JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Thursday, February 20, 2025

Resigned to our fate

The de­struc­tion of the down­stream sec­tor

by

Curtis Williams
1414 days ago
20210407

On April 1 Methanol Hold­ings (Trinidad) Ltd an­nounced that it had tak­en a de­ci­sion to im­me­di­ate­ly shut down its M4 and M5000 methanol plants in Point Lisas, with the lat­ter be­ing the largest methanol plant in the coun­try and the world.

Ac­cord­ing to MHTL the de­ci­sion was due to the ces­sa­tion of the sup­ply of nat­ur­al gas from the Na­tion­al Gas Com­pa­ny (NGC) af­ter NGC failed to re­new its con­tract with MHTL be­cause the pro­posed price for the nat­ur­al gas was too high.

The M4 and M5000 plants have a com­bined pro­duc­tion ca­pac­i­ty of 2,467,500 MT/year and are amongst five methanol plants owned by MHTL, part of the Pro­man fam­i­ly of com­pa­nies.

Man­ag­ing di­rec­tor of Pro­man T&T Claus Cron­berg­er said his num­ber one pri­or­i­ty was to sus­tain the com­pa­ny’s op­er­a­tions and se­cure the liveli­hoods of “all of our peo­ple.”

“I recog­nise this is an un­set­tling time for em­ploy­ees and I will con­tin­ue to keep you all up­dat­ed on any de­vel­op­ments. As al­ways please do con­tact me or your line man­ag­er if you have any ques­tions,” Cron­berg­er told staff.

He ex­plained that de­spite the com­pa­ny’s very best ef­forts through­out March, it was un­able to se­cure an eco­nom­i­cal­ly vi­able short-term gas sup­ply con­tract for April and there­fore had no choice but to make the “ex­treme­ly dif­fi­cult de­ci­sion” to idle its M4 and M5000 plants.

Cron­berg­er said the M2 and M3 plants will con­tin­ue run­ning on De­N­o­vo gas on­ly.

He said, “While we have reached the ab­solute lim­it of our flex­i­bil­i­ty on con­tract price and terms and con­di­tions, we are con­tin­u­ing to take a so­lu­tions-ori­en­tat­ed ap­proach and en­gag­ing with NGC and the Gov­ern­ment.”

Any­one who has read this col­umn over the last two years will not be sur­prised by this de­vel­op­ment.

T&T, which in 2015 when the present gov­ern­ment took the reigns of pow­er, stood tall as the world’s largest ex­porter of methanol and am­mo­nia. It has now lost over half its to­tal methanol pro­duc­tion and a sig­nif­i­cant amount of its am­mo­nia out­put.

There is no oth­er way of say­ing it, this gov­ern­ment met a chal­leng­ing sit­u­a­tion and has mis­man­aged the sec­tor to the point where it ap­pears to be on prover­bial life sup­port, with doc­tors who have nei­ther a di­ag­no­sis far less a treat­ment plan for the pa­tient.

On May 12, 329 days ago, I wrote an ar­ti­cle en­ti­tled, Save the Petro­chem­i­cal Sec­tor in which I warned that the fall-out from the gov­ern­ment’s ac­tions would lead to a dis­as­ter at Point Lisas.

At that time I wrote the fol­low­ing which is per­haps even more rel­e­vant than when I first penned it.

“As far back as 2011, the petro­chem­i­cal sec­tor was com­plain­ing about nat­ur­al gas short­ages that were im­pact­ing its av­er­age cost of pro­duc­tion and the re­li­a­bil­i­ty of op­er­a­tions.

The then Min­is­ter of En­er­gy Kevin Ram­nar­ine as­sured that it would be solved by 2012, eight years lat­er the sit­u­a­tion is still un­re­solved.

The NGC which has the role of ag­gre­ga­tor and was ex­pect­ed to sup­ply the gas to the down­stream was short and fac­ing le­gal chal­lenges. It was al­so in ne­go­ti­a­tions with the up­stream com­pa­nies who in­sist­ed that they could no longer sell gas at the prices the NGC had been ac­cus­tomed to and the hikes had to come be­fore they would un­lock in­vest­ments.

NGC stood its ground in­sist­ing it could not agree to the prices be­ing de­mand­ed and the sit­u­a­tion reached a po­si­tion where con­tracts were com­ing to an end and the up­stream would be un­der no com­mit­ment to sup­ply gas to NGC.

En­ter Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley.

He met with the lead­ers of the (up­stream) com­pa­nies and when the meet­ing was over the NGC signed an agree­ment that is now prov­ing to be un­work­able.

For the record, this news­pa­per, more than a year ago, warned that the agree­ment bro­kered by the Prime Min­is­ter was go­ing to have dis­as­trous con­se­quences.

The gov­ern­ment led by Min­is­ter of Every­thing Stu­art Young rub­bished the con­cerns call­ing those rais­ing the is­sue of the price as arm­chair ex­perts who did not know what was ne­go­ti­at­ed but, as they say, time is longer than twine and now, ac­cord­ing to the chair­man of NGC, the gov­ern­ment has had to re­turn to the ne­go­ti­at­ing ta­ble. Young has since fo­cused on COVID-19 and has not said a word on the rene­go­ti­a­tion.

It is on­ly group­think that could al­low the Min­is­ter of En­er­gy to de­fend a price that he must know was not work­able and it shows why politi­cians need to stay out of com­mer­cial arrange­ments.

But we were warned about this even­tu­al­i­ty.

Econ­o­mist Dr Ter­rence Far­rell did a sig­nif­i­cant study about the state of the petro­chem­i­cal sec­tor and pre­dict­ed it could be lost if as a coun­try we do not make the right choic­es.

In his study, he said: “The down­stream petro­chem­i­cals in­dus­try is at a point of in­flex­ion. In a sce­nario of scarce and ex­pen­sive gas feed­stock, the in­dus­try is set for de­cline and pos­si­ble demise. En­er­gy pol­i­cy has not ad­e­quate­ly ad­dressed the chal­lenges which the in­dus­try now faces.”

This warn­ing was ig­nored by the gov­ern­ment be­cause in this so­ci­ety when red is the colour of choice all ad­vice that does not come from that colour or is crit­i­cal of it is seen as yel­low and sim­i­lar­ly when yel­low ris­es all ad­vice that is not yel­low is seen as red.

Ac­cord­ing to Far­rell, T&T has moved from be­ing a high-re­serves, low-cost gas pro­duc­er and the largest ex­porter of LNG to the Unit­ed States, to a low-re­serves, high-cost gas pro­duc­er ex­port­ing LNG to mar­kets in Eu­rope and South Amer­i­ca.

He ex­plains that the gas sup­ply agree­ments with the down­stream petro­chem­i­cals plants are con­fi­den­tial but es­sen­tial­ly in­volve:

(a) floor price

(b) prod­uct ref­er­ence price

(c) prod­uct mar­ket price

(d) fac­tor which is ap­plied to the dif­fer­ence be­tween the ref­er­ence price and the mar­ket price when the mar­ket price ex­ceeds the ref­er­ence price.

He point­ed out that the in­tent of the pric­ing arrange­ment is that NGC shares some of the up­side of ris­ing methanol and am­mo­nia prices dur­ing cycli­cal up­swings but the down­stream pro­duc­ers have a de­gree of gas price cer­tain­ty in re­spect of the cost of nat­ur­al gas when methanol and am­mo­nia prices are cycli­cal­ly low.

“Each of the el­e­ments of the pric­ing for­mu­la is po­ten­tial­ly prob­lem­at­ic. The floor price needs to re­flect the cost of gas to NGC from the up­stream pro­duc­ers plus the costs of com­pres­sion, trans­port and re­moval of liq­uids. NGC does not con­trol the well-head price, and de­vel­op­ment costs of gas have been in­creas­ing.

“In ad­di­tion, NGC pur­chas­es gas from the up­stream pro­duc­ers on a take-or-pay ba­sis and there is no pro­vi­sion for cush­ion gas to man­age sup­ply dis­rup­tions or sched­uled turn­arounds up­stream. As a ma­jor source of div­i­dends and tax rev­enue for the Gov­ern­ment, apart from the sub­sidy which is ex­plic­it­ly giv­en to the pow­er sec­tor, NGC will not price gas to the down­stream pro­duc­ers that would re­sult in a loss,” the re­port read.

Of­ten it is dif­fi­cult to re­al­ly un­der­stand the im­por­tance of the sec­tor and Far­rell’s re­port helps us.

Over the ten-year pe­ri­od 2009-2018, rev­enues from am­mo­nia and methanol (Cor­po­ra­tion Tax, Busi­ness Levy and Green Fund Levy) ranged from a low of $1 bil­lion (US$156 mil­lion) in 2009 when prod­uct prices were cycli­cal­ly low, to a high of $ 3.1 bil­lion (US$489 mil­lion) in 2012.

In that re­gard, the eco­nom­ic im­pact of the down­stream petro­chem­i­cals in­dus­try is clear­ly sig­nif­i­cant. Cap­i­tal em­ployed in the in­dus­try is es­ti­mat­ed at US$8 bil­lion. It ac­count­ed for 3.4 per cent of GDP in 2017 down from 7.0 per cent in 2012.

“Petro­chem­i­cals con­tributed over 20 per cent of to­tal ex­port earn­ings since 2011, and it con­tributes an es­ti­mat­ed 15 per cent of the cash in­flows of for­eign ex­change to the bank­ing sys­tem. While the down­stream petro­chem­i­cals in­dus­try is not it­self an em­ploy­er of large num­bers of work­ers, it does pro­vide jobs de­mand­ing high lev­els of skill and knowl­edge that need to match the best in the world in a va­ri­ety of tech­ni­cal and man­age­ment dis­ci­plines.

Pay­ment of wages and salaries and ex­pen­di­ture on lo­cal sup­pli­ers and in­puts amount to US$400 to US$500 mil­lion and lo­cal val­ue-added amount­ed to be­tween US$338 and US$415 mil­lion.

“Ap­ply­ing an ex­pen­di­ture mul­ti­pli­er of 1.9, lo­cal val­ue added by the down­stream petro­chem­i­cals in­dus­try is of the or­der of $5.3 bil­lion or 3.5 per cent of GDP.

Over the pe­ri­od 2013-2017, tax­es paid by am­mo­nia and methanol com­pa­nies av­er­aged US$300 mil­lion/an­num,” the re­port re­vealed.

Ac­cord­ing to Far­rell, these re­sults sup­port the con­clu­sion that ex­ist­ing plants will be earn­ing a low­er than tar­get rate of re­turn and/or fail to gen­er­ate suf­fi­cient cash flow when prod­uct prices are cycli­cal­ly low and as gas in­let prices in­crease.

Mem­bers of this gov­ern­ment are ex­perts at pal­ter­ing and they try to rewrite his­to­ry. Un­for­tu­nate­ly in the days of the dig­i­tal age it’s not so easy to take back what you have said.

In prepar­ing to write this ar­ti­cle I re-read Min­is­ter Khan’s ad­dress to the T&T En­er­gy Con­fer­ence from 2017. I in­vite every­one to read it. For it re­al­ly shows the ex­tent of promis­es that nev­er ma­te­ri­alised and the re­al crux of the prob­lem which is the new­ly ne­go­ti­at­ed nat­ur­al gas prices.

Yes, de­mand ef­fi­cien­cy, the val­ue chains are all cru­cial but the price of nat­ur­al gas in T&T is not sus­tain­able, pe­ri­od.

Khan knew this in 2017, long be­fore the Far­rell re­port. He said, “Over the last year, there have been re­quests by the up­stream and right­ly so for the align­ment of val­ue with risk.

This cre­at­ed an im­passe with the nat­ur­al gas ag­gre­ga­tor NGC in the ne­go­ti­a­tions on the terms of new con­tracts for the sup­ply of gas to down­stream com­pa­nies. Its res­o­lu­tion re­quired the in­volve­ment of the ho­n­ourable Prime Min­is­ter, who met with se­nior ex­ec­u­tives of BP and EOG Re­sources at the now fa­mous Hous­ton meet­ing where the mat­ter was re­solved.”

NGC was re­sist­ing sign­ing terms with the up­stream for new gas prices and it was the in­ter­ven­tion of the po­lit­i­cal di­rec­torate that led NGC to ac­qui­esce.

Khan added,”These de­vel­op­ments were oc­ca­sioned by a com­mit­ment from up­stream com­pa­nies to ac­tive­ly pur­sue ex­plo­ration and de­vel­op­ment ac­tiv­i­ty to im­prove gas sup­ply. How­ev­er, the new gas con­tracts be­tween the NGC and down­stream com­pa­nies would ob­vi­ous­ly be at high­er prices.”

“Dis­cus­sions be­tween NGC and the down­stream com­pa­nies have com­menced on the terms for new gas con­tracts. The new re­al­i­ty is that low prices, which ob­tained in pre­vi­ous years are no longer avail­able. There­fore, greater em­pha­sis has to be placed on the ef­fi­cient and cost-ef­fec­tive con­ver­sion of gas in­to petro­chem­i­cal prod­ucts. Ad­di­tion­al­ly, all ne­go­ti­a­tions now have to take in­to con­text its ef­fect on the en­tire val­ue chain.”

There­in lies the ker­nel of the mat­ter.

There­fore this of­fen­sive talk by the NGC that “The Gov­ern­ment and NGC are man­dat­ed to act in the best com­mer­cial and fi­nan­cial in­ter­ests of the peo­ple of T&T. There­fore, all ac­tions by the com­pa­ny shall be con­sis­tent with this man­date,” is de­signed to raise bo­geys about the pri­vate sec­tor and for­eign in­vest­ment.

We are in trou­bled times and it’s like­ly to get worse.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored