Rivalry in the oil industry took a new dimension last week
with the major players ganging up to protest alleged bias in the award
of a lucrative tender from the Kenya Power and Lighting Company to Mobil
Oil Kenya Limited.
Mobil is a relatively new entrant to the market having returned after
a 25 year absence ostensibly to take advantage of opportunities
presented by the liberalisation of the sector.
After two years in operation Mobil has a marked presence after taking
over the network previously managed by Esso Kenya limited.
The other oil companies are unhappy with the tender for the supply of
15,000 tonnes of illuminating kerosene or Jet A1 fuel to the Westmont
power barge at Kipevu in Mombasa. The contract was worth Sh176 million.
Previously, Kenya Oil Company (Kenol) supplied the fuel.
The other oil companies claimed KPLC did not advertise the tender
against expectations.
Westmont is one of the private companies with which KPLC has a Power
Purchase Agreement. It supplies 44.5 megawatts to the national power
grid.
The other one is the Nairobi-based Spanish company Iberafrica with a
supply of 43 megawatts.
Kenya Shell, Kenol and Total have written to the Managing Director of
Kenya Power KPLC, Mr Samuel Gichuru, seeking an explanation on the
‘irregularity’ and advise on how similar tenders would be handled in
future.
However, KPLC management last week denied any impropriety on the part
of the power company. The Chief Communications Officer, Mr Migwi Theuri,
said that there had been no ‘new’ tender award as alleged by the oil
companies.
He said the only tender so far awarded to Mobil was made known to all
oil companies on July 9 and that they were invited to bid.
They had been asked to provide quotations for 1,000 litres of Jet A1
fuel.
The companies that were faxed the invitation to bid, according to Mr
Theuri were Mobil, Kenol, Kobil, Kenya Shell, Total, Caltex and Agip.
The bids were opened on July 10 at KPLC’s Stima Plaza headquarters in
the presence of representatives of all the seven companies.
Mobil was awarded the tender on the basis of having quoted the lowest
price of Sh11,736.10 per 1,000 litres. Other companies quoted prices
that ranged from Sh12,889 to Sh26,838 in respect of the same quantity of
fuel.
“There was nothing done underhand. All our actions were above board
and we can prove it, “Mr Theuri said.
Based on the results of the bidding process, Westmont initially
ordered for the supply of 5,000 tonnes from Mobil.
The power plant operated on this supply from 12th to 28th July.
To continue with operations, Westmont ordered a further 15,000 tonnes
from Mobil. This was adequate supply for approximately nine weeks,
according to sources in the industry.
The placement of this new order seems to be the main point of
contention between the two parties.
While the oil companies are adamant that this was a major purchase
warranting the invitation of new bids from the entire market, KPLC
maintains that it was simply a repeat order based on the results of the
earlier tendering process.
They argue:
That the intervening period between the placement of the two orders
could not have resulted in a ‘material’ increase in the prices of fuel
to validate the invitation of new bids.
That the ‘original’ bid was not for a specific volume or supply
period. The companies had been simply asked to provide quotations for
1,000 litres.
Any invitation to tender announced would have been prejudicial to
Mobil because all the major oil companies with the exception of the
National Oil Corporation of Kenya were present when the bids for the
current operational tender were being opened.
As for it’s involvement in what should ideally be a matter between
Westmont and the oil marketing companies, KP&C says it has a stake
because according to the provisions of the contract it has with Westmont
it refunds the private company the cost of the fuel it uses in the power
generation process. So effectively, KPLC is the buyer of the fuel.
Replying to accusations by the players in the industry that the
tender was administered with ’suspicious’ haste, KPLC said the speed of
execution was totally justified.
“The supply to the power plant was running low and as a company
mandated to serve the public we had to move in fast to find an
alternative source. Westmont is integral to our total output and any
sustained lapses in production would have meant costly interruptions of
electricity supply in the entire economy”, Mr Migwi said.
Industry sources said that it was Kenol that was supplying the power
plant with Jet A1 before Mobil clinched the tender. It is not clear how
Kenol lost the tender.
Some of the oil companies also accused KPLC of deliberately making
the first tender invitation ‘vague’ so as to give it ‘greater room for
manoeuvre’.
They particularly took issue with the fact that the tender invitation
did not indicate the volume to be supplied or even the time period.
“What if the company they contracted was incapable of raising the
volumes required by the power plant”? asked a top executive in one of
the oil companies.
Another contentious issue is how the company intends to handle future
supplies to the Westmont plant. It is not clear when if at all there
will be invitation for bids in the future and how the intervening period
will be determined.
Mr Theuri could not give a definite date but revealed that KPLC would
prefer an arrangement where Westmont deals directly with the oil
marketers without it’s direct involvement.
In a letter dated July 30th and copied to the Ministry of Energy and
chief executive officers of oil companies, Mr Mike Masson, the Finance
Manager of Kenya Shell says: “It would be of major interest to us to
know whether there were overriding reasons for excluding us and all
these other oil marketers in this large volume business in which we have
so ably participated in the past.”
Similar letters have been written by the Managing Director of Kenol
Mr J.I. Segman and Mr Momar Nguer of Total.
Mr Masson was emphatic about the validity of the accusation but
regretted that he had received no response from Mr Gichuru or the
Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Energy, Mr Crispus Mutitu.
The Public Relations and Advertising Manager of Caltex, Mr George
Murila said he was aware of the contentious issue.
He said there was need for transparency in KPLC’s tendering system so
that there would be competitive bidding and fair play in the industry.
According to Mr Segman, the last tender was issued for a specific
volume of 5,000 tonnes which, he believes, had already been supplied.
Mr Masson also indicated in his letter that the current tender was
for 15,000 tonnes. The above facts tally with KPLC’s except for the use
of the word ‘tender’.
However some industry sources believe the current accusations against
Mobil and KPLC are symptomatic of the cartel-like operations of the
petroleum sector in Kenya.
“Mobil is the new kid on the block and it is already ruffling
feathers with it’s forceful forays into the local market. The old boys
are bound to run scared,” said a marketing lecturer at the University of
Nairobi.
He said Mobil was a market-savvy operator and with its vast
international experience poses a tough proposition for the established
so-called ‘big five’ oil companies.
The observation that Mobil is being ‘fought’ is borne out by three
observations:
The letters written by the oil companies are similar in content and
dates. This suggests a co-ordinated effort.
A managing director of one of the companies seemed to have been
‘mandated’ to speak on behalf of the other on this issue.
At least two of the companies have denied Mobil the use of their
pipeline facilities. This is inspite of the existence of a ‘hospitality’
arrangement in the industry which allows for the sharing of facilities.
The same companies were in the frontline recently when Mobil was
accused of endangering the operations of its competitors and the
environment by using an alleged sub-standard pipe for conveying Jet A1
from the jetty to the Westmont barge at Kipevu in Mombasa. Mobil denied
the charges.
A top manager at Mobil who refused to be named called the accusations
a business issue and declined to comment further.