Patriotic wants refinery bid process scrapped

OILFIELD Workers’ Trade Union (OWTU)-owned Patriotic Services Co Ltd has called for the bidding process for the sale or lease of the former Petrotrin refinery to be scrapped and a new process restarted, free from government interference.

The company made this call in a statement on October 6, as it continued to dismiss statements made by Energy Minister Stuart Young that it continues to evade the question of a fake document it submitted in relation to its unsuccessful bid to acquire the former Petrotrin refinery in Pointe-a-Pierre.

Young made this statement on October 6, maintaining the position he took during his contribution to the budget debate in the House of Representatives on October 4.

He maintained this position despite Patriotic issuing statements on October 5 and 6, which respectively rejected his statements and insisted the evaluation committee never raised any  concern about fraudulent documents with it or its preferred financial partner.

In its October 6 statement, Patriotic called "for the immediate scrapping and a complete redoing of the entire bidding process in the interest of fairness, transparency, equality in treatment and independence of governmental interference."

They claimed Young's statement on October 4 suggested there was "ministerial overreach and interference in what was supposed to be an independent selection process."

Patriotic challenged Young to say outside Parliament that Patriotic submitted fraudulent documents to the committee.

In none of its three statements, two issued on October 5 and one on October 6, did Patriotic say whether or not the US$1.5 billion payment Young mentioned was fraudulent or not.

In the House, Young produced what he claimed to be a fake document submitted by Patriotic as part of its second bid to acquire the refinery.

He said the document, which claimed to show Patriotic paid US$1.5 billion to a local bank as proof that it had the financial capability to acquire and run the refinery, seemed fraudulent.

On October 5, Young rejected a statement from Patriotic which claimed his comments in the House were misleading.

Young said he was very clear what he said in Parliament with respect to the bid.

“I stated, with the evidence in my hand, that Patriotic Energies produced a fake document purporting to be a wire transfer to a local bank for US$1.5 billion.

“Due diligence confirmed that no such wire transfer was received by the local bank to the account of Patriotic Energies.”

He said in its statement, Patriotic “does not refute the fact that they submitted a fake wire-transfer document.”

Young said what the company did instead was introduce the concept of a “preferred financial partner.”

“It is clear and obvious that Patriotic Energies is avoiding responding to the fact of the fake document that they submitted.

“They (Patriotic) should be asked whether there was a document submitted by them that indicated a purported wire transfer of US$1.5 billion and if so, where is the money, or was the document fake?”

On October 6, Young rejected a second statement issued by Patriotic on October 5 in which the company said it was committed to transparency and fair processes.

“Patriotic Energies has not answered nor have they addressed the issue of providing a fraudulent document purporting to be a wire transfer of US$1.5 billion. Consider the implications of such a fraudulent document in support of financial wherewithal and ask yourself what are the consequences of such an action and fake document. What would you do?”

In its first statement on October 5, Patriotic claimed the document Young referred to did not come from its financial partner.

“The solely selected financier would have been submitted to the (Cabinet-appointed) evaluation committee and Scotiabank International, which both accepted as our preferred financier.”

Patriotic said it remained confident that its “preferred financier can stand the scrutiny of any due diligence process and invite the same.”

The company added it had received no communication from either the committee or Scotiabank “as to the unsuitability of our preferred financial partner.”

Patriotic remains confident it has met all the requirements outlined for potential bidders and presented the best proposal for the sale or lease of the refinery.

In its second statement on October 5, Patriotic said if Young’s claims were the basis for its bid being rejected, “We therefore respectfully call for a reassessment of everything that was presented by our financial partner to the Cabinet-appointed committee on the 21 August, 2024 as we are assured that we already adhered to all the procedures and processes required.”

Patriotic said it welcomed open communication with all stakeholders, including Young, to address any concerns or questions and to facilitate a fact-based discussion.

On May 10, the company continued, it submitted a non-binding proposal identifying three potential financiers.

At a meeting on June 7, Patriotic said it and Scotiabank were still doing their due diligence and verification to substantiate the funding capabilities of the three potential financiers.

After its due diligence, the company continued, it could not substantiate the proof of funding from any of the three financiers.

These parties were eliminated and Patriotic submitted a new financier to Scotiabank International on August 3 for consideration by the evaluation committee.

“On August 21, 2024, our preferred financial partner, along with representatives of Patriotic, met with the Cabinet-appointed evaluation committee and presented their comprehensive details of the financing plan. All documentation provided was thoroughly reviewed, and no concerns were raised regarding their validity at the meeting.
“ At no time was any of the eliminated three potential financiers submitted to the evaluation committee or brought back into the process as they did not meet Patriotic’s requirement. Therefore, whatever document the minister was brandishing is totally irrelevant.”

In his budget presentation on September 30, Finance Minister Colm Imbert said proposals from a locally-based consortium, an American-based company and a Nigerian-based company for sale or lease of the refinery will be considered by the committee and Scotiabank.

The refinery was closed in November 2018, when Petrotrin was restructured into Trinidad Holdings Petroleum Ltd.

Those proposals came from locally-based Cro consortium, US-based Inca Energy LLC and Nigeria-based Oando PLC.

Imbert said, “A formal selective request for proposals process will now be initiated to determine the winner amongst these three companies, with a view to restarting the refinery, if found feasible.

“It must be stressed that in this process, the government has no intention of exposing taxpayers to the recurring billion-dollar losses that occurred previously in the operation of the refinery, and the success of this venture is predicated on the principle that it be at no cost to the taxpayer."

The committee and Scotia used five criteria to evaluate the proposals offered by potential bidders for the refinery.

These included a track record of refinery ownership and/or operation, a reasonable restart plan and timeline for the refinery and an arrangement with Paria Fuel Trading Company that did not prejudice the national interest of fuel security as well as the handling of Heritage Petroleum’s crude oil supply.

Paria and Heritage are two subsidiary companies under Trinidad Petroleum Holdings Ltd, which was formed in November 2018, when Petrotrin was restructured.

Since 2018, Imbert said there have been two attempts to sell or lease the refinery.

“Both efforts failed because the preferred bidders were unable to show any tangible evidence of their ability to raise the necessary capital to reopen and operate the refinery.”

On October 4, Young said when invitations were first issued in 2018-2019 for the sale or lease of the refinery, Patriotic Energy was the preferred bidder.

He added the evaluation committee told him Patriotic did not meet the requirements to show it had the financial capability to manage and run the refinery in its first bid.

The committee, Young continued, gave Patriotic another opportunity to show it did have this capability.

He said it was in its second bid that the questionable document surfaced alleging that Patriotic paid US$1.5 billion to a commercial bank as proof of its financial capability to manage and run the refinery.