Patriotic Bid Document Under Probe by TPHL

PORT OF SPAIN -THE Trinidad Petroleum Holdings Limited (TPHL) Tuesday said that it is in the process of determining whether any offence had been committed after Energy Minister Stuart Young said that a false document had been submitted by a local company in its bid to acquire the state-owned oil refinery.

TPHL, which was formed after the state–owned PETROTRIN was restructured in November 2018, said in a brief statement that it is in receipt of a document submitted by Patriotic Energy Services Company Limited in furtherance of its non-binding offer for the oil refinery.

According to TPHL, the document “was specifically identified as evidence of a wire transfer of US$1.5 billion into a local bank, with Patriotic Energies and Technology Company Limited as the beneficiary.

“Information to hand suggests that there was no such transfer. Accordingly, the said document has been referred to the Company’s legal advisors and the relevant authorities for advice, including whether any offence has been committed, and thereafter, 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 with respect to their proposals for either sale or lease of the refinery.

He listed them as the locally based CRO Consortium, US-based INCA Energy LLC and Nigeria-based Oando PLC.

But while Imbert made no reference to the non-selection of Patriotic Energy Services Company Limited, which is owned by the Oilfield Workers Trade Union (OWTU), 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 he was informed by the evaluation committee that Patriotic did not meet the requirements to show 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.”

But he said the document appears to show this money was received at a local bank and that the committee was asked if this information was correct and if it was, why was Patriotic’s second bid for the refinery 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 the document was stamped by an unknown person.

“It is easy to verify this. It is either that it exists or it doesn’t exist and I can 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.

But in a statement, the company said the statement by Young was misleading and mischievous, “as what he presented, under parliamentary cover, was not Patriotic’s financial partner that 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”.

“As a matter of fact, there was some level of comfort and satisfaction with the preferred financial partner. We remain confident that our preferred financier can stand the scrutiny of any due diligence process and invite the same.

“Patriotic remains confident that we met all the requirements and have presented the best proposal for and on behalf of the workers and the people of Trinidad and Tobago,” it added.

But in a statement posted on his Facebook page, Young said the statement from Patriotic Energies did not address the submission of a “fake document” and that it also did not “refute the fact that they submitted a fake wire transfer document but instead they introduce the concept of having a ‘preferred financial partner’”.

“I stated, with the evidence in my hand, that Patriotic Energies, produced a fake document purporting to be wire transfer to a local bank for US$1.5 billion. Due diligence confirmed that no such wire transfer was received by the local bank to the account of Patriotic Energies.

“It is clear and obvious that Patriotic Energies is avoiding responding to the fact of the fake document that they submitted. They should be asked whether there was a document submitted by them that indicated a purported wire transfer of US$1.5 billion and if so, where is the money, or was the document fake,” he said.

N a second statement, Patriotic Energy  said “whatever document the minister was brandishing is totally irrelevant.”

It said that on May 10, 2024, Patriotic submitted a non-binding proposal identifying three potential financiers and that a meeting held on June 7, 2024, both Scotiabank International and Patriotic indicated that “we were still doing our due diligence and verification to substantiate the funding capabilities of the three that were submitted.

“Patriotic after its due diligence and since we could not substantiate the proof of funding we eliminated them all and on August 3, 2024. we submitted a new financier to Scotiabank International for consideration by the evaluation committee.”

The company said that on August 21, 2024, “our preferred financial partner, along with representatives of Patriotic, met with the Cabinet-appointed evaluation committee and presented their comprehensive details of the financing plan.

“All documentation provided was thoroughly reviewed, and no concerns were raised regarding their validity at the meeting. At no time was any of the eliminated three potential financiers submitted to the evaluation committee or brought back into the process as they did not meet Patriotic’s requirement. Therefore, whatever document the minister was brandishing is totally irrelevant.”

The union-owned company said that if Young’s claims are the basis for rejecting Patriotic’s bid “we therefore respectfully call for a reassessment of everything that was presented by our financial partner to the Cabinet-appointed committee on August 21, 2024, as we are assured that we already adhered to all the procedures and processes required.

“Patriotic Energy Services Co Ltd remains committed to transparency and fair processes. We invite open communication with all stakeholders, including the Honorable Minister, to address any concerns or questions and to facilitate a fact-based discussion.” (CMC)