Friday 30 July 2010

The NatWest 3: More Enron Ungagged

In case it rains as promised on Sunday, and/or the cricket turns for the worse, here's some more Enron Ungagged you might find interesting (first brought to you here).

They've added a lengthy batch of interviews with 2 of the NatWest Three
, telling how they were stitched up by US prosecutors, and very badly served by bloody Tony Blair's ridiculously one-sided extradition treaty. I hold no brief for these chaps but it's an interesting tale.

Devil ... long spoon ...

ND

12 comments:

  1. In terms of the overall gameplan, the BP stitch up is an interesting study. In the end though, it does come down to incompetence and arrogance - to think the tap would not come out as it did. They were either like small boys playing with matches near a petrol station or else they were a chapter in an ongoing story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Thomas10:20 am

    They are probably not the only ones upto sculdgery. Anyone remember Nick Leeson and Barings rogue trading the powers in Barings were have apparently happy to see the large profits but when then brown stuff hit the fan they peaded ignorance as to what was going on, or the running of these fiscal instruments which very few apparently understood but were happy to see profits built on a vacuum a lot less dense than air.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ND: off-topic, but if you enjoy good kickings of Areva/EDF you must read this Time article - and has new stuff I didn't know. With the six month results and the other news, a bad hair week for EDF/Areva!

    And at the serious end, Nuclear Engineering International have translated the Roussely report into English. Well worth a read for those here that think the French are an admirable nuclear example for the UK. Cherry-picking some quotes:

    "while the world average availability of nuclear power plants ... has increased significantly over the past fifteen years, the availability of French nuclear power has decreased sharply in recent years. ...

    Support the extension of plant operation to 60 years [ed: great for EDF, terrible for Areva stuck export-only with new reactors for 20 odd years] ...

    Plan a moderate but steady increase in electricity prices (in constant Euros) to enable the preparation of funding for the renewal of the fleet over the long term ...

    The new industrial battle of civil nuclear power is now so important that it requires states to invest, sometimes by abandoning their traditional positions, arguing strongly and at the highest level of business development of its major firms and increasing intergovernmental agreements."

    Are we going to buy into that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Mr W, will go take a look

    ReplyDelete
  5. PS the translation is diabolical

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:29 pm

    just finished watching... i am not sure I believe everything the 3 say (does appear something fishy about the transaction, money for nothing etc! ) . notwithstanding this, it was an awful process and they did appear to get stiffed by the "process". does seem unique set of circumstances... just wish they could have negotiated earlier (easy in hindsight I guess)

    ReplyDelete
  7. agree with yr first sentence, anon

    but to me, the point is that even if the transaction was as bent as a bent thing, the only possible victim was NatWest & there should have been no question of extradition (so - no need for negotiation w. US authorities whatsoever)

    which is more important than any greedy little, err, ahem, capitalist

    Blair's to blame

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:35 am

    Yes, agree there was no victim. To me the most damning thing was a "crime" that is slap bang in the England & Wales jurisdiction, gets prosecuted overseas. In many respects they were hold hostage until they agreed a plea.
    Its a pity the motion to dismiss wasn't appealed as could have been a useful precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ND: the translation is indeed amazingly diabolical. And its not clear if all the "..." mean anything, or are simply typos in translation.

    But even the obscure translation cannot hide that a lot of this is toward a plan for subsidy ("a convincing case for funding") - and it looks like the vehicle he desires is a new "Department of Energy or a General Secretariat of Energy" to take on all the industry training and R&D costs (including funding new prototype reactors to be marketed alongside a re-designed "optimised" EPR).

    You can just hear the undertones of regret when he writes "In a world where energy is deregulated in many economic areas the question of financing of civilian nuclear energy and therefore its competitiveness, is now essential. ... Private investors are now very reluctant."

    His suggestion of a "common contract of partnership" with China is his best idea, as they still effectively state-finance reactors without the private sector risk-premium!

    I'm still mistified where EDF expects to get the finance for the planned UK EPRs from. I guess when all the chips are down, the French state will finance it somehow as make-work for Areva with a short order-book.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ... ND, if you're still looking at the Areva/EDF situation, there is rather a good blog summarising all the aspects here.

    Also mentions the latest U.S. NRC design certification review issues on EPR, especially digital instrumentation and control systems - which if you recall you highlighted to me about a year ago (joining control and safety systems - seemingly a bad idea). Odd thing there, the Multinational Design Evaluation meeting did not include the UK NII, but had "the regulatory agencies of France (ASN/IRSN), Finland (STUK), Japan (NISA), Korea, Russia, and Canada." Strange.

    BTW Is the EDF/Areva situation of work interest to you?

    ReplyDelete
  11. indirectly, at present: I have no nuke dealings just now, though I have had in the past, and may again (unless I'm too rude about the "floor-price for carbon" ...)

    where EDF expects to get the finance for the planned UK EPRs from: don't forget the significance of abandonment costs if they don't build new ones on the sites (or find other buyers for the sites)

    things are never quite what they seem with EDF ...

    (though I was a little surprised that Roussely didn't row in behind Delors' outrageous new Common Energy Policy plan: I take your point about him looking for new subsidies, but the whole report has a rather deflated tone, don't you think?)

    on the 'translation': it's worthless (copyright & all !) - I have been wrestling with the nuances of le calendrier des opérations au Royaume-Uni sera mis à profit dans le même souci, which Dalrymple completely fails to get to grips with

    (think I know the answer now, having conferred with Mrs & Miss D, who are both better linguists than I)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Roussely was rather downbeat. But when he is talking about "taking emergency measures", he obviously thinks the EPR etc situation is dire!

    If EDF can (and are allowed to) life-extend their large 900 MWe fleet to 60 years at reasonable cost, and take moderate efficiency measures and/or CO2 floor price happens, seems to me 10 to 20 years forward they'll probably be making plenty of profit on French leccy. Be interesting to see these numbers run.

    I wonder if the political deal cut will be that EDF can life extend to 60 years, provided they finance building one-ish new nuclear/year abroad at low discount rate, to keep Areva going just over tickover. That might work with the numbers, if the French state covers R&D and prototype reactors.

    ReplyDelete