TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
All dis is kamla fault as usualDe Dragon wrote:Rockram wrote:NGC Crisis: Board wants personal indemnity as company could lose hundreds of millions in ill-fated LNG deal
https://guardian.co.tt/business/ngc-cri ... c48a2b28f9
Cyatlals Tuntsy and Colos will dismiss it because it's Curtis Williams
Redman wrote:Great article- full of what COULD happen.
His last article seem full of actual facts though.
But I see the fanboys quick to come and bask in their glee.
Joshie23 wrote:Redman wrote:Great article- full of what COULD happen.
His last article seem full of actual facts though.
But I see the fanboys quick to come and bask in their glee.
So I try to stay away from this thread, because the 1% engineering/99% political nastiness that seethes from every post really can't be that good for the average person's mental health..but.
Redman.
You're a smart guy. I like your insight sometimes. But..
Redman.
If the whistleblower source is legitimate..what could happen doesn't matter. Shouldn't the mere fact that the powers that be are asking for indemnity to be considered..be considered an admission of negligence and lack/breach of fiduciary duty?
Outside of having sensitive skin, would one leave home with an umbrella if they didn't even remotely anticipate rain?
Joshie23 wrote:Redman wrote:Great article- full of what COULD happen.
His last article seem full of actual facts though.
But I see the fanboys quick to come and bask in their glee.
So I try to stay away from this thread, because the 1% engineering/99% political nastiness that seethes from every post really can't be that good for the average person's mental health..but.
Redman.
You're a smart guy. I like your insight sometimes. But..
Redman.
If the whistleblower source is legitimate..what could happen doesn't matter. Shouldn't the mere fact that the powers that be are asking for indemnity to be considered..be considered an admission of negligence and lack/breach of fiduciary duty?
Outside of having sensitive skin, would one leave home with an umbrella if they didn't even remotely anticipate rain?
Habit7 wrote:The PM just confirmed his support for the indemnity.
But what he is saying is that what was leaked is part of a bigger picture. He was hinting that what was spent on Train 1 also ensures the operability of Train 2-4 even if it is mothballed.
Can someone explain this? I fail to understand how spending money on one train can +vely impact the other three, even if it is mothballed.
Like you, I stay away from the topic because it is mostly ppl speaking dogmatically on things that are largely speculative. When the facts arrive then I will comment.
Peace be with you.
Redman wrote:We all speculating here... add your two cents.
I doubt Williams would fabricate stuff.
Ditto. A few PAPs would have probably flown across by now if it was fabricated.
We all agree that the Board members aren't the powers that be ...it's the govt.
Fair enough. This is a State-owned Enterprise, where entire boards change with political parties to people who align with and support the Govt's mandate, so you're right, the Board is, unfortunately an extension of the GoRTT. I still have my reservations though.
If the board is seeking indemnity it's either
A)it wasn't their decision...the political directorate insisted that it be done...against the subject matter experts at NGC...so PNM say do it despite NGC saying No.
The board then says you forced us so protect us.
See above comment.
B) the board thought to be a good idea, and made the decision..
In which case they either seeking indemnity cuz something changed or as a matter course.
Malcolm Jones 2.0 then...While even the most astute businessperson doesn't have a crystal ball that would allow for deadshot accurate business decisions, you're a MD, CEO, Chairman, etc. for a reason. You're there because your combination of experience and education, coupled with your track record/reputation for being a badass convinced an organization that you should be one making decisions on their behalf.
That you can piss away massive amounts of money and say 'oops' and look for a golden parachute in the face of a) suppressed gas production (why didn't the other two MAJORITY shareholders chip in, btw?), b) a depressed economy, speaks not only to ineptitude but also impudence to the nth degree.
If there is risk in the whole deal...in this political climate getting the indemnity on a 400 M usd deal might just make sense.
If it works does the board get a bonus?
I'm not sure if it's fair to ask people to be personally responsible for these massive deals whose success is contingent on so many things that are outside their personal control.
See above comment.
Now if the political directorate is happy to indemnify the board...does that say something as well?
Politicians giving indemnity on a deal that they know bussing is unlikely.
I've seen too much to have that faith in our politicians, Redman, many of whom won't be alive in the 20 years to see the outcome of their decisions today.
Malcolm Jones got post-indemnity because even though he pissed away billions, the case to recover was thrown out imo because it was probably more of political witch hunt than anything and unlikely to reap any real reward (was MJ really expected to pay back the almost USD 100MM?
Redman wrote:Joshie,
Please use another color ...that color is tough to read.
Ok so my point is that there are great reasons for any board to seek indemnity on a decision in this context.
Many of which don't assume malfeasance at any level.
If you were a member of the board ..you rely on technocrats assessment of data...and market research.
If that happens to be wrong...your life is destroyed?
Who then would offer themselves after a great career for a state board.
Things go wrong without corruption or negligence.
Any one who thinks otherwise hasn't run a business.
Habit7 wrote:Joshie23 wrote:Redman wrote:Great article- full of what COULD happen.
His last article seem full of actual facts though.
But I see the fanboys quick to come and bask in their glee.
So I try to stay away from this thread, because the 1% engineering/99% political nastiness that seethes from every post really can't be that good for the average person's mental health..but.
Redman.
You're a smart guy. I like your insight sometimes. But..
Redman.
If the whistleblower source is legitimate..what could happen doesn't matter. Shouldn't the mere fact that the powers that be are asking for indemnity to be considered..be considered an admission of negligence and lack/breach of fiduciary duty?
Outside of having sensitive skin, would one leave home with an umbrella if they didn't even remotely anticipate rain?
The PM just confirmed his support for the indemnity.
But what he is saying is that what was leaked is part of a bigger picture. He was hinting that what was spent on Train 1 also ensures the operability of Train 2-4 even if it is mothballed.
Like you, I stay away from the topic because it is mostly ppl speaking dogmatically on things that are largely speculative. When the facts arrive then I will comment.
Joshie23 wrote:Redman wrote:Joshie,
Please use another color ...that color is tough to read.
[spoiler]Ok so my point is that there are great reasons for any board to seek indemnity on a decision in this context.
Many of which don't assume malfeasance at any level.
If you were a member of the board ..you rely on technocrats assessment of data...and market research.
If that happens to be wrong...your life is destroyed?
Who then would offer themselves after a great career for a state board.
Things go wrong without corruption or negligence.
Any one who thinks otherwise hasn't run a business.
Colour changed.
So, in a perfect world Redman, I'd agree with you hands down. Markets crash, wars break out, platforms sink..sheit happens, and sheit that can turn several commas and zeros into one single zero, very quickly. And that wouldn't be any fault of the decision makers.
But the market didn't crash suddenly. O&G prices didn't tank suddenly. Reservoirs didn't become depleted overnight. I'm uncertain as to whose technocrats you're referring to because those of the majority shareholders did assess the data..and they said we don't have enough gas right now. So I want to hazard a guess that those of the minority shareholder spoke similarly, because if they have no gas, what we sending through the train? So technical data and market research from both sides would have pointed to probably as close to the exact opposite direction they went, at least until we buss a few more holes in the ground get the good stuff.
But this is Trinidad, where Petrotrin failed, WASA is failing, T&TEC ain't far behind and now NGC...primarily because of terrible decision making. By whom? ELTs and BoDs. I agree somewhat that one shouldn't have their legacy tarnished after an illustrious career, as a result of a poor but forced decision by the powers that be, or in this case, the Corporation Sole. But here's my grouse with this situation in particular - if you were so concerned about your legacy, why not tender your resignation once you realized your hand was being forced? You'd rather continue to sit on the chair, (edit-> be complicit in whatever activity) and then cry for sanctuary, just in case the proverbial fecal matter hit the fan ?
Back broad and head hardHabit7 wrote:Redman wrote:Habit...they cannot prove you wrong...and it easier to misquote, and denigrate,then claim victimhood when you reciprocate.
by now you should see the pattern...it's best just to let the jackarse dem bray...as the saying goes.
Morning smash
Don't worry my back broad.
I am not inerrant, but when you lying about me and you can't even accurately quote what I said, it shows the weakest and error on their part, not mine.
sMASH wrote:Trains 2-4 dies not depend on t1.
What Rowley said was lies.
We have roughly 10% shares in two trains, total.
No shares at all in the other two.
Rowley jess pacifying the Jeff foot rite foot idiots with all out lies.
*be grateful, leff foot rite footers, the money we wasted on trin 1, will benefit us in the trains we have no interest in except for taxes and gas sales.*
The untizatuins is not a meger of all ventures. It's just a holding company to represent the whole complex when negotiating with external parties. Like buyers and sellersRedman wrote:sMASH wrote:Trains 2-4 dies not depend on t1.
What Rowley said was lies.
We have roughly 10% shares in two trains, total.
No shares at all in the other two.
Rowley jess pacifying the Jeff foot rite foot idiots with all out lies.
*be grateful, leff foot rite footers, the money we wasted on trin 1, will benefit us in the trains we have no interest in except for taxes and gas sales.*
Speculating here.
The unitisation plan???...that's the only thing that would justify the PMs position.
https://www.bp.com/en_tt/trinidad-and-t ... antic.html
The fact that they all taking ownership of this is interesting....these people do not take responsibility.
NGC-Train 1 Investment . Another View!
On Thursday 2nd September, the Trinidad Guardian published a story about NGC Directors requesting indemnity from the state with respect to NGC’s investment to keep Atlantic LNG Train 1 alive. Somewhat surprisingly , on Sunday 5th August , the Sunday Express picked up the baton and literally nailed NGC and its directors for the “ debacle of Train 1”. After 115 plus years dealing with multinationals, we continue to ignore the fact that the interests of the multinational is not always in sync with the national interest. The Express editorial concludes the NGC has made a “disastrous” decision. That $ 250 million has been” thrown down the drain”. All these condemnations are based on the simple self-serving grounds offered by the big multinationals that they had no gas to supply Train 1.
I feel compelled to join this debate if only to ensure that our citizens are given a balanced view of the context. Let us first address the substantive matter of the investment. The matter of the Director’s request for indemnity has been quite adequately and eloquently addressed by Dr. Raj Ramlogan in a social media post.
Should NGC have injected $ 250 million in order “keep Train 1 alive”.? First let us understand what this means? The LNG complex in Point Fortin comprises four LNG Trains- each Train has a different shareholding arrangement and a different operating model. Trinidad and Tobago – through NGC has equity in Train 1 (10%) and Train 4. (11.11%)
ALNG Train 1 has been in existence since 1999. As an investment, the shareholders (BPTT, SHELL, NGC and China Investment Corp ) would have deemed to have come to the end of its initial economic life (20 years). To simplify a complex situation, a decision to keep Train1 going depended mainly on two factor – some capital expenditure on refurbishment works and ongoing maintenance, and the availability of gas supplies. NGC has decided to fit the bill on the refurbishment works to the tune of and estimated $ 250 million. Criticism has been levied against this decision on the grounds the large producers have indicated that they have no gas for Train1. As a nation, we have been in the business of hydrocarbon industry for over 115 years. We know or ought to know, that more often than not, the interests of the multinationals are not in sync with the national interest. Therefore it is quite naïve to accept as fact that Train 1 must be closed simply because the multinationals say the have no gas. These are the same multinationals that have gas for Trains 2,3,and 4. So let us dig a little further as to why keeping Train 1 alive” may be in our best interest. Here is a handful of reasons why:
.
1. The greatest incentive for stimulating new exploration for natural gas is the existence of a market. Train 1 requires a supply of approximately 400 million cubic feet per day. In a reconfigured business model, a refurbished Train1 provides a ready market for any new discoveries in the deeper waters , which would require a large volume off take agreement for project viability . For example, gas on the North Coast was discovered in 1970s and remained stranded for twenty years before the investment in Train 2 and 3 provided sufficient volume to justify the larger investment in upstream infrastructure. The rapid growth in E&P activity in the 1990’s which followed the approval of Train 1 investment was due mainly to the availability of a new market for gas.
2. There are significant gas prospects out there to come to market. BP, Shell and BHP have made commercial discoveries over the last two years. While most of this is committed under contract to the domestic market, there is no doubt that more will be found in new and old horizons. Listen to what BP had to say following a recent discovery: “the Columbus Basin is a maturing province, but the Ginger discovery demonstrates that with the right technology we can continue to uncover further resource potential in the basin. In addition, new discoveries made on land in the Ortoire Block by Touchstone has improved prospectivty and ignited interest on land. Over the medium term, several sources of proven gas are waiting to come to market. These included the Loran Manatee field, the Dragon field and other Venezuelan prospects. Further afield discoveries have been made in Grenada which is also awaiting commercialization.
3. Train 1 gives the State the flexibility to monetize gas from any upstream company. Both Shell and BP would want all gas to be monetized through Trains 2 and 3 where the fiscal terms and business model are more favourable to them making supernormal profits with less than an optimal share coming to T&T. As indicated above , T&T has no equity in Trains 2 and 3 . In such situations it is possible and legitimate for both BP and Shell to vote against any other producer wanting to supply gas to the these trains.
4. There are currently intense negotiations ongoing about the unitizing of the ALNG Complex. The media seems to cast doubt about this but seems very willing to accept the BP-Shell propaganda about no gas availability. These negotiations are meant to ensure a much better take for T&T from future LNG sales from a more efficient merged operation of the LNG plants. It would be both imprudent and inappropriate to make these public discussions are requested by the Express. Taking charge at Train 1 strengthens the Government position in these negotiations.
5. What the NGC did was in keeping with its mission to derive exceptional value from our gas resources. The investment in Train 1 was in keeping with its strategic intent to build a world class diversified energy portfolio. Contrary to the view that NGC is merely a gas merchant and pipeline, the Company now owns significant upstream assets. These include the recent acquisition of Heritage share of Block 3A, bringing its share in that development to 31 per cent. This provides access to both equity gas to address a major strategic weakness and equity crude to boost its trading business.
Our media editors and others have failed to take any of the above into consideration and are shamefully castigating the NGC on the very simplistic grounds that BP and Shell said that they have no gas to supply. Post 1970, T&T citizens embraced the idea that as an independent nation we needed to take control of the commanding heights of the economy. Our record thus far is unremarkable. With the closure of the Petrotrin refinery we have walked backward in the oil sector. The NGC is our last hope of for realizing this dream in an industry that continues to be our lifeblood, notwithstanding the winds of change Energy investments require taking significant risks if we wish to win the rewards. Let us not continue to shoot ourselves in the head!!.
You have no understandingRedman wrote:My understanding of the goals of the unitisation etc is different.
This was attributed to Gregory McGuire.
I have not confirmed whether it is in fact his.
It certainly adds to the discussion.
NGC-Train 1 Investment . Another View!
On Thursday 2nd September, the Trinidad Guardian published a story about NGC Directors requesting indemnity from the state with respect to NGC’s investment to keep Atlantic LNG Train 1 alive. Somewhat surprisingly , on Sunday 5th August , the Sunday Express picked up the baton and literally nailed NGC and its directors for the “ debacle of Train 1”. After 115 plus years dealing with multinationals, we continue to ignore the fact that the interests of the multinational is not always in sync with the national interest. The Express editorial concludes the NGC has made a “disastrous” decision. That $ 250 million has been” thrown down the drain”. All these condemnations are based on the simple self-serving grounds offered by the big multinationals that they had no gas to supply Train 1.
I feel compelled to join this debate if only to ensure that our citizens are given a balanced view of the context. Let us first address the substantive matter of the investment. The matter of the Director’s request for indemnity has been quite adequately and eloquently addressed by Dr. Raj Ramlogan in a social media post.
Should NGC have injected $ 250 million in order “keep Train 1 alive”.? First let us understand what this means? The LNG complex in Point Fortin comprises four LNG Trains- each Train has a different shareholding arrangement and a different operating model. Trinidad and Tobago – through NGC has equity in Train 1 (10%) and Train 4. (11.11%)
ALNG Train 1 has been in existence since 1999. As an investment, the shareholders (BPTT, SHELL, NGC and China Investment Corp ) would have deemed to have come to the end of its initial economic life (20 years). To simplify a complex situation, a decision to keep Train1 going depended mainly on two factor – some capital expenditure on refurbishment works and ongoing maintenance, and the availability of gas supplies. NGC has decided to fit the bill on the refurbishment works to the tune of and estimated $ 250 million. Criticism has been levied against this decision on the grounds the large producers have indicated that they have no gas for Train1. As a nation, we have been in the business of hydrocarbon industry for over 115 years. We know or ought to know, that more often than not, the interests of the multinationals are not in sync with the national interest. Therefore it is quite naïve to accept as fact that Train 1 must be closed simply because the multinationals say the have no gas. These are the same multinationals that have gas for Trains 2,3,and 4. So let us dig a little further as to why keeping Train 1 alive” may be in our best interest. Here is a handful of reasons why:
.
1. The greatest incentive for stimulating new exploration for natural gas is the existence of a market. Train 1 requires a supply of approximately 400 million cubic feet per day. In a reconfigured business model, a refurbished Train1 provides a ready market for any new discoveries in the deeper waters , which would require a large volume off take agreement for project viability . For example, gas on the North Coast was discovered in 1970s and remained stranded for twenty years before the investment in Train 2 and 3 provided sufficient volume to justify the larger investment in upstream infrastructure. The rapid growth in E&P activity in the 1990’s which followed the approval of Train 1 investment was due mainly to the availability of a new market for gas.
2. There are significant gas prospects out there to come to market. BP, Shell and BHP have made commercial discoveries over the last two years. While most of this is committed under contract to the domestic market, there is no doubt that more will be found in new and old horizons. Listen to what BP had to say following a recent discovery: “the Columbus Basin is a maturing province, but the Ginger discovery demonstrates that with the right technology we can continue to uncover further resource potential in the basin. In addition, new discoveries made on land in the Ortoire Block by Touchstone has improved prospectivty and ignited interest on land. Over the medium term, several sources of proven gas are waiting to come to market. These included the Loran Manatee field, the Dragon field and other Venezuelan prospects. Further afield discoveries have been made in Grenada which is also awaiting commercialization.
3. Train 1 gives the State the flexibility to monetize gas from any upstream company. Both Shell and BP would want all gas to be monetized through Trains 2 and 3 where the fiscal terms and business model are more favourable to them making supernormal profits with less than an optimal share coming to T&T. As indicated above , T&T has no equity in Trains 2 and 3 . In such situations it is possible and legitimate for both BP and Shell to vote against any other producer wanting to supply gas to the these trains.
4. There are currently intense negotiations ongoing about the unitizing of the ALNG Complex. The media seems to cast doubt about this but seems very willing to accept the BP-Shell propaganda about no gas availability. These negotiations are meant to ensure a much better take for T&T from future LNG sales from a more efficient merged operation of the LNG plants. It would be both imprudent and inappropriate to make these public discussions are requested by the Express. Taking charge at Train 1 strengthens the Government position in these negotiations.
5. What the NGC did was in keeping with its mission to derive exceptional value from our gas resources. The investment in Train 1 was in keeping with its strategic intent to build a world class diversified energy portfolio. Contrary to the view that NGC is merely a gas merchant and pipeline, the Company now owns significant upstream assets. These include the recent acquisition of Heritage share of Block 3A, bringing its share in that development to 31 per cent. This provides access to both equity gas to address a major strategic weakness and equity crude to boost its trading business.
Our media editors and others have failed to take any of the above into consideration and are shamefully castigating the NGC on the very simplistic grounds that BP and Shell said that they have no gas to supply. Post 1970, T&T citizens embraced the idea that as an independent nation we needed to take control of the commanding heights of the economy. Our record thus far is unremarkable. With the closure of the Petrotrin refinery we have walked backward in the oil sector. The NGC is our last hope of for realizing this dream in an industry that continues to be our lifeblood, notwithstanding the winds of change Energy investments require taking significant risks if we wish to win the rewards. Let us not continue to shoot ourselves in the head!!.
And putting down a Chile is to lock down ah man... Same expectstions, same results.Redman wrote:It's ok Zoombindranath I understand you.
@smash...Im not disputing what youre saying...my understanding of the purpose of the unitisation is the smooth out all those issues you say exist at the spot you worked at.
Dais what the people involved said.
I guess we will see.
sMASH wrote:And putting down a Chile is to lock down ah man... Same expectstions, same results.Redman wrote:It's ok Zoombindranath I understand you.
@smash...Im not disputing what youre saying...my understanding of the purpose of the unitisation is the smooth out all those issues you say exist at the spot you worked at.
Dais what the people involved said.
I guess we will see.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 122 guests
