LNG Regas CAPEX (2005–2025): $210 → $130/tpa

Sep 23

3 min read

28 August 2026

FSRU vs Onshore → Flexibility vs Scale

CAPEX Advantage: ~25%

FSRU: $130/tpa | 155K m³ storage | 7 buffer days
Onshore: $210/tpa | 830K m³ storage | 10 buffer days

FSRU or Onshore?

FSRU advantages:

Fast-track
Redeployment
Charter option

Onshore advantages:

Lower weather-related operating exposure
Larger scalable capacity
Phased expansion — tanks, regasification trains and berths
Lower OPEX — no vessel crewing, classification surveys, periodic drydocking or towage to a repair yard

What Drives CAPEX?

I. Infrastructure

Jetty; dredging; breakwater; mooring; offshore pipeline; distance to the gas grid; metocean conditions — wind, waves, currents and cyclones.

II. Storage

Storage depends on LNG cargo frequency, consumer demand and the required security buffer. More storage requires larger or additional cryogenic tanks.

III. Scale

Higher capacity generally reduces unit CAPEX: tanks, jetties, utilities, control systems and pipelines do not increase in direct proportion to send-out capacity.

Regas vs Liquefaction

CAPEX: $180/tpa vs $1,800/tpa — almost 10× lower.

Selected LNG Regas:

🇺🇸 2005 — Gulf Gateway (FSRU): 3.7 MTPA | 138K m³ | 6 buffer days | $116/tpa

🇮🇳 2009 — Dahej: 10.0 MTPA | 592K m³ | 10 buffer days | $147/tpa

🇺🇸 2009 — Sabine Pass: 30.0 MTPA | 795K m³ | 4 buffer days | $85/tpa

🇬🇧 2009 — South Hook: 15.6 MTPA | 775K m³ | 8 buffer days | $156/tpa

🇬🇧 2010 — Grain: 15.0 MTPA | 1.0M m³ | 11 buffer days | $155/tpa

🇳🇱 2011 — Gate Rotterdam: 8.8 MTPA | 540K m³ | 10 buffer days | $201/tpa

🇱🇹 2014 — Klaipėda (FSRU): 2.9 MTPA | 170K m³ | 10 buffer days | $201/tpa

🇵🇱 2016 — Świnoujście: 3.7 MTPA | 320K m³ | 14 buffer days | $516/tpa

🇰🇼 2022 — Al Zour: 22.0 MTPA | 1.8M m³ | 13 buffer days | $186/tpa

🇩🇪 2022 — Wilhelmshaven (FSRU): 3.5 MTPA | 170K m³ | 8 buffer days | $127/tpa

🇭🇷 2025 — Krk (FSRU): 4.5 MTPA | 140K m³ | 5 buffer days | $89/tpa

Methodology

CAPEX: constant 2026 USD / annual nameplate regasification capacity.
Period: operating configurations commissioned in 2005–2025.
Database: 83 terminal and phase configurations researched; 11 comparable full-system configurations selected.
Scope: storage + regasification + terminal marine and gas-export infrastructure + FSRU vessel or defensible vessel equivalent.Repurposed terminals: selected historical regas configuration only; subsequent liquefaction, export and other expansion CAPEX excluded — e.g., Sabine Pass.
FSRU exclusions: infrastructure-only disclosures without a defensible vessel value.
Multi-phase projects: cumulative CAPEX / cumulative capacity where scope is reliably reconstructed.
Buffer days: storage × 0.45 tonnes/m³ / full nameplate send-out.
Normalisation: historical FX + US CPI.
Uncertainty: project-specific; configurations above ±50% excluded.
Exclusions: financing and separable non-terminal infrastructure.
Capacity: nameplate capability, not imports or utilisation.
Benchmark methods:

Project average: FSRU $133/tpa vs onshore $207/tpa — 35% lower
Median: FSRU $122/tpa vs onshore $156/tpa — 22% lower
Capacity-weighted: FSRU $127/tpa vs onshore $158/tpa — 19% lower
Headline ~25%: rounded mean of the three comparison methods

Outliers: all verified comparable projects are retained, including high-cost configurations.
Industry feedback, additional public data and corrections are welcome.

Sources

Terminal operators; project companies; EPC contract announcements; annual reports
SEC EDGAR; European Investment Bank; Asian Development Bank; International Finance Corporation
National ministries; regulators; port authorities
GIIGNL Annual Reports; IGU World LNG Reports
US Bureau of Labor Statistics; European Central Bank