Romania's government control body has identified a series of irregularities in the small modular reactor SMR project developed by state-controlled nuclear power producer Nuclearelectrica (BVB: SNN), including concerns over land acquisition, project governance, and the allocation of financial risks between partners. The findings are contained in a report prepared by the control body of acting prime minister Ilie Bolojan. The report follows a shareholders' meeting at which the Ministry of Energy voted against a proposal by Nuclearelectrica's management to reassess the project's technical and financial viability.
The decision came despite recent criticism from Ilie Bolojan regarding the project's feasibility and after the company's management acknowledged that key preconditions for taking the final investment decision (FID) had not been met by the end-June deadline. According to the report, the site selected for the project was not the highest-ranked option recommended by the consultant. It also found that the price ultimately paid for the land was nearly double the valuation cited in the consultant's analysis, Economedia.ro reported.
The report further alleged that Nuclearelectrica financed the purchase of the land by the project company from its private partner, Nova Power & Gas, effectively providing the funds used to acquire the asset. Inspectors concluded that the partnership structure disproportionately favoured the private partner. While Nuclearelectrica provides the project's cash flow and assumes most of the financial risk, Nova Power & Gas holds a 50% stake in the project company despite contributing only its share capital, estimated at around EUR 4 million, alongside the land sold to the joint venture.
According to the report, the land initially represented the bulk of Nova Power & Gas's contribution and the main reason for its participation in the project – but the land was eventually purchased using financing provided by Nuclearelectrica. The control body said the equal ownership structure "had no logical or economic justification", arguing that the investors' agreement allocates risks, obligations and rights in a manner that is significantly disadvantageous to the state-owned company. "The control body notes that the private partner's conduct resulted in the sale of the land and the additional re-invoicing of the works (...) to create only the ap…
Summary from source