Bridging the gap between gas production and utilisation

In an ideal world, what you produce and what you can utilise are the same. In the real world, however, this is not the case. Ask any engineer, farmer, or food vendor, and they will tell you about losses after production.

Minimising these losses is what they all strive to accomplish. The same principle can be applied to natural gas production: there is a difference between the volume of gas we produce and how much we can utilise. Let’s call this difference by the unimaginative name Production Utilisation Gap (PUG); we can use other terms, but I don’t want to introduce any biases, at least not yet.



What is PUG gas? We produce and use natural gas for power generation, liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export, and ammonia and methanol also for export. We also have other uses for natural gas, which are smaller in volume, and we will ignore and not discuss in this article. What consumes the difference between production and utilisation? Mr Anthony Paul, a local and international energy expert, gave a comprehensive breakdown on these losses in an article a few weeks ago.

They include the flaring of natural gas—a safety measure; the compression and reinsertion of natural gas into existing wells, directly vented, which is an environmental concern; natural gas leakage during transportation and distribution, another environmental concern; the starting up of industrial plants; and lastly, for in-field use, which could be power production and any other process or production activity. It is the latter—in-field use—which accounts for most of the PUG gas volume. For example, to produce LNG at the large volumes we do, we have 28 General Electric (GE Frame 5) turbines that act as compressors—the same principle as compressors in your air-conditioning unit, but, of course, at a larger and more powerful scale—to compress the gas to make LNG.

The GE turbines are gas guzzlers, with efficiencies of between 26% and 36%, and they produce a total power output of between 728 MW and 840MW, larger than the 720MW installed capacity of our largest power plant, Trinidad Generation Unlimited (TGU) in La Brea. These GE turbines do not produce electricity, however, but compress the natural gas using a mechanical drive system, and as such, don’t fall under the remit of our 80-year-old electricity act. The scale of the problem While the data for 2024 is incomplete, in recent years, PUG gas has accounted for between 3.

9% and 4.6% of total natural gas production. That sounds small, but don’t be fooled by percentages; 4.

6% of my personal worth is small, but 4.6% of Elon Musk’s personal worth is not. To better compare the volumes of PUG gas, let’s compare its volume to the volumes of gas used in the electricity sector.

Between 2006 and 2011, PUG gas exceeded the total volume of gas used for electricity production; in 2009 it was as much as 140.6%. In recent years this has dropped to between 36.

5% and 50.2%—which is, of course, still significant. Economic impact A basic question you may ask is: what is the worth or value of the PUG gas, and how much could we have potentially earned from it? By applying historical natural gas spot prices at Henry Hub to the volume of PUG gas, we can estimate its value.

In 2023, the most recent complete year of data, PUG gas had a value of $US107.54 million. The cumulative total value of PUG gas, since 2000, is US$4.

5862 billion, or 52% of our election year national budget for 2024/2025. How do we reduce PUG gas? Companies are reducing flaring and monitoring leaks, but the biggest consumer is in-field use. Is the in-field use of PUG gas monetised? Are we getting money for it? I don’t know.

If we are getting money, is it a fair value for the gas? I don’t know. I am not privy to those contracts; few people are. Solutions and next steps Reducing the use of natural gas in the electricity sector to redirect it to the higher-value petrochemical sector represents a prudent and economically beneficial strategy for T&T.

The primary focus, however, should be on achieving this shift through positive, incentive-driven measures. This means actively enabling and fostering the widespread adoption of renewable energy sources (like solar and wind power) across the country. Simultaneously, we must incentivise the use of energy-efficient technologies.

This includes promoting inverter-type AC split units, district cooling systems, variable-speed drive motors for industrial applications, and other high-efficiency equipment for both homes and businesses. These proactive steps will naturally reduce the demand for natural gas in electricity generation. Increasing electricity rates to reduce natural gas demand without first implementing comprehensive renewable energy programmes and energy efficiency incentives would be counterproductive and place an unfair burden on consumers.

A more effective and equitable approach is a holistic one, encompassing the entire natural gas value chain. This means addressing inefficiencies at every stage, from production and processing to distribution and end-use. We must prioritise reducing PUG gas and ensuring that when natural gas is used, it generates the maximum possible value for the nation.

Let’s not try to save a few hundred dollars on a cheap, uncomfortable pair of sneakers when we pay over $5,000 to play mas. Dr Curtis Boodoo, sustainable energy expert.