DOCSLIB.ORG

The Nabucco Pipeline: A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Nabucco Pipeline: A The Nabucco Pipeline: A Sober Assessment November 2008 F. Wallace Hays The Nabucco Pipeline: A Sober Assessment A publication by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) November 2008 By F. Wallace Hays F. Wallace Hays is a Senior Adjunct Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis focusing on energy security policy. Hays concurrently leads FWH and Associates LLC, a non-partisan consulting firm specializing in international energy issues. He has more than sixteen years of experience in foreign policy, international relations and political and economic risk assessments, and has provided intelligence analysis and political risk assessments on American foreign policy issues to a variety of clients, including foreign governments in Europe and the Middle East, as well as several major energy companies. Center for European Policy Analysis 1155 15th Street, NW Suite 550 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 551-9200 Fax: (202) 296-3880 E-mail: [email protected] www.cepa.org © 2008 by the Center for European Policy Analysis, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the Center for European Policy Analysis, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers or board members of CEPA. ISBN: 978-0-9797433-6-8 1 Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………..……….. 4 1. Lessons of BTC and Odessa-Brody.…………………………………….……........... 6 1.1 BTC and Elements of Success .……………………………..…………..……….7 1.2 Odessa-Brody …………………………………………………...………………. 10 1.3 Lessons…………………………………………………….……………………...12 2. Applying the Lessons of BTC and Odessa-Brody to Nabucco ..…………..............13 3. The Political Environment for Nabucco……………………………………………. 15 3.1 Current Political Conditions …………………………………………………... 15 3.2 Russia’s Energy Dominance ………………………………………………….... 16 4. Challenges Ahead for Nabucco……………………………………………………... 16 4.1 Finding the Gas …………………………………………………………………. 17 4.2 Tariff Structure and Economic Viability…………………………..................... 20 4.3 Competition from Other Pipelines ……………………………………………. 20 4.4 Financing……………………………………………………………...…………...21 5. Impact of Nabucco …………………………………………………………………… 21 5.1 Nabucco’s Impact on Total European Gas Supply…………………………... 22 5.2 Nabucco’s Impact on Incremental European Gas Supply…………………... 23 6. Scenarios for the Future …………………………………………………................... 23 7. Conclusions ……………………………………………………………........................ 26 2 List of Acronyms AIOC Azerbaijan International Operating Company BCM Billion Cubic Meters BCM/A Billion Cubic Meters Annually BTC Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline CPC Caspian Pipeline Consortium ECA Export Credit Agency EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EIA Energy Information Administration (a unit of the U.S. Department of Energy) ENI Italian state-owned gas company EU European Union FSU Former Soviet Union HGA Host Government Agreement IEA International Energy Agency IFC International Finance Corporation (a branch of the World Bank) IGA Intergovernmental Agreement LNG Liquid Natural Gas NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NSC National Security Council (U.S. policy coordination entity in the White House) OMV Austrian state-controlled energy company OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation SOCAR State Oil Company of Azerbaijan SCGP/SCP South Caucuses Gas Pipeline TGI Turkey-Greece-Italy natural gas pipeline 3 Executive Summary The Nabucco natural gas pipeline is a multi-national project designed to bring Caspian and Middle East gas to Central Europe. It enjoys broad support among western politicians but faces many external challenges. While Nabucco is not destined to fail, policymakers in the United States and Europe should review whether a commitment to this specific pipeline is a sound policy. They should embrace a broader agenda for energy diversification for Central and Eastern Europe – one that includes support for multiple import options and pipeline routes, alternatives such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), recognition of Russia’s importance as a supplier and market incentives to promote reforms within the Russian energy sector. Introduction In the past few years, a new era in global energy markets has arrived. Global demand has soared, supplies have struggled to keep pace and national governments are positioning themselves to secure additional energy resources to meet future consumption. In Europe, the recent Russian incursion into Georgia, which many claim was at least partially about control over energy routes, has further encouraged debate on energy security policy. Whereas debates about energy security in the United States focus on perceived dependence on foreign oil, dependence on Russian natural gas is the issue du jour in many European capitals. Today, Europe consumes more than 500 billion cubic meters of gas annually (bcm/a). Of that total, about 145 bcm, or about 25 to 28 percent, comes from Russia. But Europe has a two-fold problem looking forward. Its projected demand for gas is expected to increase to 700 to 800 bcm/a by 2020.1 At the same time, Europe’s largest gas fields are facing declining production levels. As a result, Europe will almost certainly have to significantly increase its natural gas imports in a relatively short time-frame. Russia has the natural gas reserves to meet the rising demand to supply Europe. However, Russia’s major gas fields are experiencing a drop in output levels. Russia needs to make substantial investments today in order to meet Europe’s projected demand ten years from now. If Russia makes these investments, the country can substantially increase the amount of gas it supplies to Europe – meeting European increases in demand. For Europe, this means a possible increase in its dependence on Russia as a major supplier of energy. Some Western politicians, including many in the United States, do not want Europe to become overly dependent on Russian gas. Though Europe’s energy security is primarily a policy dilemma for the European Union (EU), Washington has taken an interest in shoring up its allies’ energy security. Specifically, the United States wants to ensure that as Europe develops its near- and long-term energy security policy, Russian influence does not impact issues unrelated to energy. In other words, the United States is fearful that Russia will use its dominant gas supply position in Europe, not to argue for higher prices, but to influence European policies in other areas, like NATO enlargement or U.S. missile defense plans. 1 Sources: “Supply Capacities For Europe 2010-2020 (IEA/OME)” in Eurogas’ Brochure “Natural gas - the energy for a sustainable future” – June 2005, plus CERA’s Special Report “Long-term Outlook for European Gas” (July 2005) plus Michael Townshend, CEO of BTC Corporation, presentation to CSIS on May 8, 2006. 4 Many in the United States view the planned Nabucco pipeline as Europe’s answer to both its gas supply problems and the problem of checking Russia's influence in Europe. The Nabucco project is a planned natural gas conduit that would transport natural gas from Erzurum, Turkey to Baumgarten, Austria, through Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. The project hopes to deliver as much as 30 bcm/a of gas to Europe from the Caspian, Central Asia and possibly the Middle East.2 Source: The Wall Street Journal3 But the proposed pipeline is plagued by immense commercial weaknesses and political impracticalities. The foremost problems are basic: the project lacks binding commitments on gas supplies and transit agreements as well as immense security concerns. Moreover, it faces competition from the proposed South Stream pipeline – Gazprom’s joint venture with Italy’s Eni. The Russian-backed pipeline will travel on a similar route to that of Nabucco (see above). In effect, both pipelines will compete for many of the same customers. Because of concerns about Russia’s influence in Europe, Western politicians (primarily American and European) increasingly support accelerating the Nabucco project. For example, Senator Richard Lugar, one of the most respected voices in Washington on foreign affairs, recently noted that “European governments must be convinced that their long-term security interests are served by the Nabucco pipeline.”4 2 Nabucco website, <http://www.nabucco-pipeline.com/project/project-description-pipeline-route/project- description.html>. 3 Guy Chazan, “Russia Outflanks EU's Pipeline,” The Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2008. 4 Senator Lugar, Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 12, 2008. 5 On the other hand, the private sector is generally pessimistic about Nabucco’s prospects. Major energy companies generally agree that Nabucco is “a political pipeline for which there is no gas,”5 and are therefore skeptical of its ability to succeed. At the same time, they acknowledge that there is a clear demand for additional routes into Europe. They question whether or not Russia will be able to meet Europe’s rising demand “in a coordinated way and in sufficient scale” because Gazprom’s track record of developing new fields is spotty.6 Industry representatives generally agree that Nabucco will remain in the planning stages for some time even though it has little commercial basis at this stage. To illustrate the divide between the political support for the project and the viability of the project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Southern Gas Corridor
    Energy July 2013 THE SOUTHERN GAS CORRIDOR The recent decision of The State Oil Company of The EU Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) and its consortium identified the development of a Southern Gas partners to transport the Shah Deniz gas through Corridor to supply Europe with gas from Caspian Southern Europe via the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) and Middle Eastern sources as one of the EU’s is a key milestone in the creation of the Southern “highest energy securities priorities”. Azerbaijan, Gas Corridor. Turkmenistan, Iraq and Mashreq countries (as well as in the longer term, when political conditions This Briefing examines the origins, aims and permit, Uzbekistan and Iran) were identified development of the Southern Gas Corridor, including as partners which the EU would work with to the competing proposals to deliver gas through it. secure commitments for the supply of gas and the construction of the pipelines necessary for its Background development. It was clear from the Action Plan that the EU wanted increased independence from In 2007, driven by political incidents in gas supplier Russia. The EU Commission President José Manuel and transit countries, and the dependence by some Barroso stated that the EU needs “a collective EU Member States on a single gas supplier, the approach to key infrastructure to diversify our European Council agreed a new EU energy and energy supply – pipelines in particular. Today eight environment policy. The policy established a political Member States are reliant on just one supplier for agenda to achieve the Community’s core energy 100% of their gas needs – this is a problem we must objectives of sustainability, competitiveness and address”.
    [Show full text]
  • Visegrad Group Facing the Nord Stream and South Stream Gas Pipeline Projects
    VISEGRAD GROUP FACING THE NORD STREAM AND SOUTH STREAM GAS PIPELINE PROJECTS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY ZAHİDE TUĞBA ŞENTERZİ IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AUGUST 2012 I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Zahide Tuğba, Şenterzi Signature : iii ABSTRACT VISEGRAD GROUP FACING THE NORD STREAM AND SOUTH STREAM GAS PIPELINE PROJECTS Şenterzi, Zahide Tuğba MSc., Department of International Relations Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Mustafa Türkeş August 2012, 163 pages This thesis analyzes the Visegrad Group’s stance toward the Russian-German Nord Stream and Russian-Italian South Stream gas pipeline projects, which aimed to circumvent the traditional energy routes situated in Central Europe and Eastern Europe. The level of the Visegrad Group’s dependency on inherited Soviet gas pipeline routes is examined alongside the Visegrad Group’s policy setting ability within the group itself and in the European Union. The thesis also traces the evolution of energy relations between Europe and Russia and Visegrad Group’s adaptation to the new state of affairs after the collapse of the Soviet Union, particularly with respect to energy issues. It is argued that despite all differences, Visegrad Group members are able to set a cooperation platform at times of crisis and develop common energy strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Aspects of the South Stream Project
    BRIEFING PAPER Policy Department External Policies SECURITY ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH STREAM PROJECT FOREIGN AFFAIRS October 2008 JANUARY 2004 EN This briefing paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is published in the following language: English Author: Zeyno Baran, Director Center for Eurasian Policy (CEP), Hudson Institute www.hudson.org The author is grateful for the support of CEP Research Associates Onur Sazak and Emmet C. Tuohy as well as former CEP Research Assistant Rob A. Smith. Responsible Official: Levente Császi Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department BD4 06 M 55 rue Wiertz B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Publisher European Parliament Manuscript completed on 23 October 2008. The briefing paper is available on the Internet at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=EN If you are unable to download the information you require, please request a paper copy by e-mail : [email protected] Brussels: European Parliament, 2008. Any opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. © European Communities, 2008. Reproduction and translation, except for commercial purposes, are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and provided the publisher is given prior notice and supplied with a copy of the publication. EXPO/B/AFET/2008/30 October 2008 PE 388.962 EN CONTENTS SECURITY ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH STREAM PROJECT ................................ ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................iii 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 2. THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE................................................................................... 2 2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Energy Reserves, Pipeline Routes and the Legal Regime in the Caspian Sea
    3. Energy reserves, pipeline routes and the legal regime in the Caspian Sea John Roberts I. The energy reserves and production potential of the Caspian The issue of Caspian energy development has been dominated by four factors. The first is uncertain oil prices. These pose a challenge both to oilfield devel- opers and to the promoters of pipelines. The boom prices of 2000, coupled with supply shortages within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), have made development of the resources of the Caspian area very attractive. By contrast, when oil prices hovered around the $10 per barrel level in late 1998 and early 1999, the price downturn threatened not only the viability of some of the more grandiose pipeline projects to carry Caspian oil to the outside world, but also the economics of basic oilfield exploration in the region. While there will be some fly-by-night operators who endeavour to secure swift returns in an era of high prices, the major energy developers, as well as the majority of smaller investors, will continue to predicate total production costs (including carriage to market) not exceeding $10–12 a barrel. The second is the geology and geography of the area. The importance of its geology was highlighted when two of the first four international consortia formed to look for oil in blocks off Azerbaijan where no wells had previously been drilled pulled out in the wake of poor results.1 The geography of the area involves the complex problem of export pipeline development and the chicken- and-egg question whether lack of pipelines is holding back oil and gas pro- duction or vice versa.
    [Show full text]
  • South Stream Becomes Serbian Stream
    Serbia: South Stream becomes Serbian stream The position of the Republic of Serbia as a candidate for EU membership on the one hand and cooperation with Russia on the other allows this country to position itself as an intermediary between the two sides, between the East and the West. The re-export of Russian gas to other countries is exactly such an opportunity. While Russia is under EU sanctions and while the official Union policy reduces dependence on Russian gas (despite obvious contradictions like North Stream 2), Russia cannot sell gas to the EU under free market conditions. Serbia, as a still non-member of the Union, does not oblige to follow the same rules. The specific position in which Serbia is located allows this country to use it for its economic progress. After the Kremlin summit at the end of December last year, there were rumors that Russia will begin to change Russia’s natural gas supply agreement to Serbia, and allow this country to sell Russian gas to other countries, and now we are closer to realizing that plan. The Russian newsletter announced that Moscow will put an end to the agreement that stipulates that Russian natural gas can only be sold on the Serbian market. The agreement covers the period from 2012 to 2021 and envisages the delivery of up to five billion cubic meters per year. In order for this to be possible, Serbia will have to build new pipelines. At present, its pipes are connected only to Bosnia and Herzegovina, but since December, construction of a special branch of the gas pipeline from Dimitrovgrad to Niš has begun.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiiw Research Report 367: EU Gas Supplies Security
    f December Research Reports | 367 | 2010 Gerhard Mangott EU Gas Supplies Security: Russian and EU Perspectives, the Role of the Caspian, the Middle East and the Maghreb Countries Gerhard Mangott EU Gas Supplies Security: Gerhard Mangott is Professor at the Department Russian and EU of Political Science, University of Innsbruck. Perspectives, the Role of This paper was prepared within the framework of the Caspian, the the project ‘European Energy Security’, financed from the Jubilee Fund of the Oesterreichische Na- Middle East and the tionalbank (Project No. 115). Maghreb Countries Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................... i 1 Russia’s strategic objectives: breaking Ukrainian transit dominance in gas trade with the EU by export routes diversification ............................................................... 1 1.1 Nord Stream (Severny Potok) (a.k.a. North European Gas Pipeline, NEGP) ... 7 1.2 South Stream (Yuzhnyi Potok) and Blue Stream II ......................................... 12 2 The EU’s South European gas corridor: options for guaranteed long-term gas supplies at reasonable cost ............................................................................... 20 2.1 Gas resources in the Caspian region ............................................................. 23 2.2 Gas export potential in the Caspian and the Middle East and its impact on the EU’s Southern gas corridor .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Declared End of South Stream and Why Nobody Seems to Care Arno Behrens* 5 December 2014
    The declared end of South Stream and why nobody seems to care Arno Behrens* 5 December 2014 ore than seven years after the South Stream pipeline project was first announced in June 2007, it finally seems to have been dropped by Russian President Vladimir MPutin on his visit to Turkey this week. This CEPS Commentary looks at the ostensible reasons for President Putin’s decision as well as what’s potentially behind them. It concludes that the EU may actually benefit from this decision in being able to secure more gas with less political interference from Russia. The primary reason for abandoning the project stated in President Putin’s speech was that the European Commission had been “unconstructive”. “It’s not that the European Commission has helped to implement this project – it’s that we see obstacles being created in its implementation”.1 He is referring to the insistence by the European Commission for participating member states to respect internal market legislation and thus to carry out their obligations associated with the EU acquis communautaire. In particular, the Commission called on member states to comply with the Third Energy Package and the associated Gas Directive, which has two central elements: the effective separation of networks from supply (‘unbundling’) and non- discriminatory access by third parties to the infrastructure. Against this background, the Commission in December 2013 found that the Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) for the construction of South Stream between Russia on the one hand and Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia on the other were all in breach of EU law inter alia regarding ‘unbundling’ and ‘third party access’.
    [Show full text]
  • Italy, Germany, and Russian Gas Giovanna De Maio
    U.S. – EUROPE WORKING PAPER August 18, 2016 A Tale of Two Countries: Italy, Germany, and Russian Gas Giovanna De Maio Introduction significance for broader European energy dynamics and geopolitics. Italy and Germany are locked in a struggle over access to Russian gas supplies and the Italy has only recently re-emerged as a major construction of the controversial Nord Stream 2 player in the EU after more than a decade of pipeline. That struggle threatens not only to political retreat, and it is exploring both the complicate their bilateral relationship and their limits and opportunities of a new leadership respective relationships with Russia, but also to role. Italy has been willing to challenge thwart European Union (EU) efforts to Germany on a number of issues, including the consolidate a common approach to energy economic austerity measures that Berlin security and to create a formal energy union. insisted on in response to the Eurozone crisis as In the wake of the United Kingdom’s (U.K.) a condition for financial assistance to ailing historic June 23, 2016 (“Brexit”) referendum to national banks and economies within the leave the EU, the negative impact of this countries that adopted the Euro. Italy has also dispute on EU energy and trade issues could moved to oppose the German private sector- become heightened. The U.K., with its backed decision by a consortium of German liberalized energy market, will no longer play a companies to finance and construct Nord direct role in EU energy policy. Clashes over Stream 2 and has accused the European Nord Stream 2 and relations with Russia could Commission of adopting double standards in exacerbate the EU’s cleavages, exactly at a time when the remaining EU member Giovanna De Maio is an Italian Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Promoting Subregional Cooperation, with a Focus on the Black Sea Subregion
    Promoting Subregional Cooperation, with a Focus on the Black Sea Subregion Lyudmil Ikonomov Executive Director Institute for Ecological Modernisation BULGARIA The Black Sea Region: potential for cooperation The Black Sea Region is locate strategically at the junction of Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East Rich in natural resources Large population The region is an expanding market with great development potential and an important hub for energy and transport flows Differences still remain in the pace of economic reforms and the quality of governance among the different countries The region has a number of unresolved frozen conflicts, with many environmental problems and insufficient border controls Basic Features of the Black Sea Regional Cooperation The cooperation in the Black Sea region is being built in five priority areas: Environment Energy Transport Internal Security Democracy The partnerships in the five priority areas are composed of: Black Sea states Other neighbouring states International organisations International financial institutions The European Union Five Priority Areas of Cooperation in the Black Sea Region Energy rings in the Black Sea Region (1) 1st Baku Ministerial Conference (13 November 2004) -a policy dialogue on energy cooperation between the EU and the states of the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and their neighbours Objectives: Harmonising the legal and technical standards in order to create a functioning integrated energy market Enhancing the safety and security of energy supplies extending
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Dejan Popović President of the Council Energy Agency of the Republic of Serbia Terazije 5/V 11000 Belgrade Serbia
    Mr. Dejan Popović President of the Council Energy Agency of the Republic of Serbia Terazije 5/V 11000 Belgrade Serbia Vienna, 18 December 2019 ECS-5/19/O/18-12-2019 Ref: Opinion 5/19 on certification of Gastrans Dear Mr. Popović, Please find attached the Energy Community Secretariat’s Opinion 5/19 on AERS Preliminary Decision of 15 August 2019 on the certification of Gastrans given in accordance with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 715/2009 and Articles 10(6) and 11(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC. Sincerely, Janez Kopač Dirk Buschle Director Deputy Director/Legal Counsel 1 Opinion 5/19 pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) and 11(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Serbia – Certification of Gastrans On 22 August 2019, the Energy Agency of the Republic of Serbia (hereinafter “AERS”) notified the Energy Community Secretariat (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of a preliminary decision (hereinafter “the Preliminary Decision”) on the certification of GASTRANS LLC, Novi Sad (hereinafter “Gastrans”) as a transmission system operator (hereinafter “TSO”). The Preliminary Decision was adopted on 15 August 2019,1 based on Article 49(3) in connection with Article 232 of the Energy Law of Serbia,2 Articles 20-23 of the Rulebook on Energy Licence and Certification,3 item 24(1) of the Decision of AERS on Exemption of New Natural Gas Interconnector (hereinafter “the Exemption Decision”),4 as well as Article 12 of the Statute of AERS.5 Pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 2009/73/EC6 (hereinafter “the Gas Directive”) and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 715/20097 (hereinafter “the Gas Regulation”), the Secretariat is required to examine the notified Preliminary Decision and deliver its opinion to AERS as to the compatibility of such a decision with Article 9 of the Gas Directive (hereinafter “the Opinion”).
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Information to OAO Gazprom's 2011 Annual Report
    ANNUAL REPORT 2011 Additional Information to OAO Gazprom’s 2011 Annual Report Content Members of OAO Gazprom’s Revision Commission 2 Meetings held by OAO Gazprom’s Board of Directors in 2011 3 Information about meetings of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors in 2011 10 Information about legal proceedings on debt recovery claims unsettled as of December 31, 2011 11 OAO Gazprom participation in share capital of third companies as of December 31, 2011 14 OAO GAZPROM Members of OAO Gazprom’s Revision Commission Full name Date of Birth Position as of December 31, 2011 Mariya Gennadievna 1980 Director of the Department for Economic Regulation and Property Tikhonova Relations in the Fuel and Energy Complex of the Russian Ministry of Energy, Chairwoman of the Commission Dmitry Alexandrovich 1975 First Deputy Head of the Administration of the Management Arkhipov Committee – Head of OAO Gazprom’s Internal Audit Department Vadim Kasymovich 1957 Head of Directorate of the Internal Audit Department of the Bikulov Administration of OAO Gazprom’s Management Committee Alexey Borisovich 1976 Head of Directorate for Innovative Corporate Technologies and Mironov Organizations of Industrial Complex of the Federal Agency for State Property Management Lydiya Vasilievna 1965 Head of Directorate of Revenues, Expenditures Accounting and Morozova reporting of OAO Gazprom’s Accounting Department Anna Borisovna 1982 Deputy Director of the Department of the Russian Ministry Nesterova for Economic Development Yury Stanislavovich 1963 Deputy Head of the Administration of the Management Committee – Nosov Head of OAO Gazprom’s Affairs Management Department Konstantin Valeryevich 1977 Deputy Director of the Property Department of the Moscow Pesotsky Government Alexander Sergeevich 1981 Deputy Head of Directorate for Infrastructure Industries and Yugov Organizations of Military Industrial complex of the Federal Agency for State Property Management 2 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 Meetings Held by OAO Gazprom’s Board of Directors in 2011 No.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian and European Gas Interdependence Can Market Forces Balance out Geopolitics?
    Laboratoire d'Economie de la Production et de l'Intégration Internationale Département Energie et Politiques de l'Environnement (EPE) FRE 2664 CNRS-UPMF CAHIER DE RECHERCHE LEPII Série EPE N° 41 bis Russian and European gas interdependence Can market forces balance out geopolitics? Dominique FINON Catherine LOCATELLI janvier 2007 LEPII - EPE BP 47 - 38040 Grenoble CEDEX 9 - France 1221 rue des Résidences - 2e étage - 38400 Saint Martin d'Hères Tél.: + 33 (0)4 56 52 85 70 - Télécopie : + 33 (0)4 56 52 85 71 [email protected] - http://www.upmf-grenoble.fr/lepii-epe/ 1 Russian and European gas interdependence. Can market forces balance out geopolitics? Dominique FINON, CIRED, CNRS and EHESS, Paris Catherine LOCATELLI, LEPII-EPE, Université de Grenoble Summary This article analyses the economic risk associated with the dominant position of the Russian vendor in the European market, with a view to assessing the relevance of possible responses by European nations or the EU. It considers various aspects of the Russian vendor's dependence on the European market, before turning to the risks that Gazprom exerts market power on the European market. It concludes by considering the relevance of the possible responses open to the EU and member states to limit any risks by creating a gas single buyer or more simply by encouraging the development of a denser pan-European network, with additional sources of supply and increased market integration. 2 1. Introduction A great deal has been written recently on relations between European Union countries and Russia with respect to gas. Alarmed by the fears stirred up by the supply cuts following the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine in January 2006, European states are increasingly concerned about their growing dependence on Russian gas (40% of imports) and the strategy of the quasi-public company Gazprom, which aims to take control of some major gas companies in certain countries without offering anything very substantial in return.
    [Show full text]