article, page-8

You might have paid too much attention to lazy Australian journalists and analysts who are fed info by vested interests .
There are bigger considerations that have not been widely discussed yet and they include the likelihood of approx 100 TCF gas in the Canning which is not far away from JPP . RISC has stated that BRU' s share alone could be 47 TCF and growing.This is bigger than any discovery on the NWS and would be much cheaper to develop.
Secondly, there has not been proper scrutiny of safety issues on a FLNG plant with respect to accommodation quarters etc. being situated on or next to a floating LNG bomb.
Thirdly there has not been an environmental review . If and when there is it will take into account the growing severity of tropical cyclones in the region and the potential to wipe out a FLNG plant , causing a major environmental disaster.
Shell say it will be safe and built to withstand the most severe weather conditions. I tend to be concerned as I remember the arrogance from BP in the Gulf of Mexico.
Fourthly, the economics of adding additional trains offshore is prohibitive. You would need a whole new vessel .
Onshore it is a simple process and much cheaper .
When JPP Vs FLNG is looked at by critical and experienced eyes , I think the answer will be very clear.