DMCI Holdings bags Calaca coal-fired plant for $361.7 M

In a terse, one-sentence announcement, publicly-listed DMCI Holdings (PSE:DMC) said today it has acquired the 600-MW coal-fired power plant from the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), the government agency tasked with the privatization of power assets, for $ 361.7 million which is the highest among the participating bids.

DMCI Holdings, controlled by the Consunji family, has interests in construction, tollway operation, water services, coal mining and real estate among others. Its subsidiary, Semirara Mining Corporation (PSE:SCC), is the largest coal producer in the country and supplies coal to local power plants including Calaca.

At the Philippine stock exchange, share prices of DMCI Holdings ballooned to P7.10 per share, up P0.50 or 7.58% while that of SCC climbed P3 to P38, up 8.57%. Apparently, investors have cheered the move since there is expected to be a synergy gained from the Calaca acquisition with SCC a major fuel supplier.

It can be recalled that the present winning bid is much less compared to the earlier winning bid of Suez Energy at $787 million for the same asset. Since then, Suez Energy backtracked on the project, losing a $14 million bid bond in the process.

The current bid is also not much higher than the highest bid at $280 million during the first auction of the asset, which was however rejected by PSALM because the price did not meet its base price. It is also at par with the last privatization, which is that of Tiwi-Makban geothermal complex when the Aboitiz group paid $0.6 million per MW. On a per MW basis, the price paid by DMCI amount exactly to the same amount.


The per-MW price is also reasonable compared to the construction of the similar 232-MW STEAG coal-fired plant in Mindanao at $305 million, or $1.31 million/MW.

It would appear then that our contention that Suez Energy merely cut its potential losses when it returned the assets to PSALM was justified. Including the forfeited bid bond, Suez Energy aborted a potential loss of $420 million if its bid is compared to that of the present winning bid.

At least, some sense of sanity has returned in valuing the power assets for sale by the government.

Minority Galoc partners bail out

If you and your friends discover a treasure trove that could provide you long term income, what would you do?

Sell out to your friends.

At least that was what two of the Filipino minority partners—Alcorn Gold Resources (PSE:APM) and Petroenergy Resources (PSE:PERC)-- in the Galoc oil production field did. On June 24, the consortium operating the Galoc field off Palawan declared the “commerciality” of the resource. Two days later, the aforementioned minority partners sold their interests (at 1.53 and 1.03% interests, respectively) to unnamed consortium members at $800,000 per percentage point.

The other participants in the project with their corresponding interests are as follows: Galoc Production Co. W.L.L. (58.29%); Nido Petroleum Phils Pty Ltd (22.28%); Philodrill Corp. (7.02%); Philodrill Corp. (7.02%; PSE:OV); Oriental Petroleum and Minerals (7.58%; PSE:OPM); and Forum Energy (2.27).

The identical reason cited by the minority partners is that their respective interests are too small to obtain a significant revenue stream considering the risks involved. Which could also be interpreted that the resource is not as good as it is touted to be.

The total amount of oil lifted from the field since October of last year has already exceeded 1.3 million bbls of oil, which is really a decent amount. The Department of Energy has been trumpeting that the field should produce from 17,000 to 20,000 bopd (barrels of oil per day) which corresponds to 6% of the country’s daily demand, but the operators are more circumspect, saying that the average production should be around 12,000 to 14,000 bopd. Nido Petroleum, one of the consortium members, and its parent firm listed at the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX:NDO), has a broader range of production target at 10,000 to 15,000 bopd, for planning purposes.

Unlike our energy planners, investors have not really been giving standing ovation at the seemingly sweet smell of money wafting from the oil patch. From a high of A$ 0.46 near the start of production, NDO’s share prices plummeted down to A$ 0.06 before recovering to current prices of about A$0.13 – 0.14. Share prices of the Filipino partner firms, all of which are listed at the local bourse, have not really been influenced to a significant degree from Galoc announcements.

The bailout of the minority partners tells more about the prospect than the official news.

First, the amount involved.

According to a presentation made by Nido, the revenues to be expected depends on the price of oil as well as the amount of production sown on the plot below at production levels between 10,000 and 15,000 bopd.

At a projected average oil price of between $65 to $70/bbl for the year 2009 (The price has since dropped to about $62, from about a high of $73, but that is another story), Nido’s share of the revenues amounts to around $50 million (a conservative amount), which translates to about $220 million for the whole consortium. That means about $2.2 million per percentage point participation.

This is the amount of revenue expected by, say, PetroEnergy which has a 1.03% interest, for the whole of 2009. Compare this with its revenue of $1.8 million for the first quarter 2009 from its small interest in an oil field in Gabon, Africa, which could be annualized to $7.2 million assuming steady oil prices and production.

Now, according to the existing production sharing agreement, for every $100 oil revenue, $70 goes to cost recovery, $7.50 goes to so-called “Filipino participation incentive allowance"and $11.22 as production allowance to the operator. The rest is booked as profit, with $6.77 of it to the government and $4.51 to the investor participant.

Now, figure out the amount due to the minority participants.

Moneywise, there is a compelling reason to take the money today, and run, “considering the risks involved”, as the backtracking participants put it.

Second, the risks are real. Production has not been consistent, with the wells shut from December to February 25 this year due to technical problems. And lately, there has been an interruption “after the mooring and riser system was detached from its floating production storage and offloading facility”. In layman’s term, a technical problem.

Production wont be accelerated soon. At the moment thew consortium is actively looking for a strategic partner to help foot the bill required for further development of the field.

We have also pointed out earlier that a potential field problem that could arise is sea water intrusion owing to the fractured geology of the area, as shown by the adjacent West Linapacan field which only produced a short time.

Bailing out early may prove to be a smart move for the minority participants.

Mindanao’s power woes

The Mindanao power situation is becoming a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.

The devil of course, is the perceived polluting coal-fired power plants that are mulled to be erected in Mindanao to address the looming power shortage on the island. To be sure, Mindanao is not stuck up solely on coal plants. There are lesser “devils” around like the planned 50 MW Mindanao 3 geothermal plant project of Energy Development Corporation (PSE:EDC), which doesn’t sit well with environmentalists due to its proximity to the Mt. Apo National Park, and a 42-MW hydro project in Davao which has also attracted some opposition from locals.

The deep blue sea is more like pitch darkness due to expected brownouts if none of these projects could take off on time due to local opposition. The year of reckoning is pegged in 2015 by the Department of Energy when power demand completely outstrips supply assuming a conservative power growth of 3 % per annum, and the committed power projects are on track.

The reign of darkness could come earlier by 2012 if one or two of the bigger power projects are derailed. Or if big power-hungry projects like Hanjin’s shipbuilding facilities in Misamis Oriental and big malls come on stream to GenSan and other booming cities in southern Mindanao.

At the same time, the DOE considers this year as critical for the Mindanao power grid with peak demand reaching 1,525 MW.

One of these power projects to help alleviate Mindanao’s power shortage is the recently unveiled 200-MW coal-fired power plant to be built in Sarangani province by the Alcantara-led Conal Holdings Corp. at a cost of $450 million. The proponent claims that the plant is “on track” to operate in three years despite that fact that it is still in the development stage.

Conal Holdings is backed by the Electricity Generating Corporation (EGCO), one of the largest generating companies in Thailand and Southeast Asia.

The plants would be built in two stages: Stage 1 comprises a 100-MW unit and the whole facilities for the power station complex, while Stage 2 would be the second 100-MW unit which would be constructed within 24 months after the commencement of operations of the first unit. The second unit is targeted to be completed in 2014.

If coal plants are considered dirty, then why are these preferred by investor- developers?

Compared to other types of generating plants like hydro or geothermal, coal plants have the shortest time of completion, and theoretically, one could erect them just about everywhere. The fuel is not a problem since one could just get it from the open market.

Mindanao is no stranger to coal plants. The speed in which coal plants can be constructed if so desired is best exemplified by the record completion of the 232-MW STEAG coal-fired power plant in Misamis Oriental, a significant control of which has now been acquired by the Aboitiz group.

The apparent choice of coal is of course dictated in the end by economics. But with not much choice considering the looming crisis, Mindanao may not have much choice but must make a pact with the devil.

Or the people there may have to consider coal plants not the devil himself, but a fallen angel with some hope for redemption. The choice is easily made if one looks at the other side and sees nothing but an abyss of darkness.

Iran’s oil and the street battles

Strangely, world crude oil prices have been dropping since the contested elections in Iran.

Not even graphic pictures of bloodied demonstrators—who have been questioning the avowed re-election of Iran president Ahmadenijad—which have been streaming out of the Islamic Republic despite a clampdown on foreign reporting, could stem the decline.

While democratic proponents and civil liberties workers throughout the world have been watching the political and social developments lately, economists and business leaders have been scouring the market horizons for any signs of an oil price spike.

There ain’t any. It is unlikely that there will be, as a result of the tumultuous events on the streets of Tehran.

The concern is real since Iran is a major crude oil supplier to the world. Logic tells us that should the unrest spreads around the country, it could lead to shutting off the Iranian oil taps from its ports.

But the scenario is unlikely.

Revenues from its oil exports lubricate Iran’s economy, and its entrenched leaders would be ill-advised if the country leverages its oil production for concessions from the outside world. More so now that nagging questions about the veracity of election results, which have been violently expressed on the streets, could lead to more dollar shortage to the Iranian regime.

Whether by force or design, any stoppage of oil deliveries from Iranian ports would at best only cause a blip on world oil prices. Other OPEC countries which have been reining in its own oil production in hopes of improving prices, would gladly take the slack of Iranian oil.

Iran needs oil exports badly that it is finding ways to develop other sources of energy in lieu of oil.

Iran has been insisting that its nuclear program is basically for power production and for other peaceful purposes; and there are reasons for believing that it is so. As a scientist, I have visited the Iran’s atomic energy agency in the late ‘90s, and their world class scientists were more inclined to study non-weapons applications like isotopes production for agricultural and hydrological studies and nuclear power engineering.

They would rather have a large electrical generating plant powered by nuclear fuel than a plutonium enrichment plant. And the oil revenues saved could go a long way towards lining up the state coffers.

And why would the Iranians insist on developing its limited geothermal resources, like the one at Sabalan mountains northeast of Tehran, when it is far easier and cheaper to drill for oil on its vast untapped oil resources to obtain an equivalent amount of electrical power?

With the ugly turn of events on Tehran streets, one would have expected that the president of Iran’s nemesis, the United States, which regards itself as a bastion of democracy, would jump at the opportunity of bashing the Islamic republic. But no; U.S. President Barack Obama’s response to the unfolding events has been muted.

As if returning the complement, Iranian authorities have singled out the U.K.—not the “great Satan” the U.S.—as the prime “meddler” of the country’s internal affairs.

No, the turmoil in Iran wouldn’t cause a spike, or even a slow rise, of oil prices.

Oil prices, as well as stock markets around the globe, have been steadily rising since October of last year mainly due to hopes of recovery for the global economy. Now that signs of economic recovery are more like a mirage on the desert sun, the steady rise in oil prices is beginning to stall and major bourses have begun to take severe pounding lately.

San Miguel takes another pot shot at Indonesian coal

True to its avowed aim at diversification outside its core foods and beverages business, San Miguel Corporation (PSE: SMC) has reportedly trained its sights on acquiring a stake worth about $500 million in PT Adaro Energy (JSE: ADRO), Indonesia’s second=largest coal producer, according to news wires.

San Miguel president Ramon S Ang confirmed that his company is in talks with Goldman Sachs, its financial advisor on its diversification forays, on the planned acquisition but declined to say how much stake it is aiming for.

Bisnis Indonesia has reported that investors Goldman Sachs itself, hedge fund Farallon, Citigroup Global Special Situations Group and Atticus Investments Pte. Ltd. are looking at buyers for their combined 17% stake in the coal firm. Analysts say that these investors, who participated in the coal miner’s $1.3 billion initial public offering (IPO) last year, are looking to sell out at IDR 1,200 per share, given the uncertainty of coal prices amid global economic downturn.

Two members of the same consortium who has a combined 26% at the end of the IPO, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and Kerry Coal, are reportedly not keen on selling out at this time.

The other largest holders of the company are PT Saratoga Investama Sedaya which is owned by Indonesian entrepreneur Edwin Soeryadjaya and Teddy Rachmat, one of Indonesia’s richest businessmen, who own 32% each.

That asking price is just slightly above the IPO price of IDR 1,100 a share and the current prices which has hovered at the same level. The selling investors would still reap windfall profits since they have been long-time investors in the coal firm.

The planned sale was already expected given that the lockup period ended in March for these financial sponsors.

Would this foray into an unrelated business from its core food competence be good for San Miguel and its shareholders?

Hard to say at this time.

During the last two years, SMC has weaned itself from the food business by taking a 27% in electricity distributor Manila Electric Company (Meralco, PSE: MER) and planning a majority stake in oil refiner petron Corporation (PSE: PCOR). It has also a joint venture in telecommunications with a foreign partner and is looking at entering the water distribution business locally.

Its intentions in Adaro is its second attempt at getting a foothold at Indonesian coal after its planned acquisition of a significant chunk of PT Bumi Resources (JSE: BUMI), Indonesia’s largest coal producer, fizzled out.

For sure, SMC won’t be calling the shots at Adaro since its planned 17% couldn’t exert significant management influence and control. It would be entering a business firm whose sole product coal is a commodity whose prices are subject to world economic movements.

When oil prices were rising, so did the coal prices. But when commodity prices collapsed, so did the latter.

At this time when the global economic downturn appears to be stretching longer than expected despite pronouncements of an imminent economic recovery, commodity prices including that of coal, may be struck in the doldrums for a long time.

That could mean that, should this deal push through, SMC investors would have to wait patiently before the firm’s Adaro stake could bear fruit.

Dangerously tweaking the EPIRA

The Senate might be treading on tenuous, dangerous grounds when it approved yesterday on third and final reading proposed revisions to Republic Act 9136 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA).

On a vote of 16 to 3, the Senate passed Senate Bill 2121 which seeks to amend two important provisions of the EPIRA. These amendments are (1) scrapping the provisions that pass on to consumers stranded debts, or unpaid financial obligations; and so-called “stranded costs”; and (2) lowering the threshold percentage level of power assets privatization to 50% from the current 70%.

What are the possible ramifications of these amendments?

Stranded contract costs refer to the excess in contracted cost of electricity agreed on between an independent power producer and the National Power Corporation (NPC), the erstwhile operator of the transmission grid, over the actual selling price in the market of contracted energy. This can arise, for example, when NPC cannot sell the contracted amount of power due to some reasons such as low actual demand or prolonged breakdown in transmission facilities.

The stranded contract cost which applies to all distribution facilities was also scrapped “in order to reflect the true cost of power and avoid additional burden to consumers.”

In other words, according to Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, if Napocor and the distribution utilities committed errors in contracting electricity costs, they will have to answer for their lapses in judgment. Let their economics be damned. Forget their target internal rate of return or cost of money.

If only the conditions were as simple as that.

Stranded costs are not the machinations of an evil mind. Big power projects have long gestation periods and entail huge capital outlay. For such a project to be viable, there has to be some guarantee that a portion of the output at least has an assured buyer even before the project proponents lays down the first cornerstone. The form could be either a “take-or-pay” provision or a guaranteed price and adjustments.

There are also technical limitations on the amount of power that can be generated. A 20-MW rated turbine running on geothermal steam could not be operated below a minimum output threshold. In a similar way, a high transmission line cannot carry a load below some limit.

During the previous opaque and monopolistic power regime of Napocor, such guarantees could be easily built in into the contract hammered under very amicable circumstances at the expense of the final consumers.

But even if there is no explicit passing on of the costs to the consumers, the generation costs would somehow appear as operating costs. Failure of the generating company to book such costs as expenses could spell the viability (or lack of it) of the project at the outset.

The amendment may dissuade would-be investors from putting up sorely needed additional capacity in the near future.

The other amendment—lowering the privatization threshold to 50%--could have far more dangerous implications. The rationale is that, with the lower threshold, the “open access regime” wherein big consumers can actually choose their source of power would immediately kick in. This is because the actual level of privatization has already been pegged at 57%.

The fatal downside is that Napocor will no longer have to sell its remaining power assets, and thus continue to exert dominance over electricity prices. This would also fell in the hands of the Napocor insiders who seem to be consciously delaying the privatization process for reasons we can only speculate. With this scenario, the open access would ring hollow.

For the investors who have already put up money on the basis of the original EPIRA provisions, they would have to adopt with increased difficulty should the bill be passed into law. Those who are waiting in the wings would have to go back to the drawing board and their financial spreadsheets and assess the changed circumstances. They might back out altogether.

Changing rules in midstream have been the bane of investors. This is why the various foreign chambers of commerce, which represent foreign investors, have been adamant about changing the rules of engagement in the din of battle.

The world economic order is already is disarray and highly uncertain. Investors would like to see some of the uncertainly addressed to by not changing the rules of the game.

Tweaking the EPIRA this time may not deliver the benefits the law is supposed to give. On the contrary, the results could be devastating to the industry and the country.

We just hope that our esteemed senators are actually concerned at the hapless consumers and not looking misty-eyed at the forthcoming 2010 elections.

Meralco shows way in sourcing ‘clean energy’

Can you choose a ‘clean energy’ supplier for your electrical power needs? Theoretically, yes, even if you are tapping the transmission grid.

 Manila Electric Company (PSE: MER), the country’s biggest power distributor that supplies Metro Manila and environs with electricity is showing the ‘clean energy’ path by planning to source part of its electricity load from two more methane-gas recovery plants.

 In a recent press briefing, Meralco president Jose P. De Jesus said the distribution company will source electricity from the methane gas fired plants to be owned and constructed by Montalban Methane Power Corp. (MMPC) which already owns the pioneering plant at the Montalban (Rodriguez) dump site. The new plants will be situated in Malabon and Sta. Rosa, Laguna.

 Recently, Meralco has already signed a contract with MMPC for the latter to supply it with up to 8 MW of power. The supply arrangement would allow Meralco to source relatively cheaper electricity from MMPC as the generated power would be tapped directly into sub-transmission lines already owned by the firm, thereby bypassing the wheeling charges imposed by the grid operator.

 What is more significant though, is that it allows Meralco “to increase its capacity and alleviate global warming through the reduction of carbon emissions during electricity generation.” Part of the statement may be public relations efforts, but the step it is taking would be a prototype of what steps distribution firms should be taking in the future.

 Sourcing from renewable energy sources is now actually embodied in the recently passed Renewable Energy Law under the heading renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Under this concept, a distribution company is compelled to source a percentage of its electricity supply from renewable energy generators (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass) by a given time, say after ten years.

 Our own renewable energy law do not have specific guidelines on how this is to be achieved as the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) have yet to be hammered out. Of course, these rules are not straightforward to craft.

 Some questions that need to be answered are: (1) what is the appropriate percentage? (2) What would be the timeline for the distribution company to achieve the target percentage? (3) Are there available sources for the distributors to reasonably meet the law’s requirements? (4)Will the prices be competitive enough against traditional sources? (5) Would these renewable energy sources be in the “right places?” And so on.

 These questions are inextricably intertwined and need to be addressed to the satisfaction of all the stakeholders from the government, the generator, the distributor and the consuming public.

 Now that Meralco has actually conscientiously contracted a portion of its distribution needs from a renewable energy source, it would be interesting to watch how this arrangement would pan out. Our energy regulatory bodies, especially the recently-convened National Renewable Energy Board which is tasked to oversee the implementation of the renewable energy law, should study in detail the nuances of this experiment—as well as of others, including that of the Bangui Bay wind farm and the biomass projects in the Visayas—to come up with a sound and equitable renewable portfolio standards.

The success of this particular provision could determine whether we would be getting cleaner power or more of the polluting energy sources we already have in the future.