Main page > Comments > Fuel & Energy > "It is very possible that transit of Russian gas through Ukraine may be interrupted"
"It is very possible that transit of Russian gas through Ukraine may be interrupted"
Natural Gas Europe had the pleasure to conduct a "gas talk" with Aleksei Grivach, Deputy Director National Energy Security Fund of Russia.
Topics touched upon revolve upon the current state of affairs between the EU and Gazprom, as well as, the Ukrainian crisis and the potential aftermath for the European markets. The diversification aspect of the EU policy was also discussed, along with the hurdles and opportunities associated with the South Stream pipeline project.
Over the past period, there has been a lot of talk and culminations on multiple levels in the EU regarding the progress of the South Stream pipeline project. In your view what are the challenges for the countries involved, such as Bulgaria and what can be done to overcome them?
The main challenge for the countries involved in the South Stream project is very high level of political pressure directed upon them by Brussels and Washington. There is no doubt that this project is in full compliance with European energy security issues and is of vital importance for some countries of the EU including Bulgaria ,which are highly dependent from gas transit through Ukraine. From this point of view South Stream is of great benefit for EU because best part of financial and market volatility risks Russia is going to take up. Problems are only on political side. So finally we hope that mind and economic reasons would win the situation.
The situation in Ukraine is carefully observed by policy makers in the Balkans due to fears that gas supplies may be interrupted in the 2014-2015 winter period. Do you find these assumptions as valid?
It is very possible that transit of Russian gas through Ukraine may be interrupted. Recent declarations made in Kiev that they are going to implement sanctions against Russian business activities and stop the transit of resources and particularly natural gas shipping across Ukrainian territory is a very clear signal that risk is in place and it may materialize even sooner.
On the other hand Ukraine faces very hard times in terms of economical stability. They failed to pay for about 11 BCM of gas imported from Russia since the end of last year, the debt is about $5 billion. Gazprom had to stop deliveries of gas to state company Naftogaz Ukraine and Kiev doesn’t have enough gas to survive during coming winter. So taking gas from the transit amount by Ukraine, stealing it could happen even if the sanctions against Gazprom would not be implemented.
South Stream is a great example of such investments. Onshore construction in Europe costs about 7 billion euros based on preliminary data. Half is for Bulgarian part, and quarter is for Serbian one. Greece is not involved as the southern route was finally closed. There was a bid from Gazprom to buy Greek gas trading company DEPA, but the government failed to give guaranties to the buyer that the deal would be confirmed by the European Commission.
How do you view the overall EU gas policy as of late taking into account the "Third Energy package", the legal row between Brussels and Gazprom, as well as, reverse gas flows to Ukraine and efforts to manage its domestic pipeline system by a EU-US consortium?
After the adoption of Third Energy Package, new gas infrastructure projects are feasible only under exemptions given from the regulation authorities to the investors. So the rules are not investor friendly and issuing of exemptions by the EU is not the firm obligation. As we have the situation with onshore of North European Gas Pipeline – OPAL in Germany. First the project got full exemption but during the construction EC changed its decision and restricted 50% of transit capacity. As a result pipeline is underutilization of the pipe and generating losses for Gazprom and its partners.
That’s why Russia is proposing to conclude special agreement between Russia and EU about using trans-border infrastructure between us. But Brussels is not ready for mutually beneficiary compromise.
Lastly I would like to ask you if you believe that the EU is sincere in its stated efforts to "diversify" from its reliance to Russian gas (and energy) and especially in the geographical region of Southeastern Europe, bearing in mind projects such as TANAP-TAP.
Diversification is a good idea. It increases security of supply. And we don’t have any problems with fair competition to other suppliers. We have gas, we are flexible and competitive, reliable partners with perfect track-record in supplying European customers for decades. We have problems with transit country but we have will and ability to solve this inconvenience with our European partners. There is a proverb in Russia - one old friend is better than two new ones.
New Europe, August 18, 2014
Nord Stream 2 and Ukraine: Costs Should Decide
There has been much discussion about how Russia – Europe’s biggest gas supplier – can continue to supply gas to Europe over the coming decades in the most secure and cost efficient way. Gazprom and its European partners have decided that building two additional pipelines through the Baltic Sea (Nord Stream 2) is the best commercial solution to secure future gas supplies for the EU, where gas production continues to decline and demand is expected to grow.
Shale Revolution: Myths and Realities
The boom in shale gas production in the US and its wide-ranging influence on markets rocked the gas world. Liquefied gas deliveries were redirected, altering the already fragile balance of demand and supply in traditional markets for pipeline gas in Europe.
Liquefied Natural Gas Outlook: Expectations and Reality
Asia market: potential of Russian oil and gas exports to the East
It has become commonplace to believe that Asia will drive the world consumption of hydrocarbons. So, what are the real opportunities Asian markets provide? Is Russia capable of competing successfully on Asian oil and gas markets? This new report issued by NESF attempts to find answers to these questions.
State regulation of the oil and gas sector in 2016, prospects for 2017
We traditionally conclude the year with our final report that sums up main events and tendencies of the outgoing year. The report analyzes preliminary production results, main state decisions concerning the sector, the struggle for property, changes in export policies, and, certainly, forecasts of the sector development in the medium-term perspective.
Gazprom: Goliath is not going to surrender
The European gas market: the life in the epoch of the Third Energy Package
The new report analyses the condition of the EU gas market, considers regulation practices and new initiatives planned for introduction, reviews infrastructure projects, and assesses prospects of the European gas market in the medium term.
Main regulators of oil and gas battles
Russia's political system has clearly become vibrant. Resignations and new appointments, personnel purging and scandals – these factors have become a new norm of current politics in Russia. Administrative competition in the country is growing, and it has evident outcomes in the oil and gas sector. The number of conflicts is expanding, while the role of state regulators is becoming very significant. Moreover, interests of companies in the sector do not always coincide, which puts regulators into a complicated situation. The National Energy Security Fund is focusing on key sectoral conflicts that relevant ministries and services are engaged in.
About us | Products | Comments | Services | Books | Conferences | Our clients | Price list | Site map | ContactsConsulting services, political risks assessment on the Fuel & Energy Industry, concern of pilitical and economic Elite within the Oil-and-Gas sector.
National Energy Security Fund © 2007