Observations on the Tamar
Project
Leslie Nichols
July 4, 2010
Leslie Nichols
Professional Biography
 20 years as senior oil and gas consultant
 28 years with Shell in E&P becoming operations
manager in major operations.
 Sample experience:
 BG: design and development of a new offshore gas
platform (Trinidad)
 Shell: Operations Manager for Shell Companies
Malaysia (300,000 bpd oil, 2.5 Billion cfd gas, 140
offshore structures, 3 loading terminals)
 Shell: Operations Manager Brent Field (UK)
 Mossgas, Offshore Operations Advisor (South Africa)
Gas Processing Onshore/Offshore
 Operators always prefer onshore where
possible
 operating costs, logistics
 But onshore not always a reasonable option
 Land use/availability, population, master plan
 In this case, I believe offshore more practical
 Onshore: lack of reasonable sites
 Offshore: unlimited site options, industry standard
Why not onshore (in Israel)
 Inspected 5 Carmel Coast sites
 None appear suitable unless absolutely no alternative
 Land scarcity/Population density/Transport infrastructure
 Pollution/Disturbance/Safety/Security
 Residents resistance (Corrib)
 Undesirable industrial spread & expansion threat
 Insufficient safety and risk analysis (QRA)
 Extremely high gas arrival pressure
 Reduce offshore (as per PDC) ?
 Reduce on beach (as per IGA) ?
 To what pressure (150 or 250) ?
Offshore is a viable alternative (1)
- development time as an issue -
Example - Poinsettia: 3 years FEED to EPIC (in
a very tight development market)
Offshore is a standard alternative (2)
- Virtually as reliable as onshore operationally 

When designed and managed properly
As much built in redundancy (ie,
maintenance, hot standby) as required
Example – Shell Sarawak: no unplanned downtime in
5 years (across 3 large offshore facilities)
Offshore is an equally viable choice (3)
- Minimum onshore real estate requirement• Small tie-in area
• Landing pressure low
Source: PDC
~ 10 Dunam
Observations on Planning
Documents
 Some questionable assumptions:





17 – 20 months statutory planning ?
40 – 48 months development ?
18 days out per year ?
60 dunam onshore facility ?
Israel goes dark if Tamar goes down ? (what about an
onshore failure ?)
 Absence of basic documentation
 Onshore site QRA ?
 Independent offshore evaluation ?
Recommendations (1)
 Independent specialist QRA report for
onshore options
 Objective detailed evaluation of the
offshore option
 Timing
 Onshore requirement or FSO
 Planning approvals readily forthcoming
Recommendations (2)

Comprehensive Master Plan
 Back-up to Tamar
 irrespective of offshore or onshore
 Future development plan
 export plans (pipeline, LNG) ?
 domestic liquid fuels (Fischer Tropsch)
 where will these plants go?
 Infrastructure security
 Line looping and the security that it offers ?

Explore options for covering near-term supply while
conducting proper planning.
 EMG issues ?
 “Lateral thinking” eg, near-term supply through Mary B.
“Lateral Thinking”
Example concept to
solve possible Mary B
shortfall before full Tamar
development
2015
Provide backup
supply
2013
Cover supply
shortfall
Proposed
Tamar
Development
Tamar
Platform
Thank You