Connect with us

News and Report

How Oil Output from Addax-operated OMLs Fell from 130,000bpd to 7,000bpd Amid OPEC Deficit

Published

on

Production from assets operated by Addax Petroleum slumped massively from 130,000 barrels per day to 7,000bpd amid disagreements with the federal government, a new document released by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) has revealed.

The NNPC’s latest quarterly publication of its activities indicated that the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) on Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 123/124 and 126/137 crumbled after the Chinese-owned Addax declined to make new investments on the assets, leading to a fall of budgetary allocation from over $2 billion to barely $200,000 when the firm was exiting the assets last year.

The NNPC had on January 31, 2023 announced the termination of the 24-year deal with Addax Petroleum Development (Nigeria) Limited, marking the exit of the Sinopec of China’s subsidiary.

The official end to the business relationship came three months after the execution of the Addax Transfer, Settlement, and Exit Agreement (TSEA) for the PSC Oil blocks, OMLs 123/124 & 126/137, with the assets then transferred to the concessionaire, NNPC.

The PSC for the oil blocks was initially signed in 1973 between the NNPC and America’s Ashland, but was terminated after 25 years. Subsequently, the NNPC signed another PSC with the Swiss and then with China’s Sinopec, which retained the name Addax in 1998.

However, the Addax PSCs were associated with significant intricacies and complexities and attendant disputes, even threatening the diplomatic relations between Nigeria and China at a point.

Multiple litigations then ensued, hindering the attainment of the desired objectives of value creation to the PSC parties, government, and other stakeholders.

Now renamed Antan Producing, a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), the NNPC in the publication stated that after initially raising production from 7,000 bpd to 15,000bpd, the target this year is to further increase production to 30,000 bpd.

The new Managing Director of the oil asset, Sagiru Jajere, interviewed by the NNPC in-house staff, said that with the support from the parent body, the NNPC, he had begun to gradually sort out the problems with the assets.

“On the day the assets transfer agreement was signed when we took over, production was just above 7,000 bpd. But as of today, we are doing well over 12,000 barrels from OML 123 alone. We are doing another 3,000 barrels from OML 126. That is 15,000 bpd, up from 7,000 bpd, ”he said.

However, Jajere stated that more investment was required on the asset to ensure increased production.

“The only way to increase production in a sustainable manner is to get more investment. That is necessary for this business. We knew why we came down to the weak production status.

“But you can remember that at a time, we were producing well above our OPEC quota. In fact, there were times we were penalised for producing above our quota. Gradually, we saw the figures dropping, ”he added.

He argued that there are fiscal terms, which have made some investors to stay away from investing in the sector.

“Unless we do something to attract investments, all these activities we’re doing to bring up production to meet the OPEC quota will not amount to much. So, we are trying to make the business attractive so that people can come back and invest, ”he stressed.

Jajere disclosed that the NNPC had had to re-enter some wells that were shut for no real reasons, explaining that it was discovered that some wells were shut at the slightest challenge by the former operators.

“We believe that will give us a volume that will most likely take us to somewhere around 25,000 to 30,000 bpd. In the long-term, we are also looking at OML 137, which is also a big reservoir of oil with a lot of gas.

“This is a huge opportunity that we are looking at. By the time we get there, the production from Antan will be somewhere above 50,000bpd, plus the gas we want to develop and commercialise, ”he stated.

According to him, the issues with Addax were withdrawal of financial incentive package and lack of investments in the asset.

“Everything was going down. We saw it from outside. But you have to be in before you can see some things. The day I stepped into the office at Addax, that was when I realized how terribly bad things had gone, ”Jajere stressed.

If Adax was producing up to capacity, a THISDAY calculation showed that it would be adding up to 4 million barrels every month to Nigeria’s Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) quota, which at the end of 2023 was still short by over 500,000 bpd.

Head of Business Services, Victoria Iroro, said the problem with Addax was that the fiscal terms that were agreed at the time they acquired the company were not being implemented.

“Therefore, Sinopec-Addax stopped investing in the development of the assets. The government didn’t like that because it was supposed to be continuous investment.

“This was why the government, through NNPC, decided to take over the assets and operate them. That was how Antan Producing Ltd was incorporated as a special purpose vehicle to operate the assets, ”she added.

According to her, Sinopec did well until they started having issues defaulting by not investing, thereby affecting the morale of staff.

“Production went down, sagging from 130,000bpd to 20,000bpd and further down to 7,000bpd. That was how the government stepped in and decided to take it over as Antan Producing Limited, ”she said.

She argued that the takeover of Addax by the NNPC and the renaming to Anton was a good decision, which was helping to restore some confidence in the workers.

“Sometime ago in 2013, I worked in the finance department at the time and I was responsible for budget and planning. We were running a budget of $2billion and above for the operations of the company.

“But right before our eyes, we started seeing everything sliding until it got to $200,000. You can imagine how bad things went, ”she added.

On his part, the Head of Operations of the SPV, Jeremy Nnajiofor, said a security arrangement to ensure the pipelines are protected had been put in place so that production can be moved to the Agip facility nearby in order to avoid further shut down of the wells.

“And there were a lot of legacy and integrity issues. This was like a challenge because the government took over the assets to prove that a Nigerian company can run this business and grow it. So, we reviewed the situation and came up with a couple of things we needed to do at immediately. We identified the low hanging opportunities that we can explore to grow production, ”he added.

According to him the desire is to get back to above 100,000, which the assets had done in the past.

“I think it is a realisable in the mid to long term. But we need a lot of investment to achieve that, ”he stated.

News and Report

Alleged 76bn, $31.5m Fraud: EFCC Arraigns Ex AMCON MD, Ahmed Kuru, Four Others in Lagos

Published

on

By

 

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Monday, 20 January, 2025 arraigned a former Managing Director of Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria AMCON, Ahmed Kuru and four others for allegedly defrauding Arik Airline N76 billion and $31.5 million, respectively.

 

Other defendants are former Receiver Manager of Arik Airline Ltd, Kamilu Omokide, Chief Executive Officer of the airline, Captain Roy Ilegbodu, and Super Bravo Ltd and Union Bank PLC.

 

The defendants were arraigned before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos on a six-count charge bordering on theft, abuse of office and stealing by dishonestly taking the property of another.

 

The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to all the six-count charges when they were read to them.

 

Count one reads: “That you, Union Bank Nigeria Plc, sometime in 2011 or thereabouts, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with the intention of causing and/or inducing unwarranted sale of Arik Air loans and bank guarantees with Union Bank, made false statements to the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), regarding Arik Air Limited’s performing loans, following which you transferred a bogus figure of N71,000,000,000.00 (Seventy-One Billion Naira) to AMCON.”

 

Count two reads: “That you, Ahmed Lawal Kuru, Kamilu Alaba Omokide as Receiver Manager of Arik Air Limited, and Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Chief Executive Officer of Arik Air Limited in Receivership, sometime in 2022 or thereabout, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, fraudulently converted to the use of NG Eagle Limited the total sum of N4,900,000,000.00 (Four Billion Nine Hundred Million Naira only), property of Arik Air Limited”.

 

Count five reads: “That you, Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Ahmed Lawal Kuru and Capt. Roy Ilegbodu, on the 12th day of February, 2022 or thereabout, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, being public officers, directed to be done in abuse of the authority of your office and with intention of obtaining undue advantage for yourself and cronies an arbitrary act, to wit: intentionally authorizing the tear down and destruction of 5N-JEA with Serial No. 15058 valued at $31.5million (Thirty One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars), an arbitrary act, which act is prejudicial to the economic stability of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Arik Air Limited”.

 

The counsel to the first and third defendants, Prof Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, informed the court of a motion for bail application dated November 28, 2024 and November 29, 2024 for the two defendants.

 

Osipitan prayed the court that the defendants be granted bail on liberal terms.  According to him, the first defendant had no criminal records and that the EFCC granted him administration bail  which he didn’t jump.  “We pray the court grants bail to the two defendants on the same liberal terms given to them by EFCC,” he said.

 

EFCC Counsel, Wahab Shittu SAN, filed counter-affidavits dated December 2, 2024 against the first defendant and also another counter affidavits dated December 22, 2024 against the third defendant.  Shittu prayed the court to dismiss their bail applications.

 

According to him, the two defendants are facing serious offences of economic sabotage. However, he agreed with the second and third defence counsel that they are presumed innocent pending the determination of the court. Shittu , however, added that the temptation of the defendants leaving the country was very high. He thereafter prayed that accelerated hearing be granted and the defendants’ international passports be seized by the court.

 

“But if my lord decides to be magnanimous to grant them bail, we shall be praying for stringent conditions because we are particular about their attendance in court. “We urge that they should submit their international passports with the court in order to ensure that they come for trial,” he said.

 

The counsel to the second defendant, Olasupo Shasore, SAN in his motion for bail dated December 6, 2024 and filed on the same day, urged the court to also grant bail to his client on self recognition.

 

The prosecuting counsel in his counter affidavits dated January 17, 2025, opposed the bail application of the second defendant.

 

He said the application for bail was incompetent and should be struck out. Shittu cited relevance laws to buttress his argument. “My lord, the record of this court is to the effect that the second defendant, at one point, absconded in which your lordship had to issue a bench warrant. “The learned silk for the second defendant is not the defendant on trial and it is very unhealthy for a counsel to stand as a surety for a defendant.

 

“I urge my lord, in exercising his discretion, to take all this into consideration because our concern is the appearance of the second defendant in court so that he does not abscond.”

 

After listening to the arguments from all the parties, Justice Dada granted bail to the defendants in the sum of N20 million Naira each with two sureties in like sum.   The sureties must be gainfully employed and deposed to means of identification.

 

She also directed that the defendants must submit their international passports with the registrar of the court.

 

Justice Dada adjourned the matter till March 17, 18, and 19, 2025 for commencement of trial.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Absence Of Oba Otudeko, Bisi Onasanya, Others Stalls Arraignment Over N12.3Billion Fraud As Otudeko’s Lawyer Protests In Court

Published

on

By

The counsel for Oba Otudeko, Chairman of Honeywell Group, who is facing charges of a N12.3 billion fraud, appeared before a Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday to protest the charge.

Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN) informed the court that he was protesting because the charge had not been served on Otudeko or the two other individuals charged alongside him, the News Agency of Nigeria reports.

Olanipekun informed the court that, despite not being served with the charge, the defendants were shocked to learn about the planned arraignment through the media when the story broke last Thursday.

The 13-count charge was filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Oba Otudeko, former Managing Director of FirstBank Plc. Olabisi Onasanya, and former Honeywell board member Soji Akintayo.

Olanipekun is the counsel for the three defendants.

They were charged alongside the company, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

 

The EFCC alleges that the defendants obtained the sum under false pretenses.

 

According to the EFCC, the four committed the fraud in tranches of N5.2billion, N6.2billion, N6.150billion, N1.5billion and N500million, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos.

 

The 13-count charge, filed by EFCC counsel, Bilikisu Buhari, on January 16, 2025, further claimed that the defendants used forged documents to deceive the bank.

Specifically, count 1 accused the defendants of conspiring “to obtain the sum of N12.3Billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V-TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED and Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In Count 2, it was alleged that the defendants, on or about 26th day of November, 2013 in Lagos, “obtained the sum of N5.2 billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED which representation you know to be false.”

 

The 3rd count alleged that the defendants, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos, obtained N6.2billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for and disbursed to Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In the 4th count, they were accused of conspiring to spend the N6.15billion, out of the monies.

According to the Commission, the offences contravened Section 8(a) of Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and was punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.

Counts 5 reads: “That you, Chief Oba Otudeko, Stephen Olabisi Onasanya, Soji Akintayo and Anchorage Leisure Limited on or about 11th day of December, 2013 in Lagos, procured Honeywell Flour Mills Plc to retain the sum of N1.5 billion, which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of your unlawful activities to wit: Obtaining by False Pretense and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18(c), 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.”

Meanwhile, Otudeko had reportedly fled Nigeria ahead of his scheduled arraignment on fraud charges.

 

According to TheCable Newspaper, Otudeko’s exit from the country is linked to the mounting legal pressures and financial disputes he is facing.

The newspaper reported that the businessman left the country via one of the land borders.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Loan controversy: Bisi Onasanya’s lawyer condemns media trial….Judge adjourns case to February 13

Published

on

By

In line with his resolve to defend himself and clear his name, Dr. Bisi Onasanya through his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, at a session at the Federal High Court Lagos on Monday, January 20, 2025, demanded the service of proof of evidence and summons.

Onasanya, a chartered accountant and a former Group Managing Director of First Bank is defending himself against a controversial loan that allegedly occurred at First Bank 12 years ago. The retired banker is refuting the allegations alongside three others namely former Chairman of the bank, Chief Oba Otudeko, a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo, and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

At a hearing at the Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday, Fusika condemned the media trial his client had been subjected to, saying he was not formally invited by the EFCC or served a notice of the charge.

He expressed surprise at seeing news stories in major newspapers linking Dr Onasanya to a trial on loan controversy during his time as First Bank Group Managing Director without prior notification.

“My Lord, it is concerning that my client has been unduly exposed to media trial without being formally served. This is a procedural anomaly that undermines his right to a fair hearing and personal dignity,” Olumide-Fusika said.

The prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, denied any involvement by the EFCC in the media coverage of the case.

He stated that the commission had not issued a press statement and suggested that journalists may have obtained information through other means.

“My Lord, we disassociate ourselves from any media reports,” Oyedepo said.

The EFCC also applied for an ex parte motion to issue a bench warrant for the defenders’ arrest and sought permission to serve them through substituted means, alleging they had evaded service.

Olumide-Fusika opposed the motion, arguing that his client had always been available and had not evaded service. Demonstrating his determination to clear his name, the senior lawyer prayed to the court to have the EFCC serve the charge and the proof of evidence in the open court.

“This application is unwarranted and speculative. My client has neither avoided service nor absented himself from this matter. The claims of the prosecution are baseless. Since I am here and my client is ready to go ahead with this case, I ask to be served the charge and the proof of evidence here in the court,” Olumide-Fusika argued.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, who presided over the case, dismissed the EFCC’s motion for substituted service on Onasanya since he has accepted to be served in the open court.

The judge consequently ordered that the EFCC serve Olumide-Fusika the charge and proof of evidence in open court.

The EFCC complied with the directive, and Olumide-Fusika who confirmed the receipt of the document extracted a confirmation from the prosecution counsel that the proof of evidence submitted is exhaustive and there wouldn’t be an addendum. The defence counsel said EFCC’s confirmation should be on record, insisting that his client was ready to defend himself and clear his name.

Justice Aneke adjourned the case to February 13, 2025.

It will be recalled that Onasanya, through his Communication Advisor, Mr Michael Osunnuyi, had earlier dismissed allegations, describing the claims as baseless and an attempt to tarnish Onasanya’s stellar reputation for professionalism, integrity and humaneness.

Continue Reading

Trending