|
1. In quoting the price of fuel oil (Platt's Mediterranean), the Ministry failed to take into consideration the favourable exchange rate of the dollar to the Maltese Lira. Data clearly shows that the price of both LSFO and HSFO in Maltese Liri has not fluctuated wildly in 2004.
Indeed there were instances in the not too distant past when both types of fuel oils were more expensive. How can the Ministry justify the surcharge by linking it to the international price of Brent Crude Oil?
2. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report published by the ministry shows that the Electricity Division's fuel bill will be down by more than Lm2 million for 2004 when compared to 2003. Given these circumstances why did the Minister persist in linking what are supposed to be Enemalta's additional losses for 2004 and 2005 to the electricity and water surcharge?
3. The PWHC report talks of an additional loss of Lm6 million for Enemalta in 2005 from higher fuel prices. Why has Government insisted in quoting Lm16 million instead, which is the loss in 2005 since 1999?
4. Is the surcharge aimed at recouping Enemalta's losses since 1999 when utility prices were reviewed downwards?
5. In the brief given to PWHC, why did the Minister not ask PWHC to audit and verify the information and data handed to it by the Ministry and Enemalta?
6. For the past year, from where has Enemalta imported its fuel oil and at what price?
7. Who are Enemalta's procurement agents?
8. Why has Government now decided to set up a technical team composed of people outside Enemalta to advise on the purchase of oil products for the public Corporation?
9. Is Government satisfied with the way Enemalta bought its oil requirements on the international market over recent years?
10. Has Enemalta over the last five years entered into any hedging agreements to purchase its oil products?
|
