Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Gas crisis: Russia caves in as expected

by Jerome a Paris Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 05:08:22 AM EST

EU says agreement on monitoring gas flow via Ukraine reached

BRUSSELS, January 9 (RIA Novosti) - The European Commission said on Friday a deal on monitoring gas transit via Ukraine has been reached. The move is aimed at fast restoration of gas supplies to the EU member states, the Commission said.

Russia ready to pay market price for gas transit via Ukraine - PM

NOVO-OGARYOVO, January 8 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is ready to pay a market price for gas transit via Ukraine if Kiev pays a market price for supplies of Russian gas, the Russian prime minister said Thursday.

"We believe Ukraine should pay a market price, and we are ready to pay a market transit," Vladimir Putin told foreign journalists.

When you look at the numbers provided by Vladimir Putin in that article (an increase in the transit tariff from $1.6 to $3.4 per 1000 cubic meters per 100km), one can only notice that he is effectively reducing the net gas bill of Ukraine to Gazprom by the same amount that they wanted to increase it with respect to gas prices. That means, that just like every other year, Ukraine will get about 25 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas in exchange for the transit of Russian gas to Europe, ie Gazprom gets no money for that volume. Now, officially, all the gas sold to Ukraine (50 bcm) comes via RosUkrEnergo (about which questions are finally beginning ot be raised in the Western media). RUE is half-owned by Gazprom (thus the first 25 bcm of deliveries) and half by Centragas, officially owned by Ukrainian businessmen Firtash and Fursin. The real stakes are not what's happening with the 25 bcm provided by Gazprom, which generate no cash, it's what happens with the other half of the business.

There is no political, economic or diplomatic reason for that structure to be in place, both governments officially call for it to be dismantled, and yet, year in and year out, it remains. Why? Who is powerful enough to instrumentalize the official international policies of the two countries, and put them in the middle of an international crisis?

Maybe the EU could ask these questions, now that the urgency is fading?


Display:
I was about to post along the same lines.

Vladimir Putin 'agrees to resume pumping gas through Ukraine from Russia' - Telegraph

The Czech EU presidency announced late on Thursday that an agreement over the monitors had been reached with Mr Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, in a surprising turnaround just hours after talks in Brussels had broken down.

However, it remains unclear whether all parties - including Ukraine and the national gas companies involved - have agreed to the deal.

Mr Putin and Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, agreed during a telephone conversation "on the conditions of deployment of the monitoring commission at all locations that are relevant for the flow of gas," a statement from the EU presidency said, adding: "This deployment should lead to the Russian supplies of gas to EU member states being restored."

About 10 monitors, who will be drawn from the European gas industry and the European Commission, are due on the ground on Friday.

See my comment here.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 05:26:42 AM EST
Maybe the EU could ask these questions, now that the urgency is fading?

EU Energy Commissioner Piebalgs, step up and investigate!

Won't happen. It is so convenient to have a Russian bogeyman threatening us all with freezing in the dark.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 05:30:53 AM EST
To my knowledge, he was very silent during this "crisis."

Way to go, J.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 06:07:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is so convenient to have a Russian bogeyman...

This is so true, in the US anyways, and though it ought to be the subject of an extensive diary, the question is, "why????" It passes understanding. I don't know how many times, from the journal, Foreign Affairs to the Economist, I've seen the phrase "Resurgent Russia." Why is the media afraid of Russia? I'm not getting it. Convenience doesn't explain it.

And great call there, Jerome.

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 07:01:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It fits into the Cold War shaped space in their brains.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 07:06:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
then you have to explain why the energy policies of the past 15 years (ie giving the keys to the system to London bankers and traders) are delivering ever-increasing energy prices (contrary to promises) and all that uncertainty over supplies.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 07:14:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where is that story about how the European Commission had "made a mistake" in how they "sold" liberalization to consumers because they didn't point out that market prices are not necessarily lower?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 07:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sounds like a bad conspiracy movie...or a good one, I'm thinking Syriana.

In the US, that would mean a coordinated effort from people in Washington, New York, Chicago, Atlanta and Houston, to ensure that people's minds were diverted from our own nonexistent energy policy (let the market sort it out), by parading the Russian bear before their eyes.

That's a hard one to swallow. Not that I don't think there are "gentlemen's agreements" in place, I know first hand that there are, but that's a big one to swallow nonetheless.

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 07:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
or nothing more than the 'conspiracy' to cut taxes on the rich and lower labor costs: it's directly profitable to big business, and it allows politicians to play the nationalist card ("I'm tough! Elect me to protect you against the evil external enemy!") and distract the population from the real underlying issues. The media is either complicit (Murdoch/WSJ types) or too lazy to look beyond the jingoism of the day.

The 'lack' of energy policy is one that makes banks and traders happy (Wall Street and the city), fits in the dominant narrative of 'markets are best' and provides cover for the utilities/energy companies.

As I've noted, the demonization of Russia was directly pushed by very public speeches by Cheney, Blair or Barroso in 2005/06, which the media had to cover, and which were supported by a lot of "analysts", and became conventional wisdom very quickly.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 08:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Resurgent Russia" is one of the catchphrases that emerged as Washington realized, in the '00s, that Russia wasn't going to be a subservient quivering wreck as previously hoped. That doesn't just have repercussions for European energy (hardly a priority for the US) but for Central Asia and its resources.  Washington went back, as Colman suggests, to Cold War constants, except this time pushing the freedom and democracy line further East with the colour revolutions and plans to extend NATO - Russian containment policy. Another Cold War constant in the mix is that Russia is such a looming threat that Europe cannot be Safe without American suzerainty.

The media don't invent this stuff, they mouth it.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 08:03:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think we should flood Piebalgs' blog with comments about his being AWOL.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 07:05:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gazprom's official statement on the gas crisis

During the period of January 1 - January 5, European consumers received from Ukraine about 170 million cubic metres of gas less then they were due. At the same time 65.3 million cubic metres of Russian gas was simply stolen from the export gas pipe.

On January 5, for the first time in the history of our gas negotiations, the Ukrainian side did not confirm the volume of transit gas to European countries, which, furthermore, was an unprecedented case in the history of the gas industry.

(...)

In accordance with the existing contract Gazprom has filed a lawsuit against NJSC "Naftogaz of Ukraine" with the arbitrary court of Stockholm for ensuring uninterrupted gas transit through Ukrainian territory to European countries. Independent legal advice has recognised the contract as valid.

This means only one thing - Ukraine must provide gas transit through its territory. The transit price at 1.6 US dollars per 1000 cubic meters per 100km is competitive and will not be reconsidered.

(...)

We would like to emphasise that if the interests of the Ukrainian people are considered a higher priority than temporary political interests by the Ukrainian leadership, the population of our sister nation will not suffer from the energy crisis.



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 06:15:34 AM EST
Assuming they ramp up supply today, when can gas be expected at the other end?

And assuming they don't ramp up supply today, what happens next?

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 06:31:48 AM EST
If pressure is not coming back by tomorrow, then expect more screaming from Europe, more confused PR by Russians and Ukrainians, and service coming back up quickly after that.

Maybe the "observers" will be able to confirm early that pressure is coming back up on the upstream side.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 06:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What will the observers be doing? Is it a simple manner of reading pressure gauges and phoning in the numbers?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 08:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How the British connection helped the rise of Dmytro Firtash ROSUKRENERGO
Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian trader who has emerged as a key player in the European natural gas market, was unfamiliar to most western business people until this week. But a small group of British businessmen have known him well for years.

When he appeared last year at a Mansion House dinner at which the Queen presented an award to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, the 40 year old Mr Firtash sat at a table hosted not by Ukrainians, but by JKX Oil and Gas, a British AIM-quoted company with interests in Ukraine.

Its chairman is Lord Peter Fraser, a former Tory trade minister, and the chief executive is Paul Davies, an oil man with extensive experience in the former Soviet Union. Mr Firtash is one of the company's biggest shareholders, controlling a 9.7 per cent stake through a holding company called Benam.



"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 06:43:22 AM EST
it's been a pretty frustrating process for them, and nothing much happened (despite Ukraine having significnat offshore reserves).

I'd bet that Firtash got a stake in as a price to get better access/licenses/sale conditions. I have not followed the situation closely enough to comment on the details of what actually happened or when.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 07:01:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lord Peter Fraser is an interesting (?) Thatcherite.

Peter Fraser, Baron Fraser of Carmyllie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From 1992 to 1995 he was Minister of State at the Scottish Office covering Home Affairs and Health. He was then Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry with a responsibility for export promotion and overseas investment with particular emphasis on the oil and gas industry. In 1996 he became Minister for Energy.

Before that he was Lord Advocate of Scotland, ie the attorney general responsible for investigating the Lockerbie bombing, which he evidently "mishandled" (depending on your point of view - some would have said the only thing that mattered was to convict a Libyan).

The Lockerbie link is worth a click (warning, this concerns what goes on in Malta, etc...)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 07:36:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I met him many times over the years when I was a Director of the IPE and he was on the Board (and also Chairman for a while).

He also chaired the relatively few disciplinary appeals we had. There was a ferocious ex-judge who chaired the disciplinary tribunals....

A thoroughly nice and clubbable man, and with the ability to grasp complex briefs which QC's have to have. But I don't think his grasp of trading/commercial issues was any better than mine (which is not great, compared to the HiDs of this world).

He's very much rooted in the Establishment of course.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Jan 9th, 2009 at 07:54:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries