The PSO letter in response to an article dated 16th October 2017 is based on the assumption that the writer does not have access to the entire Qatargas-PSO agreement (not redacted version that continues to be available on the PSO website). This is indeed extremely disappointing as the BR article specifically states that the entire agreement is available.
It is further to be noted that only the contract price of 13.37 percent of Brent was released by the then Petroleum Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and not other disturbing details, including that the contract price would not be reviewed before 10 years.
The price quoted by PSO as being US $ 4.6550 mmbtu in March 2016 and of three consignments in April priced at 4.6955 per mmbtu, is ex-ship (DES) excluding port charges of Port Qasim Authority which in 2016 were over $900,000 dollars per shipment.
The writer acknowledges that the government is renegotiating lower port charges; however, the article simply noted that NAB was at the time investigating how Engro's 150 million dollars would enable the company to earn 1.8 billion dollars in 15 years.
The correction that Elengy has a deal with SSGCL and not with PSO is appreciated; however it raises questions as to why para 8.1.2 of the deal was redacted which stipulates that "the buyer may request no later than 15 days prior to loading date the sellers consent to take delivery of the relevant cargo at the receiving terminal other than Elengy import terminal."
LNG is a buyer's and no longer a seller's market - a view that was substantiated by relevant foreign officials, including Tripathi, Chairman Gas Authority of India Limited, who is quoted in the article. This explains why countries like Bangladesh have opted to sign a long term contract that envisage smaller purchases than required with many a country eyeing the spot market.
If upward and downward flexibility clause is a standard clause then why has PSO blacked it out on its website?