රෙන්න පුකේ ගූ නැති උනාට කතාවනම් තියෙන්නෙ ඕනා මේ ගානටවත් 🤭🤭

[Yeezus]

Na he’s just clutching at straws at this point.

It's just your opinion

 

[dayt0na]

It's just your opinion

Just like @Hyaenidae s last response…not facts, just opinions.

 

[CohenLenstra]

They reduced the payment to the actual calorific value delivered and imposed fines on top of that.

I don't think the supplier would pay bribes on top of all that lost revenue but let's see if they continue to send substandard coal (if that's the case we could assume that their profit margin is so high that they could absorb the government fines + reduced payments + bribes and still make a profit)

That's not what happened. As per the agreement those with Calorific value 5900 - 6000 or something is only acceptable with fines. Coal with calorific value below 5900 are not to be accepted even with fines. In this case these shipments are reported to have around 5400 of calorific value.

Also, the usual practice is to submit a lab report from the loading port before loading the ship, which in this case is SouthAfrica, but the initial report was obtained from an Indonesian lab claiming the coal was good. Then, at our loading dock, these shipments were unloaded even before our local lab results came in, which is a deviation from the usual practice. How did that happen? Then the minister in parliament hastily claimed that he doubted the report from the lab under is own ministry and denied any issue with the coal. The second report from another lab confirmed that the coal is substandard, and unacceptable even with fines.

We have paid for 6100 grade coal at around $90 per tonne, paid fines intended for 5900 grade coal and happily accepted 5400 grade coal.

In addition, are we factoring in the excess stress given to the coal generators by using coal well below the specifications? It could easily add upto financial losses. Also, the environmental impact due excessive fly ash produced by these coal, it is reported that the plant is not meant to handle this huge of a stock of fly ash. These technical issues were highlighted by a letter from the CEB.

 

[Hyaenidae]

That's not what happened. As per the agreement those with Calorific value 5900 - 6000 or something is only acceptable with fines. Coal with calorific value below 5900 are not to be accepted even with fines. In this case these shipments are reported to have around 5400 of calorific value.

Source?

 

[pavanruka]

Kohomath Lankave neethiya anuva hamotama neethi sahaya denna rajaya bandila innava. Aeka othana kiyala vadak na.

 

[CohenLenstra]

Source?

This is the procurement specifications document. https://lankacoal.lk/docs/Sample - Tender - LCC-25-TT-1- Procurement Document.pdf

This is found on
https://lankacoal.lk/tenders.html

In this specifications on page 52 section 5.2 you find this.

Also, citing the following newspaper articles regarding this specific coal tender specifications - it's in the paper articles.

https://www.sundaytimes.lk/260215/n...ents-heat-over-south-african-coal-631658.html

https://www.themorning.lk/articles/YiAdTq4Obxf2uq0PGoOW

 

[Hyaenidae]

This is the procurement specifications document. https://lankacoal.lk/docs/Sample - Tender - LCC-25-TT-1- Procurement Document.pdf

This is found on
https://lankacoal.lk/tenders.html

See Page 26/112 and 27/112

3.4.3. Failure to meet specification

(a) At Load Port

Within 72 hours after receiving, the certificate of analysis of load port provided pursuant to Section 3 in clause 3.5.2. If the parameters listed in the “Section 5 in Clause 5.2”: LCC REJECT VALUES FOR COAL” (GCV, Total Moisture, Ash, Volatile Matter, Size, Hardgrove Grindability Index, Sulphur and Ash Fusion Temperature), of the coal shipment falls within the LCC reject values stated in “Clause 5.2”, LCC shall Reject such coal. In this event, the Seller shall promptly recall such coal shipment at the Seller’s cost and the Seller shall be obliged to offer alternative supply of Coal with the quality as per clause 2.6. In the event that the coal is rejected, and the Seller provides alternative supply of Coal, then the Seller is not exempted from paying any Liquidated Damages on account of any delays, then the provisions of Clause 3.8.1 shall be applicable, considering the delay till such alternative supply of Coal is loaded and trimmed on board the nominated carrying vessel at the Port of Loading.

(b) At Discharge Port (Jetty of the Plant)

Upon receiving the discharge port analysis certificates, provided by discharge port independent surveyor pursuant to Clause 3.5.2 and 3.5.3, If the parameters listed in the Clause 5.2 "LCC REJECT VALUES FOR COAL” falls within the LCC reject values stated in Clause 5.2 of the Schedules, LCC shall reduce the price as per “Clause 5.6 of the Schedules” for the deviation from the LCC standard value for coal as per the “Clause 5.1”.

So your claim

As per the agreement those with Calorific value 5900 - 6000 or something is only acceptable with fines. Coal with calorific value below 5900 are not to be accepted even with fines.

Is not true.

 

[Tramadol]

hahah

 

[CohenLenstra]

See Page 26/112 and 27/112




So your claim



Is not true.

3.4.3. Failure to meet specification

(a) At Load Port

Within 72 hours after receiving, the certificate of analysis of load port provided pursuant to Section 3 in clause 3.5.2. If the parameters listed in the “Section 5 in Clause 5.2”: LCC REJECT VALUES FOR COAL” (GCV, Total Moisture, Ash, Volatile Matter, Size, Hardgrove Grindability Index, Sulphur and Ash Fusion Temperature), of the coal shipment falls within the LCC reject values stated in “Clause 5.2”, LCC shall Reject such coal. In this event, the Seller shall promptly recall such coal shipment at the Seller’s cost and the Seller shall be obliged to offer alternative supply of Coal with the quality as per clause 2.6. In the event that the coal is rejected, and the Seller provides alternative supply of Coal, then the Seller is not exempted from paying any Liquidated Damages on account of any delays, then the provisions of Clause 3.8.1 shall be applicable, considering the delay till such alternative supply of Coal is loaded and trimmed on board the nominated carrying vessel at the Port of Loading.

The reductions happen only after considering clauses 3.4.3(a) isn't it? According to this clause, if the load port report shows that the values are within the rejection values the shipment is to be rejected. The penalties only come into effect when the discharge report does not match the standards. First, it should pass the rejection state based on the load port report, which seems to have been faked or something.

That's where everything becomes shady. The supplier's load port report showed that the shipment meets the required standards. But, the shipment received doesnot. The supplier is happy not to be rejected at the load port, and then just pay the penalty. You still believe this is not profitable to the supplier and anyone else whose behind this?


Look into this paper article in the Sunday times estimating the losses and the amounts revovered through penalties.

The losses are not linear against the calorific amount value. The penalty equation estimates a linearity, and that works for small deviations.

But massive deviations such as the one we have now is irrecoverable by mere penalties. That is why largely deviated coal shipments are not to be accepted.

 

[redux]

hahah

mekat maru habai umba umbema thattata cuck kiwwa ekata mita wada hina yanawa

 

[Hyaenidae]

3.4.3. Failure to meet specification

(a) At Load Port

Within 72 hours after receiving, the certificate of analysis of load port provided pursuant to Section 3 in clause 3.5.2. If the parameters listed in the “Section 5 in Clause 5.2”: LCC REJECT VALUES FOR COAL” (GCV, Total Moisture, Ash, Volatile Matter, Size, Hardgrove Grindability Index, Sulphur and Ash Fusion Temperature), of the coal shipment falls within the LCC reject values stated in “Clause 5.2”, LCC shall Reject such coal. In this event, the Seller shall promptly recall such coal shipment at the Seller’s cost and the Seller shall be obliged to offer alternative supply of Coal with the quality as per clause 2.6. In the event that the coal is rejected, and the Seller provides alternative supply of Coal, then the Seller is not exempted from paying any Liquidated Damages on account of any delays, then the provisions of Clause 3.8.1 shall be applicable, considering the delay till such alternative supply of Coal is loaded and trimmed on board the nominated carrying vessel at the Port of Loading.

View attachment 262619

The reductions happen only after considering clauses 3.4.3(a) isn't it? According to this clause, if the load port report shows that the values are within the rejection values the shipment is to be rejected. That's where everything becomes shady. The supplier's load port report showed that the shipment meets the required standards. But, the shipment received doesnot. The supplier is happy not to be rejected at the load port, and then just pay the penalty. You still believe this is not profitable to the supplier and anyone else whose behind this?

Clause 3.4.3 (a) was cleared and the supplier had documents to prove it so clause 3.4.3 (b) coming into effect doesn't mean the "supplier is happy to pay the penalty"

Clause 3.4.3 (b) exists because this is a possibility.

So clause 3.4.3 (b) came into effect as intended and the supplier was paid a reduced price and was fined on top of that.

The government has followed the contract as far as I can see.

But you haven't addressed what I pointed out -

That's not what happened. As per the agreement those with Calorific value 5900 - 6000 or something is only acceptable with fines. Coal with calorific value below 5900 are not to be accepted even with fines. In this case these shipments are reported to have around 5400 of calorific value.

Now that you have read the clause 3.4.3 (b) you see this claim is inaccurate, right?

 

[CohenLenstra]

Clause 3.4.3 (a) was cleared and the supplier had documents to prove it so clause 3.4.3 (b) coming into effect doesn't mean the "supplier is happy to pay the penalty"

Clause 3.4.3 (b) exists because this is a possibility.

So clause 3.4.3 (b) came into effect as intended and the supplier was paid a reduced price and was fined on top of that.

The government has followed the contract as far as I can see.

But you haven't addressed what I pointed out -



Now that you have read the clause 3.4.3 (b) you see this claim is inaccurate, right?

That's the whole point. How come suppliers report say that the calorific value is above 5900 while two independent reports show that it around 4800 - 5400?

It's a clear deliberation by the supplier to avoid clause 3.4.3(a). The supplier is happy with 3.4.3(b), since it's still profitable to supply substandard coal and pay the fine.

My claim still holds by clause 3.4.3(a). When I said 'is to rejected', I meant the 3.4.3(a) which is the ideal course of action in the event of not meeting standards. Clause 3.4.3(b) only there because of the impracticality of reloading to a ship after unloading at our ports - not the ideal solution.

Whatever the case: your claim that the penalties wipes of any undue profits is unsupported, infact these (the Sunday Times article I quoted, and by the fact that the supplier is still supplying substandard coal, and supposedly paying the penalties) provide evidences to the exact opposite.

 

[Hyaenidae]

That's the whole point. How come suppliers report say that the calorific value is above 5900 while two independent reports show that it around 4800 - 5400?

3.4.3 (b) exists because that is a possibility

It's a clear deliberation by the supplier to avoid clause 3.4.3(a). The supplier is happy with 3.4.3(b), since it's still profitable to supply substandard coal and pay the fine.

If that was the case the supplier wouldn't have requested it to be reexamined by a neutral 3rd party lab

My claim still holds by clause 3.4.3(a). When I said 'is to rejected', I meant the 3.4.3(a) which is the ideal course of action in the event of not meeting standards. Clause 3.4.3(b) only there because of the impracticality of reloading to a ship after unloading at our ports - not the ideal solution.

Say what? The existence of clause 3.4.3 (b) invalidates your claim that "Coal with calorific value below 5900 are not to be accepted even with fines." The supplier doesn't have to bribe anyone to accept "coal with calorific value below 5900" because the contract itself allows it.

Whatever the case: your claim that the penalties wipes of any undue profits is unsupported, infact these (the Sunday Times article I quoted, and by the fact that the supplier is still supplying substandard coal, and supposedly paying the penalties) provide evidences to the exact opposite.

I thought 2 out of 3 shipments passed the quality test?

 

[KOTA NIHAL]

e langa sere namol sir gemu poddak hitapan

 

[CohenLenstra]

If that was the case the supplier wouldn't have requested it to be reexamined by a neutral 3rd party lab

Afaik supplier never requested. Supplier's load port report had massive deviations from the discharge port report, so went for a 3rd report which confimed the discharge port report.

I thought 2 out of 3 shipments passed the quality test?

Read the paper article. All 1 - 4 shipments are well under the rejection values.

"While the specification of the procurement agency Lanka Coal Company (Pvt) Ltd (LCC) was for GCVs of between 5,900 (reject value) and 6,150, Lakvijaya test reports show that the first shipment registered a calorific value of 5,348; the second one was 5,420; and the third was even lower, at 4,805."
......
"Puzzlingly, despite the Cotecna results clearing shipments two, three and four as being of acceptable quality, the Energy Ministry has estimated direct losses due to electricity generation from the first shipment to be Rs. 595.1mn (although the recoverable penalty is said to be Rs 644.5mn); the second to be Rs. 288.5mn (recoverable penalty is just Rs. 135.1mn; the third is a massive Rs. 1.04bn rupees (recoverable penalty is only Rs. 150.3mn); and the fourth is Rs. 865mn (recoverable penalty is Rs. 107.1mn).

The SOC observed that these estimated losses make it clear that the Lakvijaya internal report is accurate and that the numbers prove that the third shipment—with its estimated loss being the highest—was worse than the first."

These figures are now confirmed by generation output reports of MW generated per MT.

Say what? The existence of clause 3.4.3 (b) invalidates your claim that "Coal with calorific value below 5900 are not to be accepted even with fines." The supplier doesn't have to bribe anyone to accept "coal with calorific value below 5900" because the contract itself allows it.

This is exactly how the supplier is playing the agreement. I didn't say that anyone is being bribed. Why would he bribe his 'business partner'? Just share the profits. As for my claim, read my previous reply - I explained what I meant.

Our conversation is revealing how the supplier is playing the agreement. The more you argue, the more it becomes evident. If I was the supplier I wouldn't dare to play ball with a govt agreement if I had no insider assurances in my favour. That’s my take.

So what do you make out of it?

P.S: Honestly, accepting the fact that the JVP/NPP or whatever you call it, has nothing to separate them from the previous govts when it comes to corruption is just a matter of time, at least for those who are not brain dead.

 

[Hyaenidae]

Afaik supplier never requested. Supplier's load port report had massive deviations from the discharge port report, so went for a 3rd report which confimed the discharge port report.

"Preliminary sample tests from the first shipment out of a total of 25 (60,000 MT) reportedly failed in terms of calorific value and ash content, but further tests are being conducted at an independent laboratory after the Indian agent, Trident Chemphar Ltd, objected to the first results."

Read the paper article. All 1 - 4 shipments are well under the rejection values.

"While the specification of the procurement agency Lanka Coal Company (Pvt) Ltd (LCC) was for GCVs of between 5,900 (reject value) and 6,150, Lakvijaya test reports show that the first shipment registered a calorific value of 5,348; the second one was 5,420; and the third was even lower, at 4,805."
......
"Puzzlingly, despite the Cotecna results clearing shipments two, three and four as being of acceptable quality, the Energy Ministry has estimated direct losses due to electricity generation from the first shipment to be Rs. 595.1mn (although the recoverable penalty is said to be Rs 644.5mn); the second to be Rs. 288.5mn (recoverable penalty is just Rs. 135.1mn; the third is a massive Rs. 1.04bn rupees (recoverable penalty is only Rs. 150.3mn); and the fourth is Rs. 865mn (recoverable penalty is Rs. 107.1mn).

The SOC observed that these estimated losses make it clear that the Lakvijaya internal report is accurate and that the numbers prove that the third shipment—with its estimated loss being the highest—was worse than the first."

So those shipments passed the lab tests but failed when actually used at the plant? I smell a rat.

This is exactly how the supplier is playing the agreement. I didn't say that anyone is being bribed. Why would he bribe his 'business partner'? Just share the profits. As for my claim, read my previous reply - I explained what I meant.

What you explained is your take on the 3.4.3 (a), you didn't explain how 3.4.3 (b) could just be disregarded as you're doing right now

Honestly, accepting the fact that the JVP/NPP or whatever you call it, has nothing to separate them from the previous govts when it comes to corruption is just a matter of time, at least for those who are not brain dead.

I'll pass my judgment on that matter in 60 months - like I said before they have to undo 600+ months of corruption after all.

 

[Tramadol]

mekat maru habai umba umbema thattata cuck kiwwa ekata mita wada hina yanawa

Good morning cringe cuck
Eeye ganie ammai awe na neda?
Bath kewada?

 

[dayt0na]

Good morning cringe cuck
Eeye ganie ammai awe na neda?
Bath kewada?

kumakda me waliya
dennama NPP cucks la ne

 

[KDH]

අනිවා.

රෙන්න පුකේ ගූ නැති උනාට කතාවනම් තියෙන්නෙ ඕනා මේ ගානටවත්

පාතාලය වෙඩි තියන්නේ අපි පාතාලය මර්දනය කරන නිසයි..- මාලිමා මන්ත‍්‍රී​

“.
රජය විසින් ආරම්භ කර ඇති පාතාල මර්දන වැඩපිළිවෙළ සාර්ථක වෙමින් පවතින බවත්, එය අඩාල කිරීමේ අරමුණින් ඇතැම් පාතාල කල්ලි තැනින් තැන වෙඩි තැබීම් සිදු කරමින් සිටින බවත් ජාතික ජන බලවේගයේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී ලක්‍ෂමන් නිපුණආරච්චි මහතා සඳහන් කළේය.


අකුරේගොඩ ප්‍රදේශයේදී පුද්ගලයින් දෙදෙනෙකු වෙඩි තබා ඝාතනය කිරීමේ සිද්ධිය සම්බන්ධයෙන් මාධ්‍ය කළ විමසීමකට ප්‍රතිචාර දක්වමින් මන්ත්‍රීවරයා මේ බව පැවසීය.

'රජය ඉතා වගකීමෙන් යුතුව පාතාල ක්‍රියාකාරකම් මැඩපැවැත්වීමට මැදිහත් වී සිටිනවා. මෙම මර්දන ක්‍රියාවලිය දැඩි වෙද්දී, ඉන් බේරීම සඳහා සහ රජයේ ක්‍රියාමාර්ග අඩපණ කිරීමට පාතාල කල්ලි මෙවැනි ප්‍රචණ්ඩ ක්‍රියාවල නිරත වන බව පෙනෙන්නට තිබෙනවා.

රටේ ජාතික ආරක්ෂාව තහවුරු කරමින් පාතාලය මර්දනය කිරීමට රජය කැපවී සිටිනවා. එවැනි පසුබිමක මෙවැනි හුදෙකලා සිදුවීම් වාර්තා වුවද, පාතාලය මුළුමනින්ම තුරන් කිරීමේ මෙහෙයුම් නතර කරන්නේ නැහැ'


රටේ නීතිය හා සාමය සුරක්ෂිත කිරීම සඳහා රජය ගෙන යන වැඩපිළිවෙළ කිසිදු ලෙසකින් අඩාල වීමට ඉඩ නොදෙන බවද මන්ත්‍රීවරයා මෙහිදී අවධාරණය කළේය.
”

ඩෝබිලට කියන්නේ හරියට කතාවෙලා එකක් කියපල්ලා

 

[shenat]

පාතාලය වෙඩි තියන්නේ අපි පාතාලය මර්දනය කරන නිසයි..- මාලිමා මන්ත‍්‍රී​

“.
රජය විසින් ආරම්භ කර ඇති පාතාල මර්දන වැඩපිළිවෙළ සාර්ථක වෙමින් පවතින බවත්, එය අඩාල කිරීමේ අරමුණින් ඇතැම් පාතාල කල්ලි තැනින් තැන වෙඩි තැබීම් සිදු කරමින් සිටින බවත් ජාතික ජන බලවේගයේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී ලක්‍ෂමන් නිපුණආරච්චි මහතා සඳහන් කළේය.


අකුරේගොඩ ප්‍රදේශයේදී පුද්ගලයින් දෙදෙනෙකු වෙඩි තබා ඝාතනය කිරීමේ සිද්ධිය සම්බන්ධයෙන් මාධ්‍ය කළ විමසීමකට ප්‍රතිචාර දක්වමින් මන්ත්‍රීවරයා මේ බව පැවසීය.

'රජය ඉතා වගකීමෙන් යුතුව පාතාල ක්‍රියාකාරකම් මැඩපැවැත්වීමට මැදිහත් වී සිටිනවා. මෙම මර්දන ක්‍රියාවලිය දැඩි වෙද්දී, ඉන් බේරීම සඳහා සහ රජයේ ක්‍රියාමාර්ග අඩපණ කිරීමට පාතාල කල්ලි මෙවැනි ප්‍රචණ්ඩ ක්‍රියාවල නිරත වන බව පෙනෙන්නට තිබෙනවා.

රටේ ජාතික ආරක්ෂාව තහවුරු කරමින් පාතාලය මර්දනය කිරීමට රජය කැපවී සිටිනවා. එවැනි පසුබිමක මෙවැනි හුදෙකලා සිදුවීම් වාර්තා වුවද, පාතාලය මුළුමනින්ම තුරන් කිරීමේ මෙහෙයුම් නතර කරන්නේ නැහැ'


රටේ නීතිය හා සාමය සුරක්ෂිත කිරීම සඳහා රජය ගෙන යන වැඩපිළිවෙළ කිසිදු ලෙසකින් අඩාල වීමට ඉඩ නොදෙන බවද මන්ත්‍රීවරයා මෙහිදී අවධාරණය කළේය.
”

ඩෝබිලට කියන්නේ හරියට කතාවෙලා එකක් කියපල්ලා

මට කිව්වට වැඩක් නෑ උබලගෙ බයි සිලි බයි ගෲප් වල දාපන් ඩෝබිල ඔක්කොම කතා වෙලා එකක් කියන්න කියලා.