Quantcast
Channel: PNGBLOGS
Viewing all 2198 articles
Browse latest View live

KOMPIAM'S FRAUD KING MP

$
0
0
by PNGI
A Member of Parliament is elected to serve his constituents, and is paid handsomely to do it; a minimum of K330,000 a year in take home pay, according to Madang MP Bryan Kramer.

For this princely sum, surely an electorate should expect their member will spend every working hour striving to support their struggles and advance their interests? After all, K330,000 a year is 45 times the national minimum wage and more money than most people could even dream of earning.

If an MP is given the added honour of serving as a Minister of State his take home pay is increased, to reflect the added duties and responsibilities, to a cool K546,000 per year.

After all, said Minister now has not only the weight of responsibility of serving his own constituents, he now has responsibility for a whole government department, hundreds of staff and numerous local, national and international obligations.

No time here, clearly, for personal business interests, nor should there be. After all, that is why a Minister is paid so handsomely, not only to work tirelessly for his constituents, his departmental staff and the Nation, but also to recognise the lost opportunities to pursue his own commercial interests.

So how is it then that a senior government minister, one so burdened by public responsibility and so richly rewarded by hard working members of the public through their taxes, could have the time to register seven new businesses in less than three years?

Especially seven new businesses in sectors as diverse as travel, security, transport, health, real estate and education?

This, it seems, is just what Minister for the Environment, Conservation and Climate Change, John Pundari has been able to do. Starting in February 2014 and continuing through to November 2016, Pundari registered seven new companies.



Network map: The seven new companies registered by John Pundari since February 2014.

In an earlier series of investigative reports, PNGi exposed the substantial business network the current Prime Minister has nurtured over the past decades; it is a model that it seems others are following.

John Pundari’s seven new businesses are not, after all, the only ones he owns. In total there are some eighteen companies that Pundari currently either owns outright or jointly owns.

It can be argued this is not what was intended by those who framed our Constitution, even if it is within the limits of what is allowable under the law as currently written.

At the heart though is a more philosophical question: Is a Minister paid by the tax payer to serve the public’s interests alone, or should Ministers, MPs and other leaders be free to pursue their own business interests while being handsomely rewarded for their public service?

THE PROCESS IN LAW – APPOINTMENT, SUSPENSION & TERMINATION OF DEPARTMENTAL HEADS

$
0
0
by NEMA YALO LLB
The recent saga in relation to the appointment of the Secretary for the Department of Commerce and Industry has prompted me to write this article for public benefit. The process relating to the appointment, suspension and revocation of the appointment of a departmental head is provided for under the Constitution, the Public Services Management Act 2014 (hereafter “the Act”) and the Public Services (Management) (Employment of Departmental Heads) Regulation 2014 (hereafter “the Regulation”). This article should answer two primary issues, namely, what is the process involved in appointing, suspending and revocation the appointment and who ultimately makes the appointment, suspension and the revocation of appointment. For space reasons, some detail aspects of the process are omitted.

Appointment of Departmental Head.
The appointment of a departmental head is provided for under Section 193 of the Constitution and Section 27 of the Act. A detailed procedure is prescribed under Division 3 of the Regulation. When an office of a departmental head is vacant or is about to become vacant, Regulation 3.3 requires the Department of Personnel Management (hereafter “DPM”) to advertise publicly the position vacancy. Following the advertisement an internal selection committee comprising officers at deputy secretary level from the DPM and the departments of PM & NEC, Justice & Attorney General, Provincial and Local-level Government and National Planning interviews and shortlists candidates following a process prescribed by the Regulation. The Secretary for DPM then forwards the selection report and a shortlist of not less than three (3) and not more than five (5) candidates to the Ministerial Executive Appointments Commission (hereafter “the MEAC”).

What is MEAC?
The MEAC is a subcommittee of the National Executive Council (hereafter “the NEC”) comprising five (5) Ministers. It is established under Section 28 of the Act and its functions are stipulated therein. In short MEAC’s role is to advice the NEC on the appointment, suspension and revocation of the appointment of departmental heads, provincial administrators and heads and board members of statutory authorities. The members of MEAC are (1) the Minister for Public Service (Chairman), (2) Minister for Justice and Attorney General, (3) the Minister for Treasury, (4) Minister for National Planning and (5) the portfolio Minister whose departmental head’s appointment is before MEAC. It is apparently a political body with no involvement of the independent constitutional authority, namely the Public Services Commission as was the case prior to the legislative changes in 2014. 

However a serious word of CAUTION. No member of the public should comment on the constitutional validity of the law and the processes. This and other related issues regarding the processes involving the appointment, suspension and termination of departmental heads, provincial administrators and the heads or CEOs of statutory authorities were argued before the Supreme Court in 2017 and the Court has reserved its judgment. Any discussion will be subjudice. Subjudice is a Latin word meaning “under judgment”. It is also a legal term meaning an issue or a matter under judicial consideration is prohibited from public discussions. For the same reason, this article steers away from discussing the same issues.
Returning to the process, MEAC considers the selection report and forwards to the NEC a shortlist of three candidates for the appointment with its own recommendation of a preferred candidate. The NEC deliberates on the report and the recommendation. If it is satisfied with the recommendation it resolves to advise the Head of State to make the appointment. The NEC has no power at this stage to introduce a new candidate not recommended by MEAC. The Head of State has no legal powers to review and question the advice from the NEC. His role is simply to make the appointment by signing the relevant instruments and publishing a notice in the National Gazette. The notice usually states the date when the appointment takes effect and the term of the appointment.

Suspension and Termination of Departmental Head.
The suspension and termination of a departmental head is provided for under Section 193 of the Constitution and under Section 27 of the Act and under the detailed provisions of Division 7 of the Regulation. A departmental head may be suspended or terminated from employment for non-performance or on disciplinary grounds the details of which are prescribed under the Regulations and the contract of employment. A portfolio Minister may issue a warning to his departmental head following consistently poor performance over a period of not less than six months. Failure of compliance results in the portfolio Minister presenting a report to the MEAC of which he is a member to determine the departmental head’s employment. By Division 7.2(1) of the Regulation, a portfolio Minister may suspend his departmental head from office on disciplinary grounds “only in accordance with the recommendation” of MEAC. If a portfolio Minister thinks that his departmental head has committed a serious misconduct and breach of his contract of employment which warrants instant removal from office the Minister may offer the departmental head an opportunity to respond to the allegations within seven days period. The portfolio Minister then forwards the departmental head’s response and his report to the Minister for Public Service who acts upon the advice of the Secretary for DPM to suspend the departmental head on full pay pending further investigation by an independent committee comprising secretaries of the departments of DPM, Justice & Attorney General, PM & NEC and Finance.

If the investigation finds that the departmental head has a case to answer the portfolio Minister who initially raised the allegation is advised to charge his departmental head. When the departmental head responds either admitting or denying the charge(s) the portfolio Minister advises the Minister for Public Service (Chairman of MEAC) accordingly. The Chairman of MEAC shall obtain legal advice as to the culpability of the departmental head and thereafter recommend to the NEC for appropriate action.
The ultimate power to suspend or revoke an appointment under the law rests with the Head of State acting with and in accordance with the advice of the NEC.

Conclusion
The law at present is that it is the Head of State (and not a Minister) who appoints, suspends and terminates from office a departmental head acting with and in accordance with the advice from the NEC, unless of course where the NEC’s power is delegated to a Minister. To act otherwise is corrupt conduct, plain and simple.
The author is a former Counsel to the Ombudsman Commission and is also a former Judge of the National and Supreme Courts of PNG.

PNG Families Hit Hard by Nine Hundred Tarrif Increases

$
0
0
by IAN LING-STUCKEY MP
# The biggest negative impact will be on family food budgets. There have been a massive set of price increases facing families – 518 areas where family food budgets will face increases.
PNG Families to suffer from government’s tariff increases
“PNG families will be facing much higher prices in 2018 because of poor government policies. Since forming government in 2017, the National Government has organised to increase prices on 918 items. These price increases will start coming through early in the new year. A government more in touch with the high cost of living facing our people would not deliberately increase prices that mainly suited their business besties” said the Shadow Minister for Treasury and Finance, Ian Ling-Stuckey.
“The biggest negative impact will be on family food budgets. There have been a massive set of price increases facing families – 518 areas where family food budgets will face increases. The major ones are the 25% increase in milk products, the huge jump in chicken prices of K1.70 per kilo (and this the wholesale price, so the retail price may increase by even more),15% increases in a range of fish products and juice concentrates, and the 60 toea per dozen increase in egg prices. 56% of the tariff increases focus on the struggling food budgets of PNG families. PNG families deserve to be able to feed their children without these massive and widespread price increases” said the Shadow Treasurer.
“There will also be major increases in the costs facing families and businesses in their costs of travel. The increase in diesel excise by 13 toea per litre – and the government plans to increase it by a further 38 toea per litre in future budgets. On top of this is an increase in all imported petrol and diesel of 10 toea per litre. Experience indicates this will eventually be passed onto motorists as the reduced competition almost always leads to price increases.
“There are major increases in 47 types of family household products such as 15% increase in the costs of laundry detergents, plastic kitchenware, buckets and tableware, as well as 10% increases ranging from toilet paper to shampoos and tissues and tablecloths and detergents.
“But there are even more price increases that have been hidden into the 2018 budget. Some of these increases are not obvious from the 32 pages of tables provided by the government with their missing descriptions and errors. The government did not make clear that there were plans for decreases in over 640 products on 1 January from the earlier Tariff Reduction Program. These have not been put on hold – which means families are now paying more than they would have been without this change in policy” said Mr Ling-Stuckey.
In particular, this means that there are many clothing products that would not be cheap as they otherwise would have been. But on top of what would have been a 5 per cent price decline, the government has added another 5 percent on clothing such as shirts, shorts, blouses, dresses, socks, T-shirts and tracksuits.
“The government also doesn’t understand how expensive it is to build a new house in PNG, or renovate one and there are major increases in the costs of building products. Some of these particularly concern me. For example, PNG has the poorest levels of access to safe water in the East Asia region according to the World Bank. So why does the government increase the wholesale price on imported plastic water tanks by 15%? Families on many of our island communities in kavieng & namatanai and in all other maritime provinces do not have year-round access to enough clean water.During the dry season from april to October, which is over half the year, we fetch water from holes dug into the beach shoreline many of which are not accessible during daily high tides and we regularly bath in salt water! This is how we still live today. Access to affordable short term solutions like plastic water tanks will be taken away with the 15% tariff increase. Why are my maritime people punished like this? ” asked Mr Ling-Stuckey.
“These increases in price are the wrong way to start the New Year. The Alternative Government understands that there is a need to raise more revenue to deal with PNG’s fiscal crisis, but the government is going about this in the wrong way. Their approach is hurting families. It is inefficient, inequitable and administratively clumsy.
In future days, I will talk more about the hidden inequities in these price hikes and how out of touch the government has become” said the Shadow Treasurer, Mr Ling-Stuckey.
Hon.Ian Ling-Stuckey,CMG.MP
Shadow Minister for Treasury & Finance

CASH FLOW SHORTAGE AND CASH TRANSFER OVERSEAS

$
0
0
by Eragairma Yal

Recently I wrote about how tax can be effectively measured and collected and how Asians were evading taxation matters by violating the norms and practices of business in PNG.

Does anyone get to know or question why we have cash flow problems in the country as of or about the late 90s to date?

Asians have taken over all reserved businesses and own about 95% of all shops from tucker shops to trade stores, Kai bars and up to retail stores, supermarkets and wholesale. About 80% of these businesses don't have an operating bank account with our commercial banks. However, they store cash in their safe back in their bedrooms. And listen carefully what I will share with you.

Nearly all these businesses are not owned by the so-called managers and handymen who run the shops but are owned by their millionaires and billionaires back in their own countries.

These Asians who are here are least significant and those that have no real values back in their place of origin have come here by container shipment overtime period and have negotiated with building owners here to operate their trading. Once consensus has reached, they consult their rich people back home and borrowed millions of Kina to operate their shops here.

So there is an agreement between the shop operators here and the owner back home in their country that certain amount of money must be sent every month to them. So the cash that's being kept at home are being counted on a daily basis to be sent to the owners by bypassing the monthly cash threshold transactions overseas. You know how it's done?

Our very own PNGeans help facilitate this. Do you realize some PNG shop assistants are very close to the Asians? They are the ones who normally carry the money to the overseas transactions counter to send the money.

For instance, if the monthly cash transaction limit overseas is K30,000 and if the shop owner back in their country wants K100,000 every month, these Asians here will somehow send that much. So one Asian will send K30,000 as his maximum overseas transaction. Another Asian in the same shop will send another K30,000 for the same month and the other will do likewise and some of our own PNG working with them also go and send money as well. Regardless of who does the daily or weekly transfer, the money ends up with the same person overseas who happens to be the owner of the money they borrowed from.

So the rich people back home organize syndicates and mafias who are highly paid to establish Vsats and other media networks behind closed doors to monitor the business activities here and report back to the owners overseas. If the monthly cash targets are not met in a month they're warned and the mafias and syndicates are put on red alert notice to monitor their activities here. If they fail the second or third time, the syndicates zero in on them and terminate their lives and bring in new managers to manage their shops etc...

The vicious cycle continues until the owners of the money back in China or wherever have been fully paid their loan with interest.

Now, where do the bulk of our people go and do business or buy their goods and services from? Obviously the Asians so cash collected every day is not banked but sent overseas bypassing or violating our monthly cash threshold transactions leaving our country high and dry! So how do you get the money back in again? Just work out how you get this much money transferred back into the country to ensure sufficient cash is flowing within our business community as well as our community?

Moni nogat...kou pora dum...minge paikrum...no money! CASHFLOW hard yah! So where has all our money gone to?

Device some strategies how we can control this prevailing cash transfer violating our laws. Please share your ideas here.

Ladies and gentlemen, I stand to be corrected.

ILLEGAL APPOINTMENT OF AN EXPATRIATE AS CEO OF THE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION

$
0
0
by NEMO YALO
In my last article relating to the appointment, suspension and revocation of appointment of Chief Executive Officer (hereafter “the CEO) of a statutory authority I concluded by stating that under the relevant laws the ultimate decision to appoint or suspend or dismiss a CEO rests with the Head of State (hereafter “the HoS”) and none other. I further stated that I will write about a particular statutory authority that has made two acting CEO appointments and terminated the incumbent CEO in breach of the relevant laws.
Here I write about the Accident Investigation Commission (hereafter “the AIC”) board illegally appointing an expatriate as acting CEO.
The AIC is the statutory authority entrusted to investigate aviation accidents and incidences (occurrences) in order to determine the cause(s) so as to prevent similarly or the same incident or accident occurring in future. The AIC board comprises the Chief Commissioner who must be a National Court Judge or lawyer with 10 years experience and two other Commissioners, one with significant aviation industry experience and the third person with qualifications and experience relevant to the functions of the AIC.
The process relating to the appointment, suspension and revocation of appointment of the CEO is provided for under Section 208B of the Constitution, Section 238(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 2000 (hereafter “the CAA”), the Regulatory Authorities (Appointment of Certain Offices) Act 2013 (hereafter “the RSA Act”) and the Regulatory Authorities (Appointment of Certain Offices) Regulation 2014 (hereafter “the Regulation”). I discussed the processes in my last article.

Illegal Appointment of an Expatriate as CEO
Section 208B(2) of the Constitution states that all appointments (whether temporary or substantive) of CEOs shall be made by the Head of State (hereafter “the HoS”), acting with, and in accordance with, the advice of the NEC given after considering recommendations from the relevant Minister, acting on the advice of the relevant Board, following procedures prescribed by an Act of Parliament. The CAA at Section 238(2) is in similar terms as the Constitution. The RSA Act under Sections 1, 2 and 3 set out a detailed procedure for appointment of CEO.

When the incumbent CEO Mr David Inau voluntarily stepped aside from office sometime in June 2017 following allegations made against him, the AIC board in a special meeting appointed an expatriate, Mr Alan Stray as the acting CEO of the AIC. Mr Stray is employed as the Manager – Aircraft Operations Investigations under a contract of employment. His contract does not allow him to be employed as the CEO. I am not entirely sure if his visa conditions and work permit conditions issued under the Employment of Non-Citizens Act 2007 (hereafter “the ENCA”) allows him to jump from position to position. The AIC board has no lawful powers under the Constitution, the CAA, the RSA Act and the Regulation to appoint Mr Stray as acting CEO but that does not justify Mr Stray’s breach of his visa conditions or conditions of his work permit. He may have breached Section 31 of the ENCA and his work permit should be revoked immediately. The Labour Department should as a matter of urgency investigate this and other related issues by interviewing the staff of the AIC. It may discover further breaches of work permit. 

The relevant law is that in the event vacancy occurs in the office of the CEO for any reason following which delay in substantive appointment occurs or may occur Division 4 of the Regulation states that the board shall recommend to the portfolio Minister a suitable person from within the organization who meets the minimum requirements prescribed by the Regulation for appointment as acting CEO for a period not exceeding three months, subject to further review. The portfolio Minister then advises the Minister for Public Service to advise the HoS to make the acting appointment. In this case, the vacancy occurred in the middle of 2017 general election. There certainly would have been a delay in making the substantive appointment. So the board ought to have recommended an officer from within AIC to the Minister for Civil Aviation to advise the Minister for Public Service. Based on the board’s recommendation the Minister for Public Service would have advised the HoS to make an acting appointment. 

The Constitution at Section 208B, Section 238(2) of the CAA, the RSA Act and the Regulation all say that the HoS is the ultimate authority that appoints, suspends and dismisses CEOs of statutory authorities. The AIC board usurped the power of the HoS.
Mr Alan Stray performed duties in his capacity as the acting CEO for two weeks. On 8 July 2017, the AIC board in a special board meeting resolved to appoint one of its members, the Deputy Chief Commissioner, Mr David Tawae, as acting CEO replacing Mr Stray. Again this appointment did not involve the portfolio Minister, the Minister for Public Service and the HoS as required by law. Mr Tawae acted as the CEO up until November 2017. This is another illegal appointment made by the AIC board in breach of the Constitution Section 208B, Section 238 of the CAA, the RSA Act and the Regulation. 

In the meantime, on 27 July 2017, Mr John Kali Secretary for Department of Personnel Management wrote to David Inau advising that his voluntary stepping down as CEO was improper and directed him to return to work. Mr Kali also referred to the two acting CEO appointments of Mr Stray and Mr Tawae as being illegal. On 27 July Mr Inau returned to his office. His office lock had been changed. When Mr Inau called the Chief Commissioner he was advised that he will receive a letter from the board prohibiting him from ever entering the office premise. On the same day, Mr Inau handed to Mr Stray his termination letter terminating Mr Stray’s employment. Mr Stray gave a hard look at the CEO and pointed his finger at Mr Inau’s face and said he is responsible to the Chief Commissioner and not the CEO. Mr Stray’s contract of employment states a condition under clause 2.1(h) that he is “directly responsible to the Chief Executive Officer”. Not the Chief Commissioner. Total arrogance and disrespect. Mr Stray is a law unto himself in Papua New Guinea, it seems.
This is a person who is on a package of about K1.3m contract when the AIC’s 2017 appropriation was a mere K4.3m. The funding for his salary was to be shared between TSSP and AIC but the latter has refused to pay its share because it did not sign-off on the final draft of Mr Stray’s contract of employment. The package is much higher than any Australian Government approved advisory emolument package. With the substantial cut in the 2018 appropriation, savings have to be made elsewhere to maintain Mr Stray's lucrative package. Last week the board has given a termination notice to the only senior Manager – Airworthiness. Who knows how many other senior investigators will be terminated?
Termination of CEO
When David Inau voluntarily stepped aside from office in June 2017 that was not proper in law and under his contract of employment. Mr Inau was not suspended by the HoS in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. John Kali was correct to advise him to return to work. However, when Mr Inau returned to his office, the lock had been changed. He could not return to work. The next day, 28 July 2017 the Chief Commissioner wrote to Mr Inau, directing him not to come to the office. So Mr Inau has been prevented from resuming duties. The AIC has ceased paying Mr Inau’s salary as of 1 December 2017. Mr Inau’s term of office ends on 18 February 2018.
So what is the result of all these? In employment law, locking the CEO out of his office and prohibiting him from entering his office to work is a constructive termination. Ceasing payment of pay is termination. It is highly improper and breach of the Constitution, CAA, RSA Act and the Regulation which all state that only the HoS has the ultimate power to appoint, suspend and terminate the appointment of the CEO. As if the Constitution alone is not enough, and as if the Constitution plus the CAA are not sufficient the power of the HoS is reiterated in the RSA Act. So what sort of board does it take to act arrogantly and deliberately breach three laws which say the same thing? Either the board is acting on incompetent legal advice or the arrogance displayed in the AIC has someone’s fingerprint all over.

Disclaimer. I do not represent anyone and I have not written to promote anyone’s interest. I have been a part of the AIC in the immediate past. The AIC in the last three years was fast gaining prominence and recognition in the Southeast Asian region and in the Pacific excluding Australia and New Zealand in the aviation accident investigation world. The AIC had a cordial professional relationship with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Transport Support Sector Program (TSSP) through the bilateral agreements between GoPNG and Australia through DFAT. Now that is no longer, thanks to arrogance in the AIC. I am aware that the heads of other aviation enterprises such as CASA, PNGASL and NAC and the Secretary for Transport and finally those in TSSP are rolling their eyes thinking what the heck went wrong with the AIC. 

These issues must be dealt with by the GoPNG immediately so that AIC is ready when the APEC is hosted. Immediately prior to, during and immediately after APEC the Port Moresby airspace will be unusually busy. That means the potential for risk of aviation occurrence will be high. AIC is a key player. Perhaps there is that possibility that our airspace may be completely locked down. Nevertheless, whilst other aviation enterprises such as CASA, PNGASL and NAC may be ready, the GoPNG cannot afford to have its AIC in limbo all because of arrogant and reckless regard for the law. The arrogance in the AIC must be rooted out as a matter of urgency.

A BARRAGE OF GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA TO COVER FINANCIAL CRISIS.

$
0
0

by JOHN E KUA
Over the past few months government propagandists have craftily colluded with the mainstream media to portray to nation,n , that all is well, and the nation is growing at leaps and bounds in contrast with the stark reality, that the nation is in a serious financial crisis, undergoing resuscitation from the international financial institutions in the hope a windfall of mysterious proportions would happen to end the current financial quagmire.
Inside sources from the Bank of Papua New Guinea confide that the Governor of the Bank is not a trustworthy person as he lives out of his suitcase, globetrotting on trivialities, irrelevant to the core functions of the Bank, and is unable to apply the brakes on government spending and borrowing.
Meanwhile, the government tries its best to conceal an open secret that all is well by manipulating the mainstream and social media, that the government is doing what it has to do in so far as the welfare of the nation is concerned.
There a long queues everywhere, as people line up for jobs, students awaiting selection for further training, patients dying while awaiting medical treatment and medicine, long lines at the banks without enough tellers, retiree's unable to collect their superannuation and the list is endless.
Yet, the government continues to mislead the citizens with false hope with propaganda like APEC that treasure will arrive from beyond the shores with the visit's from Trump and Zi Ping.
Whether the treasure arrives or not is all speculative, but what we know for sure is precious taxpayer's money has been spent on preparation and building infrastructure to big international contractors, who will leave town and share the takings with our political masters.
All the while government propaganda is heightened to keep us clapping and cheering as a distressed looking Lands Minister and Minister plays hero over the implicated ministers Duma and Pok.Over the past few months government propagandists have craftily colluded with the mainstream media to portray to nation,n , that all is well, and the nation is growing at leaps and bounds in contrast with the stark reality, that the nation is in a serious financial crisis , undergoing resuscitation from the international financial institutions in the hope a windfall of mysterious proportions would happen to end the current financial quagmire.
Inside sources from the Bank of Papua New Guinea confide that the Governor of the Bank is not a trustworthy person as he lives out of his suitcase , globetrotting on trivialities ,irrelevant to the core functions of the Bank ,and is unable to apply the brakes on government spending and borrowing.
Meanwhile, the government tries its best to conceal an open secret that all is well by manipulating the mainstream and social media, that the government is doing what it has to do in so far as the nations welfare is concerned.
There a long queues everywhere, as people line up for jobs, students awaiting selection for further training, patients dying while awaiting medical treatment and medicine,long lines at the banks without enough tellers , retiree's unable to collect their superannuation and the list is endless.
Yet, the government continues to mislead the citizens with false hope with propaganda like APEC that treasure will arrive from beyond the shores with the visit's from Trump and Zi Ping.
Whether the treasure arrives or not is all speculative , but what we known for sure is precious taxpayer's money has been spent on preparation and building infrastructure to big international contractors , who will leave town and share the takings with our political masters.
All the while government propaganda is heightened to keep us clapping and cheering as a distressed looking Lands Minister and Minister plays hero over the implicated ministers Duma and Pok.

AN ACT OF DECEIT ON THE FLOOR OF PARLIAMENT?

$
0
0
by JOHN E. KUA
Deceit by definition is keeping the truth hidden to get an advantage.
So did the prime minister deceive the people of Western Province on the 33 percent shares in OK TEDI MINING LIMITED?
Yes, he did lie about the transfer LIMITED? to the people of Western Province as no open dialogue or consultation was conducted by the government or its agents ,including the Mineral Resources Development Corporation ( MRDC ), the Department of Mining or the Department of Environment & Conservation to distribute the share equity amongst the different classes of landowners and the provincial and local level governments.
The O'Neill government was applauded for nationalising the mine in 2013, from BHP and it's trustees nominee PNGSDP in lieu of catastrophic environmental damages done to river systems along the OK Tri river and the Fly river which flows 400 nautical miles into the Gulf Delta, displacing almost 100.000 people who have depended on the river systems for their sustenance and livelihood.
The company imposed compensation arrangement under the Community Mines Continuation Agreement ( CMCA ) was a hoax intended to deceive and deter the affected inhabitants of the river systems from pursuing any legal redress.
Several environmental damages litigations were stamped out by BHP Billiton with out of court settlements.
The people of Western Province had supported the government in localizing the mine ,anticipating complete ownership and control of the mine in partnership with the state as its equity partner, owning it's 20 percent.
So far , the prime minister has betrayed the trust of the people of Western Province, who are still waiting on the government to categorically state , who would be the beneficiaries of the shareholding within the 33% - including OK TEDI landowners, the river people and the provincial and local government.
MRDC should not have any control over the shareholding of the Western Province peoples funds.

MORE LIES FROM FALSE PROPHET (PM)

$
0
0
MORE LIES FROM THE MASTER OF LIES

Once again the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Peter O’Neill, has lied to Parliament and the people of Papua New Guinea.
He told the House yesterday that when he illegally took over Ok Tedi, the company was making a loss.
That is a lie. The accompanying figures, obtained from Ok Tedi’s own publicly reported accounts, show that Ok Tedi was at its most profitable when majority owned by PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd.
Since Mr O’Neill’s illegal expropriation in 2013, reported profits have been slashed to less than one-third of what they were.
In 2012, the last year of PNGSDP majority ownership, profit was K913.3. In 2016, the last reported year of O’Neill ownership, profit was K384 million.
Average annual profit under PNGSDP was K1172 million. Average annual profit under Mr O’Neill was K98 million.
Returns to Western Province through development programs have fallen to virtually zero.
Western Province has also not been given the 33% shareholding in Ok Tedi promised by Mr O’Neill.
Importantly, Mr O’Neill has never explained what he has done with the billions of missing money generated by Ok Tedi. It is the same as LNG income: each year K20 billion worth of gas is shipped overseas every year. Where is the money?

O'NEILL CAUGHT OUT TELLING LIES - OKTEDI MINE.

$
0
0
by BRYAN KRAMER MP

Prime Minister Peter O'Neill was caught lying and misleading Parliament during question time when it resumed its first session in 2018 on Tuesday.

O'Neill was responding to a question raised by the Governor of Western Province, Toboi Yoto asking when his people would benefit from Oktedi Mine and when they would receive the share certificates.

Western Governor explained that since the O'Neill Government took over the mine in September 2013 it had failed to transfer the share certificates representing 33% interest in the mine to the Western Province people. Further, still, they had yet to receive their dividends.

In response, O'Neill claimed when his Government took over the mine from BHP, who at the time wanted to shut down the mine for not being profitable. He said the Government inherited a loss-making machine.

He confirmed his Government has yet to transfer 33% interest to the landowners, claiming it was because of stamp duties issue.

Member for Moresby North-West Sir Mekere Mortaua interjected with a point of order. Mekere a former PNG Sustainable Chairman told O'Neill to stop his incurable lies [about the mine]. There was never any plans to shut down the mine it was not making any loss but investing in further explorations, Sir Mereke said.

O'Neil responded telling Mekere that he was only trying to protect his legacy of providing immunity (protection) to BHP, the mines former developer who destroyed the lives and livelihood of the people through environmental damage.

"It was loss-making machine when we took it over but we had to restructure the mine during the drought and paid off all the employees making a profit," he said (source post courier article - https://postcourier.com.pg/ok-tedi-issue-heats/)

It was at this point I then interjected asking the Speaker to advise the Prime Minister to stop lying and misleading parliament. As I had in front of me 2012 OkTedi Financial Report confirming the mine was, in fact, making a profit.

O'Neill responded I was a busybody from Madang on social media.

So was O'Neill lying when he claimed the Oktedi Mine was a loss-making machine before he took over it?

O'Neill took over the mine in 2013, so let's review the mine's profits four years before and four years after from when he took over it.

In 2009 net profit K1.5 Billion
In 2010 net profit 2.03 Billion
In 2011 net profit K1.2 Billion
In 2012 net profit of K913 million

In 2013 net profit of K181 million
In 2014 net profit of K360 million
In 2015 net loss of -K347 million
In 2016 net profit of K384 million

This confirms O'Neill was lying and misleading parliament.

What O'Neill failed to disclose that soon after taking over the mine companies he held a direct and indirect interest in where awarded substantial contracts to service the mine.

So perhaps he was referring to his own companies being a loss making machines until he took over the Mine and thereafter they started turning over million Kina profits.

It is not the first time O'Neill has unashamedly lied both on the floor of Parliament and in the public arena.

In the height of 2017 General Elections O'Neill made an announcement while on the campaign trail in Tari that his Government had made the decision to transfer the 4.27% Kroton shares to the PNG LNG landowners.

“Today I am announcing that the national government will transfer 25 per cent of Kroton shares, which is 4.2 percent indirect interest in the PNG LNG project,” he said.

“The shares to be transferred to landowners and provincial governments in Hela, Southern Highlands, Gulf, Western and Central province are valued at K3.5 billion,

“Our Government is providing 25 per cent of Kroton shares to landowners and beneficiary groups that should rightfully be receiving benefits from the PNG LNG project.

“These shares will enable the landowners and communities and the provinces to secure a better future and to be more self-sufficient.

“This Government has made it our business to correct bad decisions from the past, particularly when this relates to land ownership.

“I was not a signatory to the initial Umbrella Benefits Sharing Agreement in 2009, but I have made sure that our
government does the right thing by our people today.

“This in the same spirit as the transfer of 17.4 percent of BCL shares to the landowners and people of Bougainville by the national government.”

“It is the same as the transfer of 33 per cent ownership in Ok Tedi" O'Neill said. (source https://www.thenational.com.pg/clans-promised-shares/)

So did O'Neill transfer the 4.27% of Kroton shares in the PNG LNG Project to the landowners? Did he transfer the 33 per cent ownership in the Oktedi mine to Western landowners?

The answer is NO.

Such statements maybe construed as undue influence (criminal offence under Section 102) When a person makes a false statement to induce a voter to vote in a particular way knowing the statement to be false.

This explains why O'Neill is commonly referred to as a Pathological Liar - defined as habitual or compulsive lying.

It is certainly embarrassing knowing such a person occupies the office of Prime Minister where his shrewd conduct and poor character reflects on our Nation of 8 million people.

Following the formation of the Government in August 2017 I asked members of the Opposition who previously served under O'Neill why they abandoned his Government - they responded because he was forever lying, making commitments or promises he would never honor. "We got tired of his lies and left" they said.

VETERAN SCHOOLED BY A ROOKIE

$
0
0
SO BASIL CLAIMS I'M A LIAR?

by BRYAN KRAMER

Today the Post Courier published a front page story under the headline "Uproar in the House."

The article was in relation to Member of Wau Bulolo and Minister of Communications & Energy Sam Basil's statement (personal explanation) on the floor of Parliament following question time yesterday. Basil's statement was in response to my article published on Facebook in relation to the recent defection of the Member of Wosera-Gawi Open from Opposition to O'Neill Government.

An article authored by reporter Jeffrey Elapa, which I'm of the view was biased confirmed by the fact the reporter made no attempt to get my comment to balance the story.

The central theme of the article and Basil's statement were expressed in the following terms:

1) Basil: the comments labeling me as “dumb and a stupid member of Parliament”, I felt obliged and convicted to stand up and speak as Mr Kramer’s comments are unacceptable and unbecoming of a national leader.

My Response:

So did I state in precise and expressed terms Sam Basil is dump and stupid?

No, not once in my article did I state as much.

Both words where stated twice as follows:

"It seems the offer by O'Neill to Basil was a lie. The only question was whether one was (1) dumb enough to believe it. I explained to Basil only an idiot would believe O'Neill would honour his word. It seems in PNG Politics we don't have a shortage of (1) stupid people."

"In the end Pangu only received one Ministry. Basil may go down in PNG Political History as one of the (2) dumbest Political Party Leaders for taking 16 Members across the floor on the promise of four Ministry portfolios in Cabinet and only receive one. On the same token Yopyyopy himself stated O'Neill promised him six projects and delivered none."

The first asks the question whether "one" is dumb enough - it does not state Sam Basil is.

The second states he "may" go down in PNG Political History as one of the dumbest Political Party Leaders. The word "may" is not a statement of fact but expressing a view (opinion). - a view that may be considered fair comment - which is a legal defense to derogatory or defamatory statement.

2) Basil: I was accused by Kramer alleging that I met with the MP for Wosera-Gawi, Joseph Yopyyopy, and enticed him to move to the government"

“This is a lie. You said lair to others but you are a true lair,”.

My Response:

I published what the Member of Wosera-Gawi told me - that before leaving for holiday's he met with Basil.

If Basil is disputing this claim then the person who he should be referring to as a liar is Mr. Yopyopy. However, the fact remains Mr. Yopyyopy did state as much - so Basil's claim I lied is misplaced.

3) Basil: Myself and the 16 MPs from Pangu Party crossed over to join the government based on collective decisions, and not even the Member for Madang can tell me what to do.

My response:

The fact is there were three caucus meetings where Basil moved the motion to join the Govenment. The first at Dynasty Restaurant, Gordons RH. It was rejected by the majority of those present. Two days later Basil convened another caucus meeting at Soul House Restaurant again the members opposed it. Basil withdrew the motion. He then convened a secret meeting in Lae only inviting those members of the party who supported it - making a point to exclude me.

So hardly a consensus decision as he claims.

4) Basil: I have never made any statement, saying I want to become the Prime Minister, and the statement posted by Mr Kramer is also a lie. "The Madang MP as a liar”.

My Reponse:

Seriously??? So he expects the 8 million people of PNG to believe as a Party Leader of the second largest Political Party in Parliament he never wanted to be Prime Minister?

6) Basil: “We have not been paid K10,000 as alleged on Facebook to join the government. We are leaders, and as honourable leaders, we serve our people. So we have to be responsible and respect each other. My people of Bulolo do not owe Madang or Bryan Kramer,”

My Response:

I never said Basil was paid K10,000 a fortnight for joining Government. I was referring to the members of parliament who joined PNC in the context of Mr. Yopyyopy. Basil is not qualified to make statements on matters that relate to PNC.

Even still I never stated it was a fact they were. What I did state was that I was reliably informed - which is a fact I was informed. I never stated what I was informed was confirmed to be true. Which is why I stated "an allegation I intend to get to the bottom of to confirm if there is any truth in it."

Basil is correct he doesn't owe me anything but does owe the people of Madang an apology after he lied to them about removing O'Neill during the campaign. They now insist Basil return to Madang to apologise for lying for them.

7) Basil: “You can call me dumb, stupid and insane, but I might be insane to continue to sit in the Opposition so I had to move for the interest of my Bulolo people.

My Response:

This is where it gets rather amusing, at the start of his speech Basil makes the point that he has served 109 months in Opposition while I have only served 7. Therefore, Implying I'm not qualified to comment about him being dumb and stupid.

He then goes onto explain that he believes he would be dumb, stupid and insane to continue to sit in the opposition. So is he saying it took him 109 months of being dumb, stupid and insane sitting in the opposition before realizing???

Did Basil move in the interest of Bulolo? It's my view he didn't, it was all about himself. Members of Parliament move to join Government for convenience and comfort.

8) Basil: “I think one person who will miss me sitting next to him would be the Member for Madang. I think he missed me sitting next to him,”

My Response:

Ok this statement is certainly creepy and disturbing. I don't remember Basil being seated next to me in Parliament. So it is either a poor attempt of humor which Basil is kind of known for or there is some underlying issue confirming some of the rumors about him that have been circulating over the years. I'm praying it's the former.

To conclude it is no secret Basil is not the sharpest pencil in the pencil case and struggles to understand complex issues.

And perhaps has a short memory. It is public knowledge leading up to he 2017 General Elections Basil made the statement that if Pangu Pati forms the next Government after the elections he is going to investigate all corrupt MPs in the Government send them to Bomana Prison to eat brown rice including Prime Minister Peter O'Neill - a statement that was published in National newspaper.

On 4 August 2017 following the re-election of O'Neill the National published a press statement by Basil saying the O'Neill Government will not last long as the strong opposition side will change it before long.

"At a media conference following Wednesday’s Parliament session, Basil said the Prime Minister will not last. “We will manage to change him with the strong opposition we have now,” he said."

“We the team in the opposition are fit and strong enough to make sure that we stand to hit this brick wall until Peter O’Neill will crumble in the next 12 months,” Basil said."

So Sam Basil has the audacity to call me a liar - after he unashamedly lied to 8 million people of PNG which included the thousands of Pangu Pati supporters.

In my view if there is one thing worse than stealing the peoples money it's stealing their trust.

For the record I have little interest in Sam Basil since he lacks the mental aptitude to debate complex issues and hardly considered a strategic player in the 10th Parliament.

Tok bokis: Basil tok sapos Pangu fomim Gavman Pita O'Neill bai go lo Bomana na kakai brown rice. Pangu stap lo Gavman tasol i lukolsem Pita O'neill kisim brown rice putim pia long em na singautim Basil lo kam kaikai pia rais.

Abuses in Foreign Missions

$
0
0

The PM recently instituted an Audit into the operations of one of the Foreign Missions allegedly for disposing of state property without complying with due processes as stipulated under the Financial Management Act (FMA), Public Service Management Act (PSMA) and the Foreign Service Manual of Operations and other related guidelines.

This disposition and the subsequent audit carried out, as they say “is Only the tip of the iceberg”. Whilst waiting for the outcome of the audit, let us scrutinize some of the conduct of our Foreign Missions and its Officers at Post. The PNG Embassy in Manila Philippines will be in the uppermost list in official corrupt practices, abuse and mismanagement, especially of funds, allocated and funds generated through its Consular Services i.e. visa and Immigration services fees etc.

From the Ambassador down to all staff, each has a fair share of misuse and abuse. The Ambassador and his staff have no regard for the existence of the FMA & PSMA and the need to report to FA on its operations. Because the Ambassador is abusing his official position of trust, all officers want to have a fair share in this malpractice. It is alleged that a former officer of the Embassy has abused more than K500, 000.00 while serving there.

The Officer is alleged to have used the money for his/her over-aged children school fees and another extravagant lifestyle. The officer has since resigned or absconded from duties after returning from Manila. This officer is yet to be arrested and prosecuted, so far nothing has been done about this. Another female officer from the same Embassy has also used more than K100, 000.00 from the Embassy to purchase a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV). A case of outright abuse.

When FA knew about this she was given a Letter of Return, however, this officer blackmailed the Foreign Affairs Secretary with her response by giving the notice to expose his alleged abuses of public funds whilst in Manila for personal business. In her letter, she has explicitly detailed all phone records of calls/SMS and directions given by the Secretary.

If she was to come back, the letter would have made headlines in all dailies and electronic media outlets. The letter was cc’d (Copies circulated) to Chief Secretary, Ombudsmen Commission, National Fraud & Anti-Corruption Directorate. However, it is doubtful that this letter ever made it past Secretary Foreign Affairs.

The Secretary surrendered to her threat, she is still in Manila now. Similar abuses and mismanagement are rampant in most of our High Commissions and Embassies. For instance, The High Commission in Solomon Island Honiara bought 2 staff houses two years ago that are way below the exorbitant price paid, over K3 million.

These houses are in dire need of maintenance. Similar cases happening in most of our esteemed High Commissions/Embassies abroad. Hopefully, after the findings of the New Zealand Audit, PM O’Neil will sanction an Audit team to extensively investigate all the High Commissions and Embassies to uncover all the corruption/mismanagement that is practised unabated by those working abroad.

Schram wants to continue to make a positive impact in PNG

$
0
0

by ALBERT SCHRAM

On 15 February, the Council of the Papua New Guinea University of Technology (PNGUoT) decided to terminate my services, and gave me and my wife 7 days to ship out, and leave our residence on campus, where we have lived more than 6 years.

On 19 January I was given a mere 7 days to answer the allegations, and I managed to hand in my answers though incomplete before the deadline. I returned on campus from an engagement elsewhere with my wife on 23 January, and that same day the Acting Vice Chancellor Dr. Ora Renagi wrote
that I should “stay away from the office. I was also denied an extension to prepare myself, and neither was I given access to important files in the Registry and Bursary regarding this case.

Council itself, however, acknowledged that the main ground for dismissal was that allegedly I did not present a certified copy of my original doctoral degree from the European University Institute. Here is a link to my thesis on the Institute’s website http://cadmus.eui.eu//handle/1814/5972. This had been a
condition for my contract renewal in 2015. In an email dated 13 January 2015, I requested the renowned European University Institute, established by an international treaty, to send me two hard copies, one to my office in Lae and one to Cairns. Upon receiving the document in Lae, I handed it over to the Registrar. The other original I kept. Why would I do otherwise and self-sabotage
myself? And, why was this matter not brought up by the Registrar when later on 26 August 2016 I submitted myself to the Annual Performance Assessment, which lasted one whole day and was supported by an independent consultant?

I was interrogated by Council on 15 February, but without being told previously whether I was just to receive the decision of the council, had to answer questions or was allowed to give a presentation. I did not know what was going to happen. At no stage in this process, which started in October 2017, did the Acting Chancellor Jean Kekedo ensure I was involved in or consulted over Council proceedings? An investigation was launched, without a Council resolution and without my involvement. As a result, only convenient information was included in the report. Sam Koim reputedly is specialised in
fighting corruption, but he has no experience with the operation of a large organization or the running of a University. This is a clear breach of due process.

When crucial physical evidence (certified copy of my doctoral degree from 2015) was presented to Council before it took its decision, and it became clear during the interrogation that crucial evidence may have been hidden by the Registrar, Council failed to correct its course, and proceeded galloping towards the abyss like a band of blind horses.

The whole Council has been misled by the Registrar, who failed to provide this crucial evidence. They decided on the facts and evidence before them, but the crucial evidence was missing. The accusation that I did not do, what Council told me to do and that I did not comply is therefore false. The whole process was biased and I never received a fair hearing. The fact that Council decided unanimously is not a sign of strength, but rather a sign that due process was not followed. Before 2012, the former PNGUoT Council always decided unanimously, because it was a rubberstamp machine for the former Chancellor. In this case, the Council has not presented the crucial evidence and was not given ample time to digest the facts and ask critical questions to the lawyers who had been instructed to put the case together.

There are some very bright minds on the Council today, but they were not able to see through the web of lies and deceit. As to the other allegations, the fact is that there was no mismanagement at the
PNGUoT. Even Sam Koim could not find corruption. It suffice to know that my travel budget had been approved by Council. Therefore, I asked Emmanuel Issac of Emanuel Lawyers in Port Moresby to
prepare my case for review by the courts. As a Head of a State Agency, I have many obligations, but I have also right to be protected from unfair and biased attacks. I was not given a fair hearing and never enjoyed the beneft of the presumption of innocence. After 6 years it is impossible for me and my wife to vacate our residence and leave the country in 7 days. I have become rooted in the business community in Lae. Through my brothers in my adopted village Busama, I have come to love this country and its warm, welcoming, and peace- loving people.

My wife too has contributed much to the community over the past years working for organizations like Buk Bilong Pikinini and FemiliPNG against domestic violence. This year, as a volunteer she was not starting to work for the cervical cancer screening program. Both of us did not come to this
beautiful country to enrich ourselves, but to make a diference. In the media there have been statements from Council members with all kind of technicalities and impressively looking legal arguments. My achievements over the past 6 years, the result of all my hard work, however, seem not to have been taken into account. I have much to say about all this, because I have done nothing wrong, and never lied. The matter is now before the courts, and it is ftting therefore out of respect not to make anymore statements about the case, so as to allow the judges to make up their minds independently.

THE PNG DEFENCE FORCE WHITE PAPER & THE BLUE PRINT

$
0
0
by Eragairma Yal

I don't know if our Papua New Guinea Defence Force has a Blue Print.

PNG has obtained the Right to Self-Rule in 1973 as a pre-qualification to gaining independence in 1975, 16th September.

43yrs on and I have just learned one fundamental fact that our PNG Defense Force has still been operating as the Eighth Division under the Australian Defense Force Military. The fact is we have not gained Military Independence. We are an Eighth Element or Division similar to an Infantry under the Australian Defence Force Military.

One thing that baffles me is that the Australian Defense Force knowing very well that we are the Eighth Division operating under the ADF Military, why can't they develop our Defense Force into a full pledge Military Force carrying Land, Air and Sea Elements with complete state of the art equipment setup and logistics support with routine modern training as a requirement?

Whatever arrangements they may have had in the past that lead us to this stage, I write to challenge the PNGDF Brigadier General and the government of the day that we must have our own Blue Print for our Military that must lead us into attaining Militarily Independence.

I can remember the announcement of our Defence White Paper some time ago but what was it about? And what developments did we achieve as in the three elements of the Defence Force? What did our soldiers and paramilitary officers gain as in training and personal empowerment?

Our own BLUEPRINT must spell out the establishment of our military components, divisions, infantries, units and paramilitary forces etc.

Our trained Human Resources as in Cadets and Privates are sitting idle in the military barracks basically waiting for their pay packets, SoE callouts, and their eventual retrenchment cheque.

We need to use them in our circular workforces in the public service sector. While we already have some specialists trained as engineers, doctors, nurses, teachers, CHWs, lawyers, etc we ought to increase the training in the different disciplines and deploy them on secondment arrangements to serve everywhere in the country.

We need to use our trained human resource effectively to alleviate the shortfall in our workforce to develop our country.

I regret to see that we have some highly skilled and intelligent officers just becoming sitting ducks in our military camps buying time to be retrenched.

We have no imminent threats or rather we're not a threat to any of our neighbouring countries. We should change our so-called Defence White Paper to cater for these changes now to create employment for our ever increasing school leavers passing out from secondary and tertiary schools every year.

Human resource within PNGDF is a sleeping giant that needs to be absorbed into our circular jobs after secondment training and engagement rather than paying and housing them to do almost nothing.

"LOVE TRIANGLE GONE WRONG""Susan Merrell moving on from Belden Namah to Peter O'Neill to Powes Parkop".

$
0
0
By Sonja Barry Ramoi
'The woman Papua New Guineans love to hate', who was a friend who became a foe after I told her off about a particularly rude and pretty much inexcusable comment she made about Belden Namah in 2013, has been deported from Papua New Guinea.
Susan Merrell - aka Ferrell Merrell, aka Floozy Doozy Suzy (or however which way she wants to spell it) - is so far up herself that she must be off her rocker to blame the Prime Minister for her deportation, and also to mention me in her post today.
Her deportation is not the PM's doing, and it also had absolutely nothing to do with me.
Yes I did report her to the Judiciary (possibly in 2015) for certain comments of hers which I found contemptuous, and I believe that I recommended that she be blacklisted. However I am certainly not the only person who has recommended in the past that she be blacklisted.
As for her official surname (not Merrell) being flagged, I have known about her official surname for years and I am sure, especially since I knew what name she travels on, that other people from PNG would also have known.
I have not yet contacted the Chief Immigration Officer Solomon Kantha to confirm the reason why she was deported.
It appears however according to a copy of a post by Susan Merrell which was sent to me (earlier tonight), that she did not fill out her visa application form upon arrival correctly, and therefore it seems that she did not disclose to Immigration the true purpose of her visit and that’s why she was told to leave PNG.
Immigration may have deported her for making a false declaration.
Her multitude of enemies - especially the ones (dozens upon dozens over the years) who have called for her in the past to be deported or banned or blacklisted - should be celebrating and rejoicing that Susan Merrell finally got deported.
It was a long time coming, however her many enemies as well as her many supporters have been strangely silent on social media.
Contrary to public perception, to my knowledge (and I have posted about this before in 2016) she never worked for the PM.
However, I understand that she wanted a job working for the PM, and after she was rejected changed her tone on social media and started spending time supporting Governor Powes Parkop instead.
Maybe she is after a job with Governor Parkop and that’s why she went back to PNG only to end up getting deported.
Anyway to my knowledge the PM has never communicated with the woman, although she gave the impression - just like she gave the impression that she knows Belden Namah well - that she knows the PM.
You got fooled Susan, and it was bloody hilarious. I need not say more.

Does PNG have emergency response and rescue teams?

$
0
0
by SANA SIMILI
Emergency response and rescue teams back disciplined forces are the first lot of people in any disaster areas of any country on earth. The emergency response n rescue teams rescue n repatriate the injured, those in arms way n retrieve the dead while the diciplined forces provide security.

In PNG, we have seen many times before where we clearly have no emergency response teams. If we do, then they are clearly not up to the task. They are either poorly trained, poorly equipped or physically handicapped etc. Because of this many lives have been lost amongst other things throughout PNG at sea or on land.

For the recent earthquake disaster in Hela n SHP, at least in the Aiya LLG of the Kagua Erave electorate, there is still no sign of these emergency response teams to this moment.
It is believed that the same is the case in nearly the whole of or many parts of the affected provinces.
There are images from Hela( see photo below on right) where the people themselves are digging around to retrieve the dead.

While this is heartbreaking, photos of leaders from the affected provinces taking selfies with their tumbs up n smiling leaders enjoying luxury while heading to these areas circulated on social media ( photo also attached below on left). These leaders are probably in these disaster areas ahead of the most important people, the rescue teams n the disciplined forces.

Well, such situations should teach us a lot of lessons n the first is to have a well trained, well resourced n fit emergency team that will respond in a moment's notice.

The second is for leaders to thread carefully on how you present yourselves when attending to situations like this. Also, leaders should not turn themselves into rescue teams n front up first in disaster zones bkos you can't retrieve the dead or injured.

EARTH NOT CAUSED BY FRACKING - LEADING PNG PETROLEUM GEOLOGIST EXPLAINS PNG EARTHQUAKE

$
0
0

by PETER KENGEMA
Let me just explain this so we all understand this fracking technology in the petroleum industry.

I have spent half my life drilling both exploration wells and development wells from Western Province to Hela to SHP to Gulf and Central Province. And globally Australia, Japan, Indonesia, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, South Africa, Mozambique to name some in the last 23 years.

On my watch as supervisor or operations geologist or project geologist on those wells I have never ever been involved in any fracking technology use in PNG because PNG productive and proven reservoirs don't need fracking technology.

Fracking is only confined to countries who explore and produce from shale gas. We in PNG don't explore for shale gas or coal bed methane. 

The only exception to any fracking is acidising the limestone reservoir in Triceratops exploration well 1 where test results were not encouraging so company tried to improve but did not work. 

The Elk 1 discovery was one of the best wells I ever drilled. We penetrated the reservoir at midnight and the pressure was so high the well kicked and flowed which caused a local tremor and people at Wabo felt it as well. 

Those are in no way connected to current 7.5 magnitude earthquake. The earthquake epicentre is at 35km depth deep beneath the earth's brittle crust, it is at the brittle/ductile transition zone. No surface fluids or oil or gas can reach that depth. It's too hot and pressure is astronomically high. 

All our exploration wells, oil and gas wells from Western Province to Hela to SHP to Gulf and Central Province are down to 3km or less. 

These FB geologists should have some patience to read and understand the subject matter and reflect that properly to our PNG mining petroleum industry practices. Our people deserve the best of our services and advise at this time

Petroleum Industry Practice: Waste Water Disposal

$
0
0
byPETER KENGEMAR

I have covered Fracking Technology and have stated that; fracking is applied in other parts of the world but is a technology not needed in our PNG reservoirs, and so it has not been used here.

Next point of discussion is on wastewater is disposed and what is the standard industry practice? Should we associate this with the recent catastrophic earthquake?

When oil or gas is brought to surface, there is associated formation water that co-exists with oil gas is also comes to the surface and is referred to as produced water. Other practices around the world (not in PNG) use that water to also use for Fracturing tight reservoirs to increase and enable oil gas to flow to the surface. The used water or produced water is normally (global industry practice) rejected under pressure slightly above the subsurface reservoir pressure back into the producing reservoir (same reservoir where oil gas is coming from). However the water is re-injected in a specific well called water re-injection well, whose bottom is deeper than the oil gas wells, that way water which is heavier than gas oil can stay at the bottom to support and maintain reservoir pressure and water/oil or water/gas contact depth.

Please note that, any Operator company do this water re-injection is very carefully because they do not want to destroy the virgin reservoir parameters. Maintaining the various reservoir parameters such as, pressure, temperature, fluid contacts (contact depth between gas, oil, water) is very important to maintaining gas oil production rate which turns into millions of dollars if the reservoirs are properly managed.

Modern day reservoir management is all automated and computerized, leaving little room for human error. The pumps and facilities are properly calibrated to operate within pre-set conditions.

In an ideal operating environment with highest industry standards and practices, the re-injected produced water or waste water is properly managed to contain environmental impact both on the surface and at sub-surface depths.

In Moran Kutubu Gobe oil fields, when I was working there over 10 years ago. Chevron set the standards of oil production and treatment of waste water (produced water). We followed the exact industry standards as described above.

I am not privy to Hides Gas production, but I do know that a specific well was drilled which targeted the deeper part of the reservoir which contains the water lag of the reservoir. That is where the waste water is I assume to being pumped back to maintain fluid contacts and assist in maintaining reservoir pressure.

Waste water reinjection inducing earthquake?

Now having discussed the basics, the question that everyone is asking now; is the re-injected water back into the formation inducing and influencing the fault planes that may possibly contribute to the tectonics and seismicity of the fold and thrust belts, which is connected deep via the major bounding fault deep into the plate collision boundary, depths at which the recent catastrophic earthquake epicenters are concentrated.

We can understand that only if the Government sets up a pro bono technical expert team to look for the right data and information.

Again I shall volunteer my services should the Government sanction this investigation.

Our thoughts and prayers are forever with our people who are suffering. Let us do the best we can!!

O'NEILL GOVT'S DUMBEST INVESTMENT

$
0
0
by BRYAN KRAMER MP
On 21st September 2017 Kumul Petroleum Holding Limited (KPHL) a State Owned company sold off 149 million Oil Search shares it held on behalf of Independent State of PNG (8 million people of PNG).
The shares where purchased in March 2014 by O'Neill Government for AUD$1.225 Billion (K3 Billion) by securing a loan from UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland) Australian Branch.
Unable to repay the loan O'Neill was forced to sell the shares at a significant loss, using the proceeds from the sale to repay the balance owned on the K3 Billion loan.
On 24 September 2017 the National newspaper issued a misleading report suggesting the O'Neill Government had made a windfall (gain) from the transaction.
"THE Government has sold its shares in Oil Search Limited, making around K100 million from the transaction." the report stated.
It went on to quote the Chairman of Kumul Holdings Moi Avei saying KPHL made about A$35 million (K87.33mil) as a result of the transaction.
“So we’ve waited for the right moment when the share was trading at the right price and we’ve made the decision to divest the shares with Oil Search in this transaction.”
He said it did not mean cutting off all ties with Oil Search.
“We are a strong partner in the oil and gas projects in PNG. "We will continue to work with them. It’s just that we cannot go on with the UBS collar loan.”
Kumul Petroleum Holding Limited Managing Director Wapu Sonk was reported to have said "that the sale does not affect its [KPHL] relationship with Oil Search and they will continue to partner with the company in other petroleum and gas projects in the country."
When O'Neill was questioned on the floor of parliament by the former Prime Minister Sir Mekere Morauta asking him to disclose the real losses following the sale of shares, O'Neill avoided providing any direct answers. He instead claimed "the State’s investment in Oil Search was the right decision at the time as it helped maintain confidence in the oil and gas sector"
“This has been a business decision based on anticipated return on investment, and has delivered the most prudent outcome for the State considering the consequences of the earlier energy price lows,” O’Neill said.
So was it a great investment?
The short answer is No.
It will go down as one of the dumbest investments in PNG's history. This deal was never about the people of PNG's interest, it was about the interest of those who put the deal together and those that benefited from it.
Who were they?
Oil Search
UBS Bank
Morgan Stanley Bank
Lawyers
- Norton Rose Fullbright who represented the State
- Ashurst who represented UBS
Carlo Civelli (owner of Pacific LNG Group of Companies purchased by Oil Search for US&900m (K2.25 Billion)
Oil Search institutional shareholders (who acquired the majority of 149 million shares following the sale)
Biggest Loser being 8 million people of PNG represented by an incompetent and reckless Prime Minister Peter O'Neill who used the Office of the Prime Minister to ensure the deal was done.
So just how much did we lose?
Right now I believe it's between $270 million -$300 million (K800+ million) - made up of financing costs, principle and interest payments paid throughout 3.5 year term of the loan.
So what was the AUD$35 million (K100 million for?
It was the refund of the interest paid up front when the UBS loan was rolled over (extended) in 2016.
Following O'Neill's decision to sell off the 149 million oil search shares before the term of the loan expired or matured it meant whatever interest paid in advance yet to be accrued (earned) would be refunded.
All the proceeds from the sale of the shares were retained by UBS and Morgan Stanley Bank to repay what the State owed them from AUD$1.1 Billion (K3 Billion) loan.
What has not been disclosed by O'Neill, KPHL Chairman Moi Avei and its Managing Director Wapu Sonk are the real losses from the investment after considering loan repayments, interest and finance costs to put these deals together.
The most disturbing fact following the sell off of the shares is that O'Neill, Avei and Sonk seemed more concerned about ongoing relationship with Oil Search and overlooked the massive loss against by State. One would think they were employed by Oil Search when in fact they occupy offices and paid wages provided by the people of PNG.
It comes as no surprise the country's economy is struggling when O'Neill continues to mismanage it with little regard as to the impact of dumb investments have on the everyday Papua New Guinean who are struggling to survive.
So how was this deal put together?
It is an issue I will cover in my next article providing in-depth and full analysis behind the deal.

However after a number of days of researching this issue, the story goes beyond the UBS deal and perhaps best explains how a country so rich in billions of kina in resources, yet our people so poor.
A story of how a young Texas man from the United States of America turned up on PNG shores in early 1990's with his tambu (brother in aw) and nothing but a brief case between them only to end up Billionaires some 20 years later.
How? - by selling a piece of paper, oil & gas licence, providing rights to appraise (assess) oil and gas discovery called Elk Antelope. They achieved Billionaire status without developing, producing or exporting a single drop of Oil or LNG.
In contrast 90% of PNGeans find themselves struggling to find a job, put their kids through school and sadly in most cases put food on the table, all while their resources are being traded and sold literally right from under their feet.
This story will give an in-depth insight into how it all happens with those involved; allegations of fraudulent accounting, web of overseas companies set up to avoid visibility, all in an effort to access our country's vast oil and gas resources.
So where do we start?
Sometime in 1992 a Texas man called Phil Mulacheck and his tambu (brother in law) Frenchman Christian Vinson hatched an idea of exploring for Oil & Gas in PNG.
It was at around the same time when PNG's first commercial oil project (Kutubu Oil Project) was exporting high grade crude oil.
The project operator was Chevron, a major oil and gas company whose head office was in Texas. This perhaps explains how Mulacek a Texan found his way to PNG.
Mulaceck 32 at the time had a Bachelor of Science degree in petroleum engineering from Texas Tech University. A young entrepreneur hoping to strike rich in the oil and gas industry in PNG.
Christian Vinson migrated to the United States where he worked with a french auto-parts manufacturing company (NUC Corporation), as a service manager. He later married Mulacek's sister Kathleen, before joining his brother in law's company Petroleum Independent & Exploration Corporation (PIE Corp) in 1993; a small consultancy company setup by Mulacek in 1981 soon after graduating from university.
Mulacek realised that PNG was one of the only few oil exporting countries with no oil refinery to process the crude (raw) oil. It was instead exporting it offshore to Singapore and Australia where it was processed into commercial fuels (diesel, petrol, jet fuel kerosene etc) and imported back to PNG to meet the domestic market. The main importers of fuel at the time were major oil companies, Shell, Mobil and BP.
Mulacek saw the opportunity to establish a small oil refinery in PNG to replace imports and supply PNG and nearby markets.
The importing of refined fuels attracted the cost of transport and import duties where the importer would add a 20% margin that would be passed onto the customers. By establishing a domestic refinery and processing the oil coming out of Kutubu there was opportunity for greater margin of profit to be made from the savings from transport and import duties costs.
Such a project would also provide significant economic benefits to the country. Firstly, significant foreign investment to build and operate the facility. Secondly, contribution by means of training and technology transfer to PNGeans. Thirdly, creation of jobs in specialized industry and finally tax revenue to the Government.
However, it would also require significant funding in excess of USD$100 million (K300m) to build.
A project that size would be considered high risk given the uncertainties of PNG's economy and political landscape. There was no guarantee the Government wouldn't change it's policy, taxes or price control all which would have impacted on the profitability of the project.
So Mulacek realized if he was going to convince investors to fund the project he would need to provide some sort of guarantee that their investment was safe as well as demonstrate the project would return (profit) on their investment.
Mulacek's plan
1) build a refinery in PNG - to meet supply in PNG and nearby markets (North Australia) making profit from savings of transport and import duties.
2) raise $100 million to build it by convincing overseas investors to invest in it.
3) carry out exploration and oil and gas in PNG that will be processed at the refinery providing further profits.
For Mulacek the prize was number 3) oil and gas exploration. The challenge being, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to find oil and gas resources and considered the riskiest industry in the world. In that a company may expend $50 million on a drilling program and come up empty.
For example in 2015 Oil Search spent $275 million (K900m) on its exploration and appraisal program. It spends on average around $250 million a year.
Before one can even consider carrying out oil and gas exploration they would need to obtain a licence, PPL or Prospecting Petroleum Licence. Obtaining licences in PNG is not easy. One must demonstrate they have financial backing and value proposition to convince the PNG regulatory body, in this case Department of Petroleum & Energy to grant them a licence.
Proposing to build PNG's first refinery is certainly one means of doing it. However you would need million dollar financial backing to carryout exploration.
To avoid a long winded article, I will limit each part to 1,000+ words.
In the next series of articles we will discuss how Mulacek was able to obtain the financial backing to turn a start up company in PNG (Interoil) into a billion dollar company in Canada.
Whether it was built on a foundation of fraud and the connection to the UBS deal.

In 1991 Chevron a major oil and gas company closed its Nikisiki Oil Refinery based in Alaska (North America). Established in 1963 the refinery was closed due to significant financial risks following stiff environmental laws passed by the Alaska Government in the wake of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
The decision was also on account it would have had to invest $1.4 million to upgrade the aging refinery in order to comply with new environmental regulations.
At around the same time Mulacek was is in war-torn Kuwait processing waste oil when he met a group of Chevron executives based in Alaska and learned about the abandoned oil refinery that is was up for sale.
In 1992 - Mulacek travels to Alaska to inspect the closed oil Refinery.
In 1992 Chevron exports its first shipment of high-grade (sweet) crude oil from its Kutubu Oil Project in PNG. At the time PNG was one of a few oil exporting countries that didn’t have an oil refinery. We were importing our petroleum products (fuel, diesel, petrol, etc) from oil refineries located in Brisbane, Australia and Singapore some 2,200 km and 4,300 km away.
PNG’s domestic fuel market at the time was some 17,000 barrels a day of refined fuels while Kutubu Oil Project was exporting 85,000 barrels a day of raw crude oil out of PNG, majority of which was being shipped to Australia and Japan for processing.
In 1992/3 Mulacek travels to PNG to explore the possibility of dismantling the Alaskan Oil Refinery in the US and transporting it to Port Moresby, where it would be reassembled to meet PNG’s domestic fuel supply as well as markets in South Pacific and North Australia, (Darwin Cairns and Townsville). The estimated project cost at the time was US$100 million (K300m). The Refinery had the capacity to produce 36,000 barrels a day.
Mulacek plans to fund the project under joint venture partnership between four potential investors providing upto 40% equity (cash contribution) and the balance through debt financing (bank loans). However, the real challenge was raising $40 million (K120 million) to get the project off the ground.
Mulacek begins a recruitment drive of corporate executives to join his company, Petroleum Independent & Exploration Corporation (PIE Corp) to help him deliver the project.
It is important to note while company name implies and profile states it was established for the purposes of oil exploration, drilling, completion and production, it specialized in processing waste oil including salt water systems to clean up oil spills.
In fact there is very little public information about Mulacek's background or his company's operations other than that he established it in 1981, soon after graduating from Texas Tech University with a degree Petroleum Engineering.
In 1993 his brother in law, Frenchmen Christian Vinson joins the company as Vice President of Operations.
In March 1994, Paul Martin joins the company as Financial Executive Officer; Martin having 14 years experience in the banking sector including investment banking to help Mulacek raise the fiance to the purchase the oil refinery.
In April 1994, Mulacek strikes a deal to purchase Chevron's abandoned Nikiski oil refinery in Alaska. The purchase amount is not disclosed, why? - an issue we will discuss in a later article.
The project plan:
1) acquire (buy) Alaskan Oil Refinery Complex.
2) acquire Naphtha Reformer unit to enable the production of gasoline (petrol).
3) dismantle refinery complex and reformer unit and transport them by barge to a yard in Beaumont Texas to undergo refurbishment, modification and testing.
4) acquire two ocean-going barges suitable for transporting the process units to PNG.
5) acquire land in Port Moresby to commence site preparation to construct the plant (oil refinery).
6) secure project agreement with PNG Government to protect the interest of the project partners.
7) secure investor partners to provide 40% equity contributions ($40 million) to fund $100 million project.
8) carryout FEED - stands for Front End Engineering Design, relates to basic design and engineering of the project. FEED design focuses on the technical requirements as well as rough investment cost for the project.
9) secure third party debt financing from banks and other financial organizations to raise the balance ($60 million).
10) achieve Financial Close - Financial Close occurs when all the project and financing agreements have been signed and all the required conditions contained in them have been met. It enables funds (e.g. loans, equity, grants) to start flowing so that project implementation can actually start.
In November 1994 Mulacek acquires a shelf company in PNG called Scorpio No. 150 Pty Limited and later changes the name to P.I.E Refinery Pty Limited. A company that was set up to own and operate the refinery in PNG.
Mulacek then enters into the negotiations with the then Wingti Government in an effort to secure project agreement that would protect the interest of project partners. The terms of which included:
1) to ensure the refinery is able to purchase its crude oil requirements from local PNG production (Kutubu Oil Project) at competitive export rates;
2) to ensure domestic distributors in PNG purchase refined petroleum products first from domestic producers; and
3) to provide certain tax incentives including a five year tax-free period.
Wingti Government rejects the proposal.
In August 1994 Wingti is succeeded by Julius Chan following a Supreme Court ruling declaring Wingti’s flash resignation and re-election unconstitutional.
Mulacek pursues negotiations with the Chan Government.
In 1995, Mulacek convinces Gaylen Byker a good friend to invest in the project by acquiring shares in PIE Corp.
Byker, an oil executive and former partner in Offshore Energy Development Corporation, where he was Head of Development, hedging and project finance for gas exploration and transportation projects offshore.
Byker was about to become president of Calvin College, an educational affiliate of the Christian Reformed Church that is based in Michigan, US. It was reported that before taking the reins at Calvin College, Byker incorporated a small company to invest in Mulacek's refinery. A few months later, in mid-1995, Byker sells a portion of that company to his previous employer, the Offshore Energy Development Corporation for $1.3 million.
The funds are utilized to carryout preliminary development work.
In January 1996, Mulacek company PIE Corp injects K120,000 into PNG company PIE Refinery Ltd as a related party loan to commence early works.
In May 1996, PIE Refinery acquires land for K88,000 to build the plant site.
In 1996 Byker introduces Mulacek to a Swiss venture capitalist Carlo Civielli, financier and founder of an investment company Clarion Finanz. - with a history of investing in Canadian mining, and oil and gas start up companies.
Byker also makes the introductions to Enron International executives, a subsidiary company of Enron Corporation, one of the world's major electricity and natural gas companies, with its head office based in Huston Texas.
Fortune Magazine named Enron "America's Most Innovative Company" for six consecutive years. In 2000 it was reported to have some US$65 Billion (K216 Billion) in assets.
Enron International was set up with the primary focus for developing and building natural gas power plants outside North America.
With Enron as a project partner, offering its global reputation, it added significant investor confidence in Mulacek’s project.
However, it would all hinge on Mulacek securing a project agreement with the PNG Government ensuring the projects profitability and investment protection, without which the project was dead in water.
During 1996 PIE Corp purchases a Reformer, also previously owned by Chevron at its Cyril Oklahoma plant.
In August 1996, Enron agrees to become a joint venture partner in the project. It registers two offshore companies in Cayman Islands, Enron Papua New Guinea as a subsidiary of Enron International and EP Interoil Ltd (Enron PNG Interoil Ltd) as the joint venture company or project company to manage and develop the Oil refinery Project in PNG.
In November 1996, Civelli and Mulacek register the company “SP Interoil" in the Bahamas. (SP standing for South Pacific). Its shareholders included Mulacek company PIE Corp including executive officers.
Under the company articles of association (constitution) Mulacek’s company PIE Corp would act as the general manager with full control over the company's business affairs unlike the normal practice where a company is controlled by a board of directors. SP Interoil have no board.
The companies shareholders, Mulacek whose interest was held in PIE Group LLC, together with executives of PIE Corp, namely Christian Vinson, Paul Martin, Gyler Byker and Carlo Civelli, where their interests were held and hidden under affiliate companies, which included Bilhust Limited, Commodities Trading International, Nikiski Partners, Eurostar Fund, and Asia Pacific Refinery Investment.
Why register companies in Cayman Islands and Bahamas?
Both countries are popular tax havens, (safe from paying tax) and privacy.
American elites and large multinational corporations register companies there because there is no corporate or income tax on money earned outside of its territory. Instead of taxes, offshore corporations pay an annual licensing fee directly to the government.
Tax havens also provide privacy to persons or corporations who wish to conceal their ownership interests or profits earned. Companies are also not required to provide audited financial statements etc.
In this case Enron, a US based company plans to invest in an overseas project based in PNG so rather than remitting the profits earned from the project back to the US where it will be taxed 39.1%, it sets up a company in the Cayman Islands, a tax free haven where its profits will be held in an offshore bank account.
As of December 1996, according to 1997 Audit report SP Interoil purportedly held $46 million in assets - made up of $47,000 in cash, $6.5 million in investments and $39.7 million in capital assets.
In January 1997, SP Interoil and Enron Papua New Guinea sign a joint-venture agreement.
Under the joint venture agreement, SP Interoil and Enron PNG a joint venture company (EP Interoil Ltd) will manage and develop the Project, where SP Interoil has the right to earn a 60% interest and Enron PNG has the right to earn the remaining 40% interest.
The joint venture agreement provides that SPI and Enron PNG will jointly manage the Project Company and the development of the Project.
Upon signing of the agreement Enron contributes $500,500 while SPI contributes $495,000 in cash to EP InterOil.
The terms of agreement being Enron has agreed to contribute $28 million after the financial close.
However, Enron is also entitled to abandon the Project and terminate the Joint Venture Agreement at any time prior to the time when financing for the project is in place.
SP Interoil received 5,000,000 shares in the project company EP Interoil in return for contributing to EP InterOil the refinery assets, the naphtha reformer and all development work on the project to January 1997. The shares were valued at $55 million.
SP Interiol is required to contribute a further $11 million in cash and responsible for any additional costs involved in refurbishment of the plant equipment.
With only $47,000 in cash Mulacek and Civelli need to raise funds to meet the costs as well as further $11 million to honour its commitment under the joint-venture agreement.
To achieve this Civelli advises Mulacek to set up a Canadian company with the plan to have it listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, in an effort to raise funds by offering it stock (shares) to potential public investors.
In January 1997, Mulacek and Civili register a Canadian company, South Pacific Interoil. SP Interoil (Bahamas) transfers 5.5 million of its shares to South Pacific Interoil (Canada) giving it 31.4% ownership interest in SP Interoil (Bahamas).
In March 1997, in the height of the Sandline crisis Julius Chan was forced to step aside as Prime Minister. John Giheno is appointed as acting Prime Minister.
On 29 May 1997, in the height of 1997 General Elections, the PNG Government purportedly signed project agreement with InterOil Ltd. 5 days later on 6 June 1997 Chan is cleared by the Sandline inquiry and reinstated as Prime Minister.
However Chan later loses his seat in 1997 Elections and is succeeded by Bill Skate as Prime Minister.
With a formal agreement in place on the same date (29 May 1997) Mulacek and Civili merge the Canadian company South Pacific Interoil Ltd with a dormant publicly listed company Cybermind Group under the new name “Interoil Corporation”.
Cybermind Group had a negative asset value of $22,000. The merger provided an easy path to obtaining listing on the Canadian stock exchange.
Interoil Corporation (Canada) and SP Interoil (Bahamas) sign a shareholder agreement where the shareholders of SP Interoil may exchange their shares in SP Interoil (Bahamas) for shares in InterOil Corporation (Canada).
Now what is interesting is while the company is listed on Toronto Stock exchange it has no actual employees or even an office in Canada.
Phil Mulacek is appointed Chairman and CEO, Paul A. Martin, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Director, Christian Vinson, Vice President and Gaylen Byker Company Director.
As of December 1997 Interoil Corporation net assets was purportedly $61 million made up of cash $275,000 and $60.7 million in investments (32.7% ownership it held in SP Interoil).
In part 4 we will discuss how SP Interoil (Bahamas) essentially a start up company registered on 22 November 1996 and within just 39 days of existence was valued at $206 million with only $145,000 in cash.
We will also discuss Enron PNG pulling out of the project and how its parent company in the US, Enron Corp ended up bankrupt after being exposed for massive corporate fraud.
We will review three key companies involved in Mulacek's oil refinery project - PNG registered company PIE Refinery (that later changes it name to Interoil Ltd) - Project company, EP Interoil (Cayman Islands) and SP Interoil (Bahamas) and lastly Interoil (Canada).
We will also discuss how Interoil's foundation shareholders including Paul Martin take Mulacek to court over allegations of fraud. Where Mulacek, to avoid liability, files bankruptcy protection and later settles out of court.
We will look at similar allegations leveled against Mulacek financial adviser and silent investor Carlo Civelli, as well as both mens connection to the UBS Loan.
Part 5 will cover Interoil upstream operations (oil and gas exploration) and whether it was misrepresenting its own value in an effort jack up its share value.
Picture: left to right Phil Mulacek, Christain Vinson, Paul Martin, Gyler Byker, and Carlo Civelli.

GOVERNMENT MUST INVEST IN HUMAN CAPITAL

$
0
0
by ERAGAIRMA YAL

We are a country made up of lazy citizens.
About 75% of the total population are unproductive and live in the urban settings as opportunists. They live in settlements and peripheries of the urban centers totally dependent on their working relatives and or are just aimlessly residing off someone else's shelter without purpose.

How can the country develop and be economically independent when the bulk of its population are lazy and live by chances and opportunities?

GDP per capita is a measure of the total output of a country that takes gross domestic product (GDP) and divides it by the number of people in the country. The GDP is useful when the bulk of its citizens are productive, because it shows the relative performance of the citizens per output per year.

Our country's productivity is dependent on the economic activities that are conducted in the formal and informal sectors where revenue is driven to support the government's budgetary allocation on an annual basis. Year in year out we have a very few population sweating their guts working whilst the rest are just free riders.

Our forever guessing game that our population is 7million people is untrue. Statistically it has blown out of reasonable proportion. There is a massive blow out in our population growth circumstantially due to opportunistic approaches by our lazy unproductive citizens. It can be anticipated that in the next 5 years from now children from broken homes will dominate the cities and towns making it difficult to control and lawlessness will be on the rise.

Whilst the rural urban drift forever swelling like high tide thinking there's easy living in the towns and cities, there's no government control mechanism to suppress this.

The government must draw a line somewhere to devise control mechanisms to control the free flow and wayward movements of unproductive citizens into urban centers.

On the law and order parameters, unattached citizens with no fixed addresses and backgrounds are the very ones causing problems by either ending up in hospitals or prisons stressing the government's budget medicating and feeding them whilst the productive citizens keep stressing out from their forthrightly salaries paying hefty tax to balance the imbalance economic equation.

Whilst having said that, I can stress that it is manageable and can be controlled through properly controlled policies. We are a young growing and under developed country and for us to develop and progress forward is to control our population and task them to be self reliant and productive.

The most powerful resource in any development parameters is the human resource. The most accomplished investment any government can boast about is its human capital.

Are our citizens empowered? Are they equipped and resourceful enough to utilize their skills and talents for our common good and nation building?

The government is as good as dead in its ignorance to empower its citizens. The government cannot develop the country alone, but needs her citizens to develop the nation through cooperative challenges and efforts.

In the midst of our crisis, the government needs to settle down and reassess the potency in its human resource development and empower them to contribute meaningfully to nation building rather than stressing out on a handful few shouldering excessive tax burdens and liabilities.

Government debt to Nambawan Super

$
0
0

The Member for Moresby North-West, Sir Mekere Morauta, said today (21st March 2018) that the Treasurer’s statement that the Government would consider issuing a bond for K230 million to settle the amount owed to Nambawan Super for public servants who have already retired was a step forward in resolving the long-standing problem for the retirees.
“It is not an ideal situation but it is much better than nothing,” Sir Mekere said. “These former public servants should have received their entitlements in full, including the Government’s contribution, when they retired. It is their legal entitlement. It is a disgrace that the Government can give higher priority to expenditure such as APEC rather than paying public servants their legal entitlements.”
However, Sir Mekere warned the Nambawan Super board to consider very carefully the future implications of accepting equity in state-owned enterprises as payment for the remainder of the K2 billion debt.
Sir Mekere said: “We all know that these SOEs are suffering from gross political interference, coupled with lack of working and investment capital. The shares in the companies are not tradeable; they are highly illiquid. Most of them have virtually no value, and shareholders – in this case the contributors to Nambawan Super - are unlikely to receive decent dividends on the investments. This will result in a cash flow shortage for Nambawan Super down the road, as more members retire.
“It would be better for Nambawan Super to ask the Government to convert all the money owed by the Government into a term loan with Nambawan Super, with interest and principal repayments made annually through the Budget, as for any other loan.
“If Nambawan Super was to consider any equity as payment in lieu, then the only shares they should consider are those of PNG LNG. At least contributors would have some assurance of dividend flows as well as the shares being tradeable and commanding a market value.
“The fact remains that the Government is bankrupt, and is raiding any possible avenue to meet recurrent costs.

“When will the Prime Minister tackle the problem comprehensively and find a sustainable solution instead of drip-feeding the nation with isolated short-term doses?”

Press Release by Rt Hon Sir Mekere Morauta
Former Prime Minister and Member for Moresby North-West
Viewing all 2198 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>