WILLEMSTAD - On March 5, the morning Dutch newspaper published an article that included the risk matrix prepared by the Ministry of Finance. To properly interpret the risk matrix, it is crucial to place it in the correct context and to have or request the necessary additional information. Without this context, there is a significant risk of drawing incorrect conclusions. In the article, the risk matrix prepared by the Ministry of Finance was not placed in the right context and was therefore misinterpreted by the newspaper. Minister Javier Silvania regrets that the political party MAN/PIN has used this incorrect reporting to portray both Pisas and Silvania in a negative light.
The correct context, according to Silvania, of the risk matrix is as follows:
The refinery was closed during the previous government’s tenure, resulting in severe financial consequences for the national budget, such as an 8% reduction in the refinery’s direct added value to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the loss of approximately 4,000 direct and indirect jobs. Additionally, the workforce at CRU was reduced to 240 employees, meaning that if the refinery were to fully restart, it would not have the necessary labor capacity. These negative consequences were included in the risk matrix.
The underlying assumption in the risk matrix is that a full restart of the refinery (as it existed before its closure under the previous government) is unlikely to happen in the short term. This is why the past negative effects of the refinery’s closure were included in the risk matrix—these effects have already been accounted for in the national budget since the refinery’s closure.
If the probability of “no reopening” were related to 2Bays' current plans, it would be incorrect and unreasonable to include the past negative consequences of the refinery’s full closure in the risk matrix and link them to 2Bays’ plans. This is because all negative consequences of the refinery’s closure have already materialized and have been accounted for in the national budget. Therefore, a gradual reopening of the refinery mainly serves to mitigate the financial losses that occurred in the past, and if it does not proceed, it would not create additional negative consequences that still need to be reflected in the national budget (and thus does not represent an additional risk that should be included in the risk matrix).
Nowhere in the risk matrix does it indicate that it is likely that the current plans for a gradual reopening of the refinery will not materialize. As mentioned before, these plans are actually intended as mitigating measures to reduce the negative consequences that occurred in the past.
In conclusion, when analyzing and identifying potential risks, the risk being assessed is not whether the current mitigating plans for a phased refinery reopening will materialize. Any form of refinery reopening (restart) would bring financial benefits to the national budget, provided that environmental regulations are met—this last point being one of the key principles of the current plans.