Monday, February 13, 2012


Commentary

'Gazprom Simply Wants To Get Paid'

Gazprom needs "a European energy partner with whom it can speak with one voice and negotiate with without troublesome in-betweens like Ukraine."
TEXT SIZE - +
By Peter Lavelle
It would appear to be an annual event: At the end of each year and the start of the next, Russia and Ukraine have a nasty natural-gas dispute.

Moscow is adamant that it will not resume gas supplies to Kyiv until arrears are paid and a new contract reflecting world gas prices is signed. Kyiv remains defiant, hoping the European Union will eventually step in to mediate.

This is the last thing Brussels wants at this point, but there is a sense of urgency that the EU must admit that its energy security is threatened by Ukraine. In the meantime, gas supplies to Europe are being interrupted.

As of January 1, Russia had no contract to sell natural gas to Ukraine. Without a contract, the export gas monopoly Gazprom is not only under no obligation to continue supplies, it also has no legal basis to do so. Thus, Gazprom was given no choice -- it had to cut supplies (and lose revenues in the process).

The energy giant has made it clear that it will honor its contracts with European consumers and there is no evidence that it has failed to do so. As Ukraine is the transit country for 80 percent of Gazprom's natural gas to Europe, it is Kyiv that must shoulder complete responsibility for any shortages experienced by Gazprom's consumers.

A great deal of the commentary on the current dispute -- as has been the case for the past few years -- has focused on the tense relations between Moscow and Kyiv. There can be no doubt there are political undertones to the current dispute. Russia has made it clear that NATO membership for Ukraine would pose an existential threat to Russia. The fact that Kyiv sold arms to Tbilisi at discounted prices definitely heightened tensions. But at the end of the day, these gas disputes are all about commercial relations and irrefutable energy realities: Gazprom simply wants to be paid.

Ukraine continues to purchase subsidized gas from Gazprom. Last year the price for 1,000 cubic meters was $179.50. In contrast, Gazprom's European customers pay up to $500 for the same amount of gas. Before Ukraine's 2008 contract with Gazprom expired, Kyiv was offered a new price for 2009 -- $250 per 1,000 cubic meters.

By any standard this was a very generous offer. To top this off, the transit fees Gazprom must pay Ukraine to get its product to market in Europe would also have been increased.

Kyiv rejected this deal. And it owes Gazprom hundreds of millions of dollars for gas supplies and penalties. In response, Gazprom made a new offer: Kyiv would have to pay $481 per 1,000 cubic meters in any future contract.

Getting Tough With Kyiv

The facts of this energy dispute speak volumes about Gazprom's determination to force Kyiv to act responsibly.

First, the volumes: Gazprom sells about 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas to Ukraine annually. This is compared to the 155 bcm sold to Gazprom's European customers. Gazprom's yearly production is about 610 bcm, and the Russian energy flagship purchases about 50 bcm annually from Central Asia.

Now for the dollars and cents of this dispute: In 2008, Gazprom sold Ukraine gas at a price of $179.50 per 1,000 cubic meters, totaling around $10 billion. Then consider the average price of about $400 to the rest of Europe. At this price, Gazprom's annual revenue from the 155 bcm sold is about $65 billion.

Do the math: Gazprom earns more than six times the revenues for only three times the volume of gas by selling to Europe. This is an incredible shortfall in revenues for Gazprom and unfair to its other customers who pay market prices. Selling Ukraine gas at the same price paid by the rest of Europe would raise Gazprom's revenues by about $12 billion annually, based on the 2008 sales volume. This figure would probably diminish slightly when factoring in the higher transit fees Gazprom is expected to pay Ukraine in any new contract. Nonetheless, Gazprom has a strong, compelling argument for its get-tough policy with Kyiv.

I have been covering the Russia-Ukraine gas disputes closely for years, and it is obvious to me that Kyiv is conducting a "the-worse-the-better" strategy. Ukraine is in dire economic straits and has been kept afloat by a $16 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Under these conditions, Kyiv desperately hopes Brussels will negotiate a better deal with Moscow on its behalf. Brussels should do just the opposite -- demand Kyiv transit Russian gas purchased by European countries without hindrance or delay.

In the meantime, Brussels simply must get serious about developing a long-term and integrated energy policy for the entire bloc. This is what Gazprom has repeatedly requested -- a European energy partner with whom it can speak with one voice and negotiate with without troublesome in-betweens like Ukraine.

Also, instead of fearing the "Russian energy bully," Brussels should help Russia build the Nord Stream and other new pipelines. Ukraine is a thorn in Gazprom's side. If Brussels isn't careful, Ukraine will become a thorn for the EU as well.

Peter Lavelle is a political commentator for Russia Today television and anchor of the program "In Context." The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL or Russia Today
Pipelines & Projects

A factbox on how gas gets to Europe from Russia and some of the new pipeline projects aimed at bringing more Russian gas to Europe and diversifying supplies. More

 
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments page of 3
    Next 
by: Andrew from: Auckland
January 07, 2009 12:07
What a crock. Obviously this commentator (who works for a Russian state owned broadcaster by the way) forgot to read his political masters song sheet before shooting his mouth off.

Mr Lavelle states that "By any standard this was a very generous offer. To top this off, the transit fees Gazprom must pay Ukraine to get its product to market in Europe would also have been increased."

Actually if this kremlin mouthpiece had read what Gazprom was actually saying he would have noted that Ukraine's offer to move towards market rates for gas if this was linked to market rates for transit of gas through Ukraine was rejected outright by Gazprom. Gazprom claimed a non existant treaty fixed transit charges untill 2010.

So "Mr" Lavelle (As in "excuse me "Mr"" By Ben Harper), please remove both feet from your mouth and remove Putins hand from you know where you Kremlin sock-puppet. Do you really think Europe wants to become even more beholden to the whims of neofascists in the kremlin?

by: elmer
January 07, 2009 15:08
What a crock is absolutely right. Lavelle hasn't been studying anything - he's just mouthing Kremlin propaganda.

Where else on earth in business negotiations does one negotiate in reverse - "oh, you don't like my $200 offer, well, now you will pay $400)? Where else does the head of a business go to the head of government for directions? Where else is a sale of a commodity deliberately tied in with political servitude ("you will submit to the Kremlin when you buy rooshan gas")?

When Microsoft sells its software, the US President does not say "cut off the software to roosha." When McDonald's sells hamburgers, the US government doesn't come in with it and say "you eat our hamburgers, now you will become a slave".

And where else do you find LIES surrounding the whole business negotiation? Ukraine paid what it was supposed to pay, and PREPAID for December 208 gas.

That was paid, in accordance with contract, to an intermediary - ROSUKRENERGO. Gazprom then pretended it didn't get the money.

Now, ROSUKRENERGO wants over $500 million in PENALTIES. Which Lavelle simply ignores.

Who is ROSUKRENERGO? 50% of it is select Kremlin insiders. In 2007, 20% of the gas delivered to Ukraine was "given" to ROSUKRENERGO - for what? That was about $4.5 BILLION worth of gas. For what?

Now that the Prime Minister of Ukraine wants to cut out a corrupt intermediary, roosha is pouting and stamping its feat, and showing Europe what it's made of - an intense desire to be noticed, and an intense desire for the rest of the world to bow down to oily orthodox mother roosha.

All in the context of a simple business deal - the sale of a commodity.

roosha, and Putin, have a very, very strange way, to put it politely, of doing "beezness." And much of it surrounds how to hide corruption by Putin and his Kremlin buddies.

The Washington Quarterly has a much better analysis of this whole thing.

http://www.twq.com/09winter/docs/09jan_ChowElkind.pdf

by: Zoltan from: Hungary
January 07, 2009 16:11
Andrew, it seems that you see politics (and bad russian guys) even in clear economic disputes.
Please tell me why should a stock company even if it is owned by a state sell its resources below market price for anybody?
Why do Ukraine gets cheaper gas than for example me in Hungary?
Why should Russia subsidize the ukrainian economy and state?
Price of gas is not 179 USD nor 251 USD. Ukraine should also pay the fair price!

Do not think I am a Kremlin fan. I do not like the current russian regime and I am very positive about President Yuschenko but I have a clear sight also in this case. Don't consider everything along political and ideological lines!

Ukraine should pay the real price of the gas and after it should join the EU.

This is what Russia also have to do. The EU without Russia could not be complete. A democratic and economicaly prosperous Russia have a right to be in the EU. Of course this won't happen tomorrow. But remember who supposed in 1945. that France and Germany will unite freely already in 1951?

by: Boris from: London
January 07, 2009 16:21
Kremlin has been getting more agressive lately in using westerners for their dirty propaganda campaings.
Mr. Leville is a good example of a dishonest reporter, who can sing either way he's ordered... of course, if price is right.

by: Zoltan from: Hungary
January 07, 2009 17:08
Please somebody answer me just one question:

why do you think Russia should sell gas cheaper for Ukraine than to anybody else???

If I buy oil from the world market I always have to pay a market price it doesn't matter if it is 147 or just 40 USD.
I pay always the same than anybody else whol also need oil.

Why do Ukraine get gas cheaper than the rest of Europe???

This is the question!

In this current case not the Kremlin who is the bad guy but Ukraine who does not want to pay the price for the gas they use.

Moreover Ukraine started to steal the gas other countries (for example Hungary) already payed. (on a higher price of course!)

This is why Europe need the North and South Stream. To secure the flow of gas.

Hungary is cut off from the gas pipeline by Ukraine. We use our reserves now and we hope it will be enough till the end of the crisis so please don't interpret this situation for eastern europeans from London or New Zeland!

by: Peter Lavelle from: Moscow, Russia
January 07, 2009 17:38
As usual my comments create reaction. Excellent! My aim is to do exactly that. And forums like this test the intelligence and knowledge of its posters. Reading the four comments posted tells me a number of things. First, shot the messager first, then consider the message. Second, even when the message is read, it is not seriously examined. One of the biggest problems when dealing with dispute is the sad fact many turn to politics and bias first, instead of careful research. I have done my research. Remember, this is "my third gas dispute." I have my facts in order.

Why in the world should Ukraine be given special treatment when it comes to European and Russian energy security?

Also, my commentary and analysis is better than anything the Kremlin puts out by a LONG SHOT. I take orders from one one.

Watch "Russia Today" - rttv.ru !


by: elmer
January 07, 2009 20:15
Zoltan, if that is your real name, you are spouting the Kremlin line - that Ukraine does not want to pay the market price.

There is NO "market price" when it comes to rooshan gas, and I dare you to find "market prices" posted anywhere for rooshan gas.

You can easily find market prices in other places in the world for gas and oil and other commodities - not so with respect to Russia. Russia makes up what it wants to make up.

Inside roosha, gas is sold for $58. Belarus buys its gas for $120. Roosha made an offer at $250 - then, being the bizarre sovoks that they are, upped it to $418.

Where is the "market price" in that? Where is the logic?

As noted in The Times, Gazprom is not a business - it's a political weapon.

Tell me, in any civilized country, what business televises a news conference between a government official and the chief executive of the business, where ultimately the business takes its orders as to business activities from the government?

When all of those Kremlin insiders buy Mercedes and BMW's and Rolls-Royces, do the chief executives of those car companies ask permission, or take direction, from Angela Merkel or Gordon Brown?

Here's yet another link for you, Zoltan, if that is truly your name:

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/1/3/786/89128

Read the Washington Quarterly article that I linked to in my earlier comment - it is written by a real expert.

Lavelle claims that he has some expertise because this is his "third" gas dispute. How laughable - spreading Kremlin propaganda does not contitute one an expert.

Lavelle may be a commentator, but only a fool would trust or rely on his comments - even if this is his "third" time spewing Kremlin propaganda.

by: Boris from: London
January 07, 2009 22:40
Mr Lavelle,
Why wouldn't Gazprom let Ukraine and others buy gaz directly from central asia? What Ukraine needs to do is just the same thing Gazprom does: do not let Russian gaz transit Ukraine, instead, buy it all up, and then resell to Europe.

I'm sorry, but RT is just a KGB propaganda tool, nothing more. nowhere near fair and balanced.

by: Viktor from: USA
January 08, 2009 02:34
Peter Lavelle??? Nothing more than a "katsap" mouthing off moscows propaganda.

by: Andrew from: Auckland
January 08, 2009 05:41
Funny how Lavelle fails to mention that A: The gas comes from Turkmenistan, Khazakhstan etc, B: Byeloruss gets its gas at 2/3 of the old price that Ukraine pays, why does Gazprom not charge them "market rates"? Oh yes, they are safely on the leash.

Peter, I think your Freudian slip is showing in your comment "Also, my commentary and analysis is better than anything the Kremlin puts out by a LONG SHOT. I take orders from one one."

We can safely assume the "ONE ONE" you take orders from is the boss in the Kremlin.
Comments page of 3
    Next 

Latest Commentary

No records found for this widget:963

More Commentary

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Iran To Make Nuclear Announcement

Latest Comment (13 total)

Ivan: @ Jack from Upper Siberia, he only Official connection is Russia=Syria=Iran=Hamas=Hizbolla More

In Armenia, Radio Azatutyun Brings Water Controversy To Public Light

Latest Comment (1 total)

Art SF: My hear hurts for Armenia. I hate to see people leaving the country. ... More

Putin Won't Meet Election Monitors

Latest Comment (6 total)

Jennifer Ciotta: The Western press does seem to take an anti-Putin stance, but if their ... More