Power Sector is due for a sea-change under NaMo

  Narendra Modi’s remarkable rise to power has given hopes for an economic turnaround in the country as well for the power sector. The BJP's election manifesto promised a 'comprehensive energy policy' to harness oil, gas, hydro, ocean, wind, solar, coal and nuclear energy.

  One of Modi's key accomplishments in Gujarat is said to be his reform of the power sector, making the state the only one with a consistent power surplus. Gujarat, however, has ample power fuelling ample industry, and Modi wants to both keep it that way, and reach the remotest parts of the country too. This is an activity to strengthen the core of the country. One is his abiding interest in providing 24×7 electricity to every nook and cranny in India. Expanding clean power generation will be his administration's top energy-related priority, especially solar and wind energy, because it has the potential to create jobs and supply power to millions of scattered households not connected to the grid. The new government is also expected to reinstate accelerated depreciation for investments into wind energy projects and accord priority sector lending for the entire renewable energy segment to give a fillip to non-conventional energy resources.

  What Modi's government did in Gujarat was less to do with building new power plants and more to do with reforming how electricity was distributed and paid for. His government re-negotiated purchase agreements with private power companies set up a police unit to stop thieving of electricity and ended unmetered supplies to rural areas.

  The Coalgate scandals of the UPA highlighted the incompetence with which some coal blocks were parceled out for a pittance to the highest bribe-givers from the private sector, but India continued to import massive quantities of expensive coal to keep generating electricity. If Modi decides to run the Coal Ministry himself he will certainly be able to deliver results in a time-bound manner. Reducing coal imports will reduce the burden on our foreign exchange reserves also and will become a key component of increased GDP and reduced deficits. It might, with the generation of abundant electricity using cheaper coal, actually bring down the high costs of electricity at the retail level too.

  India is structurally short of electricity, and it's hard to see how the economy can be ramped up significantly, especially in power-hungry sectors such as manufacturing, without the provision of reliable power at prices high enough to ensure sustainable supply, but not so high as to choke growth. Power sector reforms must now be driven by simple straight forward thinking based on ground realities with customer at the centre and full involvement of states rather than complicated, central driven initiatives. Sorting out the disconnect between retail prices and the actual cost of producing and distributing electricity is also just the tip of the iceberg in ensuring sufficient power for economic growth.

   It remains to be seen whether he can replicate the electricity success of his home state but only he can  after all being the country's first energy literate Prime Minister!

                                            InfralineEnergy Power Knowledgebase Team

Crimea Annexation by Russia: Changing Energy Geopolitics

Geopolitics is the battle for space and power played out in a geographical setting. Just as there are military geopolitics, diplomatic geopolitics and economic geopolitics, there is also energy geopolitics. For natural resources and the trade routes that bring those resources to consumers is central to the study of geography. Of all natural resources, Crude oil and Natural gas has always remained the core of the discussion. Crimea annexation by Russia is a classic example of how Energy factors plays crucial role in shaping the global geopolitics.

The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is a disputed diplomatic process that began after the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol unilaterally declared their independence from Ukraine.  The regions joined together as a single nation afterwards and requested accession to Russia, in accordance with a referendum that reflected such desire. Russia granted the request almost immediately by signing an adoption treaty with the newly formed nation. The accessions, however, were ratified separately: one for Crimea as a republic and another for Sevastopol as a federal city, resulting in the establishment of two new federal subjects of Russia. Ukraine, however, disputes the treaty, as it does not recognize the independence of Crimea and Sevastopol or the accession itself as legitimate

Lucrative E&P Prospects in Crimea: Reason behind the Annexation

One of the speculated reasons behind this annexation is the prospective oil and gas resources of Crimea. The Skifska gas field, a license block which lies to the southwest of Crimea in the Black Sea, is estimated to hold up to 8.8 trillion cubic feet in natural gas and condensate resources.  It was awarded in 2012 to a consortium consisting of Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, Petrom and Nadra. With exploration due to begin in 2015, the block is expected to produce 177 bcm of gas per year. Eastern coast of Crimea is also expected to be prospective. The area includes a license for the Subbotina block, where an oil discovery has been made, as well as licenses for the Pry Kerch block, where several oil and gas prospects have been identified. Eni had been made operator of this eastern Crimean area with a 50 percent stake, while other partners included EDF (5 percent) and Ukrainian state-owned companies. The question now is, what will be future of these assets. After this annexation, there are market speculations suggesting that Crimean oil and gas assets will be managed by Russian companies such as Gazprom OAO. How these things will shape up is yet to be seen.

Changing Routes of Energy: Repercussion of the Annexation

Crimean crisis is going to have huge impact on the existing trade routes of crude oil and gas. Till now, around 60 percent of crude oil imports and 30 percent of Natural gas imports of Europe are met form Russian supplies. Europe will now have to look for new options to meet its energy requirement and decrease its energy dependence on Russia. Russia has also started exploring new export alternatives.  China has agreed to buy more than $350 billion of Russian crude in coming years. The U.S., even after the shale boom, needs to import 40 percent of its crude oil, leaving it vulnerable to global market dynamics. The U.S. imported 167.5 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia in 2013.

Figure: Major Trade Movement of Crude Oil in 2012 (million tonnes)

The figure titled “Major Trade Movement of Crude Oil in 2012” highlights the major trade routes of crude oil in 2012. As is evident from the figure, Europe imports 286.5 million tons of crude oil from Russia. Around 26.4 million tons of crude oil requirement of US come from Russia. Also, of the total crude oil export from Russia, around 83 percent is exported to US and Europe. All these regions have now started to look for

new trade alternatives.

New Trade Routes Alternatives

Owing to this annexation, Europe will have to start looking for new options for sourcing its crude oil and natural gas and decrease its dependency on Russia for its energy requirement. One of the best option would be to improve its own infrastructure such as interconnectivity of existing pipelines, increase gas storage and increased transparency in the system. Few of the gas sourcing options that Europe can evaluate are North African gas; Central Asian gas or LNG imports from US. In North Africa, new political leadership and vast reserves means that some countries like Algeria, Libya and Egypt have the potential to become some of the largest suppliers to Europe. Central Asia also has huge reserves of natural gas however transporting that gas to Europe would require expensive and lengthy pipelines through multiple countries. One of the most favorable sourcing options is LNG imports from US. However, the U.S. Energy Department has so far only approved seven applications out of more than 20, and only one has final approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The soonest any company will export LNG from the U.S. is 2015. LNG already represents about 25 percent of European natural gas imports, up from 15 percent in 2010. There are 22 LNG import terminals around Europe, with Poland, Lithuania and Estonia building new terminals that could distribute imported LNG around Northern and Eastern Europe.

Russia has also started evaluating new options for exporting Russian gas. Russia is planning to enter into a deal with China for sale of its gas. This Russia-China gas deal has been in the works for over 10 years, however, owing to some price conflicts, it didn’t reach closure. Recently, there are speculations, that the deal will be closed in May 2014, during the visit of Russian President to China. Also, Russia and China are in talks to develop alternative-energy projects in Crimea.

Changing Energy Geopolitics of 2014

There has been huge change in the global energy dynamics since the Shale Gas revolution in US. It has played an important role in transforming US from net importer to net exported of Natural gas in the global trade environment. Over the period, OPEC is also slowly losing its hold on the global oil market. In its annual World Oil Outlook, OPEC said it expected global demand for its crude oil to average 29.2 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2018, down 1.1 million bpd from 2013, because of increasing supply outside the 12-member group.  Things are changing and this Annexation of Crimea by Russia is also going to play a vital role in this changing dynamic of world oil and gas trade.

                               

       InfralineEnergy Oil & Gas Knowledgebase Team

PPP in Roads and Highways: A reality Check

Continuing with its exclusive series of conferences on the Road sector, Infraline Energy organized its Third annual Conference on Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in Roads and Highways on December 16, 2013 in New Delhi. The underlying objective for organizing this conference was to bring numerous stakeholders in roads and highways sector landscape together to brainstorm on many complex issues adversely impacting the sector and for jointly evolving workable solutions for consideration by policy makers. The Conference was well received and this paper captures the key messages and key recommendations/ action points which emerged from this one day Conference.

Hon’ble Shri Oscar Fernandes, Union Minister for Transport, Roads and Highways, delivered the inaugural address. The distinguished gathering included top policy makers from GOI Ministries and Cabinet Secretariat, many project developers, investors and representatives of industrial associations who had serious interactive deliberations on various aspects related to the experience with the implementation of PPP model in the Roads and Highways sector and what is the need of time to build and restore investors confidence in this sector.

The Conference covered  an overview of the sector,  sector status and key challenges, risks profiles and their mitigation strategies, technological advancement, policy and regulatory reforms needed,  new and innovative financing mix for the projects, and need for  devising comprehensive framework for future growth of this crucial national infrastructure.

The Key Messages

v  Road sector is crucial for the growth of the economy. The development of Roads is directly related to the development of the nation as it helps in connecting farm lands  and centers of economic activities to the mainstream of the market, employment generation, poverty alleviation and ultimately to the economic prosperity and social well being  of the nation

v  As per an ESCAP study “one million rupees spent on road construction leads to 7 times reduction in poverty than similar amount spent on other poverty alleviation programs”.

v  India needs world class roads and highways infrastructure for achieving and sustaining economic prosperity

v  Transport sector contributes to 6 percent to country’s GDP and share of roads sector alone is around 70 percent of it

v  During Twelfth plan, out of total estimated investment of around INR 4.8 Lakh crore in infrastructure space a provision of INR 3.2 Lakh Crore has been made for NHDP phases. Private sector is expected to assume major responsibilities and GOI is anticipating around 50-60 percent contribution from it

v  The year 2011-12 was a golden period for PPP projects. During that period around 8000 km of road contracts were awarded which led to increasing the targets to 9500 km for 2012-13 however this was not successful due to lack of interest manifested by lack of bidders, ongoing financial crunch, non viability of projects under the offered terms, experiences from the operating projects, and delay in achieving financial closures for the concessionaire

v  PPP model has not delivered as a) Public component has not come up to the expectation and b) the appetite of big companies to take mega projects appears limited. The spirit of partnership in PPP is rather missing. There is some conflicting role of Government due to its Sovereign Position and as Commercial Partner

v  The experience of private sector with PPP in Roadways at present is not very healthy one. The project developers have been confronting many challenges like Land Acquisition, Environment, Forest and Wildlife Clearances, poor performance of contractors, lack of project management skills, non availability of Labor and project financing.

v  As out of 151 highway projects, 101 projects were delayed on account of land acquisition problems and delay in statutory clearances. GOI is thus largely responsible for such situation as time over runs, policy changes (Land Acquisition Bill etc) would push up the project costs significantly thus depressing the projects viability.

v  One of the major contributory factors is the provisions contained in Land Acquisition Bill which has made all processes more cumbersome. Additionally economic slowdown and aggressive bidding have also led to the non completion of few projects on time

v  It emerged following deliberations that the PPP projects could be made viable if it can sustain 40 percent Viability Gap Funding (VGF) and it has to be 4-6 Lane to recover the cost

v  Delays lead to time and cost over runs as inputs become more expensive it was therefore suggested that the raw material prices should be indexed to the Producer Price Index

v  It was felt that bidding should only be permitted within a ‘’Range’ and, as per the international practices, bids beyond the range should be rejected.

v  The sector is facing projects financing crunch because of the non viability of the road projects also resulting from. Issues like overestimation of Traffic, taxation like capital gain tax, exit norms of the main contractors, the replacement of good contractors (A Class) to Sub contractors  (C class) leading to bad quality of roads,  etc.

v  There are huge number of ongoing disputes, involving 1600 arbitration cases amounting to INR 11,100 Crore investments, 1100 cases being examined by tribunals and 500 cases pending in courts.

v  It was highlighted that some 500 top listed companies are sitting on the cash pile of Rs 9 Lakh Crores and top 40 PSUs have Rs 2.5 Lakh Crores at their end. Appropriate policy reforms and enhancement of bank ability of road sector could attract deployment of such funds

v  For fast tracking statutory approvals of infrastructure projects worth above INR 1000 crore a Project Monitoring Group, formed under Additional Secretary Cabinet Secretariat, has been expediting required approvals and coordination among stakeholders in a transparent on line process

v  The experience and limitations faced by commuters using toll roads also came up for discussions. It emerged that adoption of Electronic Toll Collection techniques and latest software to forecast and monitor traffic on the roads would bring in many operational efficiencies. Globally 80 percent of Toll collection takes place electronically and 20 percent manually but in India it is other way around

v  India lacks high quality companies/contractors for the road sector and generally too many bidders chase few project bidding with doubt able capabilities. This makes the whole process time consuming and inefficient

The Road Ahead- Key Recommendations

v  The government should act as a facilitator and not as the regulator given the stage of development of Indian road sector and the emerging needs to expand this sector in a more time bound manner. It should provide favorable environment and stable policies to attract higher investments in Road sector

v  There is a need for more comprehensive risk mapping and risk sharing among parties. Certain risks like statutory approvals, land acquisition can be best handled by Government/its nominee. The Demand risk can be addressed by awarding the project on least PV of tolling basis. Finally Government must bring in some predictability or the road map for the sector

v  Proactive Stakeholder engagement should be promoted and private concessionaires should be treated more as partner rather than equity investor

v  Project Monitoring Group Cabinet Secretariat threshold limit should be reduced to include smaller projects as well. As bulk of the problems facing road projects relate the State Governments, some innovative approach is needed to make Sate Government partners in such projects as they are the largest beneficiaries of such infrastructure

v  India lacks good contractors needed for the sector and project management skills are found to be weak. Imparting training on project implementation management could be a positive step

v  UMPP model of Ministry of Power where the responsibility of clearances lies with the government should be replicated for Roads sector as well

v  There should be proper utilization of Long term debt funds to maintain liquidity in the sector

v  Model Concession Agreements should be re-framed and made flexible to the changing situations

v  There should be easier and transparent exit norms for the concessionaire who completes the projects

v   Innovative approach should be adopted by regulators like Guaranteed returns, risk sharing, fiscal support, tax holidays 

   

                              

          Infraline Energy Roads Research Team

Gas price hike hits legal hurdle

Just at a time when Mukesh Ambani led Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) had become the first private sector company to clock a turnover of Rs 1 lakh crore in just three months for the quarter ended September, it has been slapped with a notice by the Supreme Court (SC) for failure to honour its commitment made to the government under a production sharing contract (PSC) for gas supply from Krishna-Godavari D-6 block. On September 29, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre, Reliance Industries and others on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a non-government organization (NGO) Common Cause and others seeking a direction to the Union of India to cancel the production sharing contract (PSC) between Reliance Industries and Niko Resources for extracting gas in the KG-D6 block.

The petition sought a thorough investigation by a separate investigating team or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the supervision of the Supreme Court — into the alleged high-level collusion between RIL and the political establishment, including lack of action against RIL for hoarding of gas, increasing the gas price to $4.2 mmbtu amid a subsisting bid to National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) for 17 years at $2.34 mmbtu and subsequently doubling the price to $8.4 mmbtu, giving retrospective tax benefit and not insisting that RIL relinquish the area.

Ever since the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) had approved the doubling of domestic gas prices from $4.2 to $8.4 per mmbtu on June 28, there have been growing murmurs of RIL being favoured despite its failure to honour previous commitments. A Bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi, after hearing counsel Prashant Bhushan, has issued a notice to the company returnable in four weeks. The Bench, which had earlier issued notice to the Centre on July 29, on a PIL filed by member of Parliament from Communist Party of India (CPI) Gurudas Dasgupta, has directed the present petition to be tagged with that case. Dasgupta has challenged the Cabinet decision to raise natural gas prices. The higher prices, to be effective from 1 April 2014, will adversely impact power, fertilizers, minerals and steel sector and benefit gas producers including RIL and state-run Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC).

The petition questions the acceptance of higher prices without strict scrutiny of its impact on the economy in general and the petroleum and fertilizer sectors in particular. It seeks an additional penalty of $4.1 billion on the stakeholders in the KG D-6 block for alleged suppression of gas output in anticipation of higher prices. RIL has initiated arbitration proceedings against the decision saying its contract allows full cost recovery and that output fell because of geological complexity. Arguing for Dasgupta, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, has said that the new minister had also put an end to arbitration seeking recovery of huge penalties from RIL. The petition alleges that the Cabinet hastily raised prices from next April as it would put an unreasonable burden on the next government after general elections.

Dasgupta’s petition

The KG-D6 controversy arose after the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India said in a report that RIL had breached some terms of its contract with the government. The company had failed to meet its own target for gas generation in the KGD6 fields, despite having claimed associated costs as deductions before estimating the profit to be shared with the government.

The petroleum ministry has proposed to deny RIL $1.24 billion in costs. It wants to stop RIL from recovering this cost from the deepwater KG-D6 fields in the Bay of Bengal for 2010-11 and 2011-12. The issue is in arbitration. Dasgupta’s petition also requests the court that arbitrators, earlier appointed by the government and RIL “appoint a third arbitrator (umpire) and proceed with the arbitration expeditiously and complete the arbitration within six months”.

The CPI petition alleges that, “when the present petroleum minister took charge he stalled the arbitration thus preventing the recovery of this amount from the sale of natural gas”. Suggesting that an exception had been made in RIL’s case for the D6 block, CAG had earlier said the explorer was allowed to retain the entire 7,645 sq. km area and enter the second and the third phases without “relinquishing 25 per cent each of the total contract area at the end of phase I and phase II in June 2004 and 2005, respectively,” in contravention of the production sharing contract.

Welcoming the court’s decision mto send a notice to RIL, Dasgupta said that in earlier discussions in the Lok Sabha, he had pointed out that when the failure of the executive was bound to make room for the judiciary. “The manner in which arbitrarily prices were fixed on (the basis of the) Rangarajan Committee formula, is a matter of grave concern,” he said. He added that he had already written a letter to the Prime Minister, apprising him of the increase but “no assurance was given (by the Prime Minister) to review the decision. This insensitivity of the government is undermining the democracy”.

A panel headed by C. Rangarajan, head of the Prime Minister’s economic advisory council, had suggested a pricing formula based on which the controversial gas price decision was taken.In a press statement issued on 26 July, Union petroleum minister Veerappa Moily had said, “the government needs to move ahead and take bold decisions and should not be bogged down by the fear of CBI or CAG.” He had also stated that there was an urgent need to cut bureaucratic delays, saying “the process should not dominate; instead the focus should be on delivery”.

Dasgupta’s letter to PM

Dasgupta has alleged that Moily helped RIL increase the price of gas produced from the KG-D6 offshore gas field. Moily, on his part, has alleged that import lobbies were trying to exert pressure on India— even intimidating ministers—not to raise the domestic prices of gas and not to reduce overseas purchases. In September, Dasgupta had written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking an immediate decision to impose $2.4 billion penalty on RIL due to deliberate hoarding of gas production from KG-D6 block.

Dasgupta, a Lok Sabha member from West Bengal, also asked Singh to direct the petroleum ministry to take immediate steps to ensure that RIL was made to pay $4.2 mbtu price for the shortfall of gas from KG-D6 facility even after April 2014.

In his letter Dasgupta, while enclosing a copy of the report of Gopalakrishnan Committee, set up to study the decline in gas production from the KG basin block, said the report clearly nailed the lie of geological uncertainty being used by RIL. Since this report had been accepted by both the Directorate

General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) and the petroleum ministry, the government should not succumb to the devious ploy of the petroleum minister to reopen the issue to give undue benefit to RIL and weaken the government case in arbitration.

“You are aware that the government had imposed a penalty of $1 billion on RIL for deliberate default in production. I had pointed out that this amount works out to $1.8 billion for 2012-13 and $2.4 billion for the current year due to continuing shortfalls. It is learnt that DGH has agreed with my contention and recommended penalty of $1.8 billion for 2012-13. However, the petroleum ministry has not issued a fresh notice to RIL based on DGH’s suggestion and the petroleum minister is stalling the matter. I would urge you to the direct the petroleum ministry to issue a fresh notice to RIL immediately, both for last year and current year,’’ Dasgupta added.

CAG reported CAG reported breach first

At the heart of the controversies was CAG report submitted in September 2011. The national auditor had castigated the oil ministry for allowing Reliance Industries to retain its entire eastern offshore KG-D6 block in contravention of the production sharing contract. It faulted the oil ministry and DGH for allowing Reliance to retain the entire 7,645 sq km KG-DWN-98/3 (KG-D6) block in the Bay of Bengal after the giant Dhirubhai-1 and 3 gas finds were made in 2001.

As per the PSC, Reliance should have relinquished 25 per cent of the total area outside the discoveries in June, 2004, and 2005, but the entire block was declared as a discovery area and the company was allowed to retain it. CAG was also critical of the government oversight, particularly on high value procurement decisions, and sought an "in-depth review" of 10 contracts, including eight awarded to Aker Group by Reliance on a single-bid basis.

 On charge of gold-plating by RIL, CAG gave a breather to the contractor. Notably, CAG had sought review of the PSC signed under New Exploration Licensing Policy (NELP), evolved by the BJP-led NDA government in 1999, saying the regime provided inadequate incentives to contractors like Reliance to reduce capital expenditure. On the contrary, it provided "substantial incentive to increase capital expenditure or 'front-end' capital expenditure" so that government take from the blocks is lower.

"Given similar conclusions that two independent agencies have reached as regards the adverse impact of the profit sharing mechanism in protecting Government of India's share designed in the late 1990s, there does seem to be enough ground to revisit the formula," it said. For future PSCs, CAG recommended that the investment multiple linkage with the profit sharing formula be removed.

Rangarajan committee

In the backdrop of the spat between RIL and petroleum ministry, the government on May 30, 2012, announced the constitution of a committee under the chairmanship of Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council’s (PMEAC) Chairman C. Rangarajan to review the existing PSCs.

The committee submitted its report in December 2012, wherein it recommended that production sharing contracts with oil companies in future should be based on the amount of oil or gas output that the company was willing to offer to the government. Under the new system of bidding, the company that was willing to offer the highest amount of oil or gas produced from the field would get the contract.

Issues over CAG audit

In September, Rajya Sabha member from CPI, Tapan Sen, had also sought Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s intervention to enforce RIL’s cooperation with CAG in the KG D-6 audit exercise, and impose penalty for shortfall in gas production. In a letter to Singh, the CPI (M) member had said he was seeking corrective intervention from the Prime Minister so that the contractor (RIL) was disciplined and made to act as per the approved development plan and production sharing contract, pay for its failure for shortfall in gas production and allow smooth audit of its KG D-6 block.

 “In case of failure to do so, the national assets at its (RIL’s) disposal be taken back for exploitation under direct control of the government-owned company in the larger national interest,” the letter added. Accusing RIL of stonewalling the audit exercise, Sen referred to CAG complaints that RIL had not been cooperating in the audit process in the KG-DWN-98/3 block since April / May 2012, by not providing access to relevant documents.

“I had in my previous letter sought to impress upon you that RIL's plan to block the audit process by CAG was linked with its strategy of scaling down production in the name of geological complexity on the one hand and its gold plating cost estimate for the field-development on the other. The entire game plan is to create pressure on getting the natural gas prices revised upward without any reference to its actual cost of production to ensure windfall gains out of handling this national assets as well as natural resources,’’ he added. It may be noted that the audit had hit a roadblock in 2012 after RIL refused to accept the “exceptional circumstances” argument advanced by the petroleum ministry for the performance audit and sought an assurance that it would be kept completely confidential and done under the PSC provisions. It has also sought an assurance that the audit would not adversely affect its economic interests. The audit had resumed in January 2013, only to be suspended once again in February following differences with RIL over scope and extent of the scrutiny. RIL had claimed that CAG cannot contractually do a performance audit on it and that the PSC only provides for a government-appointed auditor to verify the reasonableness of all charges and credits. In April 2013, CAG had once again agreed to resume the audit of KG D-6 block following assurances by the petroleum ministry that the audit team will have full access to all records, documents and accounts as provided under Article 25 of the PSC. The KG-D6 block is, without doubt, the biggest and most prolific gas reservoir in India. It is in everyone’s interest that gas available from this field is brought out to meet the staggering demand in the country. It now remains to be seen if the D-6 field lives up to its full potential, and expectation, or not. 

                                

              InfralinePlus Editorial Team