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.

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Chickens coming home to roost

by

Curtis Williams
2077 days ago
20191120

What a week it has been! The coun­try has had the en­cour­ag­ing news of two ma­jor nat­ur­al gas dis­cov­er­ies, in what ex­perts say could mean some­where be­tween 5 and 7 tril­lion cu­bic feet of nat­ur­al gas, and on the oth­er hand we have had the an­nounce­ment by Yara Trinidad Ltd (YTL) that it is clos­ing its am­mo­nia plant at Point Lisas.

In an in­ter­view with Guardian Me­dia, YTL’s pres­i­dent and plant man­ag­er, Richard De La Bastide, said af­ter 16 months of ne­go­ti­a­tions, the com­pa­ny could not reach agree­ment with the Na­tion­al Gas Com­pa­ny of T&T (NGC) for a new gas price.

He said: “We think it is high­ly un­like­ly we will get at a price that will al­low us to op­er­ate the plant, there­fore it is our in­ten­tion to close the plant.”

YTL press re­lease read: “This de­ci­sion comes af­ter sev­er­al ne­go­ti­at­ing ses­sions with The NGC, which failed to reach an agree­ment that could sus­tain the op­er­a­tion of the Yara plant.”

The clo­sure of the plant means five ma­jor plants that have been shut down since the Row­ley ad­min­is­tra­tion came to pow­er.

To be clear multi­na­tion­als look at each (as­set/plant), from its abil­i­ty to de­liv­er free cash flow (FCF) on a sus­tain­able ba­sis. FCF is sig­nif­i­cant­ly af­fect­ed by cap­i­tal ex­pen­di­ture (Capex) so on an old plant, it could be con­tin­u­ous­ly high. Yara would have done the math at the new gas price and found FCF was not sus­tain­able in the fore­see­able fu­ture.

The NGC has in­sist­ed that it too is fac­ing chal­lenges from the glob­al en­vi­ron­ment which has seen soft am­mo­nia prices for well over three years. It has al­so had to deal with sig­nif­i­cant­ly high­er do­mes­tic nat­ur­al gas prices.

The com­pa­ny in a re­lease said: “Like YTL, NGC has al­so felt the ef­fects of the volatile and chal­leng­ing en­vi­ron­ment cur­rent­ly fac­ing both the lo­cal and glob­al en­er­gy sec­tor. NGC has used its best ef­forts to mit­i­gate the ef­fects of these chal­lenges on its val­ued cus­tomers on the Point Lisas In­dus­tri­al Es­tate.”

There are those who have al­so ar­gued that the age of the Yara plant meant it was the least ef­fi­cient and could not sur­vive in the present en­vi­ron­ment.

While the ef­fi­cien­cy adds to op­er­a­tional ex­pen­di­ture costs (Opex cost) those with knowl­edge of Yara say it is in­suf­fi­cient to cause a clo­sure.

In ad­di­tion the Yara plant is the same phys­i­cal age as the Nu­trien O3 plant which just had a new gas con­tract ne­go­ti­at­ed with the NGC. While Yara in 2015 did an up­grade, in­dus­try sources say it was not as ex­ten­sive as that of Nu­trien which pre-in­vest­ed sig­nif­i­cant­ly in up­grades five years ago when FCF were bet­ter due to low­er do­mes­tic gas prices and high­er glob­al com­mod­i­ty prices.

We must how­ev­er not run the risk of los­ing sight of the chal­lenge and the fact that the chick­ens ap­pear to be com­ing home to roost.

While I dis­agree with Mar­i­ano Browne, who has sought to sug­gest that the Point Lisas mod­el of at­tract­ing in­vestors with low gas prices, gen­er­ous tax hol­i­days and then earn­ing rev­enue from ex­ports and high­er gas pro­duc­tion is dead, it is in dan­ger and un­less the gov­ern­ment works with all the play­ers to find a sus­tain­able way for­ward it is doomed.

For­mer head of the Eco­nom­ic De­vel­op­ment Board, Dr Ter­rence Far­rel, ear­li­er this year warned that the coun­try was at a point of in­flec­tion and the down­stream sec­tor was in jeop­ardy.

In his study, Far­rell said the petro­chem­i­cal sec­tor is al­ready not re­turn­ing suf­fi­cient val­ue to its share­hold­ers and while short­ages are neg­a­tive­ly im­pact­ing the cash flow and bal­ance sheet, it is the new prices be­ing de­mand­ed by the NGC that could be the death knell of the sec­tor.

The study reads, “The down­stream petro­chem­i­cals in­dus­try is at a point of in­flec­tion. 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.”

With re­spect to gov­ern­ment pol­i­cy, which the econ­o­mist was quick to point out, has not re­al­ly changed with the var­i­ous gov­ern­ments the coun­try has had, he feels it is not help­ing the sec­tor.

The re­port read, “The cur­rent ex­plic­it and im­plic­it struc­ture of in­cen­tives would seem to en­cour­age:

a) Up­stream com­pa­nies who have lit­tle or no in­ter­est in petro­chem­i­cals, to max­imise the LNG val­ue chain.

b) The gov­ern­ment to max­imise rents from nat­ur­al gas to sup­port gov­ern­ment ex­pen­di­ture

c) Petro­chem­i­cal com­pa­nies to shift in­cre­men­tal in­vest­ment in new plant to oth­er lo­ca­tions while run­ning down ex­ist­ing plants to even­tu­al clo­sure.

Far­rell sug­gest­ed that the route to clo­sure could start with the plants at Point Lisas be­ing turned in­to swing plants and then run down to even­tu­al clo­sure.

The gov­ern­ment tried to rub­bish the re­port, re­fus­ing to ac­cept its aca­d­e­m­ic rigour and saw it as an at­tack on the NGC and its very ex­is­tence.

The coun­try has a prob­lem re­quir­ing a com­plex and thought­ful so­lu­tion. The prob­lem is sim­ple in that the down­stream sec­tor is fac­ing low­er prices for its com­modi­ties but be­ing asked to pay high­er prices for its raw ma­te­r­i­al which is not be­ing pro­vid­ed in suf­fi­cient quan­ti­ties.

I sus­pect that part of the chal­lenge in find­ing a so­lu­tion is the lack of trans­paren­cy in the sys­tem. This colo­nial no­tion, that se­cret ne­go­ti­a­tions, with the pop­u­la­tion trust­ing blind­ly the politi­cians and their ap­pointees, be­cause “they have in­for­ma­tion we don’t” is at the heart of the prob­lem.

This lack of trans­paren­cy is why the NGC could next year lose mon­ey when it starts the CG­CL plant due to a sweet­heart gas price. The NGC be­ing a share­hold­er in the very plant.

It is this lack of trans­paren­cy that al­lows the NGC to in­vest in a plant to com­pete with its cus­tomers who have no choice but to con­tin­ue buy­ing from the mo­nop­oly that is the ag­gre­ga­tor.

It is the lack of trans­paren­cy that has the NGC hav­ing a sep­a­rate gas price with each com­pa­ny and of­ten for each plant.

It is the lack of trans­paren­cy at the NGC that could al­low it to change its div­i­dend pol­i­cy and its cof­fers raid­ed by the last ad­min­is­tra­tion just be­fore an elec­tion year.

It is the lack of trans­paren­cy at the NGC that had it sink near­ly a bil­lion dol­lars in a waste wa­ter project that its own doc­u­ments now say it is no longer pur­su­ing it.

It is the lack of trans­paren­cy that could lead to more Yara type clo­sures in the fu­ture.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored