The oil regulator, the Petroleum Authority of Uganda (PAU), is yet again butting heads with French oil giant TotalEnergies EP and its Chinese contractor, Sinopec International Petroleum Service Corporation (Uganda) Ltd, over the latter’s non-adherence to local content guidelines.
Inside accounts and documents seen by this newspaper reveal that Sinopec International Petroleum Service Corporation Ltd, the engineering, procurement, supply, construction and commissioning (EPSCC) contractor on the troubled Tilenga oil project spanning the districts of Nwoya and Buliisa, has for two years continued to engage in businesses ring-fenced for Ugandan companies to maximise value addition by way of local content.
TotalEnergies EP operates the Tilenga project. PAU, which before the ongoing development and construction phase had ring-fenced 25 business fields strictly for Ugandans, appears to have its hands tied in order not to antagonise the current pace to kick start commercial oil production by the end of this year. On the other hand, Sinopec has remained defiant. The 25 business fields ring-fenced for Ugandan companies include hotel and catering, transport and logistics, security, civil works, human resource management, survey, camp management, and provision of labour, among others. These were recommended in the 2014 Industry Baseline Survey commissioned by the government and the oil companies on fostering local content. Put simply, the ongoing tangling implies that to make an omelette, one has to break a few eggs.
The government wants commercial oil production to start as soon as possible. So, the Chinese contractor estimated that to quicken things, delivering the key infrastructure required for oil to start flowing, they will do things their own way, including breaking some rules on local content regulations. Sinopec was co-awarded the Shs7.4 trillion ($2b) EPSCC tender for the Tilenga project, alongside McDermott Uganda Ltd in 2021. According to PAU, McDermott was assigned the engineering, procurement and construction component for the Central Processing Facility (CPF), 4,000 personnel capacity temporary camp, and a facility designed to pump and treat water from Lake Albert for use in oil activities.
Sinopec snapped up the EPSCC for, among others, well pads, a site of facilities for oil and gas drilling, and flowlines, and the labyrinth of pipelines cutting through the River Nile connecting the well pads in Nwoya to the CPF in Buliisa. Sometime in 2022, as McDermott’s parent company based in Texas, battled financial headwinds, Sinopec took on expanded work on the project. However, arising out of numerous field visits, by early 2025, PAU technocrats on one hand, and TotalEnergies EP/Sinopec executives on the other, were on different wavelength regarding some work methods on the project.
Nothing ventured nothing gained
After several exchanges over the matter, in July 2025, PAU technocrats met the executives of TotalEnergies EP/Sinopec, over breaching of local content regulations, particularly on business activities ring-fenced for Ugandan companies. The meeting was followed by a forthright correspondence dated August 21, by the outgoing PAU Executive Director, Mr Ernest Rubondo, to the TotalEnergies EP General Manager, Mr Philippe Groueix, pointing him to Sinopec’s disregard of advisories on local content guidelines and dragging feet on awarding tenders for works supposed to be undertaken by local companies.
For instance, Mr Rubondo cited that out of the work scope for backfilling a 45km road stretch inside Tilenga, Sinopec had only awarded 15km to a local firm, Prand Engineering Ltd, and subjected the rest to competitive bidding. The Chinese firm then took on 40 percent trenching, citing ‘complexity of work’, which in turn affected Prand Engineering Ltd ability to deliver. ‘The purpose of this letter is, therefore, to advise that the above issues are expeditiously addressed, and that the full trenching and backfilling scopes are fully subcontracted to the Ugandan companies as required by the legislation. Please advise the Authority on progress made on this matter before September 15, 2025,’ Mr Rubondo wrote. However, that date came and passed.
On November 7, Mr Rubondo fired off another letter to Mr Groueix, complaining that Sinopec had now taken on the construction of camp facilities in Buliisa without ‘consent’ granted by the regulator in breach of Regulation 108 of the Petroleum Regulations, 2016. In another letter dated November 8, the regulator suspended construction of the 4,000-camp, but both TotalEnergies EP and Sinopec appeared defiant. TotalEnergies EP responded to the regulator on November 26 and December 8, 2025, detailing remedies being taken, including submitting an application for the camp, months after construction had commenced.
They also detailed that the camp had been constructed by Sinopec’s subcontractor, Plumbase-Anhui Sijian Joint Venture. The company also argued that it had obtained permission from the Buliisa District Local Government and that the camp would be decommissioned by the end of 2027, after the construction phase is completed. On January 5, 2026, PAU yet again wrote to TotalEnergies EP noting that Plumb Base-Anhui Sijian Joint Venture’s bid evaluation had not been submitted earlier to PAU for both their records and commercial evaluation and that the aforementioned permit from Buliisa Local Government and Environmental and Social Audit from the National Environment Management Authority (Nema) had not been submitted.
Sinopec declined to comment on the matter when contacted by this newspaper. Inexplicably, the company placed several bid notices for interested companies to work with; one of the requirements being registration on the National Supplier Database. TotalEnergies EP, too, did not immediately respond to our inquiries on the issue.
Concerns under review
Mr Didas Muhumuza, the manager for corporate affairs at PAU, told this newspaper that these concerns are being reviewed through established oversight and compliance processes, which are currently underway. ‘National content is a statutory priority for PAU, and the Authority monitors how licensees, contractors, and sub-contractors meet their obligations throughout project implementation.
Where activities are reserved for Ugandan companies, that requirement applies to all parties operating on a project, and PAU engages licensees directly to ensure compliance,’ he said. On whether the Authority slept on the job or has the spine to rein in errant oil companies, other than lamenting only in the correspondence, Mr Muhumuza said: ‘Uganda’s petroleum laws and regulations give the Authority a clear mandate and a range of enforcement measures where non-compliance is established. The Authority applies these measures on the basis of facts confirmed through its assessment, and it is following that process in relation to the matters raised.’
However, during field visits in April and May 2026, PAU technocrats were startled to establish that Sinopec had further ventured into transport and logistics, imported some 200 vehicles, including trucks, buses, pick-up trucks, and cranes-and food supply and catering, which are supposed to be undertaken by Ugandan firms.
During a meeting on the same on June 4 between PAU and TotalEnergies EP/Sinopec, the Chinese company detailed a roadmap for corrective measures. Insiders say it remains to be seen to what extent the company will go, especially in light of ongoing frantic efforts to put the final touches on key infrastructure required to kick start commercial production. The chief executive officer of TotalEnergies SE, speaking at the release of the company’s 2025 financial results in February, said the project will be operational between October and December.