The selection of an LNG terminal location by evaluating its potential impact on marine environments, safety, and costs

• Autorzy: Jurić Majda , Dundović Čedomir , Perić Tina , Jelić-Mrčelić Gorana

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17402/484

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In this paper, a new multi-step approach for the selection of an LNG terminal location (for offshore terminal, onshore terminal, or floating storage regasification unit – FSRU) was presented based on the holistic evaluation of the impacts of the potential LNG terminal. The first step was to divide the entire observed area of the Adriatic Sea of the Republic of Croatia into smaller areas by using the geographic information system (GIS) and then selecting areas where the installation of an LNG terminal was technically feasible based on the pre-elimination criteria. Potential LNG terminal areas were selected by taking into account all pre-elimination criteria, and 14 areas were selected by using pre-elimination criteria in a GIS smart chart tool that enabled the analysis of spatial data. The second step involved analyzing the elimination criteria of the 14 areas selected in the first step by pre-elimination criteria analyses. Six potential LNG terminal micro-locations were selected based on the defined elimination criteria. In the third step, these six micro-locations were evaluated by experts by using 38 specific sub-criteria classified into five distinct groups: economic (11 sub-criteria), ecological (13 sub-criteria), safety (4 sub-criteria), traffic connection (6 sub-criteria), and gas needs (4 sub-criteria). The fourth step involved making a multi-criteria expert analysis of the six locations selected in the previous step (for onshore terminals, offshore terminals, and FSRU) for the analysis of three different scenarios by the PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METhod of Enrichment Evaluation) method. In every scenario, one group of sub-criteria was selected as the most important according to its cumulative relationship with the other groups of criteria (scenario 1 – economic group; scenario 2 – ecological group; scenario 3 – safety group). A different importance (weight) was given to each of the sub-criteria. The methodology presented in this paper can also be used for decision-making processes for other marine and coastal activities, where incorporating an ecosystem approach is necessary for taking into account safety and project costs; however, the selection of pre-elimination criteria, elimination criteria, and sub-criteria should be carefully adjusted to other situations or activities.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

LNG terminal; marine environment; PROMETHEE method; GIS; expert analysis survey; Adriatic Sea

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: nr 68 (140)
• Strony: 26--37
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 29 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Jurić Majda

• State Inspector’s Office Mike Tripala 6, 21 000 Split, Croatia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9323-4281

autor

Dundović Čedomir

• University of Rijeka, Faculty of Maritime Studies Studentska 2, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-2410

autor

Perić Tina

• University of Split, Faculty of Maritime Studies Ruđera Boškovića 37, 21 000 Split, Croati

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9531-0065

autor

Jelić-Mrčelić Gorana

• University of Split, Faculty of Maritime Studies Ruđera Boškovića 37, 21 000 Split, Croatia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6424-2215

Bibliografia

• 1. Bagočius, V., Zavadskas, E.K. & Turskis, Z. (2014) Selecting a location for a liquefied natural gas terminal in the Eastern Baltic Sea. Transport 29(1), pp. 69–74,.
• 2. Baldwin, K.E. & Mahon, R. (2014) A Participatory GIS for Marine Spatial Planning in the Grenadine Islands. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 63(7), doi: 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2014.tb00452.x.
• 3. Becker, P., Burnell, G. & Tetsuzan, B.R. (2012) Using GIS to Improve Coastal Marine Spatial Planning. Sea Technology 53(8), pp. 29–35.
• 4. Brans, J.P. & Vincke, P. (1985) A preference ranking organisation method: the PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Management Science 31(6), pp. 647–656.
• 5. Brans, J.P., Mareschal, B. & Vincke, P. (1984) PROMETHEE: A new family of outranking methods in MCDM. In: Brans J.P. (ed.), Operational Research (IFORS 84), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 477–490.
• 6. Brans, J.P., Vincke, P. & Mareschal, B. (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research 24(2), pp. 228– 238, doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5.
• 7. Chen, T.Y. (2012) Comparative analysis of SAW and TOPSIS based on interval-valued fuzzy sets: Discussions on score functions and weight constraints. Expert Systems with Applications 39(2), pp. 1848–1861, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa. 2011.08.065.
• 8. Cork, S. & Bentiba, R. (2008) Site selection and planning issues for new LNG marine terminals. PIANC-COPEDEC 2008, 23–28 February 2008, Dubai, UAE.
• 9. Deja, A. & Kabulak, P. (2014) Analysis of the technical solutions that have been applied to the LNG terminals in Świnoujście and Klaipeda. Logistyka 6, pp. 13204–13213.
• 10. Deja, A., Harasym, J., Kaup, M. & Łozowicka, D. (2019) The Concept of Location of Filling Stations and Services of Vehicles Carrying and Running on LNG. In: Ball P., Huaccho Huatuco L., Howlett R., Setchi R. (eds) Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2019. KES-SDM 2019. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 155. Springer, Singapore, doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-9271-9_42.
• 11. ESRI (2021) ArcGIS 10.1 Service Pack 1 for (Desktop, Engine, Server). [Online] Available from: https://support.esri. com/en/download/1913 [Accessed: March 18, 2021].
• 12. Fouladgar, M.M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Lashgari, A., Zavadskas, E.K. & Turskis, Z. (2012) Maintenance strategy selection using AHP and COPRAS under fuzzy environment. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 16(1), pp. 85–104, doi: 10.3846/1648715X.2012.666657.
• 13. Gimpel, A., Stelzenmüller, V., Grote, B., Buck, B.H., Floeter, J., Núñez-Riboni, I., Pogoda, B. & Temming, A. (2015) A GIS modelling framework to evaluate marine spatial planning scenarios: Co-location of offshore wind farms and aquaculture in the German EEZ. Marine Policy 55, pp. 102–115, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.012.
• 14. Hao, Q.L. & Dai, R. (2013) Dalian LNG terminal port site selection based on fuzzy evaluation. Journal of Dalian Maritime University (Nature Science) 39(3), pp. 103–106.
• 15. Hwang, C.L. & Yoon, K. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey. 1st edition. Springer.
• 16. Jeong, N.H., Liu, A.Q., Hwang, G.W., Jang, W. & Han, S.H. (2015) Model development for site selection considering the characteristics of LNG receiving terminal. Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 16(1), pp. 82–91, doi: 10.6106/KJCEM.2015.16.1.082.
• 17. Kildienė, S., Kaklauskas, A. & Zavadskas, E.K. (2011) COPRAS based comparative analysis of the European Country management capabilities within the construction sector in the time of crisis. Journal of Business Economics and Management 12(2), pp. 417–434, doi: 10.3846/16111699. 2011.575190.
• 18. Lazim, A., Waimun, C. & Alireza, A. (2018) Application of PROMETHEE method for green supplier selection: a comparative result based on preference functions. Journal of Industrial Engineering International 15, pp. 271–285, doi: 10.1007/s40092-018-0289-z.
• 19. Liu, G., Dai, R., Zhang, F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, C. & Huang, F. (2019) Site selection of LNG terminal based on cloud matter element model and principal component analysis. 2nd International Conference on Functional Materials and Chemical Engineering (ICFMCE 2018) MATEC Web of Conferences 272(3):01027, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201927201027.
• 20. Liu, K., Qin, J. & Mi, B.Y. (2012) Site selection of LNG terminal. Marine Traffic Engineering 7, pp. 77–81.
• 21. Murat, S., Kazan, H. & Coskun, S.S. (2015) An application for measuring performance quality of schools by using the PROMETHEE multi criteria decision making method. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 195(1), pp. 729– 738, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.344.
• 22. Narodne Novine (2007) Naredba NN 9/2007 [Online] Available from: https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2007_01_9_386.html [Accessed: March 18, 2021].
• 23. Pinter, U. & Pšunder, I. (2013) Evaluating construction project success with use of the M-TOPSIS method. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 19(1), pp. 16–23, doi: 10.3846/13923730.2012.734849.
• 24. Rousis, K., Moustakas, K., Malamis, K., Papadopoulos, A. & Loizidou, M. (2008) Multi-criteria analysis for the determination of the best WEEE management scenario in Cyprus. Waste Management 28(10), pp. 1941–1954, doi: 10.1016/j. wasman.2007.12.001.
• 25. Sonne, T.R. & Bomba, J.G. (2008) Critical Parameters for LNG Marine Terminal Site Selection. Offshore Technology Conference, doi: 10.4043/19658-MS.
• 26. Ulengin, F., Topcu, Y. & Sahin, S.O. (2001) An Integrated decision aid system for Bosporous water crossing problem. European Journal of Operational Research 134(1), pp. 179– 192, doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00247-2.
• 27. Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Fouladgar, M.M., Zavadskas, E.K. & Haji Moini, S.H. (2013) Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Business Economics and Management 14(5), pp. 957–978, doi: 10.3846/16111699.2013.766257.
• 28. Zavadskas, E.K. & Kaklauskas, A. (1996) Determination of an efficient contractor by using the new method of multicriteria assessment. In D.A. Langford, A. Retik (eds) The Organisation and Management of Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice. Vol. 2: Managing the Construction Project and Managing Risk. Taylor & Francis, pp. 94–104.
• 29. Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Volvačiovas, R. & Kildienė, S. (2013) Multi-criteria assessment model of technologies. Studies in Informatics and Control 22(4), pp. 249– 258.