Thwarting competitiveness, delaying progress

Since then, I have seen the finger pointing, politicking and a few acrobatic manoeuvers all in the blame-game.

The Opposition saying don’t blame the workers, blame the Government, the MP for La Brea saying the workers and the residents must shoulder some responsibility, former Energy Minister sighting industrial unrest, red tape and the delay in time to renegotiate a new bpTT/NGC contract. Then there was OWTU pointing to bpTT and TUFCO with Roget’s now infamous statement “well take your platform and go”.

This was followed by a pointed but restricted response from the Minister of Labour.

It however was the Prime Minister himself who has since wisely called on all stakeholders to be “committed and responsible,” stressing that Trinidad must become attractive and indeed competitive, if it is to attract vital foreign investment. Without saying it directly, I am confident he was implying that labour reliability is an important factor of competitiveness.

At whose feet the blame should be correctly laid is now irrelevant. What is clear is that BPTT’s decision is a harsh reality check, as it speaks directly to our international competitiveness in an industry in which we are supposed to be world class.

We must recognise by now that although BP may truly value its Trinidad operations, its undoubted and ultimate commitment is to its shareholders. That indeed is the primary reason for awarding the contract to a competitor registered in Huston but contracted to construct the platform in Mexico and not to TOFCO from Trinidad.

When an investor finds it difficult to complete its projects on time, shareholder earnings are impacted and management’s decision-making is brought into question. In this case, it was all about risk mitigation. bpTT would have analysed the competitive tenders of preferred suppliers/ manufactures/contractors, taking into consideration their historical experiences and reputations.

Trinidad came up short because the client had little or no confidence that we could meet the challenging delivery timelines. Simply put, our reputation was one of unreliability.

Not only that, but Government seemed to have squeezed BP into tight delivery schedules, given the length of time it took to sign off on a new gas agreement with NGC.

As early as September 2016, bpTT’s Regional President Norman Christie warned us that its US$5 billion investment could be under threat if Government did not provide clarity on where future of gas supplies will go and the prices it will attract.

So, frankly I cannot see how Christie could now justify to his principals in London the selection of TOFCO for the Angelin platform given the experience with the Juniper project. Could anyone? It is no secret that in 2014, construction of the Juniper platform was awarded to TOFCO located at La Brea Industrial Estate.

The scope of works required the fabrication of both top and jacket, but in 2015 bpTT had to then hire a Texas company to construct the jacket and piles in order to preserve Juniper’s delivery schedule. By this time TOFCO had lost 97 days to industrial unrest and delays in the import of material.

In January 2015, TOFCO workers downed tools over health and safety issues; they made claims of several occurrences of shock incidents, indiscriminate sandblasting, poor lightening conditions and unsafe crane operations. Three months later, TOFCO workers again staged a work stoppage and protested for better health and safety standards and increased wages.

In August 2016, there was another protest action this time about employment practices. The union claimed that 60 workers were laid off and were being replaced by foreign nationals.

However, TOFCO claimed that at that point the project was coming to an end, it was in dire need of Fluxcore welders and because of their timelines, they had to seek assistance from outside.

What, however, is most interesting in this discourse is Ancel Roget’s public assertions of a conspiracy between TOFCO and the OSH Agency to “gerrymander” the company’s accident statistics.

If this indeed occurred, it amounts to criminal conduct and a violation of the OSH Act. Such a serious allegation warrants an in-depth investigation led by the Minister of Labour and which must result in the prosecution of any wrong doers.

It is the Government’s duty and responsibility, through the Ministry of Labour, to ensure that all companies in the country strictly adhere to relevant labour legislation. Particularly, those provisions that are intended to protect lives and safeguard workers’ wellbeing while at work.

I therefore call upon the Minister of Labour to commence this investigation by calling upon Mr Roget to produce whatever evidence that he has in support of his claims.

If, however, the union’s and workers’ claims are erroneous, then one can assume that the work stoppages may have only been intended to blackmail the company for higher wages. Mr Roget would have also opened himself to possible legal action and regretfully, the community and the country are now paying the price for this shortsightedness.

From information available, a review of TOFCO’s records indicates that it has successfully constructed at least ten large offshore projects since 2007 with no serious accidents or fatalities. Indeed, TOFCO, from its company profile, appears to be led by progressive and competent management.

Whatever is the truth, it cannot be denied that the circumstances which led to bpTT’s decision has affected our brand as a true world class player in offshore construction. It has delayed our progress and thawed our competitiveness.