Pertamina's management

I would like to comment on the article Caltex's view on Pertamina 'faulty' (Thursday, Aug. 14) by R.O. Hutapea.

I think Mr. Hutapea did a good job presenting facts about Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) expertise that Pertamina acquired and about the history of LNG in Indonesia.

But in my opinion, there are other factors to consider when evaluating the management of oil fields by Pertamina instead of Caltex. The two main factors are management and the application of technology.

Around the world, in general, I think government owned/operated companies are less efficient than private companies.

Although Pertamina has some experts in EOR technology, can it properly apply and manage the technology and associated activities as well as realize production at a cost equal to or lower than Caltex?

Caltex is owned by two major oil companies (Chevron and Texaco) who are well-known for their efficiency, human resources development and bottom-line results.

In what kind of company would investors prefer to place their money? Through which company will the best results for Indonesia be realized?

In regards to LNG, I agree fully with Mr. Hutapea. If it had not been for the vision of Mr. Ibnu Sutowo (Pertamina) or had Pertamina only listened to the production sharing contractors, the LNG business in Indonesia would not have been developed. Pertamina's wise decision, at that time, made Indonesia the world's largest LNG exporter.

We must weigh up several factors when deciding which is the best course -- on a case by case basis.

I hope the correct decision will be made for the benefit of Indonesia and its people.

Name and address

known to the editor