yes! that is the amazing article I was trying to re find earlier to point out these additional advantages over other LNG cos:
why are you developing a floating facility rather than an onshore facility like your U.S. peers?
Fred Jones: “True to the spirit of Mr. Pao, one of the things I like about our floating facility is that it has movable assets. When I started looking at the U.S. LNG business in 2010, I was cognizant of the fact that the world changes over 20 years. So if one is looking to export gas, I don’t think it’s a great idea to invest a billion and a half dollars into a stationary, onshore facility. If markets change over time, the onshore facility will be at risk of becoming obsolete, while the floating facility can simply be relocated to a more advantageous location. This is truly unique among our U.S peers and is a dynamic that resonates well with shareholders, off-takers and lenders. The second benefit of developing a floating facility in the U.S. is the regulatory regime. While onshore projects have to be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), offshore projects are governed by the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). This is an advantage because, while the FERC process has no time limit and can sometimes take up to four years to complete, the MARAD process is bound by a time limit of one year. While these important benefits have not been well understood to-date, I believe that slowly there is a growing recognition of the competitive advantages inherent in floating liquefaction projects.”
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
