OMISSION OF “PE2011” IN
A TWO PART ANNUAL REPORT FOR SINGLE YEAR 2011, UNDER PREVIOUS BLOG REPORT
The first part of my
blog has omitted the “PE2011” Annual Report
which is one of a two part annual report, reporting in and for the same
financial year 2011.
In year 2011 Petronas has
two(2) Annual Report, namely “PE2011 Annual Report
and 2011 Annual Report”
The contradicting figure
of RM 18.4 Billion mentioned previously in my report arise due to such omission
or exclusion.
Nevetheless, the inclusion
of Annual Report PE2011 only reveal agreement up to Annual report 2014. In
annual report 2015 the accumulated amount foregone resulting from the
government’s fuel rationalization policy appeared to contradict by RM3.2
billion.
2015 Annual report reported that the accumulated revenue
foregone up until end of 2015 was RM238.3 Billion but the total annual revenue foregone for the
same period appeared to be at RM241.50 Billion.
The report appeared to show an understatement of RM3.2 Billion which bring us to the question of “a double folded” situation ;
The report appeared to show an understatement of RM3.2 Billion which bring us to the question of “a double folded” situation ;
(a)
The assumption that the
accumulated revenue foregone of RM238.3 as reported in the 2015 annual report
is correct and RM241.5 is false.
OR
(b)
the assumption that the
total annual revenue foregone from 2009-2015 of RM241.5 is correct and RM238.3
is false.
Contradicting
amount cannot be both correct or wrong at the same time without having it
explained or reflected elsewhere in the report.
In situation (a) above,
if the cumulative figure of RM238.3 billion is true then, the understatement
would mean that RM3.2 billion could have been returned or reimbursed to
Petronas?
Conversely, if the total annual revenue foregone from
2008-2015 is RM241.4, then a situation
of an overstatement of RM3.2 billion happened and bring the report to a
shortage of RM3.2 billion.
Anyway, Petronas or the
minister incharge of Petronas is obliged to explain where the RM3.2 Billion had
gone to?
WITH THE INCLUSION OF ANNUAL REPORTS PE2011 AND ANNUAL REPORT 2011 (TWO ANNUAL REPORT FOR SINGLE YEAR 2011)
=====================================================================
(This part did not take the inclusion of PE2011 and will be further explained in the above )
The above figures are adopted from Petronas annual
report for 2009-2015 which is made available as downloadable PDF file at its
website.
The above table zooms in to the part called
“Revenue foregone” and pages from which the figure is adopted is also noted in
the above table.
The issue here is very simple and straight forward.
Firstly it involved arithmetical accuracy. That is arithmetical discrepancy
which need to be explained by Petronas because the amount involved a massive sum
of RM 18.4 Billion, a sum which can easily complete the construction of one Pan
Borneo Highway if it was to be built many years ago.
Let’s go slowly through the above table.
Row “B” is the yearly or annual amount of “Revenue
Foregone” comprising those consumed by Tenaga Nasional Berhad(TNB), Independent
Power Producer (IPP) and industrial and domestic user in Semanjung Malaysia
In 2009, the total annual/yearly consumption by the
above industry was RM 19.5 Billion and the accumulated value since May 1997 was RM97.5
Billion.
In 2010, the same body or industry (TNB,IPP& Insudtrial and Domestic) made an anuual consumption of RM18.9 Billion.
Now, in the
year 2010 the cumulative amount of “Income foregone” has increased from RM97.5 billion in the year 2009 to RM116.4 billion in the year 2010.
That is RM97.5 Billion (Year 2009 Cumulative figure) Plus RM18.9 equal to RM116.4 Billion. (“Total” column of
Row B in the above table) At this stage the calculation correspond with
Petronas’ Annual report as it appeared on page 17 of year 2010 Annual report.
Then, in the year 2011, the annual consumption of
natural gas by the same above mentioned users was RM20.1 Billion. When the annual
consumption of year 2011 is added to the cumulative figure brought forward from
the year 2010, the total is RM136.5 Billion (“Total” column of Row B in the
above table). The cumulative figure still correspond to that of Petronas annual report figure as it appeared
on page 37 of Petronas 2011 annual report.
In 2012, the annual consumption of natural gas of
the same user was RM27.9 Billion and when this amount is added up to the
cumulative figure brought forward from the previous year, ie 2011 of RM136.5 Billion, the total is RM164.4 Billion
BUT, the Petronas Annual report on page
39 put it as as RM 182.8 billion.
Is this simply an arithmetical error ? The difference of RM 164.4 and RM182.8 is
RM18.4 Billion, and this amount is a huge sum of money that can be put into
good use to complete the construction of Pan Borneo Highway if it were to be
built many years ago.
Petronas must come with a satisfactory explanation
as to where the missing RM18.4 Billion had gone or at least explain where the corresponding entry or
transaction appeared or dealt with elsewhere in its financial statement.
What the missing RM18.4 Billion simply means is that
Petronas says that the accumulated value of
natural gas provided for free to the above mention users was RM182.8 Billion
when in actual fact the calculation on the same, based on the same report
showed that it was only RM164.4 Billion.
What it simply means is that Petronas has declared
under oath that it has given up its stock of natural gas (as subsidies) to TNB
and IPP valued at RM182.8 Billion when
in actual fact the calculation shows that it had given up only RM164.4 Billion.
The question here is that where have the RM18.4 Billion worth of natural gas gone missing based on the amount it reported in its Annual report of 2012?
The question here is that where have the RM18.4 Billion worth of natural gas gone missing based on the amount it reported in its Annual report of 2012?
The inconsistencies in the Petronas annual report
just don’t end in 2012. In the following year Petronas Annual report showed
that it had foregone another RM24.9 Billion worth of natural gas to the same
above mention users. Petronas annual
report of 2013 still maintain and brought forward the inconsistency or the
missing amount of RM18.4 Billion from 2012 into its 2013 and 2014 annual report. (refer
page 43 & 49 of Petronas Annual report 2013 & 2014 respectively)
Amazingly in 2015
Annual report (refer to page 63 of Petronas Annual report ), an arithmetical disagreement once again can be found that involved a
reduction to the cumulative amount provided for to the users but the report
for 2015 still show or maintain an over-statement to the accumulated amount
provided for to the same users.
Petronas should come with a straight answer to
explain to the public as to where the missing RM18.4 Billion had gone to as
captured in its 2012 annual report and the same was brought forward to
2013 and 2014.
In the 2015 report (Page 63 of Petronas Annual Report), the amount of RM18.4 Billion that was found missing had been reduced by RM3.2 Billion to RM15.2 Billion.
Where in Petronas report or financial report has the same inconsistencies been reflected.?
In the 2015 report (Page 63 of Petronas Annual Report), the amount of RM18.4 Billion that was found missing had been reduced by RM3.2 Billion to RM15.2 Billion.
Where in Petronas report or financial report has the same inconsistencies been reflected.?
Without satisfactory explanation, member of the
public is obliged to lodge a report to the relevant authority as to the missing
amount that appeared all throughout the 2009 to 2015 annual report.
Saudara,
ReplyDeleteIn 1997, during the Asian financial crisis, the government started regulating the prices of natural gas sold by Petronas to the power sector, (then later to industrial sector, too). Prior to 1997, the gas was supplied based on market prices. Until now, the prices -- although periodically revised upwards over the past few years -- are still regulated and below market prices, thus resulting in "revenue foregone" to Petronas. It is the lower-than-market-price natural gas (i.e. subsidised gas) that keeps the electricity bills of Malaysian households serviced by TNB lower than they would have been. By selling gas lower than market prices, Petronas is "foregoing" the revenue.
Thank you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you Tuan Aiman.
ReplyDeleteThe big difference between the reported annual and accumulated value of 'income foregone' in 2012 & 2015 annual report are so significant. It cannot be anything to do with the price fluctution or price regulation. Price flutuation does not influence the difference between the annual and accunulated figure. It is either arithmetical or commission, omission mistake or just simply a deliberate attempt to overstate the foregone income from what is actually consumed by the industry. So, who pocket the difference?
Contoh :
I announce to the world that i have donated RM 182.8 billion but I pay RM 164.4 billion for the samr donation. Where is the RM 18.4 Billion?.
If the above mentioned difference is correct, then it should also be reflected and explained elsewhere in the report as such, ie with the difference of RM18.4 Billion.