East African Crude Oil Pipeline: The Inside Story Details emerge of how the crude oil pipeline will be financed, managed
New details have emerged in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) regarding how it will be financed, run and managed. For starters, Uganda plans to construct a pipeline that will transport its crude oil to the international market through the Tanzanian coastal port of Tanga.
The pipeline, is expected to be completed by the year 2020, when the country is scheduled to start oil production. In fact, Uganda’s President, Yoweri Museveni and his Tanzanian counterpart recently commissioned the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. The two leaders laid mark stones for the crude oil pipeline in Mutukula, Kyotera district and Kabaale in Hoima district. Total E&P Uganda, a subsidiary of French oil giant, Total S.A, is spearheading the construction of the crude oil pipeline on behalf of the joint venture partners. Adewale Fayemi, the general manager, Total E&P Uganda says discussions are ongoing to discuss on the formalities of how the pipeline will be run. Already, an agreement has been reached that the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) will be run and managed by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) – private pipeline company. This means that a private company will be incorporated with joint venture partners – Tullow Uganda, Cnooc Uganda Ltd and Total E&P Uganda, and the governments of Uganda and Tanzania as shareholders in the company.
Uganda’s minister of Energy and Mineral Development, Irene Muloni, says that the National Pipeline Company (U) Ltd – a subsidiary of the Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC) will own shares in the pipeline company (Special Purpose Vehicle), on behalf of the government of Uganda. As of now, the pipeline company (Special Purpose Vehicle) is yet to be incorporated.
“Negotiations are underway for the setup and corporate structure of the proposed company, that will run EACOP”, Samantha Muhwezi, the Legal Advisor EACOP at Total E&P Uganda explains. The pipeline company, will build, own and operate the crude oil pipeline project.
Eng. Muloni said that there is a possibility of bringing on board investors into EACOP in addition to the governments of Uganda, Tanzania and the Joint Venture partners. Once the pipeline company is incorporated, another sticky issue that will have to be ironed out is how the company will meet its tax obligations both in Uganda and Tanzania. However, at the moment there is already commitment to exempt it from tax.
“There will be no pay transit tax, no Value Added Tax, no corporate income tax. The government of Tanzania gave us 20 years depreciation tax holiday, granted us a free corridor where the pipe line passes and promised to buy shares in the pipe line,” President Museveni said, while laying a mark stone for EACOP at Mutukula, Kyotera district.
Another issue under consideration is the financing of the pipeline project. At least $ 3.5 billion dollars is needed to finance EACOP. Accordingly, to preliminary information, the funds will be raised through debt and equity from joint venture partners and national oil companies of Uganda and Tanzania. Already, Total E&P Uganda, Tanzania and Uganda have appointed three companies as financial advisors for the pipeline. A consortium of South African based Standard Bank, Imperial Bank of China (IBC) and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Ltd, were recently appointed as the financial transactional advisors for EACOP.
“They are advising us on how to structure the project to enable lenders to be able to finance the project,” Muhwezi said. Sources indicate that IBC is expected to advise CNOOC Uganda Ltd while SMBC will work with Total E&P Uganda, the lead joint venture partner on the crude oil export pipeline. The special purpose vehicle will also charge $12.2 dollars for every barrel of oil that will be transported in the pipeline, making Uganda’s crude oil profitable even at today’s rate of $50 per barrel.
Uganda’ crude oil has low Sulphur content and therefore, waxy and solidifies at room temperature. This requires heating of the pipeline to at least 50 degrees Celsius to make the crude flow. This means it will require a lot of electricity to heat the pipeline. It will have eight main pumping stations and five heating stations.
“We might use solar energy to reduce on the power to heat the pipeline,”. Muhwezi said. Once completed, at 1,445 kilometers, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, will be the longest electrically – heated pipeline in the world. Uganda will host 296kms of the pipeline, while the remaining 1,149kms will be in Tanzania. In Uganda, the 24-inch diameter, heated pipeline, will go through the districts of Hoima, Kakumiro, Kyankwanzi, Mubende, Gomba, Ssembabule, Lwengo, Rakai. In Tanzania, it will go through eight regions and 24 districts. It will be a buried pipeline, with an estimated 1-2 meters buried underground and planned to have a daily flow rate of 216,000 barrels per day. It will be designed to add volumes of crude from other countries like Tanzania, South Sudan or Democratic Republic of Congo, incase, they want to use it. During construction, EACOP is expected to generate between 10,000 to 15,000 direct jobs and 30,000 temporary jobs at peak.
Tanzania’s President, John Pombe Magufuli recently pledged Tanzania would now buy crude oil from Uganda instead of incurring high expenses of importing from the Arab world. The Hoima-Tanga route was selected because it offered the least cost route for the transportation of crude oil from Uganda to the East African Coast. Muloni says the Front End Engineering Design report for EACOP and environmental social impact assessment (ESIA) studies, expected to be completed next February, will lead to FID in the first quarter of 2018.
Tanzania’s President John Pombe Magufuli wants investors, the governments of Uganda and Tanzania to expedite the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). Magufuli argues that the pipeline should be constructed in the shortest time possible instead of waiting until 2020 to realize first oil.
Government of Uganda expects to start oil production by 2020 after construction of key infrastructures like the pipeline and the refinery. However, Magufuli believes that first oil can be fast tracked.
“Let us move forward. Why should we wait until 2020? The investors are here, we have the money, and we have the experts. Investors know in case we start now, they will get the results immediately, so, why should we wait results until 2020. We need this project now,” he said emphatically.
Construction of 1,445 km crude oil pipeline is scheduled to be completed by 2020. The pipeline project, spearheaded by Total E & P, one of the joint venture oil partners is expected to cost $3.55 billion. Magufuli who is on a three state visit to Uganda was speaking at Mutukula in Kyotera district on Thursday, after laying a cross-border mark-stone for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). He is also expected to lay a mark stone for the EACOP in Kabaale, Hoima on Saturday. “We are ready for the project, we shall be ready, today, tomorrow and we shall always be ready for the project,” Mugufuli explained.
At the same function, the two Presidents also recognized a team of scientists that spearheaded exploration activities leading to the discovery of oil and gas resources. Uganda’s Minister of Energy and Mineral Development Irene Muloni said EACOP will support economic growth in the region.
“As government, we encourage investors to continue supporting national content in the region which is a key factor in our socioeconomic development. We shall put in place the necessary policies, laws and regulations to ensure that our people are trained, acquire employment and entrepreneurship is boosted,” Eng Muloni said.
Government of Uganda will participate in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project through Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC). “Not only will the project spur infrastructure development for both countries including road network at a port at Tanga, it will also facilitate and boost trade in the region,” Muloni added.
She said that building the pipeline from Kabaale to Tanga is premised on being the least cost, least risky route. The 1,445 kilometer heated pipeline is poised to become the longest heated crude oil pipeline in the world. It will provide access to Uganda’s crude oil to the international market. In August this year, the two leaders laid the first foundation stone in Tanga for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline.
Muloni Tables Kanywataba Oil Agreement before Parliament signed with Armour
Gov’t earns Shs 1 bn in signature bonus for Kanywataba oil block
Government of Uganda signed a Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), and issued a License for Petroleum Exploration, Development and Production over the Kanywataba Contract Area with Armour Energy Limited (AEL) from Australia. The exploration license was signed on Thursday, September 14 at Amber House in Kampala. Energy Minister, Irene Muloni signed on behalf of government, while Armour Energy Limited was represented by its Chief Executive Officer. The Kanywataba Contract Area is located in Ntoroko district.
Eng. Irene Muloni, Minister of Energy and Mineral Development said, “This is the first Production Sharing Agreement to be signed in line with Section 58 of the Petroleum Exploration, Development and Production Act 2013, the Legal regime under which I announced the First Competitive Licensing Round during February 2015” Muloni said.
She added, “A signature bonus together with research and training fees, and annual acreage rental fees for the first exploration period amounting to US$ 316,000 have been paid to the Uganda Petroleum Fund”.
The Kanywataba exploration license has an acreage of 344 square kilometers for four years split into two periods of two years each. Muloni said, a minimum work program which includes acquisition of seismic data and drilling of at least one well.
Muloni said, the PSA provides for a requirement to train and employ suitably qualified Ugandan citizens has been provided for in addition to payment of annual training fees to government.
“The award was cleared by Cabinet and the Ministries of Finance, Planning and Economic Development together with that of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. The Minister also said that on Friday 8th September 2017, Cabinet approved the award of two licenses in the Ngassa block and that the agreements would also be signed in a few weeks’ time,” Muloni said.
Weighing in on the exploration license, Robert Kasande, the acting Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, added that one of the major achievements from this licensing round was the development of a state of the art data room which remains open to the industry to view and purchase data, and will also be used for future licensing rounds.
“The Ministry was able to generate $ 2.4 million United States dollars (Approximately Shs 8 billion) from the sale of data to bidders which was paid to the Uganda Petroleum Fund”, he said.
Uganda’s first licensing round covered six blocks with a total acreage of 2,674 Km2 in the Albertine Graben, Uganda’s most prospective sedimentary basin. Out of the nineteen (19) applicants at the Request for Qualification Stage, sixteen proceeded to the Request for Proposal stage and four emerged successful and proceeded to the negotiations stage. This first licensing round was undertaken in line with the National Oil and Gas Policy for Uganda (2008) and in accordance with the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013.
The signing of a Production Sharing Agreement and an award of exploration license bring the number of companies in Uganda’s petroleum industry to four – Total, Tullow, Cnooc and now Armour Energy Limited.
PSA tabled before Parliament
Later, in a move to enhance transparency in the oil and gas sector, the minister tabled before Parliament Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) signed between the government of Uganda and Armour Energy Limited – Australian oil company, over Kanywataba oil block in Ntoroko district.
The oil sector unfortunately remains shrouded in secrecy. The previous Production Sharing Agreements between government and oil companies have been under key and lock and neither accessible to Parliament not the public. A court case filed by two journalists Charles Mwanguhya Mpagi and Angelo Izama to have the oil agreements made public didn’t yield any results.
The Minister also tabled before parliament the Intergovernmental Agreement between the government of Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania on the crude oil pipeline outlining the contents of the agreement.
Under the Petroleum Act, 2012, the Minister of Energy and Mineral Development is mandated to furnish parliament with periodic reports about the oil and gas sector.
After tabling the report, the opposition Chief Whip Ibrahim Semujju Nganda moved a motion that the report be differed for further consideration. “We shouldn’t rush through a report of this significance to the country. It is important that Members of Parliament discuss the report, when the atmosphere is peaceful and conducive for discussion not that of intimidation,” Semujju who is also the Kira Municipality MP said.
On his part, Stephen Birahwa Mukitale (MP Bulisa), dismissed Muloni’s report as lacking. “The report is devoid of figures, it is devoid of the budget, deadlines, how can we talk of oil and even have first oil by 2020 without a budget and deadlines,” he wondered.
He added, “We need a matrix spelling out the role, budget and responsibility of each and every ministry and department in the oil sector, because this is a multi-sectoral sector, if we are to have first oil by 2020,” Mukitale proposed. Kadaga asked the minister to avail the matrix to the committee.
He said it is wrong for the Minister of Energy and Mineral Development to purport to speak for the Ministries of Water and Environment, Works and Transport and Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) and accused the minister of lack of coordination. “There is no road contractor in Bulisa, don’t take us for granted. Other ministries don’t have a budget for oil and gas activities. The president talked about a budget cut of 10 percent from every ministry to finance oil and gas activities, where is that money,” he wondered.
Prof Morris Ogenga Latigo (MP Agago North) wants the previous oil agreement to also be tabled before parliament and MPs allowed access. “I wish the minister could table Production Sharing Agreement for oil blocks where we have already discovered oil,” Ogenga wondered.
Ogenga who is also the chairperson of Acholi Technical Working Group on oil and gas implored fellow lawmakers to read and scrutinize the Kanywataba Production Sharing Agreement warning them that if parliament doesn’t provide oversight for the sector, then the country would be in trouble.
Speaker, Rebecca Kadaga, referred the Minister’s report and the Kanywataba oil agreement to the Committee on Natural Resources to scrutinize the report and report back to parliament. However, no time line was given on when the committee is supposed to report.
About Armour Energy
Armour Energy Limited focuses on the discovery and development of natural gas and associated liquid resources in Australia. Armour Energy Limited was founded in 2009 and is based in Brisbane, Australia. It has 100% interests in the McArthur, South Nicholson, and Georgina Basins covering an area of 33 million acres in the Northern Territory and Queensland; and interests in the onshore Gippsland Basin, Victoria in joint venture with Lakes Oil NL. The company, through its subsidiaries, also holds interests in 7 exploration permits for minerals in Queensland among other oil and gas exploration works.
The Petroleum Fund currently has $ 72 million dollars and Shs 10bn on its Shillings account instead of the $709 that was collected
At least Shs 2 trillion oil revenues has already been spent on infrastructure and other energy projects, a report of the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) reveals. However, the report adopted by parliament last week, does not give details of how and where the money was spent, but the Secretary to the Treasury in a letter, states the money was spent on the construction of Karuma hydro power plant.
One of the terms of reference for the Committee was to establish all revenues received in the Petroleum Fund. Accordingly, during the investigations, the Committee requested the Office of the Auditor General (AOG) to conduct a special audit to establish all revenues received by government in respect of the Petroleum Fund. After the audit, the report notes, it was discovered that so far, government received $709 million dollars in petroleum revenues between 2011 – March, 2017.
“The Committee established that a sum of $709 million dollars which has been ring fenced for infrastructure and energy development, accrued to the sector since petroleum activities started,” the report reads in part. However, as at 14th March, 2017, the Petroleum Fund had only $ 72.5 million dollars on its dollar account and a paltry Shs 10bn on its Shillings account.
“Out of this, $633.7 million dollars (approximately Shs 2.2 trillion) was transferred to the Consolidated Fund [and spent on Karuma hydro power project] while the sum of $72.3 million dollars is being held in dollar account and Shs 10bn Shillings account in the Petroleum Fund.
The Committee report reveals that by the time the Public Finance Management Act came into force in February, 2015, the oil revenue account in Bank of Uganda had a total of Shs 1.36 trillion, which was transferred to the consolidated fund.
In the report, MPs question, why Shs 1.36 trillion was transferred from the Oil Revenues Account in Bank of Uganda to the Consolidated Fund, instead of transferring it to the Petroleum Fund as required by the Public Finance and Accountability Act, 2015, as the fund’s opening balance.
However, in a letter dated June, 24th, 2015, jointly signed by Mr Keith Muhakanizi the Secretary to the Treasury and Mr Lawrence Ssemakula the Accountant General, and seen by our writer, the duo directed the director in charge of Banking at Bank of Uganda to transfer the money, close the account and open a new account in the name of the Uganda Petroleum Fund.
“Prior to the enactment of the PFMA [Public Finance Management Act, 2015], the oil funds on account were earmarked to support the financial year 2014/2015 budget for Karuma hydro power plant, and were released from the consolidated fund and thus need to be refunded to the Uganda Consolidated Fund (UCF),” the duo wrote and further explained, “In order to operationalize the Petroleum Fund, there is need to open bank accounts for the Fund, where all oil revenues received by government from 6th March, 2015 shall be deposited. I authorize you to open a Uganda Shillings (UGX) and dollar (USD) accounts in the name of Uganda Petroleum Fund.”
According to the letter, the principal signatories to the Petroleum Fund are; Mr Keith Muhakanizi, Mr Patrick Ocailap (deputy Secretary to the Treasury), and Mr Lawrence Ssemakula, the Accountant General.
“The Committee recommends close monitoring and supervision of the activities of the petroleum authority and the Uganda National Oil company Limited. The relevant committees of parliament should receive quarterly reports from the Authority and National Oil Company,” the report recommends.
In January, 2017, the Committee chaired by Hon. Abdul Katuntu (Bugweri MP) was tasked to investigate the controversial Shs 6bn reward to 42 government officials for winning a tax dispute between government of Uganda and Heritage Oil and Gas Limited an arbitration tribunal in Landon in 2015.
The gist of the investigation was to establish the legality of the Shs 6bn rewarded to 42 government officials for their effort in winning a tax arbitration case between government of Uganda and Heritage Oil and Gas Limited in Landon.
In 2010, Heritage Oil and Gas Company Limited sold its participating stake in the Albertine Graben to Tullow Uganda Limited at $ 1.45 billion – a transaction that attracted Capital Gains Tax. However, Heritage objected to tax assessments in the Tax Appeal Tribunal and also initiated arbitration proceedings in Landon against government of Uganda under the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law Arbitration Rules, 1976. The company sought a refund of all monies collected as Capital Gains Tax.
In February 2015, the tribunal dismissed Heritage’s application and awarded government of Uganda $ 4 million dollars in costs incurred in defending the application. The committee established that government hired Curtis Mallet – Provost, Colt &Mosle LLP, a British law firm to represent government of Uganda in the arbitration proceedings at a cost of $8.6 million dollars.
Following the victory, the President acting on a request from senior government officials rewarded the 42 officials with Shs 6bn for their contribution.
The committee observes that the selection of the beneficiaries was not all inclusive. ‘For example, Bernard Sanya, the initiator of the tax two assessments was neither on the first list nor the second list of the beneficiaries. According to the report, there was a lot of informality and arbitrariness in the selection of beneficiaries.
“The committee concluded that the Shs 6n reward was contrary to standard practices of rewarding public officers, as provided for in the law. The President’s approval of the Shs 6bn was bonafide. However, it was an error of judgement,” the report reads.
The Committee recommended that all funds paid out of URA account to beneficiaries of the “handshake” should be refunded and all officers who flouted the law should be held accountable.
Responding to the report, Ali Sekatawa, Assistant Commissioner for Litigation, one of the beneficiaries of the handshake threatened to petition court over the report, arguing that the Committee selectively evaluated evidence before it, and thus came to wrong conclusions. He said parliament has no powers to order him to refund the money, since it was not given parliament. It came from URA’s account that had been appropriated by parliament. Parliament unanimously adopted the report.
“The Committee further established that whereas the costs awarded to URA by the Tax Appeals Tribunal and the High Court of Uganda has not been taxed and recovered, up to approximately $ 15 million has not been recovered. The bill of costs is yet to be filed. The International Arbitration Tribunal in Landon did award Government of Uganda costs amounting to $4 million which also remains unrecovered,” the report reads in part.
The report asks the Attorney General to recover the $ 4million dollars as costs awarded by the arbitration tribunal within 90 days from the date of tabling the report. However, Ali Sekatawa says it will be difficult for government to recover the costs from Heritage Oil and Gas Limited, since the company was delisted from the Landon Stock Exchange.
Following the revelations by former Energy Minister, Syda Bbumba, that she signed the Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) without reading through the agreements, the report recommends that politicians should be barred from signing such agreements.
“Parliament should revisit section 8 of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 2013 with a view of amending it and provide for technical people to be signatories to PSAs. All recoverable costs incurred by oil companies should be submitted to parliament quarterly,” he report reads.
Weighing in on the report, Odonga Otto (Aruu MP), said “The good thing we have a report adopted by parliament, so even if it takes 10 years, the beneficiaries of the handshake will refund that money” he said.
By Edward Ssekika
Is a rock found in your land a mineral and therefore vested in the State?
A family in Oyam District has sued the Government of Uganda and Sino Hydro Corporation Ltd for unlawfully crushing ‘its’ rock into aggregate and using it to construct Karuma hydro-electric power dam without compensation, Oil in Uganda exclusively reveals.
In the suit Etot Paul and others Vs Attorney General and Sino Hydro Corporation Ltd, filed in 2015 in the Land Division of the High Court, the family of Mzee Etot wants court to compel Government and Sino Hydro Corporation Ltd – a Chinese company constructing the 600 megawatts Karuma dam, to pay for aggregate derived from the family rock.
According to the family, it all started in 2012, when the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development decided to compulsorily acquire land near and around Karuma to pave way for the construction of the dam.
“Part of Mzee Etot’s land was among parcels that government acquired for construction of the dam. However, government only assessed the value of the land and development on it without taking into consideration the value of the rock on the land,” family spokesperson told Oil in Uganda.
The family claims that since it owns the land, it also owns the rock on the land, and therefore deserves compensation for the value of the rock.
“Consequently, government unlawfully took over the family’s parcels of land adjacent to river Nile, and handed it to Sino Hydro Corporation Ltd for the construction of the dam,” the plaint reads, further noting that part of the land which also contains a rock is also their property.
Through their lawyer, George Omunyokol, the family claims Sino Hydro Corporation brought a rock crusher and crushed the rock into aggregate that it is using to construct Karuma hydro-electric power dam free of charge.
Omunyokol argues that stones and rocks are not minerals and therefore government should compensate the family for unlawful use of its rock.
“The stone/rock in our clients land is not a mineral because the Constitution excludes it from minerals,” he states in the plaint.
Omunyokol’s argument is premised on Article 244(1) of the Constitution of Uganda that vests the entire property in and control of all minerals and petroleum in government on behalf of the Citizens.
Article 244 (5) of the Constitution excludes clay, murram, sand or any stone commonly used for building or similar purposes. “So, clearly, the Constitution is clear, it excludes stones from minerals,” Omunyokol told Oil in Uganda.
Consequently, the family hired professional geologists to quantify the value of the rock and according to the technical evaluation report seen by Oil in Uganda, puts the value of the rock at $ 6.5million (approximately Shs 22 billion).
According to the geologists, the rock has capacity to produce about 650,000 tons of aggregates. Therefore, at a market value of $10 (about Shs 33,000/=) per ton, the rock is worth $ 6.5 million (about Shs 22bn). Therefore, in the suit, the family wants court to order government to pay $ 6.5 million in compensation.
In addition, the Chief Government Valuer conducted valuation of the entire family property which includes; the value of crops, buildings and land to worth 813million Uganda shillings. These monies have not been paid to date.
Oil in Uganda has established that government withheld payment of the compensation, due to the standoff over the rock.
The family seeks a declaration that the actions of Sino Hydro Corporation quarrying the family’s rock, crushing it into aggregates and using the aggregates for the construction without compensation is unlawful and unconstitutional and seek compensation for the value of the crushed rock at the market rate.
However, the Attorney General, in a Written Statement of Defense to the suit, insists that a rock is a mineral and therefore vested in government and the family is not entitled to any compensation so court should dismiss the suit with costs.
“In respect of the claim for compensation for the rocks found on the suits, the plaintiffs [family] are not entitled to compensation in view of the provisions of the Constitution read together with various provisions of the Mining Act 2003,” the AG argues in the defense.
According to Andrew Karamagi, the legal argument by George Omunyokol is sound since rock is part of land and is not a mineral, hence its value should be factored into the computation for the final value of the said piece of land.
“There is a Latin maxim about land which argues to the effect that cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum (translated to mean- he who owns the land owns everything above and below it). In mutatis mutandis with the Constitution of Uganda which precludes minerals, it is clear that this rock is on the land and is therefore part of the impugned land,” he told Oil in Uganda.
Last year, Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA), was embroiled in wrangle with businessman Pius Mugalaasi, over the value of a rock on the Entebbe- Express highway on his land. The Roads Authority was eventually forced to divert the road.
The value of rocks found on land is becoming an issue given the demand of aggregate for various on-going projects. If for instance the court rules that a rock is not a mineral, and therefore a property of the land owner, even when exploited for commercial purposes, will set a precedent that could raise the value of rocky lands.
Report by Edward Ssekika.
In this part two of our artisanal miners’ series, we delve in the lack of a clear tax framework to generate revenues for local governments from artisan mining activities. We analyze the potential amount of money local governments could generate, but are currently losing from Gold mining operations.
The Mining Score Card recently launched by ActionAid Uganda in partnership with Africa Centre for Mining Policy (ACEMP) and National Planning Authority (NPA) revealed that there is a weak reporting practice in the mining sector.
It also revealed that even though the mining sector has a great potential of contributing to economic growth and poverty alleviation in the country; less has been done to harness this.
The office of the Auditor General last year revealed in his Value-for-Money Audit report 2016 that government had lost at least 4.4 billion shillings (approx.1.3 million dollars) in uncollected mineral royalties in the last five years.
Currently, the government has embarked on undertaking review processes to update the relevant mining legislations. A Draft Green Paper on Mineral Policy is before the cabinet for review and the review of the Mining Act 2003 is yet to commence.
One of the proposed amendments is the regularization of artisanal mining in Uganda to legally recognize them; integrate them in formal tax arrangements; enable them qualify for social goods, services and infrastructure and to increase revenues to local governments for proper managements. The consequences of under-regulation of artisan miners have wide ramifications and are far-reaching. It includes artisan miners not having access to social goods, services and infrastructure put in place by government; not being taxed appropriately; being prone to machinations by unscrupulous individuals in authorities; local governments not being able to realize their revenue collection targets; and being exposed to crime and conflicts.
The lack of clear sub-national taxation arrangements for artisan miners and utilization of revenue collected from artisan mining is denying local governments of much needed revenues. This is mainly not due to policy or legislative deficiencies, but more due to policy implementation and legislative enforcement. Busoga region is rich in mineral resources particularly Aluminous clays, yttrium, and rare metals such as gallium and Scandium estimated at $370 billion (about Shs942 trillion) by Kweri Investments, the company conducting Feasibility studies in the region. This wealth as mentioned in Part one; has attracted an influx of immigrants from all over the country and as far as Kenya who hope to tap into these resources.
According to Methuselah Batambuze, Community Development officer Buddaya sub-county, the population at Nabwala mining site before the influx was about 2000 and the indigenous people were into agriculture. He however noted that in 2015, with the discovery of gold in that area, the population increased to over 10,000 people.
Batambuze adds that when the miners were convinced that gold was ‘finished’, some left in search for new mining sites.
“What you are seeing now are trucks taking the tailings to other places where they are processed using cyanide for better results,” he told Oil in Uganda
Majidu Musisi, who took part in the first exploration and exploitation for gold in the area in the early 1990s, says he has been at it for now 10 years and has made on average 4 million shillings a week on bad days and over 20 million shillings on good days.
“I have invested in real estate and own more than 5 commercial buildings in Bugiri Municipality,” subdued Musisi reveals to Oil in Uganda.
‘I have also created employment for all these people you see in this mining site,’’ he added pointing to hundreds of youth digging for gold around the site.
A simple analysis of the money made by Musisi in one week; at a conservative estimate of UGX 4 million a week, he makes UGX 16 million a month and UGX 192 million a year. He then shares this money with the people he has employed which to our surprise do not even add-up to 50% of the money Musisi earns. A miner who works at the pit is paid a minimum wage of UGX. 25,000 a day. This money is not taxed because Musisi, like other artisanal miners, are still regarded as an illegal miner.
According to the Mining Act 2003, royalties are to be shared with mineral producing districts based on a basic revenue sharing schemes. The Second Schedule to the Mining Act stipulates that the central government is to take 80% of royalties collected and then distribute the remaining 20% as follows; 17% to “local governments” and 3% to “landowners or bona-fide occupants of land subject to mineral rights.”
This presupposes that central government would first collect the royalties before the local government can benefit from the contribution, implying that local governments do not have the right to tax/ collect the royalties. This is undermining revenue generation and social goods and services delivery at local government level. A failure on the part of central government to collect the royalties on time in the right amounts and distribute them accordingly to the beneficial local governments further worsens the revenue situation at local level. Consequently, local governments suffer financial deficiencies and stress.
The above cited revenue sharing scheme is common in mineral rich jurisdictions and therefore is a widely acceptable practice. However, whether it is the best practice for central government to first collect the royalties and then distribute them to the respective beneficiary district is not clear. We do appreciate that it is good practice to recognize the rights of landowners and bona-fide occupants of land where minerals are discovered and exploited. It is our opinion that local governments are given right to collect royalties and deduct what is due to them and remit that due to central government.
Our rough calculation indicates that if this money would, however, be taxed and royalties deducted, the district is to take 10 per cent of the revenues in royalties and it would generate about UGX. 19 million to its budget. This revenue contribution would be just from Musisi and assuming there are 100 other miners in Bugiri district making the same amount of money, it would be UGX. 1.9bn hence make significant contribution to the district budget.
According to the Bugiri district Budget Framework paper 2016/2017, the rest of the district’s UGX 21 billion shillings budget comes from government and donor programmes.
Interestingly, Musisi has never paid a single direct tax from the income derived from the sale of his gold to the ever available gold trading middlemen.
Just like in other mining areas Oil in Uganda has visited, the roads to the mining area where Musisi operates are impassable during the rainy season.
“If you are not round here and you want access my mining area, you cannot access it when you are not driving a four-wheeled car,” he warns.
Sadly, even the basic amenities like a pharmacy or clinic are not available for the miners who work there.
Some of these things would be solved through paying royalties as District revenues would increase.
According to Shafic Butanda, the Acting Community development Officer Bugiri District, in the more than 10 years small scale miners have been in Bugiri district, there has never been any contribution to the district budget from them ‘’Even right now we are going for a budget meeting but the briefing papers have mentioned the potential revenues that could be collected from gold mining’’ He adds.
Unfortunately, there has been no government plan to formalise Small scale mining in the country. And in Bugiri district there is no scheme to collect royalties since the law gives those powers to collect revenues to the government, which then shares with the district, the district officers say they were not even aware they could collect taxes from the small scale miners. Mr Shafic Butanda the Acting Community Development Officer says ‘’they will start looking into ways of raising money from the miners’
However, even in this, there appears to be an attempt to raise royalties from small-scale gold miners in the Neighbouring district of Namayingo, where according to the Banda Subcounty Chairperson Oguttu Bonaventure, they collect some ‘’little’ money from the miners at Nakuddi gold mining site. “What we collect is based on the same rates as the trading license for the shops in the sub-county which is still little money,’’ he says.
A Case study on revenue sharing schemes in the mining areas of Kabale and Moroto districts commissioned by Transparency International Uganda in 2015, found that while the districts complained of lack of information and erratic payment of their royalties share from government, even government itself doesn’t have enough information and depends on the disclosures of the miners to collect royalties, which in the case of small-scale miners is nonexistent.
This is because small scale miners are usually individuals who rent portions of land for mining from an individual, with an agreement to share what is found on the ground, this is what happens in Nabwala Bugiri district and Nakudi in Namayingo district. Taxing individuals has always been hard and there is an effort by various civil society organisations including ActionAid Uganda to help small-scale miners in Uganda form associations, help them acquire mining licenses and formalise their relationship with government.
This turn of events according to Mr Shafic Butanda, Community Development Officer of Bugiri district will prompt the district to look at creating a mining policy modelled on the National mining policy ‘’Maybe that way we can also help our people benefit from the minerals in the district,’’ he says.
We recommend that local governments are given right to collect royalties and deduct what is due to them and remit the rest to central government. This way local government will not starve of revenues.
Report by Collins Hinamundi Oil, Gas and Land reporter
Tanzania Government has expressed concern over delays in the development of the Hoima-Tanga crude oil pipeline, Tanzania Minister for Energy and Mineral Development Prof. Sospeter Muhongo has revealed.
Speaking at the launch of the Front End Engineering Design (FEED) study for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline Project ( EACOP) in Kampala, Prof. Muhongo expressed distress stating that the implementation of the project had been delayed for two months.
“We [Tanzania government] are not happy with the speed at which the project is moving. The launch of FEED was supposed to have been done in November, 2016 and I hope that Uganda can fast-track this process with the contractors to ensure that it is completed within the time frame,” he noted.
He argued that the land acquisition in Uganda is complex compared to Tanzania since in the latter; land belongs to government and is vested in the President making it less strenuous for the project.
“The biggest part of the pipeline will be in Tanzania, something that will make land acquisition for the project easy,” he said.
The FEED study; a fundamental step that will provide detailed engineering design for the pipeline, will be undertaken for eight months by Gulf Interstate Engineering, a Houston, Texas based company and is projected to cost $11.5 (about shs 42bn).
According to Hon. Irene Muloni, Uganda’s Minister for Energy and Mineral Development, the study is expected to identify the actual route and technical designs for the crude oil pipeline as well the estimated cost for the project.
Muloni explained that President Yoweri Museveni has issued a directive to her ministry to ensure ‘first oil’ by 2020.
“Due to the presidential directive, both the oil refinery and crude oil export pipeline will be attended to concurrently and the FEED study shows a clear determination of government to have ‘first oil’ by 2020,” she said.
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline Project (EACOP) is speared-headed by Total E&P Uganda Limited on behalf of the joint venture oil companies and will see construction of a 1,445 Kilometer, 24 inch diameter heated crude oil pipeline.
Muloni further stated that preliminary studies have put the cost of crude oil pipeline at $3.55 billion dollars, but the FEED study is expected to establish the actual cost of the project and hence inform the governments of Uganda and Tanzania as well as joint venture companies to reach a Final Investment Decisions (FID).
According to Jean – Luc Bruggeman, Total’s Mid Stream Project Director, the crude oil pipeline once completed, will be the world’s longest heated pipeline and will require six heating stations from Kabaale to Tanga, a heat tracing system; an electrical cable within the pipeline to keep the temperatures at 50 degrees to enable the oil flow, a fibre optic cable for communications and a high voltage power line.
The Governments of Uganda and Tanzania in partnership with the Lake Albert Upstream Partners (Total, Tullow and CNOOC) last year opted for the Hoima-Tanga route after conducting a feasibility study for the LAPSSET Corridor.
Report by Edward Ssekika.
Three months after RT Global Resources pulled out of negotiations to construct the oil refinery, government has launched a search for a new investor. Read More
A report authored by technocrats at the Energy Ministry’s Petroleum Directorate chose the Tanzania route for Uganda’s oil pipeline to the Indian ocean, Oil in Uganda has learnt. Read More