Watching this SKA and Nadeem Babar debate.

Nadeem Babar off the bat is wrong about the long-term nature of the deals and the capacity charges for terminals.

Both were the norm at the time. And w/o long-term deals, there would be no terminals constructed in Pakistan.

Also, capacity payments are the norm in the industry. Look up Bangladesh's terminals, they also have the same. It is part of the financial cost of the terminals, something I have talked to experts in my podcast.

SKA is absolutely right about the Qatar long-term deal being a winner for Pakistan. This has been reported by various outlets, including in reporting by @FaseehMangi for @business.

GIDC funds use remains an issue and Babar is right to criticize SKA on this. But also note that the issue still remains.

It is similar to the petroleum levy, which as the recent petroleum shortage report shows, was intended to develop the sector, but was used to fill fiscal gap.

For more on the GIDC issue, read this recent report from @Profitpk about the funds and court orders regarding it, including delays with the new gas pipeline. https://profit.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/09/04/gas-infrastructure-remains-underdeveloped-as-rs818bn-gidc-awaits-intended-use/

Babar continues to talk about long-term LNG deal, talking about an "imminent glut" in the market when the deal was signed.

Again, the long-term deal was a necessary precondition for building the infrastructure. He shouldn't have wasted precious time arguing on this moot issue.

The criticism levied on the current government with respect to delays in procuring spot cargos for gas, leading to higher prices - and no bids being received - is a valid one.

As I said previously, depending on ministries and bureaucracy to procure gas is folly.

Babar is right that we have seen a sustained decline in the use of FO for power generation. These stats are available for comparison on NEPRA.

Babar is also rightly pointing out issues with the transmission system and the lack of investment in the sector. These issues were raised by NEPRA in previous reports, and I wrote about it in Dec 2016.

https://www.thefridaytimes.com/how-many-pms-does-it-take-to-light-a-bulb/

Babar was definitely misleading with his price comparisons for LNG procurement.

The contracts have to be compared based on slope, NOT on actual $ price. This is because the price is linked to oil, which is why the slope is the right metric to measure.

Shocked, absolutely shocked, at Babar's comments about not caring about the slope. I mean, c'mon!

You HAVE to measure prices in terms of the % of oil.

SAPM doesn't care about the slope of the LNG cargo. Amazing. Just amazing!

Conclusion: Refreshing to see this debate. Both men misled here and there, but the award for the misleading goes to Naedem Babar for his comments about the slope at the end.

Also, unfortunate that neither side had proposals on solutions and that KK didn't ask them about it.

Most folks who follow this sector know the issues.

What the debate should be focused on is what reforms are needed and how to push them through.

Sadly, the debate is still nascent and stuck on blaming one another, not about exploring solutions.

For those who want to learn a bit more about this sector and how it functions, watch this discussion with @MadamMeltingPot, where we covered everything from the slope to capacity payments to long-term contracts.

And if you want shorter analysis on recent developments in Urdu, check out the links below where I spoke with @samigodil and @rogueonomist about the gas sector.