Can the Coal Reports Be Trusted..?

(Rajith Keerthi Tennekoon)

The entire country is now discussing the quality of coal. The two primary reports on which this discussion is based are outlined below. However, the government has not addressed the credibility of these reports. Moreover, there is no clear indication of where these reports were prepared, by whom, or from which institution they were issued.

Here are several observations regarding Report No. 1 and Report No. 2:

According to the letterhead, the report was prepared by “Lakvijaya Power Station LABORATORY TEST REPORT (LVPS).” In reality, there is no evidence that such a laboratory exists (for example, no address, telephone number, email, or responsible authority can be found).

Let us assume that “Lakvijaya Power Station” refers to the entire system comprising all three power plants. However, the official name of Norochcholai is Lakvijaya Power Plant (LVPP). The abbreviation used in the letterhead is LVPS, not LVPP. The Ceylon Electricity Board website lists the Norochcholai plant as www.lvpp.ceb.lk In a formal laboratory report, the institution’s name cannot reasonably be written incorrectly.

In Report No. 1, the issue date at the bottom of the page is stated as Issue 01 (01/11/2017), Revision 01 (10/11/2017), and Amendment 0. How can a coal shipment unloaded in December 2026 have a report dated 2017? If the unloading and testing occurred on different dates, how do both reports carry the same dates? (A complaint regarding this has been lodged by Sanjeewa Mahawatta.)

The vessel MV Ceylon Breeze has reportedly been confirmed by international testing institutions as carrying substandard coal that should be rejected. The government, ministry, and coal company have acknowledged that the shipment did not meet proper standards. According to the stevedores’ report, the actual discharge completion for MV Ceylon Breeze was on 04.01.2026 at 23:10.

However, the report circulated on social media carries Reference No. 455 and states that unloading began on January 2, 2025. The year (2025) is incorrect. This cannot be a mere typographical error, as not only the year but also the date itself is wrong. The actual date and time were January 1, 2026, at 11:45 a.m., whereas the social media report mentions January 2, 2025.

Furthermore, it is not possible to issue a 2026 report for a shipment claimed to have been unloaded in 2025. Any properly collected laboratory sample must clearly indicate the date of collection and expiry.

Now consider the second vessel (MV NS Guangzhou). In that report too, the letterhead, issue date, and year are incorrect. According to the stevedores’ report, actual discharge completion occurred from 04.01.2026 at 23:10 until 09.01.2026 at 07:45 a.m.

However, the report circulated on social media and cited by politicians and activists states,

• Unloading period: January 5, 2025 at 15:25 to January 9, 2025.

• Report issue date: January 9, 2026.

• Reference No: 456.

How can a January 9, 2025 report be issued for coal unloaded in 2026? Those who speak confidently about these reports must explain this. Key Issues Regarding the Credibility of These Two Reports

• They cannot clearly be identified as authentic laboratory reports (no institutional identity).

• Even basic information (unloading date, time, reference number, issue date) is incorrect.

• The reports lack essential details such as the name, designation, signature, date, and time of the responsible officer (applicable to both reports).

The heads of the institutions that allegedly issued these reports must clarify whether reference numbers 455 and 456 were carelessly typed or not. (There is curiosity to review other reports issued by this institution.)

These reports resemble documents typed on an ordinary computer using MS Word, containing typical data-entry errors. If so, what is the scientific validity and value of the ongoing political debate—by both government and opposition/civil activists—about coal quality based on such weak reports..?

Why is no party discussing the official reports prepared at the loading port or at the point of discharge..? Payments to suppliers and penalties are determined based on reports issued at those points. If those reports are not trusted, how are payments being made? If there are doubts, why not appoint a third-party accredited institution to test the coal quality and clear these suspicions..?

Before the war even began, Sri Lanka experienced fuel and gas shortages. Norochcholai cannot now be shut down. Reports suggest a possible El Niño condition in 2026, which may reduce rainfall and create a hydropower crisis. With instability in Middle Eastern oil supplies, diesel availability is also uncertain.

If there is coal-related fraud, it is the responsibility of the Criminal Investigation Department and the Bribery Commission to act. Resolving the country’s energy crisis is not merely a government issue but a matter affecting 22 million citizens. The public does not need power cuts in addition to gas, fuel, and fertilizer shortages.

The country’s energy crisis is visible in queues along the streets. What the government and opposition must present is a solution—not further confusion. Scientifically validated and accredited laboratory reports must form the basis of any discussion.

It must be emphasized again: this debate is not about the official accredited reports used for payments—whether at the South African loading port or after discharge in Puttalam. (The Sri Lankan government has not made any such official reports public.) The discussion concerns only the reports circulating on social media under the heading “Lakvijaya Power Station LABORATORY TEST REPORT (LVPS).”

The simple question raised by this article is,

Does a laboratory called “Lakvijaya Power Station LABORATORY TEST REPORT (LVPS)” actually exist? If so, where is it located, and under whose authority does it operate? Is it an accredited institution? Who prepared these two widely discussed reports? Who is responsible for the incorrect dates and times contained within them?

Does the government accept these reports and their data regarding coal quality? If not, why is the government remaining silent? Do the political parties and opposition groups presenting coal analysis reports accept these documents..? These are the questions that must be answered.