Haha Chair, I think you're being a bit cute mate. What's to...

Haha Chair, I think you're being a bit cute mate. What's to protest? Are you familiar with the Subsea7 bundle facility in the Exmouth Gulf? All it took was Tim Wintons missus and Youngbloods to scare them off. That project had the most minimal footprint you can imagine! James Price Point? Scarborough? Perdaman? You know as well as I do - Missy Higgins and John Bulter (and Pat Cummins) will be printing "Save King Sound" bumper stickers and shirts the moment this idea gets any traction. Not saying I agree with it, just an observation. I can see the headlines now, "The Industrialization of King Sound".

Don't get me wrong. I love the technology! Prelude has 3 trains from memory and is the largest ever manmade offshore structure. I remember going to a presentation by one of the lead designers about a decade ago in West Perth where he outlined the complexities cuased by the space constraints and the large safety gaps that were required from NOPSEMA between each process module.

Have a look at the existing FLNG that Transborders was involved with for Petronas. The "mini" FLNG below has a single train with Mercury and acid removal and cost $1.5B USD. Safe to assume ours would be ~$2B USD?



With the greatest respect to yourself and occam and your expertise and input in this forum - Biggest issues I see with this option:

- The cost of operating and maintaining an offshore facility like this would be imo an order of magnitude larger than an onshore facility.
- Far larger up front capital cost than an onshore facility.
- Complexities with FLNG being a new technology. There are a couple of these around now. Preludes track record leaves a lot to be desired. After coming online as what we thought would be the new way forward for deepwater fields, there is not exactly a flood of new FLNG projects that I'm seeing. Our FLNG facility will need to be bespoke and not off the shelf.
- Piping conventional onshore gas to an offshore LNG processing facility is a ridiculous concept to me. Seriously - has this been done anywhere in the world before? I'm not saying it can't be done technically, but why would you when it would cost so much more and construction and installation is so much more risky?
- Where precisely would the FLNG moor and where will the pipe from Rafa cross the beach. There are FPSOs floating off the Exmouth Peninsula so we have a record of safely operating these type of O&G infrastructure near environmentally sensitive areas. I personally thing King Sound won't happen as it won't be palatable for a state and federal Labor government, but I could be wrong.
- Design and fab time must be greater for this option than for an onshore LNG processing facility. It would get fabbed in Batam or Singapore.

Please keep in mind - I want Buru to succeed and I plan on being a long term holder. Not being a pessimist, just not convinced that FLNG is the best path to market.