Tag Archive | department of energy

Competition Commission gets to know LPG market

 DOE holds off on LPG regulatory changes…

Sent to clients 25 Oct….In a briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Energy on the report by the Competition Commission (CC) into the Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) sector, acting Director General of the Department of Energy (DOE), Tseliso Maqubela, has again told Parliament that the long-standing LPG supply shortages are likely to continue for the present moment until new import infrastructure facilities come on line.

He was responding to the conclusions reached by the CC but reminded parliamentarians at the outset of the meeting that the Commission’s report was not an investigation into anti-competitive behaviour on the part of suppliers but an inquiry, the first ever conducted by the CC, into factors surrounding LPG market conditions.

Terms of reference

In their general comments, the Commissioner observed that the inquiry commenced August 2014 on the basis that as there were concerns that structural features in the market made it difficult for new entrants and the high switching costs for LPG gas distributors mitigated against change in the immediate future.

They worked on the basis that there are five major refineries operating in South Africa, these being ENREF in Durban, (Engen);

refinery

engen durban refinery

SAPREF in Durban, (Shell and BP); Sasol at Secunda; PetroSA at Mossel Bay; and CHEVREF in Cape Town (Chevron). There are four wholesalers, namely Afrox, Oryx, Easigas and Totalgaz.

Wholesalers different

As far the wholesalers are concerned, in the light of all being foreign controlled, CC also observed that transformation was poor, but this was not an issue on their task list, they said. They had assumed therefore that BEE legislation was difficult to enforce and that the issue had been reported to the Department of Economic Development, the portfolio committee was told.

Price regulation at the refineries and at retail level is supposedly determined by factors meant to protect consumers, the CC said, but their inquiry report noted no such regulations specifically at wholesale level. This fact was stated as being of concern to the CC in the light of known “massive profits in the LPG wholesaling sector”.

Structures

Commissioner Bonakele said, “We started the inquiry because of the worrying structures of the market but in benchmarking our market structures with other countries and we found LPG in SA was not only unusually expensive but was indeed in short supply. Why? When it is so badly needed, was the question, he said

The CC established from the industry that about 15% of LPG supplied is used by householders and the balance is for industrial use.   In general, they noted that there were regulatory gaps also in the refining industry but regulatory requirements were over-burdening they felt and contained many conflicts and anomalies.

The CC had also reported that the maximum refinery gate price (MRGP) to wholesalers and the maximum retail price (MRP) to consumers were not regulated sufficiently and far too infrequently by DOE.

Contentious

There needed to be one entity only regulating the entire industry from import to sale by small warehousing/retailers, they said. The CC suggested in their report that the regulatory body handling all aspects of licensing should be NERSA .

As far as gas cylinders were concerned, Commissioner Bonakele noted in their report that there are numerous problems but their criticism was that the system currently used was not designed to assist the small entrant. The “hybrid” system that had evolved seemed to work but there was a “one price for all” approach.

DOE replies

In response, DG Maqubela confirmed that the inquiry had been conducted with the full co-operation of DOE into an industry beset with supply and distribution problems, issues that were only likely to change when there were “adequate import and storage facilities which allowed for the import of economic parcels of LPG supplied to the SA marketplace.”

When asked why local refineries could not “up” their supply of LPG to meet demand, DG Maqubela explained that only 5% of every barrel of oil refined by the industry into petroleum products could be extracted in the form of LPG. Therefore, the increase in LPG gas supplied would be totally disproportionate to South Africa’s petrol and diesel requirements.

Going bigger

Tseliso Maqubela, previously DG of DOE’s Petroleum Products division, told the Committee that two import terminal facilities have recently been commissioned in Saldanha and two more are to be built, one at Coega (2019) and one at Richards Bay (2021). These facilities were geared to the importation of LPG on a large scale.

He said, in answer to questions on legislation on fuel supplies, that DOE were unlikely to carry out any amendments in the immediate future to the Petroleum Pipelines Act, since the whole industry was in flux with developments “down the road”.
It would be better to completely re-write the Act, he said, when the new factors were ready to be instituted.

Rules

On the regulatory environment, DG Maqubela pointed out that for a new refinery investor it would take at least four years to get through paper work through from design approval to when the first spade hit the soil. This had to change. The integration of the requirements of the Department of Environmental Affairs, Transnet, the Transnet Port Authority, DTI, Department of Labour, Cabinet and NERSA and associated interested entities into one process was essential, he said.

On licencing, whilst DOE would prefer it was not NERSA, since they should maintain their independence, in principle the DOE, Maqubela said, supported the view that all should start considering the de-regulation of LPG pricing. He agreed that DOE had to shortly prepare a paper in on gas cylinder pricing and deposits which reflected more possibilities for new starters.

MPs had had many questions to ask on the complicated issues surrounding the supply, manufacture, deposit arrangements, safety and application of cylinders. In the process of this discussion, it emerged, once again, that LPG was not the core business of the refinery industry and what was supplied was mainly for industrial use. The much smaller amount for domestic use met in the main by imported supplies for which coastal storage was underway over a five-year period.

Refining

DG Maqubela noted that on Long Term Agreements (LTAs) between refineries and suppliers, DOE in principle agreed with the Commission that LTAs between refiners and wholesalers could be reduced from 25 years to 10 years, to accommodate small players. Again, he said, this would take some time to be addressed, as was also an existing suggestion of a preferential access of 10% for smaller players.

All in all, DG Maqubela seemed to be saying that whilst many of the CC recommendations were valid, nobody should put “the cart before the horse” with too much implementation of major change in the LPG industry before current storage and supply projects were completed.

However, the current cylinder exchange practice must now be studied by DOE and answers found, Tseliso Maqubela re-confirmed.
Previous articles on category subject
Overall energy strategy still not there – ParlyReportSA
Gas undoubtedly on energy back burner – ParlyReportSA
Competition Commission turns to LP gas market – ParlyReportSA

Posted in BEE, Energy, Finance, economic, Fuel,oil,renewables, LinkedIn, Trade & Industry0 Comments

Mineral and Petroleum Resources Bill halted perhaps

Mineral and Petroleum Act extends State rights…

New MPRDA starts with 20% free carry, maybe more….

oil rigThe Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, the legislation that will give the state a right to a 20% free carried interest in all new exploration and production rights in the energy field, has been passed by Parliament before it closed and sent to President Zuma for assent. According to press reports, new minister of mineral resources, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, may have halted the process by request, however, in the light of public sentiment and opposition moves to challenge the Bill’s legality.

Section 3(4) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) currently states that the amount of royalty payable to the State must be determined and levied by the Minister of Finance in terms of an Act of Parliament. This Act, in force, is the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act 28 of 2008 but considerable uncertainty always surrounded how this would work and what was actually meant.

Any uncertainty has now been removed and the MPRDA amendments now passed have brought to an end a process which started when the draft Bill was first published for comment in December 2012.

Beneficiation of minerals included

mine dumpThe legislation seeks to “regulate the exploitation of associated minerals” and make provision for the implementation of an approved beneficiation strategy through which strategic minerals can be processed locally for a higher value – the exact definition of the word “beneficiation” yet having to be defined.

Importantly, the new Act will give clear definitions of designated minerals; free carried interest; historic residue stockpiles; a mine gate price; production sharing agreements; security of supply and state participation generally.

Stockpiles and residues affected

The new Act also states that regulations will apply to all historic residue stockpiles both inside and outside their mining areas and residue deposits currently not regulated belong to the owners. Ownership status will remain for two years after the promulgation of the bill.

In addition to the right to a 20% free carried interest on all new projects, ownership by the state can be expanded via an agreed price or production sharing agreements.

The NCOP concurred with Bill on its passage through Parliament and made no changes.

Legal commentators note that the Royalty Act, at present in force, triggers payment in terms of the MPRDA upon “transfer”, this being defined as the consumption, theft, destruction or loss of a mineral resource other than by way of flaring or other liberation into the atmosphere during exploration or production.

The Royalty Act differentiates between refined and unrefined mineral resources as “beneficiation”, this being seen as being important to the economy; incentives being that refined minerals are subject to a slightly lower royalty rate.

Coal and  gas targeted maybe

Nevertheless it appears, commentators note, that in terms of mineral resources coal is being targeted and also zeroed in on is state participation in petroleum licences. Others have pointed to the possible wish of government to have a state owned petroleum entity such as PetroSA to be involved fracking exploration.

Earlier versions of the Bill entitled the State to a free carried interest of 20% and a further participation interest of 30%, with the total State interest capped at 50%; however, the version that Parliament approved removed the reference to a 30% participation interest as well as the limit of 50%, effectively giving the State the right to take over an existing petroleum operation, law firm Bowman Gilfillan explained in a media release earlier this month.

Democratic Alliance (DA) Shadow Minister of Mineral Resources, James Lorimer said in a statement that the Act, “would leave the South African economy in a shambles”, adding that this would lead to people losing their jobs.

The DA has said it has now begun a process to petition President Zuma, in terms of Section 79 of the Constitution, to send this Bill back to the National Assembly for reconsideration,” he said.

Chamber opinion differs

Surprisingly, the Chamber of Mines stated that it “generally welcomed and supported” the approval of the MPRDA Amendment Bill, adding that it believed significant progress had been made in addressing the mining industry’s concerns with the first draft of the Bill, published back in December 2012.

Clearly the mining and petroleum industries particularly gas exploration industries, both of whom have separate equity BEE charters, are still very much at odds on the effects of the promulgation of such an Act, as is DA and the ANC.

Other articles in this category or as background

//parlyreportsa.co.za//bee/mprda-bill-causes-contention-parliament/

//parlyreportsa.co.za//bee/major-objections-minerals-and-petroleum-resources-bill/

Posted in BEE, cabinet, Energy, Facebook and Twitter, Fuel,oil,renewables, Justice, constitutional, LinkedIn, Mining, beneficiation, Public utilities, Trade & Industry0 Comments

DOE spells out biofuels and biomass

Biomass, biofuels and jobs……

On the subject of creating biofuels and biomass, the department of energy told parliamentarians that the main objective of any such exercise, if it was undertaken in the agriculture industry, would be to create jobs.       However, such a move towards the use of biomass would not take place if national food or water security was jeapordised in any way.

This answer was given to the portfolio committee on energy by Muzi Mkhize, chief director hydrocarbons, department of energy (DOE), when briefing parliamentarians on DOE’s current strategy towards biofuels.  He said that in the South African context, a specific requirement of the biofuels strategy was to create a link between first and second economies and the focus was not only on jobs but specifically on creating employment in under-developed areas.

Key incentives

Bio-fuels, he said, like most renewables, required incentives in order to be cost-competitive against conventional fuels, the upside of such a direction being the saving in balance of payments, energy supply security and economic growth factors that were more stable that the volatile traditional oil market.

He referred to 2006 estimates, where a targeted 2% biofuels scenario was estimated to create about 25,000 jobs.

With the IPP third round completed, Mkhize said biofuels would contribute to the national renewable energy policy, the director general, DOE, having already advised that 93 independent power producers (IPPs) had applied for licences in the third round of requests for submissions. Thus biomass, he said, together with IPPs were contributing greatly towards targets that South Africa had in the journey to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As far as biofuels manufacturing facilities were concerned, Mkhize listed eight locations where bioethanol or biodiesel had or were being licensed. He said that biodiesel would fall within the fuel tax net and manufacturers would receive a rebate of 50%. Bioethanol would not, however.

Incentives upgrade

As was the case with all renewable energy projects, a 50:30:20 depreciation allowance on capital investment over three years would apply but DOE had started discussions which were underway to improve incentives as this was not sufficient to attract investors, it was felt.

“Infant industry” incentives over a twenty-year benchmark period were being looked at, he said, with an initial incentive of 3.5c per litre to 4c, to be recovered through a levy to be included in the national monthly price determinations.

Overproduction threat

It was pointed out by parliamentarians that about 229 million litres of fuel were sold annually for about R9,2bn and if all players in the fuel industry joined the process as required, there would be an excess with about 4-6% of biofuels produced over the national call for 2%. Who would take up the excess, they asked.

Mkhize was also asked what agro studies had been done and how were farmers responding to a possible call for biomass crops. Also, they asked, if there was drought or some similar disaster, what would happen to the fuel industry in the reverse case of a shortage of biomass.

Mkhize said there was a general agreement in place only on agricultural biomass and this was “only in the form of mindset until pricing and subsidy issues were finalised, so accordingly the question of national quantities in relation to fuel company needs did not arise”.  However, he confirmed that the fuel industry would not be allowed to suffer from a shortage of biomass delivered.

Treasury and subsidies

In answer to more questions, Mkhize said a licence to produce biomass would not disallow a farmer from switching crops, say from soya to maize.  But, he added, all this was total speculation until “national treasury came up with the answers on subsidies”.

When MPs complained that the picture given by DOE “was no more than a snapshot of where we were on biofuels exactly one year ago”, Mkhize said he was trying to show the milestones that had been reached in the enormously difficult stage that the fuels industry had reached with regard to the entry of biofuels, which was a strategic issue.

Gas the issue

He said there were issues such as LPG remaining the forerunner of natural gas to be investigated as this household market had to expand and added, “We are looking at the system used commercially of bringing gas from Mozambique to Durban and whether this is the basis for further development.”

Mkhize promised his department would deliver shortly on promises to deliver DOE’s plan for gas expansion but this was not part of the biofuels or biomass study. All such matters were intertwined in terms of the integrated resources plan with the eventual integrated energy plan for the whole country.

Making a profit

On new entrants to biomass to fuel production, Mkhize responded to questions that it had been shown that the breakeven point for any biomass plant was a constantly changing factor over a long period and it was difficult to establish at what point a subsidy of, say, 2% would assist.

He said breakeven studies showed from a 2% profit, moving down to 5% loss for a long while, and then eventually moving up to 10% profit had been the standard established and banks did not like that kind of venture. Models he said were difficult to establish that were both profitable in either the short or long term.

There had been great disappointment when oilcake made from soya had proven too costly for biodiesel and it had been found that better recoveries could made through the food industry. This had proved a setback, Mkhize said.

Sugar cane

In answer to queries on sugar cane possibilities for biomass, as practised in Brazil and possible land shortages in South Africa, Mkhize said that the SA Sugar Assoc had said that land was available but that sugar cane was more likely to be linked to co-generation of electricity energy. Brazil, he said, had a vast subsidized lower income biomass agricultural industry but was producing on a large scale for biodiesel, not bioethanol as would be required in SA.

Mkhize concluded that the DOE biofuels task team was studying very carefully the forward national food security and water situation, “because”, he said, “we cannot afford to subsidize an industry in the form of small scale farmers if we are at the same time threatening food security and water availability at the same time.”

Back to jobs

However, he said that the country at the moment could not ignore the huge potential for job creation that could be brought about by such a new industry and the present lack of agricultural knowledge on the subject would eventually be substituted by experience gained by the new entrants as they established themselves.

In answer to questions on where blending would take place and “whether this was upstream or downstream in the fuel industry”, meaning at refineries or at depots it was assumed, Mkhize said a lot would depend on where the crop was grown; the wish to support crops grown in rural areas; sustainable projects that had been developed; and water availability.

previous articles on this subject
//parlyreportsa.co.za//cabinetpresidential/biofuels-development-stays-in-limbo/
//parlyreportsa.co.za//energy/south-africa-at-energy-crossroadsdoe-speaks-out/
//parlyreportsa.co.za//energy/ipp-3-delayed-until-mid-august-says-doe/

Posted in Energy, Facebook and Twitter, Land,Agriculture, LinkedIn, Trade & Industry0 Comments


This website is Archival

If you want your publications as they come from Parliament please contact ParlyReportSA directly. All information on this site is posted two weeks after client alert reports sent out.

Upcoming Articles

  1. PIC Bill passage indicates sleight of hand by governing party
  2. Climate legislation Bill links on carbon tax

Earlier Editorials

Earlier Stories