“We see that the toll model is not the current model,” Bird told CIHI. Several parties generally use the services of an export toll. Whether or not it is a fully integrated project, there are a number of provisions that should be consistent in the different toll agreements applicable to the same project. Toll parties need continuity between toll agreements in critical areas. The choice of existing legislation and dispute settlement provisions should be uniform throughout the project documentation and in the various toll agreements. In the event of a dispute under toll agreements, it is very likely that several, if not all, of the parties to the toll that use the same common or common facilities will be affected. The dispute settlement procedure is streamlined and more efficient when all parties to the dispute participate in the same dispute settlement procedure. Experts are often used as a dispute resolution option in the event of a technical or financial dispute. Again, these provisions may not be available without continuity between agreements in the event of a dispute, unless all parties are subject to the same dispute settlement and expert rules. As a general rule, the fee has a component to pay, regardless of whether the processing service is used or made available, either for pre-agreed quantities of gas to be delivered for processing or for a capacity right in the LNG facility. The toll company usually needs a basic cash flow to cover the expenses incurred, whether the conversion service is used or not. Often, processing fees support project financing for export facilities. Lenders advance certain aspects of the fee structure to ensure that credit risk is properly placed and that cash flow is constant throughout the term of the financing.
Bird said that for Energia Costa Azul, Sempra`s liquefaction project in Ensenada, Mexico, and for Port Arthur, the agreements are based on the model of the Contract of Sale and Sale (SPA) and not on the toll. Traditionally, liquefaction projects have been associated with the exploitation of upstream gas resources – to put gas from a remote location on the market. However, in the United States, there is an active and competitive gas market, which LNG players can easily use to access the U.S. shale gas base and the accompanying pipeline network. U.S. LNG projects therefore deprive access to the resource resulting from liquefaction, allowing the use of different business models – capacity toll agreements. LNG projects are structured in a variety of ways. There is no standard structure; However, the toll model has been used in several ongoing LNG export projects.
As far as the toll model is concerned, the reflection put forward in this document focuses mainly on a project toll model, unlike a third-party toll (which is discussed at a very high level at the end of the paper). It is essential that the provisions on lifting and planning conditions (including port use agreements or conditions of use), the method of measurement and the allocation of LNG and other by-products are uniform for all toll parties sharing common facilities (common facilities include, inter alia, LNG and by-product tanks, walkways, lifting arms and associated equipment). Clear and non-discriminatory allocation procedures and measurement principles to accurately determine the right of each toll to support LNG and by-products are important not only for project participants, but also for financiers. Allocation procedures and measurement methods should apply equally to all tolls and be verifiable by all parties to the toll using common or common facilities or be subject to an expert assessment. Facelift conditions, measurement and allocation are often incorporated into the toll agreement; However, it is not atypical that these conditions should be included in a separate agreement signed by all parties to the toll, which facilitates the flow of information, in particular for the development of the consumption gas supply plan, the annual LNG lifting programme, the allocation of LNG and by-products, ship standards and verifications and the determination of liability. . . .