By 2035 LNG account for around half of all globally traded gas

          LNG supply chain in a necessity of a more scrupulous management and monitoring

Successful optimisation and capturing the value, relying on effectively harnessing data and leveraging technology

           Always changing markets opportunities

Boil-off Optimization

           Effective management tackling the LNG Greenhouse Gases emissions

LNG Storage modelling, “Real-options” theory

           “How much would the storage cost me?”, “When is the most befitting moment for withdrawing the gas?”

Storage - Intrinsic and Extrinsic value

             Take into account the full product lifecycle emissions

An increased significance of monitoring and reporting the LNG Value chain emissions.

Since 2011, the size of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) market has more than doubled and the growth of LNG volumes has exceeded 10 percent annually, where number of countries of importing and exporting countries has grown from 25 to 65(45 countries were importing LNG and 20 countries were LNG exporter), and the number of counterparties active in the LNG market amounts 200. The LNG market is expanding rapidly with annual production growing from 280 MT in 2017 to approximately 356 million tonnes per annum for 2020, quadrupling over the last 20 years.

In addition to the aforementioned, there is 821 MTPA Existing annual regasification capacity of LNG import terminals against 455 MTPA of liquefaction capacity. LNG trade is growing seven times faster than pipeline gas, and by 2035, it will account for around half of all globally traded gas(nowadays, global natural gas demand 3.91 Tcm in 2020).

Historically, the LNG market has relied on ‘point-to-point’ contracts between suppliers and buyers, linking LNG volumes from the liquefaction terminals to regasification terminals in the destination markets.

In the early 2000s, leading LNG players started building LNG portfolios and enabling LNG to smaller, less credit-worthy players through various business models, one of them being the ‘hub-and-spoke’ model., breaking away from traditional ‘point-to-point’ contracts. In an LNG portfolio, LNG volumes are purchased from the liquefaction plants in the player’s portfolio, optimized at the portfolio level, and then sold to buyers. The ground-breaking change conveys the opportunity for smaller to enter the market through the new “hub-and-spoke” model. In essence, the excess LNG not tied to rigid contracts is bought by portfolio players and allocated to these small-scale companies on the short-term and spot market.

The LNG supply chain is more complex and is in a necessity of a more scrupulous management and monitoring as to be able to handle the liquefaction, transporting and regasification processes, as well as managing supply contracts, pricing, and cost, it’s worthwhile mentioning the compliance with the European environmental laws and regulations, which will have its effect on the LNG shipping very soon.

That’s why successful optimisation and capturing the value is crucial, which relies on effectively harnessing data and leveraging technology, also accurately considering the scale and diversity of data such as weather and price data, shipping specifications, Boil-off rates, regasification rates etc. and thus integrating all physical and financial aspects to manage the entire LNG lifecycle.

*  *  *  *

Tech Challenges in LNG Trading

• Always changing markets opportunities characterized by the MTM, MTI valuation methods necessary for exporting and monetizing the commodity on a market with more rewarding price conditions.
• Building formulas for capturing adjustments, fees and complex pricing across multiple currencies and manage price exposure in real time.
• Shipping calculation software– which will be managing the complicated shipping dynamics. Usually, the Vessel and voyage planning is distinguished with contractual flexibility, weather, demurrage, and transportation costs, as well as the pre-defined commercial terms for international trade – (FOB, CIF, DES) and it will be a good practice for all these variables to be fed in the software and subsequently computed.

• LNG producers use the ‘net-back’ principle to assess options and the viability of trades.  Traders want to buy and sell spot, short-term or long-term contracts in LNG trading  - in view of this, through optimization there could be built price analysis underpinned with relevant simulations. Therefore, all this data is acquired from multiple sources, updated at different times and would need an effective data governance and maintenance strategy.
• Boil-off Optimization
• Hardships and disputes in the Terminaling services
• Effective management tackling the LNG Greenhouse Gases emissions
• LNG Storage modelling

Target Audience

I will go to very briefly summarize the participants within the LNG Value chain. This is to outline the scope of and define the client’s technical and functional requirements.

NOC/IOC - The major vertically integrated companies are offering a full range of services, operating across the entire energy market value stream. They are even Creating separate midstream companies that operate across the pipeline grid systems, (for example, Nord Stream AG). They provide long-term supply but rely on single (or few) sources for gas, which reduces their flexibility and increases the likelihood of cost overruns.

Traders - Either negotiate the purchase and delivery of LNG cargoes on behalf of clients, or purchase gas via long-term contracts which is then traded on the spot market. Here, the risk comes with Lack of equity interest in gas supply and therefore may face price volatility on both side of the transaction.

Aggregators – Substantial portfolio players, holding quite diverse LNG from different regions along with shipping, storage, and regasification assets. They take the market risk from the LNG suppliers, by gathering small volumes from various sources and combine them within their portfolio. More importantly, providing access to spot natural gas and contribute to development of more flexible LNG markets by handing over and receiving cargoes at different locations responding to market signals.

Utilities –These buyers focus on diversification of supply.  They provide the financial underpinning for the entire LNG value chain more often through  long-term or ToP(take-or-pay) contracts.

Historically these companies are having limited access to the LNG markets and trade financing. These players are rather more “price-takers” and “risk-averse”, which implies that a tight Market could lead to price spikes causing financial stress at the utility.

Independent midstream companies - fill in the gaps by providing access to midstream assets. Midstream companies make money along each link of the value chain with a particular revenue-generating structure.

- Longer Interstate pipelines envisages regulated tariffs.

- Gathering pipelines and Storage are poised to be fee-based

- Owning a midstream facility requires exercising a commodity-based margin from the difference between the price of a raw commodity and the refined product, which interestingly incorporates more volatility and uncertainty.

LNG Value Chain Operating Cost

According to a publication from The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, the cost breakdown by LNG plant area (LNG liquefaction plant) can be estimated as in the figure below. Construction costs (CAPEX) accounts for a substantial part of a project investment, but also considering the sum of operational costs (OPEX) across the entire supply chain is key to identify potential sources of financial risk. It is essential for each energy market participant to maintain a good grasp on each of the operating cost centres.

Breakdown of Operating Cost (Cost of Goods sold + Operating Expenditures) for a general value chain  as following:

- Upstream development: 10-11 % of costs

- Refrigeration & liquefaction: 40 - 42 % of costs

- Midstream - Shipping/transportation: 20 - 30 % of costs

- Regasification and distribution: 20 - 27 % of costs

The Hidden costs of Shipping

As apparent, the Shipping cost represents up to 30% of the LNG Cost of Delivery. The LNG shipping market is characterised by unusual terms such as “demurrage”, “ballast” and “bunkering” as well as “canal transit costs”. The key components that make up the cost of shipping LNG are as follows:

Chartering fee^[1] This is the payment for securing access to shipping capacity by chartering a vessel. There are broadly three ways to secure access to shipping capacity: (1) own vessel capacity (2) time charter and (3) single voyage or spot charter. Spot-charter  rates are generally higher and certainly more volatile. It is necessary to make a distinction and pick up the right Charter agreement, either a Voyage charter, Time charter or Contract of Affreightment, with the consideration of their notable differences(risk and cost allocation between the parties) and enter it into the system.

Brokerage: Vessel charters are typically arranged through specialist brokers and attract a 1-2% fee of the value of the freight.

Fuel consumption: The fuel consumption is directly proportional to the distance and speed of the vessel. This is typically the second largest cost component after the charter rate.  The implicit/intrinsic predicament here to a great extent is determined by the added complication for the vessels in terms of different propulsion mechanisms, fuel burn options, technology used for LNG carriers of the next generation. Propulsion systems impact capital expenditure, operational expenses, emissions, vessel size range, vessel reliability and not to forget mentioning the compliance with the environmental laws and regulations. (DFDE, TFDE, the Low-pressure and High-pressure Slow-Speed Dual-fuel with maximized efficiency etc.) Nevertheless, Steam turbine systems (burning the heavy fuel oil (HFO) and boil-off gas BOG) make up the majority of older vessels.

The importance of this decision is outlined in opting for the most beneficial alternative, again including all these decisions and event outcomes into the Software.

Port costs:  The components and level of the costs of loading and unloading at ports can vary widely depending on location.  For example, ports in less stable regions can levy large security charges associated with ensuring the safety of the vessel.

Canal costs: Canal transit costs are a complex function of vessel dimensions and cargo.  Transit costs have to be paid for using the cross-continental Suez and Panama canals. For instance, even after the Panama canal widening project was completed in 2015, allowing up to 80% of LNG vessels to make the transit, Suez canal still remains the most common canal transit.

Insurance costs:  Insurance is required for the vessel, cargo and to cover demurrage (liabilities for cargo loading and discharge overruns).

 

---

^[1] Modern two-stroke LNG carriers at $215,000 per day (according to the indicative price given by “Clarksons Shipping”.

 

 

 

Vessel and Voyage Planning

As we already looked over the shipping costs, now it’s appropriate to point out that they also exert influence on the voyage planning. In Vessel planning other variables such as Weather forecasts, Always changing markets , Boil-off loss, Type of LNG carrier, Voyage distance and Opportunities (M2M, M2I), the so-called Diversion decisions are being part in the suggested optimizing management module, as well as the Contractual flexibility and the international commercial terms. (e.g., It is common for LNG shipping companies, to buy LNG cargo at the loading terminal at a certain Free On Board (FOB) price and sell LNG at the receiving terminal at a higher Cost-Insurance-Freight (CIF) price and thus taking advantage of the CIF-FOB spread.)

The optimization here takes place through getting all these variables together and subsequently integrate them within the LNG Shipper’s management software. The ‘mark-to-intent’ is a good case in point. The notion behind this is that within the Voyage planning there is an insight about the mark-to-market valuation at an intended location different from the one to which the LNG is destined initially. The diversion decision is focused on the cost difference between the final destination as opposed to the original one. (subtracting expenditures/costs with adding the incremental margin result of the arbitrage between the two markets). The relevant shipping cost for the diversion decision is the true incremental cost of the final location over the original one.

 

 

Storage Modelling

LNG storages are important assets in the LNG value chain and provide the link between LNG contracts and the Down-stream market. As the LNG shipper is holding the LNG, he will be occasionally finding himself at decision nodes, whereby the most valuable option will be chosen, as the expected values (or expected utility) of competing alternatives will be determined. The centrepiece to the software solution will be providing the modus operandi for answering the question – “How much would the storage cost me?”, “When is the most befitting moment for withdrawing the gas?”. Each day, the gas storage pricing optimization model tells you what is optimal to do: inject or withdraw.

A milestone in the LNG storage optimization is inarguably the ‘diversion decision’. Which implies laying out options and investigate the possible outcomes and choosing between several courses of action. All this will help the Company to form a balanced picture of the risks and rewards associated with each possible alternative.

The holder of the storage contract will be most likely facing different payoffs during the lifetime of the contract depending on his strategy, this would mean the Storage modelling  will advise him and step-up for a more well-informed decision where the LNG storage will be treated according to the “Real-options” theory, whereby the business decisions will talk about expectations and probabilities rather than certainties. In the end of the day, there will be Options to defer, Options to expand, Options to abandon.

LNG storage peculiarities:

- Intrinsic value (true value of the stored LNG) - Unlike the NG storage, where the seasonal price dynamics is captured, here due to the many other complexities and time constraints, the Holder cannot afford to keep the LNG in the storage for the same period. Nevertheless, he can still capture the intermarket arbitrage and inject the gas for one price and withdraw it with intent for relocating and monetizing it to another region, so that an incremental margin will be utilized again.

- Extrinsic value - Flexibility of the storage facility, Computing the amount of boil-off gas, Value of storage (the market fluctuation, the expectation of traders on the market). Especially the extrinsic value is highly dependent on the type of Storage and could be derived from an intuitive and realistic Monte Carlo simulation model.

In overall, you might need to have an LNG Storage model which incorporates the following functionalities:

• Monte Carlo technique (aka multiple probability simulation, as to estimate the possible outcomes of an uncertain event, using randomness to solve problems, to calculate the optimal storage trading and operating decisions.
• Boundary prices indicate below which price you should inject, and above which price withdraw.
• Automated data feeds ensured.

 

To conclude, the Strategic valuation of LNG storage in particular, can be broken down to the following two problems to be examined:

• The Holding cost dependent on the extrinsic value, [e.g., market fluctuation, limited capacity and time constraints(18 days).] Predictable price movements (seasonality) and unpredictable price fluctuations (volatility).
• The Holding cost dependent on the value of the next-best alternative (Opportunity cost) or otherwise speaking – finding the comparative advantage for the owner of the LNG where he would trade-off for more potential gains with giving up less.

 

LNG GHG Footprint

Take into account the full product lifecycle emissions, only the LNG export from US in the period 2020-2030 “will generate up to 213 MMt of new GHG emissions equal to the annual emissions of up to 45 million cars.” Around 75% of GHG emissions from LNG are associated with its consumption (i.e., linked to the combustion of natural gas).

“Carbon-neutral” cargo stands for a cargo from which the entire product lifecycle’s CO2 emissions (from Well to Wheel) are offset. The main CO2 emissions are associated with heat and combustion, whereas CH4 related to leakage and fugitive emissions. Working from the 'whole to the part', the target audience will need to lay down a strategic thinking oriented towards overseeing and orchestrating each GHG emissions step, part of the LNG value chain; that being the case, it would be rather like 'herding cats' if an overarching digital solution is not introduced.

The carbon-neutral LNG with ‘net-zero’ emissions is poised to be the next major topic as part of the EU Green deal for achieving 2050 climate-neutrality goal.

There are  three underlying reasons for carbon neutral (“Green”) LNG to be widely noticed are:

• Environmental regulations. The European Commission last October published its first ever “Methane” strategy aimed at curbing methane emission. It is a matter of time for the LNG to fall under the scope of the ETS compliance cycle, which is to say the plan for monitoring, reporting and verification of the emissions (MRV). Same which applies to industrial installations and aircraft operators.
• Corporate climate goals, where the Buyers are yet more sustainability oriented. From commercial point of view, carbon offsetting initiatives become in great request/get to be in the limelight. Carbon emissions reductions (CER’s) are backed off e.g., by buying carbon credits, forestation, renewables & emissions reduction projects. [1]
• “Green” LNG as a premium product which meet demands for lower carbon energy sources.

The European Green Deal envisages an important role for gas in the energy transition, but the continuously changing emission policies is leading to an increased significance of monitoring and reporting the LNG Value chain emissions. Having said that, the relationship between GHG emissions and LNG projects is already put on map. Throughout the LNG lifecycle, GHG emissions are produced at every step of the process. A typical LNG liquefaction terminal exporting 4,5 million tonnes of LNG can be expected to produce 1,2 million tonnes equivalent carbon dioxide of direct emissions.

Methane emissions are responsible for around a quarter of today’s global warming, second only to carbon dioxide emissions (which currently are responsible for half of global warming). In the short term, the shipping industry will be included in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), which will involve carbon cap and pricing to encourage cleaner operations.

Two of the key polluters are Russian Federation and the United States being responsible for 15% and 14% of global emissions, respectively. However, the EU is the largest buyer of natural gas on the international market^[2] and therefore it could well be in a position to promote the adoption of methane emission-reduction strategy.

Offsetting the carbon from an LNG cargo is not cheap.^[3] For this reason, a software fetching emissions and keeping a close watch on the monitoring of the GHG emissions along the LNG value chain, is a prerequisite to guarantee the cost-effectiveness.

Such solution should be solely geared to tackle the major challenges within the LNG sector, in the following manner:

• Recognizing the carbon emissions for any LNG shipment
• Variables inputs: *  Source   *  Destination   *  LNG Ship characteristics * The facilities associated with refrigeration, liquefaction, regasification.
• Comparative assessment of Multiple LNG projects based upon their GHG emissions. (as an additional criterion)
• The System’s database needs to have a good grasp on emissions estimations for the CO2 and CH4 with a good deal of sources of data along the LNG value chain, from upstream production to gas combustion.
• New Carbon Neutral LNG SPAs  will come into force and new separate master agreement for carbon neutral solutions in addition to them, through which another source of revenue will be unfold. We need to be more prudent with that also.

 

---

[2] European commission Quarterly Report Energy on European Gas Markets

[3]In the matter of LNG contribution to CO2 emissions, the product lifecycle emissions  of a conventional LNG cargo ( ~175 000 cubic meters) are generally estimated at around 250 000 tons of CO2 where Carbon allowances for 250 KT CO2 will be required for purchasing.

 

• Access and data availability:

Calculations using Emission Factors – using already published manufacturers emission factors that are based on known fuels properties, equipment type, insulation (e.g., leakage rate) including their carbon content and heating values, such information could be obtained from on-site measurements or from a third-party.

Engineering calculations - Engineering calculation could be most useful for estimating emergency venting and flaring emissions, based on process design and atmospheric release settings for emergency relief devices. They could also inform the calculations of CH4 emissions from storage tanks at terminals and on-board ships.

 

In the end, energy participants determined to 'beat the energy market' would need to found themselves ahead of the others, that being said only through digitalization and smart decision-making process, each link in the LNG value chain would be provided with a rigid and continuous emission monitoring and analytics solutions.
 

 

  

---

 

---

List of References:

1. End-to-end LNG Cargo Trading and Logistics Solutions https://www.enhelix.com/ctrm-etrm-lng-trading/
2. Economics Of The LNG Value Chain  By Magnus Eikens Nov 24, 2020 https://www.econnectenergy.com/articles/economics-of-the-lng-value-chain  
3. Construction Of An LNG Jetty  By Magnus Eikens Oct 13, 2020 https://www.econnectenergy.com/articles/construction-of-an-lng-jetty
4. Liquefied Natural Gas Value Chain US Department of Energy https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/10/f79/LNG%20Value%20Chain%20Fact%20Sheet_1.pdf
5. INSIGHT: Transfer Pricing Analysis of Offtake Agreements BY Kerem Yener Toklu https://news.bloombergtax.com/transfer-pricing/insight-transfer-pricing-analysis-of-offtake-agreements
6. Winning the race for world-class LNG optimization capabilities by Gillian Boccara, Dumitru Dediu, and Xavier Veillard https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Oil%20and%20Gas/Our%20Insights/Winning%20the%20race%20for%20world%20class%20LNG%20optimization%20capabilities/Winning-the-race-for-world-class-LNG-optimization-capabilities.ashx
7. How Big Data Analytics Can Transform Agriculture and Farming  Eka Software Solutions  https://ekaplus.medium.com/how-big-data-analytics-can-transform-agriculture-and-farming-8dd1fa030af4
8. Load Geni Software https://loadgeni.com/software
9. The invisible technology supporting LNG traders  HC Insider https://hcinsider.global/the-invisible-technology-supporting-lng-traders/
10. Valuation software and Advisory services for LNG  https://www.kyos.com/lng/
11. COMfin  CTRM solution http://www.comfinsoftware.com/industries/
12. An LNG supplier requires an LNG Trading Risk Management capability https://www.baringa.com/en/insights-news/case-studies/lng-trading-risk-management/
13. The role of technology and data as enablers for LNG portfolio optimisation  Mashal Jaffery - https://www.baringa.com/en/insights-news/blogs/october-2019/the-role-of-technology-and-data-as-enablers-for-ln/
14. Three companies reveal LNG management software - https://www.offshore-energy.biz/three-companies-reveal-lng-management-software/
15. Completing The LNG Value Chain Reidar Strande, Director, LNG, Wärtsilä Oil & Gas Systems  https://www.wartsila.com/docs/default-source/Power-Plants-documents/reference-documents/power-plants-articles/completing-the-lng-value-chain.pdf?sfvrsn=2
16. Fusion for LNG https://www.fendahl.com/fusion-ctrm-etrm-for-lpg-lng-gas
17. Getting to grips with LNG shipping costs September 16, 2013  https://timera-energy.com/getting-to-grips-with-lng-shipping-costs/
18. German LMG Terminal https://germanlng.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/EN_2020-12-01-PM-Freistellungsbescheid-final.pdf
19. Emergence of  LNG Portfolio players Hiroshi Hashimoto March 2018  https://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/7814.pdf
20. Understanding Natural Gas and LNG Options https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/Understanding%20Natural%20Gas%20and%20LNG%20Options.pdf
21. MOL Mitsui OSK Lines https://www.mol.co.jp/en/services/lngcarrier/index.html
22. Spliced together: LNG shipping and portfolio management  https://www.gasstrategies.com/blogs/spliced-together-lng-shipping-and-portfolio-management
23. Gasunie launches open season to gauge interest in planned German LNH Terminal https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/011718-gasunie-launches-open-season-to-gauge-interest-in-planned-german-lng-terminal
24. Vattenfall, Shell, MHI plan 100 MW green hydrogen plant at Hamburg https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/012221-vattenfall-shell-mhi-plan-100-mw-green-hydrogen-plant-at-hamburg
25. LTeW is considering new focus of the plans for an import terminal in Wilhelmshaven https://www.uniper.energy/news/ltew-is-considering-new-focus-of-the-plans-for-an-import-terminal-in-wilhelmshaven
26. How innovation and carbon are shaping future LNG supply 26 March 2021 https://www.woodmac.com/news/the-edge/how-innovation-and-carbon-are-shaping-future-lng-supply/
27. Trading houses’ risk appetite create more evolved LNG market https://www.woodmac.com/news/editorial/trading-houses-risk-appetite-create-more-evolved-lng-market/
28. Veson Nautical https://veson.com/partner-network-join/ 
29. How can business models adapt to evolving LNG markets?  Deloitte Centre for Energy solutions https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/energy-resources/us-er-business-models-adapt-to-evolving-lng-markets.pdf
30. Liquified natural Gas (LNG) for Germany https://lng-wilhelmshaven.com/en/ 
31. Regulatory exemption for German LNG project Frontier Economics  http://www.frontier-economics.com/uk/en/news-and-articles/news/news-article-i8047-regulatory-exemption-for-german-lng-project/#
32. LNG portfolio optimization: Putting the business model to the test April 12, 2021 https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/lng-portfolio-optimization-putting-the-business-model-to-the-test
33. Questions grow on LNG’s carbon footprint, despite demand increase HIS Markit 13 January 2021 Kevin Adler https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/questions-rise-on-lngs-carbon-footprint-despite-demand-increase.html
34. EU expects U.S. natural gas suppliers to contribute to carbon-neutrality goals    By EWA KRUKOWSKA on 11/5/2020  https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/11/5/eu-expects-us-natural-gas-suppliers-to-contribute-to-carbon-neutrality-goals
35. LNG Carbon Emissions Tool    A Multi-Client Study   https://www.woodmac.com/consulting/multi-client-studies/LNG-Carbon-Emissions-Tool/
36. Methodology For Estimating GHGs From LNG Operations    https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-to-consumer/exploration-and-production/natural-gas/methodology-for-estimating-ghgs-from-lng
37. Consultation on an EU strategy for liquefied natural gas and gas storage    https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/LNG%20consultation%20-%20publication.pdf
38. LNG carbon offsetting: fleeting trend or sustainable practice?  18/06/2020    https://giignl.org/sites/default/files/PUBLIC_AREA/giignl_lng_carbon_offsetting_061820.pdf
39. Environmental aspects in Liquefied Natural Gas production    https://sea-man.org/lng-environment.html
40. Sailing To Nowhere: Liquefied Natural Gas Is Not An Effective Climate Strategy     Prepared By Christina Swanson, Science Center and Amanda Levin, Climate and Clean Energy Program  https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/sailing-nowhere-liquefied-natural-gas-report.pdf
41. Boil-Off In Large- And Small-Scale LNG Chains  Rafał Sedlaczek  https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.6116&rep=rep1&type=pdf
42. Problem of Boil - off in LNG  Supply Chain   Đorđe Dobrota, Branko Lalić, Ivan Komar    
43. Weathering prediction model for stored liquefied natural gas (LNG)  Calogero Migliore1,2, Cristina Tubilleja2 , Velisa Vesovic1,*  https://spiral.imp rial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/27081/8/LNG%20weathe ing%20JNGSE%202015%20accepted%20manuscript.pdf
44. LNG shipping distances drive up costs  January 21, 2019  https://timera-energy.com/lng-shipping-distances-drive-up-costs/
45. First Carbon Neutral LNG Cargo Delivered In Europe  Mar 8, 2021   https://www.shell.com/business-customers/trading-and-supply/trading/news-and-media-releases/first-carbon-neutral-lng-cargo-delivered-in-europe.html
46. Carbon neutral LNG: Suppliers focus on optionality, transparency and CCS April 19, 2021  https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/carbon-neutral-lng-suppliers-focus-on-optionality-transparency-and-ccs/
47. Carbon Neutral LNG Offerings Emerge as Competitive Advantage   LNG IN WORLD MARKETS | AUGUST 2020 https://www.poten.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Carbon-Neutral-LNG-Offerings-LNGWM-Aug-2020-1.pdf
48. SAILING TO NOWHERE: LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE CLIMATE STRATEGY Christina Swanson, Science Center  DECEMBER 2020
49. Giignl - LNG Custody Transfer Handbook Fourth edition, Paris
50. GIIGNL - LNG carbon offsetting: fleeting trend or sustainable practice?    18/06/2020 LNG Insight  Vincent Demoury,
51. Carbon Neutral LNG Offerings Emerge as Competitive Advantage  AUGUST 2020,  2020 Poten & Partners
52. Energy API – Liquified Natural GAS Operations – Consistent Methodology for Estimating GHG Emissions – prepared by Levon Group LLC (May 2015)
53. Consultation on an EU strategy for liquefied natural gas and gas storage
54. Consultation on an EU strategy for liquefied natural gas and gas storage by Kajal Festen-Purohit   2008/2009
55. The LNG storage business and associated costs - {Enagás Gas Assets General Management}
56. How can business models adapt to evolving LNG markets?  - Summary Report by the GIIGNL Technical Study Group on the Behaviour of LNG in Storage.  (GIIGNL International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers)
57. Understanding Natural  Gas and LNG Options 
58. Study on the Estimation of Facilities in LNG Bunkering Terminal by Simulation—Busan Port Case  - Nam Kyu Park 1 and Sang Kook Park 2 Published: 3 October 2019
59. Winter Weather Basics: Cold Air Outbreaks - 2014 Winter Talk Series, National Weather Service Gaylord, MI
60. Key Issues and Challenges on the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Value Chain: A Review from the Process Systems Engineering Point-of-View
61. Energy Trading and Risk management – Oil & Gas Financial Journal
62. Trends in LNG Supply Contracts and Pricing Disputes in the Asia Pacific Region by S. Finizio, J.A. Trenor, and J. Tan – OGEL [Agnieszka Ason]
63. European LNG import capacity: opportunity and risk’, Published February 2021 -  S&P Platts Samer Mosis, Desmond Wong and Luke Cottell
64. Study on gas market upgrading and modernisation –Regulatory framework for LNG terminals Preliminary findings - Luc van Nuffel https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/energy_climate_change_environment/events/presentations/01.d.01_mf33_presentation_-_trinomics_-_lng_study_-_van_nuffel.pdf
65. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R1348 – EU Legislation