Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Redman wrote:Thumb in the arse is more of your hands on experience.
Who said suddenly?
Facts:
Once in power what did they meet?
NGC drained of cash it generated at the top of the cycle ....and not generating free cash as it was...unresolved claims against curtailment since 2011.
And contracts up and down stream expiring have been on month to month for however long with upstream only out to 2018.
And of course BP and Shell deciding how much of their gas they send where.
All this ...yet all PP did was grab dividends at an unprecedented rate.
NGC cannot force BP She'll or the other producers to produce more gas for PTL while at the same time BP/Shell supply LNG directly.
This is all in the midst of the restructuring of the LNG complex arrangements...for all trains...increasing the take for us.
Is BP/Shell above using supply to PTL to put pressure on GORTT re LNG negotiations?
Ie NGC does not control the volume that it gets nor the split between LNG and PTL.
Redman wrote:Well if it is that you think nothing has been happening....then you haven’t been paying attention...do some googling before you respond.
And not surprisingly you way off base wrt how we get paid from LNG.
Which explains quite a bit.
Do some homework and then post....at this point it better you stay at the LFDRFD level of discussion
Also splits are still going to be based on shareholdings, so a unitary position would only get us the gas to run Train 1, not "increase our take" The GORTT of T&T has historically placed us in the bottom feeder positions of any industries that have come here.
8 energy firms lost $10b in last 4 years
Dec 12, 2014
From 2010 to 2014, eight energy companies based in the Point Lisas Industrial Estate suffered combined losses of US$1,639,694,699.20 (or roughly TT$10 billion) because of irregular natural gas supply.
In turn, the National Gas Company (NGC) lost US$653.3 million (about $4.1 billion) in revenues, the Government lost US$217.4 million (about TT$1.3 billion) in corporation tax and US$1.4 million (TT$8.82 million) for the Green Fund.
On August 25, the Point Lisas Energy Association (PLEA) of CEOs which comprises Ian Welch, managing director of PCS Nitrogen and chairman of PLEA, Jerome Dookie— the chief executive of Caribbean Nitrogen Company, Dennis Patrick—the chief executive of Methanol Holdings Ltd, Roberto Mantellini- president of Point Lisas Nitrogen Ltd, Robert Bellisle- managing director and chief executive of Arcelor Mittal Point Lisas Ltd, Charles Percy-the chief executive and managing director of Methanex Trinidad Ltd, Jay Henderson— managing director of Nu-Iron Trinidad and Tobago and Richard de La Bastide— president of Yara Ltd, penned a three-page letter about the gas supply curtailments to Energy Minister Kevin Ramnarine.
The chief executives said despite their plea in 2011 that the matter be addressed, they were "severely affected by frequent curtailment in the supply of natural gas to our various plants".
PLEA noted that they had tried to collaborate with other stakeholders in an effort to come up with solutions to the problem.
"PLEA even facilitated and paid for consultants to work with the Group you agreed to form to look at the shortfall issue. Sadly, to date, little progress has been made. Indeed, despite these efforts, and notwithstanding numerous assurances to the contrary, the gas curtailments continue unabated and have been worse than forecast and appear to have no end in sight.
"As a result of this situation, our respective companies, and by extension, the Government and the people of Trinidad and Tobago, continue to lose significant revenue daily," the letter stated.
"This does not include the other indirect losses and expenses such as the damage caused to our equipment by constantly having to cycle the plants to respond to broad fluctuations in supply, and the impact that this has had on the equipment's ability to continue to produce safely at design capacity. Nor does it capture the full trickle-down effect on and the opportunity cost to the nation. Additional indirect effects include the increased risk of accidents and environmental mishaps and the development of a reputation as an unreliable supplier of petrochemical products.
"Honourable Minister, the image that is being painted of Trinidad and Tobago is a place where the gas is either running out or the supply has been overcommitted. The longer this image is allowed to persist, the less attractive the country will be as a venue for foreign direct investment. Numerous investors have passed up the opportunity of investing in Trinidad and chosen to invest in other countries where the supply of gas is more readily available and consistent. We fear that unless the situation is soon brought under control and the confidence in the availability of gas to be supplied to our plants is restored, we may soon witness the permanent closure and migration of plants from Trinidad and the collapse of the Point Lisas model," the letter observed.
They said the situation required "immediate and definitive handling" and called for critical measures, which they identified as:
1. Concrete action items within a timeline to restore a reliable, stable contract gas supply to PLEA in the shortest time
2. Appropriate planning and communication of items in 1 above
3. Short, medium and long-term outlook of gas supply so the proper planning can be affected. (It is understood that this can only be made possible with accurate forecasts of well-depletion rates superimposed by new production capacity)
4. An understanding of the new gas-consuming projects that have been announced and progressing. What is the plan for the supply of gas to these projects given that the gas shortages being experienced by existing consumers have not been addressed
5. Reinstate the Reserve Gas/Gas Behind-Pipe to mitigate unplanned upstream outages that will significantly reduce curtailments in Point Lisas."
PLEA said while they appreciated Ramnarine's efforts, "given the severity of the problem and the very dire consequences with which we-and the country as a whole-are faced, we consider it our duty to escalate the matter and strongly recommend that immediate action be taken to reverse this worsening and prolonged situation".
"Please be assured of the ongoing cooperation of our companies towards sustainable solutions and improvement in the economy of Trinidad and Tobago," the letter ended with the signatures of all eight chief executives.
That letter had followed a letter penned by PLEA on October 3, 2011 which had also called on Ramnarine to address the gas situation because of mounting losses by the plants.
That letter observed: "In implementing these curtailments, the NGC also continues to claim the protection of force majeure clauses in our contracts. There is dissimilarity between the contracts in this regard. While the clauses provide the NGC with a shield in genuine cases of events beyond its control (subject to the limitations set out in the contracts), the expectations are that the NGC must take every reasonable step to limit the force majeure event and its consequences. Furthermore, contractually, the NGC is obligated to meet with us to discuss the consequences of the force majeure event, and the intended remedial actions to be implemented. This simply has not occurred. Indeed, the NGC routinely gets notification of shut-downs from its suppliers, and then passes these over to us forcing us to reduce production rates."
PLEA had made some recommendations then to Ramnarine. They were:
1. Gas users contracting directly with gas producers- If as gas users, we are, as a matter of policy, free to contract directly with producers, the local gas supply market will become a more transparent and competitive one which will be conducive to the settlement of more attractive terms and, address all the issues of supply that impact or have the potential to impact our productivity.
2. Re-ordering of priority for gas supply— the current status of gas supply priority, gives the LNG producers the highest priority of supply after electricity generation in instances of gas curtailment. We believe that it is time to re-order the gas supply priority so that except for electricity generation, all gas users share curtailments pro rata. In current markets, not only are we losing out but government revenue suffer as well, when it should be benefitting from high commodity prices.
3. Provision of a buffer gas supply- the NGC's gas suppliers have the available capacity and infrastructure to provide the NGC with an adequate quantity of stand-by or buffer gas which can be used in circumstances where the regular supply is curtailed for unforeseen disruptions. This would of course necessitate a negotiation of terms between the NGC and its able suppliers.
4. Trading among gas users- Given the volatility of the petrochemical markets in which we operate, we propose, in the instances of gas supply restrictions, that we be allowed to enter into commercial arrangements among ourselves, which would allow us the flexibility to determine the rate at which we should each operate, while at the same time complying with the NGC's request to reduce overall production rates. This would ensure that if market conditions are good for one of us, then the opportunity arises for negotiation, which would allow a user to benefit as much as possible in the prevailing market.
5. Re-pressing of old Petrotrin wells- As a means of providing additional gas storage, we suggest that the old Petrotrin wells can be reconditioned and re-pressured to be used for underground storage which we can tap into as needed.
6. More equitable sharing of the burden. Given the premier position enjoyed by the NGC in our gas sector, we believe it is important for us to have a more equitable sharing of the burden, as well as the benefit. Specifically, in each of our gas contracts, we agree to a take or pay clause. We believe that consideration must be given to the development of a deliver or pay formula whereby if the NGC fails to deliver to its customers, it will accept a reasonable portion of the financial fall-out. This type of policy will create an incentive- based culture, which promotes efficiency and accountability from which our country will ultimately benefit.
Contacted yesterday to comment on the letter, Ramnarine maintained the stance he'd taken in an interview with the Sunday Express two weeks ago, that the problem won't be set right until 2017.
"There is a gap between what could be supplied and what is the total demand. And that gap is probably five to ten per cent," he had said.
"I am going to be honest with you, that situation will not go away for the next two and a half years. Where we will get relief is in the year 2017 when the Juniper (a bpTT gas field) comes on."
Last week BG's Starfish field came into production.
"That's good news. It helps. It's a bit late. It had a slippage in schedule because of rough seas but it is going to come on in stages. They will bring in the first well next week, by January they will bring in the second well and by March they will bring on the third well. It will add 220 million standard cubic feet of gas (mmcf/d). That is not going to alleviate the problem, it's going to help but it won't make it go away. We are in this supply-demand situation for the next two and a half years," he had said.
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... 1eea6.html
Redman wrote:Go tell BP and Shell smash say drop your prices.
That should work.
DreamWeaver wrote:We can all rant and rave about who is to blame but going forward, I don't think any govt can fix what comes next. The local energy sector will collapse, starting with point lisas as we have been witnessing over the last few years with plant closures. What is perhaps the biggest disappointment is none of the past or present govts took the opportunity to implement real, tangible diversification goals. Mostly just lip service while they spent their terms in office plundering the treasury. Oil, gas and petrochemicals were never supposed to be the end all. From the minute we started drilling the ground, we knew that it wouldn't last forever and that the money we would make from non-renewables should go towards developing a self sustaining economy.
We're at a junction where we need to take the bitter medicine and diversify or die and still here we are, 'praying' for the energy sector to rebound.
alfa wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:We can all rant and rave about who is to blame but going forward, I don't think any govt can fix what comes next. The local energy sector will collapse, starting with point lisas as we have been witnessing over the last few years with plant closures. What is perhaps the biggest disappointment is none of the past or present govts took the opportunity to implement real, tangible diversification goals. Mostly just lip service while they spent their terms in office plundering the treasury. Oil, gas and petrochemicals were never supposed to be the end all. From the minute we started drilling the ground, we knew that it wouldn't last forever and that the money we would make from non-renewables should go towards developing a self sustaining economy.
We're at a junction where we need to take the bitter medicine and diversify or die and still here we are, 'praying' for the energy sector to rebound.
But diversify into what exactly? We have been hearing about diversification for decades now but agriculture just isn't going to cut it in terms of huge profits and even on our best day with zero crime Rio has a better carnival than us and Barbados and Jamaica better beaches so tourism is out as a primary revenue earner. Nothing can ever compare to oil and gas unfortunately
alfa wrote:DreamWeaver wrote:We can all rant and rave about who is to blame but going forward, I don't think any govt can fix what comes next. The local energy sector will collapse, starting with point lisas as we have been witnessing over the last few years with plant closures. What is perhaps the biggest disappointment is none of the past or present govts took the opportunity to implement real, tangible diversification goals. Mostly just lip service while they spent their terms in office plundering the treasury. Oil, gas and petrochemicals were never supposed to be the end all. From the minute we started drilling the ground, we knew that it wouldn't last forever and that the money we would make from non-renewables should go towards developing a self sustaining economy.
We're at a junction where we need to take the bitter medicine and diversify or die and still here we are, 'praying' for the energy sector to rebound.
But diversify into what exactly? We have been hearing about diversification for decades now but agriculture just isn't going to cut it in terms of huge profits and even on our best day with zero crime Rio has a better carnival than us and Barbados and Jamaica better beaches so tourism is out as a primary revenue earner. Nothing can ever compare to oil and gas unfortunately
Redman wrote:If my argument has failed...copy a point I made and refute it.
We were peewats when we started....we are still peewats... although that has nothing to do with Train 1.
If us being peewats is your big reveal....lol.
Remember. .homework ..learn how we get paid as a country from our resources...start with LNG.
Comeback and share.
Cuz your position below clearly indicates that you have a peewats grasp of the discussion.
Almost at LFDRFD level.Also splits are still going to be based on shareholdings, so a unitary position would only get us the gas to run Train 1, not "increase our take" The GORTT of T&T has historically placed us in the bottom feeder positions of any industries that have come here.
Redman wrote:Refute means:
Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
It doesn't mean asking for more help.
We've been through this already, but clearly you still not grasping the concept s from earlier in the thread.
Your ignorance and insecurities showing.
It's all there go back read slowly...use that PNM education that got you this far.
Redman wrote:Well Dragon, you asked the same question 2 pages ago.
I posted what I thought, in fact showed how it could be sensible and logical.
If you're asking the same thing without acknowledging that links, and some details were posted in reply to your initial question... you need togo back and read it
And true to form you revert to childish behavior name calling while not disproving or putting any information to contradict anything....and then cry fowl.
Condescension is what you get...when childish attitudes prevail.
Anyhow....your question regarding TAR was answered.
Govt has increased its take from Train 1 and is in the process of resetting the agreements on the others.
All of this has been posted,and linked in the thread.
Redman wrote:Do you know?
If so post the details of the TAR so that we can see why you have made your conclusion.
The point is that you do not know.
Now it is possible for BP and Shell to agree to compensation for the GORTT in money gas or increased yield from T1 ...in return for the outlay of the 300M
It may be a surprise to you that there are several ways for GORTT to be paid for the resource.
Redman wrote:Aha the ZR position of working dey and therefore I know....despite Demonstrating that lack of knowledge of the details.
And you are conclusive on something you stated you have no knowledge of.
Surprise Surprise.
But Khans position was that they are in negotiations for the Train one, what happens this year, and for additional gas, and the timelines run into 2022,
As part of the initiation of the arrangements of all the plants.
So no one planned nuttin in a month...and based on your posts...I'm pretty sure they have a better handle on what it takes than you.
And they understand how the plant generate returns on any investment which seems to have evaded you...get a 10 days in the accounts dept
Comeback and share
Redman wrote:So now one doesn’t have to be intimate to know....so your big position on hands on...is now inconvenient to you.
Kk got it.
At least you right they planning this a while..at least you got that right.
Well done.
elec2020 wrote:de dragon is so toxic. whenever he feels the need to show how right he is he descends into a profanity laden tirade. newsflash that only makes u look more stupid than u really are
elec2020 wrote:de dragon is so toxic. whenever he feels the need to show how right he is he descends into a profanity laden tirade. newsflash that only makes u look more stupid than u really are