Brief Interview with Minister of Energy German Galushchenko for Interfax-Ukraine

Text – Nina Yavorska

 

How do you assess Ukraine’s need for gas imports?

We need it, and in fact, the issue is not just about this season. The point is that we need to fill our storage facilities for the next heating season. Therefore, gas imports are absolutely necessaryfor us. As for the volumes, we will see where we stand at the end of this season, taking into account, among other things, the consequences of russian attacks on gas infrastructure. We will see, but I think we will definitely need to import at least 1 billion cubic meters by the end of the year. Possibly even more.

How would you comment on the gas price at which Naftogaz is currently importing it? Yesterday, there was information that Naftogaz purchased 150 million cubic meters for February at a price of UAH 28,000 per 1,000 cubic meters.

That is the market price today. And all these discussions about how it should have been bought earlier are no longer relevant. In the 1990s, it was extremely cheap. So should we have bought it back then?

How financially secured is Naftogaz for imports?

Besides its own funds, Naftogaz has open credit lines. For example, the EBRD credit line for EUR 200 million. And they actually have even more. In addition, there is a possibility of receiving grant funds.

We are also in discussions with partners about the possibility of receiving gas as a commodity grant. That would also be a viable solution.

Have there been any proposals from the EU regarding the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine?

No, there haven’t been any. Slovakia is receiving Azerbaijani gas – currently 400 million cubic meters per month – but I believe Azerbaijan could increase these volumes if necessary.

How have attacks on gas infrastructure affected production?

I cannot disclose figures. It has had a serious impact. However, all of these disruptions are temporary. We understand what needs to be done.

A new parliamentary week is starting. How will you work with Parliament on the Khmelnytskyi NPP-3,4 project?

I have already done everything I could. We revised the draft law. It has passed the Energy Committee (on January 16, the Verkhovna Rada Energy and Housing Committee supported Bill No. 11392 on permission to purchase reactor equipment in Bulgaria). I believe its current version addresses all concerns.

Now it is a question of whether Parliament will vote for it or not. And this is really a question of whether Ukraine needs power generation or whether we will continue living with electricity shortages. That’s all.

The Bulgarian permit for the purchase of two reactor vessels for Khmelnytskyi NPP-3,4 expires on March 11. What are the prospects for its extension?

Bulgaria is unlikely to extend this permit. Unfortunately, there is a different parliamentary coalition there today, and there is a pro-russian influence. One of the conditions, as I understand it, was not to extend this permit. So now everything is in the hands of the Ukrainian Parliament.

If Parliament adopts the law, we will gain over 2 gigawatts of new generation capacity. If not, we won’t. But we must understand that the country’s economy needs to develop. The war will end one day, and there will be an electricity shortage then.

Are there any preliminary agreements on providing a loan to Energoatom for purchasing these reactor units? You mentioned at the Energy Committee meeting that credit funds are needed for this, but this is not a simple issue, and time is running out.

The work in this direction has been ongoing since last year. There are certain developments. But as you understand, no one will engage in serious discussions until the law is voted. Everyone sees what is happening around it.

And to be honest, even the banks are now saying: first pass the law, then we will discuss the specifics. And they are right because, excuse me, we haven’t been able to pass this law for over a year. Not to mention the fact that we convinced the Bulgarians to sell us the equipment, they approved it, and now we can’t even approve it ourselves.

I believe we have done everything possible on our side. And I think there are a lot of manipulations surrounding this law. But my only concern is ensuring that the country does not have an electricity shortage.

When these reactor units are launched, I will most likely not even be the one cutting the ribbon. But it’s not about me – it’s about what the country needs.

If a motion for my dismissal is registered in Parliament with the justification “for favoritism toward nuclear energy” – yes, that’s what it says – then I take pride in that.

I would be happy to be dismissed for favoritism toward nuclear energy.

Because the whole world is moving in this direction. If we want to move in another direction, then fine. Just maybe without me.

What do you predict will happen with this motion? You are probably monitoring the situation.

I don’t know. There are about 20-something signatures. Let them bring it to a vote. I really don’t care. Regarding this motion – it is purely political. When I spoke in Parliament, I said: "Keep politics away from energy. You can engage in politics, but, excuse me, if the state needs this kind of generation, then it needs it."

Today, everyone is an expert. Ask about any topic, and everyone will tell you everything. But at least I have the decency to be an expert only in the field I understand.