by SISEKO NJOBENI

8 October 2010

AN AMBITIOUS plan to reduce SA’s reliance on coal by almost half by 2030 and to more than double the use of nuclear energy was released by the Department of Energy yesterday, while the contribution of renewable energy technologies is poised for a significant increase.

The proposals, which are part of the department’s draft integrated electricity resource plan, show the government’s preferred energy mix for the next 20 years.

They provide prospective investors with an indication of the shape of SA’s future energy industry. The integrated resource plan is a 20-year electricity capacity plan that gives an outcome of projected future electricity demand, how the demand would be met and at what cost.

The interministerial committee on energy, set up to consider energy policy issues, has approved the integrated resource plan.

The committee’s approval paves the way for a second round of a public consultation process. The department held the first round of consultations in June.

In the draft integrated resource plan, the department is proposing that coal contribute 48% to the energy mix by 2030, followed by renewable energy (16%), nuclear (14%), peaking open cycle gas turbine (9%), peaking pump storage (6%), mid-merit gas (5%) and baseload import hydro (2%). These point to a window of investment opportunity mainly in renewable energy and nuclear technologies. The draft plan envisages 52248MW of new capacity in the next 20 years.

While coal will still be the biggest contributor to electricity generation, the department’s proposals represent a significant reduction in its contribution.

Coal currently accounts for over 90% of electricity generation. Eskom’s two nuclear reactors at the Koeberg power station supply 1800MW or 6% of SA’s electricity needs. The renewable energy industry is yet to take off in SA.

The department said in drawing up the draft integrated resource plan the inter- ministerial committee considered various scenarios. These included cancelling the Kusile power station, or delaying the building of Medupi and Kusile power stations.

Eskom MD for systems operations and planning Kannan Lakmeeharan yesterday repeated the utility’s commitment to completing Kusile.

‘These are just scenarios. In fact, the final proposal includes both Kusile and Medupi.

‘The department also says we should not delay the two projects because they are important for security of supply,’ Mr Lakmeeharan said.

The department has also warned of looming power supply constraints. In a report on the medium-term risk mitigation plan for electricity in the period between this year and 2016, the department said latest forecasts indicate a worsening of electricity supply constraints from next year until 2016.

‘This situation poses a real risk of rolling blackouts, similar to those experienced in 2008, and a serious threat to government’s objectives for growth and job creation,’ the department said.

Mr Lakmeeharan said Eskom had in the past alluded to the looming supply constraints ‘because the rate of capacity addition will be less than the (electricity) demand reduction. The report says we must do something. Options include energy efficiency, independent power producers (contribution) and the energy conservation scheme’ .

Frost & Sullivan energy programme manager Cornelis van der Waal yesterday applauded the department ‘for coming up with something that portrays the real scenario as we see it. Urgent action is needed.’ The required action includes commissioning power from independent
suppliers, Mr van der Waal said.

The committee had asked the team drawing up the plan to do more work on the possibility of incorporating carbon capture and storage capability on all future coal-fired power stations.

njobenis@bdfm.co.za
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=123180

Indian Lawmakers Approve Atomic Liability Bill

Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2010

India’s Parliament last week passed the divisive nuclear liability bill, paving the way for implementation of the landmark 2008 U.S.-Indian civilian atomic trade agreement, Reuters reported (see GSN, Aug. 25).

The Aug. 30 passage by Parliament’s upper house occurred ahead of U.S. President Barack Obama’s planned November visit to the South Asian state.

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill received the support of India’s leading opposition party, Bharatiya Janata, when the government acceded to stronger terms against nuclear suppliers and power plant operators that business groups said might limit development of India’s burgeoning atomic energy industry.

Under the measure, plant operator liability in the event of an atomic incident was increased to about $320 million and the suppliers of nuclear materials and technology could also be sued (Prusty/Kuncheria, Reuters, Aug. 30).

Some experts believe the harsh measures could lead to weaker implementation of the atomic agreement that permits U.S. nuclear firms to export atomic technologies and materials to the nuclear-armed nation in exchange for India agreeing to open up its civilian atomic sites to international monitors, the New York Times reported.

A key foreign affairs initiative of the Bush administration, the 2008 deal ended New Delhi’s decades-long status as a nuclear pariah. A number of other nations have also now established their own atomic trade deals with India.

International rules presently limit liability to the operators of nuclear power plants. By including language that leaves open the potential for suppliers to be held responsible for a mishap, the Indian legislation goes against worldwide norms.

“This makes the fruits of the Indo-U.S. deal go to waste,” New Delhi-based security analyst G. Balachandran said. “It may well be the end of civil nuclear growth in India.”

Leading Bharatiya Janata Party lawmaker Arun Jaitley defended the legislation, saying it permits a nuclear plant operator to file suit against suppliers only under specific conditions (Jim Yardley, New York Times, Aug. 30).

Sudhinder Thakur, executive director of the state-owned Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd., said in released comments that “no manufacturer, Indian or foreign, would be able to serve the nuclear power industry” in his nation due to the legislation, the Washington Times reported Sunday.

The liability bill will be “a significant deterrent not only to U.S. business but, equally importantly, to Indian and other international private business as well,” said Ashley Tellis, who took part in the U.S.-Indian atomic deal negotiations.

“It’s going to be interesting to see whether the Indians, now that they have passed this law, are going to stick to their guns or cave under possible U.S. pressure to reverse course,” Nonproliferation Policy Education Center Executive Director Henry Sokolski said (Ashish Kumar Sen, Washington Times, Sept. 5).

Source: http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100907_3150.php

In South Africa, the nuclear industry has for years been trying to establish whether changes will be brought about to a virtually non-existent nuclear liabilities law. Repeated enquiries to the Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA) and the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) have gone unheeded for years. After a pummeling for a response, they finally replied three years later that the question should be submitted in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act. And this is where they’ve left it.

It is understood that the Stellenbosch University was looking into the issue of nuclear liabilities and third party insurances for the nuclear industry, but enquiries into this have also met a with a dead end.

Activists in South Africa maintain that despite strong environmental legislation, the regulation,  monitoring and standards practised by the nuclear industry remain among the most secretive and fatally flawed in the world.



Acid Mine Drainage -the Eastern basin is currently experiencing an ingress of 120-million litres of water and only has the capacity to treat about 80-million litres of water

If relevant to your concerns and environmental issues,  kindly raise your concerns regarding Mine Waste Solutions’ (MWS) Water Use License authorisation and positive environmental authorization for its Centralised Tailings Storage Facility (super dump) within the KOSH goldfields, one kilometer from the highly compromised Vaal Barrage River system. MWS is of the intention to reprocess 15 uraniferous tailings dams, to reprocess 1.9 million tons per month of uraniferous tailings (producing 922,000 lb/yr U₃O₈ in yellowcake) and to establish a new centralized tailings storage facility of about 1 400 ha, one kilometer from the Vaal River.  The properties adjacent to the proposed super dump are game farms and conservancies.

Your concerns and objections (please see subjoined “gaps in information”) should be submitted to:

Mr. Scot Sobey (scot@firsturanium.com)

Mr. Tshepo Moremi (Tshepo@nwpg.gov.za)

Ms. Deborah Mochotlhi (mochotlhi@dwaf.gov.za)

Mr. Willem Grobler (groblerw@dwaf.gov.za )

Mr. Piet Theron (PietT@nda.agric.za)

Mr. David Klein (DavidKl@nda.agic.za )

In terms of Mine Waste Solutions’ Environmental Management Report, it was submitted that the following gaps in the environmental impact assessment exist:

1. The existing groundwater monitoring network at MWS, Buffelsfontein and Hartebeestfontein does not meet all the requirements of [an effective ] monitoring network. (The purpose of groundwater monitoring network is to provide an early warning of possible adverse effects of the activities in the vicinity of the tailings complex, on both yield and quality of the shallow groundwater system.) No dedicated monitoring boreholes are available for the existing MWS plant site and the proposed extension site. The leachate from the proposed TSF will lead to long-term groundwater pollution.
2. A detailed geochemical assessment was not incorporated; only static laboratory test work was included on available tailings samples for the purpose of the geochemical assessment because of the limited time frame.
3. A  geophysical assessment must be done to confirm the structural geology to the east of the proposed site.
4. Certain areas were excluded re aquifer related flow parameters.
5. The status of groundwater users and uses was not confirmed.
6. The proposed reclamation sites (existing TSFs) are mostly located on dolomite/chert formations.  Ground water characteristics for these sites are unknown and NO site specific aquifer data exist.  MWS solutions will take responsibility for existing contamination plumes BUT these are not clearly  identified.  Future positive impacts of the proposed reclamation activities can therefore not be demonstrated.
7. After closure, the mine workings will flood and the dolomite aquifers will largely recover to pre-mining levels.  There are currently no management options in place to cope with contaminated decant water.
8. The flora assessment was incomplete since most of the investigations were conducted during the winter period, and no investigations were conducted during or after the high rainfall seasons.
9. The wetland assessment was incomplete since the investigation was undertaken at the end of the dry season which made plant species identification very difficult.

In view of the aforesaid gaps it perplexes how a water use licence and a positive environmental authorisation could have been issued by the Department of Water Affairs and the North West Department of Agriculture and Rural Development respectively.

The impacts of mining on the environment is current and the long term impacts from Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and heavy metal accumulation, including Uranium,  in the vicinity of the CTSF, Tailings Storage Facilities and reprocessed footprints within the KOSH goldfields have been acknowledged.  (Please see the DMR’s Regional Mine Closure Strategy for the KOSH goldfields and the Environmental Management Report of Mine Waste Solutions, March, 2009.)

In terms of MWS’s  Environmental Management Report “Mine Waste Solutions will be responsible for the existing pollution plume and zone of influence.  The anticipated zone of influence (SO₄ plume) falls within The Koekemoerspruit# and Vaal River Catchment* areas.”

#(The Koekemoerspruit, is a tributary of the Vaal River.  The Koekemoerspruit catchment is already compromised.  The transport of dissolved uranium from slimes dams is a major pathway for environmental contamination of the Koekemoerspruit. Reference:  “Gold tailings as a source of waterborne uranium contamination of streams –  The Koekemoerspruit (Klerksdorp goldfield, South Africa) as a case study.  Part I of III: Uranium migration along the aqueous pathway”. Frank Winde, Peter Wade and Izak Jacobus van der Walt)

*( In terms of the Water Research Commission Report No. 1397/1/07, entitled “Monitoring Environmental Water for the Presence of Toxic Agents:  A Pilot Study in the Vaal Barrage Catchment” it was found that “mining operations, even after they have been discontinued, are still having a major impact on the water quality in the Vaal Barrage catchment to the extent that it can no longer be compared with other natural water systems…only 21% of the sites showed no evidence of cytotoxicity at any time.  This suggests a failure on the part of those agencies responsible for the enforcement of existing  regulations and is an unacceptable situation, bearing in mind that source water from this survey area impacts directly upon the Vaal Barrage, a national water resource….Substantial deposits of immobilized toxicants could have accumulated in the southern Gauteng river silts over a prolonged periods.  Experience elsewhere suggest that such deposits pose long-term health and environmental risks”.)

With gratitude,

Mariette Liefferink.
CEO:  FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

On 1 September the Federation for a Sustainable Environment submitted the following request for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act:

Dear Mr. Sobey,

In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Section 32 (1) of the Bill of Rights “everyone has the right of access to any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights”.

In the context of Mine Waste Solutions’ establishment of a Tailings Disposal Facility, 1 (one) kilometer from the Vaal River, the rights that interested and affected parties wish to exercise and protect are:

1. Everyone has the right to life (Section 11);
2. Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health and wellbeing; and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development (Section 24);
3. Everyone has the right to have access to sufficient water (Section 27).

I am of the intention, in the public interest and on behalf of members of affected communities, and the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, to submit my request for access to public documents such as the Water Use Licence, the Social and Labour Plan, the amended Environmental Management Programme and Environmental Impact Assessment Report, etc. to Mine Waste Solutions, in terms of the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No 2 of 2000 (PAIA).  Please advise me what Mine Waste Solutions’ prescribed format is.

I shall appreciate your response before  the 5^th of September, 2010 since your response will ripen my judgment.

Sincerely,

Mariette Liefferink.

CEO:  FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

As an act of goodwill to determine the energy plan for the coming 25-35 years South Africans are currently involved in a “participatory & consultative” Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) process – a supposed blueprint for South Africa’s future, in spite of objections that government’s Integrated Energy Process is still far from completion.

Among others the Civil Society Energy Caucus, a coalition of numerous civil society organisations that engage on energy issues, submitted detailed comments on the IRP2 and presented views at stakeholder plenary session of 8^th June. They have still not had any response to their submission from the Department of Energy or anyone else.

The deadly legacy of radioactive toxic contamination of water in the Witwatersrand from uranium and chemicals from mining has yet to be adequately addressed.

When you’ve done reading this, please Google “Russian nuclear legacy” showing a litany of horror stories from warheads and decaying submarines to radioactive lakes and rivers, massive nuclear explosions in addition to the Chernobyl accident, growing discoveries of radioactive “hotspots”, over-filled radioactive storage facilites in very bad condition, neglected maintenance and unpaid nuclear workers.  Environmental groups say the Russian nuclear industry has not managed to address the question of nuclear waste disposal in general.

Russia’s nuclear reprocessing facility – Mayak – is described as “the most polluted place on earth” and has seen a series of serious accidents. But Mayak is just one of Russia’s nuke facilities. The country has almost 100, situated in 10 “nuclear cities”, mostly closed and the location for some of Russia’s most dangerous rotting infrastructure. Reports indicate there is still a very low level of safety awareness in that country.

Highlights of Zuma’s deal with Russia:

• Medvedev, Zuma make deals in metals and nuclear industriesRussia to control almost half of South Africa’s low enriched uranium market
• Russia to control almost half of South Africa’s low enriched uranium market
• Deliveries begin this year
• Russia to provide SA nuclear power stations with uranium until 2017
• Russians to help build new nuclear plants in SA
• Eskom confirmed it has already signed contract with Russian U-trader

Maxim Shipenkov / AP

President Dmitry Medvedev welcoming South African leader Jacob Zuma in the plush Kremlin ahead of talks Thursday.

Medvedev, Zuma Oversee Dealmaking

06 August 2010 (which marks the 65^th anniversary of the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshma, Japan)

By Maria Antonova

President Dmitry Medvedev met with his South African counterpart, Jacob Zuma, on Thursday in Moscow, where the two oversaw deals in the metals and nuclear industries.

Under the deal, Russian state uranium trader Tenex will sell enriched uranium to Eskom Holdings for use at South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear station, which accounts for 5 percent of South Africa’s energy needs.

The contract is an extension of one reached 15 years ago that is about to expire. Under the new contract, deliveries will begin in 2011 and last until 2017 to 2018. Russia hopes eventually to control 45 percent of the low-enriched uranium market in South Africa, Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko told reporters.

Additionally, Norilsk Nickel signed a memorandum with the South African government to create a joint mining venture in South Africa.

“We will be engaged in the exploration and production of minerals in the framework of this venture with the South African government,” Norilsk Nickel head Vladimir Strzhalkovsky said, Interfax reported.

The metals giant is already involved in a joint venture with African Rainbow Minerals, which mines for nickel, zinc, cobalt, chromium and platinum.

On the governmental level, the two countries agreed to cooperate on space issues and may jointly launch satellites using Russian equipment, Federal Space Agency head Anatoly Perminov said, adding that Russia would also build a space data collection center in South Africa.

Among other deals reached in the course of the visit were agreements to cooperate on agricultural trade issues and visa-free diplomatic visits.

Medvedev and Zuma, who led a delegation of 11 ministers (75 officials from 13 departments, including five young people from the newly revamped youth entity, the National Youth Development Agency…and business delegation, which is expected to be led by the chairman of the SA-Russia Business Council, Robert Gumede*) and about 100 businessmen in his first visit to Russia since taking office in May, also discussed South Africa’s potential participation in the BRIC bloc.

Brazil, Russia, India and China, which have been grouped together as “BRICs” because of their fast-growing economies and regional influence, formalized the grouping when they started holding official summits last year.

“South Africa’s participation in discussing various issues in the BRIC format would be very productive” since South Africa is also an emerging economy, Medvedev said, according to the transcript of the conference posted on the Kremlin’s web site.

“Our countries share the commitment to a more fair distribution of power and influence on the global economic scene,” Zuma said, adding that Russia and South Africa were “natural partners.”

Russia has always been “sympathetic to the struggle of African countries for independence” and is “open to developing relations of a new kind,” Medvedev said.

Zuma offered Medvedev his condolences for the Russians who have perished in the wildfires that are currently devouring the central part of the country. He also invited Medvedev to visit South Africa in 2012, the year of Russia’s presidential elections.

© Copyright 1992-2010. The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.

Highlights from other reports:

Business Report reports:

-          South African power utility Eskom on Friday confirmed that it has signed a contract with Russian state uranium trader Techsnapexport (Tenex) for the supply of low enriched uranium to Eskom.

-          Russia’s nuclear regulatory body Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation suggested that Russia was ready to build a nuclear power plant in South Africa.

The Nambian reports:

-          No tenders have been issued yet, but discussions have taken place, according to Trade Minister Rob Davies.

-          A delegation visited Rosatom’s subsidiary Tvel, which makes nuclear fuel, on Monday, Tvel said in a statement Wednesday.

Bloomberg reports:

-          Russia, South Africa Discuss Potential Nuclear, LNG, Titanium Co-Operation

-          Zuma led a delegation of more than 50 politicians, including 11 Ministers and businessmen to Russia this week.

-          Trade Minister Rob Davies  said SA sees mining, energy and transport as areas where ties with Russia can grow.

-          “We see deepening relations with the BRIC countries,” Davies said, referring to Brazil, Russia, India and China, an acronym combining the biggest emerging markets. Trade between Russia and South Africa reached 4 billion rand ($550 million) in 2008, he said.

-          Tenex, a unit of Russian nuclear holding company Rosatom Corp., is in talks over supplying South Africa’s Koeberg power plant, Davies said. Russia is also interested in being involved should South Africa decide to build more plants, he said.

-          Russia may also deliver LNG to Mossel Bay, Davies said, without giving further details. PetroSA, South Africa’s state- owned oil company, needs to secure replacement supplies to feed the Mossel Bay refinery as its natural gas reserves dwindle.

-          South Africa also hopes to use Russian technology to develop a mineral sands deposit that could yield titanium, zirconium and silicon, Davies said. Rare Metals Industries Ltd., a venture with South African, Russian and U.S. investors, said in February it may list shares to fund the $1.5 billion cost of a processing plant needed to turn sands into metal.

RTT News reports:

-          Russia has agreed to provide technological support and uranium in building South African nuclear power stations until at least 2017.

-          A contract to this effect will come into effect next year.

-          Addressing a news conference in the Kremlin after talks with Zuma, Medvdev said the deal was ‘just a beginning’ in developing the immature relations between the two countries.

-          The deal includes defense and aerospace

-          Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia’s nuclear power corporation ROSATOM, told reporters that the deal enabled Russia to control nearly half of South Africa’s uranium market.

-          Russia, possessing the world’s biggest uranium-enrichment capacities, is planning to set up the world’s first nuclear fuel reserve to ensure uninterrupted supplies for the world’s power reactors.

-          Russia’s critics have accused it of using its energy supplies as a political weapon.

Fin24 reports:

-          Deliveries under the contract will begin in 2011 and last until 2017-2018, Kremlin documents seen by Reuters showed.

-          Bilateral trade between South Africa and Russia remains tiny, totaling just $517m last year, a fraction of a percent of Russia’s total external trade turnover of $469bn, according to Russian statistics. Some investment bankers in Moscow say that Russia has been much slower than China to appreciate the potential benefits of investment in Africa. Zuma, who leads Africa’s biggest economy, is seeking to increase trade with Russia and China, which are forecast to grow about 4% and 10% respectively this year.

EarthTimes.org reports:

-          The South African Space Agency and the Russian Federal Space Agency are also to sign an accord on cooperation in the area of earth observation. Last year, Russia launched South Africa’s first satellite aboard a Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

-          Zuma’s visit is part of a diplomatic and trade blitz of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) bloc of four biggest emerging markets. Earlier this year, Zuma visited Brazil and India. Later this month, he will also visit China.

Business Day reports:

-          Russia, in hosting SA, is on a quest to regain lost ground as an influential player on the continent. Its influence has waned significantly since the collapse of the Soviet Union almost two decades ago. During those days, most exiled African leaders who belonged to liberation movements – including the African National Congress – received their tuition, including grounding in economic policy, in the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union not only reduced Russia’s influence in Africa politically but also saw its communist economic principles discarded. Russia is now a democracy pursuing a free market economic system, the very system it detested so passionately during its days as the Soviet Union.

-          Also on the agenda will be cooperation in the field of energy affairs. GazProm, a Russian energy enterprise, is looking to explore new natural gas deposits along SA’s western coast.

-          There are also plans to hold further discussions on the proposed Kudu power plant on Namibia’s border with SA. It is estimated the plant will yield 50-billion to 60-billion cubic meters of gas. Energy utility Eskom has reportedly shown interest in acquiring 500MW of the 800MW output from the Kudu power plant to increase its electricity supply to the local market.

-          Mr Zuma and Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to sign memorandums of understanding in the fields of plant quarantine and visa exemption for diplomatic and official passport holders. Other memorandums of understanding to be discussed or signed include maritime transport, aviation safety and an extradition order between the two nations.

SOURCES:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/medvedev-zuma-oversee-dealmaking/411794.html

ttp://www.fin24.com/Companies/Eskom-signs-Russian-nuclear-deal-20100805

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/338110,russia-trade-talks-medvedev.html

*http://allafrica.com/stories/201008030041.html

_____________________________________________

SOME BACKGROUND TO THE STORY:

By John Helmer in Moscow

Posted On March 18, 2008 In Africa-Russia

Russia has been locked out of the largest nuclear power contract ever prepared in Africa, despite two years of promises from the South African government that it would invite Russia’s nuclear industry to join a competitive tender with the French and American companies, Areva and Westinghouse.

The lockout appears to be regional in scope, blocking a bid by the Russians to build a nuclear reactor in Namibia, that country’s first. It also makes unlikely that ambitious schemes to draw Russian investment into uranium mining, ore concentration, and uranium fuel enrichment will materialize in southern Africa.

According to the SA utility Eskom, the first SA reactor to be commissioned would cost an estimated R120 billion ($15 billion); six power stations to produce an estimated 20,000MW would cost more than R720 billion ($90 billion), Eskom officials have publicly estimated.

The circumstances in which SA officials made their decision to exclude the Russians have been kept secret for weeks, while crisis talks were held by officials of the two governments, first in Moscow on February 12, and then in Pretoria on March 10.

The secret spilled out after SA Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma came to Moscow, along with the acting director-general of her ministry, Gert Gobler. A communiqué issued by Pretoria claimed their meeting was a routine session of the SA-Russia inter-governmental trade and economic committee (ITEC).

The communiqué claimed there was progress on nuclear power issues, although both Dlamini-Zuma, Gobler and their Russian counterparts knew the reason for the meeting was Russian anger at being shut out of both the nuclear power and the aerospace sectors.

The conflict between Moscow and Pretoria in aerospace follows the recent breakdown of agreements for the Russian space agency Roskosmos to launch SA satellites, one of them the civilian Sumbandila satellite; and another, a South African military communications and reconnaissance satellite.

According to Dlamini-Zuma last month: “the two sides welcomed the establishment of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy with a view to ensuring a proper and structured implementation of the agreement signed during the visit of President Vladimir Putin to South Africa in September 2006.”

This is a reference to agreements reached, not only during Putin’s visit to Cape Town, but to subsequent reiteration of SA promises to Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov in March 2007, and at meetings in Sochi with Putin and other Russian officials in mid-2007.

Dlamini-Zuma also claimed there was no problem in the aerospace sector. She reported on February 13, after her Moscow talks, that “the two sides considered enhanced South Africa – Russia co-operation in the sphere of space research and the finalisation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between South Africa and Russia in this regard. “

On February 26, Gobler briefed reporters ahead of the visit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Leaks in the French press had earlier reported that Areva believed it was SA’s preferred bidder for the first nuclear contract.

Gobler referred to a paper leaked to his ministry in February, which disclosed the crisis that had erupted in Russian-SA relations over the cancellation of the invitation to Atomstroyexport (ASE), the Russian reactor builder, and thetit-for-tat cancellation by the Russian space agency Rosatom over agreements to launch SA satellites.

“Many of those allegations are totally unfounded, if not simply untrue,” Gobler said. “The real fact is the insinuations that there are major problems between Russia and South Africa is [sic] simply also not true.”

But Gobler admitted that the nuclear reactor bid was one “of the issues that were raised in that article [and] were up for discussion between the two governments.” The discussion, he added, had been “in a constructive and amicable spirit”, and “that issue is being currently discussed on a government to government level.”

The report on crisis between the SA and Russian governments, Grobler said, was a “list of questions, allegations and insinuations that obviously… involves a number of government departments and that I would not like to comment on this at that point because it needs further consultation with these departments who are accused or allegations are made.”

Although Gobler insisted on February 26that “the relations between Russia and South Africa are in fact very good,” he did not mention that First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov was expected to visit Mbeki shortly after Sarkozy had departed.

Ivanov arrived on March 10, accompanied by two ministers:Yury Trutnev, Minister of Natural Resources, is co-chairman with Dlamini-Zuma of ITEC; and Yury Levitin, the Minister of Transport.

An announcement was issued in Pretoria by Vice President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka just ahead of Ivanov’s arrival. This claimed the visit was “within the context of South Africa’s priority to strengthen bilateral political, economic and trade relations with the Russian Federation. In this regard, relations between Russia and South Africa are driven through the Inter–sessional Intergovernmental Trade and Economic Committee (ITEC)”. The SA statement added that Ivanov was expected to discuss “the status of bilateral political, economic and trade relations between the two countries…[and] preparations for the ITEC that will be hosted by Russia in May 2008.”

Ivanov’s spokesman told Mineweb that the visit to the SA capital, where he met President Mbeki, was not decided until the week before their March 10 meeting. Trutnev said through a spokesman that he had no agenda for the visit, but was there to accompany Ivanov. Levitin told Mineweb, also through his spokesman, that he was accompanying Ivanov, and had no discussion bearing on the satellite controversy.

A newspaper report in Moscow, published immediately after Ivanov’s meetings with Mbeki and Mlambo-Ngcuka, cited a Trutnev deputy, Igor Maidanov, as saying”the supply of energy is top on the agenda.” Maidanov is the director of the Natural Resource Ministry’s international cooperation department. “Russia is aware of South Africa’s present energy problems. I believe that the delegation will discuss this issue in order to find ways to help.”

Russia’s nuclear assistance was the cat Maidanov let slip from the bag SA officials were determined to keep shut.

As co-chairman of ITEC, Trutnev has been a public promoter of deals in the uranium mining, fuel processing, and reactor building segments of the nuclear market. Russia “would invest as much as needed” in new nuclear power stations and joint uranium mining ventures, he told the SA audience last year; a sentiment repeated in SA communiqués on the progress of ITEC.

A source close to Atomstroyexport (ASE) has revealed that early in March, just before Ivanov decided on his SA visit, officials from the SA Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) and the SA Embassy in Moscow had conveyed Pretoria’s message — the decision had been taken at the highest level not to include ASE in the nuclear tender.

An announcement from Levitin and the Russian Transport Ministry claimed the object of their visit to SA this month was to check on the operation of a Russian satellite navigation system, GLONASS; to inspect Russian aircraft modification and flight operating plans for the Antarctic; and to call at Novolazarevskaya, the 47-year old Russian scientific station on Queen Maud Land.

Roskosmos was also represented in Ivanov’s delegation. But asked to say if Ivanov had discussed the satellite problem, Roskosmos spokesman, Alexander Ryadinskiy, replied: “nothing extraordinary happened”.

Ivanov has not commented publicly on the substance or outcome of his SA talks. But a source close to him denied the purpose of his trip had been to visit SA. The source told Mineweb that Ivanov was intending to visit Russian operations in the Antarctic. He had stopped off in Pretoria on his way south, the source now says. Ivanov’s spokesman, Pavel Zinovich, told Mineweb that Ivanov’s talks had “nothing to do with the intergovernmental commission”.

Before he visited SA, Ivanov was on record as urging Roskosmos to do more for the GLONASS system and for Russian satellite launches.

Tseliso Maqubela, who heads the nuclear division of the DME, and Bheki Langa, the SA Ambassador, refuse to answer questions about the crisis triggered by the nuclear power exclusion, and the satellite launching spat.

In Moscow in March, junior SA officials told the Russians they may be invited to bid for the second round of reactor contracts; these are scheduled to be tendered at the end of the 5-year construction period for the first reactors.

This is a sop. Nuclear sector experts in SA and Russia acknowledge that, on account of the differences in technology, training protocols, site and fuel specifications between the French, American, and Russian nuclear reactor systems, it is very rare for a country to buy and operate more than one type of system. South Korea is the exception, however.

In a report this week on Russian marketing efforts for its nuclear power exports, Moscow analyst Yury Humber suggested that outside of China and India, where ASE reactors are dominant, “the competition for nuclear-plant sales may broadly play out along Cold War lines, with Russia grabbing contracts among former Soviet satellites such as Bulgaria and the Czech Republic and African allies including Namibia.”

He quoted US sources as confirming that “Russia is likely to be shut out of U.S. and Western European markets partly because of historical ties to local manufacturers, said Gene Clark, chief executive of U.S. consulting firm TradeTech. ‘The markets that Russia’s going for, I’m not too worried about,’ said Dan Lipman, senior vice president for nuclear power plants at Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse. ‘Myanmar’s not on my list.’”

A source close to ASE told Mineweb that Namibia, a major international mine source for uranium, has made no firm commitment to a reactor tender, or to inviting the Russians to bid.

A visit to Windhoek a year ago by Mikhail Fradkov, then Russia’s Prime Minister, proposed a variety of options for launching nuclear power generation for Namibia. One of the options reported by Mineweb at the time as discussed with Namibian President Hifikepunya Pohamba was a low-capacity floating nuclear power plant. “We want our own power plant utilising our own (uranium) resources… We are pleased the Russian Federation wants to assist Namibia in this field,” Pohamba was quoted as saying.

Last month, the Namibian government repeated its policy target to develop nuclear power generation, and the beneficiation technology to convert locally mined uranium for fuel.

Article printed from Dances With Bears: http://johnhelmer.net

URL to article: http://johnhelmer.net/?p=356

Russia will provide South African nuclear power stations with uranium until 2017. The contract was signed in the Kremlin by President Jacob Zuma and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev. President Zuma is on an official visit to the Russian Federation, looking to narrow the trade deficit with one of the most populous nations in the world. The country’s hoping to build on historical ties with the Russian Federation and the uranium deal is a step in that direction.

Under the deal Russia will control almost half of South Africa’s uranium market, but the world’s 12th largest economy is also an influential member in Bric. And South Africa may have secured the support it needs to gain access to this group which includes Brazil, India and China.

Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev said: “Saying Russia supports the move but that the decision is not Russia alone to make as it depends on other members of Bric

The Russian President says the deal is just the start South Africa’s imports from the Russian Federation more than doubled last year. The country imported goods to the value of R3,6bn, while its exports generated R1,5bn.

Several agreements on energy, visa requirements and space could expedite the cooperation. Eleven government ministers and a high-level business delegation are accompanying the president.

South Africa and Russia already cooperate on a multilateral level. Now they want to use their historical ties to open up markets for increased trade between the two countries.

Source: SABCTV News http://www.sabcnews.com/portal/site/SABCNews/menuitem.5c4f8fe7ee929f602ea12ea1674daeb9/?vgnextoid=4fdb9e807b24a210VgnVCM10000077d4ea9bRCRD&vgnextfmt=default

Russia, South Africa Discuss Potential Nuclear, LNG, Titanium Co-Operation

By Yuriy Humber – Aug 4, 2010

South Africa is discussing how Russia may supply the nation’s nuclear plant with fuel, plug an energy gap with liquefied natural gas shipments, and help process its mineral sands into titanium, Trade Minister Rob Davies said.

The two countries are looking to boost trade and investment as South African President Jacob Zuma leads a delegation of more than 50 politicians and businessmen to Russia this week. South Africa sees mining, energy and transport as areas where ties with Russia can grow, Davies said today in a Moscow interview.

“We see deepening relations with the BRIC countries,” Davies said, referring to Brazil, Russia, India and China, an acronym combining the biggest emerging markets. Trade between Russia and South Africa reached 4 billion rand ($550 million) in 2008, he said.

Tenex, a unit of Russian nuclear holding company Rosatom Corp., is in talks over supplying South Africa’s Koeberg power plant, Davies said. Russia is also interested in being involved should South Africa decide to build more plants, he said.

Russia may also deliver LNG to Mossel Bay, Davies said, without giving further details. PetroSA, South Africa’s state- owned oil company, needs to secure replacement supplies to feed the Mossel Bay refinery as its natural gas reserves dwindle.

South Africa also hopes to use Russian technology to develop a mineral sands deposit that could yield titanium, zirconium and silicon, Davies said. Rare Metals Industries Ltd., a venture with South African, Russian and U.S. investors, said in February it may list shares to fund the $1.5 billion cost of a processing plant needed to turn sands into metal.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/russia-south-africa-discuss-potential-nuclear-lng-titanium-co-operation.html

Please Watch! New Video!
All the nuclear myths debunked in 30-minutes by Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear
In this compelling new 30-minute television interview, Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear explodes the myths now being promulgated by those promoting nuclear power. He tells of the insoluble problems of nuclear waste, how nuclear power plants routinely emit radioactive poisons, how catastrophic accidents can happen, how nuclear power plants are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction for terrorists, and the enormously high costs of nuclear power. He exposes the falsehood that the French nuclear program has been a success and that nuclear power does not contribute to global warming.

Feel free to post to facebook, circulate to other lists, colleagues and friends.

The link is:  http://blip.tv/file/3946822

–
Linda Gunter is a founder of Beyond Nuclear and serves as its media and development director. She also specializes in researching nuclear France and in the nuclear power-nuclear weapons connection. Linda Gunter is a founder of Beyond Nuclear and serves as its media and development director. She also specializes in researching nuclear France and in the nuclear power-nuclear weapons connection. She can be reached at www.beyondnuclear.org.

Also at Beyond Nuclear:

Nuclear Power in France: Setting the Record Straight

France’s nuclear power industry is often touted as the nuclear program to emulate. This pamphlet reveals the problems plaguing the industry in France including radioactive waste problems and predatory uranium mining.

Routine Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plants in the United States

Nuclear power reactors don’t have to have an accident to release radioactive material. This pamphlet discusses what these releases are and how they may generally effect those who are exposed.

Ten Reasons to say No to Nuclear Power...
This handy palm card lists ten of the most compelling reasons to avoid nuclear power and gives ten ideas that will help us switch to more benign energy sources.

5 August 2010

Document written by: Katja Vinding Petersen, Michelle Wcisel, Brenda Walters, Oliver Jewell, Alison Towner, in cooperation with the Trustees from Dyer Island Conservation Trust.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This document outlines the concerns of The Dyer Island Conservation Trust (DICT) with regards to the proposed establishment of a nuclear power station (NPS) at Bantamsklip. It also provides an overview of the research which the DICT deems necessary to be carried out prior to the establishment of an NPS as well as suggested monitoring programs during construction and operational phases.

Insufficient Baseline Data

DICT finds the current baseline data concerning this area and the ecosystem insufficient. In order to protect this area’s unique marine biodiversity, DICT calls for further research prior to the establishment of a NPS. Should the NPS project at Bantamsklip proceed, DICT would like to see more monitoring programs during the construction and operations phases.

Current Lack of Knowledge

The DICT is highly concerned that rare and endangered marine species will experience devastating impacts in relation to the NPS. Since there have been no studies carried out prior to the NPS concerning the marine animals i.e. sharks, fur seals, cetaceans, birds and fish species in the area, it is unknown to which degree the proposed site is of significance to these animals. Also, due of this lack of knowledge, DICT find the conclusions made in the EIA and in the Marine- and the Oceanographic Specialist studies highly questionable.

Consequential Damage to Ecosystem

It is not difficult to find examples from the past where developments have unintentionally destroyed factions of an ecosystem when information about that system was unknown until the damage was done. Any visitor to the Cape Agulhas region can describe a bio-diverse habitat that is as incredible as it is delicate.

That is why the DICT is calling for more research to be conducted in this region before further development occurs. Enabling us to better understand the intricate cycle of life in this region and further assess how future development may impact the area.

DICT calls for a document outlining actual research projects which will be carried out prior to and during the construction phase as well as during the operational phase. This document should also state the aim, the methods, duration of the projects, the expected results and how it is linked to other projects carried out in conjunction with the NPS. Eskom’s degree of commitment to the different research projects should also be stated.

Full document 67 pages available here.

GENERAL PRESS RELEASE

Immediate release

9 March 2010

“NUCLEAR 1”

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:

FATALLY FLAWED AND DESIGNED TO CONFUSE

The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a nuclear power station at the Bantamsklip site has been released for public comment, with a closing date set for 10 May 2010. Bantamsklip is situated near the Pearly Beach resort, 50 km east of Hermanus.

The Save Bantamsklip Campaign and its affiliates and associated organisations are happy to have been placed third on the list of priority sites, but the battle to have the Bantamsklip site removed entirely from the list is far from over. We assert that the Government has already confirmed their whole-hearted support for a “nuclear fleet” with all the ancillary nuclear fuel-chain components. Unless this commitment is opposed, we expect to see construction begin at Bantamsklip in ten year’s time, at the latest.

Like the Trojan House outside the gates of Troy, we believe that the wording of the Executive Summary of the draft EIR for “Nuclear-1″ has been designed deliberately to counter the highly visible and successful advance of the Save Bantamsklip Campaign. The idea behind the proponent’s propaganda is to sow discord and confusion in the ranks of the campaign by appearing to shift focus away to Thyspunt in the Eastern Cape as the first site.

Furthermore, the draft EIR suffers from a number of fatal flaws, such as the failure to specify the type of reactor envisaged for the site. How can we determine scientifically and accurately the environmental impact of a nuclear fission reactor when we don’t know what it is? It is rather like ordering a fleet of motor vehicles at an exorbitant cost, knowing absolutely nothing about the brand, its performance, nor its safety features!

We therefore call on all our supporters to redouble their efforts to defend and consolidate our position to have Bantamsklip and Groot Hagelkraal entirely removed from the list of potential sites.

We support and endorse the positive campaign of strengthening and deepening the drive for a World Heritage Site status and for the site to be taken away from Eskom and incorporated into the Agulhas National Park.

We ask all our supporters to study carefully the EIR and to register their objections to the report, available at www.savebantamsklip.org and to join us in a march in opposition to this proposal on Monday 26 April 2010. Further details will be released closer to the time.

John Williams

Chairman

Save Bantamsklip Association

082 923 1839

john @ savebantamsklip.org

www.savebantamsklip.org