New gas war

30
New gas warIs it easy to be a neighbor of Russia? Just ask Ukraine about this. Since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine’s relations with Russia have been developing in the range from cold formal to frankly hostile, and the main irritant is, of course, the gas issue.

The period of rapprochement and constancy in relations between Ukraine and Russia, which began with the coming to power of Viktor Yanukovych, is over. This was clearly shown by Dmitry Medvedev’s meeting with the Ukrainian president in Sochi. The leader of Ukraine began negotiations with a transparent hint of the possibility of filing a lawsuit against neighboring Russia, and the Russian president began recognizing that there are many issues in the relations between the two countries. According to reliable information, none of them was fully resolved: Moscow and Kiev continue to argue about the price of gas and the future entry of Ukraine into the current Customs Union. Media sources indicate that the governments of the two states are preparing for a long-term confrontation until the next gas war on the eve of the pre-election winter 2012 of the year.

Even before the meeting in Sochi, Yanukovych expressed the view that Ukraine and Russia are obliged to find a compromise and mutually beneficial solution and reconsider the current gas prices, without resorting to a possible judicial procedure, since Kiev considers the current prices to be bonded. Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine Sergei Tigipko said that you need to reach the price level that is in effect in most European countries. In Kiev, consider the fair value of gas at the level of 200 dollars per thousand cubic meters.

According to the agreements, the price of gas depends on the price of oil on world markets. In the third quarter, gas went up by 20% compared to the second quarter - to 354 dollars per thousand cubic meters. The gas price in the first quarter was 264,3 dollars per thousand cubic meters, in the second - 295,6 dollars.

At a meeting with media representatives, President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych said the following: “I think it is in our common interests — Ukraine and the Russian Federation — to take a compromise solution, of course, we will strive for this.” In other words, a court decision on the gas issue is also not excluded.

For the first time, Prime Minister of Ukraine Mykola Azarov spoke about the possibility of resolving the issue of prices for gas supplied by Gazprom to Ukraine. Last week, during a press conference, he said that Kiev was exploring the issue of terminating the existing gas contract, which was concluded by its predecessor in 2009 year.

Independent experts, in turn, argue that the new conflict with Ukraine is very beneficial to the Russian gas monopoly. It provides an opportunity to justify large investments in the South Stream and Nord Stream projects.

Alexey Miller, head of Gazprom, another 30 of June, said that the gas holding admits the possibility of reducing the price of natural gas for Ukraine, but only if it is merged with the state-owned company Naftogaz of Ukraine.

This option is not fully acceptable in Ukraine. The government is well aware that this merger will be used in the future by Russia as a lever of pressure. The Ukrainian authorities also declare that the then Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko signed the 2009 gas agreements of the year with Russia, having no government directives, and, consequently, the agreements are invalid. Now comes the trial of Tymoshenko in a high-profile "gas case."

In response to Moscow’s refusal to lower natural gas prices, Kiev is diligently looking for methods to break its enslaving dependence on energy imports from Russia, and now the situation looks as if this desire may well become a reality. The head of the Ukrainian Gosgeonedr Edward Stavitsky said in an interview: “Today, the state fund of free underground resources is approximately 1,1 trillion. cubic meters of gas and in the area 130-150 million tons of oil with associated gas condensate. For ten years, Ukraine is fully capable of fully supplying itself with oil and gas, which will make it possible to exclude purchases of imported important energy resources. ”

TNK-BP is ready to invest (2 billion dollars) in the development of shale gas deposits in the territory of Ukraine before the 2020 year. Shell has already provided a natural gas production project at the Yuzovskoye field and is ready within the next three years to invest a certain amount of billions of dollars in its technological development, hoping to reach the maximum extraction level of 8-10 billion cubic meters of gas per year over the past ten years.

In Western Ukraine, investors, such as Chevron, show interest in the richest Oleskoe field, which extends across the Ternopil, Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk regions, the area of ​​which, according to preliminary estimates, is on the order of 5,4 thousand square kilometers.

According to reliable information provided by the Deputy Minister of Fuel and Energy of the Government of Ukraine Sergey Chek, the state energy company Naftogaz Ukraine is developing an agreement with the global oil and gas group Shell, the subject of which will be the development of the Black Sea shelf. Czech said Ukraine could significantly increase oil and gas production in the Black and Azov Seas, but this would require huge investments, but Ukraine plans to increase natural gas production on the Black Sea shelf to 2,9 mln. Tons per year by 2015 year. covering gas condensate.

If Ukraine really can achieve energy independence, this will ultimately deprive Moscow of one of its main levers for political pressure on Kiev. Very aloof from the unnerving issues related to the transit of natural gas by Gazprom through Ukraine, another issue that has been a factor of tension in modern Russian-Ukrainian relations over the past 2 decades also remains unresolved. This is a controversial issue about the extension of the time for Russia to use the port of Sevastopol in Crimea as a base for its own Black Sea fleet. In past years, Moscow took an extremely tough stance on all issues related to the use of the port, mainly due to its "gas arms».
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Superduck
    -1
    18 August 2011 12: 14
    In general, in the Kharkiv region, oil rigs have become as familiar a part of the landscape as in northwestern Siberia, seismic explorers roam the fields like cockroaches, certainly all this tyagomotin with Gazprom and the pipe is bearing fruit. And it’s worthwhile to pay tribute to Fedorych, if under all the other presidents gas production smoothly went into the hands of dumb officials of ministries, now the same thing is happening, but towards nimble businessmen. Those. investment in the industry is felt. My father worked in exploration for almost half his life, in science, to be more precise, he is already out of work, but acquaintances who are still on the topic have stopped traveling to Russia, the loot appeared here and is not weak.
  2. +1
    18 August 2011 12: 43
    An old fairy tale - "I want fifty" ... On New Year's Eve we are waiting for the next episode of "Close Sim-Sim", if before that time the ICF does not rip Ukraine off like a sticky one, we must repay debts. Interestingly, even Ukraine considers Russia only as a raw material appendage.
    1. Superduck
      0
      18 August 2011 13: 03
      Well, everyone wants cheaper, that's fine. Russia, too, is not happy when the price of transit rises. In fact, yes, the Ukrainian government rests on the dough of metallurgical barons. For them, the price of products is almost proportional to the price of gas, because there has always been a systematic expectation from the president of Ukraine on the part of business, there is and will be a low price on gas, and any president of Ukraine will devote a lot of time to this issue regardless of whether he is pro-Russian or not.
  3. -1
    18 August 2011 14: 59
    SuperduckWell, the flag in your hands. although what we have and what you have - all this good is used by certain very correct personalities. and ordinary people in flight. or am I wrong?
    1. Superduck
      0
      18 August 2011 15: 35
      I’m absolutely right, all this fussing does not cause me any positive feelings at all. Some huckster butts with others, people in any situation past the cash register.
  4. mitrich
    -1
    18 August 2011 15: 36
    SuperDuck
    here on TV and in newspapers ("Kommersant") they report that the Ukrainian government, represented by Azarov, has abandoned the hydrocarbon pricing formula, similar to the one signed with Belarus the other day. practically domestic Russian. The Belarusians, however, had to give up Beltransgaz in return. Why didn't you come to an agreement with Ukraine? Azarov's refusal looks especially strange against the background of the "gas" accusations against Tymoshenko (Gigyan).
    As I understand it, Ukraine wants a low price for gas and oil, but not to give up its GTS. Write what you think about this issue in Ukraine, if possible.
    1. Superduck
      -1
      18 August 2011 16: 00
      In Ukraine, recent years are generally very wary of any intervention of Russian capital, because in those areas where the Russians have slipped, they are easily crowding out Ukrainian competitors due to easier access to financial resources, which in almost all cases are provided by Russian state banks. Those. some political scientists and businessmen have an opinion that there is a lot of politics on the issue of economic expansion in Ukraine.
      Mitrich, the pipe is generally a separate song. The fact is that the ownership of this very pipe in Ukraine is the only effective political lever of influence on Russia. Notice the only one! There is still a fleet, NATO and so on, but these are too complicated materials for the modern Ukrainian leadership, the pipe is simple and understandable, all the more it is a living loot. The cost of the Ukrainian gas transportation system itself in money does not reach its strategic value. to make it easier for you to recognize the problems of the pipe, I’ll tell you that changing the ownership of this object is blocked by a separate law, and in Ukraine it is not enough for the president’s verbal order to the speaker of the parliament and after 2 hours they will vote as they should, a political scientist has been feeling this idea for a long time and it’s very unpopular even among business cynics, to whom patriotism is alien by definition. Belarusians merged their work also not from a good life, their economy was covered with a copper basin. Moldovans lost their gas transportation system altogether out of greed, Gazprom allowed them not to pay for transgas for years, for some reason these little-minded people thought it would last a long time, but when Gazprom rolled out a tribute for 12 years, there was nothing left for them. If you remember in the era of Kuchma, when Ukraine owed billions to Gazprom, the same scheme worked there, I didn’t pay Nichrome, and Gazprom sold gas not to Ukraine and its oil and gas, but to JV myself and Semyon Mogilevich, Tymoshenko was still sitting on it to Mogilevich in the person of Firtash, although xs under whom she then went. It’s true that Kuchma cut it through at the end of his term and started to do something with the calculations. So, when the loot went on schedule, it caused a real hysteria in Gazprom, the number of gas wars increased many times immediately.
      In short, the topic of ownership of the pipe at the moment lies exclusively on the political plane and it’s just silly to look for economic prerequisites in this matter. It will be almost impossible to privatize Ukraine’s gas transportation system in the presence of an appropriate state, the elite’s maximum is ready to allow Gazprom to build another branch of limited capacity, which is absolutely uninteresting to him.
  5. mitrich
    -1
    18 August 2011 16: 23
    Maybe someone knows how things are with the South Stream project?
    1. Superduck
      0
      18 August 2011 16: 40
      There, either the Bulgarians or the Slovenes began to scum once again.
      In general, it is not so simple with onshore gas pipelines in Europe. In Europe, there is the so-called "Third Energy Package", according to which all gas pipelines, existing and under construction, must be open to any gas suppliers, therefore Gazprom will not be able to create a gas pipeline monopoly so far. Therefore, in fact, when Ukraine was about to sign the European energy charter, Miller almost declared war.
  6. MKALEKSEY
    -1
    18 August 2011 16: 55
    "For ten years, Ukraine has been fully capable of supplying itself with oil and gas, which will make it possible to exclude the purchase of imported important energy resources."
    And in 10 years what will they do? Will they again remember about “friendship and fraternal peoples?” Besides, gas consumption is growing, so gas will go to Europe, and “money” will go to Ukraine - that is, for writing off debts
    1. slan
      0
      18 August 2011 20: 21
      What other 10 years? Cheap show-offs, if they had such an opportunity, they would have eaten it long ago.
      And the price of gas simply cannot be unfair. This is not a product of monopoly, it is an ordinary energy carrier. You can heat with oil, coal, wood .. dollars again. But Ukraine has nothing and will not be cheaper than Russian gas. Tired of their whining, parasites. It’s not easy to be neighbors;
      ps Regardless of political and other orientations, the Ukrainian government sees the meaning of Ukraine's existence solely in the position of "sitting on the neck and crap by the collar" and not on one neck at the same time. Amazing territorial entity ...
  7. 0
    18 August 2011 20: 37
    All this is sad. For more than one century, the myth of the independence of Little Russia has been circulated, and for some reason this independence must be strengthened at someone's expense. In this case, at the expense of Russia. As I understand it, he called himself a load, climb into the back. Why do Polyana always want to eat a fish and sit on ....? You can't live by the nipple principle "Blow there, and from there x ...". Nobody canceled the rule "If it arrived somewhere, then it left somewhere." Ukraine wants to strengthen its economy, but Russia does not? Russia needs a reliable and modernized pipe. Naftogaz is unable to modernize its GTS. But what is there to modernize, Naftogaz cannot always keep it in good condition. As for the fleet, territorial issues are not fully regulated between Russia and Ukraine, and by and large, as a last resort, in the same court order, Russia can challenge the ownership of Sevastopol to Ukraine, tk. it was a city of federal significance and subordination, which means that it was not part of Ukraine under the USSR as an administrative unit. As the legal successor of the USSR, Russia has much more legal rights to Sevastopol than Ukraine. Only brotherly countries should not behave like wolves. And ten years of energy independence of Ukraine from Russia will lead to 100% dependence on the IMF, and then all the same bondage, only to the West, where no one will remember that they are brothers, etc.
    1. Superduck
      -1
      18 August 2011 20: 52
      Sevastopol was indicated in the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR 60 a year as a city of republican subordination.
  8. -1
    18 August 2011 21: 13
    http://crimea-tour.ru/o_statuse_sev.htm Superduc I respect your opinion with respect, but I propose to follow the link, it's not so simple.
    1. Superduck
      -1
      18 August 2011 21: 31
      The provision of the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR in Art. 77, by which Sevastopol was declared a city of republican subordination within the Ukrainian SSR, does not have legal force at the time of adoption, as it was unilaterally adopted by the Ukrainian SSR without a corresponding decision by the constitutional authorities of the RSFSR.

      USSR laws did not provide for such procedures. In fact, if the Supreme Council of the RSFSR did not challenge this decision, then what should I say now. From the point of view of international law, the issue is really controversial. However, in the famous Budapest Memorandum of 1994 on Ukraine’s refusal of nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of territorial integrity and security, Russia and the United States recognized Ukraine within the current borders and at that time with the status of Sevastopol fixed in its constitution, i.e. his status was not challenged a second time. The reverse action will lead to the denunciation of this agreement, which in fact is absolutely not beneficial to any of the parties.
      Moreover, if you are in the topic you should know that the borders of the republics were redrawn several times in the post-war period and the territory of the RSFSR left Ukraine and vice versa. And from the point of view of the material that you provided to me, it was just as illegal. Are you ready to start a war for this?
      1. slan
        -1
        18 August 2011 21: 48
        And the desire for you to write about this? What kind of war? Who with whom? What else right?
        In the world there is one right, the right of the strong. Are you pushing with America or Poland with the war?))
        1. Superduck
          -1
          18 August 2011 23: 45
          The ultimatum requirements of a border revision in international law are tantamount to a declaration of war, and if you think that Russia is ready to wage war not only with the United States, but at least with Poland, then you will have a ticket to Seliger.
          1. slan
            -1
            19 August 2011 00: 07
            Kindergarten .. discuss this with fellow sufferers, Georgians will particularly appreciate your refined humor, I am sure.
            1. Superduck
              -1
              19 August 2011 11: 09
              Be sure to follow your advice on occasion.
  9. classicist2001
    -1
    19 August 2011 07: 03
    Nobody needs Ukraine for the West; The economically developed EU countries (Germany and France) still cannot recover from the admission of Eastern Europeans to the EU, who receive substantial subsidies from the EU. Moreover, in all countries of Eastern Europe adopted by the EU, the main industrial centers were immediately destroyed, because no one needs competitors.

    The industry of Ukraine was created in the framework of close cooperation with the industry of the RSFSR and the most logical for Ukraine is the closest possible cooperation with Russia. But the Ukrainian elite, like a dog in the manger, is not am, and I won’t give it to another. Plus, periodic kookies with the praise of u..sh from the OUN / UPA, threats of joining NATO, fraternities with the USA, GUAM, and so on and so forth, do not add confidence in the sanity of the Ukrainian leadership. At the same time, Ukrainians are demanding that they sell gas at domestic prices or even lower, since otherwise their metallurgical products are uncompetitive. With which hangover Russia should sell gas to Ukraine cheaper if the Ukrainian elite refuses any integration projects with Russia?
    1. Superduck
      -1
      19 August 2011 11: 22
      Yes, what have integration projects to do with it. The metallurgical harrows yelled that the industry would become when gas was more expensive than 170 bucks, it did not. In the same way, mobile operators shouted that they would go broke when they cancel the fee for incoming calls and for connection, all then only increased profits. This year, Rinat Akhmetov (owner of probably 60% of the metallurgy of Ukraine) increased his income by 60%, and this at such a high price. But everyone wants cheaper, that's fine. It’s just that when Julia signed this formula with the GDP, everything was hurt, it suited everyone, then oil went up in price - it became expensive. However, Germany’s formula is tied to brown coal, which is illiquid on the world market, and is traded almost entirely only in Germany and Poland, where it is mined. it would probably be right to try to follow the path of Germany with coal. Here the problem is not even the current price of oil and gas, the fact is that oil in the long term will go up further and very strongly, gas in the 5-year perspective will rise in price for Ukraine to 500-600 bucks, and at that price nobody needs it as fuel anymore. But if the CHPP can be heated by virtually anything, then the modernization of metallurgy is a lot of money, and coal open-hearths are already in the past.
      Do not look for a black cat if it is not. The Customs Union still does not guarantee Ukraine gas prices and sales markets in Russia. Metallurgists understand this, if they had believed in him, then Victor would have tried to reach a handful of Dimon before the flashes of television cameras.
  10. classicist2001
    +2
    19 August 2011 07: 05
    I was in Kiev in 1991; I heard howls were cried out that as soon as they give Ukraine independence, Ukrainians will become better than anyone else in the Union, as they feed all parasites. And what, life has become better, life has become more fun? Yes, not in vain. The standard of living is many times worse than it was during the Union. So why not reunite? Ukraine has human resources and industry oriented to Russia; Russia has cheap energy. They don’t think about ordinary people either in Russia or Ukraine, but they are thinking about how to throw Gazprom an extra billion or enrich Ukrainian metallurgical barons even more.
    1. zczczc
      -1
      20 August 2011 02: 32
      Answer your question, why is Europe still not a single state? And why do they so hate Hitler, despite the fact that at the entrance to some countries he was strewn with flowers? Literally. And in these countries he did not crap, but in most other European countries that offered some resistance, he contained prisoners of war as befits for Europe, i.e. without horrors and bullying - they played football there, ate normally, etc. Looks like I did not see the enemy in them, but they (the peoples of the countries, I emphasize) in it.

      No matter how blasphemous this sounds, but in a historical context, Merkel unsuccessfully tries to complete Hitler’s business - to unite Europe. What she gets is perfectly visible - nothing. A variety of voices, each pulling a blanket over himself, a parade of sovereignty begins with any more or less urgent problem, no one wants to answer for the other, no one seeks to help the other, everyone codifies a single currency. Compare with the USSR.

      The answer to your question is because local elites do not want to lose power over their territory. In a large state, they will be nothing, or at best, the chairman of the district committee, and then the head of state. And they sneeze on the people. What is the head of the Kiev region or the Ukrainian SSR compared to the president of Ukraine? gee ...

      To unite you need a decision center. One. This center should work out conditions for cooperation that are understandable, convenient and beneficial for all. Then there will be a basis for unification. Putin gave these conditions to Ukraine or Belarus? No. That's when there will be a politician who will clearly describe the essence and idea of ​​the new Union, then there will be unification. But for this, at least, you need to stop stealing resources from your people. When, for example, Lukashenko looks at this robbery, can he go to an alliance with such a state? No. He's waiting. And we are waiting, however, on the horizon are not visible truly national heroes.
      1. classicist2001
        -1
        21 August 2011 04: 09
        Just a large state and / or empire like the Roman, Byzantine or Russian / USSR gives the provincial elites a real opportunity to become the head of a large and strong state. Some examples: Beria was taken from Georgia, Khrushchev from Ukraine, where he was the first secretary, Brezhnev worked in Ukraine and Moldova (also the first secretary), Gorbachev worked in the Stavropol Territory (the last example is not very successful, since Gorbachev’s promotion to senior positions allied value was a big mistake). Even now, if Lukashenko would be offered to become president of Russia, Belarus would instantly merge with Russia. The same thing would probably happen with Kazakhstan. It is one thing to go down in history as the president of independent Belarus, and quite another as the president, or even the prime minister, of a united state (Russia and Belarus).
  11. -1
    19 August 2011 11: 05
    As long as GDP is at the helm of Russian power, there will be no rapprochement with Ukraine. A different approach is needed. As our Japanese mother Khakamada said, Putin is the most greedy ruler in Russian history, similar to one of the characters in Gogol's "Dead Souls". The price of gas has long been unbearable for the inhabitants of Russia, it is time for us to start a "gas war" with the government of Pl-ny, according to Khakamada's definition.
    1. classicist2001
      0
      19 August 2011 16: 53
      It’s hard for me to judge from the USA, but it seems to me that there are two problems in Russia - decisions are made to please Gazprom and large oil companies instead of using natural resources for the benefit of all, as it was in the USSR, which purchased oil and grain from the West and contained the defense industry and developed space. The second problem is the absolutely bastard economic policy of Kudrin and Co. Money is held in securities by sponsoring the United States, instead of investing it in the development of local production and then collecting taxes from these additional industries (or in the end they would have invested in gold, which is only becoming more expensive). Plus, they increase taxes on small and medium business, which leads to brainwashing from Russia.
      1. zczczc
        -1
        20 August 2011 02: 37
        And who and for what cons did you give the speaker (classicist2001)? What did he say wrong? :)
        1. classicist2001
          0
          21 August 2011 06: 08
          It’s the descendants of the OUN / UPA killers that really pierce my eyes :))). And openly admit on this forum that yes, my grandfather or great-grandfather, chopped an ax in the West. Ukraine to all who spoke well of Russians or worked for the Soviet regime, oh how I do not want :))).
  12. lokdok
    +1
    19 August 2011 17: 30
    In any country, decisions are made for the sake of YOUR large corporations, and then budget is already spent from these corporations, which is spent on social programs, defense, space, etc.
    As for Kudrin and Co - we simply pay tribute to America, so that we would not be touched, for this we needed all sorts of ates summits, Sochi 2014, World Cup on football, so that Russia would be allowed to spend at least part of their savings. Well, Russia does not have economic independence, at least oil now belongs to domestic corporations, and not foreign ones under the law on production sharing.
    Cheap gas is beneficial for Ukrainian metallurgists, but cheap gas is also beneficial for Russian metallurgists - and most importantly, that it be cheaper than competitors (for example, Ukrainian). These are ordinary economic disputes in which some as arguments, out of habit, begin to talk either about war, or about the brotherhood of peoples.
    1. classicist2001
      -1
      20 August 2011 02: 12
      As for corporations shaping politics - I agree. But since Russia does not have capitalism in the classical sense of the word (as in the USA, for example), nothing prevents the state from nationalizing corporations parasitic on natural resources that belong to everyone (or at least seizing 80-90% of their profits). Large corporations in the United States just pay minimal or even zero taxes. Recently, there was a scandal with General Electric, one of the largest companies in the United States, which not only did not pay a cent of taxes for 2010, but also managed to get multi-billion subsidies from the US government. Oil companies in the United States receive subsidies, which Obama is now trying to unsuccessfully cancel (Republicans raised a howl). Taxes in the USA are mainly paid by owners of small and medium-sized businesses and part of the population working and receiving salaries. By the way, recently it turned out that only 51% of Americans pay taxes; the rest are either returned the majority of taxes back at the end of the year and / or even provide financial support (food stamps; municipal housing; payments for children in low-income families).

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"