WHERE ARE LANDOWNERS, LLGS AND PGS LNG EQUITY FUNDS KEPT?


By Nemo Yalo: Principal of Nemo Lawyers 
former Acting National Court Judge
former Chief Legal Counsel for Ombudsman Commission

There is in an ongoing public debate between the Government and the Opposition in Parliament regarding the receipt and application of the proceeds from the sale of the LNG. In its 2015 first half Environmental and Social Report, Exxon Mobil states that its US$19billion project loaded the 100th LNG shipment on LNG carrier Methane Spirit on 15 June 2015. The first LNG cargo was shipped on 25 May 2014 destined for Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc. (TEPCO) in Japan delivered on 2 June 2014. The LNG Project is expected to produce nine (9) trillion cubic feet of gas over 30 years. It has the capacity to produce 6.9 million tonnes per year. The report reads in part:

“The Papua, the first custom-built LNG carrier for EMPNG, arrived at the LNG Plant Marine Terminal on 22 February 2014 to begin loading its first cargo. The 172,000-cubic metre, 290-metre-long LNG carrier is the largest of its kind ever built in China. The Papua is the third LNG carrier on long-term lease to EMPNG. Two other carriers, the Spirit of Hela and Gigira Laitebo, entered EMPNG’s service in 2014. These vessels are named after the Hela Province, where the gas originates…”

The Government maintains that the LNG Project-project landowners’ royalty funds are held in a trust account with the Bank of PNG. Mr Loi Bakani, the Governor of Bank of PNG (BPNG) has gone on public record to say that BPNG is keeping only landowner royalty funds and no other funds derived from the LNG Project, The National, 2 October 2015.

The Opposition claims that the Government through National Petroleum Company PNG (NPCP) pursuant to a “Payment Direction Deed” has established an escrow account in Singapore where all the proceeds from the sale of LNG are held and managed by the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS). This has happened under the direction of the Government, Post Courier, 09 October 2015.
It is public knowledge that the Government obtained AU$1.2billion loan from UBS. It is alleged that this liability has been passed onto NPCP under the direction of the Government.

The Opposition claims that the Government has directed NPCP to direct all the proceeds from the sale of LNG to an escrow account established in Singapore out of which UBS shall receive its loan repayments. It claims that NPCP and UBS have signed a “Payment Direction Deed” for this purpose.
If this claim is true, three important points may be assumed here. Firstly, the State may have appointed NPCP to receive from the LNG Project operator proceeds from the sale of LNG. It means no LNG funds are brought into PNG and kept onshore. This assumption is confirmed by Mr Bakani in a media statement: “Most revenues coming from LNG are not parked with BPNG. Companies involved in the PNG LNG were given exemptions to keep their money in off-shore accounts. Only when these companies want to pay their local commitments, they bring the funds to PNG”, The National, 2 October 2015. (The project partners are Exxon Mobil (33.2%), Oil Search (29.0%), NPCP (16.8%) Santos Ltd (13.5%), Nippon Oil (4.7%) and MRDC Ltd (2.8%)). Whilst tax would be paid directly to IRC, it is anybody’s guess whether or not funds in the form of development levy and equity components entitled to project-affected landowners, Local-level Governments (LLGs) and Provincial Governments (PGs) have been mortgaged to service the UBS loan.

The second assumption is that there is serious doubt against the Government claims that the LNG funds are held in a trust account in Singapore for “safe-keeping”. In the absence of any evidence it is difficult for the Government to convince the landowners, LLGs, PGs and the nation. Under the Umbrella Benefits Sharing Agreement (UBSA) signed in Kokopo on 21 May 2009, project-affected landowners, LLGs and PGs are entitled to equity benefits. This particular term of the UBSA are reinforced by the Oil and Gas Act 1998 and Section 98 Organic Law on Provincial and Local-level Governments. Are these benefits actually held in a trust account for safe-keeping or are they being mortgaged to UBS? These important stakeholders of the project are entitled to the truth and nothing less. Whilst these serious questions remain unanswered for now landowners, LLGs and PGs must exercise caution and restraint. It should demand answers from the Government. Why are their equity and development levy not held onshore in accordance with the Oil and Gas Act 1998?

The final assumption is that UBS would have insisted (as any financier in this circumstance would) and NPCP may have no choice but undertake to UBS that it will not revoke or amend or alter the Payment Direction Deed. NPCP may have instructed and authorised UBS to receive any proceeds held in the escrow account to service its loan. The National Parliament has the authority to demand the Government for the truth regarding this multi-billion dollar mystery.

Returning to the first assumption, who is the appropriate authority to receive the proceeds from the sale of LNG? Section 167(3), (4) and (5) of the Oil and Gas Act 1998 read as follows: (3) “… the State grants to the project area landowners and the affected Local-level Governments of a petroleum project, if any, an equity benefit in that petroleum project”. (4) “The equity benefit granted under this section shall be shared between the project area landowners and affected Local-level Governments of the project in proportions agreed by them in a development agreement, but in default of such agreement in the proportions determined by the Minister, by instrument”. (5) “The equity benefit granted under this section shall be held on trust for the grantees in accordance with Section 176”. The development agreement in this instance is the UBSA. Then Section 176(1) of the same Act states: “The equity benefit granted by the State in accordance with Section 167 and royalty benefit granted by the State in accordance with Section 168 to project area landowners, and any additional participating interest in a petroleum project acquired by project area landowners in accordance with Section 175, shall be received and held upon trust for those project area landowners by a corporate trustee which is wholly owned by MRDC”.

Unless the Oil and Gas Act has been amended it is the law that MRDC receives project-affected landowners’ and LLGs’ equity funds from all petroleum projects including the LNG Project and hold them in trust. So this begs the obvious question, how does NPCP receive landowner and LLG equity funds from the LNG Project? Who ultimately decided to flagrantly ignore the Oil and Gas Act for NPCP to usurp MRDC’s statutory function?

As for the royalty payments Mr Bakani has confirmed that BPNG is holding in trust landowner royalty payments from the LNG Project pending social mapping and landowner identification study. There should be no such identification and social mapping need for project-affected LLGs and PGs. So after more than 100 shipments of LNG cargo, are PGs and LLGs receiving their share of the royalty and equity payments? Perhaps MRDC is receiving these payments so there are no concerns by the respective PGs and LLGs. The affected PGs and LLGs are those in Hela, Western, SHP, Gulf and Central Province.

Given the ongoing public debate there is confusion as to the truth about the status of project-affected landowners’, LLGs’ and PGs’ equity entitlements derived from the LNG Project. They are entitled to the truth. It is time for the Government who promised to the nation at the time of taking office in August 2012 to be “open, transparent and accountable Government” to walk the talk.

Note: Nemo Yalo was the lawyer representing former Chief Ombudsman Commission Ila Geno successful Supreme Court Reference challenging the O'Neil Government's constitutional amendments to the 30 month grace period prohibiting a vote of no confidence. Mr. Nemo has now been engaged by landowners groups to protect their interest in the PNG LNG Project.

Popular posts from this blog

HIGHLANDS FRAUD F*CKS RUNNING GOVERNMENT AGENCY,,,

Image
A Fraudster and unqualified person has been shortlisted for NEC submission for the position of CEPA Managing Director. The candidate in question is Jude Tukulyia. His academic credentials are subject to scrutiny. Further investigation is required to verify the authenticity and legitimacy of his qualifications, particularly the reported diploma in accounting, Bachelor of Laws, MBA from Divine Word and UPNG respectively. It is very suspicious and unprofessional  when the Minister for Environment Conservation and Climate Change, Hon Simo Kilepa, wrote to UPNG Vice Chancellor asking to confirm Jude’s questioned education qualifications. This very due diligence work is the core responsibility of the Public Service Commission and Department of Personnel Management. What authority does the portfolio minister have to write to the Universities? Dumbfounding indeed if one asks. Ulterior motives written all over the letter. This amounts to  Questionable Academic Qualifications of Mr Tukulyia.    
Read more

AUGUSTINE MANO PNG'S PREMIER CORPORATE CROOK

Image
by  MICHAEL J. PASSINGAN In a significant setback for Mineral Resources Development Corporation (MRDC), the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea has dismissed the company's appeal to stop criminal investigations into its dealings with landowner funds held in the Pacific Balance Fund (PBF). The court ruled that MRDC's appeal was an "abuse of process" and ordered the company to pay costs of the proceedings. MRDC, a unit holder in PBF, had taken legal action against the National Court's decision to dismiss its case, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that MRDC's appeal was nothing more than an attempt to interfere with the police's criminal investigative process. The court found that MRDC had no authority to conducted its own investigation into the activities of the Melanesian Trustee Services Limited (MTSL), the fund manager of PBF, and that its actions were in violation of the Trust Deed
Read more

MARAPE & PAITA ABOUT TO SIGN AWAY PNG GOLD

Image
By: Andrew Arthur Prime Minister Hon. James Marape and his planning minister Reinbo Paita are the parties behind the theft of all Papua New Guinea’s gold for the next 100 years! They have given approval for the STATE of Papua New Guinea to sign away all gold rights to an Australian paper company in Refinery Holdings PTE LTD. First, they have done the deal with a paper company even before there is a LAW that says they have the right to do the deal. We see how the real manipulation works out. Marape and Paita now need to get the law passed by Parliament. The law is before the Parliament to set up Papua New Guinea’s first National Gold Corporation. The National Gold Corporation Bill first surfaced in 2012 but successive Government of Sir Michael Somare and Hon. Peter O’Neill, in their wisdom, had refused to pass this Bill as there have been some sinister motives and constitutional issues associated with the Bill. The new bill will allow Refinery Holdings LTD PTE to own 70% of the National
Read more

PNG, VERY RICH YET STILL A VERY VERY POOR COUNTRY

Image
by GARY MONDULAME Papua New Guinea (PNG), a nation blessed with abundant natural resources, continues to grapple with economic challenges that belie its potential wealth. The nation's economic narrative is a paradox—rich in resources yet burdened by poverty. The explanation for this paradox lies not only in economic mismanagement but also in deep-seated corruption that has permeated the political landscape since independence in 1975. Following its independence from Australia, PNG was entrusted to leaders who lacked a vision for a holistic national development. This absence of foresight is evident from the lack of long-term development plans that could have distributed the country’s wealth fairly across all regions and communities. Successive governments failed to establish foundational strategies such as building satellite townships or creating robust rural housing schemes. Instead, they resorted to short-term, reactive measures that did not foster sustainable growth. The nascent l
Read more

BLIND LEADING THE BLIND, WHY THE PNG ECONOMY STILL SUCKS

Image
Elizabeth Genia, Acting Governor Bank of PNG (BPNG) by MICHAEL JOSEPH PASSINGAN The economy of Papua New Guinea (PNG) is at a crucial juncture. Despite some signs of recovery, the country faces several structural challenges that continue to impede its economic progress. The March 2024 Monetary Policy Statement from the Bank of Papua New Guinea sheds light on these issues, providing a comprehensive overview of the economic landscape and the policy responses being implemented to navigate through these turbulent times. In 2023, PNG's economy grew by a modest 1.4%, a significant slowdown from the 5.2% growth witnessed in 2022. This tepid growth is largely attributed to delays in major projects and ongoing economic issues that have not been fully resolved. The anticipated growth for 2024 is around 3.0%, buoyed by the resumption of production at the Porgera gold mine. While this marks an improvement, it remains subdued compared to the potential of this resource-rich nation. One of the mo
Read more

James Marape's Missteps Openly Exposed at Australian Forum

Image
by  MICHAEL J. PASSINGAN  In a recent event that highlighted the complexities of international diplomacy and governance, Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, James Marape, faced a challenging situation during his appearance at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Australia. The Lowy Institute, known for its role as an independent think tank focusing on international policy, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, provided a platform for a candid assessment of Marape's governance. Following his formal address, Marape engaged in a dialogue with Dr. Michael Fullilove AM, the Executive Director of the Institute. Dr. Fullilove, a respected figure in public and international policy, scrutinized Marape's past promises and statements, contrasting them with the current state of affairs in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The discussion took a critical turn as Dr. Fullilove revisited Marape's 2019 speech at the same venue, where Marape had outlined his vision for PNG in a speech titled “A New Boo
Read more

A Call for Local Ownership and Fairness

Image
by JUSTIN PARKER In recent discussions surrounding the establishment of a gold refinery in Papua New Guinea (PNG), concerns have been raised regarding various aspects of the proposed project. Spearheaded by foreign investors, the initiative has sparked debates over ownership, exclusivity, tax concessions, underwriting, management rights, control over currency, legal protections, and historical failures. These concerns, if unaddressed, could potentially undermine the interests of PNG and its people, particularly the hardworking alluvial miners who form the backbone of the nation's mining sector. At the heart of the issue lies the question of ownership. The proposed ownership structure, favoring foreign investors with a substantial 70% stake, raises eyebrows, especially considering PNG's past experiences with failed ventures like seabed mining. Instead of ceding majority control to foreign entities, many argue that PNG should assert full ownership over the refinery. With the coun
Read more