There were instances when fuel oil consignments received by Enemalta were outside the specifications, especially in sulphur content, an Enemalta official admitted in Parliament yesterday.
Testifying before the Public Accounts Committee, Philip Borg, the manager of the Enemalta Petroleum Division, said he was unable to explain how this had happened since this oil was for the generation of electricity, which was the responsibility of a different division.
Fuel with higher sulphur content causes more pollution.
He explained that Enemalta used fuel with higher sulphur content in the past, later going down to three per cent and then down again to one per cent. Eventually, in 2010, Enemalta started importing fuel with 0.7 per cent sulphur content.
Mr Borg was testifying before the parliamentary committee which is probing the Auditor General’s report which highlighted several shortcomings in the fuel procurement process.
Labour MP Justyne Caruana said she had a lab certificate in hand which showed how on October 7, 2011, a consignment had 30 per cent sulphur content higher than the specifications and was closer to one per cent than the 0.7 per cent.
Mr Borg explained that that sample had been taken from Enemalta’s tanks and not directly from on board the ship so this could have been the reason why the chemical content varied.
He explained that Saybolt, the company which conducted such tests, used its own sample system but this came with the disclaimer that their evaluation could possibly not tally with the specifications provided by the supplier.
I did not have much power within Enemalta to negotiate
“As manager of the petroleum division I am responsible for the quality of fuels but oil and fuel used for the generation of electricity falls under the responsibility of the electricity division,” he said when asked why he did nothing about lab results which showed that the sulphur content of fuel oil was outside the specifications, which he usually received by e-mail.
She showed him another document with tests conducted on samples taken from a fuel oil consignment which had a higher sulphur content. She said this sample was taken directly from the ship supplying the oil.
He replied the fuel oil was a consignment for the electricity division so he referred the results to this division and said the person to answer these questions was someone else.
“Whenever the lab returned results showing certain criteria were outside specification in fuels for which I was responsible, I would contact the supplier and argue it with them. I did not have much power within Enemalta to negotiate,” he said.
Replying to other questions by Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici, Mr Borg said he did not know where the weak point was within Enemalta for the corruption to have taken place and did not know where, in the whole process, there could have been some influence on the choice of supplier.
“I am very curious to know how it happened,” he said.
He added he knew Frank Sammut because he was an oil procurement consultant of Enemalta chairman Tancred Tabone and often went to the Petroleum Division.
“It was like he was heading the Petroleum Division because he used to give the orders and this all started when Mr Tabone became chairman and contracted Mr Sammut,” Mr Borg said.
Mr Sammut and Mr Tabone are among those facing criminal charges in court over their alleged involvement in corruption in fuel procurement.