The board of Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC) made the decision in a meeting held on Friday, say officials. The company will award the contract after finalising the arrangements in the next 10 days.
A day ago, SSGC had shortlisted two bidders – Pakistan Gas Port Limited and Akbar Associates – for building the second terminal for handling LNG imports.
In the technical evaluation, Pakistan Gas Port and Gunvor had got a score of 89.3 from SSGC consultant AF Capital whereas Akbar Associates received 74.73 marks. Both bidders were declared technically qualified and entered the final round.
Engro’s Elengy Terminal Pakistan Limited (ETPL), which built the country’s first LNG terminal in March, got a score of 61.9 and did not qualify as bidders were required to receive at least 70 marks.
According to officials, in the financial bids opened on Friday, Akbar Associates offered a tariff of 49.87 cents per million British thermal units (mmbtu) whereas Pakistan Gas Port quoted 52.9 cents.
The tariff quoted by Akbar Associates is far lower than the tariff approved by the government for the first LNG terminal. The levelised tariff for ETPL’s terminal is 66 cents per mmbtu.
The successful bidder will be required to complete work on the project in 24 months and make a capacity of 400 million cubic feet of LNG per day (mmcfd) available to SSGC.
Like ETPL, Pakistan Gas Port had proposed to establish a floating storage and re-gasification unit-based project whereas Akbar Associates sought to set up a land-based terminal. Together, the two terminals will bridge the natural gas demand-supply gap by 53% in the summer season and 36% in winter.
Apart from these, the federal government is planning to start the process of setting up a land-based LNG import terminal at Gwadar with Chinese assistance.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 9th, 2015.
Like Business on Facebook, follow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ