Questions & Replies: Public Enterprises B
2015-07-08
THIS FILE CAN CONTAIN UP TO 25 REPLIES.
SEARCH ON THE TOPIC/KEYWORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR BY SELECTING CTRL + F ON YOUR KEYBOARD
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION NO.: 1790
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 May 2015
1790. Adv A de W Alberts (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
- What is the medical aid subsidy that Transnet is currently paying to members of the (a) Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and (b) Transport Pension Fund and its sub
- How was the subsidy amount for both of these funds calculated;
(3) Why would pensioners on Transmed’s Guardian Plan lose their medical subsidy if they were to change over to another medical fund while this is not the case with pensioners on Transmed’s other plans;
(4) Whether the funding levels for members on Transmed’s Savings Plan meet the requirements of the Medical Schemes Act, Act 131 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2009E
Reply:
(1) The medical aid subsidy paid by Transnet is not linked to membership of (a) Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and (b) Transport Pension Fund and its sub funds.
Transnet pays a subsidy to Transnet Pensioner Members in respect of the membership by such persons of the Transmed Medical Scheme (“Transmed”) and four other Transnet recognised medical schemes (“the Medical Schemes”). Transnet Pensioner Members are Transnet employees who retired from Transnet after 31 March 1990. Transnet subsidises the Transnet pensioner members of Transmed and the Medical Schemes at a fixed Rand amount of R213 per month in retirement, irrespective of the number of dependants on the medical scheme.
Transnet subsidises the cost to Transmed of the Guardian Plan membership of the South African Transport Services (SATS) Pensioners (pensioners as at 31 March 1990) at a rate of R800 per SATS family per month. Since 2010, Transnet has also funded any deficit that arose in the Guardian Plan between contributions from SATS Pensioners and the Transnet subsidy, and Transmed’s costs in relation to the Guardian Plans.
(2) Transnet subsidises the Transnet Pensioner Members’ contribution costs at a fixed Rand amount of R213.00 per month in accordance with its contracts of employment with them.
At its inception in 1990, the SATS Pensioner subsidy took the form of a voluntary gratuitous contribution to Transmed in arrear of the actual costs incurred in relation to the SATS Pensioners each year. During 1995 the SATS subsidy was fixed at the estimated amount required to fund the SATS pensioners’ medical claims for 1996. The same fixed amount was paid annually until 2003. From 1 January 2004, the annual fixed amount was converted to a monthly amount per SATS family on the Transmed books as at December of the preceding year and multiplied by twelve to annualise the amount. This subsidy is now paid quarterly in advance.
(3) Since the establishment of Transnet as a corporation in 1990, SATS Pensioners have received treatment that is different from that received or enjoyed by Transnet employees and pensioners. Transnet elected to subsidise the cost to Transmed of providing benefits to the SATS Pensioners. With the consent of the Registrar of Medical Schemes, Transmed has limited the benefit option available to the SATS Pensioners to a single option, the Guardian Plan. Accordingly, the subsidy policy does not provide for membership of other medical schemes.
(4) Transmed no longer provides savings plans in any of the benefit options.
Reply received: June 2015
QUESTION NO.: 1699
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
1699. Mr K S Mubu (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(1) Is the current boiler configuration at Eskom’s Medupi Power Station found to be technically the most adequate configuration for the specified power station given the poor quality in situ coal;
(2) was an alternative configuration recommended; if so, (a) who recommended it and (b) why was the specified alternative configuration not implemented? NW1919E
REPLY
(1) Yes. The pre-feasibility study conducted by Eskom’s Research & Sustainability (R&S) department in 2005 concluded that supercritical tower boiler technology burning Pulverised Fuel (Coal) was the most suitable technology.
(2) No.
2(a) Not applicable.
2(b) Not applicable.
Reply received: June 2015
QUESTION NO.: 1684
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
1684. Mr K S Mubu (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(a) How many scope changes have been made to Eskom’s Medupi Power Station, (b) what are the relevant details of each of these changes, (c) what is the impact of these changes on (i) delays and (ii) costs and (d) in respect of how many scope changes have they reverted to the original scope? NW1904E
REPLY
(a) There have been a number of scope changes to Medupi Power Station since inception of the project.
(b) The main reasons for these changes are quantity changes, Eskom design requirement changes, scope omissions, additional works and value engineering.
(c)(i) The overall time impact on the design changes was minimal due to the construction delays already experienced in the critical path of the project. The primary impact was on cost.
(c)(ii) The cost impact is R12,083bn.
(d) No known reversals to the original scope.
Reply received: June 2015
QUESTION NO.: 1683
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
1683. Mr K S Mubu (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(a) When will the flue gas desulfurisation (FGD) scrubbers be fitted on the chimneys at Eskom’s Medupi Power Station, (b) how long have the chimneys been complete, (c) why were the FGD scrubbers not fitted before commissioning, (d) how long will the power station have to be offline to retrofit these scrubbers and (e) how much power will be lost during this stoppage? NW1903E
REPLY
(a) The Honourable Member is referred to my response to PQ1624 which was tabled on 26 May 2015 for this particular information.
(b) The work was completed during the week of 23 June 2014.
(c) During the initial planning for the Medupi Power Station, there was no requirement for a FGD. As soon as the project was informed of the future requirement, the plant design was updated to make it FGD ready for future installation.
(d) Connecting the Flue Gas Desulphurisation plant will occur during the first mini general overhaul of the respective generating units which usually is a 2 to 3 month planned outage.
(e) Approximately 750MW (one unit send-out capacity).
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION NO.: 1671
DATE OF PUBLICATION:
1671. Ms N W A Mazzone (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(a) What pressure has been obtained in the Medupi boiler tests, (b) what is the (i) minimum and (ii) maximum pressure specified in the tender documents and (c) what impact does this have on Medupi’s power output? NW1888E
REPLY:
(a) The pressure reached during the statutory Boiler Hydrostatic pressure test was 44.5 MPa in the super heater circuit and 12.4 MPa in the re-heater circuit.
(b)(i) There is no minimum Boiler pressure specified in the contract. A Boiler operates on a sliding pressure and only the maximum pressure is specified at which full load will be achieved.
(b)(ii) The maximum Boiler design pressure at 100% Boiler maximum continuous rating (MCR) is 24.8 MPa.
(c) No impact. The Boiler passed the statutory hydrostatic pressure test and has been performing at design pressure during the optimisation process. There is no limit on the unit’s power output and it is expected that Unit 6 will deliver full power of 794 MW.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION NO: 1670
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 MAY 2015
1670. Ms N W A Mazzone (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(1) What is the (a) current committed and (b) estimated cost of completing Eskom’s Medupi Power Station;
(2) (a) what is the total amount of contractors’ claims and (b) have all contractors been allowed to submit their claims? NW1887E
REPLY:
(1)(a) The current committed (inception to date expenditure) costs as at end March 2015 is R89, 6 Bn (excluding Interest During Construction – IDC).
(1)(b) The latest approved estimated cost to completion is R105.0bn (excl. IDC). However, the materialisation of various risks has created upward pressure on the costs for Medupi. The merits of these increases are currently being finalised internally.
(2)(a) Total amount of contractors’ claims is as indicated below:
- The total value of claims received (inception to March 2015) is R54.7bn
- The total value of claims determined/settled is R25.6bn
- The total value of claims still to be processed is R29.1bn (considered as open claims)
- For those determined/settled claims, the average percentage Eskom is settling at is 9.2% (Settlement rate = [actual settled or approved value] / [total submitted claim value] of closed claims only).
(2)(b) All the contractors have been allowed to submit their claims in accordance with their contract conditions.
Reply received: June 2015
QUESTION NO: 1659
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
1659. Mr T R Majola (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(1) What is the budgeted cost of coal per ton to be used in the construction of Eskom’s Medupi Power Station;
(2) what is the calorific value of Medupi’s coal feedstock (a) before and (b) after washing? NW1876E
REPLY
(1) This is commercially sensitive information information between Eskom & Exxaro that cannot be disclosed.
(2) (a) Only Exxaro may be in a position to provide such information.
(2) (b)The Medupi boilers are designed to burn about 20 MJ/kg Calorific Value coal.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION No: 1658
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER: 1658
1658. Mr T R Majola (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(1) (a) What is the status of the pipeline between the Medupi Power Station and Mokolo Dam, (b) why has this pipeline been delayed, (c) what is the final specification of this pipeline and (d) has this specification been altered; if so, why;
(2) (a) what is the status of the pipeline between the Mokolo Dam and Hartebeespoort Dam, (b) what is the quantity of water that this pipeline will be transferring in respect of each month at full capacity, (c) how long will it take, pumping at full capacity, to empty the Hartebeespoort Dam and (d) where will supplementary water come from when the Hartebeespoort Dam is empty;
(3) is the construction of the Medupi Power Station dependent on further dam builds; if not, why not; if so, when will these dams be completed;
(4) (a) what is the quantity of water that the Medupi Power Station require in respect of each month in (i) winter and (ii) summer to (aa) function efficiently and (bb) comply with the World Bank Covenants, (b) what is the quantity of water that is locally available and (c) what is the expected water shortfall;
(5) (a) what is the quantity of water that will be required to wash the coal for the Medupi Power Station in respect of (i) each year and (ii) ton of coal and (b) has a water conciliation been completed at the Medupi Power Station; if not, why not; if so, (aa) by who, (bb) what is the total cost of the coal washing plant at the Medupi Power Station and (cc) what will be the monthly operating cost of the coal washing plant? NW1875E
The particular information required to respond to this question will take a considerable amount of time to accumulate. I will provide the Honorable Member with all the information once it has all been accumulated and becomes available.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION No: 1657
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER: 1657
1657. Mr T R Majola (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises
(1) (a) From whom is Eskom procuring its diesel stock, (b) what is the quantity of diesel that is procured from each company in respect of each power station and (c) what (i) was the total usage of diesel by Eskom in (aa) 2010-11, (bb) 2011-12, (cc) 2012-13, (dd) 2013-14 and (ee) 2014-15 financial years for each specified power station, (ii) amount of money was spent on diesel, (iii) was the total power contribution of each power station in respect of each of the specified five financial years and (iv) are the diesel stock days in respect of each month in each of the specified five financial years at each power station;
(2) whether all of the suppliers are Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) compliant; if not, (a) which companies are not BEE compliant and (b) what is the value of the contracts that were given to each supplier; if so, what is the value of the contracts given to each company in respect of each of the specified five financial years;
(3) whether any contracts have been awarded to companies that were (a) BEE compliant and (b) not BEE compliant; if not, in each case, why not; if so, in each case, what are the relevant specified details;
(4) whether there are any problems with the procurement of diesel; if so, what are the relevant specified details;
(5) whether there is a plan of action in place to deal with the security of supply of diesel for the next 20 years; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1874E
REPLY:
The particular information required to respond to this question will take a considerable amount of time to accumulate. I will provide the Honorable Member with all the information once it has all been accumulated and becomes available.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION No: 1656
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER: 1656
1656. Mr E J Marais (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(1) (a) From whom is Eskom procuring its coal stock, (b) what is the quantity of coal that is procured from each company in respect of each power station and (c) what (i) was the total usage of electricity in respect of (aa) 2010-11, (bb) 2011-12, (cc) 2012-13, (dd) 2013-14 and (ee) 2014-15 financial years for each power station, (ii) amount of money was spent on coal, (iii) was the total power contribution in respect of each power station in (aa) 2010-11, (bb) 2011-12, (cc) 2012-13, (dd) 2013-14 and (ee) 2014-15 financial years and (iv) are the coal stock piles in respect of each month in each of the specified financial years at each power station;
(2) whether all of the suppliers are Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) compliant; if not, (a) which companies are not BEE compliant and (b) what is the value of the contracts that were given to each specified supplier; if so, what is the value of the contracts given to each company in respect of the (i) 2013-14 and (ii) 2014-15 financial years;
(3) whether any contracts have been awarded to companies that (a) were BEE compliant and (b) were not BEE compliant; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant specified details;
(4) whether there are any problems with the procurement of coal; if so, what are the relevant details;
(5) whether there is a plan of action in place to deal with the security of supply of coal for the next 40 years; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1873E
REPLY:
The particular information required to respond to this question will take a considerable amount of time to accumulate. I will provide the Honorable Member with all the information once it has all been accumulated and becomes available.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION No: 1647
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER: 1647
1647. Ms N W A Mazzone (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(1) (a) Is the recent Codeshare agreement between the SA Airways (SAA) and Etihad Airways commercially viable; if so, (i) how and (ii) what assurance can SAA provide that this route will not run at a loss at any time, (b) on what business case was this decision grounded and (c) were any political and socio-economic factors taken into consideration;
(2) what is the status of negotiations between SAA and Air China with regard to equity stakes;
(3) are there any negotiations taking place between SAA and other carriers with regard to equity stakes; if so, what are the (a) relevant details and (b) status of these negotiations? NW1864E
REPLY:
As the Honorable Member is most probably aware, SAA currently reports to National Treasury. The Honorable Member is thus advised to redirect her question to the Minister Finance.
Reply received: June 2015
QUESTION NO.: 1635
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 MAY 2015
1635. Mr E J Marais (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
Are any businesses of former or current government officials directly or indirectly involved in the supply of coal to Eskom; if so, (a) who are the specified officials, (b) which coal supply comes from their businesses and (c) what is the average price per tonne of coal supplied by each of the specified businesses? NW1852E
REPLY
It is impossible to respond with accuracy to this particular question as the Department of Public Enterprises does not have access to information regarding each and every former and current government official in the country of which there are many in number. In order to respond to the question we would require the following information:
- The names and surnames of all the current and former government officials.
- The names and surnames of the spouses or partners of all the current and former government officials referred to by the Honourable member.
- The Identification numbers of all the current and former government officials, their spouses and or partners as referred to by the Honourable member.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION NO: 1624
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
1624. Mr L J Basson (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(1) What does the loan agreement between the World Bank and Eskom to assist with the construction of the Medupi power station state about the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation technology;
(2) did the loan agreement stipulate any time frames in terms of when the technology should be fitted to the units; if not, what is Eskom’s plan in terms of the installation of the technology; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) does Eskom plan to eventually operate any of Medupi’s six units without the flue gas desulphurisation technologies; if so, why;
(4) when will Eskom fit the flue gas desulphurisation technologies to each of Medupi’s
six units? NW1841E
REPLY
(1) The loan states that “the Borrower shall not later than June 20, 2013, develop, adopt and thereafter implement a program satisfactory to the Bank, to install flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) equipment in each of the six power generating units of the Medupi power plant, taking into account technical, environmental and financial criteria in accordance with terms of reference to be discussed with the Bank, such program to be designed such that the installation of the FGD equipment for the first generating unit shall commence on : (i) the sixth anniversary of the commissioning date or (ii) March 31, 2018 or such later date as the Bank may establish following consultations with the Borrower, and thereafter continue the installation of the FGD sequentially, in each case at the time that each of the five remaining generating units is taken out of service for the first major planned outage, it being understood and agreed that all FGD equipment for the six generating units shall be installed and fully operational not later than December 31, 2021, or such a later date as the Bank may establish following consultations with the Borrower.
(2) Yes, the agreement entails the construction and retrofit of Flue Gas Desulphurisation plant during the first major maintenance outage of the respective generating units which will happen six years after the commercial operation (CO) of each unit.
(3) Yes, for the first six years after the commercial operation (CO) of each respective unit. During the initial planning for the Medupi Power Station there was no requirement for FGD. As soon as the project was informed of the future requirement, in order to meet country emission standards, the World Bank then included it in the loan agreement; the plant design was updated to make it FGD ready for future installation.
(4) Please refer to (2) above.
Reply received: June 2015
QUESTION NO.: 1623
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 MAY 2015
1623. Mr E J Marais (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
What is the average cost per tonne coal delivered to Eskom from each of Eskom’s (a) cheapest five coal contract suppliers and (b) five most expensive coal contract suppliers? NW1840E
REPLY:
The weighted average negotiated prices for all contracts are currently at R11.05 per GJ, which translates into R230.90 per ton.
(a) Eskom’s lowest five contracts indicate a weighted average of R8.03 / GJ, which translates into R168.48 per ton.
(b) The average cost per tonne coal for five most expensive coal contract suppliers is R21.33 per GJ which translates into 428.84 per tonne.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION NO.: 1622
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2014
1622. Mr P van Dalen (DA) to ask the Minister of Pubic Enterprises:
(1) How much coal (a) is available in the Waterberg in Mpumalanga and (b) has Eskom contracted for in the specified area;
(2) (a) what is the annual Eskom coal requirement in Mpumalanga for each year until 2030, (b) how much Eskom grade coal is available annually until 2030 in Mpumalanga and (c) how much of the available Eskom grade coal has been contracted;
(3) does Eskom anticipate a coal supply shortfall; if so, (a) by when, (b) what is the size of the expected shortfall, (c) where will Eskom find coal to fill the specified shortfall, (d) when is the specified shortfall anticipated to start in respect of each power station, (e) where are the mines that will supply the coal shortfall situated and (f) how will such coal be transferred to the specified mines that experience a coal shortfall? NW1839E
REPLY:
- (a) The deports of coal remaining in Waterberg are determined by the council of geoscience and can be found in public reports.
- (b) The volumes Eskom has contracted for in this area add up to 899 Million tonnes in the Waterberg, 612 Million tonnes in Mpumalanga and 239 Million tonnes in the Free State.
- (a) Eskom’s annual coal requirement from FY16 to FY30 in Mpumalanga is indicated in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Annual coal requirements for power stations in Mpumalanga [Million tonnes per annum]
|
FY16 |
FY 17 |
FY 18 |
FY 19 |
FY 20 |
FY 21 |
FY 22 |
FY 23 |
FY 24 |
FY 25 |
FY 26 |
FY 27 |
FY 28 |
FY 29 |
FY 30 |
|
88 |
86 |
85 |
82 |
78 |
81 |
82 |
83 |
84 |
91 |
95 |
95 |
93 |
94 |
92 |
- (b) The available Eskom grade coal in Mpumalanga exceeds 5 000 million tonnes; this is resources and reserves combined.
(2) (c) Eskom has contracted 612 Million tonnes of coal in Mpumalanga.
(3) (a) Yes, a shortfall is anticipated by 2017.
(3) (b) The size of the shortfall is 17 Mt by 2017.
(3) (c) As previously stated, the coal is available in Mpumalanga, that requires investments and Eskom is in discussion with relevant parties.
(3) (d) The shortfall is anticipated in 2015 at Matla, Tutuka and Hendrina Power Stations and in 2016 at Kriel and Arnot Power Stations.
(3) (e) The mines that will supply the shortfall are situated in Mpumalanga and potentially the Waterberg.
(3) (f) Assuming that this question means how will coal be transferred from the mine to the power station, the coal will be transported by road or rail.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION NO.: 1621
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
1621. Mr P van Dalen (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
Will Eskom be decommissioning each of its older power stations; if not, why not; if so, (a) on what exact date will each specified power station be decommissioned and (b) what is the reason for each specified decommissioning? NW1838E
REPLY
Yes
(a)
|
Name of Power Station to be Decommissioned |
Anticipated Year of Decommissioning (first unit) |
|
Camden |
2020 |
|
Komati |
2024 |
|
Grootvlei |
2025 |
|
Hendrina |
2030 (60 yrs) |
|
Arnot |
2032 (60 yrs) |
|
Kriel |
2036 (60 yrs) |
|
Duvha |
2041 |
|
Majuba |
2046 |
|
Tutuka |
2035 |
|
Kendal |
2039 |
|
Matimba |
2038 |
|
Lethabo |
2036 |
|
Matla |
2040 |
|
Gariep |
2051 |
|
Port Rex |
2026 |
|
Ankerlig |
2037 |
|
Acacia |
2026 |
|
Palmiet |
2048 |
|
Vanderkloof |
2056 |
|
Drakensberg |
2041 |
|
Gourikwa |
2037 |
|
Koeberg |
2045 |
(b) A minimum life-expectancy of 50 years is expected from the installed coal fired plant in Eskom; older stations have already been assessed for extended operation to 60 years (Arnot, Hendrina and Kriel). Koeberg has a life-expectancy of 60 years, while the peaking plant has various life expectancies based on technology utilised. Eskom’s position of a 50 year minimum life-expectancy for coal-fired stations was used as an input into the Integrated Resource Plan 2010.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION No: 1615
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER: 1615
1615. Mr P van Dalen (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(a) How much coal did Eskom burn (i) in 2010, (ii) in 2011, (iii) in 2012, (iv) in 2013, (v) in 2014 and (vi) from 1 January 2015 up to the latest specified date for which information is available, (b) how much coal was burned in each province (i) in 2010, (ii) in 2011, (iii) in 2012, (iv) in 2013, (v) in 2014 and (vi) from 1 January 2015 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (c) for each amount of coal burned in each province, from which province did this coal come and (d) how much coal will Eskom burn in 2020? NW1832E
REPLY:
The particular information required to respond to parts of this question will take a considerable amount of time to accumulate. I will provide the Honorable Member with all the information once it has all been accumulated and becomes available.
Reply received: June 2015
QUESTION NO: 1613
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2015
1613. Mr G Mackay (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
Whether any of the senior personnel at the Eskom Koeberg Power Station in the Western Cape have Senior Reactor Operating Licences; if so, (a) how many, (b) how long have each of these personnel had these licences and (c) what is each specified person’s total years of experience?
NW1830E
REPLY
Yes. Koeberg Power Station has Senior Reactor Operating Licensed personnel.
(a) 26 Active licenced Senior Reactor Operators.
(b)
|
Individuals |
Years Licensed |
|
1 |
5 |
|
2 |
14 |
|
3 |
0.5 |
|
4 |
2 |
|
5 |
1 |
|
6 |
29 |
|
7 |
1 |
|
8 |
10 |
|
9 |
0.5 |
|
10 |
6 |
|
11 |
5 |
|
12 |
1 |
|
13 |
8 |
|
14 |
5 |
|
15 |
28 |
|
16 |
11 |
|
17 |
14 |
|
18 |
0.5 |
|
19 |
10 |
|
20 |
1 |
|
21 |
6 |
|
22 |
20 |
|
23 |
27 |
|
24 |
11 |
|
25 |
5 |
|
26 |
11 |
(c) We list below both the relevant years of experience and years of service at Eskom to provide total picture on experience
|
Un |
RELATED EXPERIENCE |
YEARS ESKOM SERVICE |
|
1 |
20 |
21 |
|
2 |
23 |
24 |
|
3 |
14 |
13 |
|
4 |
12 |
12 |
|
5 |
21 |
21 |
|
6 |
42 |
30 |
|
7 |
14 |
4 |
|
8 |
13 |
15 |
|
9 |
12 |
12 |
|
10 |
19 |
22 |
|
11 |
14 |
17 |
|
12 |
13 |
13 |
|
13 |
25 |
24 |
|
14 |
18 |
22 |
|
15 |
33 |
33 |
|
16 |
12 |
16 |
|
17 |
18 |
21 |
|
18 |
12 |
12 |
|
19 |
18 |
22 |
|
20 |
14 |
13 |
|
21 |
26 |
26 |
|
22 |
27 |
33 |
|
23 |
30 |
32 |
|
24 |
24 |
23 |
|
25 |
14 |
15 |
|
26 |
25 |
23 |
Reply received: June 2015
QUESTION No: 1586
1586. Mr N Singh (IFP) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
Whether she can furnish information with regard to the (a) number of private contractors that Eskom has engaged for contracts higher than R10 million in the 2014-15 financial year and (b) types of specialist work such contractors are engaged with? NW1799E
REPLY:
(a) The total number of private contractors that Eskom has engaged for contracts higher than R10 million in the 2014-15 year is 378.
(b) The majority of the contractors mentioned in (a) provide services in more than one type of
specialised work. The different categories of specialist work are:
|
Contract description summary |
Number of Contracts |
|---|---|
|
Fleet Services |
7 |
|
General Services |
188 |
|
Generation Maintenance |
87 |
|
Information Technology |
9 |
|
Fuel and Diesel |
107 |
|
Commodities |
68 |
|
Professional fees |
48 |
|
Capital spend (new build & refurbishment) |
7 |
|
Other Coal |
1 |
|
Independent Power Producers |
33 |
|
Nuclear |
2 |
|
Strategic Primary Energy Coal |
9 |
|
Distribution Wires Business |
7 |
|
Distribution Spend |
7 |
|
|
580 |
Reply received: June 2015
QUESTION No: 1531
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 APRIL 2015
1531. Ms N W A Mazzone (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(1) Does Eskom’s latest coal contract with the Brakfontein Mine meet the general terms and conditions of Eskom with regard to coal supply; if not, why was Brakfontein awarded a R400 million contract per annum when it did not meet Eskom’s general terms and conditions; if so, does Brakfontein have a full water licence;
(2) did the former Chairman of the Eskom Board, Mr Zola Tsotsi, have any influence in
awarding Brakfontein the coal supply contract;
(3) what amount has Eskom paid in terms of the Brakfontein contract in the (a) 2013-14
and (b) 2014-15 financial years;
(4) does Eskom pay the market rate for coal to Brakfontein; if not, why not; if so, what is
the market rate currently paid to Brakfontein for coal;
(5) did Eskom follow an open and transparent bidding process for its coal supply; if not,
why not; if so, what are the relevant details of such process?
NW1742E
REPLY:
(1) Yes. Eskom has a Coal Supply and Offtake Agreement with Tegeta Exploration and Resource (Pty) Ltd in respect of the supply of coal from Brakfontein Mine and this Agreement meets the general terms and conditions of Eskom with regard to coal supply. Yes, Brakfontein has a full water license which was issued on 22 December 2014 by the Department of Water and Sanitation.
(2) No.
(3)(a) The coal supply agreement came into effect on 1 April 2015 and therefore no payments were made in the 2013/14 financial year.
(3)(b) Eskom only started to receive coal from Brakfontein during April 2015 which falls into Eskom’s 2015/2016 financial year. No payment has yet been made for April 2015 deliveries, at the time of this reply.
(4) The question is not applicable because Eskom’s pricing negotiations are based on the key tenets of efficient mining costs plus a fair return, along with the lowest delivered cost option to the relevant power station. This approach ensures sustainability of supply for both parties and therefore there is no “market” price as Eskom procures based on actual costs. Excluding Eskom, the South African coal end user market generally trades at a premium to the export market. Eskom’s strategy is to enter into long term agreements, ideally for the life of the power station or mine, whichever is relevant. This allows Eskom to determine a price path and provides security of supply for both Eskom and the supplier. Even with the current low export coal prices Eskom is able to procure coal significantly below the export prices.
The contract with Tegeta is a competitive price and was negotiate in line with the above principles and as a result is comparable to other suppliers.
As per the above explanation there is no indexed market rate.
(5) No. Eskom uses the following two processes to procure coal:
- An open tender process referred to as a request for proposal (RFP) process and
- Unsolicited bids.
Tegeta did respond to one of the open tender processes that were running during 2012 but they were not compliant at the time. Tegeta were only again considered at the start of 2015 after they had received their water use license.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION No: 1514
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 April 2015
RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER: 1514
Mr D America (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
With regard to the Saldanha Bay Industrial Development Zone (IDZ), where an estimated 1 500 persons from 30 different occupations are needed to repair a single rig in the Port of Saldanha Bay and the estimated demand for 18 000 jobs by the time the IDZ comes online, (a) what plans are in place to (i) recruit and (ii) train employees adequately, (b) how many of these employees will be from the surrounding area and (c) what are the relevant details of the recruitment process for these persons? NW1724E
REPLY:
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is the custodian of the IDZ programme. The Honourable Member is therefore advised to direct his question to the Minister of Trade and Industry.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION No: 1513
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 April 2015
RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER: 1513
1513. Mr E J Marais (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
How has the implementation of load shedding over the past three months impacted on the timeframes for the bulk terminal expansion plans at the Port of Saldanha Bay? NW1723E
REPLY:
This matter falls within the scope of the Saldanha Bay Industrial Development Zone (IDZ). The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is the custodian of the IDZ programme. The Honourable Member is therefore advised to direct his question to the Minister of Trade and Industry.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION No: 1501
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 April 2015
RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER: 1501
Mr P van Dalen (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
(1) (a) Who are Eskom’s top 10 customers, (b) what (i) is their type of business, (ii) is the tariff of each and (iii) is their average annual consumption and (c) what was each of their average percentage use of total electricity (i) in the (aa) 2010-11, (bb) 2011-12, (cc) 2012-13, (dd) 2013-14 and (ee) 2014-15 financial years and (ii) in the period 1 April 2015 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;
(2) whether any of these companies have contracts with Eskom; if not, why not, if so, (a) what are the details of their contracts and (b) what is the (i) inception and (ii) end dates of each of their contracts;
(3) whether Eskom is reviewing any of these contracts; if not, why not; if so, what are the details including the proposed tariff;
(4) whether any of these companies have been investigated for anti-competitive behavior and/or price fixing; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(5) what is the contribution of each specified company (a) to the fiscus and (b) as a percentage of the gross domestic product? NW1711E
REPLY:
The information requested is commercially sensitive as reference is made to private companies that do business with ESKOM. Most of these companies are listed. It is expected that this information will be declared in the reports to their shareholders.