PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC -The Trinidad Petroleum Holdings Limited (TPHL) is determining whether or not any offense had been committed after Energy Minister Stuart Young said a local company had submitted a false document in its bid to acquire the state-owned oil refinery.
TPHL, which was formed after the state-owned PETROTRIN was restructured in November 2018, received a document submitted by Patriotic Energy Services Company Limited to further its non-binding offer for the oil refinery. According to TPHL, the document was explicitly identified as evidence of a wire transfer of 1.5 Billion United States Dollars into a local bank, with Patriotic Energies and Technology Company Limited as the beneficiary. However, information suggests that there was no such transfer. The document has been referred to the company’s legal advisors and the relevant authorities for advice, including whether any offense has been committed, and after that, to take whatever further action may be warranted.
In his budget presentation to Parliament last week, Finance Minister Colm Imbert said three companies had been shortlisted based on their proposals for selling or leasing the refinery. The locally-based CRO Consortium, US-based INCA Energy LLC, and Nigeria-based Oando PLC were listed as the potential buyers. However, Young, speaking during the budget debate, said the company, which had been rejected on two occasions, had submitted a false document in support of its bid.
Young said the evaluation committee informed him that Patriotic did not meet the requirements to show that it had the financial capability to manage and run the refinery in its first bid. He said the committee gave Patriotic another opportunity to show it did have this capability. “Lo and behold, as part of that second opportunity, is a document that I have in my hand here today,” Young told legislators, saying that the document appears to be a “swift message of a cash wire transfer of US$1.5 billion on behalf of Patriotic Energies and Technology Ltd.” However, he said the document appears to show this money was received at a local bank. The committee was asked if this information was correct and, if it was, why Patriotic’s second bid for the refinery was unsuccessful. He said the committee said the document was fraudulent.
“When the due diligence was done, of course, no US$1.5 billion was received by Patriotic at any local bank,” Young said, adding that an unknown person stamped the document. “It is easy to verify this. It is either that it exists or doesn’t exist, and I can come here without fear of contradiction. Here and outside as I might do later on and say it is not a real document,” Young told Parliament.
However, in a statement, the company said Young’s statement was misleading and mischievous, as what he presented, under parliamentary cover, was not Patriotic’s financial partner who met with the Cabinet-appointed evaluation committee. “The solely selected financier would have been submitted to the evaluation committee and Scotiabank International, which both accepted as our preferred financier,” the company said, adding that its preferred financier would have been interviewed and vetted by the evaluation committee, and no alarms were raised by Scotiabank International or the evaluation committee about its financier, as no “communication or indication” was received on the “unsuitability of our preferred financial partner.”
Patriotic remains confident that it met all the requirements and has presented the best proposal for and on behalf of the workers and the people of Trinidad and Tobago.
Conclusions:
The controversy surrounding the submission of a false document in the bid for the state-owned oil refinery highlights the importance of transparency and due diligence in the evaluation of bids. The Energy Minister’s statement has sparked a debate, with the company submitting the bid denying the minister’s claims and accusing him of making misleading statements.
Frequently Asked Questions:
1. What is the dispute about?
The dispute is about the submission of a false document by Patriotic Energy Services Company Limited in its bid to acquire the state-owned oil refinery.
2. What is the nature of the document in question?
The document appears to be a fake wire transfer of US$1.5 billion.
3. What is the response of the company?
The company has denied the allegations, saying that the document is fake and that the minister’s claims are misleading and mischievous.
4. What is the next step?
The company has called for a reassessment of the bidding process and has invited the Minister to address any concerns or questions and to facilitate a fact-based discussion.