Special thread: EACOP updates

Oil and gas projects: Value at stake​

Thursday, September 01, 2022

Peninah Aheebwa argues that whereas some Ugandans have joined foreigners to fight oil projects, they must first of all understand what is at stake. Photo | file
By Guest Writer

What you need to know:​

Whereas some Ugandans have joined foreigners to fight oil projects, especially the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline, the Petroleum Authority of Uganda says they must be aware of what is at stake and what they stand to lose
Government expects to earn an average of $2.8b per annum from oil activities, which is projected to be 47 percent of government’s annual revenue collection during the 2022/23 financial year.

However, in this article we shall focus on the non-fiscal benefits of oil projects through national content development and sectoral linkages.
National Content

RELATED​

  • Women trailblazers in oil​

    Prosper 1 hour ago
  • Oil sector tenders to be opened in December​

    Finance 1 hour ago
National Content is regarded as value added on the economy through employment of Ugandans and the use of goods and services produced or available on the local market.
This seeks to drive development of human capital in oil and gas related disciplines, achieve in-country value creation and retention as well as development of competitiveness of Ugandan enterprises to supply the oil and gas Sector.
Out of the $15b investment in oil, the Petroleum Authority of Uganda is working with partners to ensure that at least 40 percent is retained in the country through national content.
Employment
Currently, about 10,111 Ugandans are estimated to be directly employed by the oil sector, and the number is expected to grow to 13,000 at peak.
The investments in the sector will also stimulate indirect and induced employment in the region of 35,000 and 100,000 Uganda respectively valued at more than $1b.
Capacity development
Contractors and subcontractors from more than 145 awarded contracts have proposed training for Ugandans to the tune of $20b.
This will be in addition to already committed capacity building of Ugandan companies through supplier development programmes, promotion of joint ventures and the industry enhancement centre. At least $7.7m has been committed to these programmes under the Tilenga Project.
It is projected that at least $5m will be spent on capacity building of suppliers and their contractors throughout the development phase in the Kingfisher Development and the East African Crude Oil Pipeline projects.

Supply of goods and services
During the exploration phase out of $3.5b spent in the country, $980m (28 percent) was retained in the country.
Therefore, with more than 145 contracts worth $6.8b in the development phase in both the upstream and midstream stages, the value of contracts confirmed to be executed by Ugandan companies at tier one and two is currently worth $1.73b.
Knowledge and technology transfer
The formation of joint ventures between Ugandan and international firms presents a huge opportunity for knowledge and technology transfer.
In addition, knowledge transfer through expatriate understudies, training in the use of petroleum and geoscience software, internships, and graduate programmes will facilitate this process.
TotalEnergies under the Tilenga National Content programme has already committed 30,536 manhours worth $3.86m towards technology transfer initiatives. EACOP and Kingfisher are projected to contribute at least $2m towards technology transfer initiatives.
Benefits through sector linkages ($8.4b)
Experience has shown that development of oil and gas can create an enclave economy if its development is not integrated in the wider economy.
Therefore, harnessing the linkages between oil and gas and other sectors of the economy is key for broad based, inclusive economic development.
Studies have shown that every $1 directly invested in the oil and gas sector is expected to yield indirect growth of the GDP by $0.6.
Therefore, a direct investment of $15b (33 percent of Uganda’s current GDP estimated at $45.7b) in the oil and gas sector is expected to yield indirect growth of GDP by close to $9b (close to 20 percent of current GDP) by the time first oil is achieved.

This will be in addition to the targeted $6b through fulfilment of national content requirements, which implies that through exploitation of sectoral linkages and national content, could cement its middle-income status even before first oil.
Exploitation of the linkages with agriculture, financing or insurance, manufacturing, education, transport, tourism, health, land use planning and housing is already ongoing.
In terms of agriculture, there is an opportunity to exploit the demand expected which will therefore require, farmer level capacity building on quality and standards, research and development and strengthening seed supply systems, building cross-border business linkages and investment in increasing productivity and production, among others.
Additionally, in terms of health care services, more than $100m worth of clinical and non-clinical revenue opportunities is expected from medical evacuation, incidental health care, fitness for work examination, dental services, pharmaceuticals and laboratory service, among others.
Oil projects are also expected to help in closing the housing gap given that demand has been identified in all aspects among which include residential, industrial, office spaces and hospitality.
Therefore, as some Ugandans help foreigners to fight oil projects, they must be aware of what is at stake.
The perceived environmental impacts have been fully addressed through established environment and social impact assessment processes to the highest international standards.

Oil projects will deliver jobs, revenues of a magnitude that this country has not seen before from a single sector, improved standards of living for Ugandans, accelerated economic take off, diversification, balanced economic growth, and an improved investment rating among others.
There are enormous opportunities that every Ugandan will benefit from, directly or indirectly, in which ever sector they are active.

Peninah Aheebwa is an Energy Economist and Petroleum Authority of Uganda director technical support services
 

Oil, industrialisation and devt​

Saturday, August 27, 2022

Elison Karuhanga
By Elison Karuhanga
Columnist

What you need to know:​

Refineries across Africa have a combined capacity of 1.3m barrels per day
One of Africa’s biggest challenges has been to industrialise. From oil to cocoa, cotton to vanilla, Africa is rich in natural resources but its heavy dependence on commodity exports means it has yet to take full advantage of the added value that processing raw materials and manufacturing can bring. The continent must move away from the mere export of raw materials and start to industrialise.

The former governor of the Nigerian Central Bank once pointed out that his country is one of the largest producers of tomatoes and one of the largest importers of tomato paste. From cotton to coffee, from tomatoes to oil, literally every product made in Africa leaves as a raw material and returns as a finished product. This must be stopped.
In this regard, Uganda has established an audacious plan around its oil industry. One of the oil projects is the development of the Kabaale Industrial Park. Kabaale Industrial Park is a 29.57sq km land in Kabaale, Buseruka, Hoima District. This park will host the refinery and it will also host the crude oil export hub. It is from this park that the East African Crude Oil Pipe Line (EACOP) will start its 1,443km journey to Tanga in Tanzania. It is from this park that the refinery will be built. It is here that we have Uganda’s second international airport being developed.

RELATED​

  • Uganda: Oil and our audacity of hope​

    Commentary Aug 27
  • Uganda’s oil and the narrative war​

    Commentary Aug 27
The relationship Africa has had with the metropolitan centres of the rest of the world has been as a supplier of raw materials. The implementation of Kabaale Industrial Park is a bold attempt to ensure that a raw material in the form of crude oil is able to make a maximum impact not just on the Treasury but also on the wider economy.
The proposed refinery will produce liquefied petroleum gas, petrol, diesel, kerosene and heavy fuel oil. It will refine 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
The park will also host a petrochemical industry that deals with the by-products from the refinery. We shall be able to produce textiles, fertilisers and other industries.

There can be no gainsaying the fact that an industrial park built and anchored on the refinery will have significant economic impact on Uganda. For starters, it means we will stop buying the oil we use from the Arabian Gulf and Singapore as we currently do. The impact on energy security and even on our balance of payments would definitely be substantial.
The new airport and the new roads around the project area will play a significant role in making it easier for tourists to visit Uganda and see the beautiful Murchison Falls National Park, Queen Elizabeth National Park or all the other excellent tourist locations.
The park will be built around the idea of value addition. Uganda will export crude through EACOP but what we are able to add value to through the industrial park and the refinery will certainly boost the economic prospects of Uganda.
The park will be run by the Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC). UNOC will have a land allocation policy for interested investors. Construction of the roads, fencing of the different plots, laying of cables, for the project is estimated to start latest by 2024 as the refinery is being constructed.
The need for these projects cannot be overemphasised. Refineries across the continent have a combined capacity to refine 1.3 million barrels of oil per day. Africa only refines 30 percent of that capacity. We have less refining capacity in Africa than the barrels of oil Nigeria produces per day.
This petrochemical hub is, therefore, an important and necessary development. Industrialisation will help Uganda achieve high growth rates, diversify our economy and reduce exposure to external shocks.

This will substantially contribute to poverty eradication through employment and wealth creation. This is what will stop us from being growers of tomatoes who are forced to import tomato paste. Value addition is and must remain the rallying cry for Africa.

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

Oil & Gas: Which project will bring what income​

Sunday, August 21, 2022

Ms Peninah Aheebwa argues that Uganda should be allowed to use its oil and gas resources to achieve economic takeoff just like other countries have done before it. Photo | file
By Guest Writer

What you need to know:​

From the three main projects including the EACOP, refinery and upstream, government is expected to earn a total of $69.7b over the projects’ life and an average of $2.8b per annum
The East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline project (EACOP), which has met resistance from setups against fossil fuels, is one of the projects Uganda has planned to monetise its oil and gas assets, which are currently valued at $116b.

These assets are certainly among the country’s biggest economic assets in terms of value.
Some of the strategic reasons for choosing to export about 57 percent of crude oil include the need to enhance Uganda’s export base and the trade balance which is currently in deficit.

RELATED​

  • Oil and gas: The opportunity in G7 shifting goal posts​

    Prosper Aug 21
  • Tracing Uganda’s oil journey​

    National Aug 21
Beyond EACOP, the other project for monetizing the oil and gas assets include the refinery, with a strategic objective of meeting petroleum needs that are currently estimated at 36,000 barrels per day and growing at an annual rate of about 7 percent.
This would also save the country foreign exchange expenditure of over $1.23b per year given that Uganda will in addition to fuel products also produce Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG), which is mainly used in households and would be a key replacement to charcoal and firewood.
At least more than 300,000 tonnes of LPG are expected to be produced per year at peak production, which is close to the total amount of LPG currently being consumed in the whole of East Africa.
The life cycle of the above projects is under 30 years, which is far below the target by the most radicle energy transition pledges.
The size of Uganda’s economy as reported by the Ministry of Finance is $ 45.7b, with expected domestic revenue of $6b (13 percent of GDP) in the 2022/23 financial year. The economy is dominated by the services sector at 41.5 percent, followed by industry at 26.8 percent and agriculture at 24.1 percent.
Uganda recorded a trade deficit of $413.8m in May 2022 yet it suffers chronic high levels of unemployment, which must be rebooted by massive capital investments.

Economies such as the UAE and Norway, among others, were not in a different situation from the above at the start of their oil and gas industry. They were able to leverage on their oil and gas resources to achieve economic take off, which therefore, means that Uganda can use its oil and gas resource to achieve economic takeoff.
This will be driven by the large magnitude of investments, estimated at between $15 and $20b, in a space of three and five years and reasonable in-country capacity to ensure a significant share of investments in form of employment and provision of goods and services is retained in the country.
Others drives will be a fair share of government from the expected oil revenues (close to an average of 70 percent) and institutional, regulatory and governance infrastructure to ensure government’s share in the oil revenues is secured and put to good use.
The frameworks Uganda’s oil and gas sector now in place together with the activities being implemented make it clear that the oil and gas industry is going to be transformational on Uganda’s economy and in improving the wellbeing of its citizens.
It is therefore only rational that this transformation is welcomed and supported. The benefits are coming in a number of forms such as revenue from the agreed fiscal regime, participation of Ugandans and Ugandan Enterprises through employment and provision of goods and services, local social and economic development, sectoral linkages to ensure broad based growth, and improved investment rating, among others.

Fiscal benefits: Pre-first oil tax and non-tax revenues
From 2017 to 2021, a total of Shs577.4m was paid by five oil companies licensed in the country. The revenue was in the form of Income Tax, PAYE, Stamp Duty, Value Added Tax and Withholding Tax.
During the same period, $7.66m was received from the sector in form of non-tax revenue in respect to application fees, bonuses, data sale, surface rentals and training fees.
Revenues through agreed fiscal regime after first oil
The fiscal regimes between the upstream (Tilenga and Kingfisher) and midstream (EACOP and refinery) projects differ and so are the expected returns to government from the same.
The upstream projects are run under a joint venture arrangement with TotalEnergies holding an interest of 56.66 percent in all projects, while CNOOC holds 28.33 percent and Uganda National Oil Company holding a 15 percent stake on behalf of government.
The pipeline project is managed through the EACOP Company with shareholding from the Uganda National Oil Company (15 percent), the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (15 percent) and the two oil companies; TotalEnergies (62 percent) and CNOOC (8 percent). Government will hold a 40 percent share in the refinery project.
Using the prevailing assumptions, government is entitled to a net take of 75 percent from the upstream projects, which translates to $66b ($2.6b per year) with the 25 percent paying for the investors’ return on investment.
From EACOP, through dividends and applicable taxes government is expected to earn $400m while from the refinery, government is expected to earn $3.3b.

In this regard, from the three main projects as indicated, government expects to earn a total of $69.7b over the projects’ life and an average of $2.8b per annum. The expected average annual income is 47 percent of the projected domestic revenue collection for the 2022/2023 ($6b), which in accordance with the Public Finance Management Act 2015, will be invested in infrastructure development therefore, bridging the infrastructure financing gap estimated at $400m per year.

Ms Peninah Aheebwa is the Petroleum Authority of Uganda energy economist and director technical support services
 

Uganda: Oil and our audacity of hope​

Saturday, August 20, 2022

Elison Karuhanga
By Elison Karuhanga
Columnist

What you need to know:​

We cannot afford to gamble the Uganda of future generations on hypotheticals
The debate about the development of our oil and gas resources continues to rage on. Many in Africa are justifiably sceptical of the option of lobbying for the money pledged under the Paris climate accords. After all, no continent has suffered more injustice than Africa and yet we have never been paid any reparations for the injustices we have suffered. If slavery, invasion, colonialism and neo-colonialism could not be paid for, will money for bad weather ever be remitted?

The other problem, apart from our scepticism that is rooted in historical facts, is the global political reality. Forgive my cynicism that the pledges made by leaders of the West have ever or will ever have the consent of their constituents. We saw former US president Donald Trump run for office and win with the promise of removing America from the Paris Agreement. While president Joe Biden has recently re-joined the agreement, he has not only issued a number of new licences but also opened US federal lands to oil drilling.
A report issued in September 2021 found that every single country in the G20 had failed to meet its climate obligations. The challenge of getting rich countries to limit their emissions has been made worse by the current global economic crisis. The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has released a report stating that this year income across households in the UK will decline by seven percent, the biggest decline since records started in 1961.

RELATED​

  • DR Congo, Blinken and oil​

    Commentary Aug 20
  • The world must decarbonise, but Africa must urgently industrialise​

    Commentary Aug 20
So, like all populations around the world, we are seeing lower incomes, higher fuel costs and massive inflation affect developed and under developed countries. Which population will allow their politicians to transfer large swathes of wealth to people in Africa? A promise to pay Africa $100b is, therefore, not just historically dubious it also lacks democratic legitimacy.
Oil revenue will have a significant impact on Uganda’s economy. The chairperson of the Uganda Chamber of Mines and Petroleum, Mr Patrick Mweheire, pointed out this week that the oil resource has the potential to double our GDP within five years. The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) is not only a pipeline that transports crude oil but also an opportunity to open a new trade route between Uganda and Tanzania.

In addition to the infrastructure, oil revenue creates synergy between the oil industry and other sectors of the economy. We are attracting a total investment of over $20b which will be the single largest investment in East Africa so far. Tanzania will soon attract a $30b investment for its gas project and we are likely to see a reverse gas pipeline along the EACOP route from Tanzania to Uganda. While Kenya will remain the logistics hub for Ugandan oil, as we continue to use the port of Mombasa, DR Congo, Tanzania and Uganda will reap huge benefits from their hydrocarbon resources.
Furthermore, the proposed refinery in Uganda will have a significant impact on the economy through the production of petrol, diesel, heavy fuel oils, kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas which is a mitigation effort in the fight against deforestation and environmental degradation.
The need to mitigate against all social, economic and environmental risks that an oil project brings cannot be overemphasized. Serious and formidable work has been done to mitigate and avoid project risks as much as possible.
The opportunity the oil brings and has already brought to the region cannot be underestimated. The alternative to this oil development is that we leave the oil in the ground and instead be paid under the Paris climate agreement. Under this agreement, the rich countries committed to pay to poorer countries a total of $100b per year. The commitment is almost 10 years old now. This money was some form of reparations for the climate damage the industrialisation of the rich countries had caused. We could abandon the oil with its macroeconomic benefits and then lobby for these resources as our development alternative.

Unlike wealthy nations, that as major producers will remain wealthy even when their oil and gas revenue is removed, we cannot afford to gamble the Uganda of future generations on hypotheticals, especially with the opportunity we have at hand. We will never be forgiven if we do.

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

Govt sending mixed messages on energy​

Saturday, September 03, 2022

The Kira electric buses assembled in Uganda. Government says an electric car mass transit plan is in the offing, with one electric bus having capacity to carry up to 90 people per journey. PHOTO / COURTESY
By Derrick Kiyonga

What you need to know:​

  • One of the solutions that the President proffered was urging citizens to swap automobiles powered by dirty fuels such as petrol and diesel with electric cars.
Last month, President Museveni used back-to-back national addresses interspersed by a few days to talk about the cost of living crisis.

One of the solutions that the President proffered was urging citizens to swap automobiles powered by dirty fuels such as petrol and diesel with electric cars.
“Electric vehicles are cheaper, cleaner, have no pollution, and apparently have less maintenance cost,” Mr Museveni said, adding, “This fuel is likely going to remain high. Even when our petrol is here, we will have to sell it at the world price minus the transport costs.”

RELATED​

  • Shift to electric cars, Museveni tells Ugandans​

    National Sep 03
  • S4 drop outs make electric car​

    National Sep 03
To achieve the transition away from dirty fuels, the government will have to invest billions to harness alternative energy sources.
Uganda, so far, has also not invested in the critical infrastructure and supportive environment needed to have the transition, and there is an absence of a steady charging network, which is a major ingredient in rolling out electric vehicles (EVs).
Speaking to PhD fellows at Makerere University on August 11, Dr Monica Musenero—the Science, Technology and Innovation minister—revealed that an electric car mass transit is in the offing. Four electric buses with a capacity to carry up to 90 people per journey will provide transport at what the minister called “an affordable rate.” The buses will, Dr Musenero added, use a charging station in Bugolobi, a suburb in Kampala.
“We shall have planning of the roads so that other vehicles do not block them, because, if they get stuck in jam, then it won’t help or work,” Dr Musenero said of the buses that will be called the Kayoola EV, adding, “These buses will have schedules because we want our buses to move on time so that the public can know where the buses are at a particular time. For example, if the bus is setting off at 6am, then 6.30am, you know it’s in this place so that people can organise themselves…”

The government’s investment in renewable energy—which experts say can help combat climate change—have, however, been pitiful. In this fiscal year’s Budget, a measly Shs628b was allocated to combat climate change. The money, according to Finance minister Matia Kasaija, will mitigate environmental degradation after the government set a target to increase the national forest cover from the current 12.4 percent to 15 percent.
A tale of contrasts
While the shift to clean energy operates off a shoestring budget, the government has invested trillions in the country’s budding oil and gas sector. The mile the government is willing to go in order to put up oil infrastructure was shown on December 19, 2016, when Mr Patrick Ocailap—the Deputy Secretary to the Treasury—outed a correspondence to all accounting officers.
In it, he asked them to cut their budgets. The money diverted from different ministries and government departments, Mr Ocailap said, was to be used to fund food production, food security, and value-addition and also bankroll oil roads and bridges in order to achieve oil production by 2020.
After failing to meet the 2020 deadline, the government said in 2021 it was seeking a $117m (Shs453b) loan from China to construct oil roads.
These included Masindi-Biiso, Kabaale-Kiziranfumbi and Hohwa-Nyairongo-Kyarusesa-Butoole.
Early this year, Uganda National Roads Authority (Unra) said oil roads are still the priority and that they are to be completed before commercial production of oil starts in 2025. At a media briefing, Unra executive director Allen Kagina revealed that the completion rate of Buhimba-Kakumiro and Masindi-Bukedea—which are categorised as oil roads—stands at 70 percent and 60 percent respectively.

Unra also said it is constructing the Kabwoya-Buhuka (43km) and Karugutu-Ntoroko (56.5km) roads. It has also prioritised the construction of Lusalira-Nkonge-Lumegere-Sembabule upgrades, Masindi-Biiso, Hohwa-Nyairongo-Kyarusheesha-Butoole, and Kabaale-Kiziranfumbi roads.
If there is any doubt as to how Mr Museveni’s government is serious about extracting dirty fuels, the fight over the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (Eacop) extinguished reservations.
The 1,443km pipeline that will transport oil from Hoima in mid-western Uganda to Chongleani terminal, at Tanga port at the Indian Ocean in Tanzania, is estimated to cost $3.55b (Shs13.4 trillion).
Following pressure from environmental activists, western banks such as BNP Paribas, Société Générale, and Crédit Agricole, as well as Credit Suisse of Switzerland, ANZ of Australia and New Zealand, and Barclays, said they wouldn’t be financing the project. They said the project doesn’t dovetail with their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework.

One forward, two steps back
Nevertheless, with the help of South Africa-based Standard Bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited (ICBC), and the Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) of Japan—who are lead advisors for the Eacop financing—the Ugandan government has said it will persist with the project until it reaches a logical conclusion.
“These activists should know that our policy emphasises the need to utilise the resources to create value for the citizens and the region,” Ms Ruth Nankabirwa, the Energy minister, recently said of Eacop.

The Eacop holding company owners—as detailed in the Shareholders Agreement signed on April 11 at State House, Entebbe—include Uganda National Oil Company (Unoc) with 15 percent, Total Holdings International B.V. with 62 percent, Tanzania—through its national oil company, Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC)—with 15 percent, and China National Offshore Oil Corporation or Cnooc with eight percent. The construction of the pipeline is expected to start later this year following the formation of a holding company that will accelerate its creation.
Whereas Mr Museveni—without saying when the money will be available—has said Uganda needs Shs20b to develop its electric automotive industry, Shs904.1b has been set aside this fiscal year towards the development and commercialisation of oil and gas.
“While there have been negative campaigns against the development of the crude oil pipeline, the government will develop Uganda’s oil and gas resources in a responsible and sustainable manner for the benefit of all Ugandans,” Mr Kasaija said when allocating the funds.
When production starts, Uganda plans to sell a fraction of its oil daily through Eacop to the world market. Another fraction will be available to the refinery project that has failed to take off thus far. The government is struggling to gather adequate interest from the private sector partners to finance the ambitious project located at Kabaale in Hoima District. This has also impacted storage projects in Mpigi District where refined products will be stored before distribution.


Arrested development?
The contract to construct the refinery was first awarded to RT Global Resources, a state-owned Russian Consortium in 2015. In 2016, the Ugandan government pulled a plug on the deal on grounds that the Russians were making additional demands deemed untenable.
The Plan B for the Ugandan government was South Korean consortium SK Energy. Once SK Energy was given the contract, it pulled out on grounds of the high risk of taking up 60 percent as the private lead investor.
In 2018, Albertine Graben Refinery Consortium (AGRC)—owned by Italians and Americans—was awarded the contract. Ugandan officials have, however, been forced to explore alternatives, thanks to AGRC’s state of inactivity.
“Government’s commitment is up to 40 percent [with the possibility of the East Africa Community partners taking up some equity]. Government and the AGRC will work to raise the required financing,” Ms Gloria Sebikari, the Petroleum Authority of Uganda (PAU) spokesperson, said, adding, “This requires the conclusion of the technical studies mentioned and the announcement of the Final Investment Decision, and then the partners will go out to the market to raise the required financing.”
The Ugandan government is looking for about $480m (Shs1.8 trillion) to $500m (Shs2 trillion) for its stake, but officials in charge of the sector say this could change depending on the project attracting new local and regional investors.
The $4b project will be funded through a debt-to-equity ratio of about 70:30, with the lead investor, AGRC, responsible for raising the $2.8b debt as loans for the project. PAU says AGRC will also contribute 60 percent of the $1.2b in equity.


Renewable energy

While the government is pouring trillions into the oil sector, not much has been invested in solar energy. This has been the case despite the Energy ministry saying Uganda is endowed with 5-6 kWh/m2 radiation per day on flat surfaces.
“The insolation is highest at the Equator. However, varies up to a maximum of 20 percent from place to place away from the Equator, the dryer areas (north-east) have the highest temperatures and the lowest in the mountainous areas (south-west) of the country. The total estimated potential is about 5,300 MW,” the Energy ministry’s renewable energy profile reads.
The government has been quick to shoot down claims that it pays clean energy lip service.
Government functionaries cite investments in hydropower projects such as Isimba (183MW) and Karuma (600MW) dams.
“When it comes to clean energy, Uganda doesn’t need lectures because it’s up there with Norway,” Ms Irene Batebe—the Energy ministry’s Permanent Secretary—said in reference to the Scandinavian country’s 1,681 hydropower plants.
Mr Museveni’s insistence on EVs has been buoyed by the hybrid five-seater Ugandan assembled Kira (EV). The automobile, however, costs well over Shs100m, a sum few Ugandans can afford.
Although EVs are expensive, Mr Museveni says this is offset by the fact that such cars are easy to maintain. He, for instance, says the electric bus uses Shs360 per kilometre. This, he adds, is almost five times cheaper than a similar fossil fuel bus, which uses Shs1,600 per kilometre.
Yet with 85 percent of Ugandans living in rural areas, EVs and indeed renewable energy sources will be the last thing they think about.
“Majority of rural households use firewood for cooking and less than 10 percent of the population employs clean cooking practices. Uganda’s forested land is shrinking by two percent a year. Only 15 to 26 percent of the total land area is still covered by forest and nearly 22 percent of the population lives in areas without trees,” one of the Energy ministry’s policy documents reads in part.
To foster investment in clean energy, the ministry has suggested ideas such as implementing public-private partnerships (PPP), innovative financing mechanisms, including targeted subsidies to stimulate the market penetration of renewable energy technologies; introduction of specific regimes that favour renewable energy, including preferential tax treatment, tax exemption and accelerated depreciation; implementation of innovative risk mitigation mechanisms and credit enhancement instruments to provide comfort to project lenders. It remains to be seen whether any of these will come to fruition.



 


Known for many years as an area where natural oil seepages occurred, oil was first discovered by drilling in the Lake Albert area of Uganda in 2006. This first discovery led to an extensive period of further exploration and appraisal which was completed in 2014.

EACOP is being constructed in parallel with two upstream development projects, known as Tilenga and Kingfisher respectively. Each development will consist of a Central Processing Facility (CPF) to separate and treat the oil, water and gas produced by the wells. Kingfisher will have 4 well pads and a CPF with a peak daily capacity of 42000 bbl/d. Tilenga has 31 wellpads and a 204000 bbl/d CPF.
Tilenga and Kingfisher CPFs will be connected by feeder lines to the starting point of EACOP at Kabaale. Here the oil will be metered and then comingled into a single stream. The Ugandan Refinery project has a right of first call to 60,000 bbl/d, with the remainder of the oil being exported via EACOP.
The pipeline route via Tanzania was confirmed in April 2016 at a summit with the East African Heads of State. In the period 2016-2018 the EACOP route was studied and narrowed down to its final width of 30 metres, allowing to then initiate land surveys and the Environmental and Social Impact Assessments.
This EACOP pipeline will be designed, constructed, financed and operated through a dedicated Pipeline Company with the same name. The shareholders in EACOP are affiliates of the three Upstream joint venture partners (the Uganda National Oil Company, TotalEnergies E&P Uganda and CNOOC Uganda) together with the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation. Shareholdings are TotalEnergies 62%, UNOC and TPDC 15% each and CNOOC 8%.
EACOP has established a commercial and legal framework including
  1. An InterGovernmental Agreement between the Governments of Uganda and Tanzania setting out common principles and signed on 26th May 2017
  2. Two Host Governments Agreements between EACOP and the Governments of Uganda and Tanzania, signed on 11th April 2021 and 20th May 2021 respectively. These HGAs cover matters such as Land, HSE standards, fiscal regime, Authorisations, Decommissioning and recourse to dispute mechanisms. Where required, the HGAs are supported by legislation in both Uganda and Tanzania
  3. The EACOP Shareholders Agreement which became effective the 15th February 2022 between the four Shareholders setting out the governance of the EACOP Company. EACOP Co is a UK registered entity, fiscally resident in Uganda. It will pay its taxes and duties in Uganda and Tanzania.
  4. The Transport and Tariff Agreement setting out the terms and conditions for EACOP to transport oil. Under the TTA, EACOP will receive an income in the form of a tariff charged for each barrel of oil transported. EACOP takes custody of the oil at the flange immediately after the Upstream fiscal metering until the loading flange on the marine jetty in Tanga bay. The ownership of the oil remains with the Upstream Shippers (Government of Uganda, TotalEnergies E&P Uganda, CNOOC Uganda and UNOC)

System Description​

EACOP is a 1,443km crude oil export pipeline that will transport Uganda’s crude oil from Kabaale – Hoima in Uganda to the Chongoleani peninsula near Tanga port in Tanzania. It will have a peak capacity of 246,000 bbls/day.



  • The first 296 km of EACOP are in Uganda and the remaining 1147 km are in Tanzania. The 24" insulated pipeline will be buried along its entire length with the top of the pipe being one metre below the surface. Once constructed and buried, the topsoil and surface vegetation will be re-instated and people and animals will be able to pass freely across. Equally the pipeline will pass under crossing points with other infrastructure such as roads, rail lines or cables.
  • Due to the physical characteristics of Uganda’s crude oil, the oil in the pipeline needs to be maintained at above 50 degrees Celsius. The oil received from Tilenga and Kingfisher will be above this temperature, and as required the EACOP pipeline is also able to warm the oil using an electrical trace heating system.
  • A number of above ground facilities are also part of the EACOP system. The principle ones are the six pumping stations, 2 in Uganda and 4 in Tanzania, and 2 further pressure reduction stations and the oil terminal in Tanzania. The pipeline will also have 76 main line Block Valves installed along its length. These valves can be closed such as to be able to isolate sections of pipeline in case of need .
  • In addition to the pipeline, High Voltage electrical cables and a Fibre-Optic cable will be laid and buried along the same right of way. The fibre-optic cable will allow all data from the pipeline to be transmitted to 24/7 manned control rooms located at each end of the pipeline. Additionally the fibre-optic cable allows for temperature and vibration monitoring along the entire length of the pipeline. This allows to quickly detect and locate to within metres any anomalies such as exposure of the pipeline. Under the agreements signed with the Host Governments, EACOP will make available capacity in the fibre-optic cable to third parties.
  • Electrical power is required for the pipeline's operation, both for the Pumping Stations, the Terminal operations and maintaining the crude oil temperature. In Uganda power will be taken firstly from any surplus power generated at Tilenga and Kingfisher, and then from the National Grid, the electricity being generated in Uganda's hydro-power stations. In Tanzania EACOP will have its own power generation (generators coupled with solar farms) as well as interconnections with the Tanzanian Grid.
  • The Marine Export Storage Terminal and the Load-Out Facility is located north of Tanga port over the Chongoleani peninsula. The terminal consists of crude oil reception and storage, loading and metering facilities and a jetty extending into the Tanga bay to a water depth of 23 metres.

Construction Sequence​


Pipeline integrity​

A number of measures are taken during the design, construction and operational phases to ensure that the pipeline operates correctly during its 25 year lifetime. These include
  • Application of API/ASME/ASTP design codes
  • Installation of 76 remote controlled block valves along the pipeline’s length to allow to isolate sections
  • Major river crossings of Kagera and Sigi rivers using Horizontal Directional Drilling and a cased hole
  • Hydrotesting of pipeline sections at 1.25 times maximum operational pressure prior to introduction of hydrocarbons
  • A 1.2mm wall thickness allowance against potential corrosion noting that internally the fluid transported is non corrosive and corrosion inhibitors can be used, and externally the pipeline is coated with Fusion Bonded Epoxy against external corrosion
  • Operational monitoring of all pipeline parameters in 24/7 manned control rooms at either end of the pipeline, complemented by operational patrols, remote monitoring and community monitoring programs
  • Inventory monitoring via mass balance and dynamic modelling
  • Use of the fibre-optic cable to monitor both for temperature changes and intrusion along the entire length of the pipeline
  • Periodic intelligent pigging in operation to pipeline condition and wall thickness
  • Prior to oil entering the pipeline contingency plans for oil spill recovery and emergency pipeline repair will be developed
 

Uganda Parliament slams ‘racist’ EU position on oil pipeline​

Friday, September 16, 2022





The Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Mr Thomas Tayebwa, chairs the plenary session at Parliament on September 15, 2022. PHOTO/ David Lubowa
By Elizabeth Kamurungi

What you need to know:​

  • MPs say the motion aims at sabotaging Uganda’s economic development.
Lawmakers led by the Deputy Speaker, Mr Thomas Tayebwa, yesterday condemned Members of European Union Parliament, accusing them of economic sabotage, racism and interference over a motion seeking to block the Shs14 trillion oil pipeline project.
“This motion seeks to curtail the progress of Uganda’s Oil and Gas developments and by extension, the country’s socio-econmic growth and development….the resolution represents the highest level of neo-colonialism and imperialism against the sovereignty of Uganda and Tanzania,” Mr Tayebwa’ s statement reads.

The EU Parliament voted on a motion for a resolution to stop the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), citing human rights violations and the negative environmental effects of the project both in Uganda and Tanzania.
Mr Tayebwa said the motion is based on misinformation and deliberate misrepresentation of facts on environment and human rights protection aimed at sabotaging Uganda’s economic development.
The EU Parliamentarians advised member countries not to render any diplomatic and financial support to Uganda-Tanzania oil pipeline project.
In a statement backed by lawmakers, the Deputy Speaker talked of “economic racism” targeting developing countries and described the EU motion as a direct attack on not only the sovereignty of Parliament, but the whole country.
“Uganda is a developing country, and a sovereign state that has its unique development needs and priorities. I, therefore, call upon the European Union Parliament to withdraw the motion for a resolution that is against the UN Charter that provides for Uganda’s right to self-determination and sovereignty over its natural resources,” Mr Tayebwa said.

RELATED​

He added: “These are individual MPs abusing their authority. You want to say we did not do a good job here? That they have more information about our resources than we do? This is just a scare of seeing an African country going to progress, and you would no longer be begging every day. You can question anything but issues of economic sabotage and blackmail.”
The EACOP is a 1,445 kilometer pipeline that will transport crude oil from the Albertine Graben to the coast and the international market.

Government is relying on the more than six billion barrels of the resource to move the country to middle income status, provide jobs, among other benefits. More than Shs14 trillion is expected to be invested in the pipeline works alone.
Mr Tayebwa said the premise on climate change as advanced by the European legislators is disproportionately applied to Africa, yet member states of the EU continue to explore and use fossil fuels, including plans for future drilling.
“It is imprudent to say that Uganda’s oil projects will exacerbate climate change, yet it is a fact that the EU block with only 10 percent of the world’s population is responsible for 25 percent of global emissions, and Africa with 20 percent of the world’s population is responsible for 3 percent of emissions. The EU and other western countries are historically responsible for climate change. Who then should stop or slow down the development of natural resources? Certainly not Africa or Uganda,” Mr Tayebwa said.
He added: “Fifty-three licences have recently been issued in the North Sea and Germany has revived its coal plants. In addition, western countries are seeking to import gas from African countries. All this is in a bid to ensure energy security in their respective states. Is energy security a preserve for only the European Union? Does Uganda not have the same right?”
In the statement, he also dismisses claims of non-compensation of Project Affected Persons, saying more than 70 percent have been cleared.

MPs say
The Tororo Woman MP, Ms Sarah Opendi, said considering the position of the EU as a prominent development partner, the Executive needs to engage the body for continued smooth diplomatic engagements.
Mr Asuman Basalirwa, the Bugiri MP, added: “Do they perhaps have information we do not have? Do they know something they do not?”
Mr Felix Okot Ogong, Uganda’s representative to the Pan African Parliament, said: “Billions of dollars are siphoned from Africa in form of raw materials and as you try to add value, they interfere. The Pan African Parliament has resolved no one should dictate what we do with our resources. Our government should stand firm as a sovereign state,”
Mr Muwanga Kivumbi, the Butambala County MP, said this is an agenda by western countries to keep Africa impoverished. He called for prudent management of the resources if the country is to gain economic independence.
The state minister for regional affairs, Mr John Mulimba, said the Executive will study the resolution and report back to the House.

Statement on EU resolution
Honourable Members, you will recall that the European Parliament passed a resolution on the Uganda’s oil and gas Projects (Tilenga, Kingfisher & East African Crude Oil Pipeline(Eacop)) and I wish to respond as follows:
A European Union Parliament Motion for a Resolution (2022/2826(RSP) was brought to the attention of my office, wherein the EU Parliament advises the governments of Uganda and Tanzania not to develop the above listed oil and gas projects. The same motion equally advises EU membership not to render any diplomatic, financial, or other support to our oil and gas projects. The motion seems premised on allegations of potential environmental impacts, human rights abuses and climate change targets. I believe formal communication of this motion by the European Parliament will be made and a formal response will be made. I will, however, make the following comments, at this time:

1. The Parliament of Uganda condemns the motion for a resolution by the EU Parliament that calls on Uganda and Tanzania to stop the development of the oil and gas projects in the East African region. The resolution is based on misinformation and deliberate misrepresentation of key facts on environment and human rights protection. It represents the highest level on neo-colonialism and imperialism against the sovereignty of Uganda and Tanzania.

2. This motion seeks to curtail the progress of Uganda’s oil and gas developments and by extension, the country’s socio-economic growth and development. It also seeks to deny Ugandans and East Africans the benefits and opportunities from the oil and gas sector. This represents the highest form of Economic Racism against developing countries, given that:

a) Various member states in the European Union continue exploring, developing, and have increased the production and use of fossil fuels in recent months.

b) There are more than 9,000 oil and gas production licences in USA, including plans to drill in Alaska and the Arctic Sea. 53 licences have recently been issued in the North Sea and Germany has revived its coal plants. In addition, western countries are seeking to import gas from African countries. All this is in a bid to ensure energy security in their respective states. Is energy security a preserve for only the European Union? Does Uganda not have the same right?

c) The propaganda largely targets the 1,445 kilometre East African Crude Oil Pipeline, which will run for 296 kilometres in Uganda. The EACOP represents less than 0.1 percent of the operational global pipeline network of 1.18 million kilometres.

d) It is imprudent to say Uganda’s oil projects will exacerbate climate change, yet it is a fact that the EU block with only 10 percent of the world’s population is responsible for 25 percent of global emissions, and Africa with 20 percent of the world’s population is responsible for 3 percent of emissions. The EU and other western countries are historically responsible for climate change. Who then should stop or slow down on development of natural resources? Certainly not Africa or Uganda.

e) More than 70 percent of the persons affected by land acquisition for the projects have been compensated or resettled and are undergoing livelihood improvement projects in agriculture, financial literacy, vocational skills, among others. Efforts to fully compensate all project affected persons are ongoing, with cooperation from the local communities and leaders. Land is not utilised by the projects before the compensation processes are concluded, and any related grievances are addressed through a participatory process.

3. Colleagues, we are all aware that our country has been gifted with sizeable oil and gas resources that are already generating and creating value for our people in terms of employment, provision of services and goods, technical and other skilling. These resources will also generate significant revenue for the state, support petro-chemical industrialisation and the development of other sectors of the economy such as agriculture, tourism, manufacturing, health, among others. Also, aware that this House has approved significant investment in oil roads and other infrastructure to support the development, it is pertinent that as we have done in the past, we address efforts that aim at frustrating the sovereign right to exploit our resources.

4. Like many African countries, Uganda is a developing country, and a sovereign state that has its unique development needs and priorities. I, therefore, call upon the European Union Parliament to withdraw the motion for a resolution that is against the UN Charter that provides for Uganda’s right to self-determination and sovereignty over its natural resources. This House and through responsible Committees will continue providing oversight to the oil and gas sector. As such, there is no justifiable basis for the EU Parliament or any other institution to recommend that we leave our resources in the ground on these reasons.
Thank you!

RT HON THOMAS TAYEBWA, DEPUTY SPEAKER
 

EU seeks to delay Uganda's oil pipeline works​

Friday, September 16, 2022





The EACOP senior construction engineer, Mr Jose Allyon (2nd left), with engineers from China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering at one of the oil pipeline crossings in Ssembabule District during pre-construction survey. PHOTO/ FREDERIC MUSISI
By Frederic Musisi

What you need to know:​

  • The vote by a majority of the EU Parliament came hours after Uganda’s MPs had labeled an earlier move to block the project as racist and imperialistic.
The European Union (EU) lawmakers yesterday voted by a majority of 334 to pass the resolution that seeks to compel Uganda, Tanzania and the Total Energies SE to delay development of the proposed East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) for at least one year.

During the one year period Uganda and the French oil giant should go back to the drawing board to study an alternative route with less environmental footprint. However, the southern route to Tanzania was chosen in early 2016 as the least cost route due to among others least environment footprint.
DON'T MISS: Tracing Uganda’s oil journey

RELATED​

  • EU envoy pushes for mature oil discourse​

    National Aug 07
On protected areas, poverty conservation
One hundred and ninety nine (199) MPs voted against the resolution while 60 abstained during voting. The seven-point resolution also seeks to exert “maximum pressure” on Uganda and Tanzania SE to elevate standards and adopt international best practices during development of the project, including halting oil related activities in Murchison Falls National Park to the northwest.
The devil is in the detail as the EACOP becomes the latest frontier of tight rope pulling between the EU and the French oil company. Brussels has long accused the French company of cozying with Moscow, which attacked its former Soviet Republic neighbour, Ukraine, eight months ago.
The resolution passed yesterday is the sanitised version of the initial 16-point draft motion in which the MPs upbraided French oil giant Total Energies SE of “corporate colonialism of extracting as much profit as possible” at huge human and ecological cost.
The original draft called for completely halting development of the $3.8billion (Shs14trillion) Greenfield project that will transport Uganda’s waxy crude oil from the oil fields in mid-western Uganda to Tanzania’s Indian Ocean Tanga port en route to the international market.

READ: Uganda Parliament slams ‘racist’ EU position on oil pipeline
The draft among others also demanded active participation of the EU in the UN negotiations on an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and human rights. It also wanted Uganda and Tanzania to launch an independent investigation into the social and environmental standards applied by European companies, in particular in the fossil fuel sector.
In the latest resolution, the EU lawmakers expressed grave concern about claims of human rights abuses involved in the project. These include wrongful imprisonment of human rights defenders and the arbitrary suspension of NGOs. Consequently, it called upon Uganda and Tanzania to initiate concrete measures to ensure authorities, security forces and policies respect and comply with human rights standards.
READ: EU legislators raise more fears against oil pipeline project
Hope for Uganda’s oil as the G7 shift goal posts
Address risks before construction of EACOP
The lawmakers also urged proper compensation of project affected persons, and implored Uganda to allow civil society organisations poking around the issues to operate freely.
On Wednesday, a section of EU MPs talked tough against the multi-billion dollar project. This sent quivers among officials in Kampala, Dar es Salaam, Paris, and London, expecting the worst to come out on Thursday.
The latest development will fly as a slap in the face of both the project developers and anti-fossil fuels campaigners and conservation aficionados, including a section of local and international NGOs, which have for the past two years pushed to halt the pipeline.
In the initial draft resolution, the EU lawmakers even exalted international financial institutions—banks, insurance companies, and export credit agencies—that have distanced and walked away from the project.
Uganda’s ambassador to the EU, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, Mirjam Blaak described the hubbub by EU lawmakers as “not informed by facts and fuelled by self-seeking groups.”

“Of course we will continue engaging them, but what they are doing is unfortunate,” Ambassador Blaak told Daily Monitor.
The EU Parliament’s resolutions are not binding but rather advisory to the EU Commission, the executive branch of the 27-member trading bloc responsible for implementing decisions and managing the day-to-day business of the EU.
Oryem tells off EU MPs
In Kampala, the government asked the EU lawmakers to stop interfering in the country’s internal affairs, respect its sovereignty and transact diplomatic business on the basis of mutual respect.
The state minister for International Relations, Mr Henry Okello-Oryem last evening described the lawmakers’ resolution as both “unfortunate and contemptible.”
“It is unfortunate because most of those people who voted ‘Yes’ don’t have any clue about the terrain of Africa. They are so gullible, they fell in the trap of goodie-goodies—those NGOs feeding them lies—but are ignorant. They know nothing on the ground,” Mr Oryem said. He added: “So they (MPs) don’t want Africa to develop its natural resources and yet it’s the only way to solve some of our problems. Our people continue cutting trees as the cheapest form of fuel. So if we don’t avail them opportunities like gas (LPG), who then will?”
Daily Monitor has learnt that a group of EU legislators behind the motion visited Uganda early this year on a fact-finding mission during which they engaged with among others the oil pipeline company.
Italy’s Francesca Donato, a co-mover of the resolution who was among the visiting delegation, on Wednesday spoke glowingly about the visit.
Total Energies SE is the parent company of Total Energies EP, which is developing oil fields in Nwoya and Buliisa districts, and Total Holdings International B.V which holds majority shareholding of 62 percent in the EACOP holding company. Other shareholders are Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC) and Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC), each with a 15 percent stake as well as China’s oil company—Cnooc, with eight percent.

The EACOP Company managing director, Martin Tiffen told Daily Monitor from Paris they will make a statement in due course. A lot has been said and written about Uganda’s oil project since exploration and appraisal from around 2012 when he Anglo-Irish wildcatter, Tullow Oil, Cnooc, and Total EP—now Total Energies EP—intensified seismic surveys and appraisals of oil deposits in mid-western Uganda.
But since February 1, 2022 when the government and the oil companies announced Final Investment Decision—to invest $10billion (Shs36trillion)—in the Uganda oil project to kick start the next phase of development and construction, what started as a conservation campaign turned into fierce opposition.
Day-in and day-out, international media is awash with fears, concerns, and environmental risks—real and perceived. Some have even inferred that the country is on a path to self-destruction with oil.
On Wednesday, one EU lawmaker invoked President Museveni’s long stay in power to the equation, saying with petro-dollars will keep Uganda’s strongman in the saddle.
Climate change fears
The MPs, and conservationists opposed to the Uganda oil project, which encompasses the EACOP and Total Energies EP’s Tilenga project in Nwoya and Buliisa districts and Cnooc’s Kingfisher project in Hoima and Kikuube districts, claim that taking the project forward will be an affront to the fight against climate change. They cite carbon emissions, which are blamed for catastrophic disasters around the world, including the increasing frequency of mudslides on the Elgon ranges in eastern Uganda.

Between 2005 and 2015, according to the ministry of Water and Environment’s Climate Change Department, Uganda’s carbon emissions increased from 53 metric tonnes to 90 metric tonnes, the upsurge attributed to agriculture, forestry, and land usage.
Energy usage and production accounted for 10 percent of carbon, of which three quarters was attributed to the transport sector—heavily-polluted air spilled in the atmosphere from second-hand vehicle engines from Japan and China. Whether or not oil will lead to a surge in these emissions remains a subject of debate.
Other pundits and researchers opposed to the Uganda oil project have painted a grim picture, warning of among others oil spills and drawing parallels to the beleaguered Niger Delta, and adverse interruption to the eco-system—flora and fauna—which will deal blow to Uganda’s tourism sector, the highest foreign exchange earner of $1.6b (Shs5.6t) between 2018 and 2019 before Covid-19 upended life as we know it.
The repeated maneuvers by some developed powers to block developing countries from extracting their natural resources, including oil, has also renewed debate on the Brandt line— the gap in financial wellbeing, between richer developed countries and poorer developing countries—commonly known as the North/South Divide.
Some pundits describe as unfair and bewildering the notion to completely halt new oil projects in the poorer south, in Africa and Latin America, for the sake of avoiding mistakes committed by north/developed countries during the 1960s, 70s and 80s which partly contributed to the current climate disaster.
By press time last evening, government agencies in the oil sector and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were shuffling back and forth over an official response to the EU.
 

EU legislators raise more fears against oil pipeline project​

Thursday, September 15, 2022



The Uganda pipeline sections stretches for 296km in 10 districts. PHOTO/FILE
By Frederic Musisi

What you need to know:​

  • Since signing off of the key project agreements in April 2021, NGOs stepped up a massive campaign to derail the project.
The European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, is today slated to vote on the motion to stop plans to construct the proposed East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) on account of the human rights violations in Uganda and Tanzania.

READ: Address risks before construction of EACOP
The motion also seeks to exert pressure on the French President, Mr Emmanuel Macron’s government to strong-arm the French oil giant, Total Energies SE, to halt development of the $3.8b (Shs14 trillion) Greenfield project.

RELATED​

Total Energies SE is the parent company of Total Energies EP which is developing oil fields in Nwoya and Buliisa districts, and Total Holdings International B.V, which holds majority shareholding of 62 percent in the EACOP holding company.
Discussion on the motion kicked off last evening. The MPs--some basing on lies and factual inaccuracies-- strongly spoke against the project claiming the wanton arrest of local journalists, human rights defenders and civil society actors speaking negatively about the project.
Italy’s Francesca Donato, co-mover of the motion, in her submission said Total Energies SE should halt development of the project for at least one year and assess another route with less environmental footprint.

ALSO READ: EACOP is immoral, stop it now
Several MPs raised, among other issues, environmental destruction, dispossessing of project affected persons (PAPs) along the project right of way in Uganda and Tanzania of their of land, curbing carbon emissions, human rights violations, and President Museveni’s 36-stay in power.
The President’s long stay, one MP said, is a threat to democracy and with petro-dollars coming if the country started commercial oil production through the pipeline, the future is bleak.

The legislators also cited previous run-ins between the government’s NGO board and civil society organisations involved in the extractive sector.
For instance, on February 23, the NGO Oil and Gas Region Human Rights Defenders Association and 253 defenders and affected persons petitioned the Uganda Human Rights Commission calling for an end to the surveillance and intimidation.
The MPs further cited several petitions by local and international NGOs, and court cases against Total Energies EP, to international banking institutions to halt development of the project.
Since signing off of the key project agreements in April 2021, NGOs stepped up a massive campaign to derail the project.
The campaign went into overdrive after February 1 when the joint venture partners—Total Energies SE, Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC), China’s CNOOC, and Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation—announced Final Investment Decision to invest $10b in the Uganda oil project.

Oil & Gas:Which project will bring what income
Months leading to FID, local authorities in the oil districts in the Albertine Graben had been cracking the whip on the NGOs but during the FID ceremony, President Museveni with guidance from the Total Energies SE, chief executive Patrick Pouyanne directed that the NGOs be allowed to work freely to avoid stoking more negative flames.
The EACOP will run 1,443km from the oil fields in Hoima in mid-western Uganda to the Indian Ocean Tanga Port in Tanzania.
The Uganda pipeline sections stretches for 296km in 10 districts while the Tanzania section runs for 1,147km through 25 districts and eight regions.

All together—in Uganda and Tanzania—there are 30,000 households whose land is touched by the project. But in terms of PAPs there are 3,900 in Uganda, and 9,000 in Tanzania, majority of whom are economically impacted; whose portions of gardens are touched, but not displaced entirely.

Oil pipeline in Uganda, Tanzania
The Uganda pipeline sections stretches for 296km in 10 districts while the Tanzania section runs for 1,147km through 25 districts and eight regions. All together—in Uganda and Tanzania—there are 30,000 households whose land is touched by the project.
But in terms of PAPs there are 3,900 in Uganda, and 9,000 in Tanzania, majority of whom are economically impacted; whose portions of gardens are touched, but not displaced entirely.
 

On protected areas, poverty conservation​

Sunday, September 11, 2022



Elison Karuhanga
By Elison Karuhanga
Columnist

What you need to know:​

  • We are being advised to stop even the most responsible projects on account of imaginary lions.
Earlier this week, Buckingham Palace announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II. We start this column by sending condolences to the British royal family, King Charles and the people of the United Kingdom. Fare well Your Majesty.

In the same week, the UK got a new prime minister, Liz Truss. During the leadership campaign, Ms Truss repeatedly said boosting domestic energy supply would be part of her focus in seeking to bring down prices and in her first parliamentary appearance, she reiterated that the solution to the current high energy prices is extraction of more oil from the North Sea.
As one of the oldest producing hydrocarbon basins in the world, the North Sea has been a major contributor to European economies for 50 years. The North Sea is also one of the world’s most productive areas for fish and has a huge fishing community. The total biomass of all fish in the North Sea is estimated at approximately 10 million tonnes; 230 species of fish and 31 species of sea birds breeding along its coast, in addition to approximately 16 whale species in the North Sea. There are a number of endangered plants and animals in the North Sea.

In spite of this, the decision to develop North Sea oil assets is not limited to the UK; this year, Norway issued 53 new licences to drill for oil in the North Sea. The need for energy security and cheaper energy prices cannot be disputed.
Indeed, the German governing coalition that includes the Green Party is resorting to coal – the dirtiest fossil fuel – to power German industry. This coalition includes the German MP Kathrin Hennerberger who has been outspoken in her criticism against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
Ironically, as the protected habitats of the North Sea experience more exploration, the Western press is still concerned with EACOP. The latest attack on EACOP is from National Geographic, in an article titled ‘Economic lifeline or climate peril’ where National Geographic informed its readers that on a map EACOP “resembles an elongated frying pan” and it will pass through “savannahs roamed by lions and elephants”.

Unless our friends at National Geographic have their own EACOP route which has lions and elephants, this is false. They join other prominent Western publications like African Business Review that alleged that EACOP will “tear through 230 rivers.” Clearly, there is an industry that is dedicated to manufacturing information about EACOP.
Ms Truss is right about the quick solution to the current global energy crisis, it is more oil production. Upstream fossil fuel development is vital to meeting the planet’s energy needs and pipelines are the accepted means of doing so. Al Jazeera recently reported that at least 2,381 oil and gas pipelines were operating worldwide across 162 countries. Of these, the USA has the longest network of pipelines - followed by Russia, Canada and China. The EACOP pipeline would cover a stretch of 1,433km – around 0.1 percent of the world’s pipeline network.
In addition, it is important to look at the available resources on oil and gas exploration in a holistic manner. In his award winning book, The Plundered Planet, Oxford scholar Paul Collier pointed out that the rich countries of the world occupy a quarter of the earth’s surface. He stated that the value of their known “subsoil assets” (oil, gas, coal and minerals) is $114,000 per square kilometre of land.
Africa, which occupies another quarter of the earth’s surface, has only $23,000 worth of known subsoil assets. Why? Because Africa remains terribly unexplored.
While the rich world is developing its resources under some of the world’s most ecologically protected areas, we are being advised to stop even the most responsible projects on account of imaginary lions. It is clear that we are dealing with an industry that is working hard to conserve poverty. The first industry we need to decommission and close, long before we close the oil industry, is this poverty conservation industry.
 

House passes local content Bill to spur businesses​

Friday, September 09, 2022




By Arthur Arnold Wadero
awadero@ug.nationmedia.com

What you need to know:​

  • Mr Patrick Nsamba, the mover of the Bill (Kassanda North), defended the clause before Parliament on Tuesday after the chairperson of the Finance committee, Mr Keefa Kiwanuka (Kiboga East), attempted to persuade the House to delete it.
Parliament has adopted the National Local Content Bill, 2022, which rejects sub-contracting projects to eliminate middlemen who exploit such arrangements.

“A person who engages in an activity to which this Act applies shall not sub-contract any contract or works contracted or subcontracted to it under this Act,” Clause 13 of the Bill reads in part.
Mr Patrick Nsamba, the mover of the Bill (Kassanda North), defended the clause before Parliament on Tuesday after the chairperson of the Finance committee, Mr Keefa Kiwanuka (Kiboga East), attempted to persuade the House to delete it.

RELATED​

  • Pay attention to efficiency before submitting your bid​

  • Construction Company sued over failure to pay Shs174m to sub-contractors​

“We decided that middlemen should not take over. Once you delete this clause, you run the risk of middlemen coming. It is our intention that the right people under affirmative action get the work. If you don’t deserve the contract, [then] don’t apply for it,” Mr Nsamba said.
His proposal was unanimously adopted with Speaker Anita Among saying the move would promote local firms and the Buy Uganda, Build Uganda (BUBU) initiative.
The government in 2014 lost Shs24.7b when Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) executives awarded a Shs165b tender to construct the 74km Mukono-Katosi-Nyenga to a fictitious American company, Eutaw Construction, which then subcontracted Chinese company Cico.
The Bill, which awaits presidential consent, seeks to plug the gaps in other existing local content policies, legislations and guidelines, including the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, 2003, BUBU policy, the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 2013, among others.
Once passed, the Bill will apply to all government or loan-funded projects.
Parliament also discarded the proposal in clause 2 in which Mr Nsamba sought to compel the government to create an autonomous department to handle procurements of local content.

The State Minister for Finance in charge of General Duties, Mr Henry Musasizi, said the proposal would contravene government’s undergoing plans of dissolving the state agencies and authorities.
“To allay your fears, even when there is competition, we reserve some contracts for some people [like] women, youth [and] the elderly. We are currently undertaking rationalisation and we are trying to be as much leaner as possible. We shall only create a unit there to specifically deal with the local content,” Mr Musasizi said.
All local content related to the oil and gas sector will be considered under the East African Crude Oil Pipeline [EACOP] [Special Provisions] Bill, 2021 that was passed last in December.

Genesis of the bill
The Bill was first passed by the 10th Parliament on May 20, 2020. President Museveni, however, returned it to the House on August 20, 2020 with concerns over particular areas that were later addressed and later passed but the Bill later lapsed. It was reintroduced in the 11th Parliament on May 3 before being amended to the National Local Content Bill, 2022.
awadero@ug.nationmedia.com
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…