Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 29th June 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

French close in on ScottishPower as Iberdrola bidders also target Fenosa



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 March 2008
SCOTTISHPOWER moved closer to French ownership this weekend amid a series of cross-border talks that would reshape the European energy market.
Electricité de France (EdF) and Spanish construction firm ACS are already targeting Spain's biggest utility, Iberdrola, owner of ScottishPower in a deal that would see the Scottish firm come under the control of the state-owned French utility.

Und
er the latest plans, the pair also want to buy Union Fenosa, the third-biggest Spanish utility.

The £70bn proposal coincides with a meeting planned in London this weekend between Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, in a bid to develop a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Britain wants to capitalise on France's expertise, partly to replace the UK's ageing plants, but also to export nuclear technology.

It comes amid a round of negotiations that could restructure the European electricity sector. British Energy, the UK's nuclear generator, is in talks that could lead to a £7bn takeover, possibly by Germany's RWE.

Scottish & Southern Energy, the Perth-based independent, is also said to be in the sights of European bidders.

ScottishPower, which fell under the control of Spanish firm Iberdrola last year in a £12bn deal, is facing another change of ownership.

ACS, which owns 13% of Bilbao-based Iberdrola, would take outright control of the Spanish company then sell the Scottish assets to EdF. The French firm would buy a stake in Fenosa in which ACS has a 45% holding.

The transaction would become the biggest in the European energy sector, dwarfing the acquisition last year of Spain's Endesa by Enil of Italy.

However, the deal faces considerable hurdles, not least the financial capability of ACS to acquire Iberdrola which is three times its size.

Iberdrola would expect a high take-out price, largely because of its growing renewables business.

There is also talk of German utility E.ON getting in on the act in a three-way split with Fenosa.

Sarkozy and the Spanish premier, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, have also held talks whereby EdF would buy a stake in Iberdrola in exchange for giving the Spanish control of some French nuclear power stations.

EdF's proposed acquisition of Iberdrola has drawn political criticism, not least from Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, who opposed the Spanish firm's takeover of ScottishPower, but is now battling to keep the firm out of French hands and is likely to be further angered by Brown's talks with Sarkozy over nuclear plants.

He said his government would have concerns if EdF launched a bid for the Spanish utility, arguing the UK energy market was already heavily concentrated and Scottish consumers and jobs could be at risk.





The full article contains 457 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 March 2008 1:26 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: ScottishPower
 
1

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 23/03/2008 05:03:56
The britsh government can build as many Nuclear power stations as they like, but not one is going to be built in SCOTLAND.
2

W Smith,

Middle East 23/03/2008 07:32:41
Pro-EU Salmond the clown thinks that take-overs are a one way street.

Oh no they're not!

If RBS can take over Citizens Bank in the US and Hollands ABN without any objection from Salmond the numpty then this is negative side of globalisation.

Salmond should stick to writing letters to that pro-nuclear energy and pro-nuclear weapons dictatorship in Iran.
3

The Strategist,

23/03/2008 09:28:08
#2

Most strategically important takeovers are a one way street. The RBS takeovers are not strategically important in that they provide zero gain for Scotland.
4

Brian Taylor,

Glenrothes 23/03/2008 12:50:44
I find it amazing that the Scottish Parliament would allow the sale of an important energy business to a French State owned company such as Electricity de France. Hollyrod is deciving its self if it belives that this sale is in the intrests of Scottish consumers and if it goes through they have let us all down.
More than likely the profits will be stripped and used to invest in the French infrastructure system leaving Scotlands network to fall in to a state of disrepaire.
Prices will be dictated by French Politics in so far as the state owned business will be guided by French Policies.
If the Scottish Parliament fail to intervean and block this sale, I don't see a use for them.
Prehapse we should all start speaking French and Alex Salmond should change has name to Bonnie Prince Chalie
5

danielrober,

23/03/2008 13:30:24
I can see the temporary business sense for France. Economic expansion and more jobs for France.

One of the things I don't understand is whats going on in the head of UK/Scotland politicians. Where is the advantage? If its cost, well then its Russia for technology. If its high tech, well then its America. If its automation, then its Japan. France has the same technoogy infrastructure as we do.

So where is the advantage handing over another huge contract to France? They hardly back us up in the war, but we'll still buy next generation battle field vehicles from them and selling more of the power station business to the French government.

In truth i just don't know what France is doing. This negative publicity must be destroying, long term exports such as wine.

I just don't get it. Could anyone illuminate, what the business plan is?
6

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 23/03/2008 14:59:52
Brown and Sarkozy are ushering us back to the corporate state - if we ever left it! Edf and Areva, the station builder, are ca. 85% and 90% respectively French state-owned. France imports its uranium mainly from Canada, Australia and Niger as its own mines are exhausted, so that when the US-Russian ex-weapons deal (diluted HEU with LEU and supplied as UF6 gas in cylinders) which keeps half of the US nukes going ends in five years, the US and France will be in competition for dwindling natural uranium supplies. (Production in Canada fell 20% in the last two years and that in Australia by 10%.) The fuel for Areva reactors in the UK will come from France, so we can guess which lights will go out first!
7

danielrober,

23/03/2008 15:15:38
# John (Again),Bury St Edmunds

Can i just ask a question. If this is an old source of radioative materials for the power stations. Are these old fuel rods?

So instead of modern 21st century fuel rods, for our new power stations are we going to purchase 1980's fuel rods. Is this the equivelant of running a 'Petroleum gas' combined gas fired station, on lower energy (calorific) coal gas?
8

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds UK 23/03/2008 15:48:10
The world's nuclear fuel comes mainly from primary mining (60% of it or 40,000 tonnes of natural uranium). The other 40% comes from the US-Russian deal (which provides the equivalent of 10,000 tonnes of natural uranium) by diluting highly enriched uranium from decommissioned weapons with re-enriched enrichment tails, with the other 15,000 tonnes (equivalent, not actual) coming from re-processed spent fuel as a mixed-oxide (MOX), from re-enriched tails, from ore stocks or from releases from strategic stocks, as in the US. The problem is that both the primary and secondary sources are in decline, a crisis understood in the industry, but denied by political agencies such as OECD/NEA, IAEA and WNA. New mining projects providing around 40,000 tonnes a year of natural uranium are needed within 5 years or so to allow the "renaissance" to take place. There are only two major projects able to provide half of this gap and both are in trouble. Cigar Lake mine in Canada is flooded and will not produce, if ever, until 2012, while the Olympic Dam expansion in Australia is coming to terms with poor ore grades by wanting to export its uranium in copper concentrate to foreign smelters, most likely in China, where both metals are in demand. Alec Salmond can relax - there will be no new build in Scotland - and probably nowhere else in the UK
9

Trond,

Norway 23/03/2008 16:21:33
#8 Thorium based power plants may burn the old fuel, taking material intended for nuclear bombs out of circulation. Thorium itself is not dangerous outside the body. It is also more available than uranium.

Current plans are probably for uranium based power plants.

See:

http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/
10

The Strategist,

23/03/2008 16:35:18
#5

The business plan is simple. The Treasury and the City take the view that its much better to let every other country develop all the technology we need so we can buy what we want from them when we want it.
11

danielrober,

23/03/2008 18:17:37
Thanks all.

I get the impression that the nuclear business is experincing the same trends that the renewable industy faces. New technologies will require new skills and infrastructure developments. So before these new techs, come on line RE, Nuclear, insulation etc, old companies, many nationalised are tying tobuild like crazy.

That's a shame.
12

Trond,

Norway 23/03/2008 19:32:05
# 11: It is easier than building, just to secure a strategic ownership to affect the decisions on when and what to build. This can keep a long lasting and effective activity going (e.g. in France), based on a currently out of date technology.

Thorium based power plants produce no radioactivity when they are switched off, (see link at # 9), but when it comes to nuclear, any environmental consequence seems to be accepted.
13

danielrober,

24/03/2008 08:42:30
Would anyone on the Scotsman team, actually know what business model the UK/Scotish government is using? I have thought about this all night and can still not come up with any reasonable answer.

The only thing i could guess is the threat of having shares dumped on the maket. But even that would only result in a market fire sale. The companies would lose 'some' assets, but no different fromt he banks and the customer would benefit from cheaper electricity.

Really, if the government wants to keep the support of people like myself, some explanation needs to be given. If not then i'll be campaiging for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrates at the next general election.

The engineering industry is not a pawn to be sacrificed. We are people too.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.