. The Committee had reservations about the positioning of PASA under CEF as holding company. The situation was deemed to create doubts about the independence of PASA when it comes to regulating PetroSA operational issues. . The Committee needed clarity from PASA as to which operations they regulated in terms of upstream or downstream activities. . PASA was requested to shed more light regarding their sources of revenue and whether their source of revenue was only from the fiscus. . There was lack of substance regarding PetroSA's commitment to climate change issues. . The committee felt that the numbers of PetroSA's employees who went through the Centre of Excellency were low. . There were a seemingly large number of foreign nationals employed by PetroSA. An explanation was sought as to the rationale of employing foreign nationals when on the other hand unemployment levels were soaring in South Africa. . PetroSA was asked to take the Committee to its confidence that one of their operations 'Project Mthombo' was still viable and worth investing public funds. . The staff composition of SFF was a worrying factor as many employees were close to retirement. This was not displaying any assurance for continuity. . The Committee was at pains to understand the OPCSA's loss of R1.1million in 2009, although a profit of 8 million rand was realised in the 2010/11 financial year. . Not much information had been shared regarding social responsibility initiatives . There was no clear justification why SFF chose a target of 10.3 million barrels as strategic stock reserves for the country.