TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
Joshie23 wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
Ortoire, perhaps?
Cantmis wrote:How much do we consume BTW?
DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
Ask JUHN Scarfy/LFDRFD PNM crew, after all they are bankrolling it
wtf wrote:60 Methanex workers to go home as Titan methanol plant closes indefinitely.
https://newsday.co.tt/2021/01/07/methanex-to-shutter-titan-in-pt-lisas-60-workers-to-go/
guardian wrote:
Petrochemical companies accuse NGC of conflict of interest
by
Curtis Williams
12 hours ago
Fri Jan 08 2021
Joint Letter to MEEI-Final Dec 23 2020-1
Curtis Williams
curtis.williams@guardian.co.tt
The major downstream petrochemical companies have accused the National Gas Company (NGC) of a conflict of interest, putting hundreds of millions of dollars and 30,000 jobs at risk.
“Not only is the sector’s significant current contribution to the national economy at risk, in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars per year of direct revenue, over 25 per cent of country Forex, 1,500-plus highly skilled direct employees; not including thousands of other permanent employees, as well as over 30,000; more in the services and support sectors; this decision also imperils the future growth of the sector,” a letter signed by five Chief Executive Officers of Point Lisas Petrochemical companies read.
In a strongly worded letter to the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries Franklin Khan, a copy of which Guardian Media has obtained, the Chief Executive Officers of 24 plants said they are deeply disturbed by the revelation that the NGC is to take over control of the operations of Atlantic LNG’s Train 1.
It referred to two Business Guardian articles of Sunday, December 6 (NGC takes $300million gamble on Train 1) and Thursday 17th December (‘Train 1 or not ... NGC promises to meet contracted gas to
downstream”) and called for an urgent meeting with the Minister of Energy to fix the issue.
The letter read: “We are therefore deeply concerned by the NGC’s reported multimillion-dollar investment to maintain the operability of Train 1. This will substantially deepen the NGC’s role in the LNG industry and could create incentives to prioritize gas supply to its own investments, to the detriment of its clients. In effect, this appears to us as an unambiguous conflict of interest to the NGC’s primary mandate, making the NGC a competitor to its own customers in the Downstream. Furthermore, this decision comes in a period where the supply of economical gas is already under severe strain- and likely to remain so throughout 2021.”
Reached yesterday Energy Minister Franklin Khan said he has a meeting carded with the five CEOs and has promised to say more after.
“The letter was sent to me so I don’t know how you have a copy of it, but that’s the world now, there is nothing that is a secret. But you have the letter and you can see it is the CEOs of the top Petrochemical companies so it’s important and I will be meeting with them at noon today after which I will speak,” Khan told Guardian Media.
Chairman of the NGC Conrad Enill said the company would not be part of the meeting even though it was aware of the letter.
Asked about the NGC getting deeper involved in Atlantic he simply said the NGC has to implement government policy.
Enill, however, insisted that the NGC could not contractually short the downstream companies in favour of its interest in Atlantic since the contracts are binding and have minimum supply clauses with significant penalties for failure to meet those gas commitments.
The CEOs reminded Khan that as leaders of the largest Downstream petrochemical producers in Trinidad and Tobago they represent 24 plants, more than 30,000 direct and indirect employees and invested capital of over US$8billion and had noted with grave concern the recent reports regarding Atlantic’s Train 1 liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing facility.
“We are writing to request urgent clarification on gas supply implications for the National Gas Company’s (NGC) other customers in the Downstream,” the letter read.
According to the leading CEOs, the NGC’s primary role is the aggregation, purchase, sale, transmission and distribution of natural gas to the Downstream industries, alongside its investments in Downstream and Upstream production. In this position, the NGC enjoys a monopoly on gas supply to the Downstream sector, supported by its unique confidential gas pricing and allocation model.
It said while the NGC has committed to fulfilling its existing contractual obligations, this does not address the requirements of Downstream producers already operating with lower contractual volumes following several years of gas curtailments.
“These arrangements were a painful compromise, on the undertaking from the NGC that these producers would receive any additional gas volumes that subsequently became available. Nor does it address the requirements of Downstream producers in the progress of negotiating contract renewals.
The letter continued: “With the additional requirements of Train 1 of at least 250 mmscf/d and below-forecast Upstream production, what does this mean for the adequate supply of affordable gas to the Downstream producers? Also, given, that this volume represents the equivalent of supply to five (5) petrochemical plants employing 5 times the number of people we are concerned about the overall impact on the wider economy. In addition, such a large share of natural gas production allocated to a single commodity could increase the exposure risk for the country in the future.”
It said this is already a critical juncture for the Downstream sector. The impact of the pandemic on global commodity markets, layered on existing high gas prices and diminished global competitiveness, has created an existential threat for Trinidad and Tobago’s Downstream the CEOs noted.
They insisted that the Downstream could once again become an economic powerhouse for the country, with the right conditions and enabling environment and warned this appears to be a move in the opposite direction.
An island of store clerks and waiters all working for 1%sMASH wrote:Like Schultz fed up with the natives.
https://www.guardian.co.tt/news/petroch ... 0.facebookguardian wrote:
Petrochemical companies accuse NGC of conflict of interest
by
Curtis Williams
12 hours ago
Fri Jan 08 2021
Joint Letter to MEEI-Final Dec 23 2020-1
Curtis Williams
curtis.williams@guardian.co.tt
The major downstream petrochemical companies have accused the National Gas Company (NGC) of a conflict of interest, putting hundreds of millions of dollars and 30,000 jobs at risk.
“Not only is the sector’s significant current contribution to the national economy at risk, in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars per year of direct revenue, over 25 per cent of country Forex, 1,500-plus highly skilled direct employees; not including thousands of other permanent employees, as well as over 30,000; more in the services and support sectors; this decision also imperils the future growth of the sector,” a letter signed by five Chief Executive Officers of Point Lisas Petrochemical companies read.
In a strongly worded letter to the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries Franklin Khan, a copy of which Guardian Media has obtained, the Chief Executive Officers of 24 plants said they are deeply disturbed by the revelation that the NGC is to take over control of the operations of Atlantic LNG’s Train 1.
It referred to two Business Guardian articles of Sunday, December 6 (NGC takes $300million gamble on Train 1) and Thursday 17th December (‘Train 1 or not ... NGC promises to meet contracted gas to
downstream”) and called for an urgent meeting with the Minister of Energy to fix the issue.
The letter read: “We are therefore deeply concerned by the NGC’s reported multimillion-dollar investment to maintain the operability of Train 1. This will substantially deepen the NGC’s role in the LNG industry and could create incentives to prioritize gas supply to its own investments, to the detriment of its clients. In effect, this appears to us as an unambiguous conflict of interest to the NGC’s primary mandate, making the NGC a competitor to its own customers in the Downstream. Furthermore, this decision comes in a period where the supply of economical gas is already under severe strain- and likely to remain so throughout 2021.”
Reached yesterday Energy Minister Franklin Khan said he has a meeting carded with the five CEOs and has promised to say more after.
“The letter was sent to me so I don’t know how you have a copy of it, but that’s the world now, there is nothing that is a secret. But you have the letter and you can see it is the CEOs of the top Petrochemical companies so it’s important and I will be meeting with them at noon today after which I will speak,” Khan told Guardian Media.
Chairman of the NGC Conrad Enill said the company would not be part of the meeting even though it was aware of the letter.
Asked about the NGC getting deeper involved in Atlantic he simply said the NGC has to implement government policy.
Enill, however, insisted that the NGC could not contractually short the downstream companies in favour of its interest in Atlantic since the contracts are binding and have minimum supply clauses with significant penalties for failure to meet those gas commitments.
The CEOs reminded Khan that as leaders of the largest Downstream petrochemical producers in Trinidad and Tobago they represent 24 plants, more than 30,000 direct and indirect employees and invested capital of over US$8billion and had noted with grave concern the recent reports regarding Atlantic’s Train 1 liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing facility.
“We are writing to request urgent clarification on gas supply implications for the National Gas Company’s (NGC) other customers in the Downstream,” the letter read.
According to the leading CEOs, the NGC’s primary role is the aggregation, purchase, sale, transmission and distribution of natural gas to the Downstream industries, alongside its investments in Downstream and Upstream production. In this position, the NGC enjoys a monopoly on gas supply to the Downstream sector, supported by its unique confidential gas pricing and allocation model.
It said while the NGC has committed to fulfilling its existing contractual obligations, this does not address the requirements of Downstream producers already operating with lower contractual volumes following several years of gas curtailments.
“These arrangements were a painful compromise, on the undertaking from the NGC that these producers would receive any additional gas volumes that subsequently became available. Nor does it address the requirements of Downstream producers in the progress of negotiating contract renewals.
The letter continued: “With the additional requirements of Train 1 of at least 250 mmscf/d and below-forecast Upstream production, what does this mean for the adequate supply of affordable gas to the Downstream producers? Also, given, that this volume represents the equivalent of supply to five (5) petrochemical plants employing 5 times the number of people we are concerned about the overall impact on the wider economy. In addition, such a large share of natural gas production allocated to a single commodity could increase the exposure risk for the country in the future.”
It said this is already a critical juncture for the Downstream sector. The impact of the pandemic on global commodity markets, layered on existing high gas prices and diminished global competitiveness, has created an existential threat for Trinidad and Tobago’s Downstream the CEOs noted.
They insisted that the Downstream could once again become an economic powerhouse for the country, with the right conditions and enabling environment and warned this appears to be a move in the opposite direction.
DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
Ask JUHN Scarfy/LFDRFD PNM crew, after all they are bankrolling it
well for sure they cant let train 1 sit idle after its govt-funded turnaround otherwise govt will be looking rel bad after spending all that money and saying train 1 not shutting down and how they had negotiate an 'alleged' good revenue contract with train 1. I know bp say they have no gas for train 1 in 2021 though. Maybe touchstone gas is for train 1? Of course that all depends on how much they can process. Next thing touchstone find 1 tcf and could only process 100mmscf/d. lol. Train 1 need like 442mmscf/d to run normal
De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
Ask JUHN Scarfy/LFDRFD PNM crew, after all they are bankrolling it
well for sure they cant let train 1 sit idle after its govt-funded turnaround otherwise govt will be looking rel bad after spending all that money and saying train 1 not shutting down and how they had negotiate an 'alleged' good revenue contract with train 1. I know bp say they have no gas for train 1 in 2021 though. Maybe touchstone gas is for train 1? Of course that all depends on how much they can process. Next thing touchstone find 1 tcf and could only process 100mmscf/d. lol. Train 1 need like 442mmscf/d to run normal
Agreed, but who negotiates to fund 100% of something that you own 10% of? It's like buying a new engine for a taxi that you work for someone, just to keep you in the taxi game
DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
Ask JUHN Scarfy/LFDRFD PNM crew, after all they are bankrolling it
well for sure they cant let train 1 sit idle after its govt-funded turnaround otherwise govt will be looking rel bad after spending all that money and saying train 1 not shutting down and how they had negotiate an 'alleged' good revenue contract with train 1. I know bp say they have no gas for train 1 in 2021 though. Maybe touchstone gas is for train 1? Of course that all depends on how much they can process. Next thing touchstone find 1 tcf and could only process 100mmscf/d. lol. Train 1 need like 442mmscf/d to run normal
Agreed, but who negotiates to fund 100% of something that you own 10% of? It's like buying a new engine for a taxi that you work for someone, just to keep you in the taxi game
Yes it does sound like quite the gamble tbh. But let's not forget that even though they have 10% shareholding, they supply 100% of the gas. And just like ammonia and methanol, a sliding scale method would be used to tie the monthly price of lng to the cost train 1 pays per mmbtu of natgas from ngc. If the new contract allows ngc a greater margin of profitability between upstream and downstream, then ngc can make back that turnaround cost and also collect shareholding returns at the same time.
There are a lot of moving parts that need to come together perfectly for the ngc to be successful. Personally, I dont see the ngc's strategy working.
De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
Ask JUHN Scarfy/LFDRFD PNM crew, after all they are bankrolling it
well for sure they cant let train 1 sit idle after its govt-funded turnaround otherwise govt will be looking rel bad after spending all that money and saying train 1 not shutting down and how they had negotiate an 'alleged' good revenue contract with train 1. I know bp say they have no gas for train 1 in 2021 though. Maybe touchstone gas is for train 1? Of course that all depends on how much they can process. Next thing touchstone find 1 tcf and could only process 100mmscf/d. lol. Train 1 need like 442mmscf/d to run normal
Agreed, but who negotiates to fund 100% of something that you own 10% of? It's like buying a new engine for a taxi that you work for someone, just to keep you in the taxi game
Yes it does sound like quite the gamble tbh. But let's not forget that even though they have 10% shareholding, they supply 100% of the gas. And just like ammonia and methanol, a sliding scale method would be used to tie the monthly price of lng to the cost train 1 pays per mmbtu of natgas from ngc. If the new contract allows ngc a greater margin of profitability between upstream and downstream, then ngc can make back that turnaround cost and also collect shareholding returns at the same time.
There are a lot of moving parts that need to come together perfectly for the ngc to be successful. Personally, I dont see the ngc's strategy working.
Precisely why it makes even less sense now. The sliding scale insulates plants against low commodity prices and maximizes GORTT revenue when prices high. Ammonia, lng and methanol prices are low, so NGC's margins are lower now, so to bankroll a TAR seems to defy business sense.
DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
Ask JUHN Scarfy/LFDRFD PNM crew, after all they are bankrolling it
well for sure they cant let train 1 sit idle after its govt-funded turnaround otherwise govt will be looking rel bad after spending all that money and saying train 1 not shutting down and how they had negotiate an 'alleged' good revenue contract with train 1. I know bp say they have no gas for train 1 in 2021 though. Maybe touchstone gas is for train 1? Of course that all depends on how much they can process. Next thing touchstone find 1 tcf and could only process 100mmscf/d. lol. Train 1 need like 442mmscf/d to run normal
Agreed, but who negotiates to fund 100% of something that you own 10% of? It's like buying a new engine for a taxi that you work for someone, just to keep you in the taxi game
Yes it does sound like quite the gamble tbh. But let's not forget that even though they have 10% shareholding, they supply 100% of the gas. And just like ammonia and methanol, a sliding scale method would be used to tie the monthly price of lng to the cost train 1 pays per mmbtu of natgas from ngc. If the new contract allows ngc a greater margin of profitability between upstream and downstream, then ngc can make back that turnaround cost and also collect shareholding returns at the same time.
There are a lot of moving parts that need to come together perfectly for the ngc to be successful. Personally, I dont see the ngc's strategy working.
Precisely why it makes even less sense now. The sliding scale insulates plants against low commodity prices and maximizes GORTT revenue when prices high. Ammonia, lng and methanol prices are low, so NGC's margins are lower now, so to bankroll a TAR seems to defy business sense.
https://www.tv6tnt.com/news/7pmnews/ene ... 5e23b.html
I admit, a TAR is actually a pretty BAD idea, especially how Franklin Khan is hinting that train 1 will be in an "operations ready" mode until 2023 when they are expecting more gas. It makes no sense to do a TAR now in 2021 and then stay down until gas comes years in the future since you're going to have to do more maintenance to the plant in 2023 to even get it started. I've seen plants wither from lack of use and the term "operations ready" mode is just a fancy word for a plant that is shut down and personnel just doing routine condition monitoring and preventative maintenance jobs. It would make more sense for the plant and the economy, to shut down train 1 now and do the TAR in 2023 when the gas is available. You end up spending less money overall and let's face it, the govt doesnt have money to spend on the economy as it is, so why waste millions on a TAR now and then have to waste more millions on recommissioning costs in 2023? That being said, I strongly believe the govt has ulterior motives to place train 1 online after its tar in 2021 and make some money. This of course strongly depends on those outstanding gas contract negotiations that are yet to be concluded. And yes, the outstanding negotiations have sufficient supply to place train 1 back online. Maybe not at full rates, but it can make revenue for the govt.
KYRON REGIS
De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:De Dragon wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:anybody know how long is train 1 turnaround? whole ah 2021? cause i waiting to see where dey get gas
Ask JUHN Scarfy/LFDRFD PNM crew, after all they are bankrolling it
well for sure they cant let train 1 sit idle after its govt-funded turnaround otherwise govt will be looking rel bad after spending all that money and saying train 1 not shutting down and how they had negotiate an 'alleged' good revenue contract with train 1. I know bp say they have no gas for train 1 in 2021 though. Maybe touchstone gas is for train 1? Of course that all depends on how much they can process. Next thing touchstone find 1 tcf and could only process 100mmscf/d. lol. Train 1 need like 442mmscf/d to run normal
Agreed, but who negotiates to fund 100% of something that you own 10% of? It's like buying a new engine for a taxi that you work for someone, just to keep you in the taxi game
Yes it does sound like quite the gamble tbh. But let's not forget that even though they have 10% shareholding, they supply 100% of the gas. And just like ammonia and methanol, a sliding scale method would be used to tie the monthly price of lng to the cost train 1 pays per mmbtu of natgas from ngc. If the new contract allows ngc a greater margin of profitability between upstream and downstream, then ngc can make back that turnaround cost and also collect shareholding returns at the same time.
There are a lot of moving parts that need to come together perfectly for the ngc to be successful. Personally, I dont see the ngc's strategy working.
Precisely why it makes even less sense now. The sliding scale insulates plants against low commodity prices and maximizes GORTT revenue when prices high. Ammonia, lng and methanol prices are low, so NGC's margins are lower now, so to bankroll a TAR seems to defy business sense.
https://www.tv6tnt.com/news/7pmnews/ene ... 5e23b.html
I admit, a TAR is actually a pretty BAD idea, especially how Franklin Khan is hinting that train 1 will be in an "operations ready" mode until 2023 when they are expecting more gas. It makes no sense to do a TAR now in 2021 and then stay down until gas comes years in the future since you're going to have to do more maintenance to the plant in 2023 to even get it started. I've seen plants wither from lack of use and the term "operations ready" mode is just a fancy word for a plant that is shut down and personnel just doing routine condition monitoring and preventative maintenance jobs. It would make more sense for the plant and the economy, to shut down train 1 now and do the TAR in 2023 when the gas is available. You end up spending less money overall and let's face it, the govt doesnt have money to spend on the economy as it is, so why waste millions on a TAR now and then have to waste more millions on recommissioning costs in 2023? That being said, I strongly believe the govt has ulterior motives to place train 1 online after its tar in 2021 and make some money. This of course strongly depends on those outstanding gas contract negotiations that are yet to be concluded. And yes, the outstanding negotiations have sufficient supply to place train 1 back online. Maybe not at full rates, but it can make revenue for the govt.
kyron.regis@guardian.co.tt
Atlantic LNG Train 1 will not be mothballed in January 2021 and approval has also been given for a turnaround to done on the plant, Energy Minister Franklin Khan has said.
Speaking at the House of Representatives yesterday, Khan said: “Atlantic Train 1 will not be shutting down in January 2021. Train 1 will continue to operate in 2021 and will be part of wider negotiations, which have been taking place among the Atlantic LNG shareholders to form one unitised facility encompassing all four Trains.”
Khan was responding to question pertaining to a Guardian Media Ltd (GML) Report that noted there was a desperate attempt by the government and the National Gas Company of T&T (NGC) to save Atlantic LNG Train 1.
Khan noted that the NGC, acting on behalf of the government, is taking the required actions to maintain the operability of Train 1, pending the finalization of the negotiations of the structure for the unitised facility.
Khan noted: “Only last night (3rd December) the shareholders of Atlantic Train 1, approved the turnaround (TA)”.
According to Khan, the turnaround would take place in January and would keep it in an “operations ready mode” for all of 2021 into 2022.
When asked if the shareholders have agreed to supply gas to Train 1, Khan said: “The issue of the operatability of the plant will depend on the TA.”
On the gas supply side, Khan noted negotiations are still underway to source a continued supply because the train was normally supplied 100 per cent by BPTT.
The Energy Minister said: “BP is saying that they have a shortage and they cannot supply, but BP is not the only supplier of gas in Trinidad so we are in some sensitive negotiations, let me make that point, with upstreamers to supply gas to Train 1.”
Earlier this year, BPTT told GML that its short-term supply arrangements on Train 1 have been extended to the end of 2020 and the company was also reviewing its forecast production for 2021 and beyond while working with the Atlantic stakeholders to understand the options for extending the the life of Train 1.
GML was told that the government met with BPTT on Wednesday 3rd December, to convince the multinational to supply gas into Train 1.
GML also understands that the National Gas Company of T&T (NGC) wanted to assume the role of lead operator of Train 1 to keep it running.
A TAR takes YEARS to plan in order to successfully execute. Rushing a TAR is never a good idea unless you had a catastrophic failure, or other condition which forced your hand. Where are they even getting the equipment and parts? Unless this TAR was in the works from long before and these things were procured in advance to be delivered in 2021
This has to be the stupidest statement EVER made by an Energy Minister, EVER!
Also a TAR takes years to plan and execute, so a January TAR suggests that this was in the works for a significant period of time prior to January. The smell on this is increasing........
sMASH wrote:how de f* is spending 300m when u have no gas, tightening ur belt?
ill just chalk that up to ignorance. they simply dont hvae industrial experience to know how that business works.De Dragon wrote:sMASH wrote:how de f* is spending 300m when u have no gas, tightening ur belt?
Plastic et al say its value for money.
sMASH wrote:ill just chalk that up to ignorance. they simply dont hvae industrial experience to know how that business works.De Dragon wrote:sMASH wrote:how de f* is spending 300m when u have no gas, tightening ur belt?
Plastic et al say its value for money.
DreamWeaver wrote:https://guardian.co.tt/news/bptt-denies-shorting-atlas-gas-because-its-no-longer-a-shareholder-6.2.1275514.dbb6aa0825
We eh need no Titan, or Atlas at full capacity. Redman wrote:Have train 1 up for when 2,3 and 4 come off contract ....
TnT has no shareholding...in 2 and 3.
Continue restructuring the entire structure of the LNG industry....
Deal with PTL as well.
As advised.
