There was never a Russia - South Africa Nuclear Deal - HK

Link: https://www.biznews.com/energy/2024/01/08/there-was-neverrussia-south-africa-nuclear-deal Please see link above for source text.

There was never a Russia-South Africa Nuclear deal 8th January 2024 by Editor BizNews Hügo Krüger scrutinises the alleged “Russian Nuclear Deal” between the South African Government and the Jacob Zuma administration, revealing flaws in claims and the lack of evidence. Detailed analysis dismisses the R1 trillion figure, challenges the narrative of a signed agreement with Russia, and questions the credibility of anti-nuclear activism. Examining agreements with France and China, concludes that misinformation on nuclear power has misled the public, potentially contributing to current issues like load shedding. It emphasises the need for accurate information and critical evaluation of energy policy decisions.

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you 1

up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

There never was a Russian South African Nuclear Deal

By Hügo Krüger* (Contributing authors: Olivia Vaughan, and Leon Louw)* The claims of a Nuclear Deal between the South African Government and the Jacob Zuma administration stem from what can be called, at best, sloppy journalism, and an astonishing lack of knowledge on how nuclear procurement and commercial contracting works.

In 2016, I was granted a scholarship to do a MSc in Civil Nuclear Engineering in France at the École Spéciale des Travaux Publics (ESTP Paris). It turned out to be a coincidence that I enrolled for my master’s degree at a time when the South African Government and Eskom was deliberating on procuring 9,6 GW of new baseload nuclear power.

Since then, I have taken an interest in the alleged South African Russian Nuclear Deal and collected information from various sources to try and make sense of what occurred.

The topic has come to attention again following the recent exchange between Dr. Kelvin Kemm, the former Chair of the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa, and Kevin Mileham, the Shadow Minister of Energy for the Democratic Alliance.

In my view the fear of the excessive cost of nuclear power, and of corruption, under the right contractual conditions is completely irrational if one evaluates the facts objectively. Dr. Kemm is correct when he says that there is no reason to believe that nuclear power lends itself to more corruption than any of the other major energy sources (wind, solar, hydro, 2

coal, oil, and methane gas).

Dr. Kemm is also correct that there is simply no evidence of a signed nuclear agreement with Russia.

The evidence seems to be overwhelming that: 1. there never was, nor could possibly have been, a “nuclear deal”, 2. the R1 trillion amount was a fabrication, 3. the court never ruled against either a “deal” or nuclear power, and 4. a nuclear power plant could be completed within five or six years from the point of first concrete and eight to ten years from the time of approval..

Read more: Russian deals and unchecked nuclear plans are nothing more than energy sector state capture – Kevin Mileham MP

The “Russian” Nuclear Deal The alleged deal that took place between Russia and South Africa was brought to the attention of the South African public by the journalist Karyn Maughan in her book titled “Nuclear: Inside South Africa’s Secret Deal”.

The Russian nuclear deal was said to begin in 2014 when then President Jacob Zuma received treatment in Russia after being poisoned. According to her, Zuma had a belief that the CIA was out to get him and therefore he had to go to Russia for treatment. It is during this time that he allegedly agreed informally with Russian President Vladimir Putin to construct 9,6 GW of nuclear power plants. Putin was “anti-western” and therefore that made Russia in the eyes of Zuma the ideal vendor.

There are also other allegations in her book such as the now classified Project Spider-Web Dossier and the attempt to undermine the Treasury.

These allegations came up in the Zondo Commission during the testimony 3

of the finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene, but the Zondo commission didn’t find any evidence of a Russian nuclear deal. I have no special insights on these political matters or their relevance on the nuclear deal, but note that the case against Matšshela Koko – the alleged State Capture Kingpin – was thrown out by the Middleburg Magistrate Court, because of the unreasonable delays. This is understandable given that the arrests were made over a year before the court struck the case from the roll and that, the National Prosecuting Authority couldn’t bring anything substantial against him.

These matters aside, I quote below from official documentation to show why the major claims that there was a signed deal are highly implausible.

The joint cooperation-agreement Miss Maughan, in her book, suggest that the Russian-South African deal came to fruition on September 22, 2014 during a joint announcement between the then South African Minister of Energy, Tina JoematPettersson, and Rosatom. With the minister saying the following at the event.

“According to Ms Tina Joemat-Pettersson, ‘South Africa today, as never before, is interested in the massive development of nuclear power, which is an important driver for the national economy growth. I am sure that cooperation with Russia will allow us to implement our ambitious plans for the creation by 2030 of 9,6 GW of new nuclear capacities based on modern and safe technologies. This agreement opens up the door for South Africa to access Russian technologies, funding, infrastructure, and provides a proper and solid platform for future extensive collaboration’.”

The joint cooperative agreement with Russia does mention the 9,6 GW of nuclear capabilities, but is not a contract for it.

“The Parties shall create the conditions for the development of strategic cooperation and partnership in the following areas:

4

1. development of a comprehensive nuclear new build program for peaceful uses in the Republic of South Africa, including enhancement of key elements of nuclear energy infrastructure in accordance with IAEA recommendations 2. design, construction, operation and decommissioning of NPP units based on the VVER reactor technology in the Republic of South Africa, with total installed capacity of about 9,6 GW.” But what is not mentioned is that Minister Joemat-Pieterson also signed a similar agreement with France and China at that time. The website Politicsweb, for example, reported wrote the following on the 14 October 2014 on the deal with France: “South Africa is pleased to continue the long-standing cooperation with France, as this paves the way for establishing a nuclear procurement process. To date, South Africa has concluded several Inter-Governmental Agreements and will proceed to sign similar agreements with the remaining nuclear vendor countries in preparation for the rollout of 9.6GW Nuclear New Build programme, remarked Minister Joemat-Pettersson.” .

The text from the French-South African joint cooperative agreement reads the following. “(b) use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, including the design, construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants in the Republic of South Africa, with total installed capacity of about 9.6 GW, and the fabrication of nuclear fuel.”

South Africa also signed a similar agreement with China as the website World Nuclear News reported on 10 November 2014: “According to a statement from the South African energy ministry, the agreement ‘initiates the preparatory phase for a possible utilization of Chinese nuclear technology in South Africa.’ It added, ‘The government has reaffirmed its commitment to expand nuclear power generation by an additional 9.6 GW, in line with the Integrated Resource Plan 2010-2030, as a means of ensuring energy security and contributing to economic growth’.”

5

The Chinese agreement reads the following: “The Republic of South Africa is planning civil nuclear energy new-builds with a total capacity of 9.6 GWe, with the aim of satisfying the increasing power demand, reduce carbon emissions, facilitate localisation for industrialisation, economic and social development, and is also willing to conduct cooperation with the People’s Republic of China based on the significant on-going and long-standing cooperation between the two countries.”

I have two written statements from Rosatom South Africa on their perspective. Rosatom asserts that Miss Maughan did not take their response into account when she wrote her book or reported on the topic.

Their exchanges can be found in the following link, and I quote.

“Never in the history of Russia-South Africa relationship were any type of binding documents on nuclear new build programme signed. There were no deals, no contracts, no nothing. Instead, several cooperation papers were signed: an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and two Memorandums of Understandings (MOU’s).

The IGA on “Strategic Partnership and Cooperation in the Fields of Nuclear Power and Industry” was signed in September 2014. It was intended for laying the foundation for a strategic partnership, which would focus on the development of a comprehensive nuclear new-build programme. Again, the IGA is not a contract, nor does it guarantee a contract. The IGA merely refers to what Russia was willing to provide if chosen as the preferred vendor at that time. South Africa signed similar intergovernmental agreements with China and France, which expressed interest in assisting South Africa with its nuclear ambitions”.

Additionally, during my presentation on the future of nuclear power to the South African Free Market Foundation in September 2023, Dr Thapelo Motshudi, the Chairperson of the Nuclear Energy Regulator of South Africa from 2016 to 2023, was in the audience. He told me that he also inquired about the alleged “Russian Nuclear Deal” and requested more details from the Daily Maverick, Mail and Guardian, Radio 702, and other outlets that ran with the story. They have been unable to provide him with evidence of a 6

signed agreement.

What should one conclude from the above, Rosatom’s statements and the opinion of the Regulator? That Miss Maughan did not distinguish between or understand the difference between a cooperation agreement (which usually precedes a nuclear or other procurement agreement) and how Engineering Procurement and Contracting (EPC) works in practice..

7