SPE-188704-MS

Coral South FLNG Technology from Screening to Real Application

Francesco Rossi, Eni

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13-16 November 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The present article collects the main activities carried out by Eni on FLNG in the past years. As such, it
reports Eni’s view of the FLNG technology and it constitutes a subjective assessment and evaluation of
the involved technologies and the associated risks. The same evaluation and assessment may lead to very
different results when based on a different risk perception, which is proper of each Oil Company.
At time of writing, Coral South FLNG Project has obtained Final Investment Decisions from all the
Project Partners and the FLNF EPC contract has been awarded, with consequent commencement of detailed
engineering and construction activities.
The paper will present the activities carried out in Eni about FLNG in the past years, then used to
validate and enable the development of Coral South FLNG Project. In particular, it will briefly present the
main technological features studied and selected by eni for the Coral South Project. It will summarise the
main studies carried out and the main advantages and disadvantages considered by Eni when selecting the
technologies adopted in the Coral South FLNG Project.
As a conclusion, the paper will summarise the main technological configuration of Coral South FLNG
facilities based on the validation activities carried out.
Coral South FLNG Project finds its basis in an extensive preparation activities, as FLNG technology has
been studied in Eni since 2008, when some stranded oil&gas fields required valorisation with offshore LNG
technology. A series of activities and project-based pre-feasibility and feasibility studies have been carried
out in the following four years, preparing the ground and unlocking Coral South Project in Mozambique.
The main technologies studied and screened are:
– Liquefaction process technology;
– Refrigerant make-up production technology selection;
– LNG offloading system configuration;
– Mechanical drivers for liquefaction compressors and generators;
– Heating medium system;
– Containment system including sloshing issues;
– Mooring system;
For each of these systems, a rigorous and common technology validation approach has been adopted,
consisting in a screening of different technical alternatives with a qualitative analysis. When necessary a
2 SPE-188704-MS

quantitative evaluation has been carried out, including a detailed engineering assessment, scale tests and
a cost and risk comparison.
The final selection has been made taking into account safety, costs and operability. For each technology,
a preferred one has been selected firstly as Eni Corporate and then checked and validated for the specific
Coral South FLNG Project application.
As result of the extensive application of the technology validation procedure, the originally selected
technologies for the generic Eni FLNG have all been confirmed for the Coral South FLNG Project even if
in some cases scale tests have been required to further assess the identified criticalities.
When it comes to FLNG application, even the most common and widely adopted technology can be
considered as a novelty as there are no previous floating and/or LNG application for it.
Eni approach to this novelty-in-complexity environment is based on an internal ad-hoc developed
technology validation procedure which has been demonstrated to be very effective even when applied a real
demanding Project like Coral South FLNG.

INTRODUCTION
The liquefaction and regasification systems of natural gas have so far been developed and realsed on the
ground. However, several projects have also been proposed and sanctioned in recent years about floating
liquefaction plants located on special vessels that may be anchored at the coast or offshore. The first offshore
liquefaction plant became operational in 2017 (Petronas PFLNG in Malaysia) and another one is planned
to commence production very soon (Shell Prelude FLNG in Australia), while several offshore rigassifiers
are already operating today.

CORAL SOUTH PROJECT

The Project involves the development and monetisation of the gas resources of the Coral Discovery Area,
which was identified in 2013 within the Area 4 Exploration Block in the offshore Rovuma Basin of
Mozambique, immediately south of the Mamba Complex. Development is planned by means, inert alia,
of an FLNG facility.
Eni East Africa (EEA) is the Operator of the Area 4 Block and currently holds a 70% participating interest
in the block. EEA is owned by Eni S.p.A. and by China National Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
Corporation. The other co-venturers in Area 4 are ENH (10% participating interest (PI)), Galp (10% PI),
and Kogas (10% PI).
The Project involves the initial development of the Coral reservoir, which is located in the southern part
of the original Area 4 block. The FLNG will be moored at the southern portion of the reservoir, about 85
km from Palma to the northwest and about 200 km from Pemba to the southwest.
The Project includes the following principal activities:

• Producing natural gas from subsea wellheads to supply an FLNG installation (the FLNG);

• Processing the natural gas received on the FLNG and liquefying it;

• Storing and offloading LNG to tankers for export; and

• Stabilizing, storing and offloading condensate to tankers for export.

The Project plans to produce 3.37 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of LNG over the 25-year Project life.
The Coral South FLNG vessel adopts the following taechnologies which contribute to determine its
overall performances:
– Dual Mixed Refrigerant (DMR) liquefaction process;
SPE-188704-MS 3

– Onboard auto-production of refrigerant make-ups;

– Side-by-side offloading system with loading arms;
– Gas turbine-driven compressors and electrical generators;
– Hot oil heating medium system;
– Membrane LNG containment system;
– Internal non-disconnectable turret mooring system

TECHNOLOGY SCREENING
Before commencing any activity on the design of the FLNG, an extensive technology screening has been
carried out internally in Eni with the main objective to minimize the technology risk for the Operator. Among
these technologies, the main ones are reported below.

LIQUEFACTION PROCESS SELECTION

The primary technical consideration is usually the choice of the liquefaction process to be used and how it
will be affected by the marine environment.
Gas liquefaction technology selection involves many parameters, like safety, efficiency, operability and
LNG production.
Rules of thumbs are given in the following:

• Nitrogen based cycles are safer than HC based ones;

• HC based cycles are more efficient than nitrogen based;

• The lower the HC liquid inventory, the safer the process (and less sensitive to motions);

• Technologies with SWHE minimize liquid inventory;

• Hydrocarbon based refrigerant implies LPG import / production. HFC based cycle needs its import
to the FLNG.

OPTION PROS CONS

nitrogen cycle – Basic scheme is simple – lowest efficiency

– Safest solution
– many licensors offers similar technologies
– mature and applied for small plants (mainly
peakshaving)
– One existing reference offshore (Petronas FLNG)
– does not require any refrigerant make-up / production
– suitable for low capacity <1 MTPA as order-of-
magnitude
– for larger production multi-train arrangement could
imply higher equipment count
– in order to increase the production, scheme can become
complicated

SMR (any licensor) – several licensors offers similar technologies – refrigerant make-up needed
– applied for medium scale onshore plants – efficiency intermediate between nitrogen and DMR
– simple and low equipment count

DMR (any licensor) – high efficiency
– several studies completed for offshore applications
– Shell DMR technology is chosen for Prelude FLNG
– minimal HC liquid inventory (especially when C3 is not
stored)
– Limited existing references, (1 onshore plant for Shell
DMR, 1 offshore under construction)
– refrigerant make-up to be provided

C3-MR – high efficiency – huge propane inventory so high safety issues

– many onshore references – not developed for offshore
– high equipment count
– refrigerant make-up to be provided

Aiming at production higher than 2.5 MTPA, DMR should be selected as liquefaction process in order
to enhance plant efficiency with an acceptable degree of safety.
4 SPE-188704-MS

REFRIGERANT SELECTION
Refrigerant can consist of pure or mixture of hydrocarbons (methane, ethane, ethylene, propane, butane),
inert gas (such as nitrogen or CO2) or industrial refrigerants which can be selected to be non toxic and not
combustible (such as HFC).
If hydrocarbon refrigerants are used, the flammable fluid inventory in the facility is increased, increasing
potential for incident escalation. Refrigerant make-up is facilitated if hydrocarbon refrigerants are produced
by the plant (which can be the case for methane, ethane, propane, butane). If hydrocarbon refrigerant is not
produced by the plant (like Ethylene) periodic ship to ship transfer has to be considered for refrigerant make-
up supply which can be considered as an unnecessary and risky additional constraint in an offshore context.
Using non combustible refrigerant reduces the risk of incident escalation. Non combustible refrigerant
have to be produced by dedicated facility (for nitrogen) or imported and stored onboard (for HFC).
To achieve very low temperature the choice of available non combustible refrigerant is limited to nitrogen,
HFCs being reserved to pre-cooling duty due to operating temperature limitations.

LNG OFFLOADING SYSTEM

LNG offloading system is installed to safely transfer LNG from storage tanks of FLNG into the tanks of
the LNG carrier.
Several alternatives are available on the market, but, even if all of them are already certified, not all have
the same degree of maturity.
They mainly differ for the LNGC mooring position (side by side or tandem) and then for the solution
proposed (rigid arms or hoses).

OPTION PROS CONS

– referenced for all onshore plants (mature technology) and – Limited by metocean conditions, in terms of relative
for offshore regas/storage units motions and accelerations.
side by side rigid arms – selected by all the currently existing or under – safety of SBS operation is lower than tandem
development plants offshore as offloading system – require tugs assistance
– need for fenders davits according to carrier size(s)

– safer than rigid arms due to greater relative distance
– similar system is proven for LPG ship to ship transfer
side by side aerial hoses
– known references for LNG ship-to-ship transfer (regas
unit)
– limited in relative motions and accelerations as rigid
arms
– safety of SBS operation is lower than tandem

– safer than SBS operations – no references for LNG

– several vendors propose similar systems – need to convert LNGC to receive the hoses (implying
tandem aerial hose
– less sensitive to relative motions and accelerations probably to have an owned fleet)
– may not require tugs assistance – Technology to be validated

– safer than SBS operations – no references for LNG

– need to convert LNGC to receive the hoses (implying
Tandem floating hose
probably to have an owned fleet)
– Technology to be validated

When metocean conditions seem to be not harsh, SBS rigid arms can be selected as offloading technology.
Confirmation will be based on detailed specific metocean conditions.

REFRIGERANT COMPRESSOR DRIVERS

In order to drive the refrigerant compression trains, several options are available on the market.
SPE-188704-MS 5

OPTION PROS CONS

– many vendors for 20-40 MW size
– Simplicity of related items
gas turbines
– references for offshore applications
– lower footprint
– Emission reduction system requirement could impact on
fuel gas system
– Maintenance activities shall be planned accurately
– Availability of the plant is lower than other options

– high efficiency related to power generation – high CAPEX

– few references for large motors
electric motors
– complexity of electric network
– plot plan high impact

– flexible solution (process side) – need of Boiler water treatment system

– lower maintenance – huge unreferenced boilers are required
– selected for Prelude FLNG – higher footprint
– no problems on fuel gas (low pressure and wide range of – more complex piping system
steam turbines quality)
– applied on FPSO even if with much lower potentiality
– steam turbines are tailor made on the required power, so
they are interesting for high LNG capacity
– Common on ship

Electric motors are not envisaged as refrigerant compressor drivers.

Using Steam turbines as refrigerant compressor drivers means to have steam generation system, so it is
recommended, in this case, to have all systems (heating medium, power gen, etc) using steam.
On the contrary, having gas turbines (GT) as refrigerant compressor drivers means to have GT also
for power generation. In this case, the same model of GT for mechanical drive and power generation is
recommended to reduce CAPEX and to ease the management of maintenance and operation activities.

HEATING MEDIUM
Heating medium selection is strictly dependent on the other choices, especially liquefaction technology and
compressor drivers, LNG production.

OPTION PROS CONS

– Simple scheme – Safety issues

Hot oil
– Limited piping – possible degradation at high temperatures

– easily coupled to steam selection for drivers – complex system

– safer than hot oil – it makes lower sense for the only heating system
Steam
– different levels are easy to provide
– Common on a ship

Heating system is directly related to refrigerant compressor driver selection.

LNG CONTAINMENT SYSTEM

LNG containment technology for offshore application is currently applied in LNG carriers and offshore
regasification units.
Three technologies are available on the market:
▪ Spherical type;
▪ Membranes;
▪ Self sustaining Prismatic type B (SPB).
Spherical type technology has been excluded at the beginning because deck is completely occupied by
storage spheres and no sufficient space is available for process facilities.
6 SPE-188704-MS

Remaining options are detailed here below.

OPTION PROS CONS

– widely applied on carriers – sloshing needs to be assessed

– several yards licensed to install the system – Require Maintenance program
Membranes
– lower CAPEX
– Selected for all the FLNG applications so far

– no sloshing issues – CAPEX higher than with membranes

SPB
– no Maintenance issues – Limited number of shipyard

Membrane technology is the most proven and referenced for offshore application and is also considered
the one to be selected in order to reduce the containment system CAPEX. However, some aspects
are peculiar for FLNG application, inparticular the possibility to incur in the sloshing phenomenon.
Therefore, careful sloshing assessment studies have been carried out during early feasibility studies with
the involvement of the containment system Licensor and the Classification Society with the objective to
evaluate and certify that the risk of sloshing is below the acceptable level.

MOORING SYSTEM
The mooring system selection impacts many aspects of the FLNG, like layout, motion response, operating
procedures, CAPEX, etc.
The first choice to be made is between spread mooring and single point mooring. Spread mooring is the
cheapest solution but is generally applied in mild environments with high directional metocean conditions.
Moreover, the spread mooring system can pose problems for side-by-side offloading operations because
FLNG heading is not always the best one and this can compromise the terminal availability to offload.
Therefore single point mooring was selected in order to have weathervaning capability which can increase
offloading availability, safety and flexibility to different meteocean conditions.
Several options have been identified:

OPTION PROS CONS

– Ship is more stable than with external turret; – Part of the hull can not accommodate storages;
Internal turret – Turret can be on the EPC schedule critical path;
– No possibility to convert an existing ship;

– Schedule is relaxed – Ship is less stable;

External turret
– An existing ship can be converted in FLNG;

– Possibility to flee from cyclones – Ship needs to be self-propelled;

– Few references;
Disconnectable internal – Disconnection time and procedures are not trivial;
turret – After disconnection, FLNG must quickly reach a safe
and sheltered area;
– Reconnection operations need vessel assistance;

Internal turret has been selected as base case for FLNG, even if external turret possibility should be
assessed when metocean conditions are favourable in order to reduce CAPEX.
The adoption of disconnection capability is not considered as required, because cyclones are assumed
to be fast events, posing doubts on the efficacy of the solution. Moreover, CAPEX and OPEX are
increased while revenues are decreased due to the lower plant availability linked to lengthy disconnection-
reconnnection procedures.
SPE-188704-MS 7

FLNG CONFIGURATION SCREENING

During several years of pre-feasibility and feasibility studies on possible real applications, different FLNG
configurations have been assessed with the objective to cover as many type of gas fields as possible.
In particular, different production capacities were analysed so that different gas field reservoir could be
developed with a FLNG technology, starting from as low as 1.4 TCF of gas. Depending on the FLNG
production capacity, a proper LNG liquefaction process has been selected based on considerations reported
in the previous paragraphs.
Below, the main studies and results are reported.

2+ MTPA Gas+Oil Development

The purpose of this study was to produce both stabilized crude oil / condensates and LNG from an oil and
gas field. In particular, an initial target of the project was to benefit from the presence of oil and condensates
to technically and economically enhance the production of 2.5 MTPA LNG.
Oil and gas are produced simultaneously from the field, through independent subsea networks gathering
on a first floater, called Floater#1 or [extended]FPSO. Oil is stabilized and stored in the hull. Gas is treated
down to the liquefaction specification (acid gas removal, dehydration, mercury removal) and Natural Gas
Liquids (NGL) are separated from gas and sent to the oil stabilization. An oil offloading system is also
installed on Floater#1.
After a pressure boosting, treated gas is sent through a sealine to Floater#2 or [limited]FLNG where it
is pre-cooled down and liquefied by means of a HFC-pre cooled liquefaction process. The LNG is stored
in the hull which is fitted with a membrane containment system. A side by side LNG offloading system is
installed on Floater#2, based on marinized offloading arms.
This configuration has the advantage that Floater#2 is a "standard" unit and can be installed in any field
because the gas is treated to liquefaction specification on Floater#1. This is the "design one build many"
principle which is the basis for economies of scale and consequent cost saving.

Figure 1—2+ MTPA Gas+Oil development field layout

8 SPE-188704-MS

For this study, developed at a Basic engineering level, the main Vendors (machinery, exchangers, etc.)
and Licensors (liquefaction, containment system, etc.) were involved in order to ensure the best accuracy
in terms of feasibility and cost estimate.
An Approval in Principle (AiP) has also been released by a major Classification Society.

1 MTPA FLNG
This FLNG configuration was studied to be applied to some "stranded" gas field, which could not be
economically developed with other "traditional" technologies (i.e. gas export, pipeline, etc.).
The proposed liquefaction scheme is a Nitrogen Expander process without any pre-cooling loop, so that
the process is kept as simple as possible. The scheme has all the advantages linked to the use of nitrogen as
refrigerant, such as enhanced safety due to the inert nature nitrogen, no requirement for refrigerant storage,
minimal impact on performance due to vessel motion as the refrigerant is used in gas phase only, and allows
the deletion of all the equipment linked to the HFC pre-cooling loop. The use of that simplified scheme
is possible due to the limited production capacity which leads to the installation of a reasonably limited
number of equipment of industrial already proven size.
The studied scheme is based on a Triple Expander Dual Pressure scheme using wound coil exchanger
for liquefaction. It has been developed in-house for the purpose of the study only without any specific input
from liquefaction Licensors.
In order to produce 1 MTPA of LNG, the required process power for the nitrogen refrigerant overall
compression is estimated to be about 50 MW. In order to obtain this power, two 30-35 MW (@ISO
conditions) gas turbines can be installed with parallel compression trains, therefore requiring a process
compression power of 25 MW each at site conditions.
As a result, the FLNG has the following estimated dimensions:
– Overall Hull length: 325m
– Hull Breath: 60m
– Hull depth (moulded): 31.6m
– Design Draft: 14m
– Total Lightship weight: 92,000 tons

Figure 2—1 MTPA FLNG Plan View

SPE-188704-MS 9

3+ MTPA Gas Development

As further development of the FLNG concept, in order to cover the higher-end of the production capacity
within the available and referenced technologies, a FLNG with a production in excess of 3 MTPA of LNG
has been studied.
This study has then be selected as the most suitable for the Coral South Project and hence further
developed up to detailed design stage and it is currently in execution phase.
The selected liquefaction technology is a DMR process, considered the only one capable to reach such
LNG production level, however the mixed refrigerants compositions do not use propane to limit refrigerant
storage and associated Boil Off Gas handling facilities to two components only (ethane and butane).
For such plant capacity and liquefaction technology, the required compression power is in the range of
115 MW depending on the detailed scheme configuration. Based on above mentioned basis, the selected
driving option is to implement a gas turbines mechanical drive configuration. For a floating unit, the largest
referenced proven gas turbine model has an ISO power of about 33 MW. With those considerations, the
compression strings proposed configuration is to install 4 parallel trains (2 for MR1 and 2 for MR2).
In order to produce the required mixed refrigerant onboard, a turbo-expander scheme is used to extract the
required components from the feed gas. All excess ethane, propane and butane are re-injected into the LNG.
The remaining part of the liquefaction scheme, end flash and BOG, but also on the other end the gas pre-
treatment scheme, the inlet facilities / condensate stabilisation, acid gas removal unit, gas dehydration and
mercury removal are traditionally arranged without any particular adaptation to specific requirements.
The gas from wells is routed to the gas inlet manifold and to the slug catcher where gas condensates and
production water are sent to the condensate stabilization section.
Condensate stabilization unit produces stabilized condensate, and produced water. Flashed gas is sent to
the incinerator in order to provide sufficient heating value to burn the hydrocarbons in the vent. Production
water is processed in the produced water treatment before disposal.
Gas stream is sent to the gas pre-treatment units:
– the acid gas removal unit to remove CO2 and meet the CO2 content specification at the inlet of the
liquefaction section;
– the gas dehydration unit to remove H2O and meet the H2O content specification at the inlet of the
liquefaction section;
– the mercury removal unit to remove Hg and meet the Hg content specification at the inlet of the
liquefaction section
– the NGL extraction unit which achieves liquefaction feed gas Heating Value and benzene
specifications by recovering the NGL remaining in gas in a demethanizer section;
– The final NGL fractionation unit which produces ethane and butane as refrigerant make-up and
condensate in a deethanizer, depropanizer and debutanizer sections. Produced ethane, propane and
butane are spiked back in the liquefaction feed gas.
Gas liquefaction unit uses the DMR technology, including the following section:
– the warm MCHE and MR1 system;
– the cold MCHE and MR2 system;
– the end flash system;
Considering the above described scheme, the plant capacity is limited by the liquefaction MR
compressors drivers’ power.
Based on the design principles described here above, the resulting FLNG has the following dimensions:
– Overall Hull length: 395m
10 SPE-188704-MS

– Hull Breath: 68m

– Hull depth (moulded): 36m
– Maximum operating draft: 15m
– Total Lightship weight: 180,000 tons

Figure 3—DMR FLNG Block Flow Diagram

Figure 4—3+ MTPA FLNG Plot Plan

SPE-188704-MS 11

Conclusions
Eni has extensively assessed the technologies required by the FLNG application in the past ten years and
based on the Company’s risk perception has selected the ones deemed most suitable for future FLNG
projects and in particular Coral South Project.
Based on these technologies, different FLNG sizes have been studied with the objective to have the best
solution for every Gas field that may require a FLNG development, from as low as 1 MTPA LNG production
up to the Coral South Project with 3.4 MTPA capacity.
These studies have been carried out for a period of about four years before the commencement of the
Coral South Project, which then started on those same basis and further developed and tailored them to
Mozambique Project requirements.
In this sense, the pre-feasibility and feasibility studies set the basis and actually made the technology
available for the real application on Coral South Project. These studied involved the participation of the main
Vendors, Licensors and Classification Societies, in order to assess the CAPEX and the main technological
issues since the very beginning.
On these basis, it appears evident that the FLNG is not an "off the shelf" product which can be bought
on the market or copied from other projects. Many years of technological studies are required in order to
minimize the technological risk perceived by each Oil Company and to tailor it to a real Project application.
Each Company and Project Team has different perception of risk acceptability, which is based on Company
policies but also Project constraints, such as environmental conditions, schedule, required LNG production,
reservoir gas composition, Partners involvement, project financing, stakeholders, etc.
Eni has organically applied its internal development procedures, from pre-feasibilities to real application,
which demonstrated to be very efficient to make technologies available for real application and ultimately
to unlock the FLNG application.