Success story · LNG boil-off optimisation

How an LNG operator avoided 309 m³ of forced vaporisation without slowing down

A physics-based forecast showed the forced vaporiser wasn’t needed on a laden voyage. The result: US$122k of cargo value protected in 11 days at sea, with no change to speed or schedule.

Vessel
174,000 m³ X-DF LNG carrier
Route
West Africa to North Asia via Cape of Good Hope
Voyage
Laden, 11 days at sea
Client
Anonymised

The challenge: fuel from liquid cargo, from day one

From the first day of the voyage, the vessel was force-vaporising liquid cargo to fuel its engines. Tank pressure kept climbing. Worse, the forced boil-off hid the cargo’s true boil-off rate, so the boil-off gas (BOG) warranty could not be verified.

~31 m³/dayof liquid cargo force-vaporised (FVU) from day one to fuel the engines
12.5 to 14.7 kPatank pressure rise in 10 days
Maskedforced boil-off hid the true boil-off rate, so the BOG warranty could not be verified

So the question was simple: was forced vaporisation needed at all?

What GeoServe did: predict first, then test against fuel demand

At departure, GeoServe’s boil-off model predicted how much boil-off the cargo would generate, then tested that prediction against the engines’ fuel demand.

  1. 1. Inputs

    Departure weather route, load-port certificate of quality, Form B and daily noon reports.

  2. 2. Prediction

    178.9 m³/day

    Boil-off the physics model expected the cargo to generate.

  3. 3. Diagnosis

    Predicted boil-off (about 179 m³/day) could cover fuel-gas demand (about 180 m³/day). The FVU fed liquid instead, and liquid leaves the tank without carrying heat out. The heat leak warmed the cargo by 0.27 °C, and in a saturated tank, warmer liquid means higher pressure.

  4. 4. Advice

    Natural boil-off firstLD compressors to full demand
    FVU securedRestart only below 12 kPa g
    PRS on standbyOnly above 16 kPa g
    Speed held at 17 knSchedule untouched

The result: cargo kept as cargo

US$122kcargo value protected: 288 m³ of boil-off kept out of storage as heat
309 m³forced vaporisation avoided
0.3%forecast error: 178.9 predicted vs 178.4 m³/day measured
−2.4 kPalower tank pressure and colder cargo
0 hschedule impact; speed unchanged

Vessel and client anonymised. Valued at load-port gross energy × US$18.1/MMBtu. Boil-off stored as heat must later be burnt at low load, flared, or delivered as warmer cargo.

The physics behind the result

Six capabilities turn voyage data into advice the crew can act on and the commercial team can audit.

Multicomponent thermodynamics

Peng Robinson EOS run on the load-port composition: bubble-point pressure, latent heat, density and cargo ageing.

Weather-integrated heat ingress and sloshing

Heat ingress scaled to sea and air temperature along the weather-routed track. Sloshing boil-off from wave height, period and tank fill level.

Saturated-tank pressure model

Energy balance on the liquid, with pressure following the bubble-point curve (about 9 kPa/°C for this cargo). Predicts pressure for every operating mode.

Fuel-gas balance versus speed

Demand per speed from the Form B gas table, anchored to measured consumption. Gives the predicted boil-off surplus or forced boil-off need per speed and sector.

Machinery constraints

Advice checked against installed plant from Form B: LD compressors, FVU, PRS / sub-cooler and GCU capacities.

Closed-loop verification

Stored heat reconciled with metered FVU flow, pressure checked against the saturation curve, and noon data screened for frozen or duplicated readings. Re-anchored every 48 hours.

Physics you can audit. Value you can bank.

See what your next voyage could save

Talk to our team about running boil-off forecasts on your fleet.

Request a demo

We’d like to hear from you!

Contact us today and one of our experienced team
members will connect with you soon.

Stay Connected

Subscribe to our newsletter to get company updates on your mailbox.