April 2006

2 PART I : Status of nuclear industry in Korea PART II : Romania-Korea Cooperation status PART III : Cooperation with Korea PART I : Status of nuclear industry in Korea PART II : Romania-Korea Cooperation status PART III : Cooperation with Korea

PART I STATUS OF NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IN KOREA

4 Status of Electric Power 28.5% (17,716) 28.9% (17,965) 26.6% (16,552) 7.4% (4,605) 6.2% (3,885) 40.3% (146,779) 36.6% (133,657) 16.0% (58,250) 4.8% (17,883) 1.4% (5,153) *The others : 1,537 MW(2.5%)*The others : 3,349 GWh(0.9%) (As of the end of 2005) Nuclear Coal Gas Oil Hydro Total : 62,260MWTotal : 364,571GWh

5 Installed Capacity NuclearCoalOilGasHydro 367MW Capacity X 1,000 MW 62,260 MW 28.5% 28.9% 7.4% 26.6% 6.2% 21,111MW 9,835MW ,628MW ,858 MW 27.0% 30.5% 9.6% 25.3% 7.6%

6 HydroOilGasCoalNuclear Long-term Power Development Plan X 1,000 MW 90 Capacity ,260MW (26.6%) 78,630MW (26.1%) 86,340MW (26.8%) 88,040MW (26.3%) 17,716 (28.5%) 18,716 (23.8%) 26,640 (30.9%) 26,640 (30.3%) (28.9%) (30.9%) (25.7%)(25.3%) (7.4%) (6.2%) (2.7%) (3.8%) (6.2%) (8.0%) (7.3%) (7.1%)

7 Status of Nuclear Power Plants Seoul Ulchin #1 ∼ 6 Kori #1 ∼ 4 ► Shin Kori #1~2 Wolsong #1 ∼ 4 ► Shin Wolsong #1,2  Yonggwang #1 ∼ 6 Site In Operation Under Const. Total Kori4 (3,137)2 (2,000)6 (5,137) Wolsong4 (2,779)2 (2,000)6 (4,779) Yonggwang6 (5,900)- Ulchin6 (5,900)- Total 20 (17,716) 4 (4,000) 24 (21,716) (Unit: MW) (As of the end of 2005)

8 In Operation NSSS: Nuclear Steam Supply System, A/E: Architectural Engineering  20 units (17,716 MW) Plant Reactor Type Capacity (MW) NSSS Supplier Plant A/E Commercial Operation PWR W/H Gilbert Bechtel/KOPEC Apr. ’78 July ’83 Sep. ’85 Apr. ’86 #1 #2 #3 #4 Kori Korea has accumulated experience in various type of reactors PHWR AECL AECL/DOOSAN AECL AECL/KOPEC Apr. ’83 Jun ’97 Jun. ’98 Sep. ’99 #1 #2 #3 #4 Wolsong PWR 950 1,000 W/H DOOSAN Bechtel/KOPEC KOPEC Aug. ’86 Jun ’87 Mar. ’95 Jan. ’96 May. ’02 Dec. ’02 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Yonggwang PWR 950 1,000 Framatome DOOSAN Framatome KOPEC KPPEC Sep. ’88 Sep ’89 Aug. ’98 Dec. ’99 July. ’04 Apr. ’05 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Ulchin

9 Under Construction/Planning  8 units 9,600 MW * OPR : Optimized Power Reactor, APR : Advanced Power Reactor Today, Korean companies are taking the leading role in NPP Projects Construction Plant TypeCapacity (MW)Reactor TypeProject PWR 1000 OPR1000 Dec Dec #1 #2 Shin-Kori RemarkCommercial Operation Construction PWR 1000 OPR1000 Oct Oct #1 #2 Shin-Wolsong Planning PWR 1400 APR1400 Dec Dec #1 #2 Shin-Ulchin Planning PWR 1400 APR1400 Sep Sep #3 #4

10 Nuclear Power Development Plan Ulchin 3& / Yonggwang 3& / 1996 Yonggwang 5&6 Ulchin 5&6 Shin-Kori 3&4 Shin-Kori 1& / / 2014 Shin-Ulchin 1& / 2015 APR 1400 Nth APR 1400 Development Shin-Wolsong 1& / 2012 OPR 1000 (Operation) OPR 1000 (Construction) APR /2005  2010  2005  2000  1995  1990 

11 Site View of Kori

12 Site View of Wolsong

13 Site View of Yonggwang

14 Site View of Ulchin

15 Site View of Shin-Kori RCB Unit 2 Unit 1

16 Site View of Shin-Wolsong

17 Operational Performance Unplanned shut down / Unit Capacity Factor (Korea) Unplanned shut down / Unit Capacity Factor(%) Capacity Factor (World Average) shutdown C.F.(%) `92`93`94`95`96`97`98`99`00`01`02`03 `04 `05

18 Outstanding Performance in 2005 KHNP’s 5 units take all the top five spots on the list of 50 best capacity factors World Generation Ranking : -No. 1 : Kori #4 (104.85%) -No. 2 : Younggwang #3 (104.14%) -No. 3 : Ulchin #1, YGN #1 (103.80%) (* two units in third ) -No. 5 : Wolsong #3 (102.29%) World Generation in 2005 (Nucleonics Week, ’06.2.9)

AECL / Doosan 〃 〃 NEI- Parsons Doosan / GE 〃 〃 Apr ’83 Jun ’97 Jun ’98 Sep ’99 Turnkey Non- Turnkey 〃 〃 May ’77 Oct ’91 Aug ’ Unit Capacity (MWe) Manufacturer ReactorT/G Contract Type Construction Period Outlines of Wolsong CANDU NPPs ExcavationCODMonths

20 Period Performance of Wolsong CANDU NPPs UnitWorld Rank (*)Capacity Factor (%) ( *) : The number of NPPs in the world #1 #3 #4 Apr 1, ’85 ~ Mar 31, ’86 Apr 1, ’89 ~ Mar 31, ’90 Jul 1, ’91 ~ Jun 30, ’92 Oct 1, ’91 ~ Sep 30, ’92 Jan 1, ’93 ~ Dec 31, ’93 Jan 1, ’97 ~ Dec 31, ’97 Jul 1, ’98 ~ Jun 30, ’99 Oct 1, ’99 ~ Sep 30, ’ (277) 2(341) 2(356) 1(360) 1(421) 2(427) 1(376) 1(417)

21 ROMANIA-KOREA COOPERATION STATUS PART II

22 History for Cooperation MOU was signed between MOIR-Romania and KHNP for cooperation in Nuclear Power Projects MOU was signed between MOIR-Romania and MOCIE-Korea for cooperation in Cernavoda nuclear projects Technical Cooperation Agreement was signed between SNN and KHNP ~ Romanian key persons visited Korea to discuss to enhance mutual cooperation in Cernavoda Projects, including Minister of Foreign Affairs, President of Senate, etc RAAN supplied 16 tons of heavy water to KHNP

23 History for Cooperation (Con’d) MOU was signed at 1st Romania-Korea Industrial Cooperation Committee(ICC) in Bucharest RAAN supplied 16 tons of heavy water to KHNP Romanian high level and working level delegations visited Korean nuclear industry, including State Secretary of MOEC Romanian President, Mr. Traian Basescu visited Korea (10.18~ 10.19) and talked with KHNP CEO, Mr. Lee Joong-Jae Nuclear Cooperation Agreement was signed by both gov’ts nd Korea-Romania ICC was held in Seoul

24

25 Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) for Units 1, 2 was signed between SNN & KHNP in March ’02 Technical Assistance for Units 1,2 Owner consulting services for schedule control for Unit 2 -2 KHNP experts were dispatched to Cernavoda in May ’02 -Contributed to significant reduction of construction schedule PSA Services for Part 1 (Fuelling related Systems) for Unit 2 -Contract award to KHNP in November ’05 To expand technical cooperation areas -Greatly contribute to enhance economy and safety of Unit 1 operation and Unit 2 construction -PSR, design modifications, training, commissioning, etc.

26 Joint Study Team -SNN (Leader), KHNP, AECL & Ansaldo -Financial Advisor (Phase 2 only) Phase 1 Study from March to September ’03 -Technical, economic advantages of the Project were proven -Results were approved by Inter-Ministerial Committee in December ’03 Phase 2 Study in progress from October ’03 -To establish appropriate financing model and to draw project ownership -7 potential investors in equity of Project Company, including KHNP, were selected (November ’04) Joint Development of Units 3,4 Project Phases 1 and 2 Joint Feasibility Study

27 As a major shareholder of PCO and the major participants in EPC/O&M, provided that the appropriate securities are established - Reliable long term PPA - Licensing, Public Acceptance and Political Risk - Nuclear Liability and Radwaste Disposal - Protection of Investors against bad financial situation of PCO, etc. Joint Development of Units 3,4 Project (Con’d) KHNP's Indication of Interest under JVPC ※ Model (March '06) ※ JVPC : Joint Venture Project Company

28 Joint Development of Units 3,4 Project (Con’d) Cooperation with Korea in Units 3,4 Project Korea’s involvement in Unit 3,4 will certainly contribute to constructing the most successful plant with the highest economy and safety in the world

29 Joint Development of Units 3,4 Project (Con’d) Cooperation with Korea in Units 3,4 Project (Cont’d) Korea is the best partner to Romania for Cernavoda Project -Benefiting from its world-top class technologies and experience gained through continuous implementation of 20 NPP projects, including 4 CANDU units, for more than 30 years -Korean nuclear industry with systematically established infrastructure is willing to share its technologies with Romania in every field of nuclear power project implementation

30 COOPERATION WITH KOREA PART III

31 Increased Necessity of Nuclear Power Rapid increase of energy price Environmental regulation (Kyoto Protocol) Instability of energy supplies Securing of stable energy source in the medium and long terms Introduction of NPPs considering each country’s own energy circumstances Circumstances of Energy in the WorldGlobal Renaissance of Nuclear Power

32 Strength of Korean Nuclear Industry  Continuous and intensive implementation of NPP Projects since introduction of first NPP in the 1970’s Steady and definite policy in Nuclear Power Projects  Systematically established nuclear power infrastructure  Steady and definite policy in nuclear power project

33 Cooperation with KHNP NPP Technology Self-reliance & Localization Training Program F/S for OPR1000 Technical Assistance Sharing Korean Experience & Resources Joint Venture T/T & T/A Near-term Cooperation Long-term Cooperation

34 Benefits of Cooperation with Korea Latest and Proven Technology Favorable Financing Korean Experience of Localization

35