Referring to Zaman al-Wasl's previous report on the crude oil supply file for early 2025, pressing questions arise, dictated by technical and financial realities: Why was there a lack of rigorous scrutiny of the specifications and prices of the first (3 million barrels) and second (7 million barrels) contracts? How was it possible for the implementation of two contracts with different timelines to overlap? What was the nature of the agreements made between the suppliers and a "third party," and what direct impact did these agreements have on the public treasury?
In this regard, Zaman al-Wasl obtained investigative information from sources within the Syrian Petroleum Company, revealing "sensitive" files that document fundamental irregularities in the contracts signed to supply the Banias refinery, casting serious doubt on administrative efficiency and integrity.
Fundamental Irregularities: An Analysis of Figures and Specifications
According to sources, the most prominent irregularities in the contracting process can be summarized in four main points:
- Price Discrepancies: Unjustified price differences were observed in the purchase contracts compared to prevailing global price indices during the contract period. This indicates the absence of a competent price negotiator or the presence of hidden margins.
- Technical Conformity: Crude oil shipments that did not meet the contracted technical standards were allowed to pass through. This resulted in long-term technical damage affecting the lifespan of the refining units at the Banias refinery and negatively impacting the quality of the final product.
- Contractual Imbalance: The contracts included clauses described as "unfair" to the state, granting suppliers unreasonable logistical and financial concessions and burdening the public treasury with risks that the supplier should have guaranteed. - Overlapping Implementation: An overlap in implementation occurred between the contracts for 3 and 7 million barrels, leading to confusion in auditing and receiving processes. This raised suspicions about the role of a "third party" in orchestrating this overlap to facilitate technical and financial irregularities.
Lack of Technical Objection and Immunity for Irregularities: Information indicates clear gaps in inspection and auditing procedures upon receipt. No firm official objections were registered against the non-compliant shipments, allowing these irregularities to be administratively legitimized. This deficiency raises serious questions about the legal responsibility of the receiving committees and the relevant supervisory bodies.
Zaman al-Wasl
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.