Charles Meade: I wonder if you could talk us through, I guess, the process of selecting the gravity-based structure for Phase 2 of Tortue. And I’m not as familiar with those as a solution. So I’m curious why the departure from the design of Phase 1 being FLNG and what are the relative advantages of this gravity-based design concept? And what perhaps are some of the compromises that go along with those advantages?
Andy Inglis: Yes. Thanks, Charles. What don’t I sort of start at the top. Clearly, BP as well communicated the decision around the Phase 2 concept decision. And I would say that all the partners, the governments, the NOCs, BP, Kosmos are aligned around building a West African Energy Hub. And ultimately, it’s about alignment of strategy of developing resilient hydrocarbons for the energy transition. And Phase 2 is an important next step on that journey. I’m sure we’ll get questions across many callers around the concept. So why don’t I sort of address sort of three big questions, why the concept, the timing and the cost. I think when you look at the concept, we did a lot of work with the government, as I discussed, I think three months ago around ensuring that we had properly evaluated the concept and primarily as we look to the changing market conditions, what was the right next step in the development of the significant gas resource.
So the decision around the gravity-based structure for Phase 2 is primarily sort of three primary considerations. One is the fundamental cost efficiency of the concept versus alternatives I think the second issue, which is unique around the GBS is you have the opportunity to upscale the storage, and that actually creates operational efficiencies as we integrate Phase 1 and Phase 2. And I think the third element that contributed to the decision was flexibility around financing if we choose to go down that path and then ultimately, the cost of that financing. So those are the 3 things that sort of drove the selection of the GBS for the midstream, but it’s sort of worth, I think, reiterating that we have a Phase 2 concept, which is going to leverage heavily the infrastructure from Phase 1 to what a Phase 2 comprise of there’s clearly additional wells, manifold of those, but we’re going to debottleneck the FPSO.
So the actual capital contribution to that is very small, use the existing pipeline, obviously, the bright water and the export. So you’re adding some additional storage and you’re adding the LNG processing on top. And again, to sort of anticipate onto the next question, where are you on the timing. I think we’re really going to spend the next year through pre-feed, really ensuring that we’ve got the right approach to the market that we’ve evaluated optionality around the GBS. You can go concrete-base, you can go steel-base and to fully optimize the concept and fine-tune the volume between 2.5 million tons and 3 million tons, which is really dependent on the debottlenecking of the FPSO. So a huge amount of work at the front-end to front-end load that are particularly important given the inflationary environment we’re in.
But again, this is a very cost competitive brownfield expansion of an existing LNG project. And therefore, we’d anticipate sort of entering feed, which BP would regard as the sanctioning of the project in about 12 months’ time. And then in terms of cost, it is, as I said, really cost competitive, because of the brownfield expansion. The upstream relatively minor given the use of the existing infrastructure, additional wells, manifolds and then you’ve got the LNG processing itself, which we believe is absolutely top quartile versus other opportunities. So I think hopefully, Charles, that gives you the full view of the project. And as you can sense, I think we BP, the partnership are very excited about moving forward now on the next stage of the expansion of this — of the development of this field.
