Energy Sector Thread - Operators, Engineers, Technicians Et Al

[DreamWeaver]

Read the Poten doc and the Farrel doc.
Form your own opinions.

Nothing is happening in isolation.
And again...LNG supply is not dictated by NGC.
So shutting down LNG does not garantee increasing supply to PTL

The goal is optimization.

The problem with that goal is that the report, the NGC and govt's approach are all about tackling a problem with blinders on. Shale gas and renewable energy are real threats to our current gas model. So I guess you could say it is happening in isolation from what is going on in the world. We are not in a good position to be testing the patience of energy companies. Maybe 7+ years ago we stood a chance of playing hardball but not today

[Redman]

I do not see how any one who has read the docs could arrive at anything re blinders.

[De Dragon]

Read the Poten doc and the Farrel doc.
Form your own opinions.

Nothing is happening in isolation.
And again...LNG supply is not dictated by NGC.
So shutting down LNG does not garantee increasing supply to PTL

The goal is optimization.

Who's advocating that?
Right now companies are optimizing themselves right out of T&T. If the isn't a concurrent increase in revenue from LNG, or other sources, then we're doing foolishness, report or no report. The upstreamers have us by the gonads thanks to JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels' meddling, and the utter fackery that happened at Atlas, where they were deprived of their accustomed supply by BP after BP sold off their interest to INEOS, will happen over and over again.

[Redman]

BP and She'll have been directing gas to LNG because they benefit from majority ownership in all 4 trains....since inception
It's been happening back to 2010, curtailments were weighted towards PTL and the train 1, leaving BP/Shell interest operating.
They have little exposure to PTL shut downs...due to the supply agreements.

The whole environment has changed.

[De Dragon]

BP and She'll have been directing gas to LNG because they benefit from majority ownership in all 4 trains....since inception
It's been happening back to 2010, curtailments were weighted towards PTL and the train 1, leaving BP/Shell interest operating.
They have little exposure to PTL shut downs...due to the supply agreements.

The whole environment has changed.

That was widely known, but JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels Young had a chance to do something about that when they engaged in their masterful negotiations whereby they agreed to the increased price for gas demanded by the upstreamers.

[pugboy]

a ngc fella once told me there was talk of aggregating the lower pressure producing gas wells and running a compressor to squeeze the output from them as once a well which is connected to the supply network starts to decline it becomes a balancing problem with the differential to other wells.

has this ever been done ?

[De Dragon]

a ngc fella once told me there was talk of aggregating the lower pressure producing gas wells and running a compressor to squeeze the output from them as once a well which is connected to the supply network starts to decline it becomes a balancing problem with the differential to other wells.

has this ever been done ?

Not sure, but the issue you describe is one of the reasons NGC gives as why curtailments are requested.
If there is extra/spare compression capacity it is possible

[Redman]

BP and She'll have been directing gas to LNG because they benefit from majority ownership in all 4 trains....since inception
It's been happening back to 2010, curtailments were weighted towards PTL and the train 1, leaving BP/Shell interest operating.
They have little exposure to PTL shut downs...due to the supply agreements.

The whole environment has changed.

That was widely known, but JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels Young had a chance to do something about that when they engaged in their masterful negotiations whereby they agreed to the increased price for gas demanded by the upstreamers.

Breakdown the consequences of not agreeing...

.
The plant shut downs are results of the user of gas not agreeing to the cost from suppliers.


So you've actually successfully won your argument... against yourself.

[De Dragon]

BP and She'll have been directing gas to LNG because they benefit from majority ownership in all 4 trains....since inception
It's been happening back to 2010, curtailments were weighted towards PTL and the train 1, leaving BP/Shell interest operating.
They have little exposure to PTL shut downs...due to the supply agreements.

The whole environment has changed.

That was widely known, but JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels Young had a chance to do something about that when they engaged in their masterful negotiations whereby they agreed to the increased price for gas demanded by the upstreamers.

Breakdown the consequences of not agreeing...

.
The plant shut downs are results of the user of gas not agreeing to the cost from suppliers.


So you've actually successfully won your argument... against yourself.

Agreeing to pay more must be mutually beneficial to ALL. Does that look like it is happening here?
JUHN and Goebbels agreed to a price, and terms that severely hurt an already hurting energy sector.
Instead of (as usual) capitulating without any additional benefit like supply minimums, gas for Train 1, Atlas, what did we "get" out of the negotiations besides higher, noncompetitive gas prices?

[pugboy]

it's a very serious issue and clear sign of production waning

just think if you have to water pumps pumping same volume and their pipes joined together to combine their output
this will provide pretty much double output via the joined pipe.

if one of the pumps runs at a lower rate, the stronger pump may actually lose some of its output being pushed backwards into the weaker pump, of course if there is a one way valve on that pump it may never be able to send anything out either.

a ngc fella once told me there was talk of aggregating the lower pressure producing gas wells and running a compressor to squeeze the output from them as once a well which is connected to the supply network starts to decline it becomes a balancing problem with the differential to other wells.

has this ever been done ?

Not sure, but the issue you describe is one of the reasons NGC gives as why curtailments are requested.
If there is extra/spare compression capacity it is possible

[sMASH]

BP and She'll have been directing gas to LNG because they benefit from majority ownership in all 4 trains....since inception
It's been happening back to 2010, curtailments were weighted towards PTL and the train 1, leaving BP/Shell interest operating.
They have little exposure to PTL shut downs...due to the supply agreements.

The whole environment has changed.

That was widely known, but JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels Young had a chance to do something about that when they engaged in their masterful negotiations whereby they agreed to the increased price for gas demanded by the upstreamers.

Breakdown the consequences of not agreeing...

.
The plant shut downs are results of the user of gas not agreeing to the cost from suppliers.


So you've actually successfully won your argument... against yourself.

Agreeing to pay more must be mutually beneficial to ALL. Does that look like it is happening here?
JUHN and Goebbels agreed to a price, and terms that severely hurt an already hurting energy sector.
Instead of (as usual) capitulating without any additional benefit like supply minimums, gas for Train 1, Atlas, what did we "get" out of the negotiations besides higher, noncompetitive gas prices?

when its not mutually beneficial, the slighted parties, the parties that getting the sheit end of the stick, will rationalize their interests, both here and abroad, and decide if the profit is worth the headache.

while ngc is trying to eek a better profit from the downstream plants, cause the upstream e&p is more costly, the down stream plants weighing their options between trinidad and abroad.

the cost of the not getting enough gas or a steady supply of gas is not linearly proportional to the amount of gas that u getting.
the maintenance of the plant goes up exponentially, by curtailments.
when ngc playing hardball, the costs projected by the engineers move from x to x+ due to increased equipment failure. when their costs increase to x+, their revenues decrease by x+. the taxes decrease by x+ and the rationale to continue operations in trinidad also decreases by x+.

if the market price of their products increase to allow them to make more money, it will be worthwhile to stay, but when u getting jam from in front and jam from behind, they weigh their options. they didnt come to play carnival.

[Redman]

BP and She'll have been directing gas to LNG because they benefit from majority ownership in all 4 trains....since inception
It's been happening back to 2010, curtailments were weighted towards PTL and the train 1, leaving BP/Shell interest operating.
They have little exposure to PTL shut downs...due to the supply agreements.

The whole environment has changed.

That was widely known, but JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels Young had a chance to do something about that when they engaged in their masterful negotiations whereby they agreed to the increased price for gas demanded by the upstreamers.

Breakdown the consequences of not agreeing...

.
The plant shut downs are results of the user of gas not agreeing to the cost from suppliers.


So you've actually successfully won your argument... against yourself.

Agreeing to pay more must be mutually beneficial to ALL. Does that look like it is happening here?
JUHN and Goebbels agreed to a price, and terms that severely hurt an already hurting energy sector.
Instead of (as usual) capitulating without any additional benefit like supply minimums, gas for Train 1, Atlas, what did we "get" out of the negotiations besides higher, noncompetitive gas prices?

All the documentation and articles that detail what Poten et al recommended, have been posted online years ago.

The results of the negotiation s have been posted here and in the press years ago.

If you are not aware....it's pointless telling you again.

Breakdown what would have happened if the GORTT ignored the situation and did not come to terms with BP and Shell.

[DreamWeaver]

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/bhp-fin ... -oil-hope/

[Numb3r4]

That article wasn't too nice to read....doesn't paint a very nice picture of the future of our reserves and such.

[De Dragon]

BP and She'll have been directing gas to LNG because they benefit from majority ownership in all 4 trains....since inception
It's been happening back to 2010, curtailments were weighted towards PTL and the train 1, leaving BP/Shell interest operating.
They have little exposure to PTL shut downs...due to the supply agreements.

The whole environment has changed.

That was widely known, but JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels Young had a chance to do something about that when they engaged in their masterful negotiations whereby they agreed to the increased price for gas demanded by the upstreamers.

Breakdown the consequences of not agreeing...

.
The plant shut downs are results of the user of gas not agreeing to the cost from suppliers.


So you've actually successfully won your argument... against yourself.

Agreeing to pay more must be mutually beneficial to ALL. Does that look like it is happening here?
JUHN and Goebbels agreed to a price, and terms that severely hurt an already hurting energy sector.
Instead of (as usual) capitulating without any additional benefit like supply minimums, gas for Train 1, Atlas, what did we "get" out of the negotiations besides higher, noncompetitive gas prices?

All the documentation and articles that detail what Poten et al recommended, have been posted online years ago.

The results of the negotiation s have been posted here and in the press years ago.

If you are not aware....it's pointless telling you again.

Breakdown what would have happened if the GORTT ignored the situation and did not come to terms with BP and Shell.

Obtuse and LFDRFD PNM feigned ignorance again.
The exact opposite of what is happening now, or at least a fairer stake for US, the owners of the resource. Now what we have is BP/Shell etc have us over a barrel, all thanks to the "negotiators" JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels, who don't know sheit about negotiations if that is what we came away from the table with, which is continued curtailment, but now with the added burden of having to pay more for less gas rendering almost all operations of energy players unprofitable. Thanks JUHN and Goebbels!!

[Numb3r4]

In light of what folks are saying that the larger corporations seem to have the advantage, with that in mind was there a path for the government to come out with better terms or given the market conditions this was inevitable?

[De Dragon]

In light of what folks are saying that the larger corporations seem to have the advantage, with that in mind was there a path for the government to come out with better terms or given the market conditions this was inevitable?

The LFDRFD PNM chose BP and Shell over NGC and Pt. Lisas. Yet, the LFDRFD PNM 2NR crew talking about "optimize" and "Poten Report" like the LFDRFD PNM knows about following recommendations from a report . remember the not one, but two multi-million dollar reports that recommended restructuring the refinery to make it profitable? What happened after?

[Redman]

In light of what folks are saying that the larger corporations seem to have the advantage, with that in mind was there a path for the government to come out with better terms or given the market conditions this was inevitable?

Well if it is that Shell and NGC produce the gas....it's a tough start.

Since like everyone understands the cost to produce is higher ....it's reasonable to expect that producers need to recover cost.

Given that the renegotiating includes the adjustments to the contracts that cover all LNG trains....increasing the take from the LNG complex....it is easy to see that BP and Shell want higher prices.

Given the above facts you can come to a sensible conclusion.

[DreamWeaver]

Tomorrow is a big day

https://energynow.tt/events/launch-of-t ... conference

Let's see what the energy sector has to say this year about present and future prospects.

[Redman]

In light of what folks are saying that the larger corporations seem to have the advantage, with that in mind was there a path for the government to come out with better terms or given the market conditions this was inevitable?

The LFDRFD PNM chose BP and Shell over NGC and Pt. Lisas. Yet, the LFDRFD PNM 2NR crew talking about "optimize" and "Poten Report" like the LFDRFD PNM knows about following recommendations from a report . remember the not one, but two multi-million dollar reports that recommended restructuring the refinery to make it profitable? What happened after?

At least we read....you should try it....you just post bile....
yet another link showing the full picture of the negotiations that were necessary and that you as per normal, say did nothing.


https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/1914 ... lantic-lng

Trinidad and Tobago agreed with BP and Shell to discuss restructuring Atlantic LNG to try to forestall the shutdown of Train 1, which represents 20pc of capacity.

BP and Shell are the Caribbean country's leading natural gas producers and top shareholders in the 14.8mn t/yr Atlantic liquefaction facility in southwestern Trinidad. The pioneering complex, which was first established in 1999, has been hamstrung by limited domestic feedstock in recent years. And a Shell-led plan to supplement domestic supply with pipeline gas imports from Venezuela starting this year fell apart amid turmoil in the neighboring country.

The decision to restructure Atlantic was reached last week in meetings in the Netherlands and the UK between the Caribbean state's prime minster Keith Rowley and executives of the two companies.

Trinidad and BP have "scheduled the continuation of negotiations … which are expected to begin in the middle of June in furtherance of specific objectives relating to the restructuring of Atlantic, acceleration of field investigation, exploration, production as well as discussions surrounding a large number of exploration and production licenses," the government and BP said.

Rowley formally signed agreements that were first reached with BP and Shell in December 2018 to increase the state's income from Atlantic's 3mn t/yr Train 1, and to extend the life of the train by five years to 2024. Train 1 began operating in 1999. "This agreement features an enhanced revenue package for the sale of LNG," the government said. Shell has not commented on this agreement.

BP said on 11 May it may close Train 1 after 2019 because of a shortage of feedstock. The UK major said its infill drilling program targeted at the train would deliver about 300mn cf/d less output than forecast.

The other three trains of the Atlantic facility will not be affected by the gas deficit, BP said at the time.

The agreement with Shell includes the extension of production-sharing contracts for several blocks operated by the company, "and which could deliver a further 300mn cf/d to help meet the shortfall from BP's infill drilling projects," the energy ministry said.

"These agreements are intended to bring some stability to the country's LNG production, given the uncertainty created by the looming shortfall in natural gas from the BP production units targeted to supply Train 1," the ministry said. The restructuring "will aim at organizing a more flexible system of gas delivery to all four trains to cover any shortfall from any source, and to allow supply arrangement to overcome the differing shareholder structures of each train."

The different ownership structure of each of the four trains has complicated feedstock allocation since Trinidad's gas production started falling around 2010. In the case of Train 1, Shell owns 46pc and BP 34pc. Trinidad's state-owned gas company NGC and China's sovereign wealth fund CIC unit Summer Soca hold 10pc apiece.

BP said it remains committed to expanding its operations in Trinidad, upstream chief executive Bernard Looney said after meeting Rowley.

"We have been the largest investor in the country's upstream sector – investing over $6bn in the last five years," he said. "In the past two years we've started up three new major upstream projects in Trinidad and recently approved the development of another two."

Trinidad's gas production has been recovering since November 2017 following a long slide from a peak of 4.3 Bcf/d in 2010, and which suppressed output of LNG, ammonia and methanol.

Gas output in February 2019 averaged 3.956 Bcf/d, up by 8.6pc from January. Production in January-February averaged 3.798 Bcf/d, 0.7pc more than a year earlier.

The increased availability of gas led the Atlantic consortium to produce 4.96mn m³ of LNG in January-February 2019, up 2pc on a year earlier, according to the energy ministry.

[De Dragon]

In light of what folks are saying that the larger corporations seem to have the advantage, with that in mind was there a path for the government to come out with better terms or given the market conditions this was inevitable?

The LFDRFD PNM chose BP and Shell over NGC and Pt. Lisas. Yet, the LFDRFD PNM 2NR crew talking about "optimize" and "Poten Report" like the LFDRFD PNM knows about following recommendations from a report . remember the not one, but two multi-million dollar reports that recommended restructuring the refinery to make it profitable? What happened after?

At least we read....you should try it....you just post bile....
yet another link showing the full picture of the negotiations that were necessary and that you as per normal, say did nothing.


https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/1914 ... lantic-lng

Trinidad and Tobago agreed with BP and Shell to discuss restructuring Atlantic LNG to try to forestall the shutdown of Train 1, which represents 20pc of capacity.

BP and Shell are the Caribbean country's leading natural gas producers and top shareholders in the 14.8mn t/yr Atlantic liquefaction facility in southwestern Trinidad. The pioneering complex, which was first established in 1999, has been hamstrung by limited domestic feedstock in recent years. And a Shell-led plan to supplement domestic supply with pipeline gas imports from Venezuela starting this year fell apart amid turmoil in the neighboring country.

The decision to restructure Atlantic was reached last week in meetings in the Netherlands and the UK between the Caribbean state's prime minster Keith Rowley and executives of the two companies.

Trinidad and BP have "scheduled the continuation of negotiations … which are expected to begin in the middle of June in furtherance of specific objectives relating to the restructuring of Atlantic, acceleration of field investigation, exploration, production as well as discussions surrounding a large number of exploration and production licenses," the government and BP said.

Rowley formally signed agreements that were first reached with BP and Shell in December 2018 to increase the state's income from Atlantic's 3mn t/yr Train 1, and to extend the life of the train by five years to 2024. Train 1 began operating in 1999. "This agreement features an enhanced revenue package for the sale of LNG," the government said. Shell has not commented on this agreement.

BP said on 11 May it may close Train 1 after 2019 because of a shortage of feedstock. The UK major said its infill drilling program targeted at the train would deliver about 300mn cf/d less output than forecast.

The other three trains of the Atlantic facility will not be affected by the gas deficit, BP said at the time.

The agreement with Shell includes the extension of production-sharing contracts for several blocks operated by the company, "and which could deliver a further 300mn cf/d to help meet the shortfall from BP's infill drilling projects," the energy ministry said.

"These agreements are intended to bring some stability to the country's LNG production, given the uncertainty created by the looming shortfall in natural gas from the BP production units targeted to supply Train 1," the ministry said. The restructuring "will aim at organizing a more flexible system of gas delivery to all four trains to cover any shortfall from any source, and to allow supply arrangement to overcome the differing shareholder structures of each train."

The different ownership structure of each of the four trains has complicated feedstock allocation since Trinidad's gas production started falling around 2010. In the case of Train 1, Shell owns 46pc and BP 34pc. Trinidad's state-owned gas company NGC and China's sovereign wealth fund CIC unit Summer Soca hold 10pc apiece.

BP said it remains committed to expanding its operations in Trinidad, upstream chief executive Bernard Looney said after meeting Rowley.

"We have been the largest investor in the country's upstream sector – investing over $6bn in the last five years," he said. "In the past two years we've started up three new major upstream projects in Trinidad and recently approved the development of another two."

Trinidad's gas production has been recovering since November 2017 following a long slide from a peak of 4.3 Bcf/d in 2010, and which suppressed output of LNG, ammonia and methanol.

Gas output in February 2019 averaged 3.956 Bcf/d, up by 8.6pc from January. Production in January-February averaged 3.798 Bcf/d, 0.7pc more than a year earlier.

The increased availability of gas led the Atlantic consortium to produce 4.96mn m³ of LNG in January-February 2019, up 2pc on a year earlier, according to the energy ministry.

You realize that you're just confirming that we were out-negotiated right?
Train 1 being the oldest plant, is the reason why BP/Shell while holding significantly more shareholdings than us, decided not to even fund a single cent of its TAR. They used the fact that we have a shareholding in it to compel JUHN and Goebbels to agree to outlaying 300M of scarce funds for questionable returns. Mind you, this is while the "Energy Minister" Guy Smiley, who was sidelined for the "negotiations" has said a gas supply is not guaranteed but is dependent on the TAR .
So, spend you 300M to upgrade the multinationals majority owned plant, and then we'll see if we can throw some gas your way, maybe Even if you get gas, by the time 2024 rolls around, that plant will again need major overhauling, and we'll not have recovered our capital.
Do we then fund another TAR?
What about Train 4's TAR, we gonna fund that one too?
JUHN and Goebbels got PLAYED, plain and simple. I know LFDRFD PNM sensibilities are offended when their God, but hey even God isn't infallible all the time .

[Redman]

You're speculating, in as you've confirmed total ignorance of the details.


As usual.

[De Dragon]

You're speculating, in as you've confirmed total ignorance of the details.


As usual.

Details? You posted an article which I clearly pointed out to you comprehensively showed that JUHN and Goebbels were outfoxed, outmaneuvered, out-thought and out classed by BP/Shell and you want more details?
Hilarious, these LFDRFD PNM chaps are!

[Redman]

Really....?

Funny non of the commercial terms were disclosed.
Yet you've rendered a blanket judgement on a yet to be completed series of negotiation s.

Surprisingly you had the same opinion when you thought that the only way GORTT is compensated from LNG is shareholding.

Blather on.

[De Dragon]

Really....?

Funny non of the commercial terms were disclosed.
Yet you've rendered a blanket judgement on a yet to be completed series of negotiation s.

Surprisingly you had the same opinion when you thought that the only way GORTT is compensated from LNG is shareholding.

Blather on.

Not surprisingly your comprehension seems to still be at a sub par level, where did I say that?
You really positing that I don't know about royalties, taxes, fees etc that we receive from them?
The reason for my emphasis on the shareholding is well known, go look it up and try again.
Your lies, omissions and misrepresentations, while not entirely surprising given your history, are still beneath a discussion about the future of our natural resources, and how your two Gods, Head God JUHN and 1st Runner Up God Goebbels pissed away our energy future concerning them.

[Redman]

Nice to see that you started reading..but you need to do more.
The real issue is the transfer pricing and the rules that enable BP and Shell to avoid sharing revenue based on related parties sales etc.


This is you below.

Also splits are still going to be based on shareholdings, so a unitary position would only get us the gas to run Train 1, [b]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.[/b]

[De Dragon]

Nice to see that you started reading..but you need to do more.
The real issue is the transfer pricing and the rules that enable BP and Shell to avoid sharing revenue based on related parties sales etc.


This is you below.

Also splits are still going to be based on shareholdings, so a unitary position would only get us the gas to run Train 1, [b]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.[/b]

Our shareholding is not going to get us more revenue/increase our take if there is:
1) No gas for Train 1, yet to be addressed
2) Train 1 runs at lower capacity, which is also yet to be addressed.
3) A $300M albatross of a fully funded TAR around our necks.
Keep trying though, the deeper you go, the more amused I get, especially when you're trying to be condescending but talking stuff that belongs in a septic tank.

[sMASH]

what kamala want to use the ngc morney for again??/
burr burr burr.

[Redman]

Nice to see that you started reading..but you need to do more.
The real issue is the transfer pricing and the rules that enable BP and Shell to avoid sharing revenue based on related parties sales etc.


This is you below.

Also splits are still going to be based on shareholdings, so a unitary position would only get us the gas to run Train 1, [b]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.[/b]

Our shareholding is not going to get us more revenue/increase our take if there is:
1) No gas for Train 1, yet to be addressed
2) Train 1 runs at lower capacity, which is also yet to be addressed.
3) A $300M albatross of a fully funded TAR around our necks.
Keep trying though, the deeper you go, the more amused I get, especially when you're trying to be condescending but talking stuff that belongs in a septic tank.

You asked.me to show you where you made the stupid shareholding point...I did...yuh still vex.
I see you move the goalposts on that one.Normel.

Articles and Poten and Farrel detail why and how thing are and a structured way forward....that the GORTT seems to be following...you eh studying that, PNM don't follow reports....like the WFO you gloss over the summary without going any further.

Trains 2,3 and 4 come off contract in the next few years starting next year...all of the commercial structures being renegotiated....you still sure that it wrong.
But having train 1 run up and running while the others come off and gas frees up for renegotiation certainly is still a bad thing in your mind having already decided the TAR should wait until you ready.
You have zero knowledge about the return of the 300M...what it brings us back in return for making the commitment..yet it's an albatross....theonly certainty here is that you remain ignorant of the details to make a real judgement on the prudence and benefits of the 300M.

The simple fact that BP and Shell stated recently that gas supplies will improve 2022 ish means that things can and probably will improve gas wise...

All of this has to be taken in the context of an entire restructuring of the way TnT monetizes it's NG resources..is there risk?...of course...but that's the nature of it.We feeling the hurt from previous admins doing nothing.
BP/Shell have committed to this process...the GORTT is involved since 2015.....unlike your party who just saw money and spent it despite having knowledge of the issues.

And you still blathering.

[De Dragon]

Nice to see that you started reading..but you need to do more.
The real issue is the transfer pricing and the rules that enable BP and Shell to avoid sharing revenue based on related parties sales etc.


This is you below.

Also splits are still going to be based on shareholdings, so a unitary position would only get us the gas to run Train 1, [b]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.[/b]

Our shareholding is not going to get us more revenue/increase our take if there is:
1) No gas for Train 1, yet to be addressed
2) Train 1 runs at lower capacity, which is also yet to be addressed.
3) A $300M albatross of a fully funded TAR around our necks.
Keep trying though, the deeper you go, the more amused I get, especially when you're trying to be condescending but talking stuff that belongs in a septic tank.

You asked.me to show you where you made the stupid shareholding point...I did...yuh still vex.
I see you move the goalposts on that one.Normel.

Articles and Poten and Farrel detail why and how thing are and a structured way forward....that the GORTT seems to be following...you eh studying that, PNM don't follow reports....like the WFO you gloss over the summary without going any further.

Trains 2,3 and 4 come off contract in the next few years starting next year...all of the commercial structures being renegotiated....you still sure that it wrong.
But having train 1 run up and running while the others come off and gas frees up for renegotiation certainly is still a bad thing in your mind having already decided the TAR should wait until you ready.
You have zero knowledge about the return of the 300M...what it brings us back in return for making the commitment..yet it's an albatross....theonly certainty here is that you remain ignorant of the details to make a real judgement on the prudence and benefits of the 300M.

The simple fact that BP and Shell stated recently that gas supplies will improve 2022 ish means that things can and probably will improve gas wise...

All of this has to be taken in the context of an entire restructuring of the way TnT monetizes it's NG resources..is there risk?...of course...but that's the nature of it.We feeling the hurt from previous admins doing nothing.
BP/Shell have committed to this process...the GORTT is involved since 2015.....unlike your party who just saw money and spent it despite having knowledge of the issues.

And you still blathering.

Chupidee, at the rate which companies are packing up and leaving, there will be no one to sell it to
All that drivel you typed there and you're still just defending arseness. You have NO idea how the PNM royally facked up the nat gas industry in T&T for everyone EXCEPT BP/Shell.
Where are the companies rushing to sign up after their contracts expire? Leaving!