DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of the Druzhba Pipeline As a Strategic Challenge for the Czech Republic and Poland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of the Druzhba Pipeline As a Strategic Challenge for the Czech Republic and Poland THE FUTURE OF THE DRUZHBA PIPELINE AS A STRATEGIC CHALLENGE FOR THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND POLAND FILIP ČERNOCH, BŘETISLAV DANČÁK, HEDVIKA KOĎOUSKOVÁ, ANNA LESHCHENKO, PETR OCELÍK, JAN OSIČKA, VÁCLAV ŠEBEK, TOMÁŠ VLČEK, VERONIKA ZAPLETALOVÁ Monographs Vol. No. 44 Všechna práva vyhrazena. Žádná část této elektronické knihy nesmí být reprodukována nebo šířena v papírové, elektronické či jiné podobě bez předchozího písemného souhlasu vykonavatele majetkových práv k dílu, kterého je možno kontaktovat na adrese – Nakladatelství Masarykovy univerzity, Žerotínovo náměstí 9, 601 77 Brno. THE FUTURE OF THE DRUZHBA PIPELINE as a Strategic Challenge for the Czech Republic and Poland Filip Černoch, Břetislav Dančák, Hedvika Koďousková, Anna Leschenko, Petr Ocelík, Jan Osička, Václav Šebek, Tomáš Vlček, Veronika Zapletalová MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF SOCIAL STUDIES INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BRNO 2012 The publication of the book has been financially supported by Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Czech Republic office. The text was prepared within the specific research project of the Department of International Relations and European Studies "Political and security challenges to governance in contemporary Europe" (MUNI/A/0768/2011). The text was prepared within the grant project of the Czech-Polish Forum "The Future of the Druzhba Pipeline as a Strategic Challenge for the Czech Republic and Poland" (03_2011_czpl_iips). Scientific Board of Masaryk University prof. PhDr. Ladislav Rabušic, CSc. Mgr. Iva Zlatušková prof. RNDr. Zuzana Došlá, DSc. Ing. Radmila Droběnová, Ph.D. Mgr. Michaela Hanousková doc. PhDr. Jana Chamonikolasová, Ph.D. doc. JUDr. Josef Kotásek, Ph.D. Mgr. et Mgr. Oldřich Krpec, Ph.D. doc. PhDr. Růžena Lukášová, CSc. prof. PhDr. Petr Macek, CSc. Mgr. Petra Polčáková doc. RNDr. Lubomír Popelínský, Ph.D. Mgr. Kateřina Sedláčková, Ph.D. prof. MUDr. Anna Vašků, CSc. prof. PhDr. Marie Vítková, CSc. doc. Mgr. Martin Zvonař, Ph.D. PhDr. Alena Mizerová Pre-publishing rewiev: Ing. Pavel Šenych © 2012 Filip Černoch, Břetislav Dančák, Hedvika Koďousková, Anna Leshchenko, Petr Ocelík, Jan Osička, Václav Šebek, Tomáš Vlček, Veronika Zapletalová © 2012 Masarykova univerzita ISBN 978-80-210-5926-9 doi: 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-5926-2012 THE FUTURE OF THE DRUZHBA PIPELINE AS A STRATEGIC CHALLENGE FOR THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND POLAND | 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank the Czech-Polish Forum, sponsor of this project, and members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, who provided the project agenda. Our thanks go also to our Polish project partners, the Centre for Eastern Studies (Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia) for their cooperation and comments on the project. Finally, we would also like to express our gratitude for the opportunity of meeting and consulting with private companies, government officials and independent experts, who were a valuable source of information and inspiration in the preparation of this study. The research team also thanks the International Institue of Political Science of Masa- ryk University and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung for providing the necessary base for the study as well as generously supporting the publication of the text. The authors of this study declare that they are wholly responsible for the following text, including any possible inaccuracies or mistakes. THE FUTURE OF THE DRUZHBA PIPELINE AS A STRATEGIC CHALLENGE FOR THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND POLAND | 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 11 2. THE OIL SECTOR OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC .................................................................. 13 2.1 PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS.................................................................................. 15 2.2 IMPORTS ................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 USE OF OIL ............................................................................................................. 17 2.4 COMPANIES IN THE CZECH MARKET ...................................................................... 19 2.4.1 Processing Plants ............................................................................................... 19 2.4.2 Distributors ........................................................................................................ 21 2.4.3 Traders in Oil Products....................................................................................... 22 2.5 THE OIL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC ............................................. 25 2.5.2 The Proposed Projects ........................................................................................ 26 2.6 STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVES .......................................................................... 31 2.7 PAST CURTAILMENT OF OIL SUPPLY TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC ............................... 34 3. THE POLISH OIL SECTOR .............................................................................................. 38 3.1 PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS.................................................................................. 39 3.2 IMPORTS ................................................................................................................. 40 3.3 USE OF OIL ............................................................................................................. 41 3.4 COMPANIES IN THE POLISH OIL MARKET ............................................................... 43 3.4.1 Structure of Retailing .......................................................................................... 45 3.5 TRANSPORT ............................................................................................................ 45 3.5.1 Today’s Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 45 3.5.1.1 Pipelines .................................................................................................... 45 3.5.1.2 Oil Terminals ............................................................................................. 46 3.5.2 The Proposed Projects ........................................................................................ 47 3.6 STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVES .......................................................................... 48 4. THE RUSSIAN OIL SECTOR ............................................................................................ 50 4.1 OIL RESERVES .......................................................................................................... 50 4.2 PRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 51 4.2.1 Druzhba Oil Sources .......................................................................................... 54 4.3 OIL REFINING IN RUSSIA ......................................................................................... 56 4.4 OTHER ELEMENTS ADVERSELY AFFECTING OIL PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA ............... 57 THE FUTURE OF THE DRUZHBA PIPELINE AS A STRATEGIC CHALLENGE FOR THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND POLAND | 8 5. RUSSIAN PRIORITIES ...................................................................................................... 59 5.1 TRANSPORT PREFERENCES ...................................................................................... 59 5.1.2 Samsun-Ceyhan pipeline project ........................................................................ 63 5.2 PREFERENCES OF MARKETS: THE NEW DIRECTION OF RUSSIAN OIL EXPORTS – CHINA AND OTHER ASIAN CUSTOMERS ....................................................................... 65 5.3 PREFERENCES FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ENERGY EXPORTS: THE SHARE OF CRUDE IN OVERALL RUSSIAN ENERGY EXPORTS............................................................................. 66 6. TRANSIT COUNTRIES ..................................................................................................... 67 6.1 BELARUS ................................................................................................................. 67 6.2 UKRAINE ................................................................................................................. 70 7. DRUZHBA: ROLE AND POSITION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ...................................... 76 7.1 THE POSITION OF OIL IN THE EU’S ENERGY SECTOR ............................................. 76 7.2 THE EU’S PERCEPTION OF THE OIL SECTOR AND OIL SECURITY ............................ 78 7.3 LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS ..................................................................................... 79 7.3.1 Strategic Oil Reserves ......................................................................................... 79 7.3.2 Oil Licensing ..................................................................................................... 81 7.3.3 Offshore Oil (and Gas) Platform Standards ........................................................ 81 7.3.4 The Role of Legislative Instruments in the EU’s Oil Sector..................................... 82 7.4 FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ...................................................................................... 82 7.4.1 Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) .......................................................... 83 7.4.2 The European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR) ........................................ 83 7.4.3 Multiannual Financial Framework 2014 – 2020 .................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geopolitical Impact on Transformation of Territorial Organization of Russian Pipeline Transport in the Post-Soviet Time
    International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy ISSN: 2146-4553 available at http: www.econjournals.com International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2016, 6(4), 782-788. Geopolitical Impact on Transformation of Territorial Organization of Russian Pipeline Transport in the Post-Soviet Time Tatyana I. Pototskaya1*, Alexander P. Katrovskiy2, Vladimir I. Chasovskiy3 1Department of Geography, Natural-Geographical Faculty, Smolensk State University, Smolensk Oblast, Russia, 2Department of Service and Tourism, Smolensk Humanitarian University, Smolensk, Russia, 3Department of Geography, Land Use and Spatial Planning, Institute of Environmental Management, Territorial Development and Urban Construction, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Russia. *Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT The article presents the research on transformation of territorial organization of Russian pipeline transport in the post-Soviet time, considering its relations with neighbouring countries. The research identifies general ways of such transformation: The influence of Russia’s desire to escape from the dictate of the transit countries exporting energy; the impact of Russia’s struggle for the transportation of gas and oil extracted in the Caspian Sea basin; the influence of the struggle for the transportation of oil and gas in the Asia-Pacific region. A new database including the main pipelines and sea ports in Russia, revealed correlations in the development of pipeline transport in the post-Soviet period with the development of infrastructure of the country’s sea transport. The article identifies positive changes in the transport infrastructure (construction of Russian alternative pipeline projects), which will reduce the degree of Russian dependence on relations with neighbouring countries, as well as negative changes (construction of alternative Russian pipeline projects).
    [Show full text]
  • ORLEN Fact Book Contents
    ORLEN Fact Book Contents Who we are ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 PKN ORLEN in the region. Main refinery assets in the region .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Financial highlights 2001–2011; IFRS basis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Financial ratios ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Financial highlights 2004–2011 in EUR and USD; IFRS basis .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Segmental financial highlights 2008–2011 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Oil and Gas Challenges
    Order Code RL33212 Russian Oil and Gas Challenges Updated June 20, 2007 Robert Pirog Specialist in Energy Economics and Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Russian Oil and Gas Challenges Summary Russia is a major player in world energy markets. It has more proven natural gas reserves than any other country, is among the top ten in proven oil reserves, is the largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter, and the third largest energy consumer. Energy exports have been a major driver of Russia’s economic growth over the last five years, as Russian oil production has risen strongly and world oil prices have been very high. This type of growth has made the Russian economy dependent on oil and natural gas exports and vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices. The Russian government has moved to take control of the country’s energy supplies. It broke up the previously large energy company Yukos and acquired its main oil production subsidiary. The Duma voted to give Gazprom, the state- controlled natural gas monopoly the exclusive right to export natural gas; Russia moved to limit participation by foreign companies in oil and gas production and Gazprom gained majority control of the Sakhalin energy projects. Russia has agreed with Germany to supply Germany and, eventually, the UK by building a natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea, bypassing Ukraine and Poland. In late 2006 and early 2007, Russia cut off and/or threatened to cut off gas or oil supplies going to and/or through Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Belarus in the context of price and/or transit negotiations — actions that damaged its reputation as a reliable energy supplier.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Prospects for Northwest European Refining
    LONG-TERM PROSPECTS FOR NORTHWEST EUROPEAN REFINING ASYMMETRIC CHANGE: A LOOMING GOVERNMENT DILEMMA? ROBBERT VAN DEN BERGH MICHIEL NIVARD MAURITS KREIJKES CIEP PAPER 2016 | 01 CIEP is affiliated to the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. CIEP acts as an independent forum for governments, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, media, politicians and all others interested in changes and developments in the energy sector. CIEP organizes lectures, seminars, conferences and roundtable discussions. In addition, CIEP members of staff lecture in a variety of courses and training programmes. CIEP’s research, training and activities focus on two themes: • European energy market developments and policy-making; • Geopolitics of energy policy-making and energy markets CIEP is endorsed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, BP Europe SE- BP Nederland, Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. ('Rabobank'), Delta N.V., ENGIE Energie Nederland N.V., ENGIE E&P Nederland B.V., Eneco Holding N.V., EBN B.V., Essent N.V., Esso Nederland B.V., GasTerra B.V., N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, Heerema Marine Contractors Nederland B.V., ING Commercial Banking, Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V., N.V. NUON Energy, TenneT TSO B.V., Oranje-Nassau Energie B.V., Havenbedrijf Rotterdam N.V., Shell Nederland B.V., TAQA Energy B.V.,Total E&P Nederland B.V., Koninklijke Vopak N.V. and Wintershall Nederland B.V. CIEP Energy
    [Show full text]
  • Metinė Ataskaita 2007 AB Mažeikių Nafta Annual Report 2007
    AB „MAŽEIKIŲ NAFTA” metinė ataskaita 2007 AB MAŽEIKIŲ NAFTA Annual Report 2007 1 AB „MAŽEIKIŲ NAFTA” metinė ataskaita 2007 AB MAŽEIKIŲ NAFTA Annual Report 2007 TuRINys CoNTENTs KAs MEs EsAME 5 Who WE ARE 5 ThE yEAR 2007 – ovERvIEW 11 2007-IEjI vIENu ŽvIlgsNIu 11 WITh NEW ENERgy To ThE FuTuRE 21 Į ateitį – su NAujA ENERgIjA 21 pRoduCTs oF BEsT quAlITy 27 KoKyBIška pRodukcijA 27 FoR dIFFERENT MARKETs ĮvAIRIoMs RINKoMs oNE TEAM – CoMMoN suCCEss 33 vIENA KoMANdA – vIENAs TIKslAs 33 NEW sTIMulus FoR ThE lIThuANIAN MARKET 39 NAujAs IMpulsAs lIETuvos rinkaI 39 us ANd soCIETy: 45 MEs IR vIsuoMENė: 45 REspoNsIBlE To ouR EMployEEs, atsAKINgI sAvo dARBuoTojAMs, ToWN ANd CouNTRy MIEsTuI IR šAlIAI ThE yEAR 2008: 53 2008-IEjI – 53 EFFICIENT, ACTIvE ANd pRofitablE EFEKTyvūs, ENERgINgI IR pElNINgI INdEpENdENT AudIToR’s REpoRT 59 NEpRIKlAusoMo AudIToRIAus IšvAdA 59 ANd pART oF FINANCIAl StateMENTs IR FINANsINės atskaitoMyBės dAlIs 3 KAs mes esame Who We Are 5 MEs EsAME svARBIAusIA BENzINo IR dyzElINo TIEKėjA BAlTIjos vAlsTyBėsE. WE ARE ThE MAIN supplIER oF gAsolINE ANd dIEsEl FuEl FoR ThE BAlTIC States. 7 Mes esame naftos perdirbimo įmonė, valdanti vienin - We are the crude oil refining company operating the telę Baltijos šalyse naftos produktų gamyklą, naftotie- only refinery in the Baltic states, crude oil and petro- kių ir produktotiekio tinklą bei jūrinį naftos terminalą. leum product pipelines and the sea terminal. since the Nuo 2006-ųjų pabaigos esame vienos didžiausių naf- end of the year 2006 we are a part of the group of pol- tos pra mo nės kompanijų vidurio ir Rytų Europoje – ish Company pKN oRlEN, one of the largest oil com- lenkijos naftos koncerno „pKN orlen“ – grupės dalis.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy and Its Impact on Development in Southeast Europe and the Black Sea Area
    ENERGY AND ITS IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE AND THE BLACK SEA AREA POLICY PAPER – February 2017 – Sponsored by Energy and its impact on development in Southeast Europe and the Black Sea area Ana-Maria Boromisa (coord.) Sergiu Celac Sandro Knezović 2 3 Table 1 Population and GDP Introduction Key economic and energy Country Population, GDP, million GDP per capita, Euro, current prices 000 euros issues inhatitantns 2008 2015 2008 2015 2004 2008 2010 2012 2014 2015 The aim of this paper is twofold: first, to examine to which 1 Albania 2.947 2.889 8800 9268 16001 2986 3088 3300 3400 3600 extent energy sector can foster development in Balkans-Black Socio-economic snapshot sea area and second, to examine to which extent exporting EU 2 Bosnia and 3.8402 3.819 13040 14594 n/a 3394 3372: 3500 3600 3800 Herzegovina policies and institutions in energy sector supports balancing The countries of Balkans- Black sea area are very diverse commercial, political and social interest in the region. For (Table 1) .The largest country of the region (Turkey) has 3 Bulgaria 7492 7.197 37200 45287 2700 5000 5200 5700 5900 6300 the purpose of this paper Balkans-Black Sea region includes more than hundred times more inhabitants than the smallest 4 Croatia 4.312 4.213 48130 43847 7800 11200 10500 10300 10200 10400 EU member states (memebers of the Energy Union: Greece, (Montenegro, 74 and 0.5 million of inhabitants, respectively) 5 Greece 11.077 10.858 241990 175698 17700 21800 20300 17300 16300 16200 Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia), the Energy Community and almost 200 times higer GDP.
    [Show full text]
  • ( Publication Date: 4 April 2015
    THE PIPELINE MAZE OF THE WIDER BLACK SEA REGION Claudiu-Nicolae Sonda (Postgraduate student in the M.A. Program - the International and European Relations-in the Linkoping University, Sweden) Copyright: Research Institute for European and American Studies (www.rieas.gr) Publication date: 4 April 2015 No discussion over the Black Sea region can be complete without referring to the energy field, more specifically oil and gas resources, pipelines, and transit routes. The energy sector is crucial not only in economic terms, but also for security. By security we mean energy security, defined as ‘the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price’1. Furthermore, we are talking about security in traditional terms, mainly the danger of inter-state conflict over the control /access to natural resources. A properly informed conversation about energy in the Black Sea region demands a knowledge of the fundamentals. A lot has been written on the topic of energy pipelines, but we felt that a gap still exists. We find it essential to put together a clear and concise presentation of the major oil and gas pipelines running through the area. This paper has precisely such an aim. We will sort out the complex pipeline network into oil and gas pipelines, and the latter into operating and planned pipelines. Each pipeline will be dealt with shortly, leaving the analyses for 1 IEA.org: http://www.iea.org/topics/energysecurity/ 1 another time. As we mentioned, it is beyond the aim of this paper to delve into detailed accounts. Such accounts are already available elsewhere. Finally, we will not present the interconnectors, and the smaller pipelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Role in the Balkans – Cause for Concern?
    Russia’s Role in the Balkans – Cause for Concern? By David Clark and Dr Andrew Foxall June 2014 Published in June 2014 by The Henry Jackson Society The Henry Jackson Society 8th Floor, Parker Tower 43-49 Parker Street London WC2B 5PS Registered charity no. 1140489 Tel: +44 (0)20 7340 4520 www.henryjacksonsociety.org © The Henry Jackson Society 2014 The Henry Jackson Society All rights reserved The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and are not necessarily indicative of those of The Henry Jackson Society or its Trustees Russia’s Role in the Balkans – Cause for Concern? By David Clark and Dr Andrew Foxall All rights reserved Front Cover Image: Welding first joint of Serbian section of South Stream gas pipeline © www.gazprom.com Russia’s Role in the Balkans – Cause for Concern? AUTHOR | AUTHOR By David Clark and Dr Andrew Foxall June 2014 Russia’s Role in the Balkans – Cause for Concern? About the Authors David Clark is Chair of the Russia Foundation and served as Special Adviser at the Foreign Office 1997-2001. Dr Andrew Foxall is Director of the Russia Studies Centre at The Henry Jackson Society. He holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford. i Russia’s Role in the Balkans – Cause for Concern? The Henry Jackson Society The Henry Jackson Society is a cross-partisan think-tank based in London. The Henry Jackson Society is a think tank and policy-shaping force that fights for the principles and alliances which keep societies free – working across borders and party lines to combat extremism, advance democracy and real human rights, and make a stand in an increasingly uncertain world.
    [Show full text]
  • Midstreamnews | PLS Inc | 44 Characters Or Less
    January 21, 2013 • Volume 06, No. 01 MIDSTREAMNEWS Serving the marketplace with news, analysis and business opportunities TransCanada tapped for $5.0 billion B.C. gas pipeline Buffett & Icahn arrive at Newly acquired Petronas sub Progress Energy Canada has chosen TransCanada shale boom by rail to design, build, own and operate the proposed $5.0 billion Prince Rupert gas Warren Buffett’s Berkshire transmission project to transport British Columbia shale gas to the West Coast, where Hathaway and Carl Icahn’s Icahn the gas will be exported as LNG to lucrative Asian markets. The proposed Capital LP are cashing in on continued pipeline will transport gas produced primarily from the North Montney tight transportation capacity in the region near Fort St. John, British May spend $1.5 billion on extension of Bakken. The increasing use Columbia to Progress’ recently proposed Nova line to complement Prince Rupert. of rail to move oil cargo has Pacific Northwest LNG export facility in caused a shortage of tanker cars. Buffett’s Port Edward near Prince Rupert, BC. Although the route has yet to be determined, the Berkshire owns 60% of Marmon pipeline is expected to stretch 466 miles and will have an initial capacity of 2.0 Bcfd Holdings, which in turn owns tank car expandable to 3.6 Bcfd. builder Union Tank Car. (Berkshire is Progress and TransCanada are finalizing agreements, and TransCanada has scheduled to acquire the remaining 40% already begun preparing provincial regulatory filings and is gearing up for talks with of Marmon by 2015.) First Nations and other stakeholders. Input from these groups will help TransCanada formulate the proposed pipeline route.
    [Show full text]
  • Argus Nefte Transport
    Argus Nefte Transport Oil transportation logistics in the former Soviet Union Volume XVI, 5, May 2017 Primorsk loads first 100,000t diesel cargo Russia’s main outlet for 10ppm diesel exports, the Baltic port of Primorsk, shipped a 100,000t cargo for the first time this month. The diesel was loaded on 4 May on the 113,300t Dong-A Thetis, owned by the South Korean shipping company Dong-A Tanker. The 100,000t cargo of Rosneft product was sold to trading company Vitol for delivery to the Amsterdam-Rotter- dam-Antwerp region, a market participant says. The Dong-A Thetis was loaded at Russian pipeline crude exports berth 3 or 4 — which can handle crude and diesel following a recent upgrade, and mn b/d can accommodate 90,000-150,000t vessels with 15.5m draught. 6.0 Transit crude Russian crude It remains unclear whether larger loadings at Primorsk will become a regular 5.0 occurrence. “Smaller 50,000-60,000t cargoes are more popular and the terminal 4.0 does not always have the opportunity to stockpile larger quantities of diesel for 3.0 export,” a source familiar with operations at the outlet says. But the loading is significant considering the planned 10mn t/yr capacity 2.0 addition to the 15mn t/yr Sever diesel pipeline by 2018. Expansion to 25mn t/yr 1.0 will enable Transneft to divert more diesel to its pipeline system from ports in 0.0 Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr the Baltic states, in particular from the pipeline to the Latvian port of Ventspils.
    [Show full text]
  • Petroleum Industry 2010 the Austrian Petroleum Industry Association (Apia) Executive Summary 2010 Summary Executive
    PETROLEUM INDUSTRY 2010 THE AUSTRIAN PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (APIA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2010 SUMMARY EXECUTIVE ffmvimvi ssummary_205x280.inddummary_205x280.indd 1 221.09.111.09.11 19:0219:02 KEY FIGURES Austrian Petroleum Industry 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Number of association companies 22 23 23 25 25 Sold production EUR mn 9,0001 7,232 10,224 8,040 8,054 Total employees 3,5001 3,510 3,725 4,066 3,923 thereof Blue-Collar 8501 889 1,050 1,321 1,346 thereof White-Collar 2,5501 2,520 2,500 2,590 2,500 thereof Apprentices 1001 101 175 155 77 Domestic oil production incl. NGL tons 965,112 998,451 942,030 944,741 944,641 Domestic natural gas production m3n bn 1.704 1.580 1.532 1.848 1.819 Crude oil import tons mn 6.770 7.425 7.946 7.645 7.698 Natural gas import m3n bn 9.920 9.463 9.779 8.740 9.212 Oil transport – Pipelines2 tons mn 6.800 7.400 7.900 7.602 7.831 Oil refi ning incl. semifi nished products tons mn 8.30 8.93 9.38 9.09 8.81 Domestic oil consumption tons mn 11.610 11.297 11.919 12.009 12.7858 Petroleum imports – products tons mn 6.972 6.275 6.719 6.808 7.142 Petroleum exports – products tons mn 2.218 2.240 2.441 2.125 1.635 Domestic gas consumption m3n bn 9.105 8.217 8.391 7.939 8.456 Number of fi lling stations3 2,656 2,716 2,802 2,810 2,812 thereof major-branded 1,635 1,663 1,809 1,844 1,921 Car population 6,091,881 5,981,075 5,873,281 5,796,973 5,722,624 thereof passenger cars and station wagons 4,441,027 4,359,944 4,284,919 4,245,583 4,204,969 1 APIA approximation 2 Adria-Wien-Pipeline 3 Excluding 301/302/302/300/314 agricultural diesel-outlets Austrian Petroleum Industry Association (APIA) Wiedner Hauptstrasse 63 1045 Vienna, Austria Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • The Polish-Russian Deal on Natural Gas Supply: the Incapacity of the EU Energy Policy
    2010 No. 6 (34) The Polish-Russian Deal on Natural Gas Supply: The Incapacity of the EU Energy Policy Vytautas Sirijos Gira On October 29, 2010, Poland and Russia signed an agreement on the supply of Russian natural gas until 2022 (with an option to extend the agreement until 2037). The agreement stipulates that in 2010 the Russian natural gas company Gazprom will supply 9.7 billion cubic meters of gas to Poland, and from 2011 it will supply 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually1. An agreement was also reached on the transit of Russian natural gas to Western Europe through the Yamal-Europe natural gas pipeline2 section in Poland's territory until 2019 (with a possible extension of the transit of natural gas until 2045). This agreement between Poland and Russia on Russian natural gas supply could be considered a unique continuation of the improvement of bilateral relations between these two countries in the energy area that is not very favourable to Lithuania for a number of reasons. Firstly, this deal in a way is a mutual compromise that Poland and Russia have arrived at, which formally conforms to the legal norms of the EU’s 3rd Energy Package (on the unbundling of extraction, supply and distribution of energy resources); however, it inevitably increases Poland's energy dependence on Russia. Secondly, the improving Polish-Russian relations in the energy sector in short and medium terms create conditions for further penetration of Russian capital into the energy sector of Eastern and Central European countries (Poland, the Baltic States and others).
    [Show full text]