Technical Challenges & Enablers for FLNG Technology FLNG Forum - Date 3 – 4 December 2013

Geeta Thakorlal, Regional Director – Select Hydrocarbons,

Dr. Pat Morgan, Principal Consultant

WorleyParsons Company Overview

FLNG Technology & Operations - An Ambitious

Enterprise

Overview of FLNG Concepts

Why the need for Innovative Solutions for FLNG

Technology

Solutions for FLNG Technology

What are the challenges?

Our Fit-for-Purpose approach to FLNG Technology & Operations

Risk Management

Q & A

Agenda

WorleyParsons

An Introduction

Global Coverage

40,400 people in 165 offices throughout 41 countries

Company Overview

Power

Coal

Advanced Coal

Gas Turbine Based

Plants

Nuclear

Renewable Energy

Transmission Networks

Minerals, Metals &

Chemicals

Base Minerals

Coal

Ferrous Metals

Alumina

Aluminium

Iron Ore

Chemicals

Infrastructure &

Environment

Resource

Infrastructure

Urban Infrastructure

Ports & Marine

Terminals

Water & Wastewater

Transport

Environment

Hydrocarbons

Arctic & Cold Climate

Gas Processing

Heavy Oil & Oil Sands

INTECSEA

LNG

Onshore Production

(& Enhanced Oil Recovery)

Pipeline Systems

Offshore Topsides

Floating Production Systems

Petrochemicals

Refining

Sulphur Technology

Unconventional Oil & Gas

FLNG Korean EPC, Co-Design FLNG, Concept Design

InterOil (SHI), Flex LNG, FEED

+15 offshore & FLNG concept studies

LNG Re-gasification Petronas, Offshore LNG Re-gasification Unit, EPCIC

H Energy, India East Coast F-LNG Regasification, FEED (Pending EPCM)

FPSO Chevron, Rosebank FPSO, Concept & FEED

Total, Egina, DE (SHI)

Modular LNG Iran LNG Liquefaction Units, Detailed Design/Procurement

CNOOC, North Pars LNG Facility, FEED

Integration Woodside, NR2, EPCM

ExxonMobil, Hebron, Detailed Design

LNG Experience

There are significant technical and operational risks

associated with both maritime operations and LNG

production

FLNG operations offer the potential of significant

economic benefits but are subject to these critical risk

challenges

For Example – Maritime platform operations in high sea states;

crew fatigue and performance; helicopter operations; corrosion

control and platform systems management, etc.

An imperative exists to provide an Innovative Solution

Strategy framework to assess the risks and provide fit for

purpose solutions

FLNG Operations – An

Ambitious Enterprise

There is a significant

difference in scale

Reduced separation of

process & utilities modules

Limits redundancy

allowances

Increases risk

Typical Onshore LNG Plant vs

FLNG Concept

Typical Onshore LNG Plant

vs FLNG Concept

LNG land base processing: allowance can be made for all or any

possible process configurations

Real estate space is not an issue

Redundancy can be built in the original design without impacting operations

− For example, LNG, LPG, condensate or the pure components methane, ethane,

propane and butane often have higher sales value compared to the pipeline gas

itself. Hence they are frequently extracted and fractionated in tailor made

processing plants according to the specific requirements of the regional market.

FLNG: the location and chemical composition of the gas reserve

must drive the FLNG platform and processing configuration and

design

Design must be robust to operate in a maritime environment with large

variations in weather conditions

Design must have flexibility to cope with variations in gas reserve chemical

composition

LNG / FLNG – Are we really

comparing “apples with apples”?

North West WA LNG plants typically see variation in incoming

reservoir compositions which include:

Methane (60-99.5%)

Ethane (0.5-3%)

LPG content (1 to 8%)

C5+ Condensate

Water (associated and condensed)

MEG (used to control hydrates)

Liquid slug size (nil to hundreds of barrels)

CO2 content (1-20%) – carbon capture issues

H2S content (sour service, 0 to 0.5%)

Mercury content (embrittlement of aluminium)

Fluid Temperature (depending on sea temperature and depth, and also

on Joule Thomson cooling in line, 3 to 30C)

A challenge for any FLNG concept will be to cope with this full

range

Scaling Down LNG to FLNG

reservoir composition

FLNG: The topside real estate is limited by the size,

stability and trim of the maritime platform

Not all contingencies can be designed into the original platform

configuration

Flexibility of design needs to be carefully considered to take

advantage of possible changes over the life of the platform

“What you don’t fit costs you nothing and needs no

maintenance” – Henry Ford

However what you overlook in the original design may not be so

easy to retro fit

A detailed engineering/market analysis is critical if this

technology is to be realised

Scaling Down LNG to FLNG

Plug and play modules – A reconfigurable approach.

Not one solution fits all

Almost all FLNG designs will have bespoke configurations,

which may or may not be able to be reconfigured and

redeployed

“Design one, build many” – actually means design for all

possible configurations!

First design and build the platform

Then configure the topside

Then operate it

Scaling Down LNG to FLNG

Management of FLNG Design

Interfaces

LNG Offloading

Mooring Systems

& Subsea Architecture

Process Integration

Environment

Contractor Interfaces

& Procurement Management

Operations Planning, Quality &

HSE

INTERFACES

- Technical

- Project Phases

- Operations

Containment Systems

& Facility Sizing Facility Availability

& Logistic Chain Modelling

Construction Management

& Supervision

WorleyParsons Company Overview

FLNG Technology & Operations - An Ambitious

Enterprise

Overview of FLNG Concepts

Why the need for Innovative Solutions for FLNG

Technology

Solutions for FLNG Technology

What are the challenges?

Our Fit-for-Purpose approach to FLNG Technology & Operations

Risk Management

Q & A

Agenda

Collins Class Submarine Proven design based on the Swedish Vastergotland class

(only bigger – scalability issues add complexity)

Ideal maritime range, capacity, endurance and capability

for Australian operations if it could be realised.

What went wrong – size and complexity? The design Australia had to be modified to meet our own environmental

operating conditions!

Engineering / technology solutions were not fit for purpose

− Hedemora diesel engines (traditionally a train engine) was chosen as a

compromise between power and space.

− Rockwell combat management system replacement as it was not designed to

interface with other procured systems.

− RAN planned maintenance schedule requirement for each boat is 1 year for full

cycle docking, currently achieving 3 years!

− Traditional propeller provider unable to meet function and performance

specifications (material failure).

− The list goes on, generators, pumps, piping, communications etc.

Lessons learned –

Design One Build Many

USN Littoral Combat Ship – class of

relatively small combat vessels intended

for near shore operations

Design Philosophy:

Two original competing designs – design

prototype and trial before building many

− Austal & General Dynamics designed and

built USS Independence

− Lockheed Martin designed USS Freedom

Modular – easy to reconfigure; envisioned to allow a change in

roles in a matter of hours at any commercial port

Current status: the mission module changes may take as long

as weeks, and that in the future the navy plans to use these

ships with a single module, with module changes being a rare

occurrence.

Lessons learned –

Plug and Play solutions

The key elements of a successful innovative solution strategy

are:

Coordination; Prioritisation; Early involvement of cross functional

teams; Clear goals and objectives; Early understanding of our

customers’ needs and expectations.

Innovation involves continuous client interaction and feedback

through a single point of contact (in a technical sense).

Our strategic capabilities are central here: the ability to

perceive opportunities and to invest in realising them are the

main characteristics of an innovative organisation.

To be competitive companies need to be innovators of new

and emerging technologies – Looking beyond conventional

engineering solutions!

What is an Innovative Fit for

Purpose Solution Strategy?

Innovative Solution Strategy

Industry

State &

Federal

Government

Company

Alliances

& Partnerships

Universities

Inte

rnat

ion

al

FL

NG

Clie

nts

Nat

ion

al F

LN

G

Clie

nts

Approved Risk Mitigation

Work Program

including Client Gate Reviews

Innovative Technology

Enabler - Risk Mitigation

Proposal

Au

stra

lian

& in

tern

atio

nal

Sci

ence

& T

ech

no

log

y

Org

anis

atio

ns

Oil & Gas

Industry

Broader

Community

Technology Challenge

Technology Solution

Over 40,000

Professionals &

Subject Matter

Experts

Worley Parsons

A Process of Risk Mitigation through Innovative Technology Application

Purpose of a risk assessment

To ascertain the technical maturity, feasibility and the overall risk

of technology solutions

To identify risk mitigation mechanisms to ensure the safe and

reliable production of LNG on these floating platforms

Failure to identify and mitigate risk may lead to performance

shortfalls, safety issues, cost & schedule delays etc

A Technical & Operational Risk Assessment is a

systematic approach to identifying, analysing and

evaluating the technical risks for the whole of capability

This should not be confused with a Project Risk Register

What is FLNG Technology &

Operations Risk Assessment?

Two main sources of Technical Risks

If the technology is still being developed, the possibility that an

underpinning technology will not mature in the time required

If the sub-systems and/or system integration is in development,

the possibility that the system integration will not be achieved as

required

To mitigate the risks

Need to understand the risks

Need to be able to source technology solutions with a high

technical readiness level for low risk application

Need to understand the cost trade-off associated with the

incorporation of innovative technology against the cost of unsafe

and unreliable operations

Technical Risks

Technical Readiness Levels

Technology Readiness Description

Readiness

Level

Basic principles of technology observed and reported 1

Technology concept and/or application formulated 2

Analytical and laboratory studies to validate analytical predictions 3

Component and / or basic sub-system technology validated in a

laboratory environment 4

Component and / or basic sub-system technology validated in a relevant

environment 5

System sub-system technology model or prototype demonstration in a

relevant environment 6

System technology prototype demonstration in an operational

environment 7

System technology qualified through test and demonstration 8

System technology qualified through successful mission operations 9

System Readiness Levels

System Readiness Description

Readiness

Level

Basic principles observed and reported 1

System concept and/or application formulated 2

Analytical studies and experimentation on system elements 3

Sub-system components integrated in a laboratory environment 4

System tested in a simulated environment 5

System demonstrated in a simulated operational environment, including

interaction with simulations of external systems 6

Demonstration of system prototype in an operational environment,

including interaction with external systems 7

System proven to work in the operational environment, including

integration with environment, including integration with external systems 8

Application of the system under operational mission conditions 9

Woodside plan to utilise Shell’s “design one build many” FLNG

technology approach

But each FLNG location will have unique risks

Design is subject to change or modified without appropriate testing and

validation

Chevron says there are unanswered questions around Floating LNG

technology – Chevron Managing Director, Roy Krzywosinski

"For us there is still some unanswered questions, including the safety

case for extreme weather locations”

"It is unclear to us how these issues impact on the continuity of

operations on a day to day basis”

Development is currently assessed as TRL 5 and SRL 3

Significant scope exists for risk mitigation propositions

Requires sub-system testing at the technology component level and

overall system testing and integration

FLNG – Technical Risks

Maritime operating environment is the major

challenge

Operating in cyclone prone regions (Cyclone

Category 5, > 118 km/hr average wind speed!)

Collision & contact while offloading LNG in high sea

states with sloshing in partially filled tanks

Sea State, stability

Helicopter operations are risky and require

innovative solutions to ensure safe operations

Human Factors issues (man machine interface and

optimisation of bridge functions, fatigue of workers

operating on moving platforms)

Operational risks are quantified using

Measures of Performance & Measures of

Effectiveness

FLNG – Potential Maritime

Operations Risks

Risk-based redundancies of navigational systems, propulsion

system, steering systems and off-loading systems

Navigational aids

Integrated ship real-time control and condition monitoring systems

eg ISCMMS by Saab

Maritime radar technologies

Radar integrated with Automatic Identification System

Radar integrated Vessel and Helicopter Tracking system

− eg CEA scalable radar technologies

Platform and Bridge optimisation design

Human Factors and human-machine interface modelling

Helicopter landing assistance

Flight Deck modelling

Guidance systems

Possible Innovative Solution

Strategies

Collision avoidance technologies

Hull mounted positioning propulsors

Integrated Remote Field Robotics (submersibles)

Umbilical and fully autonomous

Side scan radar for detailed seabed topography mapping and

underwater pipe inspection

Pipe / Hull / superstructure advanced coatings

Sacrificial anode analysis for corrosion control

Full flexible hull modelling to determine reactions to category 5

cyclones

Flare positioning and height studies

Tethered v’s side-by-side mooring for product export

FLNG Operation, Inspection and Maintenance

Possible Innovative Solution

Strategies

Cargo transfer system

Tandem configuration preferred to side-by-side mooring

LNG Sloshing in membrane containment system (by GTT)

Reinforcement & Overpressure management

Motion of process equipment

Environmental risk in submerged combustion vaporisation

alternative remote heated vaporisation

Cryogenic spillage

Hull & Deck protection (active & passive)

Platform / topside motion considerations

Flare & Depressurisation

Flare size & position, Number of EDP sector, Blast walls and/or 20m

safety gaps

Technical Challenges

FLNG Operation, Inspection and Maintenance

Selection of liquefaction process cycle that best meets the project

objectives

Dual Mixed Refrigerant (DMR) v’s Inert Gas process

Vessel operational environment modelling: need to withstand

cyclonic weather conditions

Early storm warning indicators

Dynamic modelling of loading / unloading operations

Use of electric-drive technology to decrease risk of on-platform

detonation

Technical Challenges

No simple answer

Multiple concepts

Complex decision making process

Need clarity and alignment

An unambiguous interface to the client through a technical single

point of contact

Understand the system, sub-system, technical and

operational impacts

Implement Innovative fit for purpose Solutions Strategies

Conclusions

Questions & Answers