September 3, 2012 | 9:01
pm
Sweet Crude
By CLARA NWACHUKWU
After months of keeping
quiet, the management of
Capital Oil and Gas
Industries Ltd has
described the allegations
against it by the Aigboje
Aig-Imokhuede-led
Presidential Committee
on Subsidy Payments
Verification, as
“completely
unsubstantiated.”
The oil marketing
company also insisted
that the committee’s
allegations are
“unwarranted and
unacceptable.”
The Presidential
Committee had accused
Capital Oil of two
infractions by making
claims for: “Subsidy
payments without proof
of existence of the
mother vessel bill of
lading or daughter-vessel
bill of lading;” and
“Subsidy payments for
which proof of existence
of the mother vessels
were not found in
locations claimed at the
time of transshipment.”
In an advertorial also
carried in Sweetcrude, the
oil marketing company
reputed for having the
biggest private depot
operator with over 2000
workers in the country,
said it was being forced to
react in view of “the
potential damages” the
“falsehood” has on its
business interests both
within and outside the
country.
Defence of allegations
Accordingly, Capital Oil
while pledging “full
support for the
sanitisation of the
petroleum industry”
especially with regard to
a more transparent
subsidy regime, however
called for “objectivity,
fairness and honesty “in
the ongoing subsidy scam
probes.
Therefore, criticising the
Aig-Imokhuede
Committee’s Report as
falling short on these
values, the oil marketing
company went on to
defend that regarding
the mother vessel used
for the transshipment, it
had provided to the
committee “evidence of
both mother and
daughter vessel
documents (including bill
of lading).
We also provided letters
from our product supplier
(Vitol S.A. and Delany,
both internationally
recognised oil trading
companies) confirming
the transshipment and
vessel positions. SGS, who
is one of the key
inspection companies
worldwide, participated in
the transshipment
operations as mutual
inspectors for us and our
suppliers.”
Against this backdrop, the
company said it is “at a
loss as to how the
committee arrived at such
an unbelievable and hasty
conclusion when there is a
clear evidence of bank
funding of the
transaction…”
Parts of the evidence the
company referred to
included the opening of
Form ‘M’ by COTECNA, a
government pproved
agent; establishment of
Letter of Credit;
appointment of an
inspection agent by the
bank to monitor loading
and discharging
operations; and the truck-
out of the product from
the depot.
Furthermore, the
company said it also
tendered the requisite
Notice of Readiness, NOR;
and Notice of Arrival,
NOA, to both the
Department of Petroleum
Resources, DPR, and the
Petroleum Products
Pricing Regulatory,
PPPRA, prior to loading
from mother vessel and
prior to berthing of vessel
at its depot.
Besides, it noted that all
other relevant
government agencies were
also physically present
during the transaction
including the Nigerian
Navy, Nigeria Customs
Services, Nigerian
Immigration Services,
NIMASA, NPA, bank
surveyors, inspectors and
external auditors and
confirmed the
transactions.
Committee disregarded
justice and objectivity
Consequently, Capital Oil
expressed dismay that in
spite this proofs, the
committee still “came up
this indefensible and
unsustainable report”
against it. It also declared
that its “operation is in
total compliance with the
government policy and
laid down procedures on
petroleum product
importation.”
Moreover, it noted that
all subsidies paid to it in
respect of all
transactions under the
PSF Scheme were
domiciled with the banks
that funded each
transition as a refund to
credit extended for them,
while proof of sale of
proceeds were tendered to
the committee.
Also, notwithstanding the
fact that there was no
prior notice for
marketers to subscribe to
Lloyds monitoring,
Capital Oil maintained
that the instrument of
information used by the
committee is in accurate,
in view of the evidence
provided by Vitol via its
letter dated July 12, 2012,
which also provided
transshipment operations
from Motion Tanker, MT
Haruna Express to MT
Rofos offshore Cotonou,
in Benin Republic.
As a result, the company
accused the committee of
“a flagrant case of double
standard, since it
requested for further
verification of documents
and did not bother to
conduct the exercise
before declaring that the
company had a “likely
fraudulent case for
criminal investigations.

www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/subsidy-scam-capital-oil-breaks-silence/?utm_source=&utm_medium=twitter