• News
  • ID Check
  • A propos
    • Notre équipe
    • Notre métier
  • Français
  • English
Due Diligence
  • VOS BESOINS
    • Due Diligence: Evaluer ses partenaires commerciaux
      • Client
      • Fournisseur
      • Intermédiaires et Agents
      • Franchisé
      • Bénéficiaires économiques
      • Dirigeant
      • Investisseur
    • Estimer les risques et les opportunités
      • Acquérir une société
      • S’implanter à l’étranger
      • Valider des transactions commerciales Import-Export
      • Finaliser une Transaction
      • Élaborer un partenariat local
      • Recruter
    • Gérer les risques terrains
      • Vérification d’identité : ID Check
      • Droit Applicable & Droit appliqués
      • Réputation
      • Solvabilité de mon partenaire ou client
      • Risques politiques
  • NOS SERVICES
  • NOTRE EXPÉRIENCE
    • Pays d’intervention
    • Secteurs d’Intervention
    • Ils nous font confiance
  • POURQUOI FAIRE UNE DUE DILIGENCE ?
  • CONTACT
  • Rechercher
  • Menu

Risks of going local by Nizar Manek*

Blog

The Federal Government of Nigeria through the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) recently awarded 60 percent of its 2014-2015 crude oil lifting contracts worth approximately US$40bn. to local oil companies (LOCs) as per the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act (NOGICD) 2010. The announcement came in a 27 April 2014 statement by the Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke. A year earlier, Alison-Madueke noted that some indigenous contractors ‘lack proper business structure; they are small, fragmented and often times incapable of packaging or attract loans. Only a few of them can deliver turnkey projects without resorting to some form of partnership agreement for equipment, expertise or technical support.’

The NOGICD affects operating companies, contractors, sub-contractors, and service providers, given minimum requirements for non-indigenous companies to use local services and materials. International companies must partner with local companies in joint venture (JV) arrangements. The NOGICD requires ‘Nigerian independent operators’ (i.e. with not less than 51% equity shares owned by Nigerians, as per section 106) to be given first consideration in the award of oil blocks, oil field licences, oil lifting licences, and all projects for which a contract is to be awarded in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry. As per section 3(2), the Act also requires ‘Nigerian indigenous services companies’ to be given exclusive consideration for contracts and services works on land and swamp operating areas in if they can demonstrate ownership of equipment Nigerian personnel, and capacity.

The NOGICD has its roots in former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s plan to create a new policy to push the country’s industrial development forward through indigenous ownership and operation of assets in the oil and gas industry. The policy sought to increase local employment levels and help develop and diversify the local manufacturing sector. Following Nigeria, the local content philosophy is gaining traction with the Republic of Congo, which has been producing oil since 1957 and is now considering driving up the participation of indigenous companies in the supply chain. In November 2013, Ghana passed its Petroleum (Local Content and Local Participation) Regulation, under which Ghanaian companies will be given first preference in bids for petroleum licences. A five percent minimum equity stake for local companies in every oil contract awarded to an international investor will be mandatory.

Sanctions for non-compliance can be severe. Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI), the contractor on the Ofon Phase II deep-water field in Oil Mining Licence (OML) 102 – a joint venture between the NNPC and France’s Total – was banned from bidding for oil and gas projects in Nigeria. The Nigerian Content Monitoring Board (NCMB), which passes regulations and procedures for implementing local content rules and approves local content plans submitted to it by operators, accused the Korean contractor of gross violations of the NOGICD because it employed expatriates who did not have approvals from the NCMB and whose job functions could otherwise be performed by Nigerians.

For various reasons, international companies face risks where they must select indigenous JV partners from a pre-approved short-list. As notes the draft of the August 2012 Report of Nigeria’s Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force (PRSTF) signed by its Chairman Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the conduct of past NNPC bid rounds ‘undermined the stated goals of boosting ‘local content’ and nurturing series Nigerian operators. Of the 24 marginal fields awarded in the early 2000s, less than 10 have produced oil. Marginal field production is around 10,000bpd, according to the NNPC.’ To identify whether a local JV partner is appropriate, due diligence may be required with respect to manufacturing capabilities and expertise, scale of operations, financial resources, and more broadly business strategy, corporate governance, and integrity of board members. Nigeria is uniquely expensive due to security problems, equipment sabotage, local content requirements, and industry delays; all of which arguably add to costs. This, notes Ribadu’s PRSTF report, makes it more difficult for authorities to evenly compare costs in Nigeria with those in other countries to assess reasonableness. ‘It also means companies can more easily inflate costs.’

Why was the third-party short-listed? Is the IOC certain it is not financing companies belonging to local officials or ownership by a political party candidate, which would be tantamount to bribery? What is the shareholding structure of a local JV partner? These are among the most important questions to consider. After the introduction of local content rules in Nigeria and the emergence of international anti-corruption legislation and treaties, led by the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 1977 and the OCED Convention Against Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, a shift was required by IOCs, LOCs, and middlemen. For an IOC to pay off a local partner in the form of a corporate entity or middleman was previously a ‘cultural’ cost common in Nigerian industrial practice; not illegal by local standards. ‘Cultural meetings’ came to light in the recent Nigeria FCPA case involving Halliburton, where middlemen opened the doors to procurement contracts. The case also involved non-US corporations, such as Technip and Maurubeni, which US prosecutors could pursue because they had a corporate entity listed in the US.

One live Nigerian case has involved an indigenous oil company (Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd) connected to the Minister of Petroleum Resources under the late General Sani Abacha, Chief Dan Etete, aka Dauzia Loya Etete, who, during his tenure as minister, awarded a licence off the Gulf of Guinea (OPL 245) to the company he played a role in incorporating and came to control, and for which he hired Russian and Nigerian middlemen to help him negotiate the sale of the licence to IOCs. Other questions to consider are whether there are any undisclosed third-party transactions, material misrepresentations, commissions, unreported financial difficulties, criminal or regulatory sanctions, or undisclosed legal or bankruptcy proceedings Another consideration may be the existing relationship between the potential JV partner and the NCMB. Has the NCMB, established by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan following the signing into law of the Act on 22 April 2010, undertaken its own adequate checks as regulator?

*Nizar Manek is a journalist.

3 février 2015/0 Commentaires/par Admin
Partager cet article
  • Partager sur Facebook
  • Partager sur Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Partager sur Pinterest
  • Partager sur LinkedIn
  • Partager sur Tumblr
  • Partager sur Vk
  • Partager sur Reddit
  • Partager par Mail

Risks of going local by Nizar Manek*

Blog @en

The Federal Government of Nigeria through the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) recently awarded 60 percent of its 2014-2015 crude oil lifting contracts worth approximately US$40bn. to local oil companies (LOCs) as per the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act (NOGICD) 2010. The announcement came in a 27 April 2014 statement by the Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke. A year earlier, Alison-Madueke noted that some indigenous contractors ‘lack proper business structure; they are small, fragmented and often times incapable of packaging or attract loans. Only a few of them can deliver turnkey projects without resorting to some form of partnership agreement for equipment, expertise or technical support.’

The NOGICD affects operating companies, contractors, sub-contractors, and service providers, given minimum requirements for non-indigenous companies to use local services and materials. International companies must partner with local companies in joint venture (JV) arrangements. The NOGICD requires ‘Nigerian independent operators’ (i.e. with not less than 51% equity shares owned by Nigerians, as per section 106) to be given first consideration in the award of oil blocks, oil field licences, oil lifting licences, and all projects for which a contract is to be awarded in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry. As per section 3(2), the Act also requires ‘Nigerian indigenous services companies’ to be given exclusive consideration for contracts and services works on land and swamp operating areas in if they can demonstrate ownership of equipment Nigerian personnel, and capacity.

The NOGICD has its roots in former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s plan to create a new policy to push the country’s industrial development forward through indigenous ownership and operation of assets in the oil and gas industry. The policy sought to increase local employment levels and help develop and diversify the local manufacturing sector. Following Nigeria, the local content philosophy is gaining traction with the Republic of Congo, which has been producing oil since 1957 and is now considering driving up the participation of indigenous companies in the supply chain. In November 2013, Ghana passed its Petroleum (Local Content and Local Participation) Regulation, under which Ghanaian companies will be given first preference in bids for petroleum licences. A five percent minimum equity stake for local companies in every oil contract awarded to an international investor will be mandatory.

Sanctions for non-compliance can be severe. Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI), the contractor on the Ofon Phase II deep-water field in Oil Mining Licence (OML) 102 – a joint venture between the NNPC and France’s Total – was banned from bidding for oil and gas projects in Nigeria. The Nigerian Content Monitoring Board (NCMB), which passes regulations and procedures for implementing local content rules and approves local content plans submitted to it by operators, accused the Korean contractor of gross violations of the NOGICD because it employed expatriates who did not have approvals from the NCMB and whose job functions could otherwise be performed by Nigerians.

For various reasons, international companies face risks where they must select indigenous JV partners from a pre-approved short-list. As notes the draft of the August 2012 Report of Nigeria’s Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force (PRSTF) signed by its Chairman Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the conduct of past NNPC bid rounds ‘undermined the stated goals of boosting ‘local content’ and nurturing series Nigerian operators. Of the 24 marginal fields awarded in the early 2000s, less than 10 have produced oil. Marginal field production is around 10,000bpd, according to the NNPC.’ To identify whether a local JV partner is appropriate, due diligence may be required with respect to manufacturing capabilities and expertise, scale of operations, financial resources, and more broadly business strategy, corporate governance, and integrity of board members. Nigeria is uniquely expensive due to security problems, equipment sabotage, local content requirements, and industry delays; all of which arguably add to costs. This, notes Ribadu’s PRSTF report, makes it more difficult for authorities to evenly compare costs in Nigeria with those in other countries to assess reasonableness. ‘It also means companies can more easily inflate costs.’

Why was the third-party short-listed? Is the IOC certain it is not financing companies belonging to local officials or ownership by a political party candidate, which would be tantamount to bribery? What is the shareholding structure of a local JV partner? These are among the most important questions to consider. After the introduction of local content rules in Nigeria and the emergence of international anti-corruption legislation and treaties, led by the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 1977 and the OCED Convention Against Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, a shift was required by IOCs, LOCs, and middlemen. For an IOC to pay off a local partner in the form of a corporate entity or middleman was previously a ‘cultural’ cost common in Nigerian industrial practice; not illegal by local standards. ‘Cultural meetings’ came to light in the recent Nigeria FCPA case involving Halliburton, where middlemen opened the doors to procurement contracts. The case also involved non-US corporations, such as Technip and Maurubeni, which US prosecutors could pursue because they had a corporate entity listed in the US.

One live Nigerian case has involved an indigenous oil company (Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd) connected to the Minister of Petroleum Resources under the late General Sani Abacha, Chief Dan Etete, aka Dauzia Loya Etete, who, during his tenure as minister, awarded a licence off the Gulf of Guinea (OPL 245) to the company he played a role in incorporating and came to control, and for which he hired Russian and Nigerian middlemen to help him negotiate the sale of the licence to IOCs. Other questions to consider are whether there are any undisclosed third-party transactions, material misrepresentations, commissions, unreported financial difficulties, criminal or regulatory sanctions, or undisclosed legal or bankruptcy proceedings Another consideration may be the existing relationship between the potential JV partner and the NCMB. Has the NCMB, established by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan following the signing into law of the Act on 22 April 2010, undertaken its own adequate checks as regulator?

*Nizar Manek is a journalist.

3 février 2015/0 Commentaires/par Admin
Partager cet article
  • Partager sur Facebook
  • Partager sur Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Partager sur Pinterest
  • Partager sur LinkedIn
  • Partager sur Tumblr
  • Partager sur Vk
  • Partager sur Reddit
  • Partager par Mail
0 réponses

Laisser un commentaire

Participez-vous à la discussion?
N'hésitez pas à contribuer!

Laisser un commentaire Annuler la réponse

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Effectuez une recherche par pays ou par secteur

APPLIED BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (ABI)

75007 Paris France
RCS PARIS 794 776 682

BUREAUX :

Siège Europe:

8, square de La Tour Maubourg
75007 Paris, France

mission@duediligence.fr

Siège Moyen-Orient:

DREC Building office
213 al Meena Road, Dubai
United Arab Emirates

mission@duediligence.fr

Ils nous font confiance

DUE DILIGENCE on a UAE shipping company
On behalf of a large transportation conglomerate
December 2017
DUE DILIGENCE on an aircraft lessor
On behalf of a large airline company
2018
DUE DILIGENCE on a large diversified conglomerate in Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
On behalf of a large European corporation
June 2019
DUE DILIGENCE on a financial institution in Ghana
On behalf of an European financial institution
September 2019
DUE DILIGENCE on an education institution in Colombia
On behalf of a large education group
2018
DUE DILIGENCE on a contracting company in Zambia
On behalf of an Austrian company
2018
DUE DILIGENCE on an education institution in Japan (Tokyo)
On behalf of an Australian group
February 2020
DUE DILIGENCE on a test centre in Romania
On behalf of an Australian group
January 2020
DUE DILIGENCE on an education company in Kenya
on behalf of a vocational education group
December 2019
DUE DILIGENCE on a publishing group in Greece
On behalf of an Australian company
November 2019
Sourcing and targets acquisition strategy in Europe
On behalf of an American private equity fund based in the Silicon Valley
Since 2016
DUE DILIGENCE on a Senegalese company
On behalf of an European public Investor
March 2008
DUE DILIGENCE on a Korean construction conglomerate
On behalf of a French major group in the construction industry
June 2014
DUE DILIGENCE on a construction company in Congo Brazzaville
On behalf of a French major company in the construction industry
January 2015
DUE DILIGENCE on a conglomerate in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
On behalf of an European investor
February 2015
DUE DILIGENCE on a large Iraqi company specialized in reconstruction
On behalf of a French major company in the construction industry
December 2014
DUE DILIGENCE sur des centres de formations au Canada, en Espagne, en Angleterre, en Italie, en Russie etc…
Pour le compte d’un leader mondial de l'éducation
DUE DILIGENCE on a construction and trading company in Sri Lanka
On behalf of a french major company in the construction industry
July 2014
DUE DILIGENCE on a telecommunications company in Lebanon
On behalf of an European investor
July 2014
DUE DILIGENCE on a major company specialized in the water treatment in China
On behalf of an European investor
June 2014
BIDDING process on a UAE company specialized in architecture
On behalf of a sovereign wealth fund
June 2014
DUE DILIGENCE on a Turkish company working in the field of Public Works
On behalf of a french major company in the construction industry
December 2014
DUE DILIGENCE on an oil infrastructure company in Egypt
On behalf of a French major company in the construction industry
July 2014
DUE DILIGENCE on an oil & gas corporation in the United States of America
On behalf of an European investor
June 2016
DUE DILIGENCE on a Yemeni company in the oil industry
On behalf of a UAE company
2005
DUE DILIGENCE on luxury hospitality projects in Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Pakistan, Lebanon, Cyprus, UAE, Germany, China, etc
On behalf of a major UAE Hospitality conglomerate
Since 2005
DUE DILIGENCE in Egypt: infrastructure project
Due diligence in Egypt for infrastructure
2018
DUE DILIGENCE & Route to market in Ecuador
Route to market for a direct investment in Ecuador
2018
Implémentation de la conformité « SAPIN II » pour des entreprises françaises
Conformité Sapin 2 entreprises durabilité efficacité risques
Depuis 2017
SAPIN II anti corruption implementation for French companies
Implementation of a sustainable "SAPIN II" anti corruption scheme with automation and bespoke analysis
Since 2017
CLIENTS ONBOARDING for a large Fortune 500 company
automated clients onboarding based on large number of data
Since 2016
COMPLIANCE for financial institutions in Europe
On behalf of American investment banking
Since 2008
DUE DILIGENCE on family conglomerates in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
On behalf of an European investissor
February 2015
DUE DILIGENCE sur une grande entreprise de BTP au Maroc
Pour un grand groupe industriel français diversifié dans le domaine du BTP
Novembre 2013
DUE DILIGENCE sur une entreprise d’exploration pétrolière au Nigéria
Pour un grand groupe industriel français diversifié dans le domaine du BTP
Novembre 2014
LEVEE DE FOND pour une entreprise américaine spécialisée dans la technologie LED
Pour le compte d’une banque d’affaires américaine
Novembre 2013
FAIR VALUATION sur une entreprise espagnole de textile
Pour un investisseur indien spécialisé dans le domaine de la mode
4ème trimestre 2014
DUE DILIGENCE sur une entreprise d’exploration minière en Ethiopie
Pour un grand groupe industriel français diversifié dans le domaine du BTP
Février 2015
DUE DILIGENCE sur une entreprise leader dans le BTP en Arabie Saoudite
Pour un grand groupe industriel français diversifié dans le domaine du BTP
Juin 2014
DUE DILIGENCE sur une entreprise de matériel médical en Tunisie
Pour une entreprise européenne spécialisée dans le matériel médical et pharmaceutique
Septembre 2014
DUE DILIGENCE sur un grand groupe industriel diversifié en RDC
Pour un grand groupe industriel français diversifié dans le domaine du BTP
Mai 2014
Pour un groupe européen spécialisé dans l’immobilier et l’assurance
Pour le leader français et troisième groupe mondial dans le domaine du BTP
Octobre 2014
DUE DILIGENCE sur un grand groupe Panaméen
Pour un groupe européen spécialisé dans l’immobilier et l’assurance
Mars 2015
DUE DILIGENCE sur un grand groupe de distribution de marques de luxe au Qatar
Pour le compte d’un joaillier
Juin 2014
DUE DILIGENCE sur un grand groupe de distribution de marques de luxe au Qatar
Pour le compte d’un joaillier
Juin 2014
DUE DILIGENCE sur un grand groupe d’import export en Iraq
Pour le compte d’un groupe européen diversifié
Décembre 2014
DUE DILIGENCE sur un grand groupe tunisien des télécommunications
Pour le compte d’un investisseur européen
Mai 2014
  • Politique de confidentialité
  • Conditions Générales de Vente
  • Nos services
  • Notre expérience
  • Pourquoi faire une due diligence ?
  • La société ABI Capital
  • Contact
  • Team
  • News
© Copyright- duediligence.fr
  • LinkedIn
middle-east-invests-in-latin-america Equipe-Ghislain de Castelbajac Faire défiler vers le haut