Back to Menu
PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Thirty-Third Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2009
FLOATING LNG TECHNOLOGY FOR ABADI FIELD DEVELOPMENT
Ryo MANABE*
Akinori OGAWA*
Yoshiro NIIHO*
ABSTRACT
The Abadi field development is an authentic frontier
gas discovery in the Arafura Sea, in Eastern
Indonesia. Exploration and appraisal activities have
confirmed significant gas and condensate reserves –
enough to justify a stand-alone development of
LNG. However, no easy development solutions to
monetize such significant gas resources are
available, due to its remotely-located deepwater
setting. Floating LNG (FLNG) technology was
identified as a potential solution to overcome this
field development challenge.
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the
technical feasibility of the FLNG application for
Abadi field development, focusing on major
technical aspects such as safety, marinization of
processes and equipment, reliability, availability
and maintainability (RAM) along with LNG
offloading operation. The results reveal that the
conceptual design here satisfies our safety and
functional requirements enough to be applicable for
Abadi field development and is thus evaluated as
technically feasible.
INPEX Masela has been selected to develop the
Abadi gas field, utilizing FLNG technology, and has
proposed a Plan of Development (POD). Although
technical and commercial risks still remain, INPEX
Masela intends to overcome such challenges to
secure the Abadi gas resources.
INTRODUCTION
Abadi Field Development
The Abadi gas field is located in the Masela PSC
block in the Arafura Sea (Figure 1). Approximately
150 km north of the block, the Tanimbar Islands
follow an east-west direction along the outer ridge
of the Banda Arc. The deep Timor trough lies
between the islands’ arc and the Masela block. The
[
* INPEX Masela
IPA09-E-158
southern boundary of the block follows the
international border between Indonesia and
Australia.
Exploration and appraisal activities, including
2D/3D seismic and 7 well drilling, confirmed
significant gas and condensate reserves, which were
sufficient to justify stand-alone development of
LNG. However, no easy solutions to monetize such
significant gas resources exist, due to its remotely
located deepwater setting in the Arafura Sea.
INPEX has studied FLNG technology since 2000.
This cutting-edge technology was identified as a
potential solution to overcome the Abadi field
development challenges. Throughout extensive
concept evaluation studies, including various
onshore LNG solutions, INPEX Masela decided to
develop the Abadi gas field utilizing FLNG
technology. The recommended development
concept is summarized as follows (Figure 2):
• The Phased development strategy is
accommodated with 1st Phase development
producing 4.5 million tones per year (MTPA) of
LNG and app. 13,000 bbl/d of condensate, over
30 years.
• The 1st Phase development facility consists of:
· 11 to 18 subsea production wells,
· subsea production system with 3 to 5
subsea clusters and associated flowlines,
umbilicals and risers, and
· a single weather-vaning FLNG facility.
• The future expansion plan will be developed
after evaluating the upside potential of the
entire Abadi field.
The application of FLNG to 1st Phase development
of the Abadi field has significant advantages over
the conventional onshore solutions. The major
drivers for this decision are:
Back to Menu
• Suitable MetOcean Conditions – The general
MetOcean conditions around Abadi field are
relatively benign, even with a tropical cyclone
season from October to March. These
conditions are considered within the acceptable
range to design and operate the FLNG.
• Lower CAPEX / OPEX – The CAPEX and
OPEX associated with FLNG are estimated
lower than the onshore options due to avoidance
of duplication of parts of the field development
facility and the long export pipeline to shore.
• Minimum Environmental Impact – The field
development utilizing FLNG can minimize the
environmental impact due to avoiding
significant land acquisition, infrastructure and
harbor facilities relating to the onshore LNG
plant. This can also lead to a shorter permitting
schedule than the one for onshore solutions.
• Flexibility for future development – The future
development plans for installing additional train
and/or tie-in to the 1st Phase FLNG can be
flexibly accommodated after evaluating the
upside potential of the entire Abadi field.
Based on the above development concept, INPEX
Masela plans to commence the Front End
Engineering Design (FEED) within 2009, and is
projecting the start-up of production around 2016.
1 INPEX Masela Floating LNG
The FLNG is a Floating, Production, Storage and
Offloading (FPSO) facility, capable of producing
4.5 MTPA of LNG and app. 13,000 bbl/d of
condensate (Figure 3). The facility also includes
ancillary facilities being self-contained on board,
consisting of:
• Feed Gas Pre-treatment Process (Inlet Gas
Separation, Future Boosting Compressor, Acid
Gas Removal, Dehydration & Mercury
Removal, etc.)
• Liquefaction Process
• Condensate Process (Condensate Stabilization,
etc.)
• Water Process (MEG Reclamation, Produced
Water Treatment)
• Utility System
• Products (LNG & Condensate) Storage &
Offloading
• Flare System
• Turret & Mooring
• Living Quarters
1.1 Process Design
The process flow diagram and utility flow diagram
for the FLNG are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5,
respectively.
The feed gas pre-treatment process must be
designed based on project-spec data, such as
reservoir and fluid data, MetOcean conditions and
the applied wells & subsea system operation
philosophies. The design basis of the feed gas
pre-treatment process has a significant impact on
the plot area and hull sizes, as well as technology
selection, utility consumption and system
availability.
The major characteristics of the selected process
technologies for the FLNG are described as follows:
Liquefaction Process: The dual mixed refrigerant
(DMR) system, consisting of a warm mixed
refrigerant (WMR) cycle and a cold mixed
refrigerant (CMR) cycle, is used for liquefaction.
The process was selected with the following criteria,
among existing liquefaction processes:
• Safety and Reliability
• Floating LNG Application
• Baseload LNG Application
Electric Motor-driven Refrigerant Compressors:
The electric motor and variable speed drive (VSD)
system are employed for the refrigerant compressor
drivers. The schematic diagram of the system is
shown in Figure 6. It confirms the benefits,
compared to the conventional gas turbine drive
system, as follows:
• Safer design to remove the ignition source from
a hazardous environment adjacent to the
congested topside process area
• Higher availability and better maintainability
• Low CO2 emissions
Electrical Power Generation: Approximately 280
MW of electrical load is required to operate the
entire plant, including the refrigerant compressors.
All the required electricity is generated onboard by
the gas turbine generators (GTGs) and the
associated combined cycle (Figure 6), consisting of
the steam turbine generators (STGs), the heat
recovery steam generators (HRSGs) and the
auxiliary boilers. The steam provides the heat
Back to Menu
required for the process as well as the motive force
for the STGs. The waste heat out of the GTG
exhaust stacks and the auxiliary boilers generate the
required steam. The system improves thermal
efficiency of the total system.
The numbers of generators is designed based on
N+1 sparing philosophy. A GTG and a STG are
spared to be capable of full LNG production even
during maintaining a GTG or a STG.
Indirect Water Cooling: The closed loop cooling
water system is used to remove process heat. It is
selected:
• to enhance availability and reliability
• to reduce CAPEX by allowing carbon steel
piping and tubing in heat exchangers,
minimizing the use of Titanium
• to prevent the pollutants out of the process
flowing to the sea directly, through leakage
1.2 Topside Layout
The topside general arrangement is considered the
key design consideration for the FLNG. The facility
is designed on the principle of maximizing the
segregation of hydrocarbon processing equipment,
turret area and the flare system from the
accommodation area. Power generation and
non-hazardous utilities are located between the
hydrocarbon processing plant and the
accommodation area, to afford segregation and
provide a buffer zone.
The general arrangement of the topside process
plant is designed, as shown in Figure 7, based on
the following philosophies:
• Process and utility equipment will be installed
within module structures or pre-assembled
units.
• Local equipment rooms are placed in the major
process modules to reduce hookup work
onboard.
• Living quarters are placed at the stern of the
FLNG to achieve maximum separation from the
flare stack and the high pressure turret located
at the bow.
• The naturally ventilated open deck concept is
adopted to encourage and maximize disperion
of gaseous hydrocarbon releases and to reduce
the effects of explosive overpressures.
• Primary and secondary escape routes within
each equipment module and area are linked to
the main escape routes, leading to the safe area
and the Temporary Refuge (TR).
• The safety and operability of the marine and
logistic operations, such as the LNG offloading,
the condensate offloading, the supply boat and
the helicopter operations, are considered.
• Vessel motion, material handling (crane
location and laydown area), location of LNG
tank domes and spaces for maintenance are all
taken into account in the design.
• Main operating deck levels above the hull,
creating an air gap which accommodates the
hull storage tank piping manifolds, topside
facilities drainage system, etc.
2 Feasibility Assessments
The challenges regarding the FLNG are
characterized as the integration of proven
technologies, such as FPSOs, baseload onshore
LNG plants, LNG carriers (LNGCs).
The following critical aspects must be assessed to
confirm the feasibility of the FLNG under the
site-specific conditions, design and operational &
maintenance philosophies.
• Safety
• Marinization of Process and Equipment
• Reliability, Availability and Maintainability
(RAM)
• LNG Offloading Operation
2.1 Safety
The inherent safety factor is the foremost
consideration and requirement for the FLNG. The
following activities were performed:
• Issuing safety design philosophies
• HAZID
• Consequence Analysis (Fires & Explosions)
Hazardous Identification (HAZID)
HAZID is the first part of assessing safety aspects.
Comprehensive identification of all hazards is
Back to Menu
required to ensure that the potential consequences
of those hazards are reviewed and an appropriate
level of risk reduction considered. The Major
Accidental Events (MAEs) are identified and
qualitatively assessed as to whether the risk
reduction measures reduced the level of risk to “As
Low as Reasonably Practicable” (ALARP). As the
results of the qualitative assessment, there are no
showstopping hazards identified.
Consequence Analysis (Fires and Explosions)
The following MAEs are identified as inherent
safety risks for the FLNG concept, to conduct the
consequence analysis.
• Gas Dispersion, Flash Fires, Jet Fires, Pool
Fires and Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor
Explosions (BLEVEs)
• Vapor Cloud Explosions (VCEs)
The explosion following the release and delayed
ignition of hydrocarbon flammable gases and
vapors is a significant part of the overall safety
assessment. At this stage, explosion risks could not
be fully quantified, due to the absence of levels of
detail design information, such as P&ID, isolatable
hydrocarbon inventories, detailed pipework
isometrics, etc. The goals of the explosion risk
analysis here included gaining confidence on the
current design basis with regard to management of
potential explosion overpressure without
overturning the basic layout. There was also a
requirement to provide further considerations in
design with regard to the topside module layout, the
optimum gap spaces between the modules, the need
for a blast wall, the lifeboat location, etc.
Although only 2D drawings showing the layout of
the major equipment were available, the 3D model
was constructed (Figure 8). All relevant geometry
was incorporated into the model, from equipment
and support structures to the decks and module
supports. In order to increase the amount of
congestion in each module, major piping was
assumed, based on the representative piping
schematics.
The consequence scenarios, such as vapor cloud
sizes, ignition point, etc., were chosen in order to be
conservative (Figure 9). The chosen scenarios are as
follows:
• Feed gas / LNG explosion in the process area –
the worst case release scenario was taken as
filling the volume of three modules in a line.
• Mixed Refrigerant explosion in the process area
–same as the above
• LNG explosion under process deck –same as
the above
• LNG explosion between FLNG and LNGC
during LNG offloading – the worst case release
scenario was taken as filling the volume
between FLNG and LNGC
The key findings are as follows:
• The maximum overpressures in Feed Gas /
LNG and MR explosions in the process area are
estimated significantly lower compared to
conventional congested platforms. This is due
to the relatively open nature of the topside
layout of the FLNG.
• Explosion overpressures are unlikely to impinge
upon accommodation and the TR. This is
because a relatively long buffer zone, over
100m wide at the utility area, exists between the
accommodation and process area.
• Any explosion overpressures are unlikely cause
damage to the essential system, such as the
GTGs and High-pressure knockout drum.
• Whilst a representative level of pipework was
included in the 3D model, a sensitivity study
was undertaken on adding additional pipework
to the model. The results indicate that the
overpressures may increase by a factor of 2 to 3.
Even in such a case, expected overpressures
still remain relatively lower compared to the
conventional congested platforms.
• The overpressures in LNG explosions under the
process deck are unlikely to cause damage to
the LNG tank dome, hull and deck structure
(Figure 10).
• The overpressures in a LNG explosion between
FLNG and LNGC during offloading are
unlikely to cause damage to the hull plates, due
to the relatively open nature between the FLNG
and LNGC.
In summary, the current FLNG conceptual design
has no inherent safety risks compared to
conventional congested platforms. It represents a
robust, safe and environmentally-friendly sound
design for proceeding to the FEED Phase.
Back to Menu
2.2 Marinization of Process and Equipment
One of the major technical challenges on FLNG is
“marinization”. All the process technologies and
equipment installed on FLNG must be tolerant
against the motion of the FLNG.
The MetOcean design basis is developed through
simulation models based on the public data and
site-specific measured data. The sea swell (long
period waves) was separately modeled apart from
wind-sea waves. The design basis includes extreme
conditions, fatigue condition and operational
condition of the hull and topside facility.
The FLNG motion, such as inclination angle,
acceleration, frequency and their probabilistic
distribution, etc., is then calculated, based on the
developed MetOcean design basis. The key findings
are:
• The maximum inclination against extreme
conditions is estimated to be less than 5 degrees
• The inclination angle is unlikely exceed 1
degree.
The study even used relatively conservative
assumptions as usual in the absence of detail design
information at this stage. The motion characteristics
of the FLNG are relatively small compared to
conventional FPSOs operating under harsh
environments, such as North Sea, GOM, etc., due to
the benign MetOcean conditions and its large vessel
size.
In such conditions, the process technologies and
equipment installed on the FLNG can be designed
and be tolerant in terms of the process performance
as well as mechanical strength and fatigue.
2.3 Reliability, Availability and Maintainability
(RAM)
The RAM analysis was conducted to evaluate the
production efficiency for the current design of the
FLNG. The following assumptions are made:
• The RAM of the FLNG is evaluated over a
30-year life cycle.
• The planned maintenance and plant turnaround
are considered based on:
· Indonesian Regulation Requirements,
such as MIGAS, etc.
· Class Survey
· Major Equipment Turnaround, such as
GTGs, Compressors, etc.
• The unplanned shutdowns are estimated based
on failure data obtained from OREDA,
published information, vendor information and
internal information. The mean time to repair is
adjusted taking its remoteness and our sparing
philosophy into account.
• The loss of production due to excessive motion
of the FLNG is probabilistically considered.
The design of the FLNG is adequate to meet the
production efficiency target and compares favorably
with the standard onshore LNG ones even taking
remote offshore environments into account. It is
largely contributed by utilizing the electric driven
LNG concept. It provides relatively higher system
reliability and availability compared to the
conventional mechanical drive system, due to:
• high reliability of the electric drives
• short downtime for the GTGs maintenance
under applying N+1 sparing philosophy
• Short startup duration through using VSDs
2.4 LNG Offloading Operation
The side by side offloading using the loading arm is
applied to LNG transfer from the FLNG to LNGC.
The safety and availability of the offshore
offloading operation is governed by many factors,
including the performance of the assisting tug boats,
MetOcean conditions, the mooring line and fender
arrangement, the loading arm operational envelope,
LNGC maneuverability, etc.
The LNGC maneuverability was evaluated in
various MetOcean conditions covering nearly a
1-year return period (Figure 11). The objectives of
this study are the high-level screening and
evaluation of maneuvering methods. All the
maneuvering operations are successful through the
use of a FLNG thruster, 2 tug boats and a LNGC
thruster. Although detail maneuvering operation
procedures will be developed in the later phase of
the project, we have become confident of its
operational feasibility.
The LNG transfer takes place while the manifold of
the LNGC stays within the operational envelope of
the loading arm, with the given mooring line and
Back to Menu
fender arrangement. The relative motion of the two
floating bodies, such as FLNG and LNGC, were
simulated under various MetOcean conditions,
covering nearly a 1-year return period. The results
show that the relative motion of the FLNG and
LNGC is unlikely to go outside the operational
envelope with proper heading control of FLNG by
thruster.
Although the LNG offloading procedure with
optimized mooring, fender and assisting tugs
arrangement will be established at a later stage, the
availability of the LNG offloading operation is
unlikely to lead to loss of production.
CONCLUSIONS
The following major conclusions have been
formulated:
• The Floating LNG has been conceptually
designed successfully to satisfy the safety and
functional requirements for developing the
Abadi field.
• The inherent safety has been assessed based on
the FLNG conceptual design. It represents
robust safe and environmental friendly sound
design, compared to industrial standard
conventional FPSOs, for proceeding to the
FEED Phase.
• All the process technologies and equipment can
be marinized under the Abadi field conditions.
• The FLNG conceptual design is adequate to
meet the production efficiency target and
compares favorably with standard onshore LNG
ones.
• Although the LNG offloading procedure with
optimized mooring, fender and assisting tugs
arrangement will be developed in the future
stage of the project, the availability of the LNG
offloading operation is estimated to be unlikely
to lead loss of production.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INPEX Corporation kindly permitted the authors to
present this paper. MIGAS and BPMIGAS are also
gratefully acknowledged for providing their
authorization for publication.
The authors wish to express our appreciation to
everybody involved in the Pre-FEED activities of
the Abadi project, particularly to Masayoshi
Watanabe, Shozo Tanaka, Shinichi Akaishi,
Masashige Kato, Yoshikazu Ichimaru, Tetsuya
Ikeda and Takeshi Terashima who all contributed to
complete the study.
Back to Menu

Kai
Banda
Banda Sea Sea Islands
Aru
0 200km Islands
Tanimbar
Islands
Saumlaki Indonesia
Masela Is
Arafura Sea
Dili
Abadi
East Timor g h
ro u
Timor or T
Tim Masela PSC Block

Kupang
Australia

Darwin

Figure 1- Location Map (Abadi Field, Masela PSC block)

Figure 2 - Schematics of Development Concept for Abadi field (The field development of the Abadi gas
field consisting of subsea production system and a single Floating LNG plant)
Back to Menu

Flare Stack

Accommodation Utility

Process
Stern Swivel
Bow
LNG Loading Tank Turret
Arm

Figure 3 - Graphic Image of INPEX Masela Floating LNG

Fuel Gas Fuel Gas

(EFG) (BOG)
Feed Gas
from LNG
DEHYDRATION LIQUEFACTION, offloading
SURF INLET GAS BOOSTING & REFRIGERATION
LNG STORAGE
ACID GAS
SEPARATION COMPRESSOR &
(FUTURE) REMOVAL MERCURY &
REMOVAL LOADING
FRACTIONATION

Rich MEG
Acid
Lean MEG Gas
to SURF
CO2
CONDENSATE MEG ACID GAS to
STABILIZATION RECLAMATION INCINERATION ATM

Produced
Water
Water to
Treatment Sea Condensate
CONDENSATE offloading
CONDENSATE
STORAGE
PROCESSING
&
LOADING

FLARE UTILITY
SYSTEM SYSTEM

Figure 4- Process Flow Diagram

Back to Menu

HP FG
FG
Fuel Gas Power Instrument Nitrogen &
System LP FG Generation & Plant Air Inert Gas
System System System

SW SW
HPS Flue Gas

Steam & Waste

SW Sea Water Deminerali Steam Water
System -zation Unit Condensate Treatment
SW DMW System System

SW
SW
Closed Utility &
SW Cooling Potable Fire Water Fuel Oil
Water Water System System
System System

Figure 5 - Utility Flow Diagram

GTG x5 HRSG x 5

GT G C
VSD M WMR

STG x4 S/S
GT G
VSD M C C CMR

ST G
Other Users

GT G
ST G

GT G ST G

ST G
GT G

Steam Boiler x 3 AGRU Regen

Reboiler

Water Treat

Figure 6 - Electrical Driven LNG plant with Combined Cycle

Back to Menu

Flare Stack

Stern Topside Bow

Hull (Tank)

Living
Quarter Utility Area Process Area Turret

LNG Loading arm

Figure 7 - Topside Layout

Figure 8 - Isometric View of 3D model

Back to Menu

Figure 9 - Gas Dispersion Simulation (Left-side: Vapor Cloud of Leaked Mixed refrigerant at 1.3 sec after
leak start, Right-side: The one at 3.0 sec after leak start)

Figure 10 - Explosion Overpressure Contours (The explosion simulation overpressure counters in a case
of LNG explosion under the process deck)
Back to Menu

Bridge view of LNGC, 500m to go

About 250m to go

Figure 11 - Maneuvering Simulation (a case of the simulation maneuvering the LNGC along side of the
FLNG)