EACOP vs Lamu pipeline

Latest Developments on Uganda Crude Oil Refinery Project​


Modified date: May 18, 2022
https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php...opments-on-uganda-crude-oil-refinery-project/




The 60,000 barrels of oil per day Uganda crude oil refinery that is set for development in Kabaale, Buseruka sub-county in Hoima District is expected to start operations in 2027 according to the Energy Minister, Ruth Nankabirwa.

The minister made the revelation when speaking during the launch of the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan in Kampala explaining that the Albertine Graben Refinery Consortium (AGRC) had made significant progress in pre-final investment decision, and that the consortium will expedite all pending activities so that the refinery’s final investment decision it undertaken.

 
Uganda was better off mobilizing EAC to contribute in the development of oil refinery than now getting stuck with a pipeline whose financers nobody knows and construction costs keep on escalating. Uganda should drop this expensive pipeline and focus on oil refinery, there is a huge market in EAC
 
Ati? stop what u r smoking before September this thing will be over!
 
Bitter truth is that,ilikuwa ipitie Kenya,ikaja Tanzania🇹🇿 ,hata kama itachelewa,lazima ipitie Tanzania 🇹🇿 na sio Kenya tena.
Hio project ishakufa kitambo, wazungu wanajiondoa kutokana na environmental issues
 
OIL & GAS / AFRICA / PIPELINES

Marsh named as insurance broker for EACOP plan​

Marsh McLennan has been identified as the insurance broker for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
By Ed Reed
19/05/2022, 7:29 am
© Supplied by TotalEnergies
TotalEnergies is working on the Tilenga project, in Uganda's west. Picture shows; Uganda's Tilenga. Uganda. Supplied by TotalEnergies Date; Unknown
Register here for the Energy Voice daily newsletter, bringing you key news and insight from across the global energy landscape.


Marsh McLennan has been identified as the insurance broker for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism named Marsh this morning.

The insurer declined to confirm or deny the identity of its clients to the Bureau.

“Marsh McLennan has a long-standing policy of not confirming the identity of clients,” a representative told Energy Voice.

The company is “committed to helping businesses develop low-carbon business models and manage risks associated with the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy”.
“As we do our part to accelerate this transition, we recognise that a secure energy supply is crucial for the global economy and society as a whole – this is particularly true in the context of today’s geopolitical environment. We believe all communities are best served by working with operators of clean energy assets to accelerate progress to a lower carbon world and with traditional energy clients to enable them to manage the risks associated with current projects and make the transition as quickly and responsibly as possible.”

Activists opposed to the EACOP project have brought pressure to bear on those it believes to be interested.
The Bureau also reported on growing opposition from within Marsh to the EACOP plan – and other fossil fuel work.

Around 100 employees sent a letter to Marsh management in 2021 warning of involvement in the East Africa plan. Such a project, they said, would have “disastrous consequences”.

Other financiers are facing similar pressure. Reuters reported this week that Deutsche Bank would not finance the pipeline,

A bank representative told Energy Voice that it would not comment on client relationships.

He did, though, say DB supported the “transition to a low-carbon economy and reviews potential financing opportunities on a case by case basis in accordance with our commitments to ESG and De-carbonization objectives”.

DB has a policy framework that prevents it from financing projects that would involve clearing primary forests, conservation areas and peatlands. The bank is due to hold its AGM today.

Meanwhile, Munich Re also demurred last month while AXA ruled out supporting the project last year.

Italy’s export credit agency, SACE, has said this week it would not finance the EACOP link.

Total and CNOOC Uganda have taken a final investment decision (FID) on the Lake Albert development, including EACOP. Financing has not yet been completed, though.

The link would run from Kabaale in Uganda to the Tanzanian port of Tanga, and feature six pumping stations.

Updated at 4:47 pm with comment from Marsh and SACE opting out.

 

Japanese Bank Financing of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline – Backgrounder on Environmental, Social, and Governance Risk (June 2022)​


Read the backgrounder.

Japanese private finance is currently backing one of the most controversial fossil fuel expansion projects in Africa: the 5 billion USD, 1443-kilometer East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), which would transport 216,000 barrels per day of electrically heated crude oil from Uganda to the port of Tanga in Tanzania for export.

Construction of the pipeline is planned to begin in 2023, but the project is mired in litigation, human rights violations, and environmental transgressions. If completed, EACOP will pose significant risks to millions of people; jeopardize vital, internationally recognized ecosystems; and, at peak production, generate annual carbon emissions roughly equivalent to the carbon footprint of nine coal-fired power plants.

The Japanese Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) is acting as financial advisor to French oil major Total Energies (Total) — the lead developer of the project — and joint lead arranger for the $3 billion project loan that will provide the majority of the financing for the project. By advising and arranging the EACOP project loan, SMBC bears a higher risk than other banks, and shoulders significant responsibility for resolving the project’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) risks or withdrawing from the project.

The backgrounder, Japanese Bank Financing of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, highlights the significant Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) risks of the project, the reputational and financial risks to the Japanese banks, and calls on Japanese banks to challenge Total on the social and environmental impacts of EACOP and ultimately avoid financing the EACOP project.

Read the backgrounder.
The backgrounder was co-authored with StopEACOP and Oil Change International.

Posted on June 6, 2022

 


PRIME

How shall we power Africa sustainably?​

Saturday, June 11, 2022

Elison Karuhanga
By Elison Karuhanga
Columnist

Politics

Africa has 117 per cent more sunshine than Germany, the global leader in solar energy, and the continent has shown great progress in the development of its solar energy markets over the recent years. In all of these markets, it has been proven that sustainable energy alternatives are only fruitful through the provision of financing, technology, and capacity building aimed at sustainable exploitation of our energy resources including fossil fuels while striving to minimise emissions.

In a May article, President Museveni made a powerful case for the EACOP pipeline and the development of Uganda’s oil in the Lake Albert Basin. In addition, during this week’s State-of-the-Nation address, the President advocated for the value addition of several commodities including the construction of a refinery for our crude oil. It came as no surprise when, earlier this week, a collection of Ugandan civil society organisations led by AFIEGO (African Institute for Energy Governance) wrote an open letter responding to the article.

This rejoinder from AFIEGO spells out in excellent detail the energy poverty in Uganda. For example, it states that “the Ugandan population still relies on crude biomass to meet its cooking energy needs; 73 per cent rely on firewood and 21 per cent on charcoal.” The core argument is that we need to prioritise our energy needs and develop renewable energy sources while abandoning oil. While I agree that we need to develop solar projects, I disagree with the argument that we should abandon fossil fuels haphazardly. We cannot rule out the sustainable exploitation of Africa’s oil and gas resources.

Another idea from AFIEGO is that instead of producing oil, Uganda can produce 5,000MW (Megawatts) of solar power. For a number of reasons, this is not sustainable. The production of solar energy on such a massive scale would require hundreds of thousands or even millions of solar panels. If producing 1MW of solar energy requires between four to seven acres of land, therefore, 5,000MW would require approximately 35,000 acres of land. If activists are worried about the number of people EACOP will allegedly displace, how many people would such an extensive solar project have to displace permanently?

AFIEGO proposed that Uganda should divert $15b meant for oil projects to renewable energy. We must ask where this $15b will come from. It will not be from government so, it is possible that they are suggesting we demand it from the private sector players Total Energies and CNOOC. Over the last decade, both of these companies have invested substantial sums of their money to find and extract oil in Uganda. This investment continues and should not be discouraged. We must maximise the presence of these companies in Uganda, their resources, and experience, to help develop EACOP and commercialise our oil. The companies have employed and trained several Ugandans and have added value to a significant number of Ugandan businesses. The people affected by this project will be compensated and resettled. Not to mention the sizable infrastructure and investment in the oil-rich areas.

It goes without saying that we must ensure that we develop a refinery in Uganda. The lack of refining capacity in Africa was the subject of a recent study. It found that Africa produces more than four million barrels of oil per day but has a refining capacity of just over a million barrels a day and of which only 30 per cent of that capacity was used last year. This means the whole continent imports all of its fuel at astronomical prices.

The parable of the talents in Matthew 25: 14-30 comes to mind. In that story, three men were given talents to use. Two used them and were blessed. One did not use his talent but conserved it and gave it back to the master as he had received it. The master, angry that the man had failed to utilise the available resources told the man who had conserved what he was given that that man will be thrown into a place “where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth”. We have lived far too long in that place already and cannot afford to keep our resources buried in the ground any longer.

The writer is an advocate and partner at Kampala Associated Advocates
elisonk@kaa.co.ug

 



We shall announce pipeline financiers next month - UNOC​

Thursday, June 23, 2022

A number of people both within and outside Uganda have challenged the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, claiming that it will damage the environment. PHOTO | FILE
By Julius Barigaba

What you need to know:​

  • Peter Muliisa is the Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC) chief legal and corporate affairs officer. He spoke to Julius Barigaba on a variety of issues in the oil and gas sector including the on status and viability of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
What is the fate of EACOP considering the current financing, environmental and legal pressures?

We have had environmental and climate activists start a hashtag and movement to mobilise people to stop EACOP.
The thrust of their argument is that it is dangerous to the environment, it is going to displace people and wildlife and that it is going to cause major emissions, which would worsen climate change.


We do a Resettlement Action Plan, which looks at the impact of the projects on the people, and comes up with mitigation measures, based on International Finance Corporation standards, accepted by all banks in the world.

The land that EACOP needs is a 30-metre corridor. So, in most places you are not taking people’s whole land but a piece.

After construction, the pipeline is buried all the way. When it’s laid and everything is done, the land will be restored.

Why was there a delay in the first place?
It was largely because we had not taken a Final Investment Decision. But we had done everything else - we had prepared the Project Affected Persons, done the valuations, and in addition to the normal values, we have added the disturbance allowance. Now we are at the end of the resettlement action plan. It’s a long process.

The project has also been accused of damage to the environment. We know the project has an environmental issue, so we did an environmental and social impact assessment.

An oil spill could happen anytime on a pipeline. How do you mitigate this?

The pipeline is double layered steel. It has insulations that enable us to monitor what is happening at any point, from the control centres. And for every river crossing, we have put a valve on both sides of the river.

We have put in place an oil spill contingency plan, which is a requirement by law, and which is best practice. It lays out steps we would take to ensure that there is very quick efficient action.

EACOP will produce emissions. Could that derail Paris Agreement targets?
We have done as much as possible to make it a net-zero emitter project. That basically means you look at the carbon it is going to emit and you offset it by creating scenarios that will reduce carbon emission to the amount that you might emit.

Is the call to ditch fossil fuels too early, especially for Uganda?
Fossil fuels are not going to be eliminated; it is about how we use them, and the alternatives we create so that we have a balanced ecosystem so that you emit enough, not to be in danger of climate change effects.

Critics say that by pushing this project, Uganda will miss the transition to green energy. Are we thinking about that transition?

Up to 68 percent of people in sub-Saharan Africa have no access to electricity. That’s the energy poverty we are dealing with.

You are not transiting them from anything; they are at zero. I have read credible reports that say we are not likely to meet the Paris targets by 2050.

Does that mean we will not “develop in a responsible manner”?
Upstream operations contribute 10 percent emissions, but within upstream there are certain elements such as methane leakage.

One element that contributes a lot of emissions is flaring. As a country we made it a criminal act to flare in Uganda.

Are the activists unfairly targeting Uganda?
There is a need for reducing emissions to achieve the Paris targets by all countries.

What we would want to see from activists is not to target a project that is neutral, that is aimed at getting people out of energy poverty.

Why have you struggled with financing for EACOP?
We are confident with financing. Project finance is a standard process.

You reach out to financing entities and do market sounding as the project starts. When the project matures, you now issue an information memorandum to all these financiers.

Some will tell you we are not going to participate and others will tell you we are going to participate.

Those that say they are going to participate, you give them a term sheet, they return their response to the term sheet. When we got our returns, we were oversubscribed by 20 percent.

By July, we should be able to announce all the financing entities. We have entities from Europe, from Asia and all over the world.

Respected voices in oil and gas have repeatedly said EACOP’s financing will come from anywhere but Europe. Is that the case?
It’s a general feeling because the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and I think the G7 have all come up and said we don’t want to finance fossil fuels.

But the reality is that banks will continue to finance good responsible projects, even in the fossil fuel space.

You must have seen that press statement by UK Energy Secretary, where he said fossil fuels will continue to be here with us for the coming decades. It’s the truth.

Upstream exploration efforts
We negotiated a production sharing agreement (PSA) for Kasuruban; we bid for two, but we didn’t get Omuka. We’ve negotiated a PSA with the ministry, we have agreed on the terms. It’s now before the solicitor general for approval and once he approves, we sign it and start exploration of that block.

EACOP was planned to transport crude for 25 to 30 years. If we don’t have new discoveries, we will have the risk of stranded assets in our midst.

Are you confident going into exploration that you will discover oil?
When we were developing the pipeline, these are the questions we were dealing with in the economic model.

The pipeline as it is today is based on the resources we know, otherwise you can’t be sure [of future discoveries].

And with the resources that we know, we shall be able to pay debt, get returns on equity. So it’s a profitable commercially viable project.

We have the technical capacity. We have probably some of the best trained technical people in geology, geophysics and geoscience.

What we’ve had challenges with is generally financing and risk appetite especially now because we are getting money from the Treasury.



 

Renewed calls for SMBC to halt East African pipeline support​

AFRICA / 29-06-22 / BY FELIX THOMPSON
0


A group of environmental organisations and NGOs are putting pressure on Japanese lender SMBC to end its involvement in a controversial US$5bn East African crude oil pipeline, ahead of a shareholder meeting this week.
In a letter sent to SMBC’s board this month, the campaign groups warn the bank’s role in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) is inconsistent with its own environmental and social pledges, leaving it open to accusations of “greenwashing” and possible legal action.

SMBC is reportedly advising French major Total, the operator of the 1,450km heated pipeline, which upon completion will transport oil extracted and refined in Uganda to a port on the Tanzanian coast, where it will be exported.

The Japanese bank is jointly arranging up to US$3bn in debt financing covering 60% of the project’s costs, having also supplied Total with several fossil fuel-related loans totaling US$2.2bn loans between 2017 and 2021, the memo says.

A growing list of lenders have ruled out involvement in EACOP amid warnings over its expected greenhouse gas emissions, displacement of local communities and potential damage to natural habitats – with the buried pipeline set to cut through multiple natural reserves, including Uganda’s Murchison Falls National Park and the basin of Lake Victoria.
Signees of the letter include BankTrack, Rainforest Action Network, Oil Change International and SMBC Group shareholder, the Kiko Network, who argue the pipeline will have a “significant contribution” to climate change by unlocking a new source of fossil fuels – one that is capable of emitting the equivalent of nearly nine coal-fired power plants when burned.
The project is expected to produce 230,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak, generating indirect emissions of more than 34 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

“As board members of SMBC, you are responsible for overseeing risk management processes and disclosures by your institution, and for ensuring that SMBC acts in compliance with applicable laws and corporate policies.

“The reported role played by SMBC in the EACOP project exposes your bank to significant reputational and financial risks,” they say.

“Moreover, a failure to assess and manage the foreseeable risks posed by EACOP and its actual or foreseeable adverse impacts… could give rise to potential legal liability for SMBC, including for harms associated with the project, as well as potential liability for board members for breach of fiduciary duties.”

The letter says SMBC leaves itself open to accusations of “greenwashing” given the group’s policies on climate, environment, and human rights.
In one example, it flags the group’s commitment to not finance projects with a significant impact on wetlands, yet the EACOP plans to develop oil extraction wells and the pipeline in wetland sites designated as important under the Ramsar convention.

Total has found its options for financing EACOP limited amid a trend of financial institutions reducing their exposure to fossil fuels, a movement that clashes with plans in African countries such as Nigeria and Uganda to capitalise on as yet untapped oil and gas reserves.

The EACOP will allow Uganda to export oil for the first time and help the country earn vital foreign exchange revenues.

The project will extract oil upstream from the Lake Albert Development, including the Tilenga and Kingfisher projects in Uganda.

The oil will then be refined in Uganda to supply the local market and also exported globally via EACOP and Tanzania. The first export shipment is slated for early 2025.

The #StopEACOP campaign group estimates at least 20 commercial lenders have now distanced themselves from the crude pipeline, with Citi, Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan all reportedly ruling out loans for the project this year.

As many as four export credit agencies including those in Italy, Germany, France and the UK have indicated they will not back the pipeline.

Several insurers have also rowed back on EACOP, although a May report from the Financial Times and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed that Marsh McLennan is reportedly arranging insurance for the African pipeline.

According to the letter, SMBC should “promptly examine and disclose” the risks associated with any support provided to date, withdraw from EACOP outright, and ensure the bank does not contribute to human rights issues now or in the future.

SMBC could not be reached for comment by GTR.

 

TPDC receives award for contribution in EACOP​



FRIDAY JULY 01 2022​


Summary

  • Mr Bwana said TPDC had what it took to receive the award due to its technical contribution to the successful implementation of the project that will create about 10,000 jobs for Tanzanians.



By Alex Nelson Malanga
More by this Author

Dar es Salaam. Tanzania has received an honorary award from Uganda in recognition of her immense contribution to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project.

The award was handed to the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC) by the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA).

On behalf of the UIA, the EACOP Green Economy Coordinator, Mr Bryan Bwana, presented the award to the TPDC Director General Dr James Mataragio.

Mr Bwana said TPDC had what it took to receive the award due to its technical contribution to the successful implementation of the project that will create about 10,000 jobs for Tanzanians.

“We commend TPDC for its contribution that has made the two countries arrive at the Final Investment Decision (FID),” he told a press conference.

The FID was announced in February this year at a ceremony in Kampala by the heads of France's TotalEnergies and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) after sealing a landmark $10-billion deal to develop the project.

The historic event was witnessed by the Tanzanian Vice President, Dr Philip Mpango, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and other high profile government officials from the two countries.

Mr Bwana said TPDC's experience in the construction projects and in overseeing oil and gas infrastructure has been of paramount importance in facilitating smooth discussion.

“As you know, this project has undergone various stages and in every stage TPDC has been in a forefront in making sure the project materialises,” stressed Mr Bwana.

Receiving the award, Dr Mataragio thanked the Ugandan government for recognising the contribution of the government of Tanzania through TPDC.

He said as a shareholder, TPDC had no option than doing all in its power to achieve the FID.

"It is our great honour to receive this award today (yesterday),” Dr Mataragio said, dedicating it (award) to all Tanzanians.

The 1,443-kilometre pipeline will transport crude oil from Hoima, Uganda to Chongoleani in Tanga Tanzania where economists say the construction of the pipeline will lead to a substantial rise in Foreign Direct Investment (FDIs) in both countries.

Over $3.5 billion investment capital associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline will be directly injected into the economies of the two countries.

The EACOP will be constructed and operated through a pipeline company by shareholders, namely the Uganda National Oil company (UNOC), the TPDC, TotalEnergies, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and Bolloré Logistics.

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…