Energy Sector Thread - Operators, Engineers, Technicians Et Al

[sMASH]

i have put the analogies previously in this same thread, and between u and habbit7.xxx, u both keep telling me macro economics is not a parlour, it dont operate the same,etc etc etc.

again, wrt TAR's, its money to service the plant. its analogous to a work vehicle, more a special duty truck, one that can only do a specific task like a cement truck.
when working, oil wears down, brakes, tires, bearings, chains, injectors etc etc etc. the wear, tear, and exhaustion of some components over time, reduce the effectiveness/productivity, of that system. where for the same inputs, u get reduced outputs. or ur unable to actually input the designed and budgeted amounts, and that reduces the outputs ur able to get.

the TAR's generally, is a servicing of the systems to get them BACK to designed productivity/earning potential.

sometimes there are a only minor things to rectify, thnk like oil filter brakes. other times, there are major things to rectify, think main bearing seal, timing chain, piston rings.
sometimes they use the opportunity to modify the plant. thing u take out the diff and put a larger one to handle more load.

what habbit7.xxx had thought was, that the TAR was a debottlenecking. meaning that it wsa to INCREASE the productivity more than what it was designed to do. so the plant desinged to give 700mt per day, and the TAR would allow it to go to 800 mt per day... arbitrary figures.

but no, the tar may just be that the plant desinged to do 700mt per day, and it makiing 650 mt per day. and the BIG BRIGHT EXPERIENCED boys at BG who oeprate multiple gas processing plants all over the world, that gas production and and processing is their bread and butter, life blood, decided that the amount of loss of prodction that the plant making is not feasible to absorb, and it is the right tiem to do the TAR.
(simple taxi man economics, if u get jobs making money, u stay on the road, make the money. u dont come off the road to jess change oil. and when the work slow donw, then u come down and change the oil)

and in this case, BG also knows even with the tar, the train 1 is a lower producing plant, so not as lucrative to operate as the other trains. if they have to make a choice between which trains to operate, the train 1 will alwasy be sacrificed.

they knew the gas prospects, and they knw it would not have gas to run it. so it just dont make sense spending the money on sharpening up the plant, when u cant recoup the cost. the plant not going no way, the failed components not going no way, so keep the money, spend it on other things. when u do get gas, then u spend the money, cause tar's dont take long.
next ting, u dont get gas, cause 2025 is a long way. they spent 270m to repair a plant that WILL NOT RUN.

u coudl take the chance and spend money to search for oil. u will spend money on a plant u know u getting gas for, to run and make it back.
u WILL not spend money on a palnt that u SURE u dont have gas to run.







govt up and take the money from NGC to pay for th whole TAR, and there was no gas for it to use when it was complete.
there was no indicators to tell anybody that there will be gas available for it. the nail in that coffin was when govt signed the gas supply contracts with tringen1 and proman. what ever was available ws already contracted to other sites.

[jhonnieblue]

rule of thumb in the industry; u dont spend money unless u have an immediate and sure path to recoup that costs

the mere fact that bp has does the extraction woudl put them in place to know tru the grape vine if the prospects looking good or not, before presenting finalized reports.


is like, if they putting down a new layer of pitch all over, u know elections callin.

Sounds like a very safe industry to be in-which industry rewards investment immediately and certainly?
Please provide some detail

You have clearly never worked in the energy industry.

What a pleb statement

Won't expect anything less from pnm idiots. Where habit

Well non PNM idiot, it's smash who made the statement.
If you find it to be a pleb statement take it up with him.
I asked him to expand on what he said and provide some details.

Instead of ranting you guys should share this wisdom of immediate and sure recoup as a rule of thumb in the industry.
Especially in any industry where you don't control market prices.


Again....
WHat are the actual terms and conditions of the 300 spend?


Allyuh still blathering based on the same info and "we wok dey"..but don't have the full picture

Could it be that the Billion usd that BP paid along side Shells 400M usd settlement came with the condition of funding the TAR?

Based on the seperate settlements reached which have changed the royalty schedule across the board, and the additional take ( yes Dumbass) from what is supposed to be less transfer pricing losses what's the expectations of the returns on the unitisation?
Post your sources of information please.

Keep the political blather to a minimum.

Don't need to rant I was addressing you not smash, and and habit are pnm idiots. Anyone in industry could state every specific reason why a TAR shouldn't be conducted on a plant about to be mothballed but you will defend that party till death. Well great job killing the industry.

Any plant that has to be mothballed will require significant investment to restart. Why waste that money In a TAR prior to shutting down. Just admit was growly ego pulling the cards and life can move on. Oh wait you wouldnt cause that logic escapes you and as said before you a complete pnm idiot

[zoom rader]

i have put the analogies previously in this same thread, and between u and habbit7.xxx, u both keep telling me macro economics is not a parlour, it dont operate the same,etc etc etc.

again, wrt TAR's, its money to service the plant. its analogous to a work vehicle, more a special duty truck, one that can only do a specific task like a cement truck.
when working, oil wears down, brakes, tires, bearings, chains, injectors etc etc etc. the wear, tear, and exhaustion of some components over time, reduce the effectiveness/productivity, of that system. where for the same inputs, u get reduced outputs. or ur unable to actually input the designed and budgeted amounts, and that reduces the outputs ur able to get.

the TAR's generally, is a servicing of the systems to get them BACK to designed productivity/earning potential.

sometimes there are a only minor things to rectify, thnk like oil filter brakes. other times, there are major things to rectify, think main bearing seal, timing chain, piston rings.
sometimes they use the opportunity to modify the plant. thing u take out the diff and put a larger one to handle more load.

what habbit7.xxx had thought was, that the TAR was a debottlenecking. meaning that it wsa to INCREASE the productivity more than what it was designed to do. so the plant desinged to give 700mt per day, and the TAR would allow it to go to 800 mt per day... arbitrary figures.

but no, the tar may just be that the plant desinged to do 700mt per day, and it makiing 650 mt per day. and the BIG BRIGHT EXPERIENCED boys at BG who oeprate multiple gas processing plants all over the world, that gas production and and processing is their bread and butter, life blood, decided that the amount of loss of prodction that the plant making is not feasible to absorb, and it is the right tiem to do the TAR.
(simple taxi man economics, if u get jobs making money, u stay on the road, make the money. u dont come off the road to jess change oil. and when the work slow donw, then u come down and change the oil)

and in this case, BG also knows even with the tar, the train 1 is a lower producing plant, so not as lucrative to operate as the other trains. if they have to make a choice between which trains to operate, the train 1 will alwasy be sacrificed.

they knew the gas prospects, and they knw it would not have gas to run it. so it just dont make sense spending the money on sharpening up the plant, when u cant recoup the cost. the plant not going no way, the failed components not going no way, so keep the money, spend it on other things. when u do get gas, then u spend the money, cause tar's dont take long.
next ting, u dont get gas, cause 2025 is a long way. they spent 270m to repair a plant that WILL NOT RUN.

u coudl take the chance and spend money to search for oil. u will spend money on a plant u know u getting gas for, to run and make it back.
u WILL not spend money on a palnt that u SURE u dont have gas to run.







govt up and take the money from NGC to pay for th whole TAR, and there was no gas for it to use when it was complete.
there was no indicators to tell anybody that there will be gas available for it. the nail in that coffin was when govt signed the gas supply contracts with tringen1 and proman. what ever was available ws already contracted to other sites.

Again don't waste time explaining to habitarse 7, he's and rest have never worked in industry or understands how it works

[Redman]

i have put the analogies previously in this same thread, and between u and habbit7.xxx, u both keep telling me macro economics is not a parlour, it dont operate the same,etc etc etc.

again, wrt TAR's, its money to service the plant. its analogous to a work vehicle, more a special duty truck, one that can only do a specific task like a cement truck.
when working, oil wears down, brakes, tires, bearings, chains, injectors etc etc etc. the wear, tear, and exhaustion of some components over time, reduce the effectiveness/productivity, of that system. where for the same inputs, u get reduced outputs. or ur unable to actually input the designed and budgeted amounts, and that reduces the outputs ur able to get.

the TAR's generally, is a servicing of the systems to get them BACK to designed productivity/earning potential.

sometimes there are a only minor things to rectify, thnk like oil filter brakes. other times, there are major things to rectify, think main bearing seal, timing chain, piston rings.
sometimes they use the opportunity to modify the plant. thing u take out the diff and put a larger one to handle more load.

what habbit7.xxx had thought was, that the TAR was a debottlenecking. meaning that it wsa to INCREASE the productivity more than what it was designed to do. so the plant desinged to give 700mt per day, and the TAR would allow it to go to 800 mt per day... arbitrary figures.

but no, the tar may just be that the plant desinged to do 700mt per day, and it makiing 650 mt per day. and the BIG BRIGHT EXPERIENCED boys at BG who oeprate multiple gas processing plants all over the world, that gas production and and processing is their bread and butter, life blood, decided that the amount of loss of prodction that the plant making is not feasible to absorb, and it is the right tiem to do the TAR.
(simple taxi man economics, if u get jobs making money, u stay on the road, make the money. u dont come off the road to jess change oil. and when the work slow donw, then u come down and change the oil)

and in this case, BG also knows even with the tar, the train 1 is a lower producing plant, so not as lucrative to operate as the other trains. if they have to make a choice between which trains to operate, the train 1 will alwasy be sacrificed.

they knew the gas prospects, and they knw it would not have gas to run it. so it just dont make sense spending the money on sharpening up the plant, when u cant recoup the cost. the plant not going no way, the failed components not going no way, so keep the money, spend it on other things. when u do get gas, then u spend the money, cause tar's dont take long.
next ting, u dont get gas, cause 2025 is a long way. they spent 270m to repair a plant that WILL NOT RUN.

u coudl take the chance and spend money to search for oil. u will spend money on a plant u know u getting gas for, to run and make it back.
u WILL not spend money on a palnt that u SURE u dont have gas to run.


govt up and take the money from NGC to pay for th whole TAR, and there was no gas for it to use when it was complete.
there was no indicators to tell anybody that there will be gas available for it. the nail in that coffin was when govt signed the gas supply contracts with tringen1 and proman. what ever was available ws already contracted to other sites.

The point remains.
There were inputs into the decision to spend the 300.
What were they?
You and I dont know.
If its as you say...then yes its crap.
On the other side of the spectrum it could be part of the whole restructuring and as such gives a IRR of 40%(just saying)
Then its a good move.

My guess is that isnt a stand alone decision and probably creates obligations and benefits elsewhere.
There are expected outcomes on the 300-AND these out comes are part of the larger picture of restructuring.
What are these outcomes?
We have to wait and see.

The analogies etc fail to accept that there are many sources for return on that 300 meaning that its not necessarily tied to only train 1.

The whole structure of the Royalty,marketing and pricing have changed for all 4 trains as they come off contract.
Whats the yield of all of this?



If they are unitising-which everybody says they are, what are we getting -what are we giving up?

[sMASH]

the inputs into the spending:

-rowley have some contractor padnah he need to funnel money to, to get the kickbacks
-he didnt understand the equation "plant + gas = money", and thought that "plant - gas + bully TAR = money.

the factors that led to rowley deciding to do the tar was political. the factors that keeping the plant down, is lack of available feedstock. u cant bully ur way into making more gas available. if u do that, then u would be taking away gas from another plant, and u already signed supply contracts with them.











i not against or for anything. its just that this situation, there was no gas available to run the plant. it needed a tar too, butthe tar would not make it run. it needed gas to run, and there isnt... until 2025.

the thing is, we in a ecnomic crunch OUTSIDE of the oil gas too. we only have 10% shares in tr1, so its foolhardy to think that shouldering 100% of the cost of the TAR would make sense. put that money to other use, and when 2025 reach and we get gas we will cross that bridge.



why i vexed for, is rowley telling we to tighten our belts, and eat one fig, and that is the sheit they doing with hundreds of millions of dollars. i must be penny wise but its okay for them to be pound foolish.



the only way for this debacle to get squared off, is when gas does come available, that the other shareholders to say, 'we go handle some repayemnts'. given bp and bg likes to have a good reputation, they might do it. but given that its in our best interest to have th plant producing and earnign dividends, they dont have to do it, cause we need beggin for it to restart.

[De Dragon]

rule of thumb in the industry; u dont spend money unless u have an immediate and sure path to recoup that costs

the mere fact that bp has does the extraction woudl put them in place to know tru the grape vine if the prospects looking good or not, before presenting finalized reports.


is like, if they putting down a new layer of pitch all over, u know elections callin.

Sounds like a very safe industry to be in-which industry rewards investment immediately and certainly?
Please provide some detail

You have clearly never worked in the energy industry.

What a pleb statement

Won't expect anything less from pnm idiots. Where habit

Well non PNM idiot, it's smash who made the statement.
If you find it to be a pleb statement take it up with him.
I asked him to expand on what he said and provide some details.

Instead of ranting you guys should share this wisdom of immediate and sure recoup as a rule of thumb in the industry.
Especially in any industry where you don't control market prices.


Again....
WHat are the actual terms and conditions of the 300 spend?


Allyuh still blathering based on the same info and "we wok dey"..but don't have the full picture

Could it be that the Billion usd that BP paid along side Shells 400M usd settlement came with the condition of funding the TAR?

Based on the seperate settlements reached which have changed the royalty schedule across the board, and the additional take ( yes Dumbass) from what is supposed to be less transfer pricing losses what's the expectations of the returns on the unitisation?
Post your sources of information please.

Keep the political blather to a minimum.

Don't need to rant I was addressing you not smash, and and habit are pnm idiots. Anyone in industry could state every specific reason why a TAR shouldn't be conducted on a plant about to be mothballed but you will defend that party till death. Well great job killing the industry.

Any plant that has to be mothballed will require significant investment to restart. Why waste that money In a TAR prior to shutting down. Just admit was growly ego pulling the cards and life can move on. Oh wait you wouldnt cause that logic escapes you and as said before you a complete pnm idiot

Dummy, the people who you are stupidly and obstinately arguing with have actual experience with TAR's and they know no one in the world funds a TAR and does not immediately expect to be back in production within a week of restart. NO large scale heavy industry in Trinidad and Tobago controls market prices, even when we were the largest producers of ammonia and methanol in the world, beyond price shocks, we were still at the mercy of MNC's, which is why immediate restart and production of a TAR is critical to avoid unnecessary downtime and subsequent revenue loss.
Colos and Tunts7 seem to genuinely feel that $300M was either a condition of an agreement with BPP and Shell(dotishness) or to put Train 1 in plastic until it can get gas(dotishness).
Conclusion? Colos and Tunts7 believe in dotishness.

[Redman]

I am saying that we dont know.
You definitely dont know....neither do I.

Where is the argument?

You saying its a mistake because....xyz. ...largely operational issues, and lets ignore any other possibilities.
Great- maybe at the operational level thats where you focus your attention.
But the operational level isnt the sole pivot point in this whole affair.
If it was, we probably would not be having this argument.

So the OBVIOUS reality is that in the absence of the operational justification there must be (or were) other inputs that support spending that money.

The overarching plan,published and scrutinized by smarter people than ALL of us, is comprised of a massive change to each part of the process...from well head with the Royalty schedule, to how TnT participates in the the end user price.
Isnt it clear that BP/Shell ,no longer sharing the $6.5B usd per year transfer pricing bonus would push back against GORTT some how?

Redman dont know,Dragon dont know,Smash dont know,JohnnieBlue dont know.

As I said in my first post on this topic - you dont KNOW but you have made a firm conclusion.

all your blathering eh changing that

[ruskie]

I am saying that we dont know.
You definitely dont know....neither do I.

Where is the argument?

You saying its a mistake because....xyz. ...largely operational issues, and lets ignore any other possibilities.
Great- maybe at the operational level thats where you focus your attention.
But the operational level isnt the sole pivot point in this whole affair.
If it was, we probably would not be having this argument.

So the OBVIOUS reality is that in the absence of the operational justification there must be (or were) other inputs that support spending that money.

The overarching plan,published and scrutinized by smarter people than ALL of us, is comprised of a massive change to each part of the process...from well head with the Royalty schedule, to how TnT participates in the the end user price.
Isnt it clear that BP/Shell ,no longer sharing the $6.5B usd per year transfer pricing bonus would push back against GORTT some how?

Redman dont know,Dragon dont know,Smash dont know,JohnnieBlue dont know.

As I said in my first post on this topic - you dont KNOW but you have made a firm conclusion.

all your blathering eh changing that

Without a doubt, redman is correct in saying that operational considerations alone did not cause that 300 million spend. The unsaid, says it all.

[sMASH]

we dont know what factors led to them taking that decision.

from industry side, there were NO factors indicating that they should have undertook that spending, at this time.

the only reason why the TAR spending is an issue, is because govt opted to shoulder the total cost. if it didnt shoulder the total cost, i woudl say go right ahead, it woudl be money we need to spend esle where, but 30m is small ting, dont mind 30k students didnt have e devices for school, and pupils that didnt meet a mandatory minimum online time, must repeat.


stating that we dont know what went tru rowley head to spend all that money upfornt, does not negate or invalidate it was the wrong financial decision to make.
*u dont kno the reasons why the man waste he money and buy a tiger*
none of the reasons why the man buy a tiger can excuse the fact he wasted the money.



and the main reason why govt people pass contracts, is to funnel treasury money to some contractor pockets, cause they kick it back up the chain of bestowment

as police say, 'ignorance of economics is not excuse from economics'

[De Dragon]

I am saying that we dont know.
You definitely dont know....neither do I.

Where is the argument?

You saying its a mistake because....xyz. ...largely operational issues, and lets ignore any other possibilities.
Great- maybe at the operational level thats where you focus your attention.
But the operational level isnt the sole pivot point in this whole affair.
If it was, we probably would not be having this argument.

So the OBVIOUS reality is that in the absence of the operational justification there must be (or were) other inputs that support spending that money.

The overarching plan,published and scrutinized by smarter people than ALL of us, is comprised of a massive change to each part of the process...from well head with the Royalty schedule, to how TnT participates in the the end user price.
Isnt it clear that BP/Shell ,no longer sharing the $6.5B usd per year transfer pricing bonus would push back against GORTT some how?

Redman dont know,Dragon dont know,Smash dont know,JohnnieBlue dont know.

As I said in my first post on this topic - you dont KNOW but you have made a firm conclusion.

all your blathering eh changing that

*Sigh*
Your flailing attempt to divorce "operational issues" from what is clearly a ridiculously misguided LFD RFD PNM blunder, assumes that people who plan and execute TAR's yearly don't consider everything involved in a TAR, from when to execute it. the budget etc, shows that you don't know sheit.
A TAR is a major undertaking and is LITERALLY what the output and thus profits of a heavy industry hinges on. NO ONE invests $300 million in a minority shareholder plant, when clearly the major stakeholders have seen the writing on the wall and spent $0.00, all while being told by the very supplier (and MAJOR shareholder) of your most significant input, that they have none for you, maybe even up to 2030.
Your "push back" argument also holds no water as BP/Shell own most of Train 1, and there is no room for "push back" when dollars and cents are at stake.
Even if you get gas then, your plant will then again need a major cash infusion to get it up and running again, in addition to the $300M that was unwisely spent. Will we foot the entire bill again?
It makes ZERO sense to expend $300M on a TAR, and not restart the plant IMMEDIATELY

[sMASH]

gas supplies gonna crank up, but not now.

https://www.guardian.co.tt/news/denovo- ... d500e82274

DeNovo, NGC sign gas sales contract
Mon Aug 02 2021


DeNovo Energy Limited (DeNovo) and The National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago (NGC) yesterday announced the signing of the Zandolie Field development Gas Sales Contract (GSC) for commercialisation of the Zandolie Field located in Block 1(a).

The Zandolie Field Development project will be DeNovo’s second offshore installment following the Iguana field development in the same Block 1(a) which was the first west coast natural gas field to be developed in Trinidad and Tobago.

DeNovo will invest US$52 million on the Zandolie development which is expected to deliver approximately 40 million standard cubic feet of gas per day (MMSCFD).

On the current project schedule, production is projected to begin within the first half of 2022.

NGC has been working collaboratively and earnestly with both the upstream and downstream sectors to ensure alignment of supply and demand for the medium to longterm.

This has included a focus on opportunities to monetise small and marginal fields. The Zandolie design plan includes a connecting pipeline to the Iguana Platform which will enable the new field to utilise spare processing capacity at Iguana.

DeNovo said the strategy of utilising the Iguana platform as a hub not only reduces project costs but also provides proof of concept for the vision of the Iguana platform serving as a hub for natural gas developments in the Gulf of Paria.

Detailed Design engineering is ongoing for the Zandolie Platform which is planned to be an Unmanned Minimum Facility and is projected to be lighter and smaller than Iguana.

Aligned to DeNovo’s higher local content intention, the platform will be fabricated locally in Trinidad and Tobago and a local rig will be utilised for installation of the platform as well as drilling and completion.

DeNovo’s managing director, Bryan Ramsumair remarked: “At DeNovo, we are intent on developing safe, innovative and cost-effective initiatives consistent with our prime objective of increasing gas supply to the Trinidad and Tobago Petrochemical sector, particularly from formerly stranded gas fields. The signing of our Zandolie GSC demonstrates the sustainability of the DeNovo model and keeps us on schedule to deliver, first gas into the system next year.”

Specific to local content, he further stated, “As we demonstrated with our first field development of Iguana, we are committed to maximising the use of local expertise for this project and we look forward to enhancing local collaboration through in-country engineering, fabrication and drilling. In support of the carbon agenda, Zandolie will utilise 100% green power generation powered by both wind and solar energy.”

Mark Loquan, NGC President, commented, “This gas sales contract will enhance our current natural gas supply and is a notable step for the local energy industry. This signing is framed against a background of the strategic priorities of both companies to increase natural gas production through the monetisation of proven stranded natural gas reserves. NGC is committed to partnering with upstream producers to maintain the global competitiveness of our petrochemical producers, and indeed, the sustainability and the continued attractiveness of Trinidad and Tobago’s energy industry to current and potential global investors.”

In expressing his commitment to the Trinidad and Tobago energy industry, Claus Cronberger, managing director of Proman Trinidad and Tobago and chairman of DeNovo, stated, “Today’s announcement is further validation of DeNovo’s pioneering model for developing and monetising stranded gas fields, which Proman proudly supports as part of our commitment to driving innovation and broadening the energy mix for Trinidad and Tobago’s vital energy industries.”

Claus Cronberger added, “The collaboration between DeNovo’s Operations, Engineering and Construction teams as well as local services and contractor partners to fabricate, engineer and install this platform is testament to the wealth of home-grown talent in this country. We look forward to working with the Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries, NGC and other partners to get this exciting project underway.”

[Habit7]

what habbit7.xxx had thought was, that the TAR was a debottlenecking. meaning that it wsa to INCREASE the productivity more than what it was designed to do. so the plant desinged to give 700mt per day, and the TAR would allow it to go to 800 mt per day... arbitrary figures.

When I expressed this?

[ST Auto]

Long term gas contracts jumping out

[sMASH]

what habbit7.xxx had thought was, that the TAR was a debottlenecking. meaning that it wsa to INCREASE the productivity more than what it was designed to do. so the plant desinged to give 700mt per day, and the TAR would allow it to go to 800 mt per day... arbitrary figures.

When I expressed this?

when u was dreaming about gargling sh!tkicker

[Habit7]

what habbit7.xxx had thought was, that the TAR was a debottlenecking. meaning that it wsa to INCREASE the productivity more than what it was designed to do. so the plant desinged to give 700mt per day, and the TAR would allow it to go to 800 mt per day... arbitrary figures.

When I expressed this?

when u was dreaming about gargling sh!tkicker

So your points so poor you have to invent me saying something so that you can defeat it?

What really going in tuner these days boy?

[sMASH]

read back ur own posts, u didnt understand what a TAR was, and was pushing it as a necessary thing to get MORE money.

in future, it woudl serve ur interest to not comment on energy and energy industry related matters. at least red plastic bag could weigh in from the business aspect of it, as the deals play the second largest part, after the physical limitations

dont lose points where u dont have to... dat and geography... stick to cocoyea broom and stadium. most amount of stadium built and the olympic sprinter said he had to find road to run to train to reach.... piss poor pnm planning

[Redman]

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

[Habit7]

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.

[De Dragon]

Ollour LFD RFD PNM Dumbos still showing ollour mindlessness by defending a TAR when there is no feedstock. That is probably a first in the world, certainly for Trinidad at least. Barring unforeseen circumstances, it would be tragic, but KNOWING there was to be no gas, it is criminal what JUHN Scarfy, Goebbels and Guy Smiley perpetrated on this country.

[Rockram]

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

[De Dragon]

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

[zoom rader]

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

All dis is kamla fault as usual

[Redman]

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]

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]

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.

[Redman]

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?

We all speculating here... add your two cents.

I doubt Williams would fabricate stuff.

We all agree that the Board members aren't the powers that be ...it's the govt.


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.

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.

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.

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.

[Joshie23]

I appreciate your comments Habit and Redman. Refreshing change to the thread. See comments below.

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.

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? I'm usually pretty annoyed when I read these things because the lack of accountability in this country is disgusting. In private companies and/or other parts of the world, heads would roll for this level of faux-pas. In Trinidad? You get a bligh..and if you look sharp and we forget fast enough...another board seat).

[Redman]

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.

[Joshie23]

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.

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 ?

[mad]

Let me add some purpose and sense to what this thread was intended for.
Please gents use the other political threads to comment and not this.

Please see link below for some vacancies on in the energy sector.

https://www.caribbeanjobs.com/Plant-Mai ... 29044.aspx
https://www.caribbeanjobs.com/Manufactu ... 28619.aspx
https://www.caribbeanjobs.com/GENERAL-A ... 29046.aspx