alcoa may claim $158 million in damages.., page-9

Conan I have commented on this before. It is fundamental to the agreed price for the gas at the time of entering into the contract. Who would supply gas if for a million $ of gas supplied you could be liable for 10 million $ penalty? At some point Alcoa said that they wanted the gas supply, and these were the agreed terms.

The failure of the pipe at the shore boundary is hardly magnificent maintenance and Australian maintenance managers must have all cringed a bit, but there will be more surprise if the written contract clause doesn't stand in court. Alcoa may just be checking the point of law around force majeure for future interpretation and contract consideration. That's what you can do when you are big, not spending your own money, want to make the other party uncomfortable, covering your own backside for an agreement where you could have lost everything, for similar agreements that you may have, and keen to get the message across that poor maintenance doesn't constitute a force majeure claim. It was bad luck that the presence of gas and oxygen formed an explosive mixture, and found a source of ignition - lol. I lost heavily too.