The Presidency yesterday released the report of the forensic audit carried out by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) on the alleged missing $20 billion oil cash. From the report, it is clear that the Nigerian Petroleum Development Company (NPDC) did not aid the diligent implementation of the audit firm’s mandate. PwC ran into some brickwalls in the course of its work. The key limitations were: inavailability of relevant NPDC personnel to give information on the company’s operations and NPDC’s failure to provide it with detailed breakdown of the crude oil assets, volume of allocations to Strategic Alliance Partners and list of receiving banks, account numbers and bank statements for crude proceeds. Excerpts of the report:
Based on the work conducted by our team from the commencement of this mandate up until 29 January 2015, our conclusions are as follows;
•Total gross revenues generated from FGN crude oil liftings was $69.34bn and NOT $67 billion as earlier stated by the Reconciliation Committee for the period from January
2012 to July 2013.
• Total cash remitted into the Federation accounts in relation to crude oil liftings was $50.81bn and NOT $47bn as earlier stated by the Reconciliation Committee for the period from January 2012 to July 2013.
• NNPC has provided information on the difference leading to a potential excess remittance of $0.74 billion (without considering expected remittances from NPDC). Other indirect costs of $2.81 billion which were not part of the submission to the Senate Committee hearing have been defrayed to arrive at this position.
• The resulting potential excess remittance indicates that the Corporation operates an unsustainable model. Forty six percent (46%) of proceeds of domestic crude oil revenues for the review period was spent on operations and subsidies. The Corporation is unable to sustain monthly remittances to the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), and also meet its operational costs entirely from the proceeds of domestic crude oil revenues, and have had to incur third party liabilities to bridge the funding gap. Furthermore, the review period recorded international crude oil prices averaging $122.5 per barrel (Average Platts prices for 2012). As at the time of concluding this report, international crude oil prices average about $46.07 per barrel2, which is about sixty two percent (62%) reduction when compared to the crude oil prices for the review period. If the NNPC overhead costs and subsidies are maintained (assuming crude oil production volumes are maintained), the corporation may have to exhaust all the proceeds of domestic crude oil sales, and may still require third party liabilities to meet costs of operations and subsidies, and may not be able to make any remittances to FAAC.
• We therefore recommend that the NNPCmodel of operationmust be urgently reviewed and restructured, as the current model which has been in operation since the creation of the Corporation cannot be sustained.
• The report reflects the fact that $3.38 billion was spent on DPK subsidy for the review period.
We also confirmed using third party vessel tracking platforms that all vessels carrying NNPC cargoes arrived in Nigeria within the periods disclosed by PPPRA.
•A major consideration centers on the ownership of oil and gas assets controlled by NPDC.
Subject to additional information being provided, we estimate that the NNPC and NPDC should refund to the Federation Account a minimum of $1.48 billion as summarised in the next page.
• A determination is required as to whether all, or a portion of other costs not directly attributable to crude oil operations can be defrayed by NNPC.
We did not have access to NPDC’s full accounts and records and we have not ascertained the amount of costs and expenses which should be applied to the US$5.11 billion crude oil revenue (net of royalties and PPT paid) per the NPDC submission to the Senate Committee which should be considered as dividend payment by NPDC to NNPC for ultimate remittance to the Federation Account.
• Between 12 January and 29 January 2015, NNPC provided transaction documents representing additional costs of $2.81 billion related to the review period, citing the NNPC Act LFN No 33 of 1977 that allows such deductions. Clarity is required on whether such deductions should be made by NNPC as a first line charge, before remitting the net proceeds of domestic crude to the federation accounts. If these are deemed not to be valid deductions, then the amount due from NNPC would be estimated at $2.07 billion (without considering expected known remittances from NPDC) or $4.29 billion (if expected known remittances from NPDC are considered).
• The Corporation provided details of expenses to the tune of $12.97 billion related to the review period, funded from the proceeds of domestic crude oil revenues.
•The Corporation represented that the potential excess remittance of $0.74 billion was funded from proceeds of PMS sales for which the suppliers of the PMS are yet to be paid in cash or crude oil. As at the time of concluding this report, details of the affected suppliers that funded this potential excess remittance are yet to be provided by the Corporation.
• The analysis above and resulting potential excess remittance suggest the existence of liabilitiesto third parties incurred by the Corporation.We recommend the Corporation be required todisclose details of all existing liabilities and impact on proceeds of future crude oil sales.
• The Corporation is expected to operate in accordance with the NNPC Act LFN No 33 of 1977 which states in Chapter 320 Part I subsection 7(4) as follows:
“The Corporation shall maintain a fund which shall consist of-
(a) such moneys as may from time to time be provided by the Federal Government for the purposes of this Act by way of grants or loans or otherwise howsoever; and (b) such moneys as may be received by the Corporation in the course of its operations or in relation to the exercise by the Corporation of any of its functions under this Act, and from such fund there shall be defrayed all expenses incurred by the Corporation.”
Accordingly, all the Corporations costs, and those of its loss making subsidiaries have been defrayed in the analysis provided by the Corporation for the review period. However, the profit making subsidiaries and dividends received have been excluded from the analysis provided. This suggests that there are other sources of net revenues available to the Corporation not currently disclosed. A proper estimate of the actual potential excess remittance/under-remittance can only be arrived at if all revenues and all costs of the Corporation and all its subsidiaries are accounted for in a consolidated position. A detailed review of this was beyond the scope of our mandate.
We therefore recommend that NNPC be required to disclose the consolidated position of the Group and its subsidiaries, and expected remittances to the Federation accounts be determined from the available consolidated net revenues. Furthermore, the nature of costs that are allowable should be pre-determined by all relevant parties.
We also recommend that the NNPC act be reviewed as the content contradicts the requirement for NNPC to be run as a commercially viable entity. It appears the act has given the Corporation a “Blank” cheque to spend money without limit or control. This is untenable and unsustainable and must be addressed immediately. The Corporation should be required to create value, and meet its expenses entirely from the value created. Proceeds from the FGN’s crude oil sales should be remitted entirely to the Federation accounts. Commisions for the Corporation services can then be paid based on agreed terms.
Comments
(I). We did not obtain any information directly from NPDC, but in accordance with NPDC former Managing Director’s (Mr Briggs Victor) submission to the Senate Committee hearing on the subject matter, for the period, NPDC generated $5.11billion (net of royalties and petroleum profits tax paid).
We have relied on the legal opinion provided to the Senate Committee by the Attorney-General (AG) on the subject of the transfers of various NNPC (55%) portion of Oil Leases (OMLs) involved in the Shell (SPDC) Divestments which impact crude oil flows in the period. The AG’s opinion indicated that these transfers were within the authority of the Minister to make. Thus, these assets were validly transferred to NPDC. The same AG’s legal opinion also indicated that NPDC was to make payments for Net Revenue (dividend) to NNPC, which should ultimately be remitted to the Federation Account. A sale will mean the following should be due to be remitted to the Federation accounts
1. Petroleum Profit Taxes (PPT)
2. Royalties
3. Signature bonus payment
4. Dividend from profit for the period (according to dividend declared in line with NPDC’s dividend policy)
We have not obtained any information that suggests that NPDC has been assessed for PPT and Royalty for the review period. However, as disclosed by the former MD of NPDC at the senate hearing, NPDC had done a self assessment of PPT and Royalty and had unpaid self assessed PPT and Royalty to the tune of $0.47 billion related to the review period.
In January 2015 (subsequent to our initial reported conclusions), we were availed with copies of Deeds of Assignment for OML’s 26,30,40,42.We were not provided with copies of Deeds of Assignment for OML’s 4,38,41,34.We were also provided with information which indicated that the various NNPC (55%) portion of Oil leases (OMLs) involved in the Shell Divestments related to the eight (8) OML’s aforestated, were transferred to NPDC for an aggregate Sum of US$1.85billion. So far, only the amount of US$100m had been remitted in relation to these assets. This means that the amount of US$1.75billion is yet to be remitted in relation to this transfer. In addition, by a comparison of the aggregate amount of US$1.85billion determined by DPR as the transfer value , and the (arm’s length) commercial value paid for by 3rd parties for between 30% to 45% divested by Shell, we arrive at an estimated Alternative Commercial Valuation of US$3.4 billion for the NNPC 55%. The point here is that while we appreciate that this is a government entity to government entity transaction, we had expected a transfer basis higher than the US$1.85 billion commercial value determined by DPR. We have not performed a professional valuation and therefore recommend that the valuation done by DPR be re-assessed.
NNPC explained that these OML transfers were in the bid to encourage local participation in the Nigerian upstream Oil and Gas Industry.
We also expect that NPDC should remit dividends to NNPC and ultimately the Federation Accounts, based on NPDC’s dividend policy and declaration of dividend for the review period. We did not have access to NPDC’s full accounts and records and we have not ascertained the amount of costs and expenses which should be applied to the US$5.11 billion crude oil revenue (net of royalties and PPT paid) per the NPDC submission to the Senate Committee hearing in order to arrive at the Net Revenue (in line with the AG’s opinion), which should be subjected to dividend remittance.We are also not aware that NPDC declared dividend for the review period.
These matters need to be followed up for final resolution in terms of the NPDC Net Revenue (dividend) for crude oil relating to the transfers, PPT and royalty unremitted, and the transfer price valuation and remittance.
(II). We determined from information obtained from PPPRA that $3.38 billion relating to DPK subsidy cost was incurred by the NNPC for the review period.We obtained a letter, dated 19 October 2009 written by the Principal Secretary to the President, to the National Security Adviser (The following were in copy: Honourable Minister for Petroleum Resources, Honourable Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Group Managing Director NNPC, and the Executive Secretary PPPRA), confirming a Presidential directive of 15 June 2009 instructing that subsidy on DPK be stopped (Exhibit D7).We also obtained a letter dated 16 December 2010 from the Executive Secretary PPPRA to the CBN Governor clarifying that PPPRA had ceased granting subsidy on Kerosene since the Presidential directive of 15 June 2009 (Exhibit D8).
Furthermore, Kerosene subsidy was not appropriated for in the 2012 and 2013 FGN budget.
However, the Presidential directive was not gazetted and there has been no other legal instrument cancelling the subsidy on DPK.
In a Presidential media chat on 24 February 2014, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, asserted that kerosene subsidies have not been disallowed.
We therefore recommend that an official directive be written to support the legality of the kerosene subsidy costs. This should also be followed by adequate budgeting and appropriation for the costs.
Other Findings
• For the period reviewed, we identified possible errors in the computation of crude oil prices at the NNPC that resulted in a $3.6 million shortfall in incomes to the Federation account. The major beneficiaries were Fujairah Refinery – $805,545, NNPC (KRPC/WRPC) – $697,995 and NNPC (COMD) – $2,107,275. Subsequent to our identification of this issue, NNPC has amended the errors, and have reflected the amendments in the remittances to FAAC in October 2014.
• Our review of the DPK sales process revealed that NNPC sells DPK to bulk DPK marketers in Nigeria at N40.90 per litre at a location on the coastal waterways (off shore Lagos). The expected/official regulated retail price of DPK in Nigeria is N50 per litre. This retail price of N50 comprises the Ex-depot price of N34.51 and aMargin of N15.49. NNPC should be required to explain the reason for selling DPK at N40.90, rather than the regulated ex-depot price of N34.51. The Corporation should also be required to explain the reason for selling DPK to bulk DPK marketers at a location on the coastal waterways (off shore Lagos) rather than at the in-country depots.
•The accounting and reconciliation system for crude oil revenues used by government agencies appear to be inaccurate and weak.We noted significant discrepancies in data from different sources. The lack of independent audit and reconciliation led to over reliance on data produced from NNPC. This matter is further compounded by the lack of independence within NNPC as the business has conflicting interests of being a stand-alone self-funding entity and also the main source of revenue to the Federation account.
(2.2). Our approach to this mandate
• It is important to note that although PwC has reviewed documents submitted by the key stakeholders involved, our work was conducted independently, and our findings are based on the review of documentation, analytical reviews of data, and interviews conducted.
• Due to this approach, our findings and the way we presented them in this report may not necessarily reflect the formats of the various submissions made by the different stakeholders.
• In certain instances where we were not provided with information or access to key stakeholders (Section 6.3.2 ) we leveraged on external and available sources of information to reach our conclusions. These external and available sources of information are clearly highlighted in the relevant sections of this report.
• Any information and/or documentation which may come to our attention subsequent to the date of this report may alter our findings.
• We have also listed some of the limitations to our scope in Section 3.2.
•The procedures performed and specific limitations to scope are also discussed under thevarious work stream sections.
•Based on specific instructions from the Auditor General for the Federation, we returned to do additional work, after NNPC had represented that our initial process did not provide an opportunity for formal discussions of our findings with top management, in the form of an exit interview.
• With the exception of the Deputy Group Managing Director/Group Executive Director Finance and Accounts of NNPC, the Auditor-General for the Federation, and the Honourable Minister of Petroleum Resources, we have not discussed the findings of this report with any stakeholder.
•Our work was split into two work streams as follows;
(1). We estimated how much revenue is due to the FGN from crude oil liftings; and (2). We reconciled the revenues due to the FGN against the actual cash received by the federation.
• Our findings and conclusions considered the impact of some matters which require legal opinion to be sought by the FGN.
PwC estimated revenue from crude oil lifting ($69.34 billion) This is the total amount of revenue from crude oil liftings during the review period, after increasing A by the adjustments in B.
(D) Direct Costs ($2.65 billion)
This represents the total expenses incurred and/deducted directly by NNPC (from crude oil revenues) where supporting documents were provided to PwC.
Source: PPMC’s Schedule of Costs, Reconciliations signed off by traders and NNPC, PwC Analysis
These costs relate to amounts incurred by NNPC (and its subsidiaries) in executing its mandate. We observed that there were documents supporting these expenses.
For the purpose of this report, PwC has included these expenses as verified, andtreated them as legitimately incurred in the process of the Corporation executing its mandate.
(E) This represents the revenues due to NPDC from crude oil sale for the period from January 2012 to July 2013. The balances used in this analysis were obtained from the submissions made by the former MD of NPDC Mr Victor Briggs, during the Senate Committee hearings.We could not find proof or evidence that these revenues were remitted by NPDC/NNPC into the Federation Accounts Verified costs (NPDC yet to complete payment for assigned assets).
It is important to note that the relationship between NNPC and NPDC as itrelates to OMLs 30, 34, 40, 26, 4, 38, 41, 42 controlled by NPDC, is a key limitation to our scope.We had no access to NPDC management; our work relied on discussions with NNPC management (Section 6.3.2) and review of submissions to the senate (Exhibit A1).
From our reviews of the NNPC Act (section 6(1 c & d)), we noted that the
Corporation is empowered:
(c) to enter into contracts or partnerships with any company, firm or person
which in the opinion of the Corporation will facilitate the discharge of the said duties under this Act;
(d) to establish and maintain subsidiaries for the discharge of such functions as the Corporation may determine;
Sections 6(1c & d) are critical to establishing the nature of sale of these OMLs.
We have analysed these as follows:
Factors supporting a sale
(1). NPDC paid taxes and royalties with a total of $1.7 billion.We have not been able to establish the assets on which these taxes and royalties were paid. However, the practice of payment of these statutory deductions suggests that the revenues from the related assets belong to the company. According to NPDC’s submission at the senate hearing, NPDC has not been assessed for royalty and PPT for the review period by DPR and FIRS respectively. The Company made part payments based on estimates.
(2). Existence of a Deed of Assignment: As part of our work, we were informed of a document (Deed of Assignment) that transferred the assets from NNPC to NPDC.We were availed with copies of Deeds of Assignment for OML’s 26,30,40,42.We were not provided with copies of Deeds of Assignment for OML’s 4,38,41,34.
(3). An outright sale to NPDC means that NPDC would be expected to make a payment to the Federation accounts for procuring the asset.
DPR assigned a total value of $1.85 billion dollars as reasonable amounts to be paid for the eight OML’s in consideration, out of which the Corporation had paid $100 million.
An outright sale will also require dividend remittance by NPDC to NNPC (and thus the FGN), depending on the dividend policy of NPDC (NNPC is the sole owner of NPDC). See analysis of NPDC’s submission at the Senate hearing below:
Analysis of NPDC submissions
Description Amount ($).
Total revenues from NPDC assets 6,815,188,626.
Total PPT paid (863,000,000).
Total Royalties paid (838,991,619).
Total revenues less payment already made 5,113,197,007.
Senate hearing submissions, PwC analysis.
Total amounts estimated to have been withheld by NPDC on assumption of a sale of the divested assets is $5.11 billion.
(F). This reflects amounts deducted by NNPC as subsidy claims on PMS –
$5.32 billion & DPK – $3.38 billion (Total $8.70 billion).
These costs were verified based on documents received from PPPRA.We have however deducted the errors noted in these documents, before arriving at the verified amounts.
Verified costs requiring legal opinion.
The FGN should seek legal opinion on:
(1). Legitimacy of DPK subsidy
We were not provided with any document evidencing the Federal Government’s approval for the continuation of DPK subsidy. However, in a Presidential media chat on 24 February 2014, The President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, confirmed the Federal Government’s position, that the kerosene subsidies have not been disallowed.
(2). NNPC’s right to deduct subsidy fromamounts due to the FGN for the sale of domestic crude, instead of retrospective claims done by othermarketers. The role of NNPC in the downstream sector is to refine petroleum products and subsequently sell to bulk traders and retailers. Due to the decline in local refining capacity and increased domestic consumption, NNPC has resorted to importing products to compensate for the shortfall.
The FGN subsidises the cost of petroleum products imported or refined locally. Typical process preceding subsidy claims includes verification and certification by PPPRA of the product type, volume and specification of the imported or refined petroleum product before the subsidy is claimed and paid.
NNPC (PPMC) does not claim subsidy retrospectively as done by other marketers. PPMC buys 445,000 bpd of domestic crude oil from the FGN.
PPMC is expected to pay for the domestic crude oil three months after the purchase from the FGN. This period is to allow PPMC convert the crude oil to refined products, sell the refined products, and pay the FGN for the crude purchased, from the proceeds of sale of the refined products.However, NNPC (PPMC) sells the refined products at a subsidised amount, and pays the FGN for the crude purchased less subsidy incurred during the sale of the refined products.
(G). Amount Due ($52.88 billion)
Amount expected to be remitted to the Federation after deducting the total verified costs from the total revenues from crude lifting. i.e., C-D-E-F.
(H). Other costs not directly attributable to domestic crude oil ($2.81billion) After the submission of our initial report to the Auditor-General of the Federation on 28 November 2014, these costs were brought to our attention by NNPC; stating that it had understated its costs in the submissions made to the Senate Committee and had not included all the costs defrayed from the proceeds of domestic crude revenue in meeting its mandate in accordance with the NNPC Act. These costs comprise of what was incurred by NNPC and its loss making subsidiaries.
We obtained physical records of these costs and compared them to the Group’s accounting records on SAP.
(I). Expected remittance ($50.07billion). This is the total amount of revenue expected in the Federation Account after deducting H from G.
(4). Obtained from discussions with NNPC and Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Allocation Commission
(J). NNPC Potential excess Remittance ($0.74 billion).This amount represents the additional costs incurred by the Corporation and its subsidiaries not funded from the proceeds of domestic crude oil sale. The Corporation claims the potential excess remittance was funded from proceeds of PMS sales for which the suppliers of the PMS are yet to be paid in cash or crude oil Details of the affected suppliers that funded this potential excess remittance are yet to be provided by the Corporation.
(K). Revenue remitted ($50.81billion)
Total amount remitted as traced to the Federation Account.
The sections below explain the differences in data submitted by the Reconciliation Committee and PwC data used in our analysis. We were not provided with the source of the data used by the Reconciliation Committee in arriving at its conclusions
(2.4). Revenue Generated
•$2.34 billion under-reported revenue generated
The total revenue generated from our analysis of all crude oil revenue streams amounted to $69.34 billion. This was $2.34billion higher than the amount reported by the Reconciliation Committee. The difference was as a result of the following;
(A). FIRS – Data received from both COMD and FIRS put revenue generated from FIRS tax oil lifting at $16 billion which is $1 billion higher than the amount quoted by the Reconciliation Committee.
(B). NPDC – Information submitted by NPDC to the Senate Committee stated total revenue generated from lifting at $6.82 billion. This is $0.82 billion higher than the Senate Reconciliation Committee’s figure.
(C). Third Party Financing – Data received from COMD and confirmed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Limited (MPNL) and Total E&P Nigeria Limited (TEPNL) during their submissions at the senate hearing, revealed total revenue figures of $2.43 billion. This is $0.43 billion higher than the amount reported by the Reconciliation Committee.
(D). Our analysis also revealed increased revenue of $0.29 billion and $0.22 billion from Equity and Domestic crude oil lifting respectively, and a reduction of $0.42 billion from DPR royalty revenue, when compared to Reconciliation Committee’s figures.
(2.5). Revenue Remitted
Under-reported revenue remittance of $3.81 billion.
The total cash remitted into the Federation accounts from crude oil liftings for the period under review amounted to $50.81 billion.We were able to trace $49.33bn of this amount to the FGN bank accounts listed in Appendix 6.1.33. The balance of $1.48 billion was also traced to the FAAC report for subsequent months. Please refer to Section 4.2.7 for more details.
$3.81 billion is the difference between $50.81billion and the $47 billion amount reported by the Senate Reconciliation Committee. This difference was as a result of the following:
(A). FIRS remittance –We verified additional $1 billion revenue generated by FIRS which was not reported by the Reconciliation Committee.We also traced the payment of this amount to the CBN/FIRS JP Morgan account.
(B). Other third party financing remittance – $1.37 billion was received from the third party financing arrangements. The arrangement with TEPNL resulted in the payment of $211million to the Federation from the USAN Field TMP project which represents Royalty and Profit oil, while the sum of $1.16billion was received from MPNL from the Satellite Field and Reserve Development projects.
(C). NPDC remittance – Cash payments of $1.7billion representing Petroleum Profit Tax and Royalties had been remitted.
(D). Equity crude and DPR royalty oil remittance – The remittance received from Equity crude sales, and in favour of DPR royalty oil, was $0.16 billion higher and $0.42billion lower than the Senate Reconciliation Committee figures respectively.
2.6. Other Third Party Financing Arrangements.
• Under-reported Third Party Financing Revenue of $0.43 billion
Mobil Producing Nigeria Limited, in its submission to the Senate, reported revenue figures of $518million5 and $859 million in respect of the Reserve Development Project (RDP) and Satellite Field Development Project (SFD) respectively. Total E&P reported a revenue figure of $1.053 billion in respect of the USAN project. These amounts represent royalty and profit oil due to the Federation from these third party financing arrangements. The total revenue generated from third party financing arrangement was $2.43 billion and not $2 billion reported by the Reconciliation Committee.
• Undisclosed remittance to the Federation account
Out of the total revenue reported by MPNL, $1.158billion had been remitted to the Federation Account as at November 2013. This was confirmed by the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation at the presentation to the Senate Committee.We also traced these payments to the CBN/NNPC JP Morgan account. The total of $858,750,972 relating to SFD had been remitted while $300,000,000 out of the $518,069,354 relating to RDP had been remitted. The balance of $218,069,354 was withheld to service the project finance cost and subsequent remittance of the net amount, in accordance with the contract terms.
In respect of the USAN project handled by Total E&P Nigeria Limited, the sum of $193,478,061.15 and $17,943,616 totaling $211,421,6779, being Royalty and Profit Oil was remitted to the Federation account
2.7. PMS and DPK Subsidy
• $0.98 billion over claimof subsidy by NNPC.
Our review of the subsidy documentation revealed that the subsidy due to NNPC between January 2012 and July 2013 on PMS and DPK import was $8.99 billion compared to the $9.97 billion stated by the Reconciliation Committee. The difference was due to the following:
•Exclusion of October 2011 – December 2011 subsidy claims of $1.2 billion. This does notrelate to the review period of January 2012 to July 2013.
•$0.13 billion increase in PMS subsidy claimed for the 19 months period.
•$0.09 billion increase in DPK subsidy claimed for the 19 months period
•Duplicated discharges noted in subsidy computations
Our examination of the PMS and DPK import verified by PPPRA revealed that some discharges were apparently verified and subsidy advised to NNPC more than once.
The repeated subsidy for PMS amounted to N3,709,879,190 ($23,954,796).
The repeated subsidy for DPK amounted to N6,169,502,266 ($39,836,652).
• $36.05 million over-statement in PPPRA’s PMS subsidy Payment Advice to NNPC
•Our review of the Subsidy Payment Advice sent by PPPRA to NNPC for discharges between January 2012 and July 2013 revealed that PPPRA applied the pre-2012 ex-depot Price (N49.51) on some discharges in 2012 instead of the approved ex-depot Price of N81.51.
•A total of 174,449,778 litres of PMS was affected in these PPPRA computations.
•The error in computation resulted in an over-statement of PMS subsidy by N5.6 billion ($36.05 million).
• Estimated $205million DPK subsidy over-charge by NNPC
•Our review of a sample of the copies of the Pro Forma Invoices (PFIs) issued to the other marketers of DPK across different geopolitical zones of Nigeria, revealed that the other marketers bought DPK from NNPC/PPMC prior to arrival at NNPC depot in Nigeria at N40.90.
•The marketers are thereafter required to incur the Lightering expenses, NPA charges, Jetty Throughput Charge and Storage Charges before bringing the product into Nigeria.
•Subsidy is calculated as Landing Cost minus Ex-Depot Price; 10 NNPC claimed that this cost is incurred by both NNPC and the marketers. For the purpose of this report, we have considered this cost as a cost incurred by the marketers. Over-charge of subsidy above depends on PPPRA’s decision to either consider this cost in favour of NNPC or in favour of marketers of kerosene.
•Per PPPRA’s template, Landing Cost also includes the extra expenses incurred by the other marketers.
•By selling DPK to marketers at N40.90 and claiming subsidy at an Ex-depot price of N34.51 without adjusting the Landing Costs for the extra costs borne by the marketers, NNPC had over deducted subsidies to an estimated amount of N31,522,234,881.06 ($204 million).
2.8. NPDC lifting.
•Under-recognition of NPDC liftings by $0.82billion by Reconciliation Committee
The Reconciliation Committee put the value of liftings in favour of NPDC at $6billion. We did not receive any supporting documentation from NPDC to validate this figure other than the submission to the Senate by the former MD of NPDC, Mr Victor Briggs, who disclosed the total value of NPDC liftings from all its assets as $6.82billion.
While we were unable to verify the $6.82 billion directly at NPDC, we performed a recomputation of the values of liftings using information provided by COMD and arrived at a value of $5.65 billion.
Discussions with COMD revealed that lifting data captured by COMD for NPDC might not be complete as COMD does not capture liftings done directly by NPDC’s Strategic Alliance Partners.
Volumes recorded by DPR for NPDC did not contain the necessary pricing information for valuation.
•Cash payments of $863 million by NPDC to FIRS not captured by Reconciliation Committee
For the period under review, NPDC was yet to be assessed for tax by the FIRS. However, the company made several cash payments during and after the period which amounted to $863 million. These payments were confirmed by FIRS to have been received.We also traced the payments to CBN/FIRS bank statements with JP Morgan.
•Cash payments of $839 million by NPDC to DPR not captured by Reconciliation Committee.
For the period under review, NPDC made several payments to DPR based on self-estimated royalty.
We traced several cash payments made by the company to CBN/ DPR JP Morgan account statement, to the tune of $839 million.
Pipeline maintenance and management costs
•Additional $2.8 billion cost communicated by NNPC.
After the submission of our initial report to the Auditor-General for the Federation on 28 November 2014, the following was brought to our attention by NNPC regarding Pipeline Maintenance and Management Costs:
•Initial submission made to the Senate Committee was understated and did not include all the costs defrayed from the proceeds of domestic crude revenue by NNPC in accordance with the NNPC Act. These costs also largely include the amounts incurred by the Corporation’s subsidiaries.
•The total additional costs amounting to $2.81 billion was funded from domestic crude revenue accruing from liftings of January 2012 to July 2013, and third party liabilities as follows:
Expense type Total ($)
Salaries and benefits 1,522,258,663
Monthly operations 478,684,782
Other third party payments (including training course fees, estacodes, and consultancy fees) 955,212,837
Total costs 2,811,153,197
2.10. Crude oil and product losses.
•Computation of Crude Oil loss
NNPC used a conversion rate of $100/barrel to value differences between the quantity of crude oil pumped at the terminals and quantity received at the refineries.We adopted the monthly average Platts 12 price to value the losses, considering that the revenue generated from Crude oil lifted during the review period had been accounted for using such Platts information instead of a fixed rate.
Applying the monthly average Platts price to value the crude oil losses amounted to $73,851,144.9313 higher than PPMC’s computation.
Limitations
We encountered some limitations in the course of executing some aspects of our scope of work. The key limitations were:
• Unavailability of relevant NPDC personnel to provide information on the NPDC’s processes particularly around its operations, business objectives and internal accounting/financial reporting, etc.
Change of management at NPDC during the course of the engagement which further contributed to our inability to successfully obtain responses to our request for information.
• Non-response of NPDC to our request letter which meant that we weren’t provided with the following requests:
• Detailed breakdown of the crude oil assets transferred to NPDC.
• Terms of divestment and contract documents involving the assets taken over.
• Strategic Alliance agreements between NPDC and counterparties.
• Monthly volume allocations to Strategic Alliance Partners per partner.
• Monthly balance of NPDC crude over-lifts by Strategic Alliance partners.
• List of receiving banks, account numbers and bank statements for NPDC crude proceeds.
