ConocoPhillips, which has a 37.5% stake in Australia Pacific LNG, owns the Optimised Cascade technology, first adopted by Kenai LNG in 1969, and has since licenced the innovative technology for use in 24 trains around the world.
Kenai, located at Nikiski on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula, was the world's largest LNG plant when built to serve the Asia Pacific market.
Cascade is used to liquefy gas to -161C through a system of three refrigeration circuits: propane, ethylene and methane, each progressively lowering the temperature until the gas becomes LNG.
Coleman said that ConocoPhillips' decision to drop the veil on that IP was "one of the biggest enablers to the growth in LNG plants" globally.
He had made fleeting references to IP at LNG18 in Perth and APPEA 2016 in Brisbane over the past year, some direct and some which analysts suspected was a veiled crack at Shell on IP protectionism relating to the shelved Browse development.
However, Coleman was more forthright when asked on Friday whether Shell had been holding back the Browse JV because of its secretive attitude.
While he was adamant Shell had every right to hold onto IP, Coleman said companies often did so because they're "using an old model where they do it because they can, not because they should".
"They're like anybody who has their own intellectual property, be it Shell or Technip. They'll let you see their IP when they're ready. They're not holding it back; we have to negotiate a service fee for it," he said.
Yet Coleman's relief at no longer being bound to Shell's expensive and now "outdated" Prelude technology was palpable when the JV - which also includes BP, Japan Australia LNG and PetroChina - decided to shelve the project in June.
"For the first time forever we're not under pressure to develop [Browse]," he told Energy News.
"Browse will get developed when it should get developed in the size it needs to get developed, and we'll move it forward as soon as we can. Previously we always thought we were always rushing to the start line."
He said that while Woodside was "all over" the Prelude FLNG technology, Shell was "of course … very sensitive about its ‘black boxes'".
Browse options
Browse costs have come down in two tranches over its history, with the breakeven price being north of $US70/bbl for the dumped James Price Point option and in the mid-$50s for the FLNG option.
However, Coleman said the JV needed to get that figure under $40 to make money.
He also said that while Shell had told the JV it had "new technology" being used for the Inpex-operated Abadi FLNG development in Indonesian waters, the Anglo-Dutch oiler would now have to compete with at least three other floating concepts that Browse is considering.
"We're now doing an open book and looking at new floating technology but also North West Shelf as an option because the ullage (volume gap of capacity in the system) is more apparent," Coleman said.
It also helped that overall costs have fallen 20% in the market, including day rates.
He revealed that there is a JV team working on the best way to develop Browse, wittering 6-7 concepts down to 2-3 by the end of the year, with the North West Shelf plant "back on the list" of ways to develop the long-dated project.
Coleman said that while Woodside wasn't "allowed us under the bonnet" on the Abadi technology, he said the fact that whole Browse's resources are larger than Prelude it means Woodside is keen to assess all the options.
"The capacity increases [in FLNG technology] have been quite phenomenal, not just with Shell, and Shell is going to have to compete against two or three others [for Browse]," Coleman said.
"To get access to this other [Abadi] technology, we know the capacity so you can run economics on it, but to actually get the information you're going to have to get in there and start signing confidentiality agreements and so forth, and we're not at that point yet."
IP conundrum
He was more forthright when pressed on the IP issue, and questioned the wisdom of holding onto IP if it hasn't even been commercialised.
"My view is - and it's different to others because we don't hold a lot of IP - if your business is not monetising IP, then you've got to question why you're holding onto IP. Is there a real advantage or not?" Coleman said.
"Everybody needs to look at their list of IP. It's too easy to just capture stuff and lock it up and the reality is in my view if you've got no way of monetising it, it's better off in the hands of others.
"The guys who are better in developing IP are those who can spread their costs across a broad range of customers. So for me it's better to give me access to it then I'll drive the car faster, better, more reliably.
"We [as an industry] go through so much lawyer work trying to put safeguards in place so there's no IP leakage… why do we bother?"
He said the oil and gas industry needed to have a good, hard look at the advantage of IP getting into the market with a reasonable payback to the company that developed it - and ConocoPhillips is a perfect example.
