Offshore LNG Supply Chain Analysis
Executive Summary
This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the offshore LNG supply chain, examining its key
components, technical challenges, and comparative advantages over traditional onshore LNG
infrastructure. The analysis encompasses the complete supply chain from production to regasification
while evaluating safety considerations, environmental impacts, and geopolitical factors. The Shell Prelude
FLNG project serves as a case study to illustrate practical implementation of offshore LNG technologies.
1. Introduction and Background of Offshore LNG
Natural gas has emerged as a critical transitional energy source in the global effort to reduce carbon
emissions while meeting growing energy demands. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) technology allows for
the efficient transportation of natural gas across long distances, overcoming the geographical limitations
of pipeline infrastructure. According to BP's Statistical Review of World Energy (2012), global LNG trade
has grown significantly, driven by increasing energy demand and the push for cleaner fuels.
Offshore LNG development represents a significant evolution in the industry, enabling access to
previously stranded gas reserves and offering flexible solutions for natural gas monetization. As
highlighted by Economides and Mokhatab (2007), monetizing stranded gas reserves has been a
persistent challenge in the energy sector, with offshore LNG providing a viable solution.
The offshore LNG supply chain integrates several floating technologies to replace traditional land-based
infrastructure:
Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) units for gas production
Floating Liquefied Natural Gas (FLNG) facilities for gas processing and liquefaction
LNG Carriers for transportation
Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRU) for receiving and regasification
This integrated floating approach offers several advantages, including reduced environmental footprint,
shorter construction timelines, mobility to different gas fields, and mitigation of land acquisition
challenges (Conachey, 2006). The development of offshore LNG infrastructure represents a significant
technological achievement that has transformed how remote gas resources can be developed and
monetized.
2. Detailed Explanation of Each Component in the Supply Chain
2.1 FLNG (Floating Liquefied Natural Gas)
FLNG vessels combine gas production, processing, liquefaction, storage, and offloading capabilities on a
single floating facility. As described by Bradley et al. (2009), FLNG technology enables the development of
offshore gas fields without the need for extensive subsea pipelines to shore or onshore processing
facilities.
The typical FLNG design includes:
Gas pre-treatment systems to remove impurities such as CO₂, H₂S, mercury, and water
Liquefaction trains utilizing optimized processes for offshore application
LNG storage tanks with specialized designs to minimize sloshing
Offloading systems for transferring LNG to carriers
Barclay and Yang (2006) highlight that FLNG designs often employ the 2-phase expander technology as
an optimal solution for offshore liquefaction due to its compact footprint and efficiency. The liquefaction
process typically utilizes either nitrogen expansion cycles or mixed refrigerant processes modified for
marine applications.
Durr et al. (2005) note that FLNG facilities face unique design challenges including space and weight
constraints, marine motion effects, and the need for simplified processes with high reliability. These
facilities must also incorporate specialized safety features to manage risks associated with handling
cryogenic fluids in a confined offshore environment.
2.2 FPSO (Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading)
While sometimes integrated with FLNG functionality, dedicated FPSO units focus on the production
phase of natural gas. These vessels:
Extract natural gas from subsea wells
Perform initial gas processing and separation
Remove water, condensate, and other impurities
Compress gas for transfer to FLNG or pipeline
FPSO units specifically designed for gas production incorporate specialized systems for gas-liquid
separation, condensate stabilization, and acid gas removal. According to Coyle et al. (2003), the
integration of production and storage functions on floating facilities has been crucial for enabling
offshore gas field development.
2.3 LNG Shipping Methods
LNG transport between floating facilities presents unique challenges compared to conventional shore-
based terminals. Two primary transfer methods are employed:
Side-by-side transfer:
Vessels are moored alongside each other
Uses conventional loading arms or cryogenic hoses
Higher transfer rates but more sensitive to weather conditions
Requires sophisticated mooring systems
Tandem transfer:
Vessels positioned in-line (one behind the other)
Uses specialized cryogenic flexible hoses
Generally more tolerant of adverse weather conditions
Lower transfer rates but improved safety separation
Both methods require specialized technologies to accommodate vessel movements and ensure safe
transfer of cryogenic LNG. Chrz and Emmer (2007) emphasize that these transfer systems must maintain
integrity despite thermal stresses, marine motions, and potential emergency disconnection scenarios.
2.4 FSRU and SRV Concepts
Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRUs) and Shuttle and Regasification Vessels (SRVs) represent
the receiving end of the offshore LNG supply chain.
FSRU characteristics:
Permanently moored floating facilities
LNG storage capacity typically 130,000-170,000 m³
Regasification equipment to convert LNG back to gas state
Send-out capabilities via subsea pipelines to shore
SRV approach:
Combines transportation and regasification functions
Loads at export terminals, travels to destination, and regasifies onboard
Directly connects to offshore or nearshore unloading buoys
Delivers natural gas to pipeline networks without intermediate storage
As documented by DNV (2011) and Durr et al. (2002), FSRUs have gained popularity due to their lower
capital costs, faster implementation timelines, and flexibility compared to onshore terminals. They provide
an efficient solution for markets with seasonal demand fluctuations or limited onshore infrastructure.
3. Technical Design Challenges and Safety Considerations
3.1 Technical Challenges
Offshore LNG operations face numerous technical challenges that demand innovative engineering
solutions:
Sloshing effects: LNG movement within partially filled tanks can create significant structural loads.
Specialized containment systems with reinforced membranes or independent prismatic tanks are
employed to mitigate these effects, as noted by Bukowski et al. (2011).
Marine motion impacts: Wave-induced movements affect process efficiency and equipment reliability.
Key considerations include:
Design of process equipment tolerant to pitch and roll
Anti-roll tanks and stabilization systems
Robust control systems to maintain process stability
Modularization requirements: Space constraints necessitate compact, modular designs. Avidan et al.
(2001) highlight how modularization strategies are critical for optimizing equipment layout while
maintaining accessibility for maintenance.
Cryogenic material challenges: Materials must maintain integrity at LNG's -162°C temperature.
Specialized stainless steels, aluminum alloys, and composite materials are employed for cryogenic service
throughout the facility.
Process efficiency: Limited space drives the need for simplified, efficient processes. According to Barclay
and Yang (2006), the adoption of nitrogen expander cycles or optimized mixed refrigerant processes
represents adaptations specific to offshore constraints.
3.2 Safety Systems
Safety is paramount in offshore LNG operations due to the confined space and limited evacuation
options:
Layout optimization for safety:
Separation of hazardous and non-hazardous areas
Strategic placement of accommodation quarters upwind and distant from process areas
Multiple escape routes and muster stations
Emergency Shutdown Systems (ESD): Multi-tiered shutdown philosophy with various levels of
response:
Process upset control (Level 1)
Equipment/section isolation (Level 2)
Facility-wide shutdown (Level 3)
Emergency abandonment (Level 4)
Fire and gas detection: Comprehensive detection systems covering:
Hydrocarbon gas leaks
LNG spill detection
Smoke and fire detection
Low temperature detection for leak identification
Passive fire protection:
Cryogenic spill containment systems
Fireproofing of critical structures
Blast walls between high-risk areas
Emergency response:
Dedicated safety zones with survival craft
Temporary refuge areas
Helicopter evacuation capabilities
Emergency power systems
Coyle and Patel (February 2003) emphasize that safety systems must be designed with redundancy and
diversity to ensure functionality in emergency scenarios. The inherent hazards of handling large quantities
of flammable cryogenic fluids in a confined offshore environment necessitate these comprehensive safety
approaches.
4. Comparative Analysis: Offshore vs Onshore LNG
Aspect Offshore LNG Onshore LNG
Higher per unit capacity due to marine Lower per unit capacity for equivalent size
Capital Investment
adaptations facilities
Construction Typically 3-5 years; parallel hull and topside
4-7 years; sequential construction phases
Timeline construction
Limited by vessel size constraints; typically Highly scalable with multiple large trains
Scalability
smaller capacity possible
Operational
Mobile assets can redeploy to different fields Fixed location for entire project lifetime
Flexibility
Environmental Minimal land impact; concentrated marine
Larger land footprint; coastal zone impacts
Footprint disturbance
Technical Higher due to marine environment
Lower with established technologies
Complexity challenges
Safety Confined space with limited evacuation More space for safety zones and evacuation
Considerations options routes
Reduced permitting in international waters; Subject to extensive land permitting and
Political/Permit Risk
less public opposition potential local resistance
According to Avidan et al. (2001), traditional onshore plants benefit from economies of scale that can
significantly reduce costs per ton of LNG produced. However, Collins (2008) notes that offshore solutions
offer compelling advantages for specific scenarios:
1. Remote or environmentally sensitive locations where onshore development faces prohibitive
challenges
2. Politically unstable regions where asset mobility provides risk mitigation
3. Smaller gas fields that cannot economically justify large onshore infrastructure
4. Markets requiring rapid deployment of LNG import capabilities
Durr et al. (2005) highlight that while onshore LNG dominates in terms of production capacity, offshore
solutions excel in situations requiring flexibility, reduced footprint, or accelerated timelines.
5. Case Study: Shell Prelude FLNG
The Shell Prelude FLNG represents a landmark project in offshore LNG development and provides
valuable insights into the practical implementation of floating liquefaction technology.
5.1 Project Overview
Location: Browse Basin, approximately 200km off Australia's northwestern coast
Water depth: 250 meters
Dimensions: 488m length, 74m width - larger than four football fields
Displacement: ~600,000 tonnes when fully loaded
Production capacity: 3.6 MTPA of LNG, 1.3 MTPA of condensate, 0.4 MTPA of LPG
Project timeline: FID in 2011, first gas production in 2018
5.2 Technical Innovations
The Prelude project incorporated several innovations to address offshore challenges:
Optimized hull design: The vessel features a bow designed to reduce motion and remain on station in
severe weather conditions, including category 5 cyclones, as noted by Bradley et al. (2009).
Liquefaction process: Shell implemented its proprietary DMR (Dual Mixed Refrigerant) process adapted
for offshore application, providing efficiency while maintaining a compact footprint.
Modular construction approach: The facility was built using over 260 modules constructed in various
global locations and integrated at the Samsung Heavy Industries shipyard in South Korea, demonstrating
the modular approach described by Bukowski et al. (2011).
Innovative offloading systems: Prelude employs side-by-side offloading with specialized arms designed
to accommodate relative motion between vessels.
Mooring system: The facility utilizes a turret mooring system with 16 mooring lines, allowing the vessel
to weathervane and face prevailing conditions.
5.3 Operational Experiences and Lessons
Initial operations revealed several challenges that have provided valuable industry learning:
Liquefaction system reliability issues led to production interruptions during early operations
Weather-related constraints on offloading operations impacted availability
Crew accommodation and rotation logistics proved more complex than anticipated
Despite these challenges, Prelude demonstrated the viability of large-scale FLNG and provided critical
operational experience that has informed subsequent projects. As highlighted by Bruce and Lopez-Piñon
(2009), such pioneering projects establish crucial precedents for optimizing future offshore LNG
developments.
6. Geopolitical and Environmental Considerations
6.1 Geopolitical Factors
Offshore LNG infrastructure exists within a complex geopolitical landscape:
Host country relationships: Even in offshore locations, projects must navigate host country demands.
According to Bruce and Lopez-Piñon (2009), offshore assets may reduce but not eliminate exposure to
changing fiscal terms, regulatory requirements, and resource nationalism.
Maritime boundary considerations: Projects in disputed waters face unique challenges. The mobile
nature of offshore LNG assets can provide flexibility to navigate territorial disputes, offering advantages
over fixed onshore infrastructure.
Energy security implications: FSRUs enable rapid access to global LNG markets, enhancing energy
security for importing nations. Durr et al. (2002) note that this flexibility has transformed energy
geopolitics for countries previously dependent on pipeline imports.
Market access: Offshore regasification enables LNG imports in regions lacking suitable onshore terminal
locations due to land constraints or public opposition.
6.2 Environmental Considerations
Offshore LNG operations present distinct environmental challenges and advantages:
Marine ecosystem impacts:
Physical presence effects on marine habitats
Underwater noise impacts on marine life
Cooling water discharge and thermal effects
Potential for introduced species via ballast water
Emissions profile: FLNG facilities generally produce higher CO₂ emissions per unit of LNG compared to
modern onshore plants due to:
Space and weight constraints limiting carbon capture options
Less efficient processes adapted for offshore application
Additional stabilization energy requirements
Spill risk management: LNG spills on water present different dynamics than land-based spills:
Rapid phase transition concerns
Potential vapor cloud formation over water
Specialized detection and containment approaches
End-of-life considerations: Floating facilities offer advantages for decommissioning compared to fixed
onshore infrastructure, as noted by DNV (2011). Vessels can be towed to specialized facilities for recycling
rather than requiring extensive site remediation.
Innovations in environmental management include:
Zero routine flaring designs
Waste heat recovery systems
Advanced produced water treatment
Low-emission power generation
7. Future Trends and Developments
The offshore LNG sector continues to evolve with several emerging trends:
Standardization efforts: The industry is moving toward greater standardization of designs to reduce
costs and accelerate project timelines, as suggested by Bukowski et al. (2011).
Near-shore concepts: Hybrid approaches placing floating liquefaction near shore can capture benefits of
both offshore and onshore approaches in certain locations.
Smaller-scale solutions: Compact FLNG designs targeting smaller gas fields are emerging, enabling
development of resources previously considered uneconomical.
Integration with renewables: Future FLNG designs may incorporate renewable energy generation to
reduce carbon intensity and enhance sustainability.
Digitalization: Advanced digital technologies including predictive maintenance, digital twins, and remote
operations are being implemented to improve efficiency and reduce offshore personnel requirements.
8. Conclusion
The offshore LNG supply chain represents a significant technological achievement that has expanded the
possibilities for natural gas monetization. While facing unique technical challenges related to the marine
environment, offshore solutions offer compelling advantages in terms of flexibility, reduced footprint, and
accelerated development timelines compared to traditional onshore infrastructure.
The comparison between offshore and onshore approaches reveals that neither is universally superior;
rather, each has distinct advantages suited to particular development scenarios. Offshore solutions excel
for remote, environmentally sensitive, or politically complex locations, while onshore developments
maintain advantages in economies of scale for large gas resources.
The Shell Prelude FLNG case study illustrates both the achievements and challenges associated with
pioneering offshore LNG developments. Technical innovations implemented on Prelude have advanced
the industry's capabilities while operational challenges have provided valuable learning opportunities.
As global energy markets continue to evolve, offshore LNG infrastructure will play an increasingly
important role in connecting gas resources to markets. Future developments will likely focus on cost
optimization, environmental performance improvements, and enhanced operational reliability based on
early project experiences.
References
Avidan, A., Richardson, F., Anderson, K., Woodard, B., 2001. LNG Plant Scaleup Could Cut Costs Further.
Section 7.1: Design and Technology, 128–132, Fundamentals of the Global LNG Industry. Petroleum
Economists Ltd, London, UK.
Barclay, M.A., Yang, C.C., May 1–4, 2006. Offshore LNG: The Perfect Starting Point for the 2-Phase
Expander?. OTC 18012, paper presented at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA.
BP, June 2012. Statistical Review of World Energy. British Petroleum (BP), UK.
Bradley, A., Duan, H., Elion, W., van Soest-Vercammen, E., Nagelvoort, R.K., Oct. 5–9, 2009. Innovations in
the LNG Industry: Shell's Approach, paper presented at the 24th World Gas Conference (WGC), Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Bruce, B., Lopez-Pin˜on, C., Oct. 5–9, 2009. Peru LNG: A Grassroots Gas Liquefaction Project Optimized for
Cost in Difficult Times, paper presented at the 24th World Gas Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Bukowski, J., Liu, Y.N., Boccella, S., Kowalski, L., Oct. 19-21, 2011. Innovations in Natural Gas Liquefaction
Technology for Future LNG Plants and Floating LNG Facilities, paper presented at the International Gas
Union Research Conference 2011, Seoul, Korea.
Carnell, P., Lawrence, A., Row, V.A., May 14-16, 2008. Introducing Flexibility into LNG Plant Operation,
paper presented at the GPA Europe Conference, Ashford, Kent, UK.
Chrz, V., Emmer, C., April 24–27, 2007. LNG Directly to Customer Stations. Poster presented at the 15th
International Conference and Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG 15), Barcelona, Spain.
Collins, C., May 14–16, 2008. LNG Update– What's New?, paper presented at the GPA Europe Conference,
Ashford, Kent, UK.
Conachey, R.M., Autumn 2006. Breaking the Ice. LNG Industry, 38–42.
Coyle, D., De La Vega, F.F., Durr, C., April 24–27, 2007. Natural Gas Specification Challenges in the LNG
Industry, paper presented at the 15th International Conference and Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG 15), Barcelona, Spain.
Coyle, D., Durr, C., Shah, P., Oct. 5–8, 2003. LNG: A Proven Stranded Gas Monetization Option. SPE 84251,
paper presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA.
Coyle, D., Patel, V., Feb. 2003. Processes and Pump Services in the LNG Industry, paper presented at the
22nd International Pump Users Symposium, Houston, TX, USA.
DNV, March 2011. Managing Risk-Floating Liquefied Gas Terminal. Offshore Technical Guidance OTG-02,
Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Høvik, Norway.
Durr, C., Coyle, D., Hill, D., Smith, S., March 14–17, 2005. LNG Technology for The Commercially Minded,
paper presented at the GasTech 2005 Conference and Exhibition, Bilbao, Spain.
Durr, C., Coyle, D., Patel, H., March 11–13, 2002. LNG Import Terminals, paper presented at the 81st
Annual GPA Convention, Dallas, TX, USA.
Economides, M.J., Mokhatab, S., 2007. Compressed Natural Gas: Another Solution to Monetize Stranded
Gas. Hydrocarbon Processing 86 (1), 59–64.
