I just don't know if any of these apparently planned floating facilities are viable, but particularly, where the waters are regularly traversed by terrible tornadoes!
And where unrest or piracy, just makes these apparently asinine decisions, totally untenable!
[Share holders beware!]
But particularly, when/where almost any of these operations can be replaced with far safer, more secure, less controversial, land based facilities/lateral drilling?
Rhrosty.

Having pipelines from gasfields to vast onshore facilities in Australia are increasingly seen as unviable by gas companies. This is due to:

- land rights cases and processes,

- environmental movement claims (you know that little frog or tuft of native grass that cannot be disturbed :)

- rusulting protests and local, State and Federal legal and political holdups

- high Australian wages, union rigidity, and other unacceptable costs of onshore Australian facilities.

Hence Floating Liquid Natural Gas (FLNG) are seen as the preferred option.

Disasters? Destruction by waves, cyclones and flame of FLNG? These are as unlikely as the 1 in a 1,000 year Fukushima disaster.

Nothing to worry about :)

Pete

Sorry Planta's, they're not unviable, just more expensive, and prevent the ripping off that oil companies are notorious for.
As for your 1 in 1000 stat', go and try selling that in the Gulf of Mexico!
Deepwater Horizon ring any bells? Piper Alpha?
Here's a comprehensive list for you, and it's a LONG one!

http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/losses.htm

No worries G'dayBruce

Who needs the environment anyway?

:)

Pete