Thursday, April 23, 2009

Soma Thermal Power Plant for Sale

Dear Energy Professional, Dear Colleagues

Our new job is to figure out its proper procedures and the face value of the plant, plus terms and conditions of the scheme. That is the question to estimate how much to pay in order to buy Soma Thermal Power Plant in Privatization.

In our country, we have a rule-of-thumb expectation that an investment should repay itself within next three years. That may be extended to four years at most.

If we have a thermal power plant with 1034 MWe electricity output capacity, at annual 7000 hours of average working availability, at average 10 US cents per kwh prevailing electricity market prices, you come up with a figure to earn approximately 350 million US Dollars per year after deducting your coal and operation costs. In years of repayment period, that is accumulated to be not less than 1 billion US Dollars. This is the gross price of privatization.

Now we have to deduct necessary rehabilitation expenses from 1 billion US Dollar. Rehabilitation expenses should cover expenses to pay 6 (six) new FGD installations. That is approximately 25 million US dollars per FGD unit. That figure is derived from past tenders of Kemerkoy, Yatagan and Orhaneli thermal power plant FGD installations.

The next is new E/P installations for the remaining 4 units. We know that plant has already paid 9 million Euros for the 1st and 2nd units of Soma-B plant. You need to renew boiler pressure tubes, safety valves, soot blowers, coal mills.

In the end we come up a rough figure of 300 million US Dollars for rehabilitation. That is to be deducted from the gross price of 1 billion US Dollars.

One should keep in mind that in privatization period, new owners normally prefer to keep the existing qualified experienced engineering staff to be active in operation. The technical staff gets better monthly salaries provided that they continue to generate value added contribution to the organization. However senior labor force is requested to get retired. That is the natural outcome of privatization process.

The most important risk in operation is in the quality of the incoming coal to feed the thermal power plant. In the past low and fluctuating quality of incoming coal was the most apparent critical risk as foreseen by the interested foreign parties in year 2000.

The new investors would like to purchase the nearby coal reserves in order to keep themselves free from risk of incoming coal quality fluctuations. Constant coal quality is to be secured with selective mining. Unburnable materials are to be screened and removed.

So we need to estimate the prevailing price of the available coal reserves. That is again three years payback of the current annual income of the reserves. Coal is sold to plant at 2.50 US Dollars per million BTU heating capacity. That is a reasonable global price for lignite reserves. For 1034 MWe electricity generation, you have to pay 60 million US Dollars per year for coal. That is accumulated approximately 180 million US dollars in three years.

After privatization of the existing coal reserves, investor should enforce selective mining operation for better coal quality. That needs more mechanization in open pit mining, and reduced labor force in underground mining. That is the nasty reality of the privatization. These realities should be foreseen and evaluated in the long term prior to full enforcement of privatization decision.

All interested parties should get prepared for the outcome. Treasury is certainly in hesitation of spending public funds in power plant rehabilitations. They feel that the public spending is not in proper control. Public tenders take long evaluation periods and they are completed in long terms. In the end most of them are not operated effectively, and properly. Treasury is also in hesitation of possible corruption in public spending.

In the end, the prevailing political administration may prefer to privatize the entire plant rather than spending in rehabilitation. After privatization, the public authority could enforce the buyers to agree on the necessary rehabilitation spending from their private sources. It is proven that private spending in rehabilitation is faster, cheaper and more effective in the end.

Human cost impact of the privatization is that labor force is reduced in time. Hiring and firing will be easier. Those senior staff will get retired. Better educated and qualified new staff will be recruited. The existing technical staff will be kept unchanged for a while since they are the most important human capital of the establishment as long as they keep their contribution to the operation. They normally get paid more that they get earlier. Their material satisfaction is fulfilled by the new private owners. On the other hand the technical staff will get more freedom in their spending for rehabilitation and programmed maintenance.

More plant availability and higher capacity output are expected in the long run. Electricity generation will be sold in the local national Markey at prevailing rates and more income generation will be created. That is more taxable income for the public funds.

There is also a new investment potential to construct 2x300 MWe capacity new coal fired thermal power plant in future. That new investment could also be integrated with the privatization package to encourage and attract more attention to the project.

In the end we may find that a proper private ownership may also bring better operation, better rehabilitation, and better environment under strict public scrutiny, and generate more income to the workers. Moreover they should make more funds available to scientific research in the nearby universities for better coal firing, better utilization of coal reserves. New scientific research institutes are to be established. More academic research funds need to be allocated to the local nearby university engineering and technical departments.

They can sponsor upgrading of the living standards of the nearby settlement. They can sponsor cultural and historical sites/ activities in nearby ancient sites, which are Bergama/ Pergamon and Truva/ Troy.

We have been informed that Turkey has picked McKinsey & Company as advisor to help shape up sale strategy for the privatisation of the state-owned electricity producer EUAS, a government source told Reuters on last Friday.

We have lignite coal as our biggest fuel source and we all agree that we should use that coal

with maximum efficiency and availability,
with maximum contribution to the society,
with minimum harm to the mother nature,
with minimum impact on global warming.

We hope that this report although needs a continuous updating, will provide the interested reader a frank view of the Soma Thermal Power Plant for future operation.

This article is an independent and humble work which is prepared with the available information as received at the Soma Thermal Power Plant site in year 2009, trying to advise a candid picture of the existing situation. It is free from any public interpretation.

We believe that the Seminar in Soma will create a great chance for all interested local parties to enable them to learn from past mistakes, to investigate the possible/ applicable technologies, to assess the new investment opportunities, to investigate the available intellectual capability of the local human resources.

We were very pleased to join/ support/ contribute to the event, hope to organize similar events in the international platforms in the future.

Your comments are always welcome. With Deepest Regards,

Haluk Direskeneli, Ankara based Energy Analyst


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haluk, Why you don't take into consideration to replace the existing old PC boilers with new CFB boilers in SOMA amd some other EUAS power plants? In that case you will have fully new units without using any FGD and mill which is a big headache for availability security. You can also make money from the scrap of the existing old boilers. If it would require to change the STGs, may be you can consider to install the bigger unit capacity, such 250 MWe each, maybe more, in case the coal reserve is good enough at the mine site. May be it would necessary to pay a little bit more money than the rehab. for the new CFB boilers but you will have brend new facility for longer life. Furthermore, you can obtain an additional capacity based on the possible modification to be performed at the low pressure part of the existing steam turbine.
Let me brief a real story about this issue. Before Poland entrence to EU, EU obliged Poland to retrofit all power plants based on EU standarts (emmission, relability and operation wise). For example; Turow power plant had 10x206 MWe old PC boilers, PKE (Poland state owned utility company) asked Foster Wheeler to modify the existing 3 boilers. Foster Wheeler had offered to replace the exisiting 206 MWe capacity boilers with higher capacity CFB boilers with same fuel and at the existing PC's footprint. Then PKE asked the existing STGs manufacturers to modify them maximum capacity. STGs manufacturer had guaranteed to boost each STG capacity to 235 MWe in its place. Foster Wheeler designed the CFB boilers as 3x235 MWe capacity in the same place. Now these units under operation since 2003 with 92% capacity factor average. Then PKE asked Foster Wheeler to design the biggest capacity CFB compact design boilers for replacing the next 3 existing PC units whithin at the same foorprint of the existing 206 MWe capacity PC boilers. Foster Wheeler designed 3x265 MWe capacity Compact Design CFB boilers and installed them in 2004. PKE installed the new 265 MWe capacity STGs for these three units. Since then these units have being running 94% average availability.
Turow power plant has using low calorific value (LHV 1438 kCal/kg) and bad fuel with high 48% moisture, 21% ash, 1.2% Sulfur.
After these projects, PKE ordered a 460 MWe single unit with supercritic CFB boiler which is under trial test nowadays which is designed, supplied and installed by Foster Wheeler. As I metioned recently, now, Foster Wheeler is trying to finalizing the negotiation phases of 4x550 supercritic CFB boiler for one of European client. We had offered this concept to EUAS in 2003 for Afsin A power plant with very reasonable price an 3 years time period. They stated that they must complete the full rehabilitation of Afsin A in 2007 or 2008 at least with 75% capacity factor and 79% max boiler efficiency. Now lets come up today, the year is mid of 2009 and capacity factor is 32% maybe less and boiler efficiency probably not more than 65%. The result is nothing. Best Regards,

9:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haluk bey merhaba. Soma Termik Santrali konusunda ilk defa derli toplu bir yazı ve analiz okumuş oldum, çok teşekkür ediyorum. Analiz bana makul geliyor. Bu durumda özelleştirmenin neden makul olduğu konusunda yazdıklarınız da. Biliyorsunuz benim üretim teknolojisi ve yatırım maliyetleri konusunda bilgi birikimim yeterli değildir, o yüzden maalesef yazılarınıza yapıcı bir eleştiri veya katkıda bulunamıyorum. Daha fazla anlamak isteyebileceğim bir kaç nokta var, bunların başında da yatırımın 3-4 yılda kendini ödemesi normu geliyor (daha önce de bunu sık sık duydum). Ekonomik ömrü çok daha uzun olan bir yatırımın 3-4 yılda geri dönmesi prensibi fiyatlamada ilginç sonuçlar doğuruyor olmalı. Bir ara bunu sizinle daha ayrıntılı tartışma fırsatı buluruz umarım. Size faydalı olabilecek bir yorum yapamadığım için kusura bakmayın ama ben yazınızdan çok yararlandım. İnsanın aklına bir sürü soru geliyor, benim aklıma gelen ilk sorulardan biri de bu işletmelerin neden baştan bu kadar kötü tasarlanmış oldukları. Bu arada önerilerinize diğer MMO mensuplarının nasıl tepki verdiğini de merak ediyorum doğrusu. Benim genel olarak edindiğim intiba odaların genel olarak dikey bütünleşik yapıya geri dönülmesini savundukları şeklinde, belki yanılıyorumdur.
Tekrar teşekkürler ve görüşmek dileğiyle, Saygılar,

9:17 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Click to join EnergyNewsletterTurkey

Click to join EnergyNewsletterTurkey

Free Blog Counter