Serious questions remain on the exploding cost of the Amaila project

I welcome Mr. David Gopaul’s letter (‘Ram is attributing additional costs to the Amaila hydro-project based on pure speculation’ SN April 18, 2013) for providing me with the opportunity to ask him to obtain and share vital information about Amaila which Guyanese have for years been seeking. Before doing so I will briefly address his lengthy letter.

One approach could be to quote Mr. Gopaul’s preferred article in Hydro Review magazine which set out Canadian cost models for hydro projects that are conceptually, in terms of both engineering and financing, and technologically, different from Amaila; or I could choose to provide cost information on projects from the USA, Ethiopia, China and Turkey, which in each case is lower than Amaila’s. I could even refer him to Brazil which built a project of approximately the same size and capacity for US$350 million or US$2.2 million per MwH, or to the recent contract between Nicaragua and Eletrobras, the Brazilian state-owned utility company, to build a 250 MW hydroelectric power plant in southern Nicaragua, at a cost of US$700 million, or US$2.80 million per MwH. But I won’t because the explanations are right here in Guyana.

In writing on the subject of Amaila Mr. Gopaul can recall what I said about the PPP/C 2011 manifesto but conveniently forgets what has been said and written not by informed critics of Amaila’s exploding cost but by its very own sponsors. Here is what the Champion of the Earth and the opportunist “investor” Fip Motilall told the Hydro World in 2007: “The hydro project is expected to cost US$300 million, with a third of that devoted to building transmission lines to carry power from Guyana’s remote inland to its population centers.” Since the line would be almost the same for 100 or 165 MwH, the explosion in the cost would be mainly the plant.

And if Mr. Gopaul has problems with the Champ and Motilall as so many people do, let me draw his attention to a letter by Raphael Herz and Brian Kubeck of Sithe Global who on February 29, 2012, responding to a letter by Ramon Gaskin in the SN of February 14, 2012 wrote, “Mr Gaskin questions the cost of the Amaila Project, suggesting that a hydropower plant of this size would normally cost between $320 million and $360 million….. In this case, the construction cost of the hydropower facility of the Amaila project is in the range that Mr Gaskin suggests (emphasis added).”

If that does not convince Mr. Gopaul, then I cannot help him. Now for my questions to him:

– Does he consider the model proposed by Motilall/Sithe/Chinese the best technical and financial option to produce an optimal hydroelectricity facility at Amaila?
– Does he know and is he convinced that the technology to be used in Amaila would be state-of-the-art and not like the elephant the Chinese built at Skeldon for GuySuCo?
– Has he seen all the documents on the Amaila Project and if not would he join the call for these to be tabled in the National Assembly?
– Can he say when the final licence for the Amaila Project required under the Hydroelectric Power Act was or will be issued, and similarly for the Power Purchase Agreement between Amaila and GPL?
– Is he aware that Sithe has defended Amaila Project on fuel reaching US$200 per barrel while the current cost is under US$90 per barrel and the 20-year outlook is for reduced demand due to technology and alternatives?
– Would he please provide hard information to contradict the calculation that Amaila will cause the electricity tariff to increase for several years?
– Does he believe that Banks DIH, DDL and all those entities which have disconnected from the national grid will automatically return because of Amaila?
– Does he share the optimism that when Amaila comes on stream that Linden will automatically receive power from the National Grid and pay the national rates?
– Does he know of any public project that is feasible with borrowings at 8.5% and return on investment of 19%?
– Does he know of any government-guaranteed project which carries risk insurance of 12% of the project cost?
– Does he consider as realistic the assumption that GPL will reduce losses from 32% to 20% in six years time?
– Can he share with Guyanese his understanding of how power from Amaila will be distributed to Essequibo and the hinterland communities?
– Can he share with Guyanese his knowledge of how much of its existing plant and current fixed and operating costs GPL will continue to carry when Amaila starts to produce?

If Mr. Gopaul or anyone else would like a debate on Amaila, I respectfully suggest they have relevant and not pseudo-facts. And just in case Mr. Gopaul does not know the answers to my questions, I am sending a copy of this letter to the Prime Minister for his comments and response.

On the Line: Annual Report 2012 – Demerara Distillers Limited

Introduction
The conglomerate, Demerara Distillers Limited, which has as its flagship the world famous El Dorado rum, will be holding its annual general meeting next Friday April 26 when the directors will report on the performance and state of affairs of the parent company and its ten subsidiaries and one joint venture. One of those subsidiaries, Breitenstein Holdings BV, a Netherlands company has two distribution companies in the Netherlands and four in the United Kingdom. The joint venture is listed as a Manufacturing and Distribution company in Hyderabad, India. At least two of the subsidiaries – Distillers Gas Company (sic) and Demerara Contractors and Engineers Limited – seem to have disappeared from the radar, the first mentioned as dormant in a note to the financial statements and the second receiving no mention in any of the documents making up the Annual Report. Included in the financial statements of the group as Associate Companies are Diamond Fire and General Insurance Inc. and National Rums of Jamaica Limited, 19.5% and 33.33% of whose shareholding respectively is owned by the group.

The Guyana Stock Exchange, itself stunted by conflicts of interest and a tolerance of a culture of weak governance among the handful of public companies, has been far from impressed with the group, attributing to it one of the lowest Price Earnings (P/E) Ratio. The consolidated financial statements show that turnover of the company has risen by 11.5% but that there were declines in profit before interest and taxes (5.2%), profit after taxes (17.6%) and total comprehensive income by nearly 25%. The combined performance of the subsidiaries was flat. Turnover (sales) increased from $5,065 million to $5,173 million, or by 2.1%, less than the rate of inflation. Profit before tax of the subsidiaries remained the same but after tax profits fell from $352.4 million to $350.2 million, a decline of 2.1%.

2013.04.21_Table1

A significant contributor to the change was explained in the Chairman’s Report as due to a “deferred tax charge of $230 million as against $65 million in 2011.” No explanation was given for this increase, nor do the financial statements give any hint, particularly since there was no significant acquisition in fixed assets, a major factor in making a provision for deferred taxes, as the tax allowance is very often significantly higher than accounting depreciation in the first year.

The important stock market consideration, Earnings Per Share (EPS) of the company fell from $1.55 per share to $1.28 per share dragging down that of the group’s EPS from $2.01 to $1.74 per share. However, with the way Guyana’s media overacts to absolute numbers, the market price for the shares has not been adversely affected. Or perhaps the market is responding to an increase in the dividends per share from $0.48 per share to $0.52 per share. Incidentally, someone in the company should tell the Company Secretary that Guyana abolished cents as a unit of currency in 1998!

Continue reading “On the Line: Annual Report 2012 – Demerara Distillers Limited”

On the Line – Demerara Tobacco Company Limited: Annual report 2012 – Conclusion

Introduction
I closed last week by introducing a table which set out the transactions between Demtoco and other companies in the group. Of particular interest were the following charges:

2013.04.14_Table1

These charges are not only unusual for an entity that buys a branded product and does nothing else but sell that product to a single customer; they are also unlikely. The charges have two financial and fiscal effects. First, they transfer income from Demtoco to its group companies not in the form of dividends available to all shareholders. Second, to the extent that they are charged against income for purposes of the computation of taxes, they reduce the company’s taxable profits, and hence the tax payable by the company.

Continue reading “On the Line – Demerara Tobacco Company Limited: Annual report 2012 – Conclusion”

On the Line – Demerara Tobacco Company Limited: Annual Report 2012

Introduction
The Demerara Tobacco Company Limited (Demtoco), held its Annual General Meeting this past Tuesday April 2, 2013, kicking off the season of annual general meetings of Guyana’s public companies with a December 31 year end. All public companies are of course regulated under the Securities Industry Act and the Companies Act. And, too, they all fall to be taxed under the various tax laws of Guyana. Or do they?

70% of Demtoco’s shares are held by British American Tobacco International Holdings (UK) Limited which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco plc. (BAT), also of the UK. Cheddi Jagan, no slouch for an economist, used to love measuring the power of the international companies by comparing them with the size of Third World countries’ economies. He would have hated Guyana’s economy’s relative size compared with BAT whose turnover across the world is six times the GDP of Guyana.

Continue reading “On the Line – Demerara Tobacco Company Limited: Annual Report 2012”

Not a watershed budget for the poorer person

As Guyanese analyse the Budget for 2013 it is useful to compare some of the numbers with how they are presented and received. There is no group which has welcomed the Budget more than the Private Sector Commission, one representative describing it as our (PSC) budget.

Let us take the apparently straightforward example of the reduction in the rate of personal income tax from 33⅓% to 30%. Readers will note that not only do individuals not have the benefit like dependents allowances while companies are allowed to deduct almost all their expenses, but the individual is still paying the same or higher rate of tax than non-commercial companies do, that is 30%.

If we exclude the personal allowance of $50,000 per month an individual’s nominal and actual tax rate is the same: 30%. Compare this with say GBTI whose nominal corporate tax rate is 40% but which enjoys a host of tax shelters. Its effective corporate tax rate for 2011 is 26.82%. Shareholders of GBTI pay no tax on dividends while its employees pay 30%. Even if we say that the company and the shareholder are the same – which it clearly is not – the shareholders’ tax rate is 26.82%. That is inequitable.

But let us get back to the benefits of the reduction in the rate of income tax and the increase in the rate of NIS, both of which impact on take home pay, or as the PSC says, spending power. In dollar terms, for each $10,000 earned by the worker the tax saving is $333. It means this: the worker who was earning $50,000 per month at December 31, 2012 gets nothing out of the budget; one who earned $60,000 per month takes home $333; one who earned $80,000 takes home $680 more, etc. The earliest point at which the increased take home pay exceeds $10,000 per month is for employees earning $380,000.

Note that I have not taken the projected inflation of 3.5% for 2013 into account. If that is done the income level at which there will be a net saving is for employees earning $296,000 per month. All persons earning below that income per month will actually be worse off.

The PSC is right: this is a watershed budget – but not for the poorer person.