The biggest story of the day is Russia’s decision to cut off the supply of natural gas to the Ukraine.
It’s a story best covered by Jerome a Paris, but I will give it a shot.
The dispute is ostensibly centered on Gazprom’s desire to move immediately to market pricing and Ukraine’s willingness to accept only a phased transition to the kind of prices paid in Western Europe. But the stand-off has a fraught political backdrop and could also have potentially far-reaching implications for Europe, which is increasingly dependent on Russia for critical supplies of natural gas.
Europe is concerned because they rely on Russian gas for about 25% of their supply, and 80% of that gas traverses the Ukraine. Russia has promised that European supply will not be affected (technically, they haven’t cut off the supply, but lowered the pumping pressure so that less gas is fed through the system). But the Ukraine insists they are entitled to 15% of the gas as a transit fee. There are reports that the Ukraine is already siphoning off gas, and that could cause shortages in Europe.
Despite Russia’s claims that this move is necessary to move to market pricing, it is clear that the Ukraine is being punished for the decision to align themselves with the West.
Ukrainian officials rejected an offer from Putin to freeze prices at 2005 levels for three months and then shift to the $230 price. The Ukrainian government wants a much slower transition to higher prices, and Yushchenko suggested a price of $80 for 2006.
Under new pricing accords, Armenia, Georgia and the Baltic States pay $110 per 35,300 cubic feet. And Belarus, an increasingly authoritarian country closely aligned with Russia, pays $47. Gazprom officials say that Belarus has provided the company with a stake in the pipeline that crosses its country, allowing the company to continue to provide subsidized gas.
Ukraine has rejected any compromise based on giving Gazprom a stake in its state-owned pipeline network.
The dispute is a tangled mess, involving a mixture of capitalist impulses towards free markets versus state-owned energy companies. Russia is clearly throwing their weight around. They have used subsidized energy to maintain influence in the former socialist republics. Now, they are cutting new deals based on the degree to which their interests are respected, rewarding friends and punishing the recalcitrant.
Jerome says: “Russia CANNOT afford to cut off gas and be seen by Europe as an unreliable partner in the energy sphere, the only one where it is a serious player.” Yet, that is exactly what they have just done.
If this cutoff lasts very long, Europe will start to make difficult choices precisely because they will no longer see Russia as a reliable partner.
Wars have been fought over much less, and we should expect some turbulence in the region if this dispute isn’t quickly resolved.
For background on the more local issues (corruption) that may be at play, see Jerome’s Making sense of the Russian-Ukrainian gas spat.
.
@BooMan Tribune with a somewhat better appreciation @EuroTrib a day later …
Hmmm!
Gazprom Cuts Gas Supplies to Ukraine ¶ Politics, Jobs, Fees, Pipeline & Ecology ¶ Updated
Fri Dec 30th, 2005 at 08:00:14 AM PST
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼▼▼ READ MY DIARY ▼
Hmm….so Standard Oil’s lessons were not lost on the Ruskies, eh?
Booman, may I suggest you read Oui’s articles. Oui posted about this already. Happy New Year………
.
BooMan and Booman are busy …
Football scheduled today and both need to be fit.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Perhaps the Ukraine can contract with right wing pundits for a new supply of hot gaseous material.
Russia has lowered deliveries to Ukraine, and ukraine will lower deliveries West. Russia will blame Ukraine, but what will Europe do? Will they be weak and tell the Ukrainians to stop “stealing” gas? Will they offer to help the Ukrainians pay for the increased price? Or will they do the right thing and remind the Russians that the gas is purchased at the Czech border and that it is the Russians’ responsibility to take care of transit to that points? You can’t do it, we’ll take over? Sell us your gas at the Russian-Ukrainian border…
Europe has been insanely weak-kneed is dealing with Russia, but on this one, it’s a no-brainer.
In the end, I expect a compromise whereby gas prices will be increased, but a bit less than the Russians asked for; gas transit fees through Ukraine will also be increased, but not enough to compensate for the increased price in gas for the Ukrainians, and loans will be provided for the difference – and will never be paid.
Good for Russia. Ukraine wants the benefits of being a stauch and reliable Russian Ally without being one. It is not as if Jordan doesn’t get better deals than Lybia. Your suggestion that a war might insue from this seems way over the top.
I didn’t want to jump to conclusions so please explain what you mean by the above statement. What choices might they be forced to make?
This highlights the fact that governments are now in the energy business.
.
BRUSSELS (RTE News) Jan. 1, 2006 — EU nations have started to feel the impact of Russia’s decision to cut its gas supplies to Ukraine. Russia’s state-run firm Gazprom cut Ukrainian supplies by a quarter after Kiev refused to sign a new contract seeking a 400% price increase.
Hungary and Poland were the first EU states to have supplies disrupted.
Read on …
● Gazprom and Beltransgaz signed contract on supply and transit of gas in 2006
● Cedric Brown, non-executive chairman at Eural Trans Gas
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼▼▼ READ MY DIARY ▼
As energy prices go up and resources dwindle, I think we’ll see more governments try to get the most from their countries resources, and it will be very popular with their people who may or may not benefit from the policy.
We know the Russian story, or think we do.
In Bolivia Morales swept to power by promising to renegotiate deals or nationalize the energy industry.
In Iraq the insurgents or whatever seem to see the destruction of oil infrastrucure as a way of stopping it falling into foreign hands.
God knows what kind of manipulative speculation goes on where oil or gas are traded.
Those with the resources have the upper hand whether they be a government, or oil trading company. Those without will be forced to compromise, except of course in the unique case of Venezuela which provides subsidized oil to its caribbean neighbors, and still manages to invest its profits in social schemes to help the poor. But then again dont expect anyone in the oil industry to talk up the Venezuela approach.
Lets just hope history doesnt repeat itself along the lines of when Japan had its oil cut of a few decades ago.