Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Kosmos Partners (energy) 07/02/08
GHANA will earn $836 million annually from oil revenue when initial production begins at the fields of Cape Three Points.
Making the announcement at a press briefing in Accra, the Managing Director of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Moses Oduro Boateng, said the amount would be earned from Ghana’s share of 38,209 barrels of crude oil a day out of the total 100,000 barrels per day to be produced.
The rest of the production would go to the country’s foreign partners in the exploration.
Ghana’s share was calculated on an assumed long term price of $US60 a barrel amounting to US$2,292,540.00 per day which would translate to US$836,777,100.00 per annum’.
Mr Boateng was reacting to a publication in an Accra-based newspaper which said Ghana would earn $584 billion annually from the oil discovery at Cape Three Points.
He said a daily production of 200,000 barrels of crude was achievable within five years after commencement of production and that could give the state a total revenue of approximately US$1.6 billion per annum.
‘In addition to the revenue due to the state from the fiscal arrangements in the petroleum agreement, petroleum operations especially development and production operations have the potential of transforming the economy through the participation of indigenous businesses.
For instance, he explained that the petroleum agreements provides for the use of Ghanaian goods and services in all phases of petroleum operations in so far as they were of quality and quantity comparable to industry standards and were priced competitively.
That he stated was popularly known in the oil industry as ‘local contents’ which could be defined as the quantum of composite value added or created in the Ghanaian economy through the utilisation of Ghanaian human and material resources for the provision of goods and services to the petroleum industry within acceptable quality, health, safety and environmental standards in order to stimulate the development of indigenous capabilities.
Touching more on the discovery, Mr Boateng said that the production of the oil would be done in phases.
Asked when Ghana would see the first oil, he said there was not a definite answer to that question because more wells would have to be drilled in addition to the Mahogany and Hyedua wells which were all drilled last year.
He said it took two to three months to drill a well adding that it also took time to acquire equipment for production because one had to join a queue in placing an order for equipment on the international market.
Mr Boateng further stated that it took 18 months to construct a gas pipeline adding that there was the need to construct one because the oil discovered had high gas content which could be of immense benefit to the country.
He said everything was on course and assured Ghanaians that Kosmos Energy and its partners were working earnestly to make it possible for early production of oil.
He further explained that exploration was a very risky business with a success rate of one out of 10.
Mr Boateng pointed out that the drilling of a single well cost between $60 million to $100 million and said most companies have had to invest thrice or more of such huge amounts only to find nothing.
In view of the high cost involved in exploration activities, Mr Boateng said the government could not afford to invest in such sector adding that ‘that is why we are encouraging more companies to invest in our oil industry’.
He said the government benefited from about 38 per cent in taxes and royalties among others from the activities of Kosmos Energy and other oil companies operating in the country.
Mr Boateng said that the oil discovery was a good thing for Ghana adding that ‘we can make it a blessing instead of a curse.’
Kosmos Energy (Ghana) Limited, the discoverer of the oil at Cape Three Points and its partners would need about $5 billion to fully develop the fields to pave the way for production of oil.
Due to the cost involved in drilling and the time frame needed for the acquisition of equipment, Kosmos Energy and its partners would develop the discovered oil fields in phases.
The company’s partners are Tullow Oil, UK, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Texas, Sabre Oil, UK, E.O. Group, Ghana and the GNPC.
Explaining the role of the GNPC further, the Director of Exploration, Mr Thomas Manu, gave the assurance that the GNPC was playing its supervisory role to the letter.
For instance, he said GNPC required oil companies to undergo competitive bidding anytime it needed to acquire new equipment.
He said the GNPC also took part in tender processes and the award of contracts as well as the responsibility of scrutinising, approving or rejecting annual budgets of oil companies operating in the country.

Inefficiency didn't drive me out of VRA - Dr Wereko-Brobby tells court

February 1, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)

THE former Chief Executive Officer of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, yesterday told the Fast Track High Court that he did not leave the VRA because of inefficiency.
He said he left because the President asked him and his deputy, Mr Amissah Arthur, to resign in the best interest and future of the VRA.
Testifying in a GH¢220,000 suit he instituted against the authority, Dr Wereko-Brobby said “my conduct at the VRA was exemplary”.
Dr Wereko-Brobby is demanding payment of GH¢220,000 being his entitlements from the VRA.
Answering questions under cross-examination from counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, Dr Wereko-Brobby told the court that he was nominated by the President and given a letter of appointment by the Chairman of the VRA Board.
Mr Yeboah then suggested to Dr Wereko-Brobby that he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) had vacated his post because he did not resign from the VRA but the witness denied that assertion.
The following transpired between the counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, and Dr Wereko-Brobby:
Mr Yeboah: You have not sent a letter of resignation to the defendant (VRA).
Dr Wereko-Brobby: The defendant accepted my resignation letter.
Mr Yeboah: From September 13, 2003 you have not gone to work. You can be declared to have vacated your post. Sanctions of vacation of post can be applied to you.
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I have not vacated my post. I did not give any notice but did not flout any rules.
He said he did not give six months’ notice as was required before resigning because he was not allowed to do so.
Dr Wereko-Brobby denied an assertion from counsel for the VRA that the reliefs he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) was seeking were wrong.
He also denied an assertion that the circumstances surrounding his resignation were caused by himself, adding that the allegations made against him were later found to be false by an independent committee established to investigate those allegations.
Dr Wereko-Brobby said the fact that he was the Chairman of the VRA Board before he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA was not a demotion.
He also disagreed with an assertion from the defence counsel that he forced the then Chief Executive out of office because he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) viewed the position of the Chief Executive as “very attractive”.
He said all that he required the court to do was to order the VRA to pay his entitlements as former Chief Executive of VRA as stipulated by a separation letter from the VRA Board and nothing else.
“My separation benefits were clearly spelt out and I have not been told up till now that the decisions have been reversed,” Dr Wereko-Brobby informed the court.
He said he took away his official vehicle and furniture from his official residence in compliance with the terms of a letter spelling out his entitlements.
Mr Yeboah: The counter claims are valid. (He was referring to counter claims from the VRA which was requesting the court to order Dr Wereko-Brobby to hand over an official vehicle and furniture)
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I do not share your view. They are without merit.
He has since completed with his evidence and the VRA is expected to open its defence on February 19, 2008.
Apart from the GH¢220,000 being sought for, Dr Wereko-Brobby is asking for interest from April 2004 and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, with registration number GW 2505 T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA.
In his statement of claim, Dr Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003 but it took the VRA a considerable time, amid demands from him, before it eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.
He said in that letter, cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling GH¢6100 six months’ salary in the sum of GH¢18,700, gratuity of five years’ salary of GH¢180,000 being the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car which was in his possession were discussed.
The VRA, he further argued, in its letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May the same year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby contended that because the VRA could not pay the entitlements as agreed on, he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.
He further averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the defendant had not honoured its obligation, adding that unless compelled by the court, he would not be paid his entitlements.
Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the VRA on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year but resigned on September 17, 2003.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Man 37, arrested over payslips deal

February 4, 2008 (Page 39)


LUCK ran out for a 37-year-old barber who attempted to steal payslips of public servants to further his alleged dubious deals with Hire Purchase Companies.
Sylvester Appiah was caught in possession of the payslips at the premises of the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD) last Wednesday.
Appiah, who is suspected to be in league with some hire purchase companies, is said to have earlier approached a worker at the CAGD to assist him to lay hands on the payslips.
The worker reported the matter to her superiors who urged her to feign interest and hand over some payslips to Appiah.
After collecting the payslips, Appiah gave GH ¢100 to the worker but he was arrested shortly after handing over the money.
A search on him revealed that he was in possession of more than 50 payslips of public servants.
Following the arrest of Appiah, the CAGD would be holding an emergency meeting with hire purchase companies on Monday, February 4, 2008 to re-emphasise the rules under which hire purchase companies could deal with the CAGD.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, after his arrest, the Head of Payroll of the CAGD, Mr Seidu Kotomah, said his outfit had received complaints from more than 127 public servants who claimed their salaries were being deducted for items they had not purchased.
He said seven complaints were received from public servants in August 2007, 26 in September 2007, 36 in October 2007, 30 in November 2007, while 19 and 16 complaints were received in December 2007 and January 2008 respectively.
According to Mr Kotomah, two public servants had even dragged the CAGD to court over the same issue, adding that “the issue is becoming a big problem”.
He said some unscrupulous elements laid hands on payslips, manoeuvred to meet other conditions with assistance from hire purchase companies and eventually succeeded in getting the salaries of affected public servants deducted for items they (public servants) had not purchased.
Mr Kotomah, therefore, appealed to public servants to “jealously guard” their payslips so that they would not fall in the wrong hands.
He said most public servants showed little or no interest in their payslips and said until they did so, the menace would prevail.
“People should have interest in their payslips and question any abnormality in order to nip this problem in the bud once and for all,” Mr Kotomah added, and accordingly urged Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to treat payslips with caution.

Inefficiency didn't drive me out of VRA - Dr Wereko-Brobby tells court

February 1, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)

THE former Chief Executive Officer of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, yesterday told the Fast Track High Court that he did not leave the VRA because of inefficiency.
He said he left because the President asked him and his deputy, Mr Amissah Arthur, to resign in the best interest and future of the VRA.
Testifying in a GH¢220,000 suit he instituted against the authority, Dr Wereko-Brobby said “my conduct at the VRA was exemplary”.
Dr Wereko-Brobby is demanding payment of GH¢220,000 being his entitlements from the VRA.
Answering questions under cross-examination from counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, Dr Wereko-Brobby told the court that he was nominated by the President and given a letter of appointment by the Chairman of the VRA Board.
Mr Yeboah then suggested to Dr Wereko-Brobby that he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) had vacated his post because he did not resign from the VRA but the witness denied that assertion.
The following transpired between the counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, and Dr Wereko-Brobby:
Mr Yeboah: You have not sent a letter of resignation to the defendant (VRA).
Dr Wereko-Brobby: The defendant accepted my resignation letter.
Mr Yeboah: From September 13, 2003 you have not gone to work. You can be declared to have vacated your post. Sanctions of vacation of post can be applied to you.
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I have not vacated my post. I did not give any notice but did not flout any rules.
He said he did not give six months’ notice as was required before resigning because he was not allowed to do so.
Dr Wereko-Brobby denied an assertion from counsel for the VRA that the reliefs he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) was seeking were wrong.
He also denied an assertion that the circumstances surrounding his resignation were caused by himself, adding that the allegations made against him were later found to be false by an independent committee established to investigate those allegations.
Dr Wereko-Brobby said the fact that he was the Chairman of the VRA Board before he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA was not a demotion.
He also disagreed with an assertion from the defence counsel that he forced the then Chief Executive out of office because he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) viewed the position of the Chief Executive as “very attractive”.
He said all that he required the court to do was to order the VRA to pay his entitlements as former Chief Executive of VRA as stipulated by a separation letter from the VRA Board and nothing else.
“My separation benefits were clearly spelt out and I have not been told up till now that the decisions have been reversed,” Dr Wereko-Brobby informed the court.
He said he took away his official vehicle and furniture from his official residence in compliance with the terms of a letter spelling out his entitlements.
Mr Yeboah: The counter claims are valid. (He was referring to counter claims from the VRA which was requesting the court to order Dr Wereko-Brobby to hand over an official vehicle and furniture)
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I do not share your view. They are without merit.
He has since completed with his evidence and the VRA is expected to open its defence on February 19, 2008.
Apart from the GH¢220,000 being sought for, Dr Wereko-Brobby is asking for interest from April 2004 and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, with registration number GW 2505 T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA.
In his statement of claim, Dr Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003 but it took the VRA a considerable time, amid demands from him, before it eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.
He said in that letter, cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling GH¢6100 six months’ salary in the sum of GH¢18,700, gratuity of five years’ salary of GH¢180,000 being the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car which was in his possession were discussed.
The VRA, he further argued, in its letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May the same year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby contended that because the VRA could not pay the entitlements as agreed on, he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.
He further averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the defendant had not honoured its obligation, adding that unless compelled by the court, he would not be paid his entitlements.
Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the VRA on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year but resigned on September 17, 2003.