Energy Sector Thread - Operators, Engineers, Technicians Et Al

[De Dragon]

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.

This makes no sense, as T2-4 don't depend on T1 for their ability to run.
If a Board needs indemnity for a decision which it made, then something is not on the up and up, and it means they were coerced, cajoled, or even outright told that this is how it is going to be by the government, and don't want to end up holding the bag as Malcolm Jones did. It also indicates that the Board is a rubber stamp, and if any of them have a shred of integrity, they should resign forthwith, because they are supposed to be the check and balance against GORTT interference an pressure.
The fly in this ointment continues to be that the gas supplier, BP, told us in 2020 that there is no gas for T1, so to say that a decision to invest $440M was based on what exactly?

[Redman]

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 ?

Agreed about our history..but it's not a perfectly bad world as well.
So if the decision is a solid one with a 10% chance of failure...do you do it or not?
And in doing it...what would Joshie do in terms of prudence?
Is there a liability for doing nothing?

I do some work with some one who was in a similar position..the decision to commit the company to a purchase...local arm of a multinational.
He took the course of action that was riskier to the parent...but didn't create a liability to the local arm..he did nothing.
And that while defensible is a compromise and a forced position.
The parent co has more exposure..but the local arm zero responsibility.


The presence of the indemnity requests,while open for interpretation, isn't anything that indicates with any certainty any result one way or another.

Could be procedural, could be a shield.
We will have to see.


BP can have all the gas in the world...it's in their interest to keep things as they were and get an additional 6B usd per year.
So the info they release suits BPs plan...not our needs as a country.


This NGC board has the toughest period in the company's history ...given all the cross currents that exist.
Nothing is clear and nothing guaranteed.

[Hwells]

hard time for everybody

[sam1978]

Red man, the board moving like Kamala and the SOE extension, They don’t want to stand up for what they believe.

[Redman]

Of the PNM forced the boards hand to do crap.
Will they also be willing to take responsibility for the mess?

Does that character gel with what we think of the political directorate?

I say nope.

[sMASH]

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.

Back broad and head hard

[sMASH]

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.*

[shaneelal]

NGC's LNG meltdown: The whole story


https://guardian.co.tt/news/ngcs-lng-me ... fead3c2bd7

by
Curtis William

Having spent hundreds of millions of dollars on what now appears to be an ill-advised attempt to save Atlantic LNG Train 1, State Owned National Gas Company (NGC) unilaterally walked away from its agreement to fund the maintenance of Atlantic LNG in the process creating a crisis for the rest of the shareholders.

To understand how it came to this we must go back to December 3, 2020, when documents obtained by the Sunday Business Guardian show that on the said day bpTT wrote to the NGC advising the state-owned company that it (bpTT) would not be delivering its full daily contracted quantities (DCQ) for contract year 2021. bpTT further advised NGC in that very December 3, 2020 email, that NGC should take this into consideration before making any decision to invest in Train 1.

Guardian Media has a plethora of documents and based on multiple sourcing, can confirm that the NGC—led by its president Mark Loquan—was convinced that it could procure the required gas for Train 1 and advised the Board and the Keith Rowley government to pursue the unilateral funding of the Train 1 Turnaround (upgrade) and to fund the maintenance of the Train 1 operations.

Train 1 is owned by Atlantic Trinidad Limited (Atlantic) which also owns the entire facility at Point Fortin where all 4 trains operate. Therefore as the owner of the facilities, Atlantic covers the shared cost to maintain and operate the entire facility which is used by all 4 trains. This shared cost is paid for by the Train 1 shareholders who get production payments from the other trains. The budgets cost for train 1 for the period August to December 2021 is US$45.3 million out of which US$18.7 million is shared cost. Therefore, this split turns out to be approximately US$27 million for train 1 specific cost and US$18 million for shared cost.

Guardian Media perused a series of documents but could not locate if a detailed business case and volume analysis were made to the Board of Directors by the NGC management of where the gas would come from. But sources in the government in a position to know, told the Sunday Business Guardian that on several occasions Loquan insisted he had site of gas that could be used to support the Train initiative.

From as early as February 2021 the NGC knew that that its deal was in trouble and that to breakeven in the train 1 required pouring even more money into the company and its commissioning based on the December to February turnaround.

“Failure to execute such Agreements today will lead to a material delay in the commissioning of Train 1 to April 2021 given that ALNG has now commenced a turnaround on Train 3 and given the COVID restrictions are limited in terms of the number of persons that can be on their facilities and would therefore be unable to carry simultaneous operations between Train 1 start up and Train 3 turnaround. Such delay would prejudice NGC in that the breakeven offtake LNG price would move from (price given)” the letter to Finance Minister from NGC Chairman Conrad Enill read.

The Sunday Business Guardian has taken an editorial decision to withhold the NGC’s commercially sensitive information because it is immaterial to the story and could damage the state enterprise.

This is the same letter of February 25, 2021, in which the NGC asked the Minister of Finance to indemnify it, its subsidiary company NGC LNG and the directors personally .

Enill said, “We also previously discussed your commitment to indemnify the NGC company and Directors for any claims or losses stemming from the Train 1 rescue package ($168M). Our request is to extend that indemnity to cover ALNG funding for the April 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. NGC is also required to indemnify its subsidiary NGC LNG which holds the 10 per cent interest in Train 1.”

We now know that Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley was himself supportive of the indemnification move that effectively seeks to protect the directors of the NGC from legal jeopardy.

Rowley told a news conference in Tobago that he supported the unprecedented move and that the situation is complex and asked the country to trust that his administration is acting in the best interest of the country.

The need for the funding was so urgent yet NGC refused to terminate the funding agreement and allowed itself to be exposed to cash calls from Atlantic when NGC had the option to terminate by 2 days notice without cause. NGC continued to leave itself open to cash calls and in fact refused to not only terminate the funding agreements but also did not pay its June and July cash calls in the sum of US$6 million.

That led to a series of emails between Atlantic’s president and Loquan calling on the NGC to pay its debt but the State enterprise did not and on August 3, Atlantic’s CEO Ronald Adams wrote to NGC saying its deal has been terminated.

Adams wrote, “Pursuant to Clause 4 of the Agreement ALNG 1 therefore hereby notifies NGC LNG of the termination of the Agreement effective August 5, 2021.”

The following questions were sent to NGCs president Mark Loquan:

1. ↓Did you as part of the NGC Board seek an indemnification from the Minister of Finance and the Government for the Atlantic Rescue package? If so, why?

2. ↓Was there a fear that the US $24.7 million and the subsequent US $40 million were at risk of being lost? If so did you as a director feel you had a fiduciary responsibility to not pursue the investment because of its risk to shareholders?

3. ↓Were you written to on August 5 by Atlantic LNG indicating that the funding agreement and the gas sales agreement for Train 1 between Atlantic and LNG had been terminated?

4. ↓Did you advise the Board that the NGC could go ahead with the investment in Train 1 because you were of the view the gas could be found?

5. ↓In retrospect was that bad advice ?

Loquan did not directly respond but Lisa Burkette, the company’s Corporate Communication Manager wrote Guardian Media and said the following:

“Upon review of your questions, one must appreciate that they relate not only to the decisions made regarding Train 1. In fact, they speak to wider conversations on the status of the entire Atlantic facility with particular interest in the issue of unitisation, its future business model, etc.

The discussions surrounding these issues are ongoing among the stakeholders of Atlantic, which include NGC, other shareholders and the GORTT. Such discussions are at a critical and sensitive juncture and NGC must act responsibly and exercise prudence to avoid making any premature announcements on what are complex matters with far-reaching impact. NGC must also maintain fidelity to the agreed parameters of confidentiality on this issue, and as such we are precluded from disclosing any information at this time.”

While Burkett is insisting that discussions are ongoing and at a sensitive stage, statements similar to what Energy Minister Stuart Young and Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley have in the past told the country, both internal NGC documents and a letter from the president of Atlantic LNG to Loquan paint a completely different picture.

Since the termination of the funding agreements Atlantic does not have any funds to pay its monthly operational cost. Under the shareholders agreement (SA), it is therefore left for the 4 shareholders (BP, Shell, NGC and Summer Soca) to inject money via capital contributions.

However, before any resolution for capital injection into the company can be approved, the SA require 100% approval from all shareholders. Subsequent to the termination of the funding agreements, Summer Soca (the Chinese) has indicated that given that train 1 is closed and therefore can no longer generate income, they (Summer Soca) have no business case to inject any further sums into train 1 and would therefore no longer approve any resolution for capital injection by the shareholders into train 1.

Therefore, all attempts by Atlantic and the other shareholders to have resolutions for capital injection into the company to fund its monthly costs have been defeated with the result being that Atlantic is quickly running out of money. Since the capital injection resolution cannot be passed there is no contractual obligation on Summer Soca to inject funds into Atlantic. The Sunday Business Guardian has documents that show shareholders are of the view that train 1 is effectively closed and this is further supported by the fact that Atlantic has already installed blinds on the train.

Summer Soca has said it is not putting any money into train 1. BP and Shell has said that it is not paying any money towards shared cost as closure of train 1 is imminent. Given the posturing of NGC and Government, both BP and Shell advised that they would only fund its share of one third of the train 1 specific cost and that they require granularity and certainty on train 1 closure and decoupling and decommissioning cost. Therefore the shareholders were asked to fund their respective shares of US$9 million (1/3 of the US$27 million train 1 specific cost). Summer Soca never approved the resolution for this sum which under the Atlantic SA required 100% shareholder approval. The resolution was therefore defeated.

[De Dragon]

Interesting. Interesting in that the NGC Board is not only still in place, but they also have indemnity overtly supported by the PM.
Of course the phantom gas for Train 1 will be explained away under the lie of confidential information, and again, we the ones funding the entire mess, will have to suck salt. Thanks JUHN Scarfy!

[sMASH]

Dat come like the zip line project. Not only did the rope get excused, Rowley promised even more money into the venture.


Guess how much fiduciary duty gonna get performed when the board get a no punishment waiver...


It's easy to gamble with no consequences.


Another caroni, iscott, petritrin in the making.

[Redman]

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.

[daxt0r]

lol the 7 year old zipline that cya start up to now an all we have to show for it is a multi-million dollar piece ah rope, PNM donkey logic at it best from blindly to ohallaron to calder to KCR.
Dey cya manage gettin that done, why interfere or even weigh in on, as they put it complex negotiations of multinationals according to KCR, massa say no gas is no gas for t1.

[sMASH]

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.

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 sellers

Each shareholder will will ahve their own shares in their own trains, INSIDE of the complex... And with that they will still Have to battle the other share holders to get their own portion in thise meetings.
And with 5 % in one , 5% in another but none in 2... Ur made ur bargaining power even less.

For exsmple: if u making a sale for 50k ton of cargo. But the complex produces 200ton, the sale would be split up according to the shares. Ngc has total 10% (5% of one and 5% of another) out of 400% (100% by 4 trains).
Ngc will get 2.5% of the sales.
It is better in this regards as they can benefit rom. Being able to access or join in on bigger contracts. Rather than have to look for thier own customers for their own lil 10%.




But, internally, when time to allocate expenses, like for a tar, each share have to stand their bonx, in their own plant. The ownership of thr shares doesn't get redistributed after the unitization. Every body still keep their original shares, unless they trade shares at that time... Or any time.






Untization doesn't increase gortt bargaining inside the company, it merely let's it benefit from getting to be part of thr sales with larger quantities rather than having to source sales of 5% of production.
They not merging shares, they just merging thr products to sell as one seller.

[Redman]

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!!.

[sMASH]

Hoss, me and other enegry industry workers here came from a complex that was unitized. We know how it goes.

Nothing changes with the shareholding and battling internally. The unjtizsion is just to simplify sales by just dealing with one seller, and is an advantage to the smaller shareholdings as it let's them Be part of sales thst would have been previously out of their capacity to supply.


But from the inside, u used to still hear abiut the different clients when they have different ideas on to move forward.





The term 'speculation' used here, means 'it eh make papers yet'.




So far, all our speculations were right about the seemi deemi plays on the industry.

[zoom rader]

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!!.

You have no understanding

[Redman]

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]

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.

And putting down a Chile is to lock down ah man... Same expectstions, same results.

[Cantmis]

Lol non industry person keep repeating train 1 and trinidad. You all know how large and complex the lng market is ?

[The_Honourable]

Excellent interview by former energy minister Kevin Ramnarine with respect to NGC's current predicament.

Starts at 11:12

[Redman]

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.

And putting down a Chile is to lock down ah man... Same expectstions, same results.

Much better the mother to crucify this man because her friend ex was an idiot.

[sMASH]

Ramnarine was on cnc3 with jw this morning. More or less espoused the same sentiments: no gas for the while, the majority shareholders opted not to spend the money, and the wiser board decision was to not spend the money..

Rowley made a political Decision against the rational industry decisions and have no positive result to show, whle putting another company is peril.

[zoom rader]

Ramnarine was on cnc3 with jw this morning. More or less espoused the same sentiments: no gas for the while, the majority shareholders opted not to spend the money, and the wiser board decision was to not spend the money..

Rowley made a political Decision against the rational industry decisions and have no positive result to show, whle putting another company is peril.

Ramnarine is a UNC so his views don't matter according to pawn Habit7

[Mmoney607]

Ramnarine was on cnc3 with jw this morning. More or less espoused the same sentiments: no gas for the while, the majority shareholders opted not to spend the money, and the wiser board decision was to not spend the money..

Rowley made a political Decision against the rational industry decisions and have no positive result to show, whle putting another company is peril.

Why jw who barely scrap through o levels and is a confirmed pnm hosting a show with political and economic discussions.

[De Dragon]

Ramnarine was on cnc3 with jw this morning. More or less espoused the same sentiments: no gas for the while, the majority shareholders opted not to spend the money, and the wiser board decision was to not spend the money..

Rowley made a political Decision against the rational industry decisions and have no positive result to show, whle putting another company is peril.

Those points made by McGuire are only valid if there was an imminent source of gas for Train 1, and thus far there seems to be none. Also his point about "propaganda" about BP/Shell belies the fact that they themselves have said since 2020 that there is no gas for Train 1, so I don't know how that is propaganda. Also North Coast gas being monetized 20 years later could never justify spending $300 million on a TAR today. It's not facking Field of Dreams
It's disappointing that those with many years of TAR/upgrade/refurbishment experience have to keep repeating this but a TAR/upgrade/refurbishment simply is not done with no guarantee of feedstock.
During a TAR, the pressure to complete works and get the unit back into production is immense, as even hours of delay can be quite costly and have far reaching ramifications.

[Habit7]

Again all this is based on speculation. We do not know what BPTT and Shell are telling the MoE. We do not know if there might be other sources of gas that is being worked on. At some point in time, all parties will have to account to their shareholders. I am sure that BPTT, Shell and China will not allow their money to go down the drain, even as they have larger or equal shares to us.

[De Dragon]

Again all this is based on speculation. We do not know what BPTT and Shell are telling the MoE. We do not know if there might be other sources of gas that is being worked on. At some point in time, all parties will have to account to their shareholders. I am sure that BPTT, Shell and China will not allow their money to go down the drain, even as they have larger or equal shares to us.

Actually we know exactly what they are telling the MoE and yes other gas sources are being worked on but mote where they are going



In terms of gas supply the company restated the impact of its 2019 infill drilling programme. In May 2020, it reported "disappointing results" in the Columbus Basin would affect production, especially in that year and 2021. The company said then there would be challenges to the gas supply to train one – which began operations in 1999.

On this, it said on Monday, "...we have since refocused our production operations on maximising production from our existing fields in the short-term, actively taking measures to offset natural declines. Even though these factors helped production at the beginning of 2020, natural declines continue to be a challenge as we manage our gas deliverability for 2021.

"While we continue to progress our Matapal and Cassia C projects, the volumes from these developments will be put towards fulfilling our existing contractual obligations for Trains 2, 3, 4 and NGC."

[Redman]

These are the same BP,/Shell you say not to trust?

The same BP/She'll:
That will benefit from the LNG prospects being crappy....in all the renegotiating happing now.

That will love for the arrangements for the sale of all the LNG to be as murky and lopsided as they were in the past.

It's the same Ramnarine that as minister sat back and allowed the transfer pricing to take place full bore under his watch.

Yep those are the folks that you believing.

None of us know what the details are.

We no where close to the full picture.

[Habit7]

Again all this is based on speculation. We do not know what BPTT and Shell are telling the MoE. We do not know if there might be other sources of gas that is being worked on. At some point in time, all parties will have to account to their shareholders. I am sure that BPTT, Shell and China will not allow their money to go down the drain, even as they have larger or equal shares to us.

Actually we know exactly what they are telling the MoE and yes other gas sources are being worked on but mote where they are going



In terms of gas supply the company restated the impact of its 2019 infill drilling programme. In May 2020, it reported "disappointing results" in the Columbus Basin would affect production, especially in that year and 2021. The company said then there would be challenges to the gas supply to train one – which began operations in 1999.

On this, it said on Monday, "...we have since refocused our production operations on maximising production from our existing fields in the short-term, actively taking measures to offset natural declines. Even though these factors helped production at the beginning of 2020, natural declines continue to be a challenge as we manage our gas deliverability for 2021.

"While we continue to progress our Matapal and Cassia C projects, the volumes from these developments will be put towards fulfilling our existing contractual obligations for Trains 2, 3, 4 and NGC."

And in the same article you are quoting from it says

The ministry defended NGC's investment to keep the plant running saying it had sourced a reliable gas supply.
“At all times NGC has acted to protect the rights and position of the citizens of TT.”
The ministry also said it was committed to working assiduously to ensure the future supply of gas for TT.
https://newsday.co.tt/2021/07/22/bp-gas ... one-for-1/

Or are you going to deny you posted this article too?

[De Dragon]

These are the same BP,/Shell you say not to trust?

The same BP/She'll:
That will benefit from the LNG prospects being crappy....in all the renegotiating happing now.

That will love for the arrangements for the sale of all the LNG to be as murky and lopsided as they were in the past.

It's the same Ramnarine that as minister sat back and allowed the transfer pricing to take place full bore under his watch.

Yep those are the folks that you believing.

None of us know what the details are.

We no where close to the full picture.

You keep trying to portray this as a tit for tat little spat between BP/Shell and the GORTT, while ignoring the facts
BP/Shell said they have no gas for Train 1. This is not an idle statement made by a billion dollar company.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face isn't good business practice as you're asking us to believe that having been made to rectify transfer price discrepancies, they're now further losing money on Train 1 by withholding gas just to spite us?
Also don't forget, this entire thing was further thrown into a shadiness when the indemnity issue came up, and was not only publicly supported by JUHN Scarfy, but seems to be a done deal.