Ferc, page-20

Pilko,

You clearly missed my point re this project and FLNG. They were planning to build one, and possibly two, FLNG vessels which would be PERMANENTLY MOORED. The gas supply is onshore so that's not the reason for going with FLNG, but even then they still need to build a 20-30mile pipe since they are mooring at a site which doesn't have an existing pipeline. They were planning to build the vessels in a nearby shipyard I beleive, so again that doesn't seem the reason for going with FLNG; they could have equally used a modular approach and transported the modules to site and still had the same factory construction advantages. Moreover they can't even get the FLNG vessels they were planning to build to site without needing to pay to dredge the harbour! Finally they were talking of the potential of a second vessel, but with FLNG there are a lot of duplicated costs that mean the additional capacity doesn't come at a significantly reduced cost: they need a second storage tank, second transport vessel loading equipment, and they need s second mooring for the second FLNG vessel. Everything about the project makes you question why it was planned to use FLNG. This was my point.