Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Same happened when Caroni closed , but there was very little outcry for it.nervewrecker wrote:Was at penal today. A customer was telling me that since the closure of petrotrin the surrounding areas suffer Less money circulating.
He pointed out all the neighbouring business, not a vehicle pull up for the hour I there.
Can definitely confirmnervewrecker wrote:Was at penal today. A customer was telling me that since the closure of petrotrin the surrounding areas suffer Less money circulating.
He pointed out all the neighbouring business, not a vehicle pull up for the hour I there.
Red and ready party strikes again.gastly369 wrote:Can definitely confirmnervewrecker wrote:Was at penal today. A customer was telling me that since the closure of petrotrin the surrounding areas suffer Less money circulating.
He pointed out all the neighbouring business, not a vehicle pull up for the hour I there.
Even the popular food place cut back ..staff/food output etc
3 food places closed this year alone in penal
Deeee man say we outta ah recession and Trinidad n Tobago flourishing baiiiizoom rader wrote:Red and ready party strikes again.gastly369 wrote:Can definitely confirmnervewrecker wrote:Was at penal today. A customer was telling me that since the closure of petrotrin the surrounding areas suffer Less money circulating.
He pointed out all the neighbouring business, not a vehicle pull up for the hour I there.
Even the popular food place cut back ..staff/food output etc
3 food places closed this year alone in penal
I think you are mistaken, Trinity operates offshore oil only bro.Pointman-IA wrote:There are a lot of factors involved in exploring and producing for a barrel of oil.
We are quick to big up the "Independents" that are operating in the country.
Trinity learned their lesson after the price of oil went below USD $75 and they about to unleash an aggressive drilling campaign in the Brighton Marine/Guapo Block.
There may be 3 billion in recoverable reserves but due to our complex geology, various methodologies have to be considered.
Once you understand our faulting systems like the Los Bajos Fault, operators would see successes.
Sometimes the reports published by these entities can easily mislead the reader.
The MEEI reps would have instructed the Petrotrin production rigs to be equipped with certain equipment. The same rarely applies to these "Independents" unless an event occurs.
Trinity operates on land as well bro.zoom rader wrote:I think you are mistaken, Trinity operates offshore oil only bro.Pointman-IA wrote:There are a lot of factors involved in exploring and producing for a barrel of oil.
We are quick to big up the "Independents" that are operating in the country.
Trinity learned their lesson after the price of oil went below USD $75 and they about to unleash an aggressive drilling campaign in the Brighton Marine/Guapo Block.
There may be 3 billion in recoverable reserves but due to our complex geology, various methodologies have to be considered.
Once you understand our faulting systems like the Los Bajos Fault, operators would see successes.
Sometimes the reports published by these entities can easily mislead the reader.
The MEEI reps would have instructed the Petrotrin production rigs to be equipped with certain equipment. The same rarely applies to these "Independents" unless an event occurs.
You probably speaking about Columbus Energy and Touchstone oil
But all in all there are about 3 billions of oil onshore. These new companies will be ramping up methods to extract via water and nitrogen injection
What you think of columbus chances are of major success with injections. They looking to ramp it up.Pointman-IA wrote:Water and nitrogen injection, or any other IOR technique will not be useful without appropriate artificial lift methodologies.
I realise that Columbus is mentioned alot. Their production in the Goudron field is based on the geology of the area where the Gros Morne sands and also they are attempting to capitalize on Texaco's historical data.
Range Resources are doing the same in the Beach Marcelle Field.
Texaco had a massive water injection project in the 1960s in the Guayaguayare Field and they did alot of hydraulic fracturing.
zoom rader wrote:What you think of columbus chances are of major success with injections. They looking to ramp it up.Pointman-IA wrote:Water and nitrogen injection, or any other IOR technique will not be useful without appropriate artificial lift methodologies.
I realise that Columbus is mentioned alot. Their production in the Goudron field is based on the geology of the area where the Gros Morne sands and also they are attempting to capitalize on Texaco's historical data.
Range Resources are doing the same in the Beach Marcelle Field.
Texaco had a massive water injection project in the 1960s in the Guayaguayare Field and they did alot of hydraulic fracturing.
Questions 1 to 5 is true.Slartibartfast wrote:Ok, so I have a few questions aimed at anyone with good knowledge about our oil and gas operations. I'm a complete outsider in the issue so I find a lot of this pretty confusing. I assume most trinis not involved in the O&G sector will either share a similar confusion or have some misconceptions of their own. Feel free to correct me where I go wrong or add in things that I miss
What I know/ have been told
Petrotrin was closed because it was extremely non-profitable (is this actually true). This was due to the following issues (if it was true)
1. High staff costs due to union wages and benefits (were the individual wages really prohibitively high or was it another one of the issues below)
2. Over-staffing (again probably caused by the unions taking advantage of the power they had creating non-productive workers in the process creating the need to hire more staff than necessary)
3. Non-productive workers (again union related issue, linked to #2)
4. Poor management of resources (lack of maintenance, timely upgrades and HR management etc)
5. Lack of forward planning (I'm guessing exploration for new deposits and stuff. Again, idk.)
I'm not sure if those points above are correct but here is what I want to know.
Was closing down of Petrotrin absolutely necessary?
I agree a complete revamp was needed (lots of wastage, independent contractors for everything that could be done in house). Was there no way to get rid of the union workers or reign them in without closing it down? Was there any way to keep the productive workers? (I know a few young engineers that were non-unionised on contract and got let go. Their pay was a little below industry standard for the non O&G engineering sector in Trinidad and they got no benefits upon termination.
Was the sale of Petrotrin absolutely necessary?
Why can't it be made successful?
Is it just because any government owned company by definition will ultimately run at a loss due to rampant nepotism and corruption?
Is there any guarantee that the sale of Petrotrin is not rife with both?
Bonus question, why are our local gas prices (in a country that extracts oil and has the capability to refine it) comparable to oil and gas prices in land locked US states that need to extract their oil, ship it halfway around the world, refine in and then transport it thousands of miles inland? Shouldn't we see at least some savings at the pump. Is the local labour costs involved in extraction, transport, refining and sale cheaper than international costs? if not why/ why not?
For someone with no prior knowledge on the outside looking it, the real issue appears to be at best a gross mis-management of resources and at worst a manufactured crisis aimed privatising our biggest national money making assets and further consolidating financial power to the few people involved. Does that even make sense or should I stop wearing my foil cap?
zoom rader wrote:Questions 1 to 5 is true.Slartibartfast wrote:Ok, so I have a few questions aimed at anyone with good knowledge about our oil and gas operations. I'm a complete outsider in the issue so I find a lot of this pretty confusing. I assume most trinis not involved in the O&G sector will either share a similar confusion or have some misconceptions of their own. Feel free to correct me where I go wrong or add in things that I miss
What I know/ have been told
Petrotrin was closed because it was extremely non-profitable (is this actually true). This was due to the following issues (if it was true)
1. High staff costs due to union wages and benefits (were the individual wages really prohibitively high or was it another one of the issues below)
2. Over-staffing (again probably caused by the unions taking advantage of the power they had creating non-productive workers in the process creating the need to hire more staff than necessary)
3. Non-productive workers (again union related issue, linked to #2)
4. Poor management of resources (lack of maintenance, timely upgrades and HR management etc)
5. Lack of forward planning (I'm guessing exploration for new deposits and stuff. Again, idk.)
I'm not sure if those points above are correct but here is what I want to know.
Was closing down of Petrotrin absolutely necessary?
I agree a complete revamp was needed (lots of wastage, independent contractors for everything that could be done in house). Was there no way to get rid of the union workers or reign them in without closing it down? Was there any way to keep the productive workers? (I know a few young engineers that were non-unionised on contract and got let go. Their pay was a little below industry standard for the non O&G engineering sector in Trinidad and they got no benefits upon termination.
Was the sale of Petrotrin absolutely necessary?
Why can't it be made successful?
Is it just because any government owned company by definition will ultimately run at a loss due to rampant nepotism and corruption?
Is there any guarantee that the sale of Petrotrin is not rife with both?
Bonus question, why are our local gas prices (in a country that extracts oil and has the capability to refine it) comparable to oil and gas prices in land locked US states that need to extract their oil, ship it halfway around the world, refine in and then transport it thousands of miles inland? Shouldn't we see at least some savings at the pump. Is the local labour costs involved in extraction, transport, refining and sale cheaper than international costs? if not why/ why not?
For someone with no prior knowledge on the outside looking it, the real issue appears to be at best a gross mis-management of resources and at worst a manufactured crisis aimed privatising our biggest national money making assets and further consolidating financial power to the few people involved. Does that even make sense or should I stop wearing my foil cap?
What is needed is a smaller oil refinery with dedicated workers.
From what was told TT only pumps around 40000 barrels per day and that's from contractor operations . So in fact they were running at a lost.
There are some 3 Billions barrels of oil in the ground. The problem is these fields are mature and it very problematic to get it out of the ground. Hence that's why alot of these wells are capped and opened for new oil exploration.
Some wells only pump 50 to 600 barrels per day. That's why the goverment leased these wells out so the government does not have to pay to get it out or drill new wells. The goverment just sits back and collects the taxes on oil sold.
If you own a well that produces 50 barrels a day that's,
50 x 60US = $3000US per day
3000× 365 days = ,$1096000US
I think the royalties are 15% , then you pay 25% tax on oil sold. Its a bit more complicated so its just and esitmare. An operator could walk away with 600000US from a 50 barrels per day well.
Petrotrin failed to adapt as oil was more difficult to extract. Larger staff smaller oil.
The price we pay or paid at the gas pump is taxed to pay for your car taxes, we used to pay for the Tax disc and then the goverment said to pay for it as you buy gas. Then they added road repair tax on top of that at the gas pump.
So the gas true cost was $1 but the added taxes brought it up to $3 or so. I lost track of the actual taxes added. So it's just an estimate from 2000
There was/is a road tax added at the pumps when the goverment abandon the car tax which was the Tax disc you had to pay every year in the late 1990s Then later on they added addition road maintenance.Redman wrote:Other than VAT there is no tax at the pump.
The road tax has not been levied or collected for decades
The sale of Gasoline /Diesel is governed by 2 Acts
The Petroleum Act which sets the Price that Petrotrin recieved for refined products and the Petroleum Levy Act which sets the subsidy calculation which sets the price for Gas at the pump.
Petrotrin sells NP liquid fuels at
An Ex Refinery Price plus an Excise Tax and Handling charge
NP/Unipet sell the gas stations and they add a Wholesale Margin.
The Stations add a Retail Margin and sell to the public.
So the Price you pay at the pump is made up of
1)Ex Refinery Price-usually off of Platts
2)Excise Tax
3)Handling Charge
4)Wholesale Margin
5)Retail Margin.
Ignoring VAT there is no tax input, after Paria or Petrotrin.
If there has been a material change as a result of Paria it would have to have been gazetted as an order by the Minister-or a change in the act.
Redman wrote:That was repealed in 2006.
hence decades.
it is in the Excise tax
So NP is all bullchit?
Then they are mis-leading the public or someone is pocketing the road taxRedman wrote:So NP is all bullchit?
Fixorized to be more accurate
Redman wrote:The tax was folded into the Excise tax-so its value is captured in the Excise tax.
2006
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:The tax was folded into the Excise tax-so its value is captured in the Excise tax.
2006
So then it is still factoring into the total price at the pump. Repealed is misleading as it gives the impression that it was abolished, not grouped within another tax that was already being collected.
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:The tax was folded into the Excise tax-so its value is captured in the Excise tax.
2006
So then it is still factoring into the total price at the pump. Repealed is misleading as it gives the impression that it was abolished, not grouped within another tax that was already being collected.
The problem remains obvious.
At the pump means something
Repealed means something
At the pump means something is introduced ATTHE PUMP.....not before, not after.
As stated clearly not tax is collected at the pump.
If it was levied at the pump the dealers would have to remit it.
They don't.
Repealed means it no longer exist as a tax.
Repealed means it was ended ...Act 2 of 2006 uses the word Repealed.
The line item no longer exist....therefore the word repealed cannot be misleading.
All of this is stated above in previous posts.
Redman wrote:No we pay no Tax at the pump.
We do not pay RIT.
Simple.
English.