Heliyon 6 (2020) e04538

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Research article

Study on the LNG distribution to mobile power plants utilizing small-scale

LNG carriers
Muhammad Arif Budiyanto a, *, Achmad Riadi a, I.G.N. Sumanta Buana b, Gita Kurnia c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Kampus Baru UI Depok, Jawa Barat 16424, Indonesia
b
Department of Marine Transportation and Logistics, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Jawa Timur 60111, Indonesia
c
Department of Logistics Engineering, Universitas Pertamina, Kebayoran Lama, Jakarta 12220, Indonesia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In recent years, the use of small-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) has grown alongside demand from industrial
Energy users of natural gas. Small-scale LNG is an alternative to the supply of natural gas to remote areas with a cost-
Energy sustainability effectiveness challenge. To address this challenge, five mobile power plants located in remote areas with
Urban energy consumption
limited depth of water level in western Indonesia are used here as a case study. The objective of this paper is to
Industrial energy consumption
Natural resource economics
optimize LNG distribution using small-scale LNG carriers and carry out an economic analysis in this region. The
Energy economics capacitated vehicle routing problem model was used to optimize the maritime routing of a small-scale LNG supply
LNG distribution chain. The maximization of the volume cargo with a given LNG vessel capacity set as the objective function was
Small-scale LNG carriers therefore provided with the optimum inventory routing and economic analysis of the transport of LNG. Cluster 1
Route optimization serves three power plants with a total demand of 966 m3/day and a distance is 913 Nautical Miles, while cluster 2
serves two power plants with a total demand of 690 m3/day and distance of 1,483 Nautical Miles. Economic
analysis of the two clusters shows that there is a minimum difference in the margin rate needed to make it worth
the investment, which is 3 USD/MMBTU for cluster 1 and 4 USD/MMBTU for cluster 2. Thus, this paper concludes
that the cost of LNG transportation depends on the amount of cargo demand and shipping distances.

1. Introduction
Liquid natural gas (LNG) has become a new major clean energy source
for electricity generation. Globally traded LNG volumes increased by
28.2 million tonnes in 2018 [1]. In recent years, many developing
countries have increased their investment in LNG infrastructure projects
to meet LNG demands [2]. The LNG supply system is in a rapid devel-
opment stage in many countries, but it is not yet complete [3]. To manage
the dynamic supply-demand structure of the network, an optimum sup-
ply chain for LNG remains to be determined [4]. Therefore, a minimum
production schedule that addresses market demands must be developed
to allow a both cost-effective and secure LNG supply network [5]. There
are difficulties in optimizing the supply chain network for LNG, such as
price and demand uncertainty [6], multiple gas production options [7],
variable distribution modes [8], versatile navigation paths [9], yearly
fluctuating demands [10], and the simultaneous need to optimize
infrastructure development and inventory routing [11]. There is some
difficulty in optimizing the LNG supply system due to the complexity of
the LNG supply chain, so solving this problem will be challenging [12].
The LNG supply chain can be described as a network of natural gas
from the gas field to the liquefaction plant to turn the gas phase into
liquid that is then stored in the refinery of the LNG storage tank and
delivered to gas consumers, referred to as end users [13]. LNG trans-
portation using small-sized LNG ships is still rare, with the demand for
gas from small plants between locations scattered at several points [14,
15]. Small-scale LNG carriers rely on importer-exporter market shares, it
is mainly designed for inland applications in addition to large-scale LNG
power generationsystems for peak demands or secondary cycles. The use
of small-scale LNG will provide operational ease because its smaller
vessel dimensions meet water depth requirements on shipping routes
[16].
Small-scale LNG routing is a special case of the maritime inventory
routing problem combined with several additional conditions, such as
variable production and consumption rates and port terminal limitations
[17]. The problem of vehicle routes or vehicle routing problems has been
widely examined by researchers to solve maritime distribution problems
[18]. Vehicle routing problems involve determining the optimal route for
problems involving more than one vehicle with a certain capacity in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: arif@eng.ui.ac.id (M.A. Budiyanto).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04538
Received 24 June 2019; Received in revised form 25 March 2020; Accepted 20 July 2020
2405-8440/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.A. Budiyanto et al. Heliyon 6 (2020) e04538

XX ( 
order to serve a certain number of customers in accordance with their Xijk ¼ 1; 8j ¼ 0; 1; …; n (5)
requests [19]. There are several types of vehicle routing problems and k2K j2R;j6¼i
several methods used to solve these problems [20]. One method of
vehicle routing that has been widely used to solve capacity-based The limits in Eqs. (4) and (5) aim to ensure that each receiving ter-
transportation cases is the branch-cut-and-price method [21], widely minal is serviced exactly once by a ship of a certain capacity.
used to solve land transportation problems [22]. Furthermore, the X ( 
development of this method is the capacitated vehicle routing problem; X0jk ¼ 1; 8k ¼ 1; 1; …; n (6)
j2R
this method is one variant of the vehicle routing problem, with each
vehicle having the same limited capacity for all vehicles that have to X ( 
service requests from depots with a single type of goods from the Xi0k ¼ 1; 8k ¼ 1; 1; …; n (7)
i2R
distributor, which generates minimum distance travel [23]. Despite the
many studies of capacitated vehicle routing problems, not many have The limitations contained in Eqs. (6) and (7) ensure that each route
applied it to the case of small-scale LNG carriers. This study aims to find with a particular ship starts from the LNG source and then, after serving
the optimum capacity of LNG ships by providing variations in the results the LNG distribution, returns to LNG source h.
of the route with the capacitated vehicle routing problem method. This 
X X (
study has twofold contributions: firstly, we report the optimum route Xihk  Xhjk ¼ 0; 8h ¼ 1; 8k ¼ 1; 1; …; n (8)
combines with the maximum capacity of small scale LNG distribution for i2R;i6¼h j2R;j6¼h

mobile power plants with limited depth of water level in the receiving
The limit in Eq. (8) ensures the continuation of the route of the LNG
terminal facilities. Secondly, we estimate preliminary transportation
distribution, meaning that every ship that has finished servicing a
costs for small scale LNG that combines the economic value of LNG
receiving terminal will leave the receiving terminal to continue distrib-
transportation with the shipping distance and volume of the cargo. This
uting LNG or return to the LNG source.
work also will provide an overview of the optimal small-scale LNG dis-
tribution allocation for small-scale power plants and a real case study in Xhjk 2 f0; 1g; 8i;j ¼ f0; 1; 2; …; ng; i; j 2 R; i 6¼ j; 8k ¼ f1; …; ng (9)
Indonesia, which is an island nation.
The limit in Eq. (9) ensures that the decision variable only uses in-
2. Research methods tegers 0 or 1.

2.1. Capacitated vehicle routing problem 2.2. Case study: LNG distribution in Sumatera, Indonesia

The problem of LNG distribution in this study is categorized as a The CVRP model was used in this case study to optimize the maritime
capacitated vehicle routing problem (CVRP). The capacity of LNG car- routing of a small-scale LNG supply chain in western Indonesia. There are
riers will be a limitation in LNG transportation. The difference in LNG currently many mini-LNG terminal projects in this region to satisfy the
ship capacity will provide variations in route results and transportation needs of mobile power plant (MPP) gas suppliers for remote areas [24,
costs. The input parameter of the CVRP calculation using following data: 25]. Today, power generation in western Indonesia is mainly based on oil
the distance between location i and location j (Sij), the demand of each and coal. Renewable sources have recently been introduced, and focus
receiving terminal (Di), the type of LNG vessel (k) based on loading ca- has also been given to natural gas. During this transition between fossil
pacity (Q), transportation costs for each route (boat rental, fuel, port fee) energy sources and renewables, natural gas appears to be the natural
(Cijk). The decision variable in this study is symbolized as Xijk, where bridge, with its economic, safer, more efficient, and more environmen-
ship k will transport LNG on a route (R) from location i to location j. If tally friendly features. We selected the existing floating storage and
ship k will transport LNG from location i to location j, then Xijk is worth 1 regasification unit (FSRU) as a potential LNG supply terminal by a
and in other conditions will be worth 0, with i, j ¼ {0, 1, 2, … , n}, i, j 2 R state-owned gas company, PGN, in Lampung, Sumatera. PGN's Lampung
i 6¼ j and k ¼ {1, 2, … , n}, k 2 {1, … , K}. FSRU is capable of storing up to 170,000 cubic meters of LNG and

regasifying 240 million standard cubic feet (MMSCFD) per day [26].
1; if the carriers k transport LNG from i to location j Considering LNG demand, there are five mobile power plants with mini
Xijk ¼ (1)
0; if others receiving terminals located on different islands. Two are existing mobile
The objective function in this study is to maximize the volume cargo power plants located in the Pontianak 4  25 Megawatt (MW) and
with a specified LNG vessel capacity so that the LNG transportation costs Tarahan 4  25 MW. The other three are currently under construction
can be minimized. To obtain the maximum total cargo volume, an and are scheduled for commissioning in the near future [27, 28, 29]. The
optimal route is sought by minimizing the remaining cargo transported demands used for the power plant are estimations based on the
by the LNG vessel using the following equation: megawatt-hours conversion into cubic feet of natural gas. For power
plants, it is assumed that every 1 MW of power output will require an
XX X
min Xijk Sij Cijk (2) average supply of natural gas of 0.12 MMCFD; thus, 1 MMSCFD is
k2K i2R j2R;j6¼i equivalent to 46 m3 of LNG. Table 1 displays the demands used for daily
consumption for each power plant. For the sake of brevity, the following
With the limiting function as follows: location abbreviations for the mobile power plants are used: FSRU
X X (  Lampung (A0), MPP Belitung (A1), MPP Bangka (A2), MPP Pontianak
Di Xijk  Q; 8k ¼ 1; 1; …; n (3) (A3), MPP Lampung (A4), and MPP Nias (A5).
i2R j2R;j6¼i
Two sizes of small-scale LNG (SSLNG) carriers were taken into
Eq. (3) sets limits to ensure that the number of receiving terminal consideration: Kakurei Maru (2500 m3) and Akebono Maru (3500 m3).
requests served on each ship must be less than or equal to the loading These vessels were selected since they have a draft of below 5 m and
capacity of the ship serving the route. currently operate on the Japan LNG supply chain [30, 31]. These vessels
 also have a propulsion system with dual-fuel engine, which is can use in
XX (
Xijk ¼ 1; 8i ¼ 0; 1; …; n (4) diesel or gas fuel-mode [32], this engine is considered to be more envi-
k2K i2R;j6¼i ronmentally friendly and has greater efficiency [33]. Particular di-
mensions and capacities of SSLNG carriers were obtained from the
classifications under which they are registered; the data are shown in

2
M.A. Budiyanto et al. Heliyon 6 (2020) e04538

Table 1. LNG demands of mobile power plants in western Indonesia.

Mark Location Capacity LNG Demands Coordinates Data Source

(MW) (m3/day) (Latitude, Longitude)
A0 FSRU Lampung* - - (-5.61, 105.94) Ref. [26]
A1 MPP Belitung 1  25 138 (-2.89, 107.56) Refs. [24, 25]
A2 MPP Bangka 2  25 276 (-2.08, 106.14) Refs. [24, 25]
A3 MPP Pontianak 4  25 552 (0.02, 109.26) Refs. [24, 25]
A4 MPP Lampung 4  25 552 (-5.52, 105.34) Refs. [24, 25]
A5 MPP Nias 1  25 138 (1.21, 97.67) Refs. [24, 25]
*
LNG Source.

Table 2. The draft of the vessel, in this case, is very important because the
location of several power plants is on the coast, which has a limited
depth, even during extreme tides. Table 3 shows that the distances be-
tween the point locations differ in the range of 93–1,097 Nautical Miles
(NM), which corresponds to trips of 1.3–5.7 days with the smallest vessel.
The sea distance was calculated using Searoutes historical vessel data
[34].
In addition, the route optimization differs according to sizes of LNG
carriers in the delivery path and the solution is determined using the
Greedy algorithm, which takes into consideration the load, service speed,
supply point reach, transportation costs, and demand variables. Many
assumptions were used to reduce the sophistication of the optimization
phase, and load-unloading time was constant at 6 h for all forms of car-
riers. To address uncertain shipping conditions, each delivery will
receive an additional 3 h of buffer time from one terminal point to
another [15].
3. Results and discussion
The results of the case study for route optimization and economic
analysis, which includes financial parameters associated with trans-
portation costs of small-scale LNG distribution, are analyzed in this
section.
3.1. Route optimization
The results of calculations with the capacitated vehicle routing
problem method there are 93 possible shipping routes. From 93 possible
routes, two optimum routes were selected, based on criteria, distance and
delivery time. The optimum value was the smallest difference between
freight loads and LNG specifications for every voyage. Two optimal
routes are shown in Table 4, and the route map is shown in Figure 1. The
term boil-off gas in Table 4 is an LNG cargo in the form of liquid which
changes phase to gas due to environmental influences. LNG tank

Table 2. The particular dimensions of small-scale LNG carriers.

Type of Ship SSLNG-X SSLNG-Y

Name of Ship Unit KAKUREI MARU [35] AKEBONO MARU [36]

Capacity m3 2536 3587
Overall Length m 86.290 99.37
Breadth m 15.1 17.2
Draft m 4.31 4.6
Maximum Speed knot 14.6 15.8
Average Speed knot 13.2 14.1

Table 3. Distance matrix (nautical miles).

A0 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
A0 0 188 248 381 93 725
A1 188 0 118 213 260 893
A2 248 118 0 226 327 960
A3 381 213 226 0 460 1097
A4 93 260 327 460 0 665
A5 725 893 960 1097 665 0

Table 4. Two optimum routes based on distance and delivery time.

Optimum route Ship Type Sea Distance Round Trip Total Demand/Trip Boil-off gas
(NM) (Days) (m3) (m3)
Cluster 1 A0 - A1 - A2 - A3 - A0 SSLNG-Y 913 3.3 3,191.7 25.5
(Green)
Cluster 2 A0 - A4 - A5 - A0 SSLNG-Y 1,483 5.0 3,433.8 27.5
(Yellow)

3
M.A. Budiyanto et al.
Figure 1. The LNG distribution route for mobile power plants in western Indonesia.
insulation is designed in such a way as to keep LNG cargo at the tem-
perature of around -160  Celsius at atmospheric pressure, but due to the
heat from the environment, the penetration into the tank causes the
temperature of the charge to rise, and change the phase to gas [37]. This
gas from phase change then used as fuel from the LNG Tanker. Boil-off
gas on LNG Tanker ships generally ranges from 0.1% of the total ship-
load per day [38]. The use of boil-off gas as fuel will value added to the
operational economic value of the ship.
3.2. Economic analysis
The financial feasibility parameters for costs incurred by distribution
activities of the LNG ships, including investment in new building ships of
SSLNG, have been included in the economic analysis conducted in this
study. Economic analyzes are carried out by using the revenue derived
from the payment of LNG services to power plants based on the financial
feasibility parameters. This payment for the transport service is often
called the price margin for the LNG selling. Practically, this selling price
margin can be analogous to the costs that gas buyers must pay to LNG
supplier companies that buy LNG from LNG producers and then send it to
gas buyers. Two variables, capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational
expenditure (OPEX), are considered in the economic calculation. The
internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) are parameters
or criteria for financial feasibility used in the economic analysis.
CAPEX is all initial costs of investment in the new SSLNG vessel
construction. In this paper, a simple model for estimating new building
costs for LNG tankers proposed by Mulligan was used, as shown in Eq.
(10) [39].
CLNG ¼ ¼ 253:012 þ 2:6PPI þ 1:8053DWT  0:01009 DWT 2
þ 0:0000189DWT 3 (10)
4
Heliyon 6 (2020) e04538
where PPI is the producer price index and DWT is the deadweight volume
for each ship. The suggested PPI index is 163.1. Based on the optimiza-
tion results of route selection with minimum investment cost, it has been
estimated that the total investment cost for new ship construction is
177,394,660 USD.
OPEX is all costs incurred to support the operational distribution of
LNG, including the operational costs of the receiving terminal and the
transportation costs for transporting LNG from the refinery to the
receiving terminal. The operational costs of the receiving terminal consist
of ship rental fees, ship fuel costs, port costs, operational costs of the
receiving terminal, electricity costs and fuel costs of the receiving ter-
minal, maintenance costs, and payments to receiving terminal workers.
The total operational costs are estimated to be USD 6,062,931.64 for
cluster 1 per annum based on optimization results of route selection with
the minimum investment cost.; thus, total operational costs for cluster 2
are 6,443,731.55 USD annually. Details of operational costs from LNG
ship transportation are shown in Table 5.
From the total CAPEX and OPEX, the amount of revenue obtained
from LNG transportation and regasification services up to the mouth of
the engine in the power plant can be calculated. The benefit derives from
the difference between the buying price for LNG and the selling price for
LNG, or the sales margin for LNG. In order to detect the LNG market
margin sensitivity, at the end of the 20-year period, a difference in LNG
sales prices was observed in the LNG sales unit (MMBTU), i. e. in USD/
MMBTU, or in this research. In this study, six margin variations are used,
from a margin of 3.0–7 USD per MMBTU with an increase of 1 USD. The
sales margin was subsequently multiplied by the LNG sell in one year to
earn sales margin revenue. For variations in LNG sales margins, the total
calculation for revenue can be found in Table 6.
After the income is known, the next step is to calculate the investment
eligibility criteria in the form of IRR and NPV. This value is calculated to
make LNG investment from financial parameters feasible. Figures 2 and 3
M.A. Budiyanto et al. Heliyon 6 (2020) e04538

Table 5. Details of operational expenditures.

Item Cost (USD) Reference

Fuel and lubricating oil Cluster 1 4,883,371.64 Calculated based on fuel cost 26 USD/km  48.2 USD/NM [14]
Cluster 2 5,264,171.55
Ship's crew 426,000.00 Estimated based on Marine Labor Convention [40]
Fresh water 1,560.00 Estimated based on fresh water cost on local port data 5 USD/ton [41]
Port local agent expenses 480,000.00 Assumption based on local port data [42]
Ship repair costs 4,000.00 Assumption based on literature study [43]
Ship docking cost 188,000.00 Assumption based on literature study [43]
Survey and maintenance costs 40,000.00 Assumption based on literature study [43]
Overhead cost 40,000.00 Assumption based on literature study [43]
Total Operational Expenditure Cluster 1: 6,062,931.64
Cluster 2: 6,443,731.55

Table 6. Variation of margin rate.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2

Cargo demands (MMBTU) 7,726,320 5,518,800

Margin Rate 3 USD/MMBTU 16,929,836.02 10,010,516.43
4 USD/MMBTU 24,563,440.18 15,463,090.83
5 USD/MMBTU 32,197,044.34 20,915,665.23
6 USD/MMBTU 39,830,648.50 26,368,239.63
7 USD/MMBTU 47,464,252.66 31,820,814.03

Figure 2. Discount rate and net present value for economic analysis of cluster 1.

display the result of the economic analysis on the LNG investment esti-
mate for Western Indonesia with differing revenue margins. The graph
shows that the greater the LNG sales margin, the faster the return on
investment, the greater the investment return, and the greater the NPV
value. To see a profit, the NPV value must be positive in the 20th year,
where the IRR value must be greater than the discount rate value. If the
government's discount rate is set at 10%, then the economic analysis in
cluster 1 will be worth investing when the margin rate is above 3 USD; in
cluster 2, it will be worth investing when the margin rate is above 4 USD.
The margin rate in this calculation is interpreted as the minimum value of
LNG transportation costs. According to some references, the trans-
portation cost of LNG with large-scale LNG vessels varies greatly, from
0.65 USD/MMBTU to 2 USD/MMBTU, depending on the distance [44,
45]. If the cost of transporting LNG is compared with the results of the
calculation of this study, there will be a slight difference, which makes it
interesting to discuss. The results of this study indicate that the economic
feasibility of LNG distribution with SSLNG vessels is different from
large-scale LNG vessels. In LNG distribution using SSLNG vessels, it is
possible that the transportation costs are greater than the LNG price itself,
where the current spot LNG price dropped into the range of 4
USD/MMBTU [46]. When that occurs, attention should be given to a
robust LNG supply chain so that the economic measure is beneficial
relative to other energy use. Investment calculations need to be made not
only in terms of sea transportation but also in terms of infrastructure
readiness and advances in LNG technology, such as high-efficiency mini
power plants, mini regasification terminals, and low-draft LNG vessels.

5
M.A. Budiyanto et al.
Figure 3. Discount rate and net present value for economic analysis of cluster 2.
Another thing that needs to be considered based on the results of this
calculation is margin line differences between clusters 1 and 2. It shows
that the economic value of LNG transportation depends on the distance
and volume of the cargo. This can be considered by the government to
implement a standard system of minimum costs for each cluster.
The results obtained from this study may be different from the results
conducted by other researchers. This is because the optimization prob-
lems in real life are very complex, there are many factors that need to be
addressed. Specifically, in this case, the distribution of small-scale LNG in
Indonesia has several challenges, namely maritime access to receiving
terminals that could trigger major investment, arbitration of the distri-
bution of shipping costs among customers, and lack of consistency in
policy and regulations [47].
4. Conclusion
In this paper, a capacitated vehicle routing problem for the optimal
design of a supply chain has been presented for LNG distribution using
SSLNG carriers in western Indonesia. This case study was deliberately
chosen because it has a unique case of receiving facilities in a remote area
with limited depth of water level. The maximized volume cargo with a
specified LNG vessel capacity was set as the objective function; thus, the
optimal inventory routing and economic analysis of transporting LNG
were presented as the result. From various possible routes, two optimal
routes were determined, cluster 1 and cluster 2, where each cluster uses
SSLNG vessels with a capacity of 3,587 m3. Determined routes have
different characteristics; cluster 1 serves three MPPs with a total demand
of 966 m3/day and a cruise distance of 913 NM for a round trip, while
cluster 2 serves two MPPs with a total demand of 690 m3/day with a
shipping distance of 1,483 NM for a round trip. From the two cluster
cases, an economic analysis was then performed, including the invest-
ment eligibility criteria in the form of IRR and NPV. The results show that
the two clusters have different economies of scale: cluster 1 is feasible for
investment if the margin rate is above 3 USD/MMBTU, while cluster 2 is
feasible for investment if the margin rate is above 4 USD/MMBTU. This
amount is still relatively high compared to the current transportation
costs, each of which is considered reasonable because the LNG trans-
portation business model is currently being carried out for huge cargo
volumes with very long shipping distances between countries. The results
of the calculation show that the cost of LNG transportation depends on
6
Heliyon 6 (2020) e04538
the amount of cargo demand and shipping distance, so a stakeholder
policy is needed so that the SSLNG transportation business is attractive to
investors. The policy implications are aimed at the government and
shipping operators. From the government's perspective, the minimum
transportation cost policy for each cluster can be implemented, as can the
provision of incentives for clusters that have small cargo demands with
long shipping distances. In terms of shipping operators, the policy of
using boil-off-gas as secondary fuel can be implemented in order to save
on fuel costs.
Declarations
Author contribution statement
Muhammad Arif Budiyanto: Conceived and designed the experi-
ments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data;
Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Achmad Riadi: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed re-
agents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
I. G. N. Sumanta Buana & Gita Kurnia: Analyzed and interpreted the
data; Wrote the paper.
Funding statement
The authors would like to express our gratitude to Directorate
Research and Development (DRPM) Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia in
publication support by PUTI Q1 NKB-1390/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2020.
Competing interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
No additional information is available for this paper.
References
[1] International Gas Union, 2019 World LNG Report, 2019.
M.A. Budiyanto et al.
[2] H. Liu, Z. Chen, T. Zhou, Theoretical and experimental study on the temperature
distribution of H-shaped steel members under solar radiation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 37
(2012) 329–335.
[3] Y. Ma, Y. Li, “Analysis of the supply-demand status of China’s natural gas to 2020,
Petrol. Sci. 7 (1) (Mar. 2010) 132–135.
[4] D.A. Wood, A review and outlook for the global LNG trade, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 9
(Nov. 2012) 16–27.
[5] S. Lee, Y. Seo, J. Lee, D. Chang, Economic evaluation of pressurized LNG supply
chain, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 33 (Jul. 2016) 405–418.
[6] B.-Y. Yoo, Economic assessment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a marine fuel for
CO2 carriers compared to marine gas oil (MGO), Energy 121 (Feb. 2017) 772–780.
[7] J. Kim, Y. Seo, D. Chang, Economic evaluation of a new small-scale LNG supply
chain using liquid nitrogen for natural-gas liquefaction, Appl. Energy 182 (Nov.
2016) 154–163.
[8] H. Andersson, M. Christiansen, K. Fagerholt, Transportation Planning and Inventory
Management in the LNG Supply Chain, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010,
pp. 427–439.
[9] R. Jokinen, F. Pettersson, H. Sax
en, An MILP model for optimization of a small-scale
LNG supply chain along a coastline, Appl. Energy 138 (Jan. 2015) 423–431.
[10] M. Chung, H.-C. Park, C.F.M. Coimbra, Estimation of the building energy loads and
LNG demand for a cogeneration-based community energy system: a case study in
Korea, Energy Convers. Manag. 87 (Nov. 2014) 1010–1026.
[11] M.K.I. Abdul Rahim, Y. Zhong, E.-H. Aghezzaf, T. Aouam, Modelling and solving the
multiperiod inventory-routing problem with stochastic stationary demand rates,
Int. J. Prod. Res. 52 (14) (Jul. 2014) 4351–4363.
[12] V. Goel, K.C. Furman, J.-H. Song, A.S. El-Bakry, Large neighborhood search for LNG
inventory routing, J. Heuristics 18 (6) (Dec. 2012) 821–848.
[13] S. Mokhatab, W.A. Poe, J.G. Speight, Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission and
Processing. Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Gulf Professional Publishing is an imprint of
Elsevier, Oxford OX2 8DP, UK, 2006.
[14] A. Bittante, F. Pettersson, H. Sax
en, Optimization of a small-scale LNG supply chain,
Energy 148 (Apr. 2018) 79–89.
[15] M.A. Budiyanto, A.S. Pamitran, T. Yusman, Optimization of the route of distribution
of LNG using small scale LNG carrier: a case study of a gas power plant in the
Sumatra region, Indonesia, Int. J. Energy Econ. Pol. 9 (6) (2019) 179–187.
[16] M. Kim, E. Morilhat, X.C. Nguyen, B. Kim, J. Jang, H. Jeong, Offloading operability
of small scale AG FLNG with side-by-side moored small scale LNG carrier in offshore
West Africa,, in: Offshore Technology 1, 2017.
[17] M. Christiansen, K. Fagerholt, D. Ronen, Ship routing and scheduling: status and
perspectives, Transport. Sci. 38 (1) (Feb. 2004) 1–18.
[18] E.E. Halvorsen-Weare, K. Fagerholt, M. R€ onnqvist, Vessel routing and scheduling
under uncertainty in the liquefied natural gas business, Comput. Ind. Eng. 64 (1)
(Jan. 2013) 290–301.
[19] P. Toth, D. Vigo, Vehicle Routing Problems, Methods, and Applications, Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Bologna, Italy, 2014.
[20] S.N. Kumar, R. Panneerselvam, A survey on the vehicle routing problem and its
variants, Intell. Inf. Manag. 4 (3) (May 2012) 66–74.
[21] J.F. Hansen, R. Lysebo, Comparison of Electric Power and Propulsion Plants for LNG
Carriers with Different Propulsion Systems, 2007.
[22] J. Lysgaard, S. Wøhlk, A branch-and-cut-and-price algorithm for the cumulative
capacitated vehicle routing problem, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 236 (3) (Aug. 2014)
800–810.
[23] R. Fukasawa, et al., Robust branch-and-cut-and-price for the capacitated vehicle
routing problem, Math. Program. 106 (3) (May 2006) 491–511.
Heliyon 6 (2020) e04538
[24] Committee for Acceleration of Priority Infrastructure Republic of Indonesia,
Development of mini LNG refinery and LNG-LNCG station in Java Island - KPPIP,
Jakarta.
[25] PT PLN (PERSERO), Ruptl Pt Pln (Persero), 2018 [Online]. Available: https://we
b.pln.co.id/statics/uploads/2018/04/RUPTL-PLN-2018-2027.pdf.
[26] H€oegh LNG Partners LP, “PGN FSRU Lampung.”
[27] Tripatra, Tripatra Being Part of National Electricity Development, 25 MW Power
Plant in Nias – Tripatra, 2017 [Online]. Available: https://www.tripatra.com/tripat
ra-menjadi-bagian-dalam-pembangunan-listrik-nasional-power-plant-25-mw-di-nia
s/. (Accessed 11 March 2020).
[28] The Jakarta Post, Indonesia Adds 500 MW into Electricity Grid from New mobile
Power Plants - Business - the Jakarta Post, 2017 [Online]. Available: https
://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/03/19/indonesia-adds-500-mw-into-ele
ctricity-grid-from-new-mobile-power-plants.html. (Accessed 11 March 2020).
[29] M.A. Budiyanto, A.O. Triandi, O. Kurniawan, Study on thermodynamic cycle of gas
engine power plant 10MW, in: Recent Progress on: Mechanical, Infrastructure and
Industrial Engineering: Proceedings of International Symposium on Advances in
Mechanical Engineering (ISAME): Quality in Research 2019 2227, 2020, p. 20006,
no. 1.
[30] Nomura Research Institute, Study on Opportunities and Issues in Introducing Mini
LNG Facilities and Equipments in Indonesia, 2015.
[31] Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre, Small-scale LNG in Asia-Pacific, 2019.
[32] M. Arif Budiyanto, A.S. Pamitran, H. Tresno Wibowo, F.N. Murtado, Study on the
performance analysis of dual fuel engines on the medium speed diesel engine,
J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci. J. Homepage 68 (2020) 163–174.
[33] M.A. Budiyanto, Nasruddin, R. Nawara, The optimization of exergoenvironmental
factors in the combined gas turbine cycle and carbon dioxide cascade to generate
power in LNG tanker ship, Energy Convers. Manag. 205 (Feb. 2020) 112468.
[34] P. Garreau, S.A.S. Searoutes, Immatriculated at Registre du Commerce et des
Societes de Marseille [Online]. Available: https://searoutes.com/routing?spee
d¼13&panama¼true&suez¼true&kiel¼true&rivers¼block&roads¼block.
(Accessed 12 March 2020).
[35] ClassNK Register of Ships, M/S KAKUREI MARU(CNo.085451), 2019.
[36] ClassNK Register of Ships, M/S AKEBONO MARU(CNo.115541), 2019. Tokyo.
[37] A.S. Pamitran, M.A. Budiyanto, R.D.Y. Maynardi, Analysis of ISO-tank wall physical
exergy Characteristic : case study of LNG boil-off rate from retrofitted dual fuel
engine conversion, Evergreen 6 (2) (2019) 134–142.
[38] D. Chang, T. Rhee, K. Nam, K. Chang, D. Lee, S. Jeong, A study on availability and
safety of new propulsion systems for LNG carriers, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93 (12)
(Dec. 2008) 1877–1885.
[39] R.F. Mulligan, A simple model for estimating newbuilding costs, Marit. Econ. Logist.
10 (3) (Sep. 2008) 310–321.
[40] M. McConnell, D. Devlin, C. Doumbia-Henry, The maritime labour convention,
Marit. Labour Conv. (2006) 2006–2011.
[41] Indonesia Port Corporation IV, Tariff Information Center [Online]. Available: https
://inaport4.co.id/tarif/107/tarif-pelayanan-kapal. (Accessed 17 March 2020).
[42] Ministry of National Development Planning of the Republic of Indonesia, Indonesia
Port Cost, Jakarta.
[43] Spar, Ship Repair, Maintenance & Modernization Cost Model, 2014.
[44] H. Rogers, The LNG Shipping Forecast: Costs Rebounding, Outlook Uncertain.
[45] S. Zeng, N. Niu, M. Meng, and M. Feng, The Effect of LNG Shipping Charter Rates on
LNG Prices in Asian Market, Perth .
[46] Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry Japan, Trend of the price of Spot-LNG,
2020.
[47] International Gas Union, Small Scale LNG Program Committee D3, Jun. 2015.