Elation as Kenya exports Oil; what does it mean for Oil rush in East African region

On 1st of August 2019, President Uhuru Kenyatta announced that Kenya had joined the list of world oil exporting Countries by selling its first crude oil at a cost of 12 Million United States dollars.

While the news reverberated across the Country and the region with elation, it is also possible that Kenya’s announcement could trigger a contagious rush to the bottom with East African Countries jostling to outcompete each other by signing off deals and agreements locking off future markets with potential buyers. Some of these deals may not be necessarily good.

By Moses Kulaba; Governance and Economic Analysis Center

Addressing the cabinet and media in Nairobi, President Kenyatta said Kenya had sold its barrels of crude oil to a buyer whose identity still remained a secret.

“We are now an Oil exporter. Our first deal was concluded this afternoon with 200,000 barrels at a price of USD 12 Million.  So I think we have started the journey and it is up to us to ensure that those resources are put to the best use to make our Country and to ensure we eliminate poverty, said Kenyatta.

The news reverberated in the region and globally with a new player on the market. Obviously there was more excitement and elation in the Lokichar Oil fields where Tullow Oil and its joint partners continue to explore more blocks with more vigour and determination.

Kenya discovered its first Oil in 2012 and since then, explorations have continued in the Lake Turkana basin region with deposits being reported and more projections made to increase. In its previous reports Tullow estimated some 560 Mln Barrels in possible reserves and these are now projected to increase as prospects for more discoveries are higher than before.

This would translate into 60,000 to 10,000 barrels per day of gross production, which is said to be insufficient to warrant the construction of a refinery locally hence the export plans

The sold consignment was delivered by truckers at the Kenya Petroleum Refineries facilities in Changamwe, Mombasa since July last year, under what the government described under the early oil project

What does this mean for Kenya and the East African region?

The deal concludes that Kenya once ruled off as an oil novice in the region, with the lowest volumes of discovered oil is running a head of its East African neighbors in reaching exporting oil country status many months before any of its East African neighbors can sell a drop of oil.

For Kenya, this is game changer in regional geopolitics as not only does the oil revenue bring a new line of foreign exchange earnings into its economy and thus consolidating its position as the regional economic superpower.

Galvanizing on its early market entry status, Kenya could tap the available markets and seal off any available contracts beating off any potential competition from its neighboring countries.

The oil revenues could also breathe some life into its Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor development plan which has stalled for among others lack of partners. With oil revenues flowing, Kenya can go alone developing the ambitious infrastructure projects along the corridor all the way to the Ethiopian boarder.

Contrary to nay Sayers, the oil export could be a window to emboldened security in the Turkana area as the government seeks to protect vital oil installations and export routes to the coast.  For many years, Lake Turkana basin has been one of the most volatile and insecure areas in Kenya as marauding armed warriors move from one village to another raiding for cattle. Civilians and military installations have been attacked and people killed.

In June, 2018 Turkana residents stopped five trucks from ferrying crude oil to Mombasa over rising insecurity along the border with Baringo. The resident complained of insecurity in the area but also complained of what they call consider unresolved issues on oil sharing benefits between the National governments, County governments and local communities over the 5% share which they wanted channeled to their bank accounts rather than for development as rallied by a section of leaders.

There is no way we can be a security threat to the oil we have protected and guarded for years. So the specialized and additional security personnel (protecting oil) should head to Kapedo and secure people.

Kenya’s oil export announcement could trigger a contagious rush for oil in the East African region, with each country racing to drill to bottom in search for oil. In an effort to outcompete each other, those already with oil discoveries such as Uganda and South Sudan could race to the market sealing off deals and contracts with potential buyers and agreements for future markets. Some of these deals maybe bad.

 Uganda was the first to strike oil around its Albertine graben in 2005. According to Uganda’s Ministry of energy the petroleum deposit discovered so far were estimated at 6.5barrels of which 1.5bln are considered as recoverable.

The Ugandan oil is supposed to be exported to the global market through a 1,443 electric heated East African Oil Pipeline (EACOP) via Tanzania. The East African Crude oil pipeline is expected to unlock East Africa Oil potential by attracting invest and companies to explore the potential in the region.

According to the project schedule available on the EACOP website the detailed engineering and procurement and early works were supposed to have been made in 2018 and construction started in 2019. The first oil exports were expected in 2020. But it appears all these are behind schedule.

According to Ministry of Uganda expected to conclude its financial deal for its joint pipeline with Tanzania by June, 2019, opening for the way for its construction. According to the information provided by then, Stanbic Bank Uganda, was supposed to be the lead arranger for USD2.5billion funding for the 1,455 km (EACOP) project. The deal was expected to have been concluded in June, 2019.

Kampala was also expecting that the Final Investment Decisions (FID) between the government and the oil partners to determine when funds for the project will be made available, the terms of the financing and when the project execution will commence with a projected timeline between 20 and 36 months

The pipeline was expected to jointly develop the USD 3.5 billion pipeline, described as the longest electrically heated crude oil pipeline in the world. The balance of USD 1billion is expected to come from shareholders in equity

However, by the time Kenya announced its export deal in July, the earth breaking ceremony commencing the start of the EACOP pipeline construction had not started. Negotiations were reported as ongoing. In June 2017, the Daily Business Newspaper carried an article with a headline ‘Uganda’s Oil may not flow by 2020’ as the required infrastructure may not be complete  by then[i]

What this means for Uganda is that time is of essence and the sooner the EACOP project construction takes off the better for its potential oil market.

Figure 3: The Government of Tanzania and Uganda sign the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP)  in May, 2017

 

So why do some oil projects like take long to materialize?

Lack of astute leadership, effective institutions and canning ambition to drive the projects to fruition. In some countries the political leadership and responsible institutions can be weak, whereby the essential operational process surrounding the oil projects can be clogged in political rhetoric and undertones which make decision making quite cumbersome, inefficiently slow and less assuring to the investors

Technical aspects such as Quality of crude oil discovered

High Sulphur crude oil can such as the Ugandan and Kenyan crude oil can be waxy and costly to transport via pipeline as it requires constant heating along the route.  This explains why the 1,433 km EACOP is described as the longest electric heated pipeline in the world. This adds to complexity in technology and costs on heating required to operationalize the project. Investors may

Oil reservoir behaviors and recoverable volumes – The discovered oil reserves are not always the same as the recoverable volumes. In some projects the reserves can be large yet due to geological and technological factors the recoverable volumes are low.  The behavior of the oil reservoirs is therefore a significant factor in determining whether the recoverable volumes will be consistent with the early projections and economic models over the plateau period. A change in the recoverable volumes can trigger massive losses and may lead to complete closure of the oil project. Investors are happy to rush projects where recoverable volumes will be sustained

Financing aspects such as financing structure -Lack of financing for some reasons or high interests on the investment loans secured from investment-lending institutions can be a delaying factor.  The decision to invest may therefore take long as the investors or partners to the oil project juggle and weigh the available financial options viz a vis the current and future costs of the project on the country and the investors

Economic metric considerations such as the Net Present Value (NPV), Rate of Return (RoR) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of the project.

These are calculations undertaken to determine the economic and financial viability of the project. They are used to determine how much return and how long it will take to recoup the initial investment and starting generating profit.

According to online sources such as Investopedia, the Net present value (NPV) is the difference between the present value of cash inflows and the present value of cash outflows over a period of time. NPV is used in capital budgeting and investment planning to analyze the profitability of a projected investment or project.

The Rate of Return (RoR) is the net gain or loss on an investment over a specified time period, expressed as a percentage of the investment’s initial cost. This simple rate of return is sometimes called the basic growth rate, or alternatively, return on investment, or ROI. If you also consider the effect of the time value of money and inflation, the real rate of return can also be defined as the net amount of discounted cash flows received on an investment after adjusting for inflation.

The rate of return is used to measure growth between two periods, rather than over several periods. The RoR can be used for many purposes, from evaluating investment growth to year-over-year changes in company revenues. Its calculation does not consider the effects of inflation.

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a measure used in capital budgeting to estimate the profitability of potential investments. The internal rate of return is a discount rate that makes the Net Present Value (NPV) that makes the Net Present Value (NPV) of all cash flows from a particular project equal to zero.  It is mathematically calculated as IRR=NPV=t=1∑T (1+r)t −C0 =0)

IRR is the rate of growth a project is expected to generate. The IRR is used in capital budgeting to decide which projects or investments to undertake and which to forgo.

Generally speaking, the higher a project’s internal rate of return, the more desirable it is to undertake. Assuming the costs of investment are equal among the various projects, the project with the highest IRR would probably be considered the best and be undertaken first. IRR is sometimes referred to as “economic rate of return” or “discounted cash flow rate of return.”

Social factors such as land acquisition and due diligence for compensation– The nebulous and intricate balancing act between the local laws and the international standards as guided by the International Finance Corporation can be a hindrance. Quite often the local standards for compensation can be law, corrupt unfair yet the IFC standards requires fair and equity

Negative diplomacy: The oil projects could delay or fail to take off all together due to negative diplomacy. Whereby disgruntled actors such as activists, companies, politicians who may not be excited or about the project may quietly lobby, urge, convince or cajole the financing institutions not to finance the project.

Security Risk:  Oil projects cost lots of money in investment and thus require assurances that financial investments and their installations will be guaranteed.  Oil projects can stall as investors and their partners gauge the security risks

Some or all of these factors could be now at play in the East African region and could be explanatory factors as to why some petroleum projects are progressing at a snail’s pace or stalled all together. Perhaps Kenya’s early oil export could be trigger for its neighbors to start thinking ahead.

 

 

 

[i] https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/economy/Uganda—oil—2020-Standard–Poors-Tanzania/3946234-3982464-j7rbsq/index.html

How will the South African 2019 Proposed Financing Provisioning Regulations affect mining companies? *

As East African Countries grapple on how best to manage environmental payments for compensation and rehabilitation of decommissioned mining sites, the new legal regime in South Africa could be a development to watch as it provides some drastic measures that have sent shockwaves with in the mining fraternity as reported by Ensight Africa, Online tax bulletin.

By Edwin Berman, Ntsiki Adonis-Kgame and Zinzi Lawrence, Ensight Africa Online Tax Newsletter

In May 2019, the South African Proposed Regulations Pertaining to the Financial Provision for the Rehabilitation and Remediation of Environmental Damage caused by Reconnaissance, Prospecting, Exploration, Mining or Production Operations, 2019 (the “2019 Regulations”) were released for public comment. The 2019 Regulations are informed by industry consultation; however, they still fail to address some of the serious concerns raised by the mining industry and introduce new onerous provisions.

The first attempt at regulating financial provision for costs associated with the remediation and rehabilitation of impacts to the environment associated with mining activities, was through the Financial Provisioning Regulations, 2015 (the “2015 Regulations”). Following an outcry from the mining industry, the 2015 Regulations were amended on 26 October 2016. Since then, two iterations of the financial provision regulations (2017 and 2019) which sought to repeal the 2015 Regulations, have been published.

Some of the effects of the 2019 Regulations on mining companies are the following:

Applicants and holders

Applicants and holders of reconnaissance permits will be required to provide financial provision for rehabilitation. By definition, reconnaissance permits, as contemplated in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, involve non-invasive work and therefore do not lead to environmental harm. Accordingly, there is no basis for requiring holders of reconnaissance permits to make financial provision.

Double provisioning

Regulation 7(3) provides that “funds set aside for financial provision must remain in place until a closure certificate is issued, unless a withdrawal as contemplated in regulation 11 is allowed”. Regulation 11 outlines the procedure for holders to follow when seeking to withdraw financial provision, and provides that the Minister of Minerals and Energy (“Minister”) must approve withdrawals with the concurrence of the Ministers of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation and of Finance. The withdrawal of financial provision can only occur after the stringent requirements stipulated in regulation 11 are met and are only allowed for decommissioning and final closure and not for ongoing or concurrent rehabilitation.

Since the financial provision is not accessible to the holder for use during the life of the right, the holder has to effectively make double provision (the first being financial provision and the second being actual expenditure incurred for rehabilitation). The implications of regulation 7(3), read with regulation 11, is that there will be a rise in the cost of mining.

Auditing and specialist reviews

Regulation 12(2) prescribes that the determination, review and assessment of financial provision must be undertaken by a specialist. Regulation 13(1)(a) requires that the assessment undertaken by a specialist must be audited by an independent auditor, included in an environmental audit report and must be submitted for approval to the minister. This however places an extraordinarily administrative and cost burden on the industry, more so on junior mining companies.

Value-added tax

Another onerous provision introduced in the 2019 Regulations is the inclusion of value-added tax (“VAT”) in the financial provision calculation. Expanding money for rehabilitation is not a vatable supply as contemplated in the VAT Act, 1991. Inevitably, this will result in a further increased cost of mining in addition to the issues of duplicate funding/double provisioning and the burden of auditing discussed above.

Date of compliance

Holders of prospecting rights and mining rights or permits, who applied for the right or permit prior to 20 November 2015, will be required to comply with the new regulations no later than three months following the first financial year end of the holder post 19 February 2020. Given that the due date for submission of comments to the 2019 Regulations was 1 July 2019, the 2019 Regulations are most likely to be finalised later this year, giving holders insufficient time to comply with the 2019 Regulations. Current financial provision quantum calculations for holders would need to be revised in accordance with the new methodology and this would require existing holders to fund the increased financial provision. Practically, most mining companies will encounter difficulties with complying within the contemplated compliance date.

Penalties and offences

The 2019 Regulations have increased the number of offences tha are punishable, by a penalty of up to ZARR10-million, or up to 10 years imprisonment, or both a fine and imprisonment. The offences include inter alia, the failure to provide funds for annual rehabilitation from the operational budget and set aside funds for financial provision; the failure to provide funds using one of the agreed vehicles and failure to make reviews and decisions accessible to the public.

*This article first appeared in ENSAfrica ENsight Africa online tax bulletin

Extractive Transparency and Accountability

Extractive Transparency and Accountability is the pillar for citizen participation, investment attraction and use of extractive resources. If the people know, risks to tax evasion, corruption and the resource curse are reduced.

The East African region is awash with vast natural resources. Over the past five years, the East African region has registered significant discoveries of Oil in the Albertine Graben in Uganda and Turkana in Kenya. The prospects of Natural gas along the coast line of Somalia are promising. Few years ago Tanzania discovered massive natural gas deposits along its coastline adding already to its large extractive resources base. By these standards, the region has a potential for enjoying a natural resource boom.
However, experiences from Tanzania have shown that weak governance and oversight deficits can thwart benefits from the sector. Reports show that for decades the Country was not able to harness the vast extractive resources for development. The government lost revenue through bad contracts with mining companies and communities did not significantly benefit from the minerals and mining operations in their areas. In DRC minerals have been a source of conflict and the environmental impact is tremendous.

Tanzania is a signatory and  member to global transparency and accountability standards such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Tanzania has enacted  some of these principles into a national law,  the Tanzania Extractive Industries Act (TEITA) 2015. The country has established in law, a Multistakeholder body (comprising of government, civil society and companies), as platform for continuous consultation and mutual accountability. However there are deficits on some frontiers of transparency such as not publishing yet signed extractive contracts. Tanzania’s milestones on transparency partly inspired it East African neighbor  Uganda, to sign up to the initiative. The EITI provides an opportunity for East African Countries such as Tanzania, Uganda and DRC to  expand their transparency frontier  and thus expanding  citizens participation and attraction of largescale investment into their extractive sectors. However, citizens awareness and participation is still limited and governance deficits still exist.

This project  seeks to help  governments improve their transparency standards in policy and practice and citizens to be more aware and to participate in the extractive sector via;

  • Analytical pieces on extractive Transparency and Accountability
  • Local and International Advocacy on extractive governance and economic justice
  • Training and convenings on extractive sector governance

More about this work can be viewed via our latest news, reports and publications sections