+- ShareholdersUnite Forums (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Companies (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: InterOil Forum (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Cost case on FLNG not so clear cut (/showthread.php?tid=4923)
Cost case on FLNG not so clear cut - Gator - 10-22-2013
Browse cost case on FLNG not so clear cut
2013-10-21 18:16:10.804 GMT
The Western Australian (WA) Government estimates that the return on
investment from the Browse LNG project will be between 12.5 and 13 per cent.
Floating LNG (FLNG) technology will be used to exploit the Browse gas fields
off the northern coast of WA. Fran Logan, deputy chairman of the WA
Government's economic and industry standing committee inquiry into FLNG,
appeared before a hearing in Perth on 21 October 2013. He said that the
abandoned option of building an onshore LNG plant at James Price Point, north
of Broome, would have generated an 11.5 per cent return on investment;
Browse LNG partners eye 13pc return
2013-10-21 16:48:04.261 GMT
Staff of BP, one of the joint venturers with Woodside Petroleum in the Browse
gas development offshore Western Australia (WA), on 21 October 2013 appeared
before a state parliamentary inquiry. It heard that the move to floating LNG
technology for the fields, instead of the WA Government-favoured onshore
processing hub at James Price Point, will bring a return on investment of up
to 13% as compared to just 11.5%. The Government has won an ally on the issue
in the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, which claims the floating LNG
solution will mean 7,000 fewer jobs for WA;
RE: Cost case on FLNG not so clear cut - admin - 10-22-2013
Mildly surprising, thanks for that, Gator
RE: Cost case on FLNG not so clear cut - ArtM72 - 10-22-2013
So much of that economic analysis depends upon the functional life of the asset and its gas supply. I suspect if the gas supply is limited the floating platform will realize an ultimate ROI better as the plant can be substantially redeployed in the future after the gas runs out with significant residual value. If on the other hand the gas supply can last for additional decades beyond the project's amortized life then the floater will not have that advantage. My guess? FWIW (nothing), find commercial gas at Wahoo and a land built plant (stick built or modular) would be the way to go.
RE: Cost case on FLNG not so clear cut - sydbod - 10-22-2013
ArtM72, I believe ( in an article put out by Woodside,) the idea with their FLNG plans is to have 3 FLNG plants in action in total. These are to be commissioned one after the other so that income and therefor financing from that income can happen much earlier, as each FLNG plant comes on line, than a large stick build plant.
RE: Cost case on FLNG not so clear cut - ArtM72 - 10-22-2013
'sydbod' pid='30075' datel Wrote:ArtM72, I believe ( in an article put out by Woodside,) the idea with their FLNG plans is to have 3 FLNG plants in action in total. These are to be commissioned one after the other so that income and therefor financing from that income can happen much earlier, as each FLNG plant comes on line, than a large stick build plant.
There would be too much irony if we ended up 5 years from now with land based modular and FLNG operating just outside Kerema.