The Financial Governance Committee (#FGC) has issued a damning advisory note concerning the #FGS Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources' (MPMR's) oil & gas licensing efforts.

Current approach provides "poor value for money...that may last for 40 years or more."

(thread)

The FGC raises concerns over "incomplete compliance with the FGS legal framework, and inadequate protection of FGS’s financial interests." Current MPMR approach risks "future legal and/or compensation claims against FGS."
The FGS makes seven principal recommendations. #7: "PSA negotiations do not prioritise short-term revenue (i.e. signature bonuses) at the expense of longer-term value."
The note confirms that Coastline Exploration (https://t.co/YztVl7wCZi) -- a company formed in 2018 and based in the Cayman Islands -- is in fact a rebranding of the discredited Soma Oil & Gas.
"Minimum bidder qualifications are set at relatively low thresholds... By comparison, the 2019 tender protocol required that a bidder include at least one party who has drilled multiple offshore exploration wells."

Grandfathering in "Coastline"? 🤔
"...certain provisions seem to allow the award of PSAs even where a single, potentially incomplete or otherwise non-compliant, bid is received."
"The PSA and the tender protocol issued in November 2020 offer considerably more attractive terms to oil companies than previously contemplated."
Per FGC, no stakeholder consultation appears to have occurred. "A group claiming to represent one clan has recently expressed their rejection of petroleum operations in areas inhabited by their clan."
The FGC also recommends that Federal Member States be properly included in the process.
Conclusion: "...there is a significant risk that any contracts awarded under the license round or through direct negotiations will not protect the interests of the FGS and oil-producing FMS or extract appropriate value for #Somalia’s oil over the lifetime of the PSA."

More from Government

1.
Act of 1871
This is VERY Long but it will end with a MEGA BOOM!
Bookmark it and read it in small bits to digest it all.

This info, comes from some reputable anons and my own digging, compiled together as a superthread!
InevitableET, IPOT... to name a few.

2.
https://t.co/udep5WEYUp
https://t.co/bnzeQek6zv


3.
The TL; DR version is they, by military force, and illegitimate legislature, amended the constitution against the will of The People and legally tricked us into becoming unwitting indentured slaves of human capital and resources to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the corporation)

4.
Republic vs Democracy
-They needed to get away from the Republic and create a Democracy in order to drive us towards socialism and inevitably a dictatorship (National Socialist Party aka NAZI)


5.
Flag
How does a government put a legislation on 'hold'? Is there any constitutional mechanism for the executive to 'pause' a validly passed legislation? Genuine Koshan.


So a committee of 'wise men/women' selected by the SC will stand in judgement over the law passed by


Here is the thing - a law can be stayed based on usual methods, it can be held unconstitutional based on violation of the Constitution. There is no shortcut to this based on the say so of even a large number of people, merely because they are loud.


Tomorrow can all the income tax payers also gather up at whichever maidan and ask for repealing the income tax law? It hurts us and we can protest quite loudly.

How can a law be stayed or over-turned based on the nuisance value of the protestors? It is anarchy to allow that.

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".