Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Ramnarine is a UNC so his views don't matter according to pawn Habit7sMASH wrote: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.
sMASH wrote: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.
sMASH wrote: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.
Habit7 wrote: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 wrote:Habit7 wrote: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."
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/
Redman wrote: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 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote: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[/b][b]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?
Again UNC is not in power nor are they important at stage.zoom rader wrote:Ramnarine is a UNC so his views don't matter according to pawn Habit7sMASH wrote: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.
De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote: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[/b][b]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?
Tuntsy, where is this gas coming from, your cacahole?
Why is your God JUHN Scarfy so feverishly defending the NGC Board indemnity?
Why are they seeking an indemnity if there is gas?
Wouldn't there be much more clarity and transparency if we knew where the gas is coming from?
Not everyone believes in JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels "i say so" sheit, and if you are one of those whoe does, well that's fine, but so far you and Colos are not making any sense in your arguments, whatever they are
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote: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[/b][b]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?
Tuntsy, where is this gas coming from, your cacahole?
Why is your God JUHN Scarfy so feverishly defending the NGC Board indemnity?
Why are they seeking an indemnity if there is gas?
Wouldn't there be much more clarity and transparency if we knew where the gas is coming from?
Not everyone believes in JUHN Scarfy and Goebbels "i say so" sheit, and if you are one of those whoe does, well that's fine, but so far you and Colos are not making any sense in your arguments, whatever they are
And as Redman pointied out you are not being consistent.
You are selectively believing BP and Shell when they fit your bias.
We are a shareholder with private entities, when the negotiations are settled all will be evident. Nothing can happen with Train 1 behind closed doors. Relax yourself, ease up on the beat up and bump your gum when you have confirmed info on the way forward.
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote: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.
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote: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.
I am just pointing out that on one hand you state that we can not trust the MNCs.
And yet you happy quoting what they say and treating it as gospel...cuz it supports your POV.
Nothing new...
Meanwhile we still have to wait and see what the situation is at the end.
Dem is the facts
De Dragon wrote:JUHN Scarfy Goebbels a re the untrustworthy ones, after all they "negotiated" us right off of a cliff. Again, if they were outclassed, outmaneuvered, and outfoxed, doh beat up. I mean it shows a little fallibility, and I know your LFD RFD PNM heart cyah bear dat, but that is the facts
The_Honourable wrote:De Dragon wrote:JUHN Scarfy Goebbels a re the untrustworthy ones, after all they "negotiated" us right off of a cliff. Again, if they were outclassed, outmaneuvered, and outfoxed, doh beat up. I mean it shows a little fallibility, and I know your LFD RFD PNM heart cyah bear dat, but that is the facts
Essentially, PNM cyah do business...
TTT 2.0, which is really tttMmoney607 wrote:sMASH wrote: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.
When u run out of toilet paper u does decide to log in tuner and hit enter?Habit7 wrote: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.
sMASH wrote:But seems like they hell bent on mashing up every goddam industry for poktical and personal financial gains.
We covered that already a few pages back when the tar was completed and it was not runnung.Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:But seems like they hell bent on mashing up every goddam industry for poktical and personal financial gains.
How is the T1 TAR mashing up the industry?
sMASH wrote:We covered that already a few pages back when the tar was completed and it was not runnung.Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:But seems like they hell bent on mashing up every goddam industry for poktical and personal financial gains.
How is the T1 TAR mashing up the industry?
I explained the difference between the 'Atlantic lng train 1' and the 'TAR' cause u seemed to not know d fack ur Talking about but yappin.
sMASH wrote:We covered that already a few pages back when the tar was completed and it was not runnung.Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:But seems like they hell bent on mashing up every goddam industry for poktical and personal financial gains.
How is the T1 TAR mashing up the industry?
I explained the difference between the 'Atlantic lng train 1' and the 'TAR' cause u seemed to not know d fack ur Talking about but yappin.
Ouch, ooohh. I need to go hopstital,,, that was a harddd blow u dealt me. Dere.Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:We covered that already a few pages back when the tar was completed and it was not runnung.Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:But seems like they hell bent on mashing up every goddam industry for poktical and personal financial gains.
How is the T1 TAR mashing up the industry?
I explained the difference between the 'Atlantic lng train 1' and the 'TAR' cause u seemed to not know d fack ur Talking about but yappin.
My knowledge of the subject is far better than your spelling. But don't punt, how is the T1 TAR mashing up the industry?
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote: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.
I am just pointing out that on one hand you state that we can not trust the MNCs.
And yet you happy quoting what they say and treating it as gospel...cuz it supports your POV.
Nothing new...
Meanwhile we still have to wait and see what the situation is at the end.
Dem is the facts
Redman wrote:Nope I wasn't.
Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:We covered that already a few pages back when the tar was completed and it was not runnung.Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:But seems like they hell bent on mashing up every goddam industry for poktical and personal financial gains.
How is the T1 TAR mashing up the industry?
I explained the difference between the 'Atlantic lng train 1' and the 'TAR' cause u seemed to not know d fack ur Talking about but yappin.
My knowledge of the subject is far better than your spelling. But don't punt, how is the T1 TAR mashing up the industry?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests