• 1 hour Nigeria Approves Petroleum Industry Bill After 17 Long Years
  • 3 hours Venezuelan Output Drops To 28-Year Low In 2017
  • 5 hours OPEC Revises Up Non-OPEC Production Estimates For 2018
  • 8 hours Iraq Ready To Sign Deal With BP For Kirkuk Fields
  • 9 hours Kinder Morgan Delays Trans Mountain Launch Again
  • 10 hours Shell Inks Another Solar Deal
  • 1 day API Reports Seventh Large Crude Draw In Seven Weeks
  • 1 day Maduro’s Advisors Recommend Selling Petro At Steep 60% Discount
  • 1 day EIA: Shale Oil Output To Rise By 1.8 Million Bpd Through Q1 2019
  • 1 day IEA: Don’t Expect Much Oil From Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Before 2030
  • 1 day Minister Says Norway Must Prepare For Arctic Oil Race With Russia
  • 1 day Eight Years Late—UK Hinkley Point C To Be In Service By 2025
  • 1 day Sunk Iranian Oil Tanker Leave Behind Two Slicks
  • 1 day Saudi Arabia Shuns UBS, BofA As Aramco IPO Coordinators
  • 2 days WCS-WTI Spread Narrows As Exports-By-Rail Pick Up
  • 2 days Norway Grants Record 75 New Offshore Exploration Leases
  • 2 days China’s Growing Appetite For Renewables
  • 2 days Chevron To Resume Drilling In Kurdistan
  • 2 days India Boosts Oil, Gas Resource Estimate Ahead Of Bidding Round
  • 2 days India’s Reliance Boosts Export Refinery Capacity By 30%
  • 2 days Nigeria Among Worst Performers In Electricity Supply
  • 3 days ELN Attacks Another Colombian Pipeline As Ceasefire Ceases
  • 3 days Shell Buys 43.8% Stake In Silicon Ranch Solar
  • 3 days Saudis To Award Nuclear Power Contracts In December
  • 3 days Shell Approves Its First North Sea Oil Project In Six Years
  • 3 days China Unlikely To Maintain Record Oil Product Exports
  • 3 days Australia Solar Power Additions Hit Record In 2017
  • 3 days Morocco Prepares $4.6B Gas Project Tender
  • 3 days Iranian Oil Tanker Sinks After Second Explosion
  • 6 days Russia To Discuss Possible Exit From OPEC Deal
  • 6 days Iranian Oil Tanker Drifts Into Japanese Waters As Fires Rage On
  • 6 days Kenya Cuts Share Of Oil Revenues To Local Communities
  • 6 days IEA: $65-70 Oil Could Cause Surge In U.S. Shale Production
  • 6 days Russia’s Lukoil May Sell 20% In Oil Trader Litasco
  • 6 days Falling Chinese Oil Imports Weigh On Prices
  • 6 days Shell Considers Buying Dutch Green Energy Supplier
  • 7 days Wind And Solar Prices Continue To Fall
  • 7 days Residents Flee After Nigeria Gas Company Pipeline Explodes
  • 7 days Venezuela To Pre-Mine Petro For Release In 6-Weeks
  • 7 days Trump Says U.S. “Could Conceivably” Rejoin Paris Climate Accord
Alt Text

Nuclear Power's Resurgence In The Middle East

While nuclear power loses popularity…

Alt Text

Are Higher Uranium Prices Around The Corner?

The world’s largest uranium producer…

Leonard Hyman & William Tilles

Leonard Hyman & William Tilles

Leonard S. Hyman is an economist and financial analyst specializing in the energy sector. He headed utility equity research at a major brokerage house and…

More Info

Nuclear’s Demise Continues: Another Huge Project Cancelled

Nuclear

On July 31, SCANA Corp., a South Carolina utility and its construction partner, Santee Cooper, the state power authority, announced separately, their decisions to cancel the twin unit V.C. Summer nuclear project in Jenkinsville, SC.

In terms of chronology, Santee Cooper’s board of directors met on July 31 to review the revised estimates for the completion for the now ill-fated nuclear project. (Santee Cooper owns 45% of the project and SCANA the rest.) According to local press reports, Santee Cooper’s board was informed that it would require an additional $11.4 billion to complete the nuclear project for a total project cost of $25 billion, which would bring the project’s cost estimate up 75% from the original estimate when the project was initiated, and the completion date for in service would be delayed by five years. As a result, the Santee Cooper board voted unanimously to cancel the nuclear project.

Finding that its partner in this vast nuclear construction project was backing out, SCANA’s board of directors was faced with one of three decisions: 1) go it alone and complete the project as sole owner, 2) complete unit 2 and cancel unit 3 and construct a gas-fired plant to make up for the loss in generating capability, or 3) follow its partner’s lead and cancel the entire project. The board chose the third option.

This decision follows an announcement by Toshiba, owner of bankrupt Westinghouse, which was building the plants, that it would make a final payment to Santee Cooper and SCANA of $2 billion to cover its guarantees on the project, an amount significantly below the $11.4 billion required to complete the project. Westinghouse had originally guaranteed a fixed price for V.C. Summer (as well as for Southern Company’s Vogtle nuclear project in Georgia). Both projects used Westinghouse’s AP 1000 reactor design. The fixed price guarantees for both projects, which seemed like an aggressive move back in 2007, led to Westinghouse’s bankruptcy filing. So count the problems at Summer as fallout from the Westinghouse bankruptcy. Guarantees only have value if the guarantor has the assets to meet the obligations. Related: Oil Prices Slip Despite Modest Draw In Crude Inventories

In the press release, SCANA reaffirmed earnings guidance and a long term earnings growth rate of 2-4%. The press release made no mention of dividend policy. (The nuclear project represents one quarter of SCANA’s assets. Roughly 18% of the electric bill and two thirds of earnings are accounted for by consumer payments on capital invested in Summer.) The focus now shifts to SCANA’s balance sheet with respect to write-offs for this now abandoned project and the appropriate “sharing” of costs between ratepayers and shareholders. We expect that the bond rating agencies will soon have something to say on this.

The announcement may place enormous pressure on Southern Company, which plans its own cost review of the Vogtle nuclear project for next month.

Finally, we continue to believe that the problem with new nuclear (small modular units excepted) power plants is not that they generate electricity with nuclear fission. The difficulty is economic. The nuclear units are expensive, base load generating units in a world where production of electricity is becoming less expensive and increasingly decentralized. Base load power plants (and especially nuclear ones) are, in general, must-run, inflexible price takers. Going forward there will be less need for those facilities regardless of how they are fueled. Furthermore, the builder of a nuclear plant must bet an enormous sum on the need for electricity a decade hence, when the plant is completed. Given the uncertainty in power demand and prices, that is a gamble uncompensated in the regulatory process.

Southern Company, it’s your move now.

By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News