Despite anticipated drop in fuel consumption for thermal energy

bY SURESH PERERA

With three major Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects now on the cards coupled with the commissioning of the Mannar wind power plant, questions are being raised over ongoing moves to forge ahead with plans to build a mega Rs.15 billion cross-country oil pipeline when the long-term demand for thermal power is expected to drop drastically.

The renewed interest within some quarters with political blessings to implement the proposed pipeline project at such stupendous cost has raised eyebrows as the monthly consumption of 45,000 metric tons of fuel to generate costly thermal energy will no longer be necessary with LNG and wind power supplementing the country’s demand for power, industry officials said.

At a time Sri Lanka is facing a grave economic crisis due to the Covid-19 pandemic, what is the urgent need for a cross-country pipeline when there will be far less fuel imports in the long term?, they asked.

With a proposed solar power project at Siyabalanduwa also in blueprint stage, constructing a high cost pipeline at this juncture is as insensible as “watering outdoor plants when it’s raining”, and ultimately result in the project being rendered redundant with billions of rupees going down the drain, they opined.

In addition, bids have already been called to build a new pipeline to facilitate the transfer of jet fuel from the Muthurajawala tank farm to Katunayake at substantial cost. Under the circumstances, what’s the viability of investing on another project when alternate energy sources will make thermal power generation irrelevant in the long run, industry players further queried.

Even if the cross-country pipeline project begins tomorrow, it will take another four years for its completion, whereas the LNG plants will be operational within three years. With a lifespan of 25 years on the pipeline, the country will not be able to recover even the cost of the multi-billion rupee project, they asserted.

Sri Lanka has already signed three major LNG deals with the governments of China, India and Japan. While the proposed combined plants are expected to add 1,400MW to installed capacity, the transnational agreements will play a key role in mitigating unreliability in hydro power supply while bolstering foreign capital inflows.

Sri Lanka’s fuel consumption per day is 5,000 metric tons, of which 1,500 metric tons are channeled to generate thermal power. While the Sapugaskanda facility has the capacity to refine 2,000 metric tons of crude oil per day, the balance 1,500 metric tons are imported as refined oil.

Lanka IOC directly imports refined oil, which is stored and distributed by Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminals Limited (CPSTL).

A tanker load of 40,000 metric tons of fuel can be discharged within 24 hours. With the anticipated drop in fuel consumption for thermal energy after the proposed entry of LNG into the energy market, the number of tankers can be also reduced with a substantial cost saving, industry officials said.

The cross-country project was first proposed during 2013-14 but was shelved with the construction of the Muthurajawala oil tank farm, which was augmented by a new oil pipeline at the Sapugaskanda Oil Refinery by CPC (Ceylon Petroleum Corporation) engineers.

However, renewed interest on the project re-surfaced during the tenure of the previous UNP government with then Minister Kabir Hashim presenting to the Cabinet a bid by Langfang-based China Petroleum Pipeline Bureau to build the pipeline at a cost of Rs. 15 billion.

A Malaysian company, which quoted Rs. 7.5 billion for the proposed project was disqualified at the time as its tender documents were apparently “not in order”.

Under the new dispensation, the CPSTL sought the cancellation of the tender awarded to the Chinese company as the CPC engineering team reached the conclusion that they can undertake the job after a new feasibility study and related research were conducted to find alternatives as the estimated Rs. 15 billion cost factor was enormous.

The project could be completed internally within 30 months at a cost of Rs. 5 billion, which translates into a saving of Rs. 10 billion for the country. However, with multiple alternate sources of energy in the offing, it has been determined that it was unviable to implement such a mega project at tremendous cost when another new 18-inch diameter pipeline would suffice to meet the demand.

It doesn’t make sense to call for international tenders to build pipelines when local engineers are capable of achieving the feat, industry officials said. “Of course, there are no fat commissions rolling in when these jobs are handled by Sri Lankan professionals”.

In what industry players described as a “strange twist”, there are continuing overtures to push through the pipeline project in a new game plan to perhaps line the pockets of some officials as the task could be completed for one-third of the estimated cost by local engineers. “With Rs. 10 billion to throw, there will be many on the gravy train if the deal works out!”.

Meanwhile, S. D. J. Paregama, secretary of the Sri Lanka Nidahas Sewaka Sangamaya (Petroleum Branch) expressed concern over moves to revive the project, which, he said, was a waste of public funds at a time the country’s economy was in bad shape.

“After our union wrote to President Rajapaksa on the futility of implementing this costly pipeline project, he directed that it be halted immediately”, he said.

After a bout of silence, there are subtle moves now to push ahead with the project with the Chinese bidder, he claimed.

“As a trade union which supported the President at the last election, we expect him to take a firm stand to ensure that public funds are not squandered on projects that are white elephants”, he emphasized.