Large portions of a proposal being considered by the government for the third floating LNG terminal closely mirror another proposal submitted just 38 days before by a US-based company.
US company NS Energy Navigation’s chief executive is the grandson of a ruling party lawmaker, which raises questions about the fairness of the selection process.
The similarities are so extensive that a project map in the June 19 proposal of China National Energy Engineering & Construction Co (CNEE) still carries the name of the earlier proposer: “Proposed NS Energy FSRU”.
The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs on July 28 approved in principle the proposal from CNEE, even though other global companies have put in offers that are cheaper.
Zahed Ur Rahman, adviser to the prime minister
On May 12, NS Energy Navigation, a New York-based company with no prior experience in the power and energy sector, made an unsolicited proposal for the same project to the power and energy ministry.
NS Energy Navigation’s chief executive officer is Tareef Rahman, the grandson of Brahmanbaria-4 MP Mushfiqur Rahman and chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on the finance ministry.
A comparison by The Daily Star found large portions of the two proposals to be nearly identical, covering the rationale for the project, technical specifications, contractual structure, implementation schedule, and responsibilities of the developer and the government.
The similarities go beyond common technical parameters. They include substantially identical wording, the same commercial alternatives, closely matching implementation schedules and similar descriptions of contractual arrangements and responsibilities of the parties.
Yet, it was the proposal from the Chinese state-owned firm, which has no prior experience in building floating storage and regasification units (FSRU), that the government subsequently decided to pursue through a government-to-government arrangement.
CNEE is seeking $3,42,000 a day for 15 years, around 35 to 37 percent more than what Bangladesh pays for its two existing terminals and nearly 43 percent above a benchmark prepared by state-owned Rupantarita Prakritik Gas Company (RPGCL).
It is also about 80 percent higher than the $1,90,000 a day offer Aramco had made during the interim government’s tenure, according to an official comparative assessment seen by The Daily Star.
Asked how material of its proposal appeared in CNEE’s submission, NS Energy’s CEO Tareef said that to their understanding, documents submitted to government organisations are often copied and circulated to third parties.
“We have no control over the dissemination of information or documentation once it has been submitted to the ministry,” he said, adding that some similarities between proposals are not surprising because firms could be responding to the same project requirements, technical parameters, and scope.
The Daily Star’s comparison found similarities beyond those common parameters, including substantially identical wording, the same commercial structure and implementation sequence, and a project map in CNEE’s proposal that continued to carry NS Energy’s name.
Asked whether his grandfather’s position within the government could create a conflict of interest or perception of preferential access, Tareef said, “My grandfather is not involved in NS Energy, where I am an employee, and he has no role in the process you are asking about.”
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Finance Ministry that Mushfiqur chairs has no function, directly or indirectly, in evaluating, selecting or approving FSRU projects, Tareef said, adding that it is the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs that does it and Mushfiqur is not its member.
Neither the interim government nor the current government solicited expressions of interest for a third FSRU after Petrobangla in October 2024 terminated Summit Power’s contract awarded five months earlier by the Awami League government.
NS Energy Navigation submitted its proposal to the Energy and Mineral Resources Division, received no response and had no further communication from the government following its submission.
Tareef said, “Now we understand via media that the government is proceeding with a Chinese state-owned entity on a G2G basis, which means our proposal was not considered.”
CNEE did not respond to The Daily Star’s request for comment.
The government’s rush to sign the deal with CNEE is puzzling, given that other global companies have put in offers that are materially better.
An official comparison dated October 29, 2025, shows that proposed FSRUs from Aramco, Oman’s OQ Trading, Azerbaijan’s SOCAR and China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation (CMC) were assessed alongside Bangladesh’s two existing terminals. CMC is a sister concern of CNEE.
All four proposed daily fees listed in that comparison were lower than CNEE’s later negotiated offer of $3,42,000 a day.
Aramco Trading Singapore offered the lowest daily fee of $1,90,000, followed by CMC’s $2,25,000, SOCAR’s $2,88,000, and OQ Trading’s $2,96,000.
The document shows Aramco proposed an FSRU with 1,73,611 cubic metres of LNG storage, nominal regasification capacity of 750 million cubic feet per day (mmcfd) and maximum capacity of 950 mmcfd under a 15-year contract, with a construction period of 12 to 18 months.
CNEE, by comparison, is proposing around 1,74,000 cubic metres of storage, 600 mmcfd base regasification capacity and 750 mmcfd at peak for a $3,42,000 daily fee that includes $2,46,000 fixed charges, $59,000 operational charges, and $37,000 port service fees.
The October 2025 assessment lists Aramco’s proposed vessel as built in 2011, while the vessel proposed by CNEE was built in 2016.
The effective daily costs for the existing Excelerate Energy and Summit terminals are $2,54,000 and $2,49,000 respectively.
The comparative assessment was used by the interim government before deciding to proceed with Aramco’s proposal, The Daily Star has learned from energy ministry officials involved with the process.
RPGCL subsequently conducted a feasibility study in November last year using the available proposals and estimated that the cumulative daily cost of a new FSRU, including operational and port service fees, could be a little under $2,40,000 a day.
That was below the effective costs of Bangladesh’s two existing FSRUs and the $3,00,000 a day deal for Summit Group’s proposed second FSRU.
According to the officials, the Aramco initiative subsequently received in-principal approval at a cabinet committee level but was not finalised during the interim government’s tenure.
Then power and energy adviser Muhammad Fouzul Kabir Khan later said uncertainty over the interim government’s tenure had prevented it from securing several major investments, including the third FSRU.
Ministry officials said the expectation was that the Aramco initiative would be revived once an elected government took office.
But the situation changed after the US-Israel war on Iran soon.
A senior Energy Division official told The Daily Star, “Given the war, Aramco could not commit to delivering the FSRU within the shortest time offered by CNEE. That is the main reason the current government is moving ahead with CNEE, as it offered to deliver the FSRU within 18 months.”
The October 2025 comparison, however, had itself recorded Aramco’s proposed construction period as 12 to 18 months. OQ and SOCAR each proposed 18 months after final investment decision, while CMC proposed 30 months.
However, the August 30 CNEE negotiation committee report also shows that the Chinese company’s 18-month target was not absolute.
It set April 2028 as the tentative commissioning date, based on 18 months from September this year, but allowed November 2028, or 26 months, as the latest commissioning date because the monsoon could delay FSRU hook-up.
The delivery timeline was a factor in CNEE’s price negotiations.
CNEE cited the obligation to deliver within 18 months as one of the reasons it could not reduce its offer further, alongside changed international market conditions, uncertainty over energy supplies, higher shipbuilding-material costs and increased global demand for FSRUs, according to the negotiation committee report.
Meanwhile, a separate proposal from another Chinese state-owned firm, China Merchants Industry (CMI), reached the government while negotiations with CNEE were under way.
CMI, together with Yiu Lian Dockyards, submitted its offer on August 11 for a terminal comprising two floating vessels: a storage unit and a separate storage and regasification unit.
It proposed around 2,80,000 cubic metres of combined LNG storage and 700 mmcfd of continuous send-out capacity, compared with CNEE’s 1,74,000 cubic metres and 600 mmcfd.
CMI offered two commercial structures: an engineering, procurement, construction and financing arrangement under which the government would purchase the project for an indicative $350 million, or a 12-year lease of the two vessels at $1,00,000 a day, after which they would be transferred to Petrobangla.
Its model assumes $24 million a year for operation and maintenance.
A comparative assessment by the ministry, seen by The Daily Star, calculated CNEE’s nominal 15-year payment at around $1.87 billion.
It put the corresponding 15-year cost of CMI’s purchase model at around $811 million and its lease model at $798 million.
The assessment therefore estimated nominal savings of more than $1 billion under either CMI alternative.
Because CNEE’s fee includes a $37,000 a day port-service component that CMI provisionally excludes, the assessment also made a more conservative comparison by removing that charge from CNEE’s cost.
Even on that basis, it estimated that CMI’s alternatives would cost around $859 million to $872 million less over 15 years.
CMI also offered around 61 percent more LNG storage and 100 mmcfd more continuous send-out capacity.
The assessment recommended CMI and other qualified parties should be invited to submit proposals against the same technical requirements, commercial scope and financial model before any long-term award.
The government though continues to defend its stance to pay a higher price to obtain another FSRU quickly.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister’s Information and Broadcasting Adviser Zahed Ur Rahman at a press conference said the ongoing gas and power crisis has made securing another FSRU quickly the government’s priority.
“Some additional expenditure might have to be accepted to obtain a Chinese FSRU quickly,” he said, adding that the economic losses caused by electricity and gas shortages could be far greater than the additional cost of the terminal.
The government’s own negotiation committee, however, had earlier acknowledged that while a higher rate than the existing FSRUs might be justified because of changed market conditions, it could not determine how much higher would be reasonable without a detailed assessment.