A linear model for LNG transport via existing pipeline and re-gasification terminals
-
Majed M. A. Munasser
and
Abdelbaki Benamor
Abstract
This paper presents a linear programming (LP) model for optimizing the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) through existing regasification terminals and Europe’s cross-border pipeline network. While pipelines offer fixed, efficient, and direct transport over land, LNG shipping provides flexibility and scalability, particularly for regions lacking pipeline connectivity. The model is demonstrated through five different case studies. Each case involves the identification of optimal LNG supply strategies from Qatar to the European Union under Russian gas disruption scenarios of 25 %, 50 %, and 75 % (equivalent to 34, 68, and 102 MTPA, respectively). The results show that the model prioritizes deliveries to destinations with available regasification capacity and low transport costs, with key importers including Turkey, Italy, Spain, and northern corridor countries. Annual network costs range from $8.1–8.8 billion for a 25 % disruption to $21–24 billion for a 75 % disruption, with liquefaction as the largest cost component. Strategic supply routes via southern, northern, and Baltic corridors were identified to enhance EU energy security, though fully replacing Russian gas would require contract adjustments and infrastructure agreements within the EU. The findings highlight the importance of integrating LNG shipping with pipeline capacity and fostering partnerships with intermediary countries.
-
Research ethics: Not applicable.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission. M.M performed statistical and computational analyses, developed the LP model, gathered and processed the data, wrote an initial draft of the manuscript and contributed to the results and discussion sections. S.A. developed the research idea, designed the study, assisted in the development of the LP model, ensured technical accuracy and supervised the overall project. Moreover, S.A. contributed to data analysis, the interpretation and visualization of the results, in addition to editing and finalizing the manuscript. A. B. assisted in literature review, manuscript formatting, contributed to editing and finalizing the manuscript, and provided critical revisions to enhance the intellectual content of the paper.
-
Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: None declared.
-
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Data availability: Not applicable.
Nomenclature
- R i,j
-
NG revenue made by exporting country i to importing country j
- R i,k
-
NG revenue made by exporting country i to intermediate country k
- R k,j
-
NG revenue made by intermediate country k to importing country j
- C i,j
-
NG cost incurred by exporting country i to importing country j
- C i,k
-
NG cost incurred by exporting country i to intermediate country k
- C k,j
-
NG cost incurred by intermediate country k to importing country j
- F LNG i,j
-
LNG flowrate from exporting country i to importing country j
- F LNG i,k
-
LNG flowrate from exporting country i to intermediate country k
- F LNG k,j
-
LNG flowrate from intermediate country k to importing country j
- F PIPE i,j
-
flowrate of NG via pipeline from exporting country i to importing country j
- F PIPE i,k
-
flowrate of NG via pipeline from exporting country i to intermediate country k
- F PIPE k,j
-
flowrate of NG via pipeline from intermediate country k to importing country j
- F i LNG Export Capacity
-
total LNG export capacity of country i
- F j PIPE Import Capacity
-
total pipe capacity of country j
- C RG,CAPEX
-
Regasification capital cost
- C RG,OPEX
-
Regasification operating cost
- C LIQ
-
LNG liquefaction cost
- C STR
-
LNG storage cost
- C SHIP
-
LNG shipping cost
- C PIPE
-
Pipe maintenance cost
- (θ)
-
Fraction
- F NG-Base
-
Total LNG exports from base country
- GC j Exist
-
Existing gasification capacity of country j
- GC j Expand
-
Expanded gasification capacity of country j
- GC k Exist
-
Existing gasification capacity of country k
- GC k Expand
-
Expanded gasification capacity of country k
References
1. Fahmy, MFM, Nabih, HI, El-Rasoul, TA. Optimization and comparative analysis of LNG regasification processes. Energy 2015;91:371–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.035.Search in Google Scholar
2. Meza, A, Koç, M. The LNG trade between Qatar and east Asia: potential impacts of unconventional energy resources on the LNG sector and Qatar’s economic development goals. Resour Policy 2021;70:101886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101886.Search in Google Scholar
3. Meza, A, Koç, M, Al-Sada, MS. Perspectives and strategies for LNG expansion in Qatar: a SWOT analysis. Resour Policy 2022;76:102633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102633.Search in Google Scholar
4. Farag, M, Zaki, C On the economic and political determinants of trade in natural gas. World Econ 2024;47:806–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13453.Search in Google Scholar
5. Tamba, JG, Essiane, SN, Sapnken, EF, Koffi, FD, Nsouandélé, JL, Soldo, B, et al.. Forecasting natural gas: a literature survey. Int J Energy Econ Policy 2018;8:216.Search in Google Scholar
6. Walls, MAJR. Modeling and forecasting the supply of oil and gas: a survey of existing approaches. Energy 1992;14:287–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0572-92-90012-6.Search in Google Scholar
7. Kim, K, Lim, S, Lee, C, Lee, WJ, Jeon, H, Jung, J, et al.. Forecasting liquefied natural gas bunker prices using artificial neural network for procurement management. 2022;10:1814, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121814.Search in Google Scholar
8. Su, M, Zhang, Z, Zhu, Y, Zha, D. Data-driven natural gas spot price forecasting with least squares regression boosting algorithm. 2019;12:1094. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12061094.Search in Google Scholar
9. Wadud, Z, Dey, HS, Kabir, MA, Khan, SI. Modeling and forecasting natural gas demand in Bangladesh. 2011;39:7372-80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.066.Search in Google Scholar
10. Mouchtaris, D, Sofianos, E, Gogas, P, Papadimitriou, T. Forecasting natural gas spot prices with machine learning. 2021;14:5782. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185782.Search in Google Scholar
11. Al-Haidous, S, Govindan, R, Elomri, A, Al-Ansari, T. An optimization approach to increasing sustainability and enhancing resilience against environmental constraints in LNG supply chains: a Qatar case study. Energy Rep 2022;8:9742–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.07.120.Search in Google Scholar
12. Bittante, A, Jokinen, R, Pettersson, F, Saxén, H. Optimization of LNG supply chain. In: Computer aided chemical engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015:779–84 pp.10.1016/B978-0-444-63578-5.50125-0Search in Google Scholar
13. Sabegh, ZA, Rasi, RE. A fuzzy goal-programming model for optimization of sustainable supply chain by focusing on the environmental and economic costs and revenue: a case study. Adv Math Finanace Appl 2019;4:103–23.Search in Google Scholar
14. Doymus, M, Denktas Sakar, G, Topaloglu Yildiz, S, Acik, A. Small-scale LNG supply chain optimization for LNG bunkering in Turkey. 2022;162:107789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.107789.Search in Google Scholar
15. Furlonge, H. A stochastic optimisation framework for analysing economic returns and risk distribution in the LNG business. Int J Energy Sect Manag 2011. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506221111186332.Search in Google Scholar
16. Thompson, M. Natural gas storage valuation, optimization, market and credit risk management. J Commod Mark 2016;2:26–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomm.2016.07.004.Search in Google Scholar
17. Halkos, G, Tsirivis, A. Policy, Effective energy commodity risk management: Econometric modeling of price volatility. Munich: University Library of Munich; 2019, 63:234–50 pp.10.1016/j.eap.2019.06.001Search in Google Scholar
18. Lv, X, Shan, X. Modeling natural gas market volatility using GARCH with different distributions. Phys A: Stat Mech Appl 2013;392:5685–99.10.1016/j.physa.2013.07.038Search in Google Scholar
19. Barua, S, Gao, X, Pasman, H, Mannan, S. Bayesian network based dynamic operational risk assessment. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2016;41:399–410.10.1016/j.jlp.2015.11.024Search in Google Scholar
20. Yang, X, Sam Mannan, M. The development and application of dynamic operational risk assessment in oil/gas and chemical process industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2010;95:806–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.03.002.Search in Google Scholar
21. Praks, P, Kopustinskas, V, Masera, M. Monte-Carlo-based reliability and vulnerability assessment of a natural gas transmission system due to random network component failures. Sustain Resilient Infrastruct 2017;2:97–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1294881.Search in Google Scholar
22. Perner, J, Seeliger, A. Prospects of gas supplies to the European market until 2030—results from the simulation model EUGAS. Util Policy 2004;12:291–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2004.04.014.Search in Google Scholar
23. Lochner, S. Modeling the European natural gas market during the 2009 Russian–Ukrainian gas conflict: ex-Post simulation and analysis. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2011;3:341–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2011.01.003.Search in Google Scholar
24. Meza, A, Ari, I, Al-Sada, MS, Koç, M. Future LNG competition and trade using an agent-based predictive model. Energy Strategy Rev 2021;38:100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100734.Search in Google Scholar
25. Lochran, S. GNOME: a dynamic dispatch and investment optimisation model of the European natural gas network and its suppliers. Oper Res Forum 2021;2:67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-021-00109-5.Search in Google Scholar
26. Woldeyohannes, AD, Majid, MAA. Simulation model for natural gas transmission pipeline network system. Simulat Model Pract Theor 2011;19:196–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2010.06.006.Search in Google Scholar
27. Taghavifar, H, Perera, L. Life cycle assessment of different marine fuel types and powertrain configurations for financial and environmental impact assessment in shipping. In: ASME 2022 41st International Conference on Ocean. Hamburg, Germany: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2022.10.1115/OMAE2022-78774Search in Google Scholar
28. Taghavifar, H, Perera, LP. Life cycle emission and cost assessment for LNG-Retrofitted vessels: the risk and sensitivity analyses under fuel property and load variations. Ocean Eng 2023;282:114940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114940.Search in Google Scholar
29. Taghavifar, H, Prasad Perera, L. The effect of LNG and diesel fuel emissions of marine engines on GHG-reduction revenue policies under life-cycle costing analysis in shipping. In: ASME 2023 42nd International Conference on Ocean. Melbourne, Australia: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2023.10.1115/OMAE2023-104508Search in Google Scholar
30. Al-Haidous, S, Al-Ansari, T. Sustainable liquefied natural gas supply chain management: a review of quantitative models. Sustainability 2020;12:243. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010243.Search in Google Scholar
31. Berle, Ø, Norstad, I, Asbjørnslett, B. Optimization, risk assessment and resilience in LNG transportation systems. Int J Supply Chain Manag 2013;18:253–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2012-0109.Search in Google Scholar
32. Francisco, M, Revollar, S, Vega, P, Lamanna, R. A comparative study of deterministic and stochastic optimization methods for integrated design of processes. IFAC Proc Vol 2005;38:335–40. https://doi.org/10.3182/20050703-6-cz-1902.00917.Search in Google Scholar
33. Liberti, L, Kucherenko, S. Comparison of deterministic and stochastic approaches to global optimization. Int Trans Oper Res 2005;12:263–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3995.2005.00503.x.Search in Google Scholar
34. Egging, R, Holz, F, Gabriel, SA. The world gas model: a multi-period mixed complementarity model for the global natural gas market. Energy 2010;35:4016–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.03.053.Search in Google Scholar
35. Egging, R, Holz, F, Christian von, H, Steven, AG. Representing GASPEC with the World Gas Model. Energy J 2009;30:97–117. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41323198.10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol30-NoSI-7Search in Google Scholar
36. Neumann, A, Viehrig, N, Weigt, H. InTraGas - a stylized model of the European natural gas network. Berlin: German Institute for Energy Economics and Economic Research; 2009. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1468247.10.2139/ssrn.1468247Search in Google Scholar
37. Lochner, S, Bothe, D, Lienert, M. Analysing the sufficiency of european gas infrastructure-the tiger model. In: Conference Paper presented at ENERDAY. Dresden, Germany: TU Dresden; 2007.Search in Google Scholar
38. Abada, I, Gabriel, S, Briat, V, Massol, O. A generalized nash–cournot model for the northwestern european natural gas markets with a fuel substitution demand function: the GaMMES model. Network Spatial Econ 2013;13:1–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-012-9171-5.Search in Google Scholar
39. Mulder, M, Zwart, G. NATGAS. A model of the European natural gas market. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis; 2006.Search in Google Scholar
40. Zwart, G, Mulder, M. NATGAS: a model of the European natural gas market. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis; 2006.Search in Google Scholar
41. Arya, DAK, Honwad, DS. Optimal operation of a multi source multi delivery natural gas transmission pipeline network. Chem Prod Process Model 2018;13. https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2017-0046.Search in Google Scholar
42. Behrooz, HA. A multiobjective robust approach for the design of natural gas transmission pipelines. Chem Prod Process Model 2019;14. https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2019-0055.Search in Google Scholar
43. Egging, R, Holz, F. Global gas model: model and data documentation v3. 0 (2019). Berlin, Germany: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung; 2019.Search in Google Scholar
44. Lise, W, Hobbs, BF, van Oostvoorn, F. Natural gas corridors between the EU and its main suppliers: simulation results with the dynamic GASTALE model. Energy Policy 2008;36:1890–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.042.Search in Google Scholar
45. Goryachev, AA. World gas models. Ind & Interind Compl 2015;26:327–37. https://doi.org/10.1134/s107570071504005x.Search in Google Scholar
46. Chyong, CK, Hobbs, B. Strategic Eurasian natural gas market model for energy security and policy analysis: formulation and application to South Stream. Energy Econ 2014;44:198–211.10.1016/j.eneco.2014.04.006Search in Google Scholar
47. Hecking, H and T Panke, COLUMBUS-A global gas market model. 2012, EWI Working Paper.Search in Google Scholar
48. Hecking, H, Panke, T. COLUMBUS-A global gas market model. Cologne, Germany: Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne; 2012.Search in Google Scholar
49. IGU, World LNG Report 2022. International Gas Union; 2023.Search in Google Scholar
50. British Petroleum. Statistical review of world energy; 2022.Search in Google Scholar
51. ENSTOG. European network of transmission system operators for gas; 2023. [cited 2023 April]; Available from: https://www.entsog.eu/.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
