25-06-2018, 08:57 AM
(24-06-2018, 02:40 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.eco-business.com/news/hyflux-...ted-water/
https://www.globalwaterintel.com/insight...s-ambition
Tuaspring was never meant to be Hyflux’s project. The tender specified that there would be no pass-through on the cost of power for the project. That is to say, the owner of the plant would not be compensated with higher water tariffs if electricity tariffs rose. The implication of this specification was that the project was meant for one of the island’s power generators (such as Keppel or Sembcorp) who could use the slack in their generating capacity to deliver the lowest cost water.
Ironically, if the electrical tariff has risen, hyflux will be fine.
So, apparently, both PUB and EMA have done Hyflux in.
By promising the cheapest desalination water in the world at 45cts per m3 for the first year, hyflux is not going to make money from water and at the current electrical price, they are also not going to make money by selling electricity.
With the 2nd round of increase in water tariff by PUB, the price per m3 of portable water has risen to $2.74.
So, the moral of the story is that the gov bodies are quite shrewd and therefore, it may not be a good idea to strike a low margin deal with them.
As a comparison, the price Malaysia is selling raw water to Singapore is 0.27cts per m3.
2.74 - PUB water tariff
0.45 - Tuas Spring sale price
0.0027 - Malaysia sale price
Mahathir is back to "renegotiate" the 1962 water deal. The question is this: must deals be fulfilled to the detriment of parties involved, or is renegotiation fair should one party suffer from an extremely unfair deal. This applies to both Singapore-Malaysia and PUB-Hyflux.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...e-at-trump