Catf KBR Landed Cost Hydrogen Carriers

CLEAR AIR TASK FORCE
LOW-CARBON AND RENEWABLE HYDROGEN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT STUDY
LANDED COST OF HYDROGEN CARRIERS
June 2022
M713-PR-00001-A
Revision: 0
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED QA
A 14/01/2022 Issued for Client Comment JF JM AD JF
0 28/05/2022 Issued for Use JM AD AD JN
1 22/06/2022 Re-Issued for Use JM AD AD JN
RELIANCE NOTICE
This document is issued pursuant to an agreement between Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd. and / or its subsidiary or affiliate companies (“KBR”) and CLEAR AIR TASK FORCE which
agreement sets forth the entire rights, obligations and liabilities of those parties with respect to the content and use of the document. Reliance by any other party on the contents of the
document shall be at its own risk. KBR makes no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, to any other party with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the
information contained in this document and assumes no liabilities with respect to any other party’s use of or damages resulting from such use of any information, conclusions or
recommendations disclosed in this document. This document [software] contains technical information that may be subject to EU, U.S. and any other applicable export control regulations,
including restrictions on the export, sale or transfer of items (goods, technology or software) to sanctioned or embargoed countries, entities or persons. It may not be exported or re-exported
except as authorized under applicable export control requirements.
KBR Ltd.
Hill Park Court, Springfield Drive, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 7NL
www.kbr.com | Tel: +44 1372 380000 | Fax: +44 1372 862100
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS 4
HOLDS 6
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
1.1 Complete Hydrogen Value Chain Comparison 9
1.2 Carbon Emissions Comparisons 14
1.3 Marine vs Pipeline Import of Hydrogen 16
1.4 Impact of Carbon Sequestration Pipeline 17
1.5 Ammonia Value Chain 17
2.0 INTRODUCTION 19
2.1 Project Background 19
2.2 Purpose 19
2.3 Design Basis 19
3.0 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 28
3.1 Step 1 - Optimum Sailing Speed 28
3.2 Step 2 - Export Location Specific Scenarios, LH2 29
3.3 Step 3 - Export Location Specific Scenarios, MCH 33
3.4 Step 4 - Export Location Specific Scenarios, Uncracked Ammonia 36
3.5 Step 5 - Export Location Specific Scenarios, Cracked Ammonia 40
3.6 Hydrogen Import by Pipeline 42
4.0 CARBON EMISSIONS COMPARISONS 45
5.0 HYDROGEN CARRIER KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 48
5.1 HGP Performance 50
5.2 Supply Chain Power / Heat Requirement Comparison 51
5.3 Carrier Production & Export Terminal Comparison 52
5.4 Shipping Comparison 53
5.5 Import Terminal Comparison 54
5.6 Carrier Energy Comparison 56
6.0 HYDROGEN CARRIER SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS 58
6.1 Hydrogen Carrier Introduction 58
6.2 Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) 62
6.3 Ammonia Carrier 69
6.4 Methylcyclohexane (MCH) 74
M713-PR-00001-A Page 2 of 80 Revision: 0

June 2022
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK 77
7.1 Power Balance and Energy Integration 77
7.2 Financial Modelling 77
7.3 Commercialisation of Hydrogen Technology 78
7.4 Regulatory, Permitting and Site Selection 79
8.0 REFERENCES 80
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I LCOH GRAPHICAL OUTPUTS
APPENDIX II CASE RESULTS
APPENDIX III SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS FOR MARINE TRANSPORT OF BULK AMMONIA

June 2022
ABBREVIATIONS
AIP Approvals in Principal

ATR Auto Thermal Reforming
BFD Block Flow Diagram
BL Battery Limit
BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosions
BOG Boil-off Gas
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CATF Clean Air Task Force
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
GH2 Gas Hydrogen
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GT Gas Turbine
GWP Global Warming Potential
HGP Hydrogen Generation Plant
IGC International Gas Carrier Code
IMO International Maritime Organisation
ISBL Inside Battery Limit
Km3 Thousands of cubic metres
KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
kTPA Kilo-Tonnes Per Annum
LCOH Levelised Cost of Hydrogen
LH2 Liquefied Hydrogen
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LOHC Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MCH Methyl Cyclohexane
MHI Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
mJ Millijoule
MMTPA Millions of Tonnes per Year
MMBTU Millions of British Thermal Units
mol Molar
MR Mixed Refrigerants

June 2022
MW MegaWatts
MW-hr MegaWatt- hours (power import)
NH3 Ammonia
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
OPEX Operating Expenditure
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSBL Outside Battery Limit
PSA Pressure Swing Adsorption
R&D Research and Development
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SMR Steam Methane Reforming
STCW Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
Syngas Synthesis Gas
TPD Ton Per Day
TRL Technology Readiness Level
UFL Upper Flammability Limit
UoM Unit of Measure
USD MM Millions of U.S. dollars
vol Volumetric
WACC Weighted Average Cost of Capital

June 2022
HOLDS
No holds

June 2022
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE (CATF), KBR Advisory has performed a study on the landed cost
of hydrogen carriers, namely Liquefied Hydrogen (LH2), Methyl Cyclohexane (MCH), and Ammonia (NH3),
into the Port of Rotterdam. Hydrogen carriers such as ammonia and MCH store hydrogen in a different
chemical state rather than as free hydrogen molecules. Each carrier offers a distinct way to deliver hydrogen
either as pure hydrogen or by synthesising molecules that contain hydrogen that can be liberated at the
point of consumption.
KBR wishes to thank CATF for contracting us to perform this study and for the co-operation of the CATF
team, particularly Magnolia Tovar, the CATF Project Manager for this work for her guidance, support and
co-operation.
Low carbon hydrogen will be used to help decarbonise various sectors of the European economy, including
displacing of current fossil-based ‘grey’ hydrogen which is the current benchmark for hydrogen (H2)
production greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The basis for this study is to assess the impact of hydrogen
import into Rotterdam from a number of locations and to compare this with the cost of producing low carbon
hydrogen in Europe. The export locations were chosen because of their significant natural gas reserves
and production capacity. The low carbon hydrogen value chains considered in this study are based on
conversion of natural gas to hydrogen with a high level of carbon capture.
The value chain for each of the alternative hydrogen carriers reviewed in this study has been developed
based on the following elements:
• Hydrogen Production: Hydrogen Generation Plant including carbon capture and sequestration;
• Carrier Production & Export: Carrier production / synthesis, export storage and export jetty;
• Transport: Marine vessel; and
• Import: Import jetty, carrier storage, and regasification / liberation of hydrogen at the import facility.
A few key assumptions were made in this study which relies on future improvements in technology and
commercialisation of hydrogen demand. The most important assumption is additional production of
hydrogen is considered to account for energy use across the hydrogen/ ammonia supply chain (e.g.,
process heating, shipping fuel or general losses). This assumes that use of hydrogen/ ammonia for
industrial heating and as fuel for shipping, large scale dehydrogenation facilities for ammonia and MCH,
and shipping LH2 at a commercial scale will mature sufficiently to make these scenarios plausible by 2030.
The significant economic penalty of producing excess hydrogen/ ammonia is done principally to reduce the
carbon emission of the supply chain for low carbon hydrogen delivery. It is also assumed power used in all
the facilities is bought over the fence and generated by clean energy (e.g., renewables + storage, nuclear,
fossil with full CCS, or self-consumption of produced hydrogen), being delivered with no net carbon
emissions. The marine vessels calculations are performed on a lease based model, where vessels are
chartered at a monthly hire rate for the particular duration required to transport the required cargo.
Finally, whilst imports from Russia were analysed to allow full coverage of alternative pipeline gas imports
considered viable when the study was first commissioned in 2021, it is recognised that, given the current
geopolitical situation, this may not be a viable scenario in the future.

June 2022
Figure 1.1 shows the production pathway for low carbon hydrogen using natural gas.
Figure 1.2 shows the production, storage, transportation and utilisation pathway for liquid hydrogen as a
hydrogen carrier.
Figure 1.3 shows the production, storage, transportation and utilisation pathway for toluene /
methylcyclohexane (MCH) as a hydrogen carrier.
Figure 1.4 shows the production, storage, transportation and utilisation pathway for ammonia as a hydrogen
carrier.
Figure 1.1 – Hydrogen Value Chain – Low Carbon Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen
Natural Gas H2 (Gas)
Production Unit
Carbon
Carbon Capture
Sequestration
Figure 1.2 – Hydrogen Value Chain – Liquid Hydrogen as a Carrier
Carrier Production & Storage Transportation Storage & Liberation
H2 (Liquid) H2 (Liquid) H2 (Liquid)

H2 (Gas) Liquefaction Gasification H2 (Gas)
Storage Transport Storage
Electricity Fuel Heat
Figure 1.3 – Hydrogen Value Chain - Toluene / MCH as a Hydrogen Carrier
Carrier Production & Storage Transportation Storage & Liberation

Heat
MCH (Liquid) MCH (Liquid)

H2 (Gas) Hydrogenation Dehydrogenation Purification H2 (Gas)
Storage Storage
Carrier (Liquid)
Transport
Electricity Toluene (Liquid) Toluene (Liquid)
Heat Electricity
Storage Storage
Fuel
Figure 1.4 – Hydrogen Value Chain - Ammonia as a Hydrogen Carrier

Carrier Production Storage Transportation Storage Utilisation with Purification
Electricity Heat
NH3 (Liquid) NH3 (Liquid) NH3 (Liquid) Ammonia

H2 (Gas) Haber-Bosch H2 Purification H2 (Gas)
Storage Transport Storage Cracking
Electricity Fuel Electricity Heat Electricity

ASU
Air
(N2 Production)
Electricity

June 2022
1.1 Complete Hydrogen Value Chain Comparison
This study examined the landed cost of hydrogen at the port of Rotterdam, with marine supply from five
alternative marine export locations (Norway, United States Gulf of Mexico, Argentina, Qatar, and Saudi
Arabia) as well as three alternatives for supply of low carbon hydrogen by pipeline (Norway, Russia, and
Algeria). The analysis was performed for the three hydrogen carriers above, and for value chain sizes of
250 kTPA, 1000 kTPA and 10,000 kTPA of hydrogen delivered, corresponding to assumed scale of demand
in 2030, 2040 and 2050 respectively. A total of 71 cases were run and the results are provided in this report.
The cost basis are based on real 2021 values and do not account for inflation or projected changes in real
pricing over the project lifetime. The cost estimates presented in this study also do not include charges
(fees, taxes) or emissions credits as a result of reduction in GHG emissions along the supply chain.
Figure 1.5 also shows the levelised costs for alternative pipeline imports of gaseous hydrogen into Europe.
Pipeline imports from Norway has the lowest landed costs for 250 kTPA hydrogen delivered while Algeria
has the lowest landed costs across the larger value chain sizes. This is mainly influenced by the significantly
lower natural gas cost in Algeria compared to Norway and economies of scale achieved at larger delivery
volumes.
The overall carrier results are represented in Figure 1.5. This shows that importing hydrogen from Saudi
Arabia gives the lowest landed costs for all three carriers and across all years, due to a combination of
shipping distance, natural gas feedstock price, production and export terminal construction costs.
The overall cost comparisons are also included in Appendix I. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to
hydrogen and hydrogen carriers in this report indicate hydrogen from low carbon sources.

June 2022
Figure 1.5 – Landed Cost of Hydrogen Carriers at the Port of Rotterdam (250kTPA-10,000kTPA)

June 2022
Figure 1.6 – Cost Stack for Preferred Hydrogen Carrier (250kTPA-10,000 kTPA)

June 2022
The KBR analysis, which uses an in-house LCOH costing tool, also examined the ‘cost stack’ for hydrogen
import, considering both CAPEX and OPEX elements across the production, export, transport and import
segments of the hydrogen value chain to arrive at an overall levelised cost. This is represented in Figure 1.6,
with cracked ammonia having the lowest levelised cost for hydrogen chemical carriers for all supply chain
sizes. Pipeline delivery has the lowest overall LCOH of all the carriers. The cost stack comparisons are also
included in Appendix I.
In addition to the summaries provided above, this report contains more detailed breakdowns of cost and
performance parameters for each of the alternative hydrogen import scenarios. These are included in
Appendix II. KBR’s in-house LCOH tool takes account of regional variations in CAPEX, natural gas &
electricity prices. Table 1.1 presents a comparison for liquefied hydrogen imported by ship from the
alternative locations for 2030 (250 kTPA import). This demonstrates that in this particular case Saudi Arabia
is the preferred export location for hydrogen delivery into Rotterdam with an indicative LCOH of 6.09 USD
/ kg of hydrogen delivered as LH2 in 2030.
Table 1.1 –LH2 Import from Various Export Locations
(250 kTPA Hydrogen Delivered Case)
Units of
Norway Argentina United States Qatar Saudi Arabia
Measure (UoM)
Case no. 4 6 5 7 2
Hydrogen
Delivered to kTPA 282 323 312 319 303
Export Terminal1
Natural Gas Cost USD/ MMTBU 10.16 2.94 3.24 1.25 1.25
Hydrogen
USD MM 1314 1182 1217 1160 1120
Generation Plant
Export Terminal USD MM 4743 4269 4392 4188 4044
Import Terminal2 USD MM 2732 2732 2732 2732 2732
Specific CAPEX
USD MM/kTPA
per kTPA H2 35 33 33 32 32
H2
(landed)
Overall Value
USD MM 8789 8183 8341 8080 7896
Chain CAPEX
Total Annual
USD MM 279 484 409 497 424
OPEX
Indicative Value
USD/kgH2 7.33 6.83 6.60 6.34 6.09
Chain LCOH
Notes:
1. Net HGP hydrogen production required to meet 250 kTPA hydrogen availability at point of consumption. The additional
production is to account for additional hydrogen/ ammonia used for process heating, shipping fuel or general supply chain
losses.
2. Import terminal costs are identical for each as these have been sized for hydrogen delivered.

June 2022
A comparison of the three alternative hydrogen carriers examined for import from Saudi Arabia is presented
in Table 1.2 for 250 kTPA of hydrogen delivered. This gives an indicative value chain LCOH of 3.25 USD
/ kg of hydrogen imported as ammonia in 2030, showing ammonia to be the preferred hydrogen carrier in
this case.
Table 1.2 – Hydrogen Carrier Performance Overview
(250 kTPA H2 Delivered, Saudi Arabia)
Units of NH3
LH2 MCH NH3
Measure (UoM) (Cracked)
Case No. 2 22 52 37
Hydrogen Delivered to Export
kTPA 303 538 375 276
Terminal1
Hydrogen Production USD MM 1120 1674 1299 1048
Hydrogenation / Liquefaction USD MM 2020 1218 646 521
First Fill USD MM - 675 - -
Export Terminal & Storage USD MM 2023 458 353 285
Import Terminal & Storage USD MM 1955 507 391 315
Dehydrogenation /
USD MM 777 1727 715 -
Regasification
Overall Value Chain CAPEX USD MM 7896 6258 3404 2169
Annual OPEX
USD MM 193 337 237 176
(Hydrogen Production)
Annual OPEX
USD MM 424 312 193 122
(Rest of Supply Chain)
USD/kg
Indicative Value Chain LCOH 6.09 5.41 3.25 2.16
H2-Delivered
Notes:
production is to account for additional hydrogen/ ammonia used for process heating, shipping fuel or general supply chain
losses.
2. The CAPEX values include owners costs of 15% and contingency of 20%. No owners costs are applied to toluene first fill
Figure 1.7 gives a graphical comparison of the CAPEX breakdown between the hydrogen carriers for the
import facilities. The large contributions of CAPEX for the MCH dehydration and the ammonia cracking
processes are significant for these carriers, whereas storage dominates the LH2 carrier import CAPEX.

June 2022
Figure 1.7 – Import Facility CAPEX Breakdown
3000
2500
2000
CAPEX (MMUSD)
1500
1000
500
0
LH2 MCH NH3 NH3 (Cracked)
Import Jetty Import Storage Regasification / Liberation Owner's Cost Contingency
This analysis has been repeated for value chains corresponding to 1,000 and 10,000 kTPA of hydrogen
delivered by 2040 and 2050, respectively. The timing and ultimate size of hydrogen import into Europe,
whether to Rotterdam or other European ports, is subject to the creation of the end-user markets for
hydrogen.
1.2 Carbon Emissions Comparisons
Whilst lifecycle emissions estimates have not been carried out in this study, CO2 emissions (termed
“carbon” in this report) from hydrogen production, export, transportation and import facilities have been
estimated for each carrier. It is further noted that the carbon emissions comparisons do not include CO2
emissions from the fuel and feedstock supply chain, and do not include other GHG emissions other than
CO2, such as estimates of methane losses in upstream gas production and transportation, which can be a
subject of further analyses.

June 2022
Across the hydrogen supply chain there is only one main carbon emission source, being the residual
emissions not captured from the Auto Thermal Reforming (ATR) hydrogen production process (97%
capture rate). Additionally, for the MCH carrier, emissions are produced via the burning of LNG for marine
fuel. The supply chains have been modelled to self-consume hydrogen throughout the value chain for heat
duty and shipping fuel (except MCH carrier) where required, leaving no additional point sources of carbon
emissions, with the additional required capacity of hydrogen generation factored into the supply chain mass
balances. It has also been assumed that clean (e.g., renewable or nuclear, etc) electricity is bought
externally over the fence from a nearby supplier for both pipeline and carrier supply chains. Figure 1.8
highlights that, amongst the liberated hydrogen supply chains, LH2 results in the lowest CO2 emissions with
85 kTPA CO2 released for the 250 kTPA H2 delivered case, equivalent to a carbon intensity of 0.34 kg of
CO2 per kg H2 delivered.
If ammonia is used directly at the final destination, without need for hydrogen liberation / ammonia cracking
at the import terminal, then it is the least carbon intensive hydrogen carrier. Owing to both a large volume
of hydrogen required to account for the supply chain carrier production and hydrogen liberation from MCH,
as well as the LNG consumed by the marine vessels, the MCH carrier has the highest net carbon emissions
at 151 kTPA CO2 with a carbon intensity of 0.6 kg of CO2 per kg H2 delivered.
Figure 1.8 – Net HGP CO2 Emissions, 250 kTPA Delivered Hydrogen from Saudi Arabia
160 0.64
Carbon Emissions (kTPA CO2)
120 0.48
(kg CO2/ kg H2 delivered)

Specific CO2 Emissions
80 0.32
40 0.16
0 0.00
MCH NH3 (Cracked) LH2 NH3

June 2022
1.3 Marine vs Pipeline Import of Hydrogen
This study compared the import of hydrogen in the form of hydrogen carriers for marine transport vs import
of gaseous hydrogen (GH2) by pipeline. Three locations for gaseous hydrogen import into Rotterdam were
considered, namely Norway, Russia, and Algeria. Whilst imports from Russia were analysed to allow full
coverage of alternative pipeline gas imports considered viable when the study was first commissioned in
2021, it is recognised that, given the current geopolitical situation, this may not be a viable scenario in the
future.
The overall cost stack for GH2 import from Norway and Algeria are presented in Figure 1.9, which includes
hydrogen production via ATR from natural gas in the Hydrogen Generation Plant (HGP), and pipeline
transport to Rotterdam. This is compared with marine import from Saudi Arabia in Figure 1.10 for the various
import capacity scenarios.
The results indicates that in each of the scenario years modelled, hydrogen produced in Norway (2030)
and Algeria (2040, 2050), transported via pipeline to Rotterdam has a slightly more favourable LCOH
compared to marine import utilising hydrogen carriers. Algeria is more cost competitive than Norway at
larger parcel sizes as the variable costs dominate the LCOH and Algeria’s cheap natural gas price provides
a distinct commercial advantage. Although its pipeline LCOH contribution is higher than Norway’s, it’s low
cost of hydrogen production dominates for the larger cases. Figure 1.10 also shows that pipeline delivery
of hydrogen where possible is more favourable than marine import utilising hydrogen carriers. It also
provides the added benefit of being more technology mature and proven compared to the carrier marine
supply chains.
Figure 1.9 –Cheapest Hydrogen Production Transported to Rotterdam via Pipeline
3.50
LCOH (USD/kg - H2 Delivered)
3.00
0.48
2.50
2.00
1.64
1.50
2.57 1.13
1.00
0.50 0.85
0.68
0.00
250KTA (2030) 1000 KTA (2040) 10000 KTA (2050)
Norway Algeria Algeria
Production Pipeline

June 2022
Figure 1.10 – Cheapest H2 via Pipeline vs Cheapest Marine Import
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
KSA (2030) KSA (2040) KSA (2050) Norway (2030) Algeria (2040) Algeria (2050)
Ammonia (cracked) Pipeline
1.4 Impact of Carbon Sequestration Pipeline

The base case analysis, whilst assuming that at least 97% of the carbon emissions as a result of natural
gas reforming to hydrogen are captured, also assumes that the captured carbon is compressed and
disposed of at the export location. In reality, though, it will have to be transported and sequestered
underground, either in a depleted hydrocarbon reservoir, or aquifer storage. Due to the peculiarities of
finding the appropriate formations to store carbon in the various regions, a figure of $20 / ton of CO2 has
been used across all regions. However, this will vary based on the distance, well counts, reservoir
characteristics and pressures required for sequestration in each region. For frame of reference, the
additional $20 /ton of CO2 sequestered accounts for 0.21 $ / kg H2 delivered of the LCOH for the LH2 250
kTPA for the Saudi Arabia case.
1.5 Ammonia Value Chain
Another sensitivity which was addressed during this study was to compare the landed costs of ammonia as
cracked vs uncracked ammonia. Cracked ammonia provides a direct comparison with other carriers, where
high purity hydrogen is the ultimate ‘end product’. However, in some markets, ammonia will compete directly
with hydrogen as an alternative green fuel, for instance in ship bunkering, co-firing of coal-fired power
plants, power generation and other end markets. Figure 1.11 presents the overall cost stacks for cracked
vs uncracked ammonia for the various demand scenarios. This shows that uncracked ammonia imports
have the lowest landed cost at Rotterdam for all import volume scenarios. The hydrogen liberated in the
cracked case is used as fuel to drive the cracking process which leads to an overall increase in LCoH.

June 2022
Figure 1.11 – Overall Cost Stack for Cracked vs Uncracked Ammonia
3.50
3.00
LCOH (USD/ kg - H2 Delivered)
0.65
2.50
0.21
0.46
2.00 0.17
0.78 0.15
0.21
0.27
0.60 0.11
1.50 0.12 0.15
0.61
0.43 0.47 0.05
0.12
1.00 0.33
1.50
1.28 1.15
0.50 1.07 0.97
0.81
0.00
2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050
Cracked Uncracked
Production Export Transport Import

June 2022
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project Background
CLEAR AIR TASK FORCE (CATF) is seeking an economic analysis to estimate the landed cost of low
carbon hydrogen in the Port of Rotterdam (the Netherlands):
• Via maritime transportation, from five locations: Norway (Oslo), US (Houston), Argentina (Buenos
Aires), Qatar (Doha) and Saudi Arabia (Jeddah); and
• Via pipeline from three countries (Russia, Norway, and Algeria).

The carriers to be considered for marine carrier vessel import include liquid hydrogen (LH2), ammonia (NH3)
and methylcyclohexane (MCH) as a LOHC, while pipeline transportation will be for GH2.
2.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to evaluate the above-mentioned hydrogen carriers for their competence
in enabling an economical supply chain of hydrogen by marine vessel transportation as well as pipeline to
Rotterdam, Netherlands.
2.3 Design Basis
2.3.1 Carriers, Scenarios and Locations
Three carriers were considered as marine carriers: LH2, ammonia and MCH as an LOHC; while pipeline
transportation considered hydrogen delivered as GH2 only. Ammonia as a hydrogen carrier is considered
in two further scenarios: for direct use as fuel and cracked for H2 liberation.
Three volume scenarios are considered: 250, 1,000 and 10,000 kTPA of liberated hydrogen on a real 2030,
2040 and 2050 basis. Note that there is no difference in pricing used in the model for the different years as
these only refer to the various hydrogen delivered volumes specified above; the primary variable being
examined is that of scale that is anticipated to improve with time.
Export terminal locations for maritime transportation include Norway (Oslo), US (Houston), Argentina (Buenos Aires),
Qatar (Doha) and Saudi Arabia (Jeddah), while transport of hydrogen gas via pipeline include Russia (Yamal), Norway
and Algeria. The study basis overview is shown in

June 2022
Table 2.1 overleaf.

June 2022
Table 2.1 – Design Basis Overview
UoM Specification
Volumes of Liberated H2 kTPA 250 / 1,000 / 10,000
Carriers - LH2 / NH3 / MCH
Years - 2030 / 2040 / 2050
Marine Carrier (LH2 / NH3 / MCH) - Norway / US / Argentina / Qatar / KSA
Pipeline (H2 gas) - Russia / Norway / Algeria
No of Cases 71
2.3.2 Hydrogen Generation Plant

The production facility starts with a Hydrogen Generation Plant (HGP) in which natural gas feed is converted
to a high purity hydrogen stream from which at least 97% of total overall CO2 is captured, which considers
emissions of no more than 0.28 kg CO2 per kg H2 produced.
The pure hydrogen is sent to a carrier production facility where it is converted to a liquid carrier with a
greater volumetric energy density than gaseous H2 for transportation. The project basis is a supply chain
capacity to cover the three volume scenarios (250 / 1,000 / 10,000 kTPA) of hydrogen injected into the gas
network in the Netherlands, and therefore the HGP needs to produce sufficient hydrogen to account for all
losses and auto-consumption within the supply chain.
Due to the higher carbon capture rate and cost competitiveness, ATR technology has been chosen as the
basis for the integrated HGP for this study. In the context of capturing CO2 from ATR or Steam Methane
Reforming (SMR) based hydrogen generation, there are two main approaches of capturing the CO2
generated from the plant:
• ‘Pre-combustion’ captures the CO2 produced during the reforming and water-gas shift reaction,
i.e., from the process stream.
• ‘Post-combustion’ captures the CO2 produced during the combustion of the pressure swing
adsorption (PSA) tail gas and / or the natural gas (as supplementary fuel) in the ATR furnace.
The attractiveness of a particular CO2 source for capture depends on its volume, concentration and partial
pressure. The higher concentration of CO2 in the gas stream and the higher pressure makes the separation
easier. In an ATR-based hydrogen plant, depending on the detailed process configuration CO2 can be
captured from the shifted syngas (synthesis gas) and PSA tail gas. Figure 2.1 shows the pre-combustion
capture options for an ATR.

June 2022
Figure 2.1 – Simplified Flow Diagram of ATR with Carbon Capture
Carbon Capture
Steam
Natural Gas CO2
Autothermal Syngas
Pre-heat Shift Reactor Compression &
Oxygen Reformer Purification
Sequestration
Air Air Separation PSA Tail Gas H2 Compression

PSA
Unit & Storage
Electricity
Carbon emissions associated with the ATR process are mostly within the process gas stream and exist at
higher concentrations, requiring only pre-combustion capture to achieve very high levels of overall CO2
capture. With pre-combustion capture the ATR pre-reformer furnace flue gas contains only very small
amounts of carbon, and some ATR process configurations are proposed that do not include an externally-
fired pre-reforming stage at all, instead relying on gas-gas heat exchangers to drive the first stage of the
reforming process. As a result, ATR plants are better suited to achieving higher capture rates at a lower
cost compared to SMR at full scale production. Although there are very limited operating references for
ATR hydrogen production with carbon capture and storage (CCS), there are several currently proposed
ATR plants that have target capture rates of > 95% - 97%.
Table 2.2 shows a summary of the HGP design basis. For the purposes of this study, variations in the CO2
content of the incoming natural gas were not considered. The specification used is typical of ‘grid gas’
requirements.
Table 2.2 – Design Basis Overview - HGP
UoM Specification
Natural Gas CO2 Content wt% <2.5
Hydrogen Product Purity vol% 99.995
Clean electricity generated off-

Power Source -
site
HGP Power Fuel Selection - H2
ATR with ~99% CO2 removal

HGP Technology - from shifted syngas (~97%
overall CO2 capture)

June 2022
2.3.3 CAPEX Estimate Basis
KBR has developed Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Operating Expenditure (OPEX) estimates for each
supply chain from natural gas feed at the HGP inlet battery limit (“BL”) to final hydrogen injection into a gas
network in Rotterdam, Netherlands. For the purposes of this study, injected hydrogen in Rotterdam is
referred to as levelised hydrogen. The final CAPEX build-up for each supply chain has been developed
from the individual Inside Battery Limit (ISBL) and Outside Battery Limit (OSBL) component CAPEX
estimates and the uplifts presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 – CAPEX Estimate Uplifts
Item Uplift Description Uplift
1 CAPEX Contingency 20.0%
2 Project and Owner’s Cost1 15.0%
Notes:
1. Owner’s cost not applied to toluene first fill.
The general approach taken in the application of these uplifts is as follows:
1. CAPEX contingency is applied to the sum of all ISBL and OSBL components.
2. Project and Owner’s Cost is applied to the sum of all ISBL and OSBL components, except first fill.
The cost estimate has been developed on an instantaneous basis and represents costs as of fourth quarter
2021. The costs exclude all future inflation and escalation. CAPEX estimations are location specific,
assuming local fabrication and construction with local labour productivity factors and wage estimates taken
from Compass International Benchmark Rates for the construction industry. All CAPEX costs are
denominated in United States Dollars (USD).
The CAPEX for all units is sized to accommodate additional hydrogen produced which is consumed or lost
in the supply chain. The surplus production is to account for additional hydrogen / ammonia used for process
heating, shipping fuel or general supply chain losses. This is applicable for all cases apart from LH2 import
where storage, terminal and regasification facilities are sized based on hydrogen delivered as no additional
cargo is required to provide heat for regasification.
The pipeline CAPEX and OPEX were estimated using IHS Que$tor software (2021 Q1) estimating tool
which accounts for the following factored costs:
• Materials Cost;
• Construction Cost;
• Design and Project Management;
• Insurance and Certification; and
• Contingency (inc. financing costs during construction).

June 2022
2.3.4 OPEX and Levelised Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH)
Annual OPEX for the purposes of case assessment and defining LCOH includes the following fixed and
variable elements:
1. Fixed operations and maintenance OPEX;
2. Power consumption OPEX;
3. Natural gas feedstock and fuel OPEX; and
4. LNG consumed for marine vessel bunkering (MCH cases only).
Note that throughout the supply chain modelling, heat duty is provided by self-consumption of hydrogen
within the supply chain itself, with the additional hydrogen production required accounted for in the overall
supply chain mass balances.
It has also been assumed that clean electricity is bought over the fence from an external provider, with no
net emissions. Prices range across countries depending on the availability of their clean energy resources.
We have assumed a price of $43/MWh for Algeria, $46/MWh for Argentina, $30/MWh for Norway, $47/MWh
for Qatar, $67/MWh for Russia, $46/MWh for Saudi Arabia, and $35/MWh for the US (IEA, 2021) [11].
The LCOH calculated is based on a discounted cash flow model which uses a discount rate or weighted
average cost of capital of 10%, with a plant lifetime of 30 years. Note that although net present value of the
OPEX & CAPEX are calculated based on hydrogen produced, the hydrogen output is based on the
hydrogen delivered. It adequately represents the relative costs of producing, transporting and injecting
hydrogen from various locations into a European gas network. The approximation utilises an equivalent
annual cost calculation as defined in Salmon et al. (2021) [1]. The discount rate is applied to estimate the
net present value of both CAPEX and OPEX levelised across the project life which when divided by the
total amount of delivered hydrogen, gives a levelised hydrogen cost.
All OPEX costs and subsequent LCOH values are in USD.
2.3.5 Natural Gas Pricing
The forecast of the natural gas price is based on current value and is not adjusted for inflation. The values
are in US Dollars per Millions of British Thermal Units (USD / MMBTU) and are based on public domain
and internal KBR data sources.
Table 2.4 –Natural Gas (Real) Prices
Location UoM Real Prices
USA1 USD / MMTBU 3.24
Argentina2 USD / MMTBU 2.94
KSA2 USD / MMTBU 1.25
Qatar2 USD / MMTBU 1.25
Algeria4 USD / MMTBU 0.75

June 2022
Location UoM Real Prices
Norway3 USD / MMTBU 10.16
Russia2 USD / MMTBU 1.40
Notes:
1. Average Henry Hub Prices for 2019 & 2021 – IHS.
2. International Gas Union Wholesale Price Report (2020-2021).
3. Average TTF Prices for 2019 & 2021 – IHS.
4. KBR internal information.
2.3.6 What About Green Hydrogen?
Hydrogen produced from clean electricity is sometimes called “green” hydrogen. Around 53 kWh of clean
electricity is required for each kg of hydrogen produced and delivered at 30 barg from today’s electrolyser
systems, with reductions to around 50 kWh projected with technology advancements by 2030 [2] and further
improvements envisioned beyond that [3]. A likely business model for large shares of future green hydrogen
production involves electrolysers connected to the local electric grid due to the flexibility, optionality and
reliability that grid connections will provide, even if using primarily clean electricity supplied under contract
[4]. As such the cost to procure electricity for many future electrolyser systems is likely to depend at least
in part on future electricity markets in the vicinity of the electrolyser.
Analysis of future electricity markets and impacts on “green” hydrogen production cost is outside the scope
of this study. High-level analysis suggests these costs may not be too dissimilar to low-carbon hydrogen
production costs, however, if large economies of scale can be achieved in an optimum location.
2.3.7 Logistics
Distance from the export terminals in the production countries to the port of Rotterdam are illustrated below.
Table 2.5 – Distance to Port of Rotterdam
Marine Carrier Pipeline

Location
Nautical Miles km km
US (Houston) 6,190 11,464 -
Argentina (Buenos Aires) 7,827 14,496 -
Saudi Arabia (Jeddah) 4,658 8,627 -
Qatar (Doha) 7,216 13,364 -
Algeria - - 2,5001
Norway (Oslo) 710 1,315 8702
Russia (Yamal) - - 4,1073
Notes:
1. 210 km is subsea (Medgaz to Spain) – source McKinsey Hydrogen Insights Report 2021.
2. Based on Europipe II, distance from Karsto to Dornum is 660 km long plus 210 km to Northern Netherlands.
3. Based on Yamal-Europe pipeline – pipeline running across Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Germany.

June 2022
Regarding marine bunker fuel, H2 and NH3 is used for transport of LH2 and NH3, respectively, while LNG is
used as bunker fuel for transport for MCH. This is a very forward-looking assumption as there are no LH2
vessel carriers currently in existence at scale, with the only existing H2 vessel, the Suiso Frontier only
capable of transporting less than 90 tons (1250 m3) of LH2. Additionally, large scale marine engines will
need to be further developed to effectively utilise H2 and NH3 as shipping fuel. This seems to be a significant
challenge faced by the marine industry in a sector that is difficult to decarbonise due to several hurdles
including established infrastructure, economic impact and technology readiness of alternative fuels being
proposed.
Hydrogen Carrier Storage system design parameters used in the KBR model are summarised in Table 2.6
below. This will impact import and export terminal CAPEX and OPEX requirements.
Table 2.6 – Export / Import Storage Tank Capacities
UoM LH2 MCH NH3
Tank Volume (Physical)1 m3/tank 4,000 40,000 58,350
Tank Working Capacity1 % 90% 95% 90%
No. of Tanks 11 4 2
No. of Days Storage day 3 72 4
Storage Tank Boil-off Rate %/day <0.2% - 0.04%
Boil-off Gas (BOG) and Vapour

% 35 - 35
Return Recovery Efficiency
Notes:
1. Same values will be used for export and import terminals.
2. Separate tanks required for both MCH & Toluene at both export and import terminals.
Three sailing speeds were assessed for all ships to determine an optimum. Due to uncertainties regarding
the future size of NH3 cargo tank capacities, three capacities were analysed to capture the effect over the
economics of potential changes on the parcel size.
Table 2.7 – Shipping Comparisons (15 knots Sailing Speed)
UoM LH2 NH3 MCH
80,000 / 130,000 /
Total Cargo Tank Capacity1 m3 128,000 85,000
175,000
No. Berths2 1 1 1
Shipping Fuel3 - Hydrogen Ammonia LNG
Cargo Tank Maximum Capacity % 95% 98% 98%
Cargo Tank Working Heel % 5% 5% 2%
Reserve Time for Vessel

day/yr 15 15 15
Maintenance

June 2022
UoM LH2 NH3 MCH
Loading Rate m3/hr 4,000 2,500 5,000
Marine Loading Vapour Recycle to

YES - -
HGP
Cargo Tank Boil-off Rate (Maximum

%/day <0.2% 0.04% -
Level)
Sailing Speed knots 15 15 15
Consumption at Sea mt/day 24.1 89.1 37.8
Consumption at Port / Idling mt/day 8.3 22.7 7.2
Manoeuvring Time in Harbour

% 30% 30% 30%
(as % of days at sea & port)
Loading / Unloading Time d 1.34 0.7 1.33
Supply Chain Losses

(Loading / Unloading, Tank % 10% 5.0% 2.0%
Transfers etc) 4
Hydrogen / Ammonia Used as

% 1.4% - 13% 0.76% - 7.29% -
Shipping fuel5
Toluene First Fill / Make-up Value USD/t - - 850.0
Notes:
1. Ship capacities have been modelled using current existing ship sizes or in the case of hydrogen, an estimate based on large
scale LH2 ship designs planned for construction before 2030.
2. Same values will be used for export and import terminals.
3. Theoretical shipping fuels are used for this study, assuming technical maturity by 2030.
4. Supply chain losses are based on internal estimates and industry data on potential for spillages, leaks, and residual cargo
left behind during transfers, loading and unloading
5. Percent of cargo used as shipping fuel varies based on distance travelled.
2.3.8 CO2 Sequestration

The base case analysis, whilst assuming that at least 97% of the carbon emissions as a result of natural
gas reforming to hydrogen are captured, also assumes that carbon is captured, compressed and disposed
of at the export location. In reality, this carbon will have to be transported and sequestered underground,
either in a depleted hydrocarbon reservoir, or aquifer storage. Due to the peculiarities of finding the
appropriate formations to store carbon in the various regions, a figure of $20 / ton of CO2 has been used
across all regions for the purpose of this high level study.

June 2022
3.0 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
3.1 Step 1 - Optimum Sailing Speed
The calculation of the LCOH for the marine vessels is performed on a lease-based model, where vessels
are chartered at a monthly hire rate for the particular duration required to transport the required cargo. This
takes into account both the outbound and inbound (ballast or laden) legs of the journey. To determine the
optimum sailing speed, several cases were run through the KBR tool, using Jeddah as an export location
(8,600 km to Rotterdam), and shipping of hydrogen as LH2, for a 250 kTPA hydrogen delivered case. The
results of these scenarios showed that a ship speed of 18 knots was the optimum in terms of lowest LCOH.
The results are summarised in Table 3.1. Ship cargo size was constant for all three cases at 128,000 m3
(9,100 tonnes).
Table 3.1 – Definition of Optimum Shipping Speed
Sailing Speed LCOH Number of Ships Minimum Round-

Scenario
(knots) ($/kg H2) Required1 Trip Time (days)
1 12 6.15 3.4 36
2 15 6.09 2.8 29
3 18 6.06 2.4 25
Notes:
1. The number of ships required, where fractional, can be hired for the required number of months during the year.
As shown in Table 3.1, the lowest LCOH case was for the quickest sailing speed of 18 knots, predominantly
due to the reduced number of ships required within the supply chain to adequately transport the LH2. The
sailing speed determines the minimum number of days for a round-trip of a cargo ship of a given size and,
therefore, the minimum number of ships required to deliver a total of 250 kTPA of hydrogen at the import
location. The minimum round-trip accounts for loading and unloading times, in-harbour manoeuvring time
as well as main sailing time.
There are two types of boil-off loss for transport of liquefied hydrogen by ship, namely natural boil-off and
forced boil-off losses. As with LNG carriers today, it is assumed that the propulsion fuel of LH2 and ammonia
carrier ships will be supplied by onboard cargo and this will be derived by natural boil-off and additional
forced boil-off to meet the propulsion system demand. A faster speed requires a greater daily hydrogen
consumption which increases variable costs while reducing fixed costs as less vessels are required.
Although the faster speed of 18 knots provides the lowest LCOH, a review of available shipping data shows
most bulk carriers sail at average speeds under 15 knots. This is because of in-built engine size / speed
limitations and to compensate for rough sea conditions which cause the ship speed to be decreased by
wind and wave resistance. Operating at higher speeds during these conditions would lead to high safety
risks and significantly more fuel consumption. Although the LCOH calculation models increased fuel
consumption at higher speeds, it doesn’t account for rough seas and turbulent conditions. For these
reasons, a speed of 15 knots has been adopted in the simulated cases, in line with industry experience.

June 2022
3.2 Step 2 - Export Location Specific Scenarios, LH2
Step 2 looks at import of hydrogen as LH2, based on the selected shipping speed calculated from Step 1.
It compares the LCOH based on import to Rotterdam from various export terminal locations (Jeddah, Oslo,
Houston, Buenos Aires, and Doha), and also looks at alternative supply chain sizes (250 kTPA in 2030,
increasing to 1,000 kTPA in 2040). Whilst it might be expected that the export location which is the shortest
distance from Rotterdam would also be the location which gives the lowest LCOH, this is not
straightforward, since the input natural gas feedstock price differs between locations, and the HGP and
export terminal CAPEX are location-specific, with construction costs driven by local labour rates and
productivities. The hydrogen export CAPEX includes the costs associated with hydrogen production,
hydrogenation / liquefaction, storage and export jetty.
Table 3.2 gives the results of varying export locations, leading to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia being the lowest
LCOH for delivered hydrogen using LH2 as the hydrogen carrier in both the 250, 1,000 & 10,000 kTPA
scenarios at 6.09, 4.64 & 3.23 USD/kg H2 delivered, respectively.
Throughout the case results, LCOH-C refers to levelised cost of CAPEX and LCOH-O to levelised cost of
OPEX.
Table 3.2 – Definition of Overall Supply Chain for LH2 Deliveries
Supply Production Supply Chain

LCOH Export
Chain Export LCOH-C LCOH-O LCOH-C LCOH-O
Scenario (USD/kg CAPEX
Capacity Location (USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg
H2) (MMUSD)
(kTPA) H2) H2) H2) H2)
Saudi Arabia
2 250 0.48 0.77 3.15 1.70 6.09 4,044
(Jeddah)
4 250 Norway (Oslo) 0.56 2.19 3.47 1.11 7.33 4,743
5 250 USA (Houston) 0.52 1.14 3.31 1.64 6.60 4,392
Argentina
6 250 0.50 1.14 3.25 1.94 6.83 4,269
(Buenos Aires)
7 250 Qatar (Doha) 0.49 0.82 3.21 1.99 6.51 4,188
8 1,000 Norway (Oslo) 0.37 2.14 2.29 0.90 5.69 12,518
9 1,000 USA (Houston) 0.34 1.10 2.18 1.43 5.05 11,591
Argentina
10 1,000 0.33 1.11 2.14 1.73 5.32 11,267
(Buenos Aires)
11 1,000 Qatar (Doha) 0.32 0.79 2.12 1.79 5.02 11,052
Saudi Arabia
12 1,000 0.31 0.75 2.08 1.50 4.64 10,672
(Jeddah)
13 10,000 Norway (Oslo) 0.18 2.09 1.15 0.69 4.11 62,737
14 10,000 USA (Houston) 0.17 1.07 1.09 1.23 3.56 58,094

June 2022
Supply Production Supply Chain
LCOH Export
Capacity Location (USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg
H2) (MMUSD)
(kTPA) H2) H2) H2) H2)
Argentina
15 10,000 0.17 1.09 1.07 1.53 3.86 56,466
(Buenos Aires)
16 10,000 Qatar (Doha) 0.16 0.76 1.06 1.59 3.58 55,392
Saudi Arabia
17 10,000 0.16 0.72 1.04 1.31 3.23 53,487
(Jeddah)
There are several contributing factors that lead to Saudi Arabia being the cheapest export location, with
natural gas prices, moderate distance and local productivity factors considered as the key ones.
Export, which only includes carrier production, storage and jetty is the largest contributor to the overall
LCOH as shown in Figure 3.1. A significant component of the CAPEX for the export location is the cost of
liquefaction and cryogenic hydrogen storage which has a much higher CAPEX intensity compared to other
carriers.
Cost of construction varies from country to country dependent on labour rates (both skilled and unskilled)
and the location factor which takes into account import and productivity factors. Saudi Arabia and Qatar
have the lowest location factors and cheapest labour rates of the evaluated export locations.
In the production phase, the main driver of costs is the OPEX for the hydrogen generation plant and this is
driven in part by the natural gas price, which is cheaper in Qatar and Saudi Arabia (see Table 2.4) than for
the other locations.
Skilled and unskilled labour rates are taken from Compass International Publications benchmark rates. In
the absence of Qatari labour rate data, Saudi Arabian labour rates were utilised, expected to be of a similar
/ good approximation.
Saudi Arabia has the lowest LCOH for production and supply chain as shown in Figure 3.1 with a combined
value of 6.09 USD/kg H2 delivered in 2030. An alternative, more detailed breakdown of LCOH is also shown
in Figure 3.2.

June 2022
Figure 3.1 – LH2 LCOH Comparison for Varying Export Locations, 250 kTPA Delivered Hydrogen
8.00
7.00
1.52
LCOH (USD/ KG - H2 Delivered)
6.00 1.51
0.14 1.51 1.51
1.50
5.00 0.74 0.59
0.80
2.93 0.56
4.00
3.00 2.94 2.84

2.90 2.78
2.00
2.75
1.00 1.64 1.66 1.31 1.25
0.00
Oslo, Norway Buenos Aires, Houston, US Doha, Qatar Jeddah, Saudi
(250KTA) Argentina (250KTA) (250KTA) (250KTA) Arabia (250KTA)
Figure 3.2 – LH2 LCOH Breakdown for Varying Export Location, 250 kTPA Delivered Hydrogen
8.00
0.25
7.00
0.24
1.27 0.24 0.24
6.00 1.27 0.23
0.14 1.27
1.27
0.73 1.27
5.00 0.74
0.59
0.80
0.56
4.00 0.95 0.81
2.20 0.95
0.90
3.00
1.98 2.04
0.51
1.94 1.88
2.00
1.68 0.59 0.55

1.00 0.58 0.55
0.56 0.59
0.23 0.22
0.56 0.50 0.52 0.49 0.48
0.00
Norway Argentina USA Qatar Saudi Arabia
(Oslo) (Buenos Aires) (Houston) (Doha) (Jeddah)
LCOH-CAPEX LCOH-OPEX(NG) LCOH-OPEX (Other) Export- CAPEX

Export- OPEX Transport- OPEX Import- CAPEX Import- OPEX

June 2022
Vertical economies of scale with the supply chain leads to reduced LCOH with increasing supply chain
capacity as can be seen in Error! Reference source not found. and Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.3 - LH2 LCOH Comparison for Varying Export Locations, 250 kTPA & 1,000 kTPA
Delivered Hydrogen
8.00
7.00
1.52
6.00 1.51 1.51 1.51
0.14
1.00 1.50
5.00 0.74 0.99 0.59
0.14 1.00 0.80 0.99
2.93 0.56 0.99
4.00 0.74 0.59
2.05 0.80
0.56
3.00 2.94 2.84
2.90 2.78
2.14 2.03
2.00 2.12 2.02
2.75 2.51
1.00 1.64 1.66
1.45 1.44 1.31 1.11 1.25 1.06
0.00
Oslo, Oslo, Buenos Buenos Houston, Houston, Doha, Doha, Jeddah, Jeddah,
Norway Norway Aires, Aires, US US Qatar Qatar Saudi Saudi
(250KTA) (1,000KTA) Argentina Argentina (250KTA) (1,000KTA) (250KTA) (1,000KTA) Arabia Arabia
(250KTA) (1,000KTA) (250KTA) (1,000KTA)
Figure 3.4 – LH2 LCOH Comparison for Varying Export Locations, 10,000 kTPA Delivered
Hydrogen
4.50
4.00 0.50
3.50 0.14 0.50
0.50 0.50
3.00 1.20 0.74 0.50
0.59 0.80
2.50 0.56
2.00 1.37 1.23
1.50 1.36 1.29
1.00 2.28
0.50 1.25 1.24

0.93 0.88
0.00
(10,000KTA) Argentina (10,000KTA) (10,000KTA) Arabia
(10,000KTA) (10,000KTA)

June 2022
3.3 Step 3 - Export Location Specific Scenarios, MCH
Step 3 repeats the analysis performed in Step 2 but using MCH as the hydrogen carrier, based on the
selected shipping speed from Step 1. It compares the LCOH based on import from various export terminal
locations (Jeddah, Oslo, Houston, Buenos Aires, and Doha), and also looks at alternative supply chain
sizes (250 kTPA in 2030, increasing to 1,000 kTPA in 2040 and 10,000 kTPA in 2050).
Utilising MCH as a hydrogen carrier yields a similar indicative LCOH trend between export locations as
shown in Table 3.3, with Saudi Arabia being the lowest LCOH for delivered hydrogen using MCH as the
hydrogen carrier in the 250, 1,000 and 10,000 kTPA scenarios at 5.41, 4.42 and 3.46 USD/kg H2 delivered
respectively.
The same location specific contributing factors such a labour rates, productivity factors, sailing distance to
Rotterdam and importantly, natural gas price, lead Saudi Arabia to be the lowest export location when
utilising MCH as a hydrogen carrier.
The export CAPEX includes the costs associated with hydrogen production, hydrogenation, storage and
export jetty.
Table 3.3 – Definition of Overall Supply Chain for MCH Import
Production Supply Chain

Supply
LCOH Export
Capacity Location
(USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg H2) (MMUSD)
(kTPA)
H2) H2) H2) H2)
18 250 Norway (Oslo) 0.88 4.12 2.35 0.77 8.12 2,901
19 250 USA (Houston) 0.76 1.93 2.17 1.11 5.97 2,501
Argentina
20 250 0.72 1.89 2.11 1.21 5.93 2,376
(Buenos Aires)
21 250 Qatar (Doha) 0.71 1.36 2.10 1.41 5.58 2,351
Saudi Arabia
22 250 0.71 1.35 2.10 1.25 5.41 2,351
(Jeddah)
23 1,000 Norway (Oslo) 0.58 4.05 1.67 0.66 6.96 8,790
24 1,000 USA (Houston) 0.50 1.88 1.54 1.01 4.93 7,577
Argentina
25 1,000 0.47 1.85 1.49 1.12 4.93 7,198
(Buenos Aires)
26 1,000 Qatar (Doha) 0.47 1.32 1.48 1.31 4.59 7,123
Saudi Arabia
27 1,000 0.47 1.31 1.48 1.15 4.42 7,123
(Jeddah)
28 10,000 Norway (Oslo) 0.29 3.98 1.01 0.56 5.85 60,671
29 10,000 USA (Houston) 0.25 1.83 0.92 0.92 3.92 52,302

June 2022
Supply
LCOH Export
Capacity Location
(USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg H2) (MMUSD)
(kTPA)
H2) H2) H2) H2)
Argentina
30 10,000 0.24 1.81 0.89 1.03 3.96 49,687
(Buenos Aires)
31 10,000 Qatar (Doha) 0.23 1.28 0.89 1.23 3.63 49,164
Saudi Arabia
32 10,000 0.23 1.28 0.89 1.06 3.46 49,164
(Jeddah)
For MCH, the hydrogen gas production requirement is increased compared to other carrier supply chains,
primarily due to the dehydrogenation process at the import facility which requires significant heat input and
consumes about 42% of the hydrogen produced (or 52% assuming 80% heating efficiency). Increased
hydrogen production requirement leads to an uplift in natural gas requirements, resulting in an increased
effect of natural gas pricing in the overall LCOH between locations as shown in Figure 3.5 and
Figure 3.5Figure 3.6
Figure 3.5 – MCH LCOH Comparison for Varying Export Locations, 250 kTPA Delivered Hydrogen
9.00
8.00
1.35
7.00
0.16
6.00
1.61
1.35 1.35
5.00 1.35 1.35
0.52 0.63
4.00 0.83 0.67
1.41 1.35
3.00
1.33 1.33
5.00
2.00
2.69 2.60
1.00 2.07 2.06
0.00
Oslo, Norway Houston, US Buenos Aires, Doha, Qatar Jeddah, Saudi
(250KTA) (250KTA) Argentina (250KTA) Arabia (250KTA)
(250KTA)
A further breakdown according to the constituent values that make up the levelised cost for production,
export, transport and import is shown in Figure 3.6.

June 2022
Figure 3.6 – MCH LCOH Breakdown for Varying Export Location, 250 kTPA Delivered Hydrogen
9.00
8.00 0.31
1.04
7.00
0.16
0.30
6.00 0.31
1.31 0.31
0.31 0.31
5.00 1.04 1.04
1.04 1.04
0.92 0.52 0.63
4.00 0.28 0.27 0.83 0.67
1.13 1.08 0.27 0.27
3.00
3.21 1.06 1.06
0.91 0.96
2.00
0.96 0.96
1.02 0.93
1.00 0.39 0.39
0.88 0.76 0.72 0.71 0.71
0.00
Norway (Oslo) USA (Houston) Argentina (Buenos Qatar (Doha) Saudi Arabia
Aires) (Jeddah)


June 2022
3.4 Step 4 - Export Location Specific Scenarios, Uncracked Ammonia
Step 4 repeats the analysis performed in Steps 2 and 3, but it uses ammonia as a carrier, based on the
selected shipping speed from Step 1. It also assumes that ammonia is used directly in end uses such as
ammonia bunkering, power generation and marine engines, rather than being cracked to hydrogen.
It compares the LCOH based on import from various export terminal locations (Jeddah, Oslo, Houston,
Buenos Aires, and Doha) and looks at alternative supply chain sizes (250, 1,000 & 10,000 kTPA
corresponding to 2030, 2040 & 2050).
Utilising uncracked ammonia results in Saudi Arabia having the lowest LCOH for delivered hydrogen in the
250, 1,000 and 10,000 kTPA scenarios at 2.16, 1.72 and 1.33 USD/kg H2 delivered respectively. However,
we caution use of these LCOH values as ammonia is delivered as the end product and not hydrogen. In
practice, the cost metric used would be levelised cost of ammonia delivered which will be a multiple of about
0.176x LCOH. However, for the sake of standardisation, LCOH has been used in this report.
The export CAPEX includes the costs associated with hydrogen production, ammonia synthesis, storage
and export jetty.
Table 3.4 – Definition of Overall Supply Chain for Uncracked Ammonia Imports

LCOH Export
Capacity Export
Scenario LCOH-C LCOH-O LCOH-C LCOH-O CAPEX
(USD/kg
(kTPA) Location (USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg (USD/kg
H2) (MMUSD)
H2) H2) H2) H2)
Norway
33 250 0.53 2.06 0.59 0.26 3.45 967
(Oslo)
USA
34 250 0.48 1.03 0.55 0.41 2.46 867
(Houston)
Argentina
35 250 (Buenos 0.46 1.01 0.54 0.50 2.50 833
Aires)
Qatar
36 250 0.45 0.73 0.53 0.56 2.27 821
(Doha)
Saudi Arabia
37 250 0.44 0.71 0.52 0.49 2.16 806
(Jeddah)
Norway
38 1,000 0.35 2.01 0.39 0.23 2.98 2,553
(Oslo)
USA
39 1,000 0.32 0.99 0.36 0.33 2.00 2,287
(Houston)
Argentina
40 1,000 (Buenos 0.30 0.99 0.35 0.41 2.05 2,198
Aires)

June 2022
LCOH Export
Capacity Export
(USD/kg
H2) (MMUSD)
H2) H2) H2) H2)
Qatar
41 1,000 0.30 0.70 0.35 0.45 1.80 2,166
(Doha)
Saudi Arabia
42 1,000 0.29 0.68 0.34 0.40 1.72 2,127
(Jeddah)
Norway
43 10,000 0.18 1.97 0.20 0.20 2.54 12,794
(Oslo)
USA
44 10,000 0.16 0.96 0.18 0.29 1.59 11,462
(Houston)
Argentina
45 10,000 (Buenos 0.15 0.96 0.18 0.36 1.65 11,018
Aires)
Qatar
46 10,000 0.15 0.68 0.18 0.39 1.39 10,855
(Doha)
Saudi Arabia
47 10,000 0.15 0.66 0.17 0.35 1.33 10,660
(Jeddah)
As per MCH and LH2 export location comparisons, the same location specific contributing factors, including
labour rates, productivity factors, sailing distance to Rotterdam and, more importantly, natural gas feedstock
price, lead Saudi Arabia to be the lowest export location when utilising NH3 as a hydrogen carrier with a
production and export CAPEX of $806 million for a supply chain of 250 kTPA.
When utilising NH3 as a hydrogen carrier, and consuming NH3 at the end user without the cracking
requirement, this leads to lower cost contribution for the export and import facilities, and results in the
production component of LCOH to be larger than the export, transport and import contributions combined
as shown in Figure 3.7.

June 2022
Figure 3.7 – Uncracked NH3 LCOH Comparison for Varying Export Locations, 250 kTPA Delivered
Hydrogen
4.00
3.50
0.16
0.06
3.00 0.63
2.50 0.17
0.17
0.19 0.23 0.17
2.00 0.17
0.29 0.23
0.60 0.63
1.50 0.63 0.61
2.59
1.00
1.51 1.47
0.50 1.18 1.15
0.00
(250KTA) (250KTA) Argentina (250KTA) (250KTA) Arabia (250KTA)
export, transport, and import is shown in Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8 – Ammonia LCOH Breakdown for Varying Export Location, 250 kTPA Delivered
Hydrogen
4.00
3.50 0.02
0.14
0.06
0.18
3.00
0.45
2.50 0.02 0.02
0.15
0.48 0.15 0.02
0.19 0.23 0.15 0.02
2.00 0.20 0.25 0.15
0.29 0.23
0.40 0.39 0.25 0.24
1.50
1.58 0.38 0.37
0.49 0.52
1.00 0.52 0.50
0.53 0.49
0.50 0.21 0.20
0.53 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.44
0.00
Aires) (Jeddah)


June 2022
The LCOH in 2050, based on an assumed demand of 10,000 kTPA and with a larger ammonia ship size
(175k m3, compared to 80 and 130k m3 considered for 250 and 1,000 kTPA cases) based on scale-up of
the value chain is shown in cases 43-47 for the various export locations. Considerable economies of scale
can be achieved with increased overall supply chain capacity of 10,000 kTPA as shown in Figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9 – NH3 LCOH Comparison for Varying Export Locations, 10,000 kTPA Delivered
Hydrogen
3.00
2.50 0.05
0.06
0.29
2.00
0.06 0.06
1.50 0.14 0.12
0.06
0.34 0.30 0.17 0.05
0.14
1.00 2.15
0.34 0.33
0.50 1.11 1.12

0.83 0.81
0.00
(10,000KTA) Argentina (10,000KTA) (10,000KTA) Arabia
(10,000KTA) (10,000KTA)

June 2022
3.5 Step 5 - Export Location Specific Scenarios, Cracked Ammonia
Step 5 repeats the analysis performed in Step 4 including the additional processing step of ammonia
cracking / hydrogen liberation from the carrier at the import location.
It compares the LCOH based on import to Rotterdam from various export terminal locations (Jeddah, Oslo,
Houston, Buenos Aires, and Doha), and looks at alternative supply chain sizes (250 kTPA in 2030,
increasing to 1,000 kTPA in 2040 and then to 10,000 kTPA in 2050) – see Table 3.5.
The export CAPEX includes the costs associated with hydrogen production, ammonia synthesis, storage
and export jetty.
As per MCH and LH2 export location comparisons, same location specific contributing factors, including
labour rates, productivity factors, sailing distance to Rotterdam and, more importantly, natural gas price,
lead Saudi Arabia (see Figure 3.10) to be the lowest export location when utilising NH3 as a hydrogen
carrier including cracking at the import terminal, with a production and export CAPEX of $999 million for a
supply chain of 250 kTPA. Saudi Arabia results in an LCOH of 3.25, 2.57 & 1.96 USD/ kg H2 for 250, 1,000
& 10,000 kTPA of Hydrogen delivered respectively.
This is higher compared to the uncracked NH3 supply chain due to the cracking process requiring additional
parasitic hydrogen demand. Hydrogen demand is accounted for in the hydrogen production and export
overall mass balance.
Additional CAPEX and OPEX for the cracking processes and additional losses also contribute to the higher
import LCOH contribution, increasing the overall LCOH.
Table 3.5 – Definition of Overall Supply Chain for Ammonia Imports, Cracked at Import

LCOH Export
Capacity Export
(USD/kg
H2) (MMUSD)
H2) H2) H2) H2)
48 250 Norway (Oslo) 0.66 2.75 1.05 0.45 4.90 1,188
USA
49 250 0.60 1.39 1.02 0.67 3.67 1,079
(Houston)
Argentina
50 250 (Buenos 0.57 1.38 1.01 0.79 3.76 1,042
Aires)
51 250 Qatar (Doha) 0.57 0.99 1.00 0.88 3.44 1,024
Saudi Arabia
52 250 0.55 0.95 0.98 0.77 3.25 999
(Jeddah)
53 1,000 Norway (Oslo) 0.43 2.69 0.69 0.40 4.21 3,135
USA
54 1,000 0.39 1.34 0.67 0.55 2.97 2,847
(Houston)

June 2022
LCOH Export
Capacity Export
(USD/kg
H2) (MMUSD)
H2) H2) H2) H2)
Argentina
55 1,000 (Buenos 0.38 1.35 0.67 0.66 3.06 2,749
Aires)
56 1,000 Qatar (Doha) 0.37 0.96 0.66 0.72 2.71 2,703
Saudi Arabia
57 1,000 0.36 0.92 0.64 0.64 2.57 2,636
(Jeddah)
58 10,000 Norway (Oslo) 0.22 2.64 0.35 0.35 3.55 15,712
USA
59 10,000 0.20 1.30 0.34 0.48 2.32 14,266
(Houston)
Argentina
60 10,000 (Buenos 0.19 1.32 0.33 0.58 2.43 13,776
Aires)
61 10,000 Qatar (Doha) 0.19 0.93 0.33 0.62 2.07 13,547
Saudi Arabia
62 10,000 0.18 0.89 0.32 0.56 1.96 13,212
(Jeddah)
Figure 3.10 – Cracked NH3 LCOH Comparison for Varying Export Locations, 250 kTPA Delivered
Hydrogen
6.00
5.00
0.63
0.09
4.00
0.78
0.66 0.67
3.00 0.67
0.26 0.31 0.65
0.40 0.31
0.77 0.82
2.00 0.81 0.78
3.40
1.00 1.99 1.96

1.56 1.50
0.00
(250KTA) (250KTA) Argentina (250KTA) (250KTA) Arabia (250KTA)

June 2022
export, transport, and import is shown in Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11 – Cracked NH3 LCOH Breakdown for Varying Export Location, 250 kTPA Delivered
Hydrogen
6.00
5.00
0.14
0.49
0.09
4.00 0.23
0.55 0.14 0.15
0.52 0.53 0.14
0.63 0.14
3.00 0.26 0.31 0.53
0.51
0.27 0.33 0.40 0.31
0.50 0.48 0.34 0.32
2.00
2.12 0.48 0.46
0.66 0.71
0.70 0.68
1.00 0.73 0.67
0.28 0.27
0.66 0.60 0.57 0.57 0.55
0.00
Aires) (Jeddah)
Following this initial comparison between the various carriers, a comparison on emissions has also been
carried out which are described in Section Error! Reference source not found..
3.6 Hydrogen Import by Pipeline
This scenario compares the marine import of hydrogen, using various carriers, with the costs of hydrogen
import by pipeline into Rotterdam from locations including Russia (Yamal), Norway and Algeria, which
allows a comparison to be made with marine import options. The onshore pipeline sizing was carried out
using PIPESIM, with hydrogen inlet pressures of 80 barg, typical of existing European gas transmission
infrastructure, and installation of compression stations where the outlet pressure dropped below 40 barg.
Line sizes were set so that compressor stations were included every ~100 km. CAPEX and OPEX estimates
for the hydrogen pipelines and booster compressor stations were calculated using IHS Que$tor software
(2021 Q1). OPEX costs include imported electric power for pipeline compressor stations, rather than self-
consumption of hydrogen in gas turbine (GT) drivers, using Que$tor default values of USD 80/MWhr.
Compressor stations were sized based on an n+1 sparing philosophy and limiting the maximum motor size
for each compressor to ~50 MW. This is a significant portion of the onshore OPEX for pipeline
transportation.

June 2022
The offshore pipeline cases from Norway and Algeria have been sized to avoid the requirement for subsea
compression, necessitating the need for higher pressure, thick-walled pipelines (~200 barg). In the case of
the subsea pipeline from Algeria to Spain, the water depth, in excess of 2,100 m, will also impact the wall
thickness. The scenarios considered are summarised below.
Table 3.6 – Hydrogen Cost Stack for Hydrogen Delivery by Pipeline
Production Pipeline
Capacity Total LCOH Total
Export CAPEX
Scenario LCOH-C LCOH-O LCOH-C LCOH-O
Location
(MMUSD)
(kTPA) ($/kg H2) ($/kg H2) ($/kg H2) ($/kg H2) ($/kg H2)
Russia
63 250 0.55 0.79 1.83 2.79 5.96 5,607
(Yamal)
Norway
64 250 0.53 2.04 0.14 0.35 3.05 694
(Oslo)
65 250 Algeria 0.43 0.58 1.04 1.64 3.70 3,307
Russia
66 1000 0.36 0.76 1.49 1.38 3.99 11,074
(Yamal)
Norway
67 1000 0.35 1.99 0.09 0.15 2.58 1,200
(Oslo)
68 1000 Algeria 0.29 0.56 0.84 0.80 2.49 6,450
Russia
69 10000 0.18 0.73 1.41 0.60 2.93 48,428
(Yamal)
Norway
70 10000 0.18 1.95 0.07 0.05 2.25 4,118
(Oslo)
71 10000 Algeria 0.14 0.54 0.79 0.34 1.82 27,691
In the above table, the 250kTPA case is delivered via a 14”NB onshore / 12” NB offshore hydrogen pipeline
while the 1,000kTPA and 10,000kTPA cases are delivered via 24”NB onshore / 22”NB offshore and 56”NB
onshore / 54”NB offshore hydrogen pipelines respectively.
According to Hydrogen Council and McKinsey & Company (2021), CAPEX for onshore transmission
networks including compression ranges between $2.2-4.5 million per km for newly built hydrogen pipelines.
Our initial modelling indicates higher values of $1.37-11.8 million per km, which covers 14-56" line sizes
[6].
When utilising pipeline transport, there is not only the reduced need for hydrogen carrier production,
storage, transport and liberation at import, there is also a reduced hydrogen capacity requirement as the
additional self-consumption throughout the supply is minimal / reduced. Figure 3.12 demonstrates that
although Norway has significantly greater LCOH for the production of low-carbon hydrogen owing primarily
to higher natural gas pricing, the considerably shorter pipeline distance to Rotterdam versus Russia (Yamal)
or Algeria, gives it the lowest LCOH in 2030. With larger hydrogen volumes in 2040 and 2050, the pipeline
costings see a large decline due to the reverse square relationship of pipeline diameter to cross-sectional
area, implying that a larger throughput and a wider pipeline result in cheaper cost hydrogen throughput
volume. This relationship, in addition to the lower price of natural gas, results in Algeria being the lowest
LCOH for piped hydrogen imports into Rotterdam for 2040 and 2050.

June 2022
Figure 3.12 –Hydrogen Import via Pipeline
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050
Russia Norway Algeria
Production Pipeline
Comparing the cheapest marine export location and carriers for the 2030-2050 modelled cases (Saudi
Arabia cracked ammonia), as shown in Figure 3.13, shows that locally produced low-carbon gaseous
hydrogen piped from its export location has a lower LCOH compared to marine import for 2030 and 2050.
Figure 3.13 – Cheapest H2 via Pipeline vs Cheapest Marine Import
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
KSA (2030) KSA (2040) KSA (2050) Norway Algeria Algeria
(2030) (2040) (2050)
Ammonia (cracked) Pipeline

June 2022
4.0 CARBON EMISSIONS COMPARISONS
Across the supply chain, except for natural gas production and delivery which are not considered here,
there is only one main carbon dioxide emission source, being the residual emissions not captured from the
ATR hydrogen production process (97% capture rate). Additionally, for the MCH carrier, emissions are
produced via the burning of LNG for marine fuel. The supply chains have been modelled to self-consume
hydrogen throughout the value chain for heat duty where required, leaving no additional point sources of
carbon emissions, with the additional required capacity of hydrogen generation factored into the supply
chain mass balances. It has also been assumed that clean electricity is bought over the fence from an
external provider, with no net emissions. Figure 4.1 highlights that amongst the liberated hydrogen supply
chains, LH2 results in the lowest CO2 emissions with 85 kTPA CO2 released for the 250 kTPA H2 delivered
case, equivalent to a carbon intensity of 0.34 kg of CO2/kg H2 delivered (0.28 kg of CO2/ kg H2 produced).
However, if ammonia is used directly at the final destination, without the need for hydrogen liberation /
ammonia cracking at the import terminal, then it is the least carbon intensive hydrogen carrier. Owing to
both a large volume of hydrogen required to account for the supply chain carrier production and hydrogen
liberation from MCH, as well as the LNG consumed by the marine vessels, the MCH carrier has the highest
net carbon emissions at 151 kTPA CO2 with a carbon intensity of 0.6 kg of CO2/kg H2 of hydrogen delivered.
Figure 4.1 – HGP CO2 Emissions, 250 kTPA Delivered Hydrogen from Saudi Arabia
160 0.64
120 0.48
(kg CO2/ kg H2 Delivered)

80 0.32
40 0.16
0 0.00
MCH NH3 (Cracked) LH2 NH3

June 2022
For LH2 and NH3, which utilises self-consumption of the carrier for marine fuel, carbon emissions do not
vary greatly across export locations as shown in Figure 4.2. The little difference is due to the shrinkage
caused by cargo consumption, which leads to additional hydrogen production required (and related net
emissions from production) for marine fuel consumption. This is a function of the distance travelled from
each location to Rotterdam. For the LH2 250 kTPA case, there is an 11 kTPA (13%) difference in carbon
emissions between Argentina (with the largest emissions) and Norway (with the least emissions).
Figure 4.2 – LH2 HGP CO2 Emissions, 250 kTPA Delivered Hydrogen
105 0.42
(kg CO2/ kg H2 delivered)

70 0.28
35 0.14
0 0.00
Argentina Qatar USA Saudi Arabia Norway
(Buenos Aires) (Doha) (Houston) (Jeddah) (Oslo)
A larger difference in supply chain emissions is seen when using MCH as a carrier, due to the consumption
of LNG as a marine fuel. No carbon abatement is assumed when utilising LNG as a marine fuel and carbon
emissions associated with transport of the MCH carrier outweigh the emissions from hydrogen and carrier
production, as shown below in Figure 4.3.

June 2022
Figure 4.3 – MCH Supply Chain CO2 Emissions, 250 kTPA Delivered Hydrogen
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Argentina Qatar USA Saudi Arabia Norway
(Buenos Aires) (Doha) (Houston) (Jeddah) (Oslo)
H2 Production Shipping
Carbon emissions for the alternative hydrogen pipeline options have not been evaluated as part of this
study. Our cost estimating has been carried out on the basis of motor-driven compression, with power
import from the local grids in Russia, Northern and Southern Europe respectively. The carbon intensity of
imported electrical power is also not considered in analysis of the pipeline cases.

June 2022
5.0 HYDROGEN CARRIER KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
An overview of the three hydrogen carriers examined in the study is presented in Table 5.1. This
comparison is based on a supply chain delivering 250 kTPA of liberated hydrogen in the Port of Rotterdam,
produced and exported from Saudi Arabia.
Throughout this section, primary comparisons are made between the three hydrogen carriers LH2, MCH,
and cracked NH3. Uncracked NH3 information is also provided to highlight the corresponding differences
between costing when utilising ammonia directly at the import location, versus as a hydrogen carrier.
Liquefied hydrogen is shown to have the highest LCOH between the main carriers, owing to large CAPEX
requirements for liquefaction equipment and cryogenic storage facilities both at the import and export
terminal. Cracked ammonia is shown to be the cheapest LCOH hydrogen carrier providing liberated
hydrogen in the Port of Rotterdam, owing to its reduced OPEX requirement for dehydrogenation at the
import terminal compared to MCH and lower CAPEX requirement compared to other carriers.
Table 5.1 – Hydrogen Carrier Performance Overview
Units of
NH3
Measure LH2 MCH NH3
(Cracked)
(UoM)
Case No. 2 22 37 52
Hydrogen Delivered to Export
kTPA 303 538 276 375
Terminal1
Hydrogen Production CAPEX USD MM 1120 1674 1048 1299
Hydrogenation / Liquefaction
USD MM 2020 1218 521 646
CAPEX
Toluene First Fill USD MM - 675 - -
Export Terminal & Storage
USD MM 2023 458 285 353
CAPEX
Import Terminal & Storage
USD MM 1955 507 315 391
CAPEX
Dehydrogenation /
USD MM 777 1727 - 715
Regasification CAPEX
Overall Value Chain CAPEX USD MM 7896 6258 2169 3404
Annual OPEX
USD MM 193 337 176 237
(Hydrogen Production)
Annual OPEX
USD MM 424 312 122 193
(Rest of Supply Chain)
Indicative Value Chain USD/kg
6.09 5.41 2.16 3.25
LCOH H2 Delivered
Notes:
production is to account for additional hydrogen / ammonia used for process heating, shipping fuel or general supply chain
losses.
3. The CAPEX values include owners’ costs of 15% and contingency of 20%. No owners’ costs are applied to first fill.

June 2022
OPEX for LH2 is expectedly higher than for the other carriers due to the substantial power demand for
hydrogen liquefaction and handling, in addition to higher shipping costs due to the low density of liquefied
hydrogen.
OPEX is also high for MCH because of the higher natural gas cost associated with incremental hydrogen
production required to fuel the MCH dehydrogenation, and cost of LNG as shipping fuel required to transport
significant volumes of MCH / Toluene due to their low hydrogen carrying capacity (6.2% wt).
As a hydrogen carrier, ammonia with cracking to H2 is preferred on an LCOH basis, reflected by the lowest
overall value chain CAPEX and OPEX and moderate HGP size. MCH ranks lower than ammonia, when
dehydrated to generate H2, with both hydrogen carrier pathways still to undergo technology development
and commercialisation.
Figure 5.1 below gives a comparison breakdown of the % CAPEX for the four hydrogen carrier supply
chains for 250 kTPA of hydrogen delivered from Saudi Arabia.
Figure 5.1 – CAPEX Breakdown Comparison
LH2 MCH
Regasification Hydrogen
10% Production Dehydrogenation
28% Hydrogen
14%
Production
27%
Import
Terminal & Liquefaction
Storage 25%
25%
Import Terminal
& Storage
8% Hydrogenation
19%
Export Terminal & Export Terminal &
Storage Storage
26% First Fill
7%
11%
Ammonia Ammonia (Cracked)

Import Terminal
& Storage Cracking/
15% Dehydrogenation
21%
Hydrogen
Production
Export Terminal 38%
& Storage Hydrogen
13% Production Import Terminal
48% & Storage
12%
Export Terminal &

Synthesis/ Storage
Hydrogenation 10% Synthesis/
24% Hydrogenation
19%

June 2022
The breakdown of each CAPEX section includes the following:
• Hydrogen Production: Hydrogen Generation Plant including carbon capture and compression;
• Hydrogenation / Ammonia Synthesis / Liquefaction: Carrier production & synthesis;
• Export Terminal & Storage: Export storage facilities and export jetty;
• Import Terminal & Storage: Import jetty and storage facilities; and
• Dehydrogenation: Related equipment for regasification / liberation of hydrogen at the import
facility.
5.1 HGP Performance

The purpose of this section is to present the impact of hydrogen carrier selection on HGP scale, CAPEX
and performance. Due to the benefits of ATR over SMR highlighted later in this section, ATR technology
has been selected. Maintaining the HGP and associated technologies consistently across the three carriers
allows for any differences to be attributed only to the carrier options. A simplified Block Flow Diagram (BFD)
of the ATR process from Haldor Topsoe is shown in Figure 5.2 below as an example. ATR technology from
other vendors may differ in some respects.
Figure 5.2 – Hydrogen Generation using ATR (Haldor Topsøe SynCORTM)
The HGP comparison is presented in Table 5.2. The following observations are concluded from the
summarised data:
• LH2 as a carrier requires the least hydrogen production to satisfy the 250 kTPA liberated hydrogen
target at the import terminal. This contributes to the lowest hydrogen production CAPEX, natural
gas consumption and CO2 emissions. However, it also requires significant CAPEX for liquefaction
at the export terminal and storage at both terminals, resulting in the largest overall supply chain
CAPEX and LCOH.

June 2022
• The MCH case accounts for the highest HGP CAPEX component of the three carriers, primarily
because of the overcapacity of hydrogen generation at the export location to provide the necessary
hydrogen for self-consumption during the import dehydrogenation process which consumes an
estimated 50 MJ/kg H2 processed. That equates to a consumption of 42% of the equivalent LHV
of the hydrogen produced. Finding an alternative, cheaper source of low carbon heat at the import
location can significantly reduce the LCOH for this supply chain.
• Cracked ammonia requires a larger HGP than ammonia or LH2. The higher hydrogen production
is driven by the substantial hydrogen consumption at the import terminal cracking step, at an
estimated heat requirement of 23 MJ/kg H2 processed.
• The specific HGP CAPEX per kTPA of hydrogen is calculated by dividing the HGP CAPEX
component by the hydrogen production rate from the HGP. The LH2 carrier has the highest specific
HGP CAPEX per kTPA of hydrogen. The MCH carrier has a lower specific CAPEX per kTPA of
hydrogen compared to both cracked and uncracked NH3. This indicates that there is an economy
of scale advantage in running a larger HGP.
Table 5.2 – HGP Comparison per Carrier
NH3
UoM LH2 MCH NH3
(Cracked)
Hydrogen Delivered
kTPA 303 538 276 375
to HGP BL1
Hydrogen
USD MM 1120 1674 1048 1299
Generation CAPEX
Specific HGP
USD MM/kTPA
CAPEX per kTPA 3.70 3.11 3.80 3.46
H2
Hydrogen Produced
HGP Power Import MWh/t H2 3.53 3.53 3.53 3.53
HGP Natural Gas
t/t H2 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09
Consumption
Net HGP CO2
kTPA 85 151 77 105
Emissions
Notes:
1. Net HGP hydrogen production required to meet 250 kTPA hydrogen availability at point of consumption.
5.2 Supply Chain Power / Heat Requirement Comparison

Power and heat requirements summary for the three hydrogen carriers is given in Table 5.3. It is assumed
that electricity will be bought over the fence from a nearby clean energy production facility. The following
observations are concluded from the summarised data:
• MCH has the highest supply chain heat requirement due to the amount of energy required to
liberate hydrogen. In this report, it is considered that this energy will come from hydrogen itself.
However, other alternatives can be used such as natural gas which will provide a lower OPEX,
albeit at the cost of higher carbon emissions.

June 2022
• The LH2 case results in the largest power requirement due to the hydrogen liquefaction process
which consumes up to 361 MW of power primarily from compression and refrigeration.
• For the ammonia case, heat for dehydrogenation and power for synthesis (driven mainly by
compressor duty) require a moderate amount of energy input.
Table 5.3 – Supply Chain Power / Heat Summary per Carrier
NH3
UoM LH2 MCH NH3
(Cracked)
Hydrogen Produced kTPA 303 538 276 375
Hydrogenation Power MJ/kg H2 36 1.8 13.5 13.5
Hydrogenation Power MW 361 32 123 167
Hydrogenation Heat MJ/kg H2 - - -
Dehydrogenation Power MJ/kg H2 0.5 7.2 - 4.3
Dehydrogenation Power MW 5 128 53
Dehydrogenation Heat MJ/kg H2 - 51.2 - 23
5.3 Carrier Production & Export Terminal Comparison

The export terminal comparison for the three hydrogen carriers is given in Table 5.4. The following
• Export terminal CAPEX is purely driven by the hydrogen carrier chosen. CAPEX is low for
ammonia in which a smaller export terminal facility is required due to lower refrigeration
requirements compared to LH2. CAPEX is higher for MCH compared to ammonia, due to the
toluene hydrogenation process and a much larger export terminal facility to cater for both MCH
and toluene storage.
• Although MCH requires a simpler storage solution than ammonia, the total number of storage
tanks is eleven times that for ammonia. This is due not only to the need to store both MCH and
toluene in separate tanks, but also due to the carrier properties which are discussed further in
Section 6.4.
• Export terminal CAPEX is higher for LH2 as expected because of the high-cost of hydrogen
liquefaction, storage, boil-off handling and loading facilities.
Table 5.4 – Export Terminal Comparison

NH3
UoM LH2 MCH NH3
(Cracked)
Storage Vessel
m3/vessel 4,000 40,000 50,000 65,000
Physical Volume

June 2022
NH3
UoM LH2 MCH NH3
(Cracked)
Net Storage
% 90% 95% 90% 90%
Capacity per Vessel
MCH:
Total Storage 225,000
m3 37,000 42,000 58,000
Volume Required
Toluene:
188,000
Number of Storage MCH: 6

No. 9 1 1
Vessels Toluene: 5
Hydrogenation /
USD MM 2020 1218 521 646
Liquefaction CAPEX
First Fill CAPEX USD MM - 675 - -
Export Jetty CAPEX USD MM 129 129 81 100
Export Storage
USD MM 1894 329 204 253
CAPEX
Export Terminal
USD MM 4043 2351 806 999
CAPEX
5.4 Shipping Comparison

Shipping CAPEX comparisons for the three hydrogen carriers is given in Table 5.5. The following
• Shipping OPEX is directly correlated with carrier choice. Though the operating costs of delivering
MCH are low, a fleet of 85,000 m3 vessels will require significantly more voyages due to the
additional hydrogen production needed at the import terminal for dehydrogenation and low
hydrogen carrying capacity of MCH compared to its peers. This correlates to higher shipping /
freight costs than ammonia, per ton of hydrogen transported. Also, the freight rate takes into
account the additional cost of LNG as a shipping fuel, while the other carriers do not as their
respective cargoes are consumed.
• Ammonia has a fleet of smaller, 80,000 m3 carrier vessels. However, the refrigerated nature of
liquid ammonia transportation at circa -33°C drives the fixed and operating costs upwards
compared to a MCH / toluene vessel of similar size. As noted previously, this study assumes future
demand on ammonia marine transport will lead to larger vessel cargo sizes of up to 130,000 m3
and 175,000 m3 in 2040 and 2050, respectively, which results in economies of scale.
• It is assumed that LH2 will have similar parcel sizes to LNG as demand increases for marine
transportation. However, LH2 has substantially higher shipping charter rates than MCH or NH3 due
to the much greater technological demand associated with transporting liquid hydrogen at circa -
253°C. Additionally, its variable costs (fuel consumption) is higher due to the lower density of LH2,
which limits how many tonnes of hydrogen is transported on each voyage.

June 2022
Table 5.5 – Marine Vessel CAPEX Comparison
NH3
UoM LH2 MCH NH3
(Cracked)
Hydrogen
kTPA 303 538 276 375
Transported
Cargo Transported kTPA 303 8,670 1,560 2,100
Marine Vessel
m3 128,000 85,000 80,622 80,622
Parcel Size
Monthly Charter
USD/month 3,100,000 783,000 990,000 990,000
Rate1
Number of Marine
No./yr 3 11 2.5 3.3
Vessels
Total Fuel kTPA H2
21,800 - 12,100 16,400
Consumption equivalent
Total Supply Chain
% 10% 2% 5% 5%
Losses2
Marine Fuel
kTPA LNG - 134 - -
Consumption LNG
Marine Vessel Fuel Type Hydrogen LNG Ammonia Ammonia
$/MT H2
Freight Costs3 462 429 210 210
Transported
Notes:
1. Charter rates are based on KBR internal estimates – which is a factor of the marine vessel capital cost and historical rates.
Due to lack of available data for large hydrogen carriers, a 160,000 m3 LNG vessel is used with a 20% reduction in capacity
and 20% uplift in capital costs due to increased insulation and handling of a fluid at more extreme temperature/ pressure.
2. Supply chain losses refer to both outbound and inbound legs, including losses due to loading / unloading, spillage etc.
3. Freight costs do not include the cost of fuel for LH2 and NH3 as its own cargo is consumed, with the additional hydrogen
production cost accounted for in the levelised cost of hydrogen delivered. Port and Suez Canal charges also estimated to
calculate freight rates.
5.5 Import Terminal Comparison

Import terminal CAPEX comparison is shown in Table 5.6. The following observations are concluded from
the summarised data:
• Import terminal CAPEX is the greatest for the liquefied hydrogen carrier owing to the requirement
for expensive cryogenic hydrogen storage vessels and cryogenic offloading equipment and piping.
• Storage of toluene and MCH is relatively simple and low-cost; however, the dehydrogenation step
carries a high CAPEX of close to USD 1.7 billion alone. KBR Consulting sees opportunity to reduce
such high, emerging CAPEX items as the individual technologies continue to undergo
development and evolution.

June 2022
Similarly, ammonia storage is relatively simple and low-cost compared with storage of liquid
hydrogen; however, the cracking step also carries a high CAPEX of close to USD 0.7 billion.
Although MCH requires a much simpler storage solution compared to ammonia, the total storage
volume required is about four times that required for ammonia.
Table 5.6 – Import Terminal CAPEX Comparison

NH3
UoM LH2 MCH NH3
(Cracked)
Storage Vessel Physical Volume m3/vessel 4,000 40,000 50,000 65,000
Net Storage Capacity per Vessel % 90% 95% 90% 90%
MCH:
225,000
Total Storage Volume Required m3 30,200 42,000 58,000
Toluene:
188,000
MCH: 6
Number of Storage Vessels No. 8 1 1
Toluene: 5
Import Jetty CAPEX USD MM 125 142 89 111
Import Storage CAPEX USD MM 1,830 364 226 280
Gasification + Liberation CAPEX USD MM 777 1,727 - 715
Import Terminal CAPEX USD MM 2,732 2,234 315 1,105
Notes:
4. The CAPEX values include owners’ costs of 15% and contingency of 20%. No owners’ costs are applied to first fill.
Figure 5.3 below gives a graphical comparison of the breakdown of CAPEX of the import facilities of the
hydrogen carriers. The main CAPEX contributors for MCH and ammonia are dehydrogenation and cracking
processes, respectively, whereas storage dominates the import CAPEX for LH2 carrier.

June 2022
Figure 5.3 – Import Facility CAPEX Breakdown
3000
2500
2000
CAPEX (MMUSD)
1500
1000
500
0
LH2 MCH NH3 NH3 (Cracked)
Import Jetty Import Storage Regasification / Liberation Owner's Cost Contingency
5.6 Carrier Energy Comparison

Energy density comparison for the three hydrogen carriers is given in Table 5.7. The following observations
are concluded from the summarised data:
• The energy data suggests that ammonia is a much more efficient material to store and transport
hydrogen than either MCH or LH2. Ammonia transport infrastructure is better established
compared to its peers, with safety aspects including toxicity well covered in storage, handling and
transportation.
• MCH and its partner, toluene, are also toxic; however, its low volatility and ambient temperature
handling, and its relatively high liquid density make it an ideal material to move around compared
to other carriers.
• The trading of similarly toxic chemicals and transport fuels is performed regularly and poses no
distinct technology or design barrier.
Table 5.7 – Hydrogen Carriers Energy Density Comparison
UoM LH2 NH3 MCH
Carrier Mass Density kg/m3 71 673 770
Net Volumetric Carrier Energy Density MJ H2/m3 8,520 12,652 5,690
Gross Mass Carrier Energy Density MJ H2/t 141,700 24,939 8,728
Net Mass Carrier Energy Density MJ H2/t 120,000 21,120 7,392

June 2022
The downside of MCH is its low energy intensity as a hydrogen carrier, approximately one third of that for
ammonia as a carrier and just over 6% of that for LH2 on a mass basis. Its performance as a hydrogen
carrier on a volumetric basis is approximately less than half of that for ammonia on an energy intensity
basis and approximately two thirds of LH2. This is vitally important because the ease of storing and
transporting materials is primarily driven by volume and not mass.

June 2022
6.0 HYDROGEN CARRIER SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Hydrogen Carrier Introduction
Low-carbon hydrogen produced from natural gas with carbon capture and storage could pivot the
decarbonisation of sectors that utilize hydrogen whether as a feedstock or utility. Despite the plausible
opportunity, the low volumetric density of hydrogen constrains its use as an economically viable energy
vector, even when compressed to high pressures or liquefied. Therefore, it is worth investigating pathways
to chemically store and transport hydrogen.
Selecting the correct hydrogen carrier is critical to the upfront and lifecycle economics of any hydrogen
supply chain project. Each project will have unique differentiators that affect this choice, especially when
considering scale, end-use application, scope for integration and cost of energy at source and destination.
Both ammonia and MCH are gaining traction in the current early stages of project development, while LH2
remains a solution of interest. Each of the hydrogen carrier supply chain models examined in this report
offers zero- or very low-carbon footprint far in advance over existing energy vectors such as coal and LNG.
This study focuses on the supply chain economics, but it is recognised and accepted that each supply chain
will require regulatory, environmental and / or safety assessments at points of export and import.
The rationale for selecting the three carriers included in this study is primarily the associated hydrogen
storage capacity, carbon-free application, technological maturity, cost competitiveness, and readiness of
the technology for deployment.
In the case of LH2, the produced hydrogen is directly liquefied through cryogenic liquefaction to -253°C.
Hydrogen is regasified at the point of consumption, producing high-purity hydrogen. While there are many
technical challenges associated with the handling of such a light, volatile and small molecule, existing and
proven hydrogen facilities (e.g., LH2 for rocket fuelling) demonstrate that these challenges can be safely
managed. The real issues with handling hydrogen are commercial, with excessively high lifecycle costs
associated with hydrogen liquefaction, storage, and transportation at the forecast scales that a global
hydrogen market will dictate.
Losses along the LH2 pathway intrinsic to the utilisation of a cryogenic fluid make it less attractive for
transportation. LH2 is stored in heavily insulated tanks and because the LH2 tanks are not designed to hold
high pressure, hydrogen is allowed to continuously escape through a relief valve, commonly referred to as
“boil-off”. Boil-off requires cryogenic recovery (re-liquefaction in onshore storage facilities) and can
potentially be used as a marine fuel from marine vessel cargo tanks. It is the view of KBR that LH2 carrier
vessels will be hydrogen fuel enabled in the short- to medium-term. The cost of hydrogen liquefaction is
significant, both in terms of energy intensity and equipment complexity. Current hydrogen liquefaction
processes have a relatively low efficiency and consume about one third of the energy contained in the
hydrogen feedstock. It is assumed during this study that power, in the form of electricity required for the
liquefaction process will be purchased over the fence from a clean energy supplier

June 2022
LOHCs are organic substances that store hydrogen by catalytic hydrogenation and dehydrogenation
processes over multiple cycles. The MCH-toluene-hydrogen cycle is deemed favourable for bulk hydrogen
storage and transportation owing to the existence of non-volatile MCH and toluene in the liquid phase at
ambient conditions coupled with low toxicity. Display of similar properties to crude oil-based liquids (e.g.,
diesel, gasoline, and high-aromatic blend components) is convenient for adaptation of existing infrastructure
for handling and storage, including safety considerations.
In the case of an MCH-toluene system, the toluene is hydrogenated with gaseous hydrogen to produce
MCH at the point of export. The MCH is dehydrogenated at the point of import in an endothermic reaction
normally conducted at reaction temperatures higher than 300°C. MCH faces the twin challenges of very
high energy consumption during dehydrogenation and relatively low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) at
scale, although companies such as Chiyoda Corporation have been demonstrating the viability of the
complete MCH-toluene supply chain at pilot scale with the export of hydrogen from Brunei to Japan. MCH
has the lowest hydrogen density compared to LH2 and ammonia and requires larger vessels to transport
the same amount of hydrogen.
Ammonia is another possible chemical hydrogen candidate that is being widely appraised. Ammonia
produced by the Haber-Bosch process is currently one of the world’s most produced and exported
chemicals through its primary role in agricultural fertilisers. Ammonia is a liquid at either 1 bar and -33.6°C
or 8.6 bar and 20°C and, as such, can be stored in Type C pressurised tanks eliminating the need for boil-
off handling and re-liquefaction equipment to be installed. Extensive ammonia production and distribution
infrastructure exists to handle current global ammonia production capacity of 180 MMTPA. There are
special ammonia terminals in 38 ports which export ammonia, and in 88 ports which import ammonia,
including 6 ports which both export and import ammonia. Many terminals are parts of ammonia / fertilizer
plants which are located at the coast of seas or rivers and are equipped for trans-shipment of fertilizers and
ammonia. In addition, 70 ships are capable of carrying ammonia as a cargo, 40 of which do this continually.
Although ammonia production, handling practices and supply chains are mature and well established,
efficient ammonia dehydrogenation (“cracking”) processes which can generate pure hydrogen remain in
their infancy. This is necessary to produce fuel cell grade purity containing less than 0.1 ppm ammonia.
Significant energy input as well as complex reactors are required to liberate hydrogen from ammonia. The
temperature necessary for efficient cracking depends on the catalyst. Supported Ni catalysts require
temperatures above 1000°C. Other catalysts enable conversion efficiency at temperatures in the range 650
– 700°C. A simplified BFD for a large-scale ammonia cracking plant is shown in Figure 6.1.

June 2022
Figure 6.1 – Block Diagram of Large-Scale Ammonia Cracking Plant [9]
Other considerations considered as an impediment in the use of ammonia as a hydrogen carrier include
safety and toxicity issues, both actual and perceived. Hazards concerning ammonia are comparable to
alternative fuels such as gasoline and need to be controlled by a combination of technical and regulatory
measures.
In contrast to MCH, ammonia can be used directly without decomposition in several applications, including
engines, gas turbines and fuel cells. Research continues in this area as the elimination of the expensive,
energy intensive and low-TRL dehydrogenation step will substantially improve the economics of an
ammonia hydrogen carrier supply chain. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) has developed and tested an
ammonia cracking process that integrates with an adjacent power station for the reaction heat required.
The key advantage of such scheme is the efficient recycle of gas turbine waste heat to enable sufficiently
high ammonia decomposition reaction temperature.
Table 6.1 compares the attributes of the three hydrogen carriers evaluated in the study.

June 2022
Table 6.1 – Process Attributes of the Three Alternative Hydrogen Carriers
Attribute LH2 NH3 MCH

Molecular weight 2.016 17.030 98.190
Density (kg/m3) 71 682 769
Boiling point (°C) -252.9 -33.3 101.0
Gravimetric Hydrogen Density
100.00 17.80 6.16
(wt%)
Volumetric Hydrogen Density
7.06 12.10 4.73
(vol%)
Hydrogen Release Temperature
-253 350 – 1,000 200 – 400
(°C)
Regeneration Temperature (°C) N/A 400 – 600 100 – 200
Enthalpy Change (kJ/mol) 0.899 30.6 67.5
Opportunity to utilise
currently available liquefied
Further development and
petroleum gas (LPG) Adaptation of existing
Infrastructure construction needed for
infrastructure and expand gasoline infrastructure.
large scale LH2 supply.
existing ammonia
infrastructure.
Direct combustion is
MCH dehydrogenation
possible, or hydrogen
Utilisation Hydrogen combustion. followed by hydrogen
combustion after
combustion.
decomposition.
Requires very low
temperature (circa -253°C). High temperature heat
High energy requirement source required for MCH
for cooling / liquefaction. Lower reactivity compared dehydrogenation (higher
Liquefaction can consume to hydrocarbons. than 300°C, ~ 2.0 barg).
about 30% of the energy Safety aspects related to The heat required for
imparted by hydrogen. toxicity upon exposure to dehydrogenation is
Challenges LH2 retention difficult for ammonia. equivalent to approximately
long-term storage. 30% of the total hydrogen
Energy intensive
produced.
Requires boil-off control dehydrogenation (~ 13% of
(between 0.4% and 1.0% hydrogen energy) and Large handling
per day in well insulated purification. infrastructure.
tankers and up to 3% per Low catalyst durability
day by truck). (number of cycles).
Higher leak propensity.
Possibility of direct use
without dehydrogenation. Storage in liquid phase
High purity. Potentially the cheapest without cooling.
Requires no energy carrier. Existing chemical
Advantages
dehydrogenation and Well established trading infrastructure can be used
purification. and storage existing for storage.
ammonia infrastructure for Low cycle losses.
storage and regulations.

June 2022
Attribute LH2 NH3 MCH
Bulk ammonia cracking
undergoing Research and
Infrastructure development development (R&D).
Development Stage Demonstration stage.
for large-scale LH2 supply.
Partly has entered
demonstration stage.
Energy efficiency of MCH
dehydrogenation.
Energy efficiency of Energy efficiency during
Areas of Optimisation Catalysts for
liquefaction process. synthesis.
dehydrogenation and
hydrogenation processes.
6.2 Liquid Hydrogen (LH2)

LH2 storage eliminates high-pressure cylinders and tanks, and it is a more compact and energy-dense
solution than compressed, gaseous hydrogen storage.
Hydrogen, when liquefied, is 800 times denser than gaseous hydrogen under normal conditions. It has a
density of 71 kg/m³, making it less hydrogen-dense by volume than ammonia (meaning that a higher volume
of LH2 is required than ammonia to transport the same amount of hydrogen) and more hydrogen-dense
than MCH. LH2 has the additional benefit that its regasification is simpler compared to the liberation
processes of the other carriers and only requires seawater heating for regasification.
6.2.1 General
Hydrogen production is a proven technology although at typically lower capacities than those required for
this project. LH2 liquefaction train sizes are normally very small (~30 tonnes per day (TPD) = 11 kTPA)
owing to the lack of market demand for large quantities of LH2 rather than pure technical limitations. In terms
of TRL, LH2 liquefaction facilities over 200 TPD are classified as demonstrated technology (in a relevant
industrial environment), at TRL 6 (e.g., Air Liquide).
The conventional LH2 liquefaction process involves compression, cooling and expansion. Before
undergoing liquefaction, the purity of hydrogen must be higher than 99.999% to ensure no impurities solidify
during the process.
The boiling point of hydrogen is -253°C and, therefore, an energy-intensive cooling process for liquefaction
is required. The gaseous hydrogen pressure is required to be between 14 and 24 barg before undergoing
multi-stage cooling. Large quantities of hydrogen are typically cooled using the Claude Cycle with a liquid
nitrogen bath and a heat exchanger. Nitrogen cooling can also be supplemented using hydrogen / helium
cooling. The Joule-Thomson expansion process is used in the next stage of cooling. A heat exchanger
reduces the temperature to -233°C and the hydrogen is expanded to low-pressure through a throttling
process.
The throttling process cools the hydrogen to its final temperature of -253°C and it partially liquefies. The
vapour and liquid are separated, and the gas is recycled back into the process, cooling the incoming
hydrogen. Figure 6.2 shows an overview of the hydrogen liquefaction process.

June 2022
Figure 6.2 – Overview of Hydrogen Liquefaction Process
The hydrogen molecule exists in two forms, namely ortho and para, distinguished by the nuclear spin of
the individual atoms. At room temperature, hydrogen is made up of a 75 / 25 ortho to para mix. At
cryogenic temperatures the low-energy para hydrogen becomes the dominant species (liquid hydrogen at
20K is 99.8% para hydrogen). Conversion of ortho hydrogen to para hydrogen is a very slow process
which can last for several days and slowly releases heat. The slow release of heat from the liquid
hydrogen storage results in excessive losses of hydrogen through boil-off. The conversion can be
accelerated using a paramagnetic catalyst, such as iron or chromic oxide or nickel-based catalysts within
the liquefaction plant.
The pre-cooling is carried out to cool hydrogen below its Joule-Thomson inversion temperature (80K).
Nitrogen is the only fluid cycle used commercially; however, Mixed Refrigerants (MR) and LNG have been
considered at a concept level [8].
During LH2 storage, boil-off is expected which may result in loss of hydrogen. To reduce the losses, it is
sensible to locate the liquefaction and regasification plants close to export / import storage tanks so that
the boil--off gas can be recycled into the liquefaction or regasification trains. However, during shipping it is
likely that hydrogen boil-off will be vented to atmosphere and / or used as marine fuel to maintain a safe
pressure in the storage tanks. This loss will need to be accounted for to ensure that the required 250 kTPA
LH2 is obtained at the end of the process. For the purpose of this study, LH2 carrier vessels are assumed
to be comparable to LNG carrier vessels which can imply that it may be economic to install onboard boil-
off compression and recovery for larger marine vessels.
KBR’s NASA cryogenic hydrogen team has reported a boil-off rate of <0.2% per day for their LH2 tank at
Cape Canaveral.
Figure 6.3 shows a 3,800 m3, 270 Te LH2 tank for NASA, currently the largest in the world. The decision to
install boil-off compressors is dependent on storage residence time and the acceptable losses within the
system.

June 2022
Figure 6.3 – 3800 m3 LH2 Storage Facility at Kennedy Space Centre, US
The transportation of LH2 by ship is an emerging technology, which may see growth in scale and technology
advancements as the green hydrogen market develops.
In Kobe, Japan, the world’s first liquid hydrogen import terminal is being built by Iwatani and Kawasaki
Heavy Industries (HyTouch Kobe). To supply the Kobe terminal development and a ‘pilot’ LH2 value chain,
permission has been granted to build LH2 ‘test’ tanker ships (Figure 6.4). These will ship liquid hydrogen
from Australia to Japan. Initially this is a 1,250 m3 ship, the Suiso Frontier (1 x 1250 m3 Type C tank) with
plans to build a 160,000 m3 ship (4 off 40,000 m3 tanks). The ship designs require insulation between the
inner and outer tanks in order to minimise boil-off and increase volumetric efficiency.
LH2’s main drawback as a means of transport is its low volumetric energy density compared with
ammonia, limiting the amount of hydrogen per ship, and the boil-off losses that occur with every day of
storage. While liquefaction is a proven and commercialised technology, liquid hydrogen shipping and
large-scale storage – which requires suppliers to manage the boil-off losses – remain in the early stages
of deployment.

June 2022
Figure 6.4 – Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) Experimental and Large-Scale Ship Designs
In LNG carriers, nitrogen is used in spaces around the cargo containment system such as barrier or annular
spaces. It is not possible to use nitrogen in such places on an LH2 carrier, as nitrogen becomes liquid at -
196°C at atmospheric pressure so it would condense if in contact with a surface at LH2 temperature. Helium
is the only practical gas for inerting an LH2 system; unfortunately, this is a very expensive product, and
would be very challenging to produce onboard, if possible, at all.
The properties of hydrogen create additional challenges for leak prevention, leak detection and ignition
protection. For example, a different standard is required for “certified safe” electrical equipment on LH2
carriers – both fixed and portable. In addition, in the event of a cargo fire, the low luminosity of visibility of
a hydrogen flame can cause problems for fire detection. The high flame velocity can lead to detonation and
an associated shockwave.
Various class societies have been carrying out Approvals in Principal (AIP) based on the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) “Interim Recommendations for the Carriage of Liquefied Hydrogen in Bulk”
published in 2016. Class NK did an AIP for a 40,000 m3 LH2 vessel earlier this year and Lloyd’s Register
gave an AIP to Samsung Heavy Industries for a 160,000 m3 vessel. Whether these get built is another
issue as companies may not want to overcommit too early whilst rules are still being developed, along with
the commercial risk of ordering too early and having an underutilised large hydrogen carrier due to the
infrastructure and market around the concept still developing to handle such large volumes.
Although there may be opportunities at the import location to utilise the cold energy that the LH2 carries,
this has not been considered in the LH2 supply chain model for this project.
6.2.2 Hydrogen Safety and Environmental Considerations
The hydrogen liquefaction process involves process pressures that are midway between those for MCH
and ammonia synthesis. The moderately high pressures and cryogenic temperatures both result in
relatively significant flammable hazards compared to the low-pressure hydrogen applications. These are
discussed in the following subsections.

June 2022
Hydrogen is generally seen as environmentally benign if released with no toxic effects on land or aquatic
environments and it is not typically assigned a Global Warming Potential (GWP). There have been studies
which suggest that it may affect the ozone layer and, therefore, having an environmental warming effect,
but this has not been conclusively established [7].
The very low temperatures of LH2 present traditional cryogenic hazards (e.g., embrittlement of ship steel if
there is a leak) akin to LNG, although it is important to note that the LH2 temperatures are much lower than
those for LNG.
Incident frequency estimations have not been carried out and there is a relative lack of available data for
hydrogen compared to hydrocarbon leaks. Hydrogen can diffuse through much smaller orifices than
methane and, therefore, it can be assumed that hydrogen has a higher propensity to leak than a
hydrocarbon such as LNG. However, this does not provide a holistic overview of the risks associated with
hydrogen and, thus, these would need to be considered in future risk assessments for plant location and
design.
Liquid hydrogen exists at extremely cold temperature (-253°C at 1 bar pressure), which is 67°C colder than
the point at which oxygen becomes a liquid at atmospheric pressure. The result is possible pooling of liquid
oxygen around an exposed liquid hydrogen pipe. Figure 6.5 shows the condensation of air into liquid
oxygen and nitrogen around exposed liquid hydrogen piping. This can become an extreme fire hazard. As
such, all liquid hydrogen facilities utilise vacuum-jacketed piping and vessels for transfer and storage of
liquid hydrogen. In instances where vacuum jacketed insulation is not feasible, tightly sealed insulation is
necessary to prevent condensation around the process piping.
A large release or leak of liquid hydrogen leads to a hydrogen-rich atmosphere and the accumulation of
liquid hydrogen and solidified air outside the vessel. This condition is very dangerous as detonation may
occur, releasing a larger amount of energy than gaseous hydrogen. When this condition occurs, water can
be sprayed to vapourise immediately and mitigate the accumulation of liquid hydrogen and solidified air.
The vapourising liquid hydrogen, which disperses to its gaseous state, has different characteristics from
gaseous hydrogen, especially immediately after vapourisation. This vapourising hydrogen has a very cold
temperature and a higher density (higher than air), accumulates at a low level, and acts as a dense gas.
An immediate contact between cold hydrogen and hot liquid potentially leads to a rapid phase transition
explosion. In addition, because of the higher density of liquid hydrogen than air, the release of liquid
hydrogen is much slower and takes a longer time to be completely dissipated into the atmosphere. This
leads to a larger dispersion hazard distance during handling of liquid hydrogen. The European Industrial
Gases Association recommends several minimum separation distances for liquid hydrogen. The separation
distances for liquid hydrogen facilities installed in public spaces, near an occupied building, and combustible
liquid and solid are 60, 20, and 10 m, respectively. The separation distance can be reduced by adopting
several mitigation measures, such as water sprays (reducing thermal radiation effects) and walls (protecting
from explosion). This separation distance is established by considering both the consequence of the failure
event and the likelihood of its occurrence.

June 2022
Figure 6.5 – Air Condensation on Liquid Hydrogen Pipe
Overall, the hydrogen liquefaction plant and terminals should be considered as high hazard areas similar
to those for an LNG process and terminal. The risks due to fires and explosions for hydrogen will likely be
higher than for the MCH process and significantly higher than the ammonia process. However, the facilities
will lack the toxic hazards of the ammonia process.
6.2.2.1 Ignition and Fires
Hydrogen has a very broad flammability range (4 to 75 vol% in air) and low minimum ignition energy
(0.019 mJ), similar to acetylene. This means that compared to methane (4-14 vol% flammability range and
0.2 mJ minimum ignition energy)- see Figure 6.6. Hydrogen is both easier to ignite and can burn in more
confined scenarios where a methane leak may become oversaturated quickly. It will be rare that the
hydrogen Upper Flammability Limit (UFL) will be exceeded, except in significantly confined spaces.
The low ignition energy makes hydrogen significantly more susceptible to corona and frictional ignition,
meaning that hydrogen releases are more likely to self-ignite in air than methane releases.
Hydrogen flames have low surface emissive powers which means that they typically have shorter radiative
effect distances than equivalent hydrocarbon flames. This should result in lower probability of spray and jet
fires causing fatalities and plant damage over long distances. However, hydrogen flames do burn hotter
than hydrocarbon flames and, thus, escalation can still occur. All fire hazard scenarios will be subject to
conventional consequence modelling at a later design stage.

June 2022
Figure 6.6 – Comparison of Electrical Ignition Energy for Methane and Hydrogen in Air
6.2.2.2 Explosions
Hydrogen is significantly more prone to explosion than alkanes, such as methane, with much faster laminar
flame front velocities, both in terms of producing deflagrations rather than zero or low overpressure flash
fires and being more prone to detonation (supersonic flame front explosion) with very little required
turbulence.
This low deflagration-detonation transition means that much less plant obstruction or vapour cloud
turbulence is required for significantly destructive explosions to occur than for a similar LNG leak, although
the overpressures experienced will depend on the volume of the cloud ignited.
When this is combined with the low ignition energy and higher likelihood of self-ignition, there is likely to be
a higher probability of hydrogen explosion than from hydrocarbon leaks under equivalent conditions.
However, there are sufficient variable factors involved that a detailed risk assessment will need to be carried
out in order to provide a complete risk picture, particularly when this explosion risk is compared to the non-
equivalent toxicity risk of ammonia.
6.2.3 LH2 - Recommendations
• The fewer number of trains required to produce LH2, the more feasible the process. Scale up from
current plant sizes of 30 TPD is a challenge.
• The execution risk for a viable LH2 infrastructure escalates with the increase in LH2 train size.
• Planned hydrogen liquefaction facilities should be verified for established train size and proven for
increased scalability.

June 2022
6.3 Ammonia Carrier
Hydrogen can be stored and distributed using ammonia as a carrier. Ammonia has a higher volumetric
hydrogen density than LH2 of 118.78 kg H2/m³. The volumetric hydrogen density of ammonia is 1.5 times
of liquid hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and -253°C and, hence, ammonia requires the smallest transportation
volume. Ammonia is an established technology at scale through its prevalence in the fertiliser industry for
over 75 years. It is characterised as a promising hydrogen carrier owing to its existing production and
distribution infrastructure, ease of storage, well-defined regulations and excellent safety history.
However, ammonia cracking (or dehydrogenation) is not yet established at scale. Direct firing of ammonia
could be considered as an alternative to ammonia cracking.
6.3.1 General
The conventional synthesis of ammonia uses a raw syngas feedstock which is fed into the Haber-Bosch
process, along with nitrogen, to synthesise ammonia.
!! + 3%! ↔ 2!%" ()* = − 46 /0/234
Synthesis is performed under approximately 200 to 350 barg pressure over a multi-promoted iron catalyst
at temperatures in the range of 300°C to 550°C in a reactor with two to four catalyst beds giving forth
around 15.0% conversion to ammonia [5]. The reaction is exothermic, and heat is recovered from the
synthesis plant. Figure 6.7 shows a process flow diagram for an ammonia plant.
Figure 6.7 – KBR Designed High-Capacity Ammonia Plant

June 2022
The ammonia product is stored in its liquid state within refrigerated tanks. These tanks store the liquid at -
33°C under atmospheric pressure. This ensures that boil-off is kept at approximately 0.04%. Alternatively,
small inventories (less than 1,500 tonnes) can be stored under pressure.
Ammonia can be directly used by the energy consumer in certain fuel cell systems. However, a
decentralised supply chain model may necessitate the recovery of hydrogen gas via cracking at the end
user site. As ammonia is decomposed, inert nitrogen is formed as a by-product and may be desirable to
remove to deliver a concentrated hydrogen product stream.
Ammonia cracking (dehydrogenation) is simply the reverse of the synthesis and irreversible when carried
out at reasonably high temperature.
NH3 (g) → 1/2 N2 (g) + 3/2 H2 (g) ΔH = +46 kJ/mol
The temperature necessary for efficient cracking depends on the catalyst. Supported Ni catalysts require
temperatures above 700°C to achieve commercially acceptable conversion per pass. Ruthenium or
palladium-based catalysts enable conversion efficiency at temperatures in the range of 400 – 500°C.
In large-scale ammonia dehydrogenation (cracking) processes, the liquid ammonia from storage is
vapourised and heated before entering the dehydrogenation reformer which is operated at circa 50 barg.
The reaction is endothermic, requiring significant heat input at the dehydrogenation facility. Substantial heat
input is required to the system. The reactor effluent is composed of H2, N2, and unreacted NH3 and is cooled
whilst recovering energy from the system. The reactor effluent is fed to an ammonia recovery unit to recycle
the uncracked ammonia back to the reformer. Electricity is produced from heat recovery and used to partly
cover the gas compression required for the purification / recycle steps. Figure 6.8 shows a process flow
diagram of an ammonia cracking plant.
Figure 6.8 – Model of Large-Scale Ammonia Cracking Plant [9]
To recover uncracked ammonia contained in the gas mixture, an absorption column is used which exploits
the high solubility of ammonia in water. The ammonia-rich water is passed to the stripping column in which
the solution is heated, and ammonia is released. The ammonia content in the effluent is stripped down from
8.0% to 0.06% by exploiting the high solubility of ammonia in water.

June 2022
The purification section is based on a cryogenic cycle. First, the effluent is compressed to as high as 240
barg in a multi-stage compressor with intermediate cooling. Then, a series of heat exchangers are used to
reduce the temperature further. A Joule-Thomson valve is used to expand the syngas to near atmospheric
pressure. Heat integration is performed to recover most of the cooling needs from liquid nitrogen and low
temperature hydrogen product. The cryogenic cycle cools the syngas to a temperature of -230°C which
enables a nearly complete liquefaction of nitrogen. Thus, the hydrogen product reaches a purity of 99.97%
which is suitable for fuel cell applications. The external power requirement can be provided by an external
refrigeration unit. The cycle could be improved through a better heat integration strategy with additional
heat exchangers reducing the external cooling needs.
Currently, there are no proven processes to decompose ammonia at scale. Existing solutions utilise an
electric furnace and typically have a capacity of one to two tonnes per day. The process above has currently
been demonstrated at bench scale in an Ammonia to Green Hydrogen project – Feasibility Study [9] at 0.5
L/min of ammonia feed.
6.3.2 Ammonia Safety and Environmental Considerations
Ammonia presents both flammable and toxic hazards that are well understood due to the large number and
extended history of plants globally.
The following physical and chemical data has reference to the safety in storage, transportation and use of
ammonia:
• Ammonia is a colourless, highly irritating gas with a pungent and suffocating odour at room
temperature and pressure.
• Ammonia also exists as a colourless liquid. Its vapour pressure is 1 atm at -33.6°C, 5 atm at
+4.7°C, 8 atm at 20°C, and 10 atm at 25.7°C. At 50.1°C, the vapour pressure is 20 atm.
• Ammonia vapour at the boiling point of -33°C will have a vapour density of approximately 70% of
the density of ambient air. However, ammonia and air can, under certain conditions, form mixtures
that are denser than ambient air, as a result of the mixture being at a lower temperature caused
by the evaporation of cold ammonia. An ammonia cloud formed by an accidental release of
ammonia may contain a mist of liquid ammonia and its density may be greater than that of air.
• 15 - 28% ammonia by volume is typically considered as the flammability limit of ammonia mixtures
with air. The flammability limits of ammonia in oxygen are 15 - 79%.
• Ammonia is not highly flammable with a high minimum ignition energy (100 mJ); however, it will
burn and can explode if ignited in a confined or congested area.
• Gaseous ammonia, known as anhydrous ammonia in its pure form, dissolves easily in water
(hygroscopic) to form ammonium hydroxide which is an alkaline solution and weak base. Ammonia
and ammonium hydroxide are corrosive. The high solubility of ammonia in water and the high heat
of mixing must be fully considered in the estimation of its behaviour in accidents.

June 2022
• Ammonia gas is readily compressed and forms a clear liquid under pressure. Liquid ammonia
evaporates swiftly. Upon release into the atmosphere of an ammonia spill, a portion of it will flash
off as a vapour. This portion is the initial flash followed by a period of evaporation until all the
ammonia has evaporated, been dissolved in water or, otherwise, disposed of.
The ammonia synthesis process is likely to have the highest process operating pressures of the three
carriers and this can result in significant leak sizes and consequence distances.
Despite the significant consequence size, the overall risk from the plant is likely to be manageable as is
evidenced by the large number of ammonia plants worldwide. It is also notable that ammonia has historically
been put forward as a more inherently safe way of storing hydrogen as an intermediate due to its less
extreme storage conditions, lower leak likelihood and lower probability of explosion [10].
Other hazards include that, while not cryogenic, liquid ammonia at storage temperature can potentially
cause cracking of marine vessel structural steel if spilled onto a deck. Another impediment often associated
with ammonia-based processes is Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosions (BLEVE) which can occur
when a liquid is stored in a pressurised container above its boiling point. If there is a failure of the vessel
and a leakage of ammonia occurs, the liquid will begin to boil, rapidly expanding into vapour. Similarly, if a
valve is opened to a low-pressure pipe within a closed ammonia system, the liquid may partially flash into
vapour, rapidly accelerating the liquid flow into the pipe, producing what is known as “vapour-propelled
liquid”.
Ammonia can be considered an environmental concern if released, but damage is typically associated with
long-term exposure due to farming run-off rather than acute exposure from a spill. Notably, ammonia is
very soluble in water and presents an issue for marine toxicity, although it would require a large-scale
shipping spill to cause significant harm. Air emission of ammonia has no GWP or ozone depletion risk;
however, ammonia still carries the acute toxic effects. Using ammonia for direct firing, for example, in
marine engines is not environmentally infeasible as NOx emissions are not necessarily significantly higher
than equivalent hydrocarbon fuels and can be removed to very low levels by catalytic exhaust systems.
The common belief that firing ammonia results in high NOx emissions is a misconception.
6.3.3 Ammonia Toxicity
Ammonia is a toxic substance that can be lethal following exposure beyond a certain limit. Ammonia has
two distinct different health hazards compared to conventional fuels. It can cause severe skin burns and
eye damage and is toxic if inhaled. Since ammonia is a gas, the risk of exposure is very real at atmospheric
conditions. Most people are exposed to ammonia from breathing the gas or vapours. Anhydrous ammonia
gas is lighter than air and usually dissipates upon rising and does not descend in low-lying areas. However,
in the presence of moisture (e.g., during conditions of high relative humidity), vapours from the liquefied
anhydrous ammonia gas forms vapours that are heavier than air. These vapours may spread along the
ground or into low-lying areas with poor airflow where people may become exposed.

June 2022
Ammonia interacts instantly upon contact with available moisture in the skin, eyes, oral cavity, respiratory
tract, and particularly mucous surfaces to form the very caustic ammonium hydroxide. Ammonium
hydroxide causes the death of tissues through disruption of cell membrane lipids and, thereby, induces
cellular destruction. With the breakdown of protein of the cell walls, water is drawn, inciting an inflammatory
response that spurs further damage.
According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the least amount of ammonia
which is found to be irritating to the eyes, nose and throat of the most alert person is 50 ppm. Exposure to
ammonia in its pure form (anhydrous ammonia) by respiration or by contact in high concentrations can
cause blindness, lung damage, burns, or even death. The severity of health effects depends on the route
of exposure (inhalation, ingestion, or contact), the dose and the duration of the exposure.
The following should be noted when considering the handling of ammonia:
• Even when small leaks occur from an ammonia plant, they reveal themselves very clearly by smell
and can be dealt with by wearing appropriate equipment to protect the eyes, respiratory system,
and moist areas of skin.
• The toxicity of ammonia is such that it irritates a low-level and demanding immediate action; yet,
at this point it present no serious health hazard.
• Ammonia presents no risk of chronic health impacts from insidious low-level and long-duration
exposure as it is the case with many other toxic compounds.
• Conversely, large leaks of ammonia within confined spaces may, due to the intense acute effects
in high concentrations, pose a relatively higher health risk. Mitigations for such events, therefore,
need to be taken at the design stage and by implementing operational contingency solutions.
Table 6.2 lists the health risks at various ammonia concentrations and the corresponding exposure times.
It should be noted that the effects of low-level, long-term exposures are less known.
Table 6.2 – Acute Health Effects due to Short Ammonia Exposure
Concentrations Exposure Time Effect
10 – 20 mg/m3
Immediate Smell of ammonia is noticeable
(15 - 30 ppm)
70 mg/m3
Immediate Nose irritation / burning sensation in the eyes
(100 ppm)
200 – 350 mg/m3

0.5 – 1 hour Classified as immediately dangerous to health
(280 – 400 ppm)
1200 mg/m3 Incapacitation from tearing of the eyes and

< 30 minutes
(1700 ppm) coughing
2500 – 4500 mg/m3 Dangerous, less than ½ hour exposure may be

0.5 – 1 hour
(3500 – 6400 ppm) fatal

June 2022
Concentrations Exposure Time Effect
3500 – 7,000 mg/m3 Edema, strangulation, asphyxia, rapidly fatal

10 – 15 minutes
(5000 –10,000 ppm) without protective clothing
> 7,000 mg/m3

Immediate Can cause death by exposure almost immediately
(>10,000 ppm)
To reduce the likelihood of exposure to high concentrations, adequate ventilation should be installed in all
areas where ammonia gas could be built up. Automated ammonia gas detection at ppm level and
automated responses, such as alarms, increased ventilation, line shut down, all consist of standard
commercial technologies allowing safe operation of ammonia handling systems. If the discharge
concentration is too high with ventilation or if a significant leak emerges, the hazard can be contained by
means of water spray dissolving the ammonia into water.
Additional safety considerations relating to the marine transport of bulk ammonia are included in Appendix
III.
6.3.4 Recommendations
Ammonia has several favourable attributes. The primary one is its high capacity for hydrogen storage, at
17.6 wt%, based on its molecular structure. However, in order to release hydrogen from ammonia,
significant energy input as well as reactor mass and volume are required. Other considerations include
safety and toxicity issues, both actual and perceived - although these are very well understood.
Recommendations for ammonia as hydrogen carrier include:
• Remain engaged with ammonia dehydrogenation developers including MHI, CSIRO and Ecuity.
• Explore opportunities to consume ammonia in Europe without dehydrogenating.

6.4 Methylcyclohexane (MCH)
Hydrogen molecules can be stored using hydrogenation of toluene to form MCH. After transportation, the
process is reversed to recover hydrogen and the resulting toluene is returned to the hydrogenation plant as
feedstock. Part of the process can be considered technologically mature, with aromatic hydrogenation of
toluene being a commonly used process in a variety of industries. However, the dehydrogenation process
has typically seen issues with catalyst coking. MCH has a transported hydrogen density of 47.5 kg/m³
indicating that, compared to LH2 and ammonia, a larger ship is required for transportation. Additionally, after
hydrogen liberation, toluene must be loaded and transported back to the hydrogenation site to be recycled
as a carrier. Due to the similarity in properties between MCH / toluene and other hydrocarbon liquids,
traditional crude oil and refined product transport and storage infrastructure can be utilised throughout the
process.

June 2022
6.4.1 General
The process is based on the reversable chemical reaction shown in Figure 6.9. At the hydrogenation site,
toluene and hydrogen are conditioned to approximately 9 barg and 240°C where they are reacted over a
nickel-based catalyst (platinum, cobalt and molybdenum are alternatives). This reaction is exothermic,
suggesting low-pressure steam is generated during the reaction which can be used internally as well as
exported. MCH is formed and can be transported via marine vessel to the dehydrogenation site.
Figure 6.9 – Stoichiometry of Toluene Hydrogenation including Reaction Enthalpy
Dehydrogenation of MCH takes place between 200°C and 400°C and pressures as low as 1.0 barg. Low
pressures in the dehydrogenation reactor favour the formation of hydrogen. However, low reaction
pressures also increase the load on downstream compressors required for hydrogen purification and
export. The reaction takes place on a platinum catalyst supported on aluminium oxide and has traditionally
been associated with coking.
6.4.2 MCH Safety and Environmental Considerations
Both toluene and MCH represent conventional liquid hydrocarbon hazards and have the lowest process
operating pressures of the three carriers examined. Both chemicals also have moderate toxicity although
this is lower than ammonia. MCH and toluene are carcinogenic and need to be handled carefully, like many
aromatic hydrocarbon liquids.
Environmentally, MCH and toluene are likely to have some acute toxicity to the environment if spilled,
although clearly the severity of the effects will depend on the quantity released into the environment and,
thus, they are not considered different from other similar hydrocarbons in this regard. The lower solubility
in water compared to ammonia is likely to represent a lower hazard to the marine environment as spills to
sea will tend to float and evaporate over time.
The dehydrogenation process operates above the MCH autoignition temperature and so any leaks are
highly likely to ignite. However, the dehydrogenation process operates at low pressure (circa 2 barg) and,
thus, releases are likely to be limited to localised pool fires.
Toluene and MCH have similar flash points (-4°C) to heptane and have flammable vapour cloud
concentrations in the range of approximately 1 to 7 vol%. For comparison, their minimum ignition energy is
around 0.24 mJ (compared with ammonia at 100 mJ and hydrogen at 0.019 mJ).

June 2022
6.4.3 Recommendations
MCH and toluene are both classified into the same category as gasoline in multiple countries. Risks in the
storage and transportation of MCH can be mitigated to the same level as petroleum product storage and
transportation system.

June 2022
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK
7.1 Power Balance and Energy Integration
Cold energy available from LH2 regasification at destination location has not been considered in this
analysis. The practicalities of heat and cold energy integration with adjacent existing (brownfield) and new
(greenfield) facilities are complex. This is reinforced by the LNG industry, for which very few regasification
facilities have cold energy integration with surrounding consumers. Energy integration is possible in theory
and the greater cold energy potential from LH2 regasification may see greater deployment than within the
existing LNG sector.
Recovery and integration of the heat released from toluene and ammonia hydrogenation may also see
deployment where the export terminal sites are planned adjacent to suitable consuming industrial facilities.
In the MCH cases, there is a net export of power at the export terminal, and a net import of power required
at the import terminal in Rotterdam.
It is assumed throughout this study that power is bought over the fence from a clean energy provider. It is
also assumed that heating and shipping utilise hydrogen or ammonia as a fuel, reducing the carbon
emission point sources as compared to utilising a fossil fuel. Given the additional CAPEX and OPEX spend
required to enable a larger hydrogen production capacity to account for additional hydrogen to be used as
fuel, in reality there will be a trade-off between utilising hydrogen vs alternative fuels. As such, this trade-
off should be analysed to understand the effect it has on LCOH and carbon intensity of the delivered
hydrogen. These considerations may include further study into:
• Various fuel alternatives, including their impact on levelised cost and carbon emissions;
• Self-generation of power vs over-the-fence power import; and
• Forecasted costs of imported power at each location within the supply chain.
Hydrogen pipeline compression power is assumed to be drawn from the local grid and, for simplicity, is
assumed fixed with no accounting of any carbon emissions taken, as this will vary across regions and states
which the hydrogen pipelines cross. Due to a lack of public domain information on price and carbon intensity
forecasts to 2050 for national and regional grid power, this analysis has been beyond the scope of this
study.
7.2 Financial Modelling
The financial model developed in this report calculates the levelised cost of hydrogen based on a
discounted cash flow structure over a 30-year period.
Table 7.1 shows the cost build-up of hydrogen produced on a USD per ton based on USD 1.25 / MMBTU
natural gas feedstock pricing. The items comprising the cost are discounted using a weighted average cost
of capital (WACC) of 10% to calculate their respective net present value. Similarly, both CAPEX and the
quantity of hydrogen delivered are discounted subject to the 10% WACC, with the levelised cost of hydrogen
calculated based on the formula below. The approximation utilises an equivalent annual cost calculation as
defined in Salmon et al. (2021):

June 2022
(∑$#%& 6:;<=# + 7;<=# )
(1 + @:66)#
567% =
%BCD3EFG HF4IJFDFC
A∑$#%& (1 + @:66)# K
Table 7.1 – LCOH Calculation Worked Example of LH2 Exported from Qatar
(320 kTPA H2 Produced, 250 kTPA H2 Delivered)
Item Undiscounted Cost - USD / ton H2 Produced

Natural Gas $ 183.2
Utility $ 179.1
Catalyst $ 13.5
CO₂ Emission Penalty $ 0.0
CO₂ Capture Cost $ 171.1
Annual Personnel Salaries $ 3.4
Direct Overhead Cost $ 2.4
Maintenance $ 40.4
Insurance $ 13.5
CAPEX $ 121.2
Levelised Cost Calculated (Discounted) $ 1.31 / kg of H2 Delivered
To enhance the LCOH calculation, further work can be performed accounting for future energy market and
economic dynamics. That can include:
• Market analysis and incorporation of future feedstock and energy price projections into the model
year-on-year, including natural gas, electricity and other utilities; and
• Expansion of the existing financial model to consider nominal values, in addition to real figures, so
LCOH calculations are subject to inflation variations across the different export locations.
7.3 Commercialisation of Hydrogen Technology
This study assumes that gaseous hydrogen is provided by all three technologies of MCH, ammonia and
LH2 and the demand is secured at the end market of Rotterdam, with initial scale of 250 kTPA in 2030,
increasing to 1,000 kTPA by 2040 and reaching an assumed peak import level of 10,000 kTPA by 2050.
However, not all the technologies considered in the report present the same maturity level for their wider
market deployment. Although ammonia is currently produced and transported in relatively high volumes, its
weakest point remains the dehydrogenation step which has not been commercially proven yet. If the end
use is for power generation and direct-firing of ammonia is commercialised, then dehydrogenation is not
required, leading to significant cost and execution risk reductions.

June 2022
With respect to MCH / toluene, Chiyoda has demonstrated its supply chain at a pilot scale, with the
commercialisation of the specific technology not expected to be abnormally problematic. However,
hydrogenation and dehydrogenation are still high-cost components and the least developed ones in the
MCH supply chain.
LH2 is not currently produced, handled or transported in anything near the volumes that would be required
to establish a commercial clean energy supply chain, although the individual component technologies are
fairly well understood and in operation at smaller scale. The challenge for LH2 supply chains will be the
ability to scale up in a commercially efficient manner that reduces LCOH substantially. Technology
providers such as Linde and others are actively promoting next-generation hydrogen liquefaction systems
that are lower in CAPEX and more energy efficient.
Even in the case where the technology is available, market uncertainty is another important factor that
should be considered. Demand is still far from secured across the various end-use applications, with some
of the technologies potentially requiring stronger market signals for them to further develop and scale up.
An assessment of the economic structure of the hydrogen importing country, along with the development
of different demand scenarios across the various end-use applications based on technology maturity and
projected industrial growth would be recommended.
7.4 Regulatory, Permitting and Site Selection
This study focuses on the economic assessment of the hydrogen carriers of MCH, ammonia and LH2, but
it should be noted that each supply chain will further require regulatory, environmental and / or safety
assessments at both points of export and import.

June 2022
8.0 REFERENCES
1. Salmon, N., Bañares-Alcántara, R. and Nayak-Luke, R., “Optimisation of green ammonia
distribution systems for intercontinental energy transport”, iScience. 2021.
2. Holst, M., Aschbrenner, S., Smolinka, T., Voglstätter, C. and Grimm, G., “Cost forecast for low-
temperature electrolysis – technology driven bottom-up prognosis for PEM and alkaline water
electrolysis systems”, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE, 2021.
3. IRENA, “Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction: Scaling up Electrolysers to Meet the 1.5⁰C Climate
Goal”, International Renewable Energy Agency, 2020.
4. Hydrogen Europe, "A workable approach to additionality, geographic and temporal correlation is
key to the achievement of the EU Hydrogen Strategy", 2021.
5. Klerke, A., Christensen, C., Nørskov, J. and Vegge, T., “Ammonia for hydrogen storage:
Challenges and opportunities”, Journal of Materials Chemistry, Vol. 18 (20), p.2304, 2008.
6. Hydrogen Council and McKinsey & Company, “Hydrogen Insights Report”, 2021.
7. UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), “Hydrogen for Heating:
Atmospheric Impacts – A Literature Review”, BEIS Research Paper No. 21, 2018.
8. Al Ghafri, S. and Munro, S. “Liquid Hydrogen in Australia: Requirements of Further Technical
Research”, Hydrogen Liquefaction and Storage Symposium, UWA, 2019.
9. Siemens, Engie, Science & Technology Facilities Council, and Ecuity, “Ammonia to Green
Hydrogen Project – Feasibility Study”, 2020.
10. Manan, S., “Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries”, 4th Ed., Butterworth-Heinemann,
2012.
11. IEA, “Levelised Cost of Electricity Calculator”, 2020.

June 2022
APPENDIX I
LCOH GRAPHICAL OUTPUTS
Appendix I contains the graphs of summarised LCOH outputs used in the graphic maps in Figure 1.5 and
Figure 1.6.
Figure AI.1 – Levelised Cost of Hydrogen Carriers 2030-2050 - Norway
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
LH2 2030 LH2 2040 LH2 2050 MCH 2030 MCH 2040 MCH 2050 Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia
(cracked) (cracked) (cracked)
2030 2040 2050
Figure AI.2 – Levelised Cost of Hydrogen Carriers 2030-2050 – US
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2030 2040 2050
M713-PR-00001-A Appendix I - Page 1 of 8 Revision: 0

June 2022
Figure AI.3 – Levelised Cost of Hydrogen Carriers 2030-2050 – Argentina
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2030 2040 2050
Figure AI.4 – Levelised Cost of Hydrogen Carriers 2030-2050 – Qatar
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2030 2040 2050

June 2022
Figure AI.5 – Levelised Cost of Hydrogen Carriers 2030-2050 – Saudi Arabia
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2030 2040 2050
Figure AI.6 – Levelised Cost of Hydrogen via Pipeline - Russia
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2030 2040 2050

June 2022
Figure AI.7 – Levelised Cost of Hydrogen via Pipeline - Norway
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2030 2040 2050
Figure AI.8 – Levelised Cost of Hydrogen via Pipeline - Algeria
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2030 2040 2050

June 2022
Figure AI.9 – Cost Stack of Preferred Hydrogen Carrier 2030-2050 - Norway
6.00
5.00
0.63
0.09
4.00 0.44
0.78 0.08
0.57 0.26
0.08
3.00 0.37
2.00
3.40
3.12
2.86
1.00
0.00
Ammonia (cracked) 2030 Ammonia (cracked) 2040 Ammonia (cracked) 2050
Figure AI.10 – Cost Stack of Preferred Hydrogen Carrier 2030-2050 – US
4.00
3.50
0.66
3.00
0.26
0.46
2.50
0.77 0.19
0.27
2.00 0.57 0.16
0.39
1.50
1.00 1.99
1.74
1.50
0.50
0.00

June 2022
Figure AI.11 – Cost Stack of Preferred Hydrogen Carrier 2030-2050 – Argentina
4.00
3.50 0.67
3.00
0.31
0.47
2.50 0.23
0.82 0.27
2.00 0.63 0.19
0.45
1.50
1.00 1.96
1.73
1.51
0.50
0.00
Figure AI.12 – Cost Stack of Preferred Hydrogen Carrier 2030-2050 – Qatar
4.00
3.50
0.67
3.00
2.50 0.40
0.47
0.28
2.00 0.81 0.27
0.63 0.23
1.50
0.45
1.00
1.56
1.33
0.50 1.12
0.00

June 2022
Figure AI.13 – Cost Stack of Preferred Hydrogen Carrier 2030-2050 – Saudi Arabia
3.50
3.00
0.65
2.50 0.31
0.46
2.00 0.22
0.78 0.27
0.60 0.18
1.50
0.43
1.00
1.50
1.28
0.50 1.07
0.00
Figure AI.14 – Cost Stack Hydrogen via Pipeline - Russia

7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2030 2040 2050
Production Pipeline

June 2022
Figure AI.15 – Cost Stack Hydrogen via Pipeline - Norway
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2030 2040 2050
Production Pipeline
Figure AI.16 – Cost Stack Hydrogen via Pipeline - Algeria

4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2030 2040 2050
Production Pipeline

June 2022
APPENDIX II
CASE RESULTS
Appendix II presents the results of the various scenarios modelled during this study. The table below gives
a summary of the LCOH for CAPEX and OPEX, split by production and supply chain as well as the total
LCOH for each scenario.
The outputs with breakdown of CAPEX, OPEX are presented in the embedded Excel Spreadsheet as
shown below. The spreadsheet allows for ease of use, with filtering for the desired case on column A to
allow quick comparisons.
Table AII.1 – LCOH summary
HGP
Carrier LCOH
Cas Hydrogen Sailing Production
H2 Hydrogen Export Volume
e Delivered Speed Cost ($/kg H2
Carrier Produced Terminal Produced
No. (kTPA) (knots) ($/kg- delivered)
(kTPA)
produced)
Saudi Arabia
1 LH2 299 250 12 1.04 299 6.15
(Jeddah)
Saudi Arabia
2 LH2 303 250 15 1.03 303 6.09
(Jeddah)
Saudi Arabia
3 LH2 306 250 18 1.02 306 6.06
(Jeddah)
4 LH2 282 250 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.43 282 7.33
5 LH2 312 250 USA (Houston) 15 1.33 312 6.60
Argentina
6 LH2 323 250 15 1.27 323 6.83
(Buenos Aires)
7 LH2 319 250 Qatar (Doha) 15 1.03 319 6.51
8 LH2 1,128 1,000 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.22 1,128 5.69
9 LH2 1,250 1,000 USA (Houston) 15 1.15 1,250 5.05
Argentina
10 LH2 1,291 1,000 15 1.12 1,291 5.32
(Buenos Aires)
11 LH2 1,276 1,000 Qatar (Doha) 15 0.87 1,276 5.02
Saudi Arabia
12 LH2 1,213 1,000 15 0.87 1,213 4.64
(Jeddah)
13 LH2 11,284 10,000 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.02 11,284 4.11
14 LH2 12,498 10,000 USA (Houston) 15 0.99 12,498 3.56
Argentina
15 LH2 12,913 10,000 15 0.97 12,913 3.86
(Buenos Aires)
16 LH2 12,755 10,000 Qatar (Doha) 15 0.73 12,755 3.58
Saudi Arabia
17 LH2 12,133 10,000 15 0.73 12,133 3.23
(Jeddah)
18 MCH 538 250 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.32 8,683 8.12
19 MCH 538 250 USA (Houston) 15 1.25 8,683 5.97
M713-PR-00001-A Appendix II - Page 1 of 4 Revision: 0

June 2022
HGP
Carrier LCOH
(kTPA)
produced)
Argentina
20 MCH 538 250 15 1.21 8,683 5.93
(Buenos Aires)
21 MCH 538 250 Qatar (Doha) 15 0.96 8,683 5.58
Saudi Arabia
22 MCH 538 250 15 0.96 8,683 5.41
(Jeddah)
23 MCH 2,153 1,000 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.15 34,733 6.96
24 MCH 2,153 1,000 USA (Houston) 15 1.10 34,733 4.93
Argentina
25 MCH 2,153 1,000 15 1.08 34,733 4.93
(Buenos Aires)
26 MCH 2,153 1,000 Qatar (Doha) 15 0.83 34,733 4.59
Saudi Arabia
27 MCH 2,153 1,000 15 0.83 34,733 4.42
(Jeddah)
28 MCH 21,534 10,000 Norway (Oslo) 15 1.98 347,328 5.85
29 MCH 21,534 10,000 USA (Houston) 15 0.97 347,328 3.92
Argentina
30 MCH 21,534 10,000 15 0.95 347,328 3.96
(Buenos Aires)
31 MCH 21,534 10,000 Qatar (Doha) 15 0.71 347,328 3.63
Saudi Arabia
32 MCH 21,534 10,000 15 0.70 347,328 3.46
(Jeddah)
33 Ammonia 265 250 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.45 1,503 3.45
34 Ammonia 280 250 USA (Houston) 15 1.34 1,588 2.46
Argentina
35 Ammonia 285 250 15 1.29 1,615 2.50
(Buenos Aires)
36 Ammonia 283 250 Qatar (Doha) 15 1.04 1,605 2.27
Saudi Arabia
37 Ammonia 276 250 15 1.04 1,564 2.16
(Jeddah)
38 Ammonia 1,061 1,000 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.23 6,011 2.98
39 Ammonia 1,121 1,000 USA (Houston) 15 1.16 6,351 2.00
Argentina
40 Ammonia 1,140 1,000 15 1.13 6,459 2.05
(Buenos Aires)
41 Ammonia 1,133 1,000 Qatar (Doha) 15 0.88 6,419 1.80
Saudi Arabia
42 Ammonia 1,104 1,000 15 0.88 6,255 1.72
(Jeddah)
43 Ammonia 10,610 10,000 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.02 60,113 2.54
44 Ammonia 11,210 10,000 USA (Houston) 15 0.99 63,513 1.59
Argentina
45 Ammonia 11,400 10,000 15 0.98 64,589 1.65
(Buenos Aires)
46 Ammonia 11,330 10,000 Qatar (Doha) 15 0.73 64,193 1.39

June 2022
HGP
Carrier LCOH
(kTPA)
produced)
Saudi Arabia
47 Ammonia 11,040 10,000 15 0.73 62,550 1.33
(Jeddah)
Ammonia
48 (with 356 250 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.39 2,015 4.90
cracking)
Ammonia
49 (with 383 250 USA (Houston) 15 1.30 2,171 3.67
cracking)
Ammonia
Argentina
50 (with 392 250 15 1.25 2,222 3.76
(Buenos Aires)
cracking)
Ammonia
51 (with 389 250 Qatar (Doha) 15 1.00 2,202 3.44
cracking)
Ammonia
Saudi Arabia
52 (with 375 250 15 1.00 2,125 3.25
(Jeddah)
cracking)
Ammonia
53 (with 1,423 1,000 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.19 8,062 4.21
cracking)
Ammonia
54 (with 1,532 1,000 USA (Houston) 15 1.13 8,682 2.97
cracking)
Ammonia
Argentina
55 (with 1,568 1,000 15 1.10 8,887 3.06
(Buenos Aires)
cracking)
Ammonia
56 (with 1,555 1,000 Qatar (Doha) 15 0.86 8,809 2.71
cracking)
Ammonia
Saudi Arabia
57 (with 1,500 1,000 15 0.86 8,500 2.57
(Jeddah)
cracking)
Ammonia
58 (with 14,229 10,000 Norway (Oslo) 15 2.01 80,619 3.55
cracking)
Ammonia
59 (with 15,324 10,000 USA (Houston) 15 0.98 86,824 2.32
cracking)
Ammonia
Argentina
60 (with 15,685 10,000 15 0.96 88,867 2.43
(Buenos Aires)
cracking)
Ammonia
61 (with 15,548 10,000 Qatar (Doha) 15 0.72 88,093 2.07
cracking)
Ammonia
Saudi Arabia
62 (with 15,002 10,000 15 0.72 84,995 1.96
(Jeddah)
cracking)

June 2022
HGP
Carrier LCOH
(kTPA)
produced)
63 Pipeline 263 250 Russia - 1.28 1,487 5.96
64 Pipeline 263 250 Norway (Oslo) - 2.45 1,487 3.05
65 Pipeline 263 250 Algeria - 0.97 1,487 3.70
66 Pipeline 1,050 1,000 Russia - 1.07 5,949 3.99
67 Pipeline 1,050 1,000 Norway (Oslo) - 2.23 5,949 2.58
68 Pipeline 1,050 1,000 Algeria - 0.81 5,949 2.49
69 Pipeline 10,500 10,000 Russia - 0.87 59,490 2.93
70 Pipeline 10,500 10,000 Norway (Oslo) - 2.02 59,490 2.25
71 Pipeline 10,500 10,000 Algeria - 0.65 59,490 1.82

June 2022
APPENDIX III
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS FOR MARINE TRANSPORT OF BULK AMMONIA
AIII 1.1 Safety Assessment – Marine Transport of Bulk Ammonia
Vessels for bulk transport of anhydrous ammonia have existed for decades with the safety and
environmental risks well understood by cargo operators and crew. The primary safety hazard for interaction
with ammonia is its toxicity, and there are existing international rules and regulations for operational and
safety procedures covering the use of ammonia onboard. For ammonia carriers, the risk of a large release
to the atmosphere in densely populated port areas also needs to be considered.
Safety measures for liquid gas carriers includes actions against leakage, firefighting procedures,
procedures for cargo transfer, gas freeing, ballasting and cargo cleaning, minimum allowable cargo tank
steel temperature, emergency procedure and training of personnel. Specifically, for anhydrous ammonia,
the ship requires toxic vapour detection. Essential safety measures include regular inspection and
maintenance of equipment, training of personnel, protective clothes, warning signs and emergency
procedures to mitigate damage in case of leakage.
Any piping systems onboard managing ammonia should be double walled in a bid to minimise leakage risk
and reduce the event of ammonia-human contact. Due to high expansion ratio of ammonia between liquid
and gaseous stats, and the given toxicity levels of ammonia the minimum design pressure of all the
ammonia and related systems should be 18 barg, which corresponds to a vapour pressure of ammonia of
45 °C.
AIII 1.1.1 International Rules and Regulations

Safety guidelines for ammonia fuel aboard ships are under development, and Class Rules will likely be the
earliest regulatory framework in place for using ammonia as a fuel. Until statutory legislation is adopted by
the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), Flag Administrations and associated Recognized
Organizations will need to approve ammonia-powered ships based on Alternative Design Assessments.
The IMO International Gas Carrier Code (IGC) currently prohibits the use of cargoes identified as toxic
products as fuel for the ship and will need to be amended.
The IGC Code describes the design and construction standards of liquefied ammonia transport carriers and
the available safety equipment required to minimise risk to the ship, it’s crew and the environment –
particularly noting cargo tank locations, cargo containment, fire safety. The special requirements section of
the code deal with prevention of stress corrosion cracking and refer to steel strength and composition design
elements which are needed to manage the additional risk posed by ammonia. In relation to stress corrosion
cracking, the Code refers to the need for operational risk reduction by minimizing oxygen content with the
cargo. A well-established industry standard (Fertilizers Europe and Yara) ensures a minimum 2000 ppm
water is added to the traded and shipped ammonia in order to avoid stress corrosion.
All the necessary practices for a safe ammonia handling onboard are already well-known in marine
industries and accepted by crew and operators, including operational and safety procedures. For protection
of personnel operating on gas carriers transporting ammonia, the IGC Code states the following:
M713-PR-00001-A Appendix III - Page 1 of 6 Revision: 0

June 2022
• Respiratory and eye protection devices for emergency escape purposes shall be provided for
every person onboard, with some minimum requirements (no filter-type; self-contained breathing
apparatus 15 minutes minimum duration);
• Protective clothing to be gas-tight; and
• One or more suitably marked decontamination shower shall be available on deck, depending on
the size of the ship, and shall be able to operate under all ambient conditions.
AIII 1.1.2 Corrosivity and Material Selection
Given the reactivity of ammonia in the presence of moisture, it corrodes copper, zinc and many alloys
requiring that only iron, steel and specific non-ferrous alloys that are ammonia resistant should be used for
tanks, fittings and associated ammonia pipework, including valves and gaskets. Only some rubbers and
polymers are compatible with liquid anhydrous ammonia, impacting the material selection for gaskets and
sealing.
Particular attention shall be kept to the presence of nickel: its presence in nickel alloys shall be kept below
6% to avoid the phenomenon of nickel crystalline corrosion. Oxygen levels of more than a few ppm in liquid
ammonia can promote stress corrosion cracking in steels, which proceed very rapidly at high temperatures.
The IGC Code gives the following requirements for cargo tanks and associated pipelines, valves, fittings
and other items of equipment normally in direct contact with the cargo liquid or vapour, in case of ammonia:
• Mercury, copper and copper-bearing alloys, and zinc shall not be used for cargo handling ammonia
and for equipment normally in contact with ammonia liquid or vapour,
• Maximum nickel content in steel = 5%,
• The ammonia shall contain not less than 0.1% w/w water,
• Minimum requirements for steel yield strength and post-welding treatment are indicated in IGC
Code chapter 17.12.
AIII 1.1.3 Safe Release of Ammonia
The management of boil-off-gas should maximise recovery where possible, and also prevent the release
of gaseous ammonia to the atmosphere / close to deck. It is necessary to employ either ammonia vent
scrubbing systems, selective catalytic scrubbing equipment or vent flaring systems on ammonia carriers for
controlled venting / purging activities. A closed purging system should be considered to eliminate the need
for venting.

June 2022
AIII 1.2 Safety and Environmental Assessment – Ammonia as a Marine Fuel
The ship design will need to mitigate the risks of large leaks, especially in confined spaces where the crew
could be exposed. Mitigation may affect the location of accommodation to reduce impact from accidental
ammonia discharges, or the location of safety equipment such as emergency generators and lifeboats.
Prior to final design of the vessel, thorough, in detail safety reviews must be completed. Requirements for
a safe ammonia fuel system will include so called passive safety measures inherent in the design, as well
as active safety measures to assist crew onboard. A safety level equivalent to that of natural gas has to be
demonstrated, which means the toxic properties of ammonia must be taken into account in the design
and demonstrated not to pose any additional risk to personnel or environment. These exercises will build
upon the safety case work available for existing but traditionally fuelled ammonia carriers. It is a distinct
advantage that crews on ammonia carriers already have specialized knowledge and training with regard to
the handling of ammonia. However, the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) does not deal specifically with ammonia. STCW review may
therefore be in order if any specific requirements to address the use of ammonia as a fuel are applicable.
Depending on the configuration of the drive train (internal combustion engine, compression ignition or spark
ignition, fuel cell with electric drive etc). the marine propulsion system may be powered by ammonia only
or a mixture of ammonia and hydrogen (hydrogen from cracked ammonia). As such, small leaks of ammonia
do not generally constitute a real risk of fire, however due to the potential utilisation of hydrogen from
cracked ammonia in the fuel supply system, flammability concerns need to be addressed as part of design
considerations. The engine design should include means of safely clearing vapour from the plant at all times
and means of detecting gas accumulation, for example in the crank case. The design must also consider
toxicity hazard mitigation and find venting solutions allowing for 2-stroke propulsion in such an environment.
Any spaces containing fuel lines should be equipped with ammonia and hydrogen detection instrumentation
with remote operated shut-off valves to isolate leakages and mitigate impacts. Redundancy of detectors
and transmitters is required to verify measurements, for example toxicity levels of closed space atmospheric
environments.
The marine propulsion system’s liquid fuel supply system (which includes the fuel supply system from fuel
storage through to compression, temperature control, and purge / gas recovery management from the
engine) and any pipework that is to handle ammonia including the fuel bunkering system inside the vessel
should be double walled to provide adequate leakage protection and minimise risk of ammonia-human
contact. This also removes the need for venting pressurised ammonia from the fuel system when not in
use. The fuel piping should also be routed to minimise the risk of mechanical impact or dropped objects, to
reduce the risk of pipe ruptures.
The aim of safe design in ammonia marine propulsion environments is to reduce human contact with
ammonia as much as possible and fuel lines should be routed a sufficient distance from the shell, as well
as redundancy in the fuel supply line to enable continuous operation in the event of fuel supply shut-off.
This may lead to additional capex to enable 2 x 50% fuel supply systems. Where possible, fuel lines should
be located in separate unmanned spaces as part of the vessel / engine room / cargo space design
considerations.

June 2022
To avoid the hazard of ammonia build-up in enclosed spaces deeper in the vessel, the ammonia fuel tanks
are located on deck. This design characteristic aligns with the requirements for gas carrier construction.
Adequate ventilation of hazardous exhaust areas containing ammonia fuel lines are required along with
block and bleed type isolation valves connected directly to the ventilation system in any areas that are
usually manned. Uncontrolled release of ammonia can be managed with adequate ventilation to vent mast
/ onboard flaring system as well addition of a water spray, similar to existing ammonia transport vessel
considerations.
Human exposure to anhydrous ammonia generally requires water flushing of the exposed area for a
minimum of fifteen minutes, and as such decontamination showers and eyewashes should be available
near the exits of spaces containing ammonia system including at least:
• Bunkering stations;
• Tank connection spaces;
• Fuel preparation rooms; and
• Engine rooms.
It is also noted that within the shore-based industrial ammonia industry, standalone, self-contained vapour-
tight personnel shelters are employed. These could potentially be employed aboard an ammonia-fuelled
tanker where design limitations make risk mitigation challenging. Such measures would build upon
extensive existing design regulations for gas and ammonia carriers which have brought about the inclusion
of shelter in place designs for the bridge and other areas of the vessels.
When combusted in an engine, ammonia may produce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide (N2O). Such
emissions must be mitigated for ammonia to have zero GHG impact. Use of ammonia as a fuel may also
lead to emissions of NOx which together with N2O and ammonia in the exhaust can trigger smog to develop,
due to an affinity for pm 2.5 particles. These issues will need to be investigated as part of ongoing research.
NOx emissions will have to meet IMO’s existing Tier II or Tier III emission standards, and new regulations
are expected to be developed to mitigate N2O and ammonia slip. A limit of 10 ppm ammonia slip with the
exhaust would be in line with standards previously applied to Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). Existing
exhaust aftertreatment technologies will likely be able to mitigate both slip and NOx / N2O emissions, though
they will need to be proven effective in shipping. These installations may be large, but the cost penalty for
inserting emission abatement systems to the exhaust train is expected to have greater impact on OPEX
than CAPEX as catalytic conversion may reduce engine efficiency by a few per cent. These costs should
be considered in the context of similar costs for managing nitric oxides control in traditional fuel engines.
Emission mitigation solutions must be compatible with relevant flows and temperature in the combustion
cycle, as well as with the presence of sulphur in pilot and lubrication fuels.

June 2022
AIII 1.3 Ammonia Tanker Layout and Design Features
Ammonia fuel operation may require specific exceptions to typical ship designs, e.g., the placement of
accommodation. The Nordic Green Ammonia Powered Ship consortium has explored different options for
altering of ship and fuel system layouts, suggesting the following key considerations (Figure AIII.1 and
Figure AIII.2).
Figure AIII.1 – Ammonia Carrier Overall Safety Systems Design

June 2022
Figure AIII.2 – Ammonia Carrier - Engine Room, Fuel and HVAC Systems Layout

June 2022

Catf KBR Landed Cost Hydrogen Carriers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catf KBR Landed Cost Hydrogen Carriers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catf KBR Landed Cost Hydrogen Carriers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLEAR AIR TASK FORCE

LOW-CARBON AND RENEWABLE HYDROGEN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT STUDY

LANDED COST OF HYDROGEN CARRIERS

REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED QA

A 14/01/2022 Issued for Client Comment JF JM AD JF

0 28/05/2022 Issued for Use JM AD AD JN

1 22/06/2022 Re-Issued for Use JM AD AD JN

M713-PR-00001-A Page 2 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 3 of 80 Revision: 0

AIP Approvals in Principal

M713-PR-00001-A Page 4 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 5 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 6 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 7 of 80 Revision: 0

Figure 1.2 – Hydrogen Value Chain – Liquid Hydrogen as a Carrier

Carrier Production & Storage Transportation Storage & Liberation

H2 (Liquid) H2 (Liquid) H2 (Liquid)

Electricity Fuel Heat

Figure 1.3 – Hydrogen Value Chain - Toluene / MCH as a Hydrogen Carrier

Carrier Production & Storage Transportation Storage & Liberation

MCH (Liquid) MCH (Liquid)

Figure 1.4 – Hydrogen Value Chain - Ammonia as a Hydrogen Carrier

NH3 (Liquid) NH3 (Liquid) NH3 (Liquid) Ammonia

Electricity Fuel Electricity Heat Electricity

M713-PR-00001-A Page 8 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 9 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 10 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 11 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 12 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 13 of 80 Revision: 0

Import Jetty Import Storage Regasification / Liberation Owner's Cost Contingency

M713-PR-00001-A Page 14 of 80 Revision: 0

(kg CO2/ kg H2 delivered)

M713-PR-00001-A Page 15 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 16 of 80 Revision: 0

1.4 Impact of Carbon Sequestration Pipeline

M713-PR-00001-A Page 17 of 80 Revision: 0

Production Export Transport Import

M713-PR-00001-A Page 18 of 80 Revision: 0

• Via pipeline from three countries (Russia, Norway, and Algeria).

M713-PR-00001-A Page 19 of 80 Revision: 0

M713-PR-00001-A Page 20 of 80 Revision: 0

Volumes of Liberated H2 kTPA 250 / 1,000 / 10,000

Carriers - LH2 / NH3 / MCH

Years - 2030 / 2040 / 2050

Marine Carrier (LH2 / NH3 / MCH) - Norway / US / Argentina / Qatar / KSA

Pipeline (H2 gas) - Russia / Norway / Algeria

2.3.2 Hydrogen Generation Plant

M713-PR-00001-A Page 21 of 80 Revision: 0

Air Air Separation PSA Tail Gas H2 Compression

Natural Gas CO2 Content wt% <2.5

Hydrogen Product Purity vol% 99.995

Clean electricity generated off-

HGP Power Fuel Selection - H2

ATR with ~99% CO2 removal

M713-PR-00001-A Page 22 of 80 Revision: 0

Item Uplift Description Uplift

1 CAPEX Contingency 20.0%

2 Project and Owner’s Cost1 15.0%