Project showcase

Best Available Technology Assessment for Pre-FEED Floating LNG Storage

Project goal

A Best Available Technology study based on EU guidelines and BAT reference documents. The following reference documents were compared against the proposed Pre-FEED and any gaps were identified for further debate during the FEED phase; Refining of Mineral Oil and Gas, Large Combustion Plants, Energy Efficiency, Emission from Storage


Front End Engineering Design (Pre-FEED)


Floating LNG Storage (FLNG)


6 months

Why we were contracted

With increasingly strict government guidelines around emission sources for new exploration projects, the lifetime impact must be investigated and assessed.

Add Energy were contracted to compare and recommend an engineering assessment of the proposed design with the EU BAT guidelines.

By engaging with a key selection of technical experts across core technical stakeholders, we were able to guide discussions around the engineering process equipment via a directed technical workshop, with the core systems and equipment of the Pre-FEED design as the focus against the advised Best Available Technology, as dictated by the EU guidelines.

Emissions and environmental risk must be considered across all stages of a new asset build.

Add Energy’s experience in Asset Life Extension, Maintenance Optimisation, and Engineering Assessment allowed for the thorough and holistic assessment of the producers planned asset design against EU guidelines.

Why we were contracted

Challenges faced by the client

The requirements for the study were highlighted by some challenges that required a level of competence that our team were able to provide:

  • Stringent local regulatory requirements for greenfield developments
  • Pre-FEED project stage requiring validation against generalised EU guidelines
  • Highly generalised EU guidelines, not revised sufficiently nor updated to accommodate current energy development landscape
  • Advanced technology being assessed against outdated guidelines
Challenges faced by the client

What we did

Number icons 01 1

Collected over 270 documents accounting for the Pre-Feed technical development

Number icons 02

Aligned disparate engineering data into cohesive data source

Number icons 03

Designed and developed a digital workshop to engage technical teams across 4 countries

Number icons 04

Conducted the workshop to guide technical experts through key aspects of the design using Process Flow Diagrams layered with interactive design data to establish a general consensus as to the design considerations, and areas of concern against EU directives

Number icons 05

Compared workshop results against proposed design to establish gap analysis against the EU guidelines

Number icons 06

Advised the forward path to FEED assessment against outstanding design gaps

Number icons 07

Power BI was used to collate the data and complete the analysis


  1. Reviewed relevant BREF Documents
  2. Reviewed relevant client and project documentation
  3. Cross referenced BAT references to the Client References
  4. Aligned Equipment and Systems to relevant BREF technical mention of BAT
  5. Commentary on BREF relevancy to planned design elements
  6. Designed a report (Phase 1, this report) that is aligned where practically possible to the Israeli Ministry of the Environment Guidelines
  7. Facilitated an on-line workshop to bring the stakeholders to a common understanding

Delivered the BAT Assessment Report


Details of compliance with the BAT; concise explanation and references indicating compliance and how this compliance was achieved or not;

  • Partial compliance with the BAT requirements: details of the partial compliance with the BAT, with attached references and explanations
  • Non-compliance with the BAT requirements
  • Not applicable

Client feedback from this project


“Very systematic process to gain understanding of the facility. Good description of what were the governing standards to be considered.”


“Alignment on expectations between the different parties, and clear understanding of the way forward for the work and the project overall development.”


“Objective view of facility compliance with known regulations. Good challenges from team members about assumptions of where emissions would be and what is reasonable to consider or not.”


“Confirmation that main design assumptions are not in conflict with environmental best practices in order to ease the environmental permitting process.”


“Organisation of the work is clear, and the clarity on deliverables.”