduction and improvement of the facility's

functioning both for the client's investor and the user.

An important aspect is also the identification of a

sensitive area that may indicate a reduction in

environmental degradation during the operation of

the LNGC-FSRU terminal

Increasing the ability to detect/avoid collisions

and, in the event of an incident, react quickly and

appropriately to the threat in order to reduce the

negative effects of e.g. a collision. The author is aware

that this will involve legislative action and the

introduction of security procedures. These activities

may be extended over time and multifaceted, but as a

result they are to reduce the number of threats to

human life and health and the natural (marine)

environment during the operation of the terminal. The

current situation is starting to force such an approach

to standardization procedures affecting a high level of

safety during reloading operations

5 DISCUSSION

The presented approach to the selection of the

appropriate location for the FSRU terminal indicates a

multi-faceted nature. Simulations help in conducting

in depth analyses and, as a result, in making the right

decisions. Failure to use the modern potential of

simulation techniques may result in incorrect

determination of the location and thus increase the

risk of an accident.

The major predicted risks to human life and/or

health include:

− Risk associated with the intensity of unpredictable

hydro-meteorological phenomena.

− Risks associated with the influence of natural

hazards;

− Risk related to difficulties in rescue operations

through the size of the vessels and number of

people on board, and lack of adequate rescue

measures;

The major predicted risks to the natural (marine)

environment include:

− Risk associated with the intensity of degradation

virgin areas unpredictable hydro-meteorological

phenomena;

− Risks associated with the increasing numbers of

death zones in marine areas;

− Risk related to difficulties in rescue operations

through the multipurpose of degradations;

− Risk related to human health and property.

− Risk related to increase of high insurances.

The current state of affairs suggests the

justifiability of preparing hazard scenarios for the

possibility of introducing:

− Effective anticipation of natural phenomena;

− Early warning of natural phenomena;

− Strengthening the awareness of the phenomena

occurring for the population, reducing the

coastline as well as for those working in the

maritime areas[6,7];

It is reasonable to consider the broadly understood

integration of the possibilities of cooperation of

different means and forces in the resulting potential

emergency and the possible hazards.

Figure 12. The elements shaping a Safety Culture.

Source: Own elaboration supported by:[9,10,6]

The authors hope that the discussion generated by

the article and the attempt to provide a global

approach to the process of determining the location of

not only the FSRU terminal but also other terminals.

This should be incorporated as decision support at

every stage of ensuring safety in maritime areas

during peace time or crisis. Safety culture elements

shows figure 12.

6 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

The research shows that, despite the use of various

means, there is a threat to life, human health and the

natural environment when the determination of the

appropriate location for a given terminal is incorrect.

The risk of error can be reduced by all possible means.

The main purpose of the work was to develop a

scheme/algorithm for the correct determination of the

location of the FSRU terminal in offshore areas. The

conducted research showed a wide spectrum of

issues. Breaking it down into specific simulations

allowed it to be classified in a specific way and

indicated the multidimensionality of its components.

According to the author, during the research,

numerous problems were encountered in access to

literature and the multidimensionality of the issue,

but the goal was achieved. Undoubtedly, a real threat

is the uneven development of advanced solutions,

technologies, integration of systems with the

assessment of potential threats.

There is still much work to be done to reduce

errors and improve simulation accuracy. The

decision-making process, the creation of a risk matrix

while considering many aspects and factors taken into

account in determining the correctness of the terminal

location and its arrangement as well as the

hydrotechnical infrastructure is a multidimensional

process. It can even be said that the completion of one

analysis process is the beginning of preparations for

subsequent analyses. Further development of the

subject will undoubtedly become the subject of the

author's subsequent studies.

REFERENCES

[1] Wiley A., “Risk Assessment. Marvin Rausand Theory,

Methods, and Applications. Strategic in practice”, 2011.

[2] Anish Joseph, Dimitrios Dalaklis “The international

convention for the safety of life at sea: highlighting

interrelations of measures towards effective risk

mitigtion”https:// doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2021.1880766

[3] Emsa Facts & Figures 2020 ,

[4] Goulielmos, A M. Anastasakos, A. A., 2005. Worldwide

security measures for shipping, seafarers and ports: an

impact assessment of ISPS code,

[5] Heaver, T. D. 2002. “The Evolving Roles of Shipping

Linesin International Logistics.” International Journal of

Maritime Economics 4 (3): 210–230.

doi:10.1057/palgrave.ijme.9100042.

[6] Królikowski A., Mrozowska A., Wróbel R., “Safety

culture in the management system of safe exploitation of

the ship and pollution prevention”, Polish Naval

Academy 2016TomR. 57 nr 2 (205) Strony45--60 DOI

10.5604/0860889X.1219969

[7] Mrozowska A. Formal Risk Assessment of the risk of

major accidents affecting natural environment and

human life, occurring as a result of offshore drilling and

production operations based on the provisions of

Directive 2013/30/EU, Volume 134, February 2021,

105007, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105007

[8] Weintrit A., Neumann T. Safety of marine transport:

Marine navigation and safety of sea transportation. CRC

Press, 2015. DOI 10.1201/b18515

[9] Goldberd M. Talking with the Experts abort Maritime

Safety Culture – What is it and how to improve it?

Maritime Professional.Sep 02,2013. 9

[10] Goldberg M. Why Maritime Safety Culture are hard to

change (it’s not all bad news).Maritime Professional.

Sep.30,2013 9

[11] Review of maritime transport 2019. United Nations

Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD,

Geneva 2019.

[12] The merchant fleet population, The worl merchant fleet

2019, Equasis statistic, chapter 2.

[13] Metocean data OF1-ABP-10-J00-RA-00002EN_Rev.2

[14] Maritime transport policy development. EMSA,5-YEAR

STRATEGY 2020-2024.

[15] https://www.nov.com/products/submerged-swivel-and-

yoke

[16] https://www.econnectenergy.com/solutions/lng/lng-

terminal

[17] https://www.offshore-energy.biz/hongkong-lng-

terminal-charters-mols-fsru-challenger/