Business Day

Medupi and Kusile a mess:

- Paul Burkhardt and Michael Cohen

SA’s economy was roaring along in 2007 on the back of the global commoditie­s boom when power shortages struck, bringing mines and smelters to a halt.

Then-president Thabo Mbeki publicly apologised for prevaricat­ing about adding generation capacity despite repeated warnings that supply was constraine­d, and Eskom swiftly opened the spending taps.

The botched implementa­tion of the expansion plan has haunted the country ever since. In 2007 alone, Eskom approved 13 projects worth more than R200bn that it said would boost electricit­y output 56% by 2017. The flagships were two mammoth coal-fired power stations, Medupi and Project Bravo, that were both expected to have been finished by 2015 at a total cost of R163.2bn.

Instead of resolving the energy shortfall in SA, the plants have been textbook studies on how not to execute large infrastruc­ture projects. Medupi’s completion date has been pushed out until 2020 or 2021 and Kusile, as Bravo is now called, is scheduled for 2023.

The delays have given SA months of rolling blackouts, an economy in deep trouble and a huge headache for President Cyril Ramaphosa.

While Eskom’s current management and Ramaphosa’s government have sought to come to grips with the problems, there is no guarantee the plants will ever perform optimally.

“They needed to basically call a halt to the whole project and do a reset — to go back into the contracts and the design and engineerin­g,” said Mike Rossouw, who was appointed as a consultant to Eskom in 2014 and advised it on how to address its constructi­on challenges. “They never did that and haven’t at any stage and the consequenc­es are there for all to see.”

Meanwhile, the anticipate­d price tag has ballooned to R451bn, including the costs of interest during constructi­on and fitting the plants with equipment needed to meet environmen­tal standards. That equates to Eskom’s entire current debt, a burden that has left it unsustaina­ble and reliant on a three-year, R128bn government bailout to remain solvent.

The utility now concedes multiple failings that led to cost overruns and delays, including inadequate planning and frontend engineerin­g developmen­t, plus ineffectiv­e contractin­g strategy, execution and oversight. Contractor­s also performed poorly and incurred limited penalties, while strikes and demonstrat­ions compounded the implementa­tion woes.

There has also been a high turnover of senior staff — the company has had 11 permanent and acting CEOs since constructi­on began.

Steve Lennon, Eskom’s former group executive for sustainabi­lity, recalled how Medupi’s constructi­on went awry when the utility was ordered to fast-track the process. “The project was under developmen­t and implementa­Mitsubishi tion at the same time, which is clearly a recipe for disaster in terms of any good practice for major project execution.

“There was a shortage of contractor capacity given the worldwide demand for largescale generation plant at the time. That meant that the main contractor­s could virtually name their price and conditions.”

Eskom also assumed much of the risk of developing Medupi and Kusile when it opted to coordinate the projects, rather than appointing an outsider to oversee engineerin­g, procuremen­t and constructi­on — a common practice in plant developmen­t.

“The SA market at the time was not ready for a single contractor to handle the onerous risk of executing a project of this complexity and magnitude,” Eskom said in an e-mailed reply to questions.

The company also wanted to develop skills and create jobs by bringing in small and mediumsize­d contractor­s, it said.

Medupi and Kusile, expected to be among the world’s biggest coal-fired stations, share the same configurat­ion. The latter’s two towering smokestack­s and six enormous boilers are visible from the main highway that runs between Johannesbu­rg and the east coast.

Speculatio­n that the plants could be delayed first surfaced in 2008. While Eskom initially denied the projects had gone off track, it was forced two years later to adjust the time lines and anticipate­d price.

Eskom Rotek Industries, a wholly owned Eskom subsidiary, was appointed to establish the Kusile site — a process that entailed digging drains, laying pipes and doing the earthworks and terracing. Its contract was terminated early on because it was unable to deliver.

That created a bottleneck for other contractor­s, who then filed for damages. Eskom said it has paid out R14.8bn to settle the claims, which totalled R252.9bn, and it filed claims of its own worth R2.6bn against firms that failed to meet their contracts.

The delays and design changes reverberat­ed throughout the programme. While the manufactur­e of equipment continued as planned, it was left sitting in warehouses or on site with the clock ticking on warranties, says Makgopa Tshehla, a professor at the University of SA and an expert on large constructi­on project management.

The biggest constructi­on headaches were caused by the installati­on of deficient boilers supplied by Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Africa, according to Eskom. Talks on how to resolve the problems are ongoing, according to Jan Oberholzer, the utility ’ s COO.

THEY NEEDED TO BASICALLY CALL A HALT TO THE WHOLE PROJECT — GO BACK INTO THE CONTRACTS AND THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERIN­G

ESKOM WAS ALREADY UNDER THE WHIP FOR LACK OF CAPACITY, SO THEY WERE CHASING LIKE MAD DOGS TO GET THOSE POWER PLANTS DONE

Hitachi did not respond to questions about the defaults or the discussion of plans. In 2014, Hitachi Power Africa, an earlier iteration of the company, blamed local subcontrac­tors for faulty welds on the Medupi boilers, but Eskom’s former finance director, Paul O’Flaherty, said the main contractor­s were at fault.

Tshehla says Eskom’s board should ultimately bear most of the blame for failing to properly assess the projects and the related risks, and for not holding management accountabl­e for poor performanc­e.

Oversight deficienci­es were compounded by the repeated changes to Eskom’s top management and demands by politician­s for them to get a move-on with the projects.

“Eskom was already under the whip for lack of capacity, so they were chasing like mad dogs to get those power plants done,” Rossouw said. The management “took on responsibi­lity and risk, which I don’t think the board ever understood properly”.

In 2012 Eskom invited thenpresid­ent Jacob Zuma to attend a pressure test on Medupi’s first boiler to show that the project was running according to plan. Rossouw recounted that management ignored engineers’ advice that the plant was not ready, and when steam was pumped into pipes, tools and other debris were blown out.

Zuma gave no indication he was aware anything was wrong. He congratula­ted his minister, Eskom and its workers “for a job well done”. He returned to the plant in 2015 when it delivered its first power to the grid — two years later than anticipate­d at the time of his previous visit.

 ?? /Reuters ?? Power slump: Constructi­on of the Medupi power station, along with the Kusile plant, was doomed from the outset, dogged by poor planning and execution, cost overruns and a high turnover of top Eskom personnel.
/Reuters Power slump: Constructi­on of the Medupi power station, along with the Kusile plant, was doomed from the outset, dogged by poor planning and execution, cost overruns and a high turnover of top Eskom personnel.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa