Designing the future of energy terminals: Where safety meets innovation

Written by Ron Heffron

The maritime energy sector stands at a critical juncture as clean alternative fuels reshape terminal design requirements. Advanced engineering solutions for floating terminals and specialized mooring systems are enabling the safe handling of challenging cargoes like ammonia and liquefied CO₂, while new industry guidelines provide essential frameworks for this evolving landscape.

For port authorities and private operators planning energy infrastructure, understanding the unique siting and configuration challenges of these terminals offers strategic advantages in an increasingly complex regulatory and technical environment.

The development of comprehensive guidelines for marine energy terminals began with a practical problem: aging infrastructure and the absence of unified design standards. When formal design guidelines first took shape in the 1990s, many of California’s marine oil terminals were at least 50 years old and built before modern seismic standards existed.

Recognizing the vulnerability of these facilities, industry leaders sought coordinated, technically grounded solutions rather than a patchwork of regulatory approaches. That early initiative, led by GHD’s Ron Heffron—now Vice President of Future Fuels and chair of PIANC Working Group 153C—sparked a broader, global collaboration among major energy companies including ExxonMobil, BP, TotalEnergies and Shell.

The resulting PIANC Working Group 153C document, Recommendations for the Design and Assessment of Liquid and Gas Marine Terminals Handling Fossil-Based and Clean Alternative Fuels and Cargoes, first addressed oil and petrochemical terminals in 2016, expanded to include LNG and floating LNG in 2022, and is now developing a third edition that will cover clean alternative fuels by the end of 2025.

The timing is critical. With numerous ammonia, hydrogen, methanol and sustainable aviation fuel terminals in development, these guidelines will fill a crucial gap where no consistent design standards currently exist.

Clean alternative fuel terminals present distinct siting challenges that differ from traditional oil and LNG facilities. Each cargo type introduces unique safety considerations tied to its inherent physical and chemical properties.

Ammonia terminals, for example, require careful separation from populated areas and adjacent industrial operations due to the cargo’s high toxicity even in small quantities. The new guidelines establish initial siting parameters that designers can use before conducting detailed quantitative risk assessments.

Liquefied CO₂ terminals face different challenges as asphyxiant cargoes, while hydrogen-based fuels introduce unique storage and transfer complexities. LNG terminals, meanwhile, must consider how leaked gas behaves over water surfaces until dissipation occurs.

Because each cargo presents a different hazard profile—flammable, toxic or asphyxiant—siting decisions become central to safe design. Tailored approaches are essential to ensure each terminal’s resilience and compliance with emerging global standards.

Floating terminal technology represents one of the most significant growth areas in marine energy infrastructure. These facilities must address challenges that traditional port structures never encounter.

Unlike conventional vessels that can leave port before major storms, permanently moored floating terminals must withstand extreme events such as cyclones, monsoons and tsunamis. Current projects include designs capable of surviving eight-meter tsunami events—an engineering challenge that demands advanced analysis and innovative design strategies.

The complexity extends beyond extreme weather resistance to include ongoing operational considerations. GHD has developed a comprehensive toolbox of solutions encompassing more than 60 terminal configurations and over 20 mooring alternatives, allowing engineers to match each design to specific site conditions and operational needs.

Recent projects demonstrate this flexibility in practice. The AltaGas REEF project in British Columbia, for example, significantly reduced capital costs by employing multi-buoy mooring systems instead of conventional jetties—a configuration never before used for LPG terminals on North America’s West Coast.

Successful energy terminal development depends on three core elements: siting parameters, configuration options and mooring solutions.

Siting decisions must reflect the properties and hazards of each cargo type, balancing safety with proximity to population centers and other industrial activities. While the guidelines offer essential starting points, detailed risk assessments remain vital for project validation.

Configuration flexibility is equally critical. Many modern floating terminals integrate multiple vessels or hybrid approaches that combine floating and onshore components. One current project in Guam, for example, uses a multi-buoy mooring system with catenary hoses linked to subsea cryogenic pipelines that deliver LNG to onshore storage and regasification facilities.

Equally important is the independence of engineering consultation. Effective project delivery depends not on standardized templates but on tailoring the technology and configuration to local site conditions, operational goals and regulatory contexts.

The next decade presents significant opportunities in floating terminal development, driven by continued LNG market expansion and the rise of clean alternative fuels.

Floating LNG terminals remain especially attractive for both export and import applications. Export facilities offer operational flexibility in regions like North America, while import terminals help meet growing global demand as supply expands and pricing stabilizes.

Behind this LNG momentum, clean alternative fuel terminals are rapidly emerging. Ammonia, in particular, holds strong potential as both a cargo and a ship fuel. With new engines capable of burning ammonia directly, the substance serves as both an efficient hydrogen carrier and a practical maritime fuel. This dual role could unlock substantial market potential as the global fleet explores conversion options.

The convergence of environmental regulations, technological advancement and market demand positions floating terminals and alternative fuel infrastructure as defining elements of the maritime energy transition. For organizations equipped with specialized expertise and adaptable engineering strategies, this transformation represents both a challenge and an extraordinary opportunity.

GHD combines strategic planning advisory services with infrastructure engineering to help ports navigate complex challenges from energy transition to funding innovation. Discover how we’re shaping the future of maritime infrastructure at https://info.ghd.com/ports-and-marine-energy-article
–– Ron Heffron is Vice President of Future Fuels for GHD

Note: The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of offshore-energy.biz.