GNPC insisted on having the right to invest in LNG deal – Quantum Power

Quantum Power, has described as “erroneous” media reports suggesting that it required the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) to invest in its project to provide the infrastructure required for the importation of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

Reacting to the said publications in The Statesman and the Daily Graphic newspapers, Quantum said it did not need GNPC’s help to carry out the task.

“Quantum never required GNPC to invest in the project. The project infrastructure cost, including all pipelines, were to be fully borne by Quantum and Höegh LNG. It was GNPC who insisted on having the right to invest in the project. This has been distorted in the media to suggest that Quantum required GNPC to invest in the project. This is false,” it noted in a statement.

It further said Quantum never offered to provide the LNG but only offered Ghana the mechanism to bring in the LNG, leaving the country to choose its LNG supplier, hence, “any attribution of an LNG price to Quantum’s infrastructure, which is not a market-based price, is by definition, arbitrary.”

Contrary to Daily Graphic’s report that “the Tema LNG Project proposed a tariff of US$1.38/mmBtu, WAGL and Quantum were US$1.50/mmBtu and US$1.68/mmBtu respectively over 10 years”, Quantum mentioned that its tariff for its infrastructure and regasification service of 250 MMscf/d is $1.30 per MMBtu for a 10-year term.

“Quantum has provided this pricing in a formal letter sent to the Minister of Energy and Petroleum and the LNG sub-committee on 13th July 2017. The MoEP then issued a formal request to all proponents on 24th July 2017 to reconfirm pricing by 26th July 2017. Quantum reconfirmed this pricing in a sealed envelope tender process, administered by the MoEP. Accusations of Quantum providing “an unsolicited and irregular proposal…after the close of submission”, “…only submitting an offer for 20 years…”, or “…based on GNPC’s committing to a 100% increase in the minimum volumes….to 500 MMscf/d” are blatantly false (as well as inconsistent)” it said.

Below is the full statement