Liz McDaid and Makoma Lekalakala have been awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for their role in stopping a controversial nuclear deal between South Africa and Russia.
Now they are urging other women to step up and fight against injustice.
“I think it’s like when you come up against bullies, at a certain point, you actually say enough is enough,” Ms McDaid said.
“It’s within the grasp of ordinary people. Let the politicians keep shouting, but let’s get on and make a difference.”
The fight of their lives
The two women, both aged in their fifties, one white and one black, took on the South African Government in 2014.
Together they led a campaign to stop a multi-billion-dollar deal with Russia, to build a series of nuclear power stations in South Africa.
The agreement had not passed through the normal checks, balances and scrutiny of parliament.
South Arica had also signed deals with the United States and South Korea.
Ms Lekalakala believed the project was unsafe, unnecessary and unaffordable.
“This deal was literally going to bankrupt the country,” she said.
“For us, challenging the abuse of power and protecting our constitutional right, this is fundamental.”
Their organisations — Earthlife Africa and the Southern Africa Faith Communities Environmental Institute — teamed up with other groups, including environmental lawyers, to take on the government.
Ms McDaid said she was confident she and Ms Lekalakla, along with their supporters, would win.
“I think what is really nice is that in a world that is often being led by men, this was a space where two women could actually work together,” she said.
“We have the same sort of energy, same attitudes and value system. So, we worked very well together.”
The environmentalists filed a case against the President of South Africa, the Department of Energy and the Speaker of Parliament.
“To say no nuclear energy should proceed without having satisfied all the legislative and regulatory processes,” Ms McDaid said.
On the 26th of April 2017, the High Court in Cape Town found the Government had not followed due process.
As a result, the deal was declared invalid and unconstitutional.
Ms Lekalakala and Ms McDaid began their activism against the apartheid regime in the 1980s.
Ms McDaid said people should not believe the story that they are powerless.
“We do live in a democracy, we have the right to stand up, we have the right to protest, and so people must use it,” she said.
Liz McDaid and Makoma Lekalakala have been awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for their role in stopping a controversial nuclear deal between South Africa and Russia.
Now they are urging other women to step up and fight against injustice.
“I think it’s like when you come up against bullies, at a certain point, you actually say enough is enough,” Ms McDaid said.
“It’s within the grasp of ordinary people. Let the politicians keep shouting, but let’s get on and make a difference.”
The fight of their lives
The two women, both aged in their fifties, one white and one black, took on the South African Government in 2014.
Together they led a campaign to stop a multi-billion-dollar deal with Russia, to build a series of nuclear power stations in South Africa.
The agreement had not passed through the normal checks, balances and scrutiny of parliament.
South Arica had also signed deals with the United States and South Korea.
Ms Lekalakala believed the project was unsafe, unnecessary and unaffordable.
“This deal was literally going to bankrupt the country,” she said.
“For us, challenging the abuse of power and protecting our constitutional right, this is fundamental.”
Their organisations — Earthlife Africa and the Southern Africa Faith Communities Environmental Institute — teamed up with other groups, including environmental lawyers, to take on the government.
Ms McDaid said she was confident she and Ms Lekalakla, along with their supporters, would win.
“I think what is really nice is that in a world that is often being led by men, this was a space where two women could actually work together,” she said.
“We have the same sort of energy, same attitudes and value system. So, we worked very well together.”
The environmentalists filed a case against the President of South Africa, the Department of Energy and the Speaker of Parliament.
“To say no nuclear energy should proceed without having satisfied all the legislative and regulatory processes,” Ms McDaid said.
On the 26th of April 2017, the High Court in Cape Town found the Government had not followed due process.
As a result, the deal was declared invalid and unconstitutional.
Ms Lekalakala and Ms McDaid began their activism against the apartheid regime in the 1980s.
Ms McDaid said people should not believe the story that they are powerless.
“We do live in a democracy, we have the right to stand up, we have the right to protest, and so people must use it,” she said.
ENERGY DEPT: NO NEW NUCLEAR BUILD PROGRAMME, Eyewitness News, Director General of Energy Thabane Zulu says the government doesn’t plan to spend any money on advancing its nuclear programme in this financial year. Lindsay Dentlinger 17 Apr 18 CAPE TOWN – The Department of Energy says there’s no new nuclear build programme.
The R816 million allocated in 2018’s national budget is purely for the ongoing work of the country’s nuclear institutions.
Members of Parliament’s energy committee on Tuesday sought clarity around the future of the country’s nuclear programme, but committee chairperson Fikile Majola says Minister Jeff Radebe should rather be called to do the explaining.
The Director General of Energy Thabane Zulu says the government doesn’t plan to spend any money on advancing its nuclear programme in this financial year.
Portfolio committee on energy chairperson Fikile Majola said on Saturday Radebe would appear before the committee in the week of April 17 to talk about independent power producers (IPP), the nuclear energy programme and the sale of the country’s oil reserves.
Majola said he did not know if a definite decision had been made to scrap the nuclear programme, but Radebe would shed light on this then.
President Cyril Ramaphosa said in Davos, Switzerland, in January the programme was off the table.
This was followed by statements from former finance minister Malusi Gigaba and his successor Nhlanhla Nene to the effect that the nuclear project was unaffordable.
But Majola said he was not aware that nuclear energy was off the table.
“The committee is not aware of what is going to happen besides what the president has said.”
The government signed several agreements this week with the IPPs amounting to R55.6 billion. But this elicited an angry response from the National Union of Mineworkers and National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa.
When the matter was in the High Court in the Western Cape, Radebe said there would not be any nuclear deal until the matter had been brought before Parliament.
However, Ramaphosa has said it was off the table and did not even mention it in his State of the Nation Address.
Russian energy firm Rosatom told Independent Media recently it was still bidding for nuclear contracts and had not heard anything from the government.
Rosatom has signed multiple agreements in Africa to deliver nuclear energy. In Egypt the Russians bagged a nuclear deal worth $30 billion (R360 billion), with $25bn of it to be vendor financing.
This week, Russian president Vladimir Putin was in Turkey to sign another nuclear deal.
The Russians are to build a nuclear plant on the coast of Turkey. This followed an agreement signed a few years ago.
Head of Rosatom in southern Africa Viktor Polikarpov said recently the company was in Ghana and was moving into East Africa.
The Shocking Story of How One Country Built Nuclear Weapons (And Gave Them Up), National Interest, Dave Majumdar, 28 Mar 18,
The region and the world are undoubtedly safer because of the decisions made in the 1990s to relinquish South Africa’s nuclear program. Moreover, the dismantling of the relatively small program provided a template for how other nuclear powers could think about eliminating their own programs. However, with the exception of the Soviet successor states (which faced dramatically different constraints) no other states have yet taken up South Africa’s example. With the apparent increase in global tensions over the past few years, it seems unlikely that anyone will join South Africa in the post-nuclear club anytime soon.
The Republic of South Africa is the only country in the world to build a nuclear weapons program, then unbuild that program after domestic and international conditions changed. Why did South Africa decide to build nukes, how did it build them and why did it decide to give them up? The answers are largely idiosyncratic, although they may hold some lessons for the future of nuclear weapons development on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere……..http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-shocking-story-how-one-country-built-nuclear-weapons-25110
Business Report 5th March 2018,The Department of Environmental Affairs recently granted an environmental
permit for a new 4000-megawatt nuclear plant, close to the continent’s
only existing nuclear site, at Koeberg in the Western Cape.
This is despite former finance minister Malusi Gigaba recently stating that construction of
a new plant was unaffordable. Greenpeace Africa has vowed to protest the
construction of the new nuclear plant, saying it would infringe on the
environmental rights of present and future citizens of the country.
Mahlobo must accept death knell of Nuclear Deal – Gavin Davis, Politics Web, Gavin Davis | 22 February 2018
DA MP says President must stop the gazetting of Integrated Resource Plan
Nuclear Deal: Ramaphosa must stop the gazetting of the Integrated Resource Plan
22 February 2018
Minister Gigaba’s Budget Speech, which contained no funding for a new nuclear build, should signal the death knell of the nuclear deal.
The time has come for Minister Mahlobo to accept that his attempt to deliver the nuclear deal has failed. With Zuma gone, he has outlasted his usefulness and should be removed from Cabinet without delay.
The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), that was apparently approved by the Zuma Cabinet in December, left the door open for a new nuclear build. This was despite every credible study rejecting new investment in nuclear as part of the IRP and recommending investment in renewables and gas instead.
We call on President Ramaphosa to put a stop to the gazetting of Mahlobo’s IRP. Instead, Minister Mahlobo should be removed from office and a new Minister appointed to ensure that the new IRP is based on the latest cutting-edge modelling and research……..
South Africa’s Electricity Choice, Part 4: The dangers of dealing with Russia, Daily Maverick, ANTON EBERHARD & AMORY LOVINS, SOUTH AFRICA, 19 FEB 2018
Read parts 1, 2 and 3 of this series here,here and here
.
Courts may have struck down the nuclear agreement between South Africa and Russia but ministers in the Zuma government have indicated they are not done discussing nuclear power and Russian involvement. This is of major concern to many – not only because of a possible compromise in SA’s national sovereignty and independence but also due to the ulterior motives Russia might have due to its economic troubles and the dubious need to build nuclear power plants despite lacking the capital to finance it.
Procurement and financial risks
South African officials have made a wide range of statements in the past few years about whether the government intends a “fair, transparent and competitive procurement process”, or a process with that form but not its substance (as vendors may expect), or an opaque direct negotiation between the South African government and another government, most likely that of the Russian Federation. During a series of private presidential meetingsover the past seven years, these two countries concluded an unusually strong and specific nuclear agreement. It gave Russia a veto over South Africa’s nuclear co-operation with any other country, enabled Russia to withhold any data it wishes from public scrutiny, exempted Russia from any accident liability and promised Russia favourable tax and financial treatment. While denying favouritism, South Africa did not appear to have offered similar terms to any other potential partner. Though the April 2017 decision of the Western Cape High Court set aside this agreement, officials have continued to imply that a nuclear deal with the Russians is likely……..
is Russia a credible and reliable financial partner?Its National Wealth Fund, estimated at $72-billion, is under pressure; by early 2015 it was already overextended by $24-billion pledged to finance nuclear exports to four countries. (Those included the Hungarian Paks nuclear deal, whose low-interest loan commitment helped crash Russia’s foreign-trade bank needing an $18-billion bailout.) About another $64-billion would be needed to fulfil other offers already extended. And even that couldn’t go far if more than a handful of deals were like the proposed Bangladeshi Rooppur plant mentioned above – 90% financed ($12-billion) at 2.55 percent annual interest with a 10-year grace period, then an 18-year repayment.
Rosatom, the self-regulated state nuclear enterprise, is led by a former prime minister reporting to President Vladimir Putin and exempted from all normal state controls. Independent experts agree that Rosatom (or any other state entity) would be lucky to build half the 30 additional nuclear projects it’s trying to sell for $300-billion to a dozen more countries including South Africa. Russia’s interest rate in early 2016 was twice (and in an earlier spike, over three times) what any coal-competitive nuclear project would require. The Russian state’s capacity to absorb the spread is quickly vanishing. Russia’s domestic reactor starts halved in 2015; all state nuclear subsidies are to halt in 2016. Yet without those subsidies, “Rosatom wouldn’t complete a single project anywhere”.
Russia needs huge amounts of outside capital to finance its nuclear commitments. …….
Not just Russian but any nuclear new-build is a poor choice for South Africa. It cannot compete with efficiency and renewables, by every relevant measure: cost, timeliness, financing, jobs, economic development, environmental and safety risk, independence, security, abundance of eternally free local energy sources, and the social good of “energy democracy”. These goals support and are advanced by the agenda of “an electricity sector that will deliver, transparently, competitively, reliably and sustainably, the electric services that will power economic growth and improve the welfare of all our people”.
It has come to this: ever more sales-starved nuclear vendors, seeking ever less solvent customers, now offer a risky project the seller can’t finance to a customer who can’t pay – a customer with no need, enchanted by the same nuclear devotees whose broken promises already cost the nation dearly, and with no apparent accountability.
The South African civil society groups and opposition parties have been pushing back on government’s plan to add 9 600 megawatts of electricity to the grid through nuclear plants.
Happy Khambule, the political advisor at Greenpeace Africa notes that there is a tough job ahead for the new leadership of the country. “We believe one of the most pressing issues is to start to create stability, increase trust in the country’s government, and to choose a new pathway in establishing transparency and accountability in the energy sector”.
In an interview with the eNCA, Khambule has said that they will utilize all communication platforms at their availability to engage with the relevant government departments in ensuring that Greanpeace influences Ramaphosa’s decisions on energy matters.
Greenpeace Africa also looks forward to the new Integrated Resource Plan and calls on Ramaphosa to “stop that coal”.
Khambule feels that there was a distant relationship between the former president Jacob Zuma and the energy advocacy groups.
“It is time to remove the barriers to renewable energy, which can enable the achievement of universal access to energy and power disadvantaged communities much faster and at a cost South Africans can afford. We call on the President to push ahead with a renewable-powered future that will not leave South Africans in the dark,” this organisation said in a statement.
Ramaphosa recently commented at the World Economic Forum in Davos, that South Africa had “excess power right now and we have no money to go for major nuclear plant building”.
Melita Steele, the senior campaign manager at Greenpeace Africa said, “Greenpeace has long argued that nuclear is never safe, and is simply unaffordable”.
She further said that the organisation looks forward to the updated IRP without the inclusion of crushing nuclear energy investments.
Meanwhile, Ramaphosa will soon elect his new cabinet and the Energy Minister, David Mahlobo is unlikely to retain his position, according to lobby groups and economists.
Wayne Duvenage, the CEO of the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse told Business Report that Mahlobo has limited experience on energy and his appointment as the Energy Minister was based on Zuma’s interest in speeding up the nuclear deal with Russia. “Ramaphosa will be problematic with him in this regard”.
NJ Ayuk, who is widely recognised as one of the top influential businessman in the sector globally, said there was no reason for South Africa to consider nuclear energy and instead it should invest in clean renewable energy to create jobs and grow its economy.
Ayuk said the consideration for nuclear could lead to the country succumbing to external pressures.
“We need to stop having short-term fixes to our challenges. If we continue to look to other powers for solutions, we will have to succumb to what they want. Is that what South Africa wants?” he asked.
With South Africa’s bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN’s Security Council this year, Ayuk warned if the country were to consider nuclear energy and partner with another country, this would diminish its position on the influential body.
Speculation about South Africa seeking partnership with Russia has come to the fore over the past year, with the government denying that a deal had been made.
“Do you want a member of the Security Council that’s dependent on another country for its energy security and needs? Africa needs a representative that will articulate its views and not one that will be perceived to be captured by another strong power,” he said.
For decades South Africa relied on coal for electricity and synthetic fuel production but needs to look at other energy sources to meet its climate change commitments.
Recent studies have also shown a decline in global demand for coal.
“Renewable energy must be the core part of the energy mix as it has the potential to alleviate poverty. We need to put in the right investment in it. It will create jobs and allow small businesses to participate in the sector,” he said.
He said the country and other African countries endowed with mineral resources should start looking at establishing an enabling environment for investments and growth in the sector.
Ayuk said the political change in South Africa gave hope that there would be a re-focus on the energy sector and that “homegrown” solutions for energy problems would be found.
“We have to be futuristic. It doesn’t help any country to have big projects and the skills cannot be found within it because jobs are not created or if they are they are low skilled jobs”, Ajuk said.
He also advocated better management of mineral resources throughout the continent and better frameworks to “empower communities”.
“Africa needs to start thinking of sharing skills and expertise to create intra-trade. We have the technology in most of the countries, we need to enhance what we already have.”
Why decommissioning South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear plant won’t be easy The Conversation, Hartmut Winkler, Professor of Physics, University of Johannesburg, January 26, 2018
Africa’s only operational nuclear power plant is in an area called Koeberg, outside Cape Town in South Africa. The life span of the plant was originally meant to end in 2024. But after an upgrade it’s now expected to operate until around 2044.
The funding for decommissioning, which is an expensive process, needs to be secured well in advance. Failing to decommission the site properly would saddle Cape Town with a dangerous radiation hazard for generations to come.
Responsibility for Koeberg’s site rehabilitation rests with its operator, the state electricity utility, Eskom. For now decommissioning Koeberg is not a priority for Eskom’s newly appointed board given its need to deal with the financial pressure and allegations of corruption the utility is facing.
But it will nevertheless need to start planning soon……….
All nuclear power plants accredited by the International Atomic Energy Agency must regularly set aside funds to finance the eventual decommissioning. By 2016, Eskom had paid R10.9 billion into a trust for this purpose.
But these provisions seem insufficient and the utility will probably need to raise additional funding to shut down Koeberg.
Eskom is responsible to pay for the site’s rehabilitation, but not for final waste disposal. The funding of that process ultimately becomes the responsibility of the state.
Waste from Koeberg
The arrangement is that low and intermediate-level nuclear waste is transported to a site called Vaalputs in sparsely populated Namakwaland, about 500 km north of Cape Town. High-level waste is kept on site in Koeberg in what are known as fuel pools.
South Africa doesn’t have storage facilities for its high-level waste. Like the rest of the world, construction of nuclear plants was initiated without a specific waste disposal plan, with the understanding that each country would manage and pay for it themselves.
Unfortunately South Africa is likely to approach decommissioning Koeberg in the same way other countries have done it – by effectively leaving the waste on site indefinitely in temporary storage facilities. This avoids the expense of waste processing as well as making difficult political decisions. But it passes the problem to future generations while continuing to expose the nuclear plant’s neighbourhood to contamination risk. This is a serious risk at Koeberg given that it’s a mere 30 km from the Cape Town city centre.
Koeberg’s decommissioning is an awkward reality that cannot be ignored for much longer. This should become the main focus for nuclear professionals in South Africa, rather than new plants. Eskom and other parties in the energy space need to develop detailed, credible decommissioning work plans with realistic costing scenarios and funding strategies. A crisis can be avoided, but only through early and proper planning. https://theconversation.com/why-decommissioning-south-africas-koeberg-nuclear-plant-wont-be-easy-89888
Under the presidency of Jacob Zuma, South Africa has been trying to implement a massive new nuclear programme. The initiative stood against a growing body of evidence pointing to the fact that nuclear isn’t needed, is too costly and is hard to finance. There is also the fact that the case for renewables looks increasingly favourable than nuclear. And last year, civil society groups secured a court order that halted the nuclear build programme temporarily on grounds that government had not followed due consultative process.
But Zuma has insisted on the nuclear programme, going so far as to appoint a minister to the energy portfolio who continues to argue that the country needs nuclear energy. But the facts are still against him, as they were against the previous four ministers who failed to deliver Zuma’s nuclear project.
The argument against nuclear energy can be broken down into five key themes.
1. Large chunks of new power aren’t needed
South Africa has surplus energy capacity. Along with new capacity that is coming online, the country does not need nuclear power to meet electricity demand for many years, despite the scheduled closure of some old coal plants. In fact, demand has fallen in South Africa and is lower than it was a decade ago.
This is not simply a result of slow economic growth. Steep hikes in electricity prices have accelerated investments in energy efficiency and electricity savings.
The structure of South Africa’s economy is also changing with the energy-intensive primary sector declining and the tertiary and services sector accounting for a larger share of the economy.
2. Good news on renewables
At the same time, renewable energy prices have plummeted globally and rival or even undercut the operating costs of many existing nuclear or fossil-fuelled power stations. Within just one year (2016), world costs for new onshore windpower fell by 18%, for offshore wind by 28%, and for utility-scale photovoltaics (PV) by 17%, while low bids fell 37% for Mexican PV and 43% for EU offshore wind. In South Africa, transparent auctions have already cut solar PV electricity prices by close to 80% and wind energy by nearly 50%.
Government’s nuclear policy consistently cites as its analytic basis the Integrated Resource Plan(IRP) for Electricity 2010 to 2030, formally published in May 2011 and updated several times since then. But over this time, the economic rationale for nuclear, never particularly strong, has weakened considerably. So much so that nuclear energy is not picked in any South African modelling scenarios, other than one where artificial constraints are placed on how much solar and wind energy can be built and where additional carbon budget limits are imposed. Even in this extreme scenario, nuclear energy might only be required after 2039.
Instead, the models favour solar and wind plus gas as the cheapest option for sustainable electricity supply. Renewables also perform well on the question of reliability. A recent engineering studyconfirms that the South African power system will be sufficiently flexible to handle very large amounts of wind and solar power generation to cope with increased flexibility requirements.
3. Nuclear power is dying globally
Global nuclear enterprise is slowly dying from an incurable attack of market forces. Financial distress stalks vendors, with cascading insolvencies spreading in the past two years. Construction cost and delays keep rising worldwide.
The global nuclear industry continues to suffer major risks of project failure or abandonment. For example, of 259 US nuclear units ordered between 1955-2016, 128 (49%) were abandoned before start-up and 34 (13%) prematurely closed later. Of the 97 units (37%) operating in mid-2017, 49 were deemed uneconomic to run; 35 suffered 45 year-plus safety-related outages. And only 28 units (11%) remain economically viable.
By contrast, renewable energy is dominating new investment in power generation worldwide. Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates renewable energy will capture 72% of global power generation investment by 2040 as costs drop by a further 66% for solar power, 47% for onshore wind, and 71% for inshore wind plants.
China has generated more wind power than nuclear electricity since 2012. India has quadrupled its renewables target and is planning 100 GW of solar power (now cheaper than coal power) by 2022. Over three billion people now get more non-hydro renewable than nuclear electricity, in three of the world’s four top economies (China, Germany, Japan) and in Brazil, India, Mexico, Holland, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
4. Renewable energy is good for business
The International Renewable Energy Agency has found that worldwide, doubling renewables’ energy share by 2030 could raise global GDP up to 1.1%, improve welfare up to 3.7%, and support over 24 million renewable-energy jobs.
In South Africa, important economic benefits have already been seen due to renewable energy initiatives. These have created a total of 32 532 job years.
Renewable energy projects also aid development in previously marginalised and disadvantaged groups and communities. Thanks to novel economic development criteria built into South Africa’s world-recognised renewable energy independent power producer programme. Black South Africans own, on average, 31% of projects that have reached completion. Black local communities further own on average 11% of the equity of projects.
5. The Russians can’t be trusted
The above facts demonstrate that nuclear lacks a business case for South Africa, whichever country provides the technology. But there is special cause for concern about South Africa’s proposed nuclear deal with Russia. During a series of private presidential meetings over the past seven years, South Africa concluded an unusually strong and specific nuclear agreement with Russia, since struck down by the courts.
Concerns are several. Firstly, a deal which makes South Africa dependent on Russia for a large share of electricity supply – as well as for nuclear safety – must raise serious questions about South African national sovereignty and independence.
Additionally, Russia is facing economic challenges, sliding in terms of rated world economies to number 15, below Mexico. Sovereign debt is a real concern and low oil prices and Western sanctions in response to Russia’s aggression towards the Ukraine and other areas are making matters worse.
Russia wants to build nuclear power plants but needs huge amounts of capital to finance its nuclear commitments around the world. It hardly appears to be a stable financial partner.
A rational choice is needed
South Africans deserve reliable and affordable electrical services. At issue is how much money, time, and opportunity for national advancement will be lost before the country finally abandons the folly of procuring new nuclear power plants.
Amory Lovins, chief scientist at Rocky Mountain Institute, co-authored this article.
The Conversation 25th Jan 2018, Why decommissioning South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear plant won’t be easy.
Koeberg has two units, each generating 930 MW, which contribute about 4% of
South Africa’s power capacity. They were built by French developer
Framatome, now called Areva.
Researchers in France, Germany and the UK have
calculated widely different costs for nuclear cleanups (including waste
disposal) in their countries. The potential cost of decommissioning a site
comparable to Koeberg according to the French costing model would be R8.4
billion. Some analysts say this is unrealistically low. The German model
puts the number at around R39 billion and the UK model at R76 billion. https://theconversation.com/why-decommissioning-south-africas-koeberg-nuclear-plant-wont-be-easy-89888
SA has no money for nuclear power: Ramaphosa, ENC.com, SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG – “We have excess power right now and we have no money to go for major nuclear plant building.”
That is according to Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, speaking during a media briefing at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
South Africa’s nuclear plans have been shrouded in controversy, with local activists and the media raising concerns about transparency, costs, safety and environmental risks.He said the country is dealing with all the issues raised by investors at the meeting of world powers and global business leaders.
S&P Sees ‘Clear Danger’ of Default by South Africa’s Eskom, Bloomberg, By Loni Prinsloo, January 18, 2018,
Yields on Eskom’s dollar bonds climb after Reuss’s comments
Finance Minister Gigaba says Eskom is his ‘biggest worry’
There is a “clear danger” that South Africa’s state-owned power utility, Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd., could default on its debt, S&P Global Ratings said.
“We are very concerned about liquidity issues,” Konrad Reuss, the managing director of S&P for sub-Saharan Africa, said at an event in Johannesburg Thursday.
Eskom is the biggest recipient of state guarantees at a time when domestic power demand is the lowest in more than 10 years and as South Africa’s finances buckle under lower tax revenue and rising debt. The company needs 20 billion rand ($1.6 billion) of funding by the end of its fiscal year on March 31, the Mail & Guardian newspaper reported last week, citing the utility…….. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/s-p-sees-clear-danger-of-default-by-south-africa-s-eskom
