Today the State oil and gas company Naftogaz Ukraine has paid $50 million to Russian Gazprom. Together with yesterday’s payment of $310 million it settles the gas supply bill of Ukraine for February 2009. Now all the Europe may breathe a sigh of relief: this month there will be no gas cut-off.
(Besides, I’ve noticed at least one mismatch – in figures. The figures I’ve mentioned above, given according to the information of the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, have in total $360 million – which means that Ukraine imported only 1 billion cubic metres (bcm) of Russian gas in February. Gazprom’s officials have recently mentioned that Naftogaz has to pay $400 million. Hopefully it will not be a purpose for a new gas-fight between Ukraine and Russia).
Nevertheless, the gas supply remains in a center of a domestic turmoil in Ukraine. Muscular men wearing black masks and camouflage entered the Naftogaz Ukraine headquarters yesterday. They passed by the helpless company guards, and started to question the accountants of the company, and to search for something in the management office. All the main TV channels were translating this fascinating story in almost live regime (it’s a democracy!). “Armed people in camouflage pushed aside security, and showed no documents,” a spokesman of Naftogaz Valentyn Zemlyansky said to journalists.
The masked men appeared to be the secret service agents, who came to the Naftogaz Ukraine to take off the documents, related to Russian-Ukraine gas supply agreement, signed in January. The spokeswoman of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) Maryna Ostapenko informed press that the national security service is investigating criminal case on the illegal appropriation of 6,3 bcm of gas by the State company Naftogaz Ukraine. “Everything is within the frames of law”, Mrs. Ostapenko assured, and added that the Naftogaz authorities knew that the documents are to be seized that day. (The last remark explains such a huge media support of the action).
Anyway, the most interesting thing is not a scary picture, but the reasons of the scandal. As every contemporary problem in Ukraine, it has origins in the struggle for power between the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko and the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko.
The story begins in November 2008, when the Ukrainian Customs office refused to perform customs clearing of 11 bcm of Russian gas, pumped to Ukrainian gas storages by Russian Gazprom. The gas was dedicated for the well-known Swiss-registered intermediary RosUkrEnergo, half owned by Gazprom, and half – by Ukrainian billionaire Dmytro Firtash. The Customs of Ukraine bonded all the amount of gas (for some reasons), until the gas conflict with Russia started. (Here I would like to suppose again that the gas “war” with Russia was a planned thing).
In January 2009 – in frames of a settlement of the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute – Russians transferred to Naftogaz Ukraine the rights to claim from RosUkrEnergo the debt, which it has to Gazprom. The same time Russia received a 20 per cent discount on pipeline transit fees. A new set of bilateral Agreements eliminated RosUkrEnergo from Russia-Ukraine gas trading scheme.
As the PM says, Gazprom agreed to give the gas to Ukraine at a privileged price of $1,7 billion for all the 11 bcm of gas, and these money were to be considered as a payment for a transit of Russian gas to Europe. (I haven’t seen the documents, but it sounds like a true). This fact permitted to the Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to declare that the average gas price for Ukraine in 2009 is $228 per tcm.
After the signing of the Agreements with Gazprom, Naftogaz Ukraine faced a new problem: a Head of the State Customs office of Ukraine Valery Khoroshkovsky refused to perform a custom clearing of mentioned amount of gas. He claimed the gas belongs to RosUkrEnergo.
The Prime Minister solved the problem: Mr. Khoroshkovsky was fired. But the President appointed him as a Deputy Head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).
At long last, the Ukrainian Customs released the 11 bcm of ex-RosUkrEnergo-gas from the bond – in favour of the State company Naftogaz Ukraine. After that the SBU started the investigation mentioned above. On 3 March at night Deputy Head of the department of Energy Customs office Taras Shepitko was arrested. The next day men in mask appeared on the threshold of Naftogaz.
As for this moment, there is a ruling of a court, which states the SBU should stop the actions concerning the mentioned Naftogaz-case. Pro-presidential and pro-government experts are giving controversial comments. RosUkrEnergo still insists that is owns the gas. Gazprom didn’t make any statements concerning this concrete question.
Mrs. Tymoshenko is condemning the actions of the SBU. “They simply wanted to paralyze the activities of Naftogaz and destroy the gas distribution system in Ukraine,” she said. She also accused Mr. Yushchenko of lobbying on behalf of RosUkrEnergo. First Vice Prime Minister Alexander Turchynov also declared yesterday that “Viktor Yushchenko was patronizing RosUkrEnergo”, and that Mr. Khoroshkovsky “has joint business with Mr. Firtash”.
The press secretary of the President of Ukraine Iryna Vannikova informed yesterday that “President fully supports the actions of the SBU”. “The Security Service acts in frames of law. The actions of the Security Service agents are rather tough, but it is a demand of the circumstances of this case, - Mrs. Vannikova said. - President is sure that it is necessary to show a determination and insistence in the investigation of the identified corrupt practices”.
Showing posts with label oil and gas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil and gas. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Credit History. Ukraine will receive the second bailout of the IMF credit, but it is not enough to support the economy.
I was not blogging here for a long time due to some personal reasons, but also because it was rather difficult to write about the messy situation we’ve got here in Ukraine. Every day we receive a portion of new information on what’s wrong in the country. And the picture really frightens. Ukrainian economy is getting worse, national currency is falling down (starting from the last week, the price of one dollar is more that 9 hryvnias, it’s twice more than five months ago).
To save the economy Ukraine is in need of the external financing. Here is also the problem: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) refused to issue to Ukraine the second bailout of its $16,4 billion dollars (Kyiv was supposed to receive $1,864 billion on 15 February), because Ukrainian authorities failed to comply with the requirements of the Arrangement with the IMF.
As a result, all the main world rating agencies have cut Ukraine’s credit rating. Fitch Ratings cut the rating to B, the fifth-highest non-investment grade, and kept the outlook “negative”. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services cut Ukraine's foreign currency sovereign credit ratings by two notches, to CCC+/C from B/B. S&P left Ukraine's outlook negative, indicating it may reduce the ratings further. I have to remind, that the next letter after C is D, which means ‘default’. The new S&P rating for Ukraine is the lowest in Europe – one of the ‘rating colleagues’ of Ukraine is Pakistan.
Experts said that Ukraine has no chance to attract investments and receive new loans, until its relations with the IMF will not be ‘repaired’. The only country that is ready to give money to Ukrainian economy is Russia, but the interest of Moscow is the geopolitical influence and the control on some of the strategic centers of the economy – for example, the gas transport system of Ukraine, which is a key to Ukrainian and all the European energy security. Besides, there is an evidence of upcoming problems in gas area. The 7 of March is a deadline date for a new payment of Naftogaz Ukraine to Russian Gazprom. Gazprom has already warned it may cut off gas supply to Ukraine on March 8.
Coming back to the troubles of Ukrainian economy, I have to add that people who were making such a sad prognosis on the destiny of the IMF loan didn’t take to the account the fact that the IMF as an Organization is not interested in loosing of such a big borrower as Ukraine is (actually a biggest one for the current moment). The break-up of the cooperation with Ukraine would also mean for the IMF the failure of the IMF policy, which may question the appropriateness of all the system of anti-crisis measures, worked out my the IMF experts.
As a result, the IMF decided to change the tone of a dialogue with Ukraine: if the country cannot accomplish its obligations and commitments, one of the ways out is to change the rules. Ukrainian authorities were asked to write a new Letter of Intent to the IMF, listing a new set of measures, more appropriate for the today’s economy state. I wrote about this issue for one Ukrainian newspaper, and here and here are the links to my recent articles (in Russian language).
So, next week (or a bit later) the Mission of the IMF will be back to Kyiv. Ukraine may receive the second tranche of the loan in March 2009. But it will not resolve the whole problem. To deal with the essential budget deficit, Ukraine has to ask for extra-loans (back to question of Russian ambitions), or to monetize it (back to the question of a severe inflation). Let’s see, which evil will be chosen by Ukrainian authorities?
To save the economy Ukraine is in need of the external financing. Here is also the problem: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) refused to issue to Ukraine the second bailout of its $16,4 billion dollars (Kyiv was supposed to receive $1,864 billion on 15 February), because Ukrainian authorities failed to comply with the requirements of the Arrangement with the IMF.
As a result, all the main world rating agencies have cut Ukraine’s credit rating. Fitch Ratings cut the rating to B, the fifth-highest non-investment grade, and kept the outlook “negative”. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services cut Ukraine's foreign currency sovereign credit ratings by two notches, to CCC+/C from B/B. S&P left Ukraine's outlook negative, indicating it may reduce the ratings further. I have to remind, that the next letter after C is D, which means ‘default’. The new S&P rating for Ukraine is the lowest in Europe – one of the ‘rating colleagues’ of Ukraine is Pakistan.
Experts said that Ukraine has no chance to attract investments and receive new loans, until its relations with the IMF will not be ‘repaired’. The only country that is ready to give money to Ukrainian economy is Russia, but the interest of Moscow is the geopolitical influence and the control on some of the strategic centers of the economy – for example, the gas transport system of Ukraine, which is a key to Ukrainian and all the European energy security. Besides, there is an evidence of upcoming problems in gas area. The 7 of March is a deadline date for a new payment of Naftogaz Ukraine to Russian Gazprom. Gazprom has already warned it may cut off gas supply to Ukraine on March 8.
Coming back to the troubles of Ukrainian economy, I have to add that people who were making such a sad prognosis on the destiny of the IMF loan didn’t take to the account the fact that the IMF as an Organization is not interested in loosing of such a big borrower as Ukraine is (actually a biggest one for the current moment). The break-up of the cooperation with Ukraine would also mean for the IMF the failure of the IMF policy, which may question the appropriateness of all the system of anti-crisis measures, worked out my the IMF experts.
As a result, the IMF decided to change the tone of a dialogue with Ukraine: if the country cannot accomplish its obligations and commitments, one of the ways out is to change the rules. Ukrainian authorities were asked to write a new Letter of Intent to the IMF, listing a new set of measures, more appropriate for the today’s economy state. I wrote about this issue for one Ukrainian newspaper, and here and here are the links to my recent articles (in Russian language).
So, next week (or a bit later) the Mission of the IMF will be back to Kyiv. Ukraine may receive the second tranche of the loan in March 2009. But it will not resolve the whole problem. To deal with the essential budget deficit, Ukraine has to ask for extra-loans (back to question of Russian ambitions), or to monetize it (back to the question of a severe inflation). Let’s see, which evil will be chosen by Ukrainian authorities?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: "If there is a Russian-Ukrainian dispute on energy security I think NATO allies should pick that up".
Let me not to tell anything about Ukrainian politics today. Everything is going well here in Kiev, the politicians are going on with presidential campaign, claiming each other in all the possible sins. The main topics of discussion: gas contracts (Presidential secretariat has issued a new research, making the conclusion that the papers signed in Moscow are not good for Ukraine and may - and possibly should - be revised), the date of Presidential election (December 2008 or January 2009), and a couple of dismissals and appointments - current and prospective. Instead of Ukrainian domestic politics saga, I propose some NATO-reading for today: Transatlantic Leadership For A New Era: Speech by the NATO Secretary General at the Security and Defence Agenda - 26 January 2009. This speech, followed with questions and answers session, really worth to be read. I will give here the words of NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, which were concerning directly Ukraine and its geopolitical role in global processes.
"We have seen how the need for reliable energy supply is transforming from a mainly economic question into a central security issue. For many nations, being cut off from energy is a matter of national survival. The recent quarrel between Russia and Ukraine was only the latest reminder of this. This latest crisis showed how a bilateral dispute can have a powerful knock-on effect, both in terms of the heat in houses and a chill in international relations".
"Clearly, no one gets a veto over NATO enlargement. That process is central to our aim of consolidating Europe as an undivided and democratic security space and it is not negotiable. The pace and direction will be of our choosing. But the NATO-Russia relationship is too valuable to be stuck in never-changing arguments. We need a positive agenda, one that befits the importance of both Russia and NATO".
"Considering the political, security and energy issues that run through Central Asia and the Caucasus, I believe we need stepped up focus on those regions as well. I think NATO should consider its role in energy security much more seriously. There is, to my mind, clear added value for the Alliance".
"It is simply not enough to have Heads of State and Government provide NATO with a mandate in energy security, yet to have Allies hesitate to use NATO as a forum for discussion during crises".
"The Bucharest decision was rather clear, or was very clear, I should say, and as I said in my introductory remarks, we will set the pace and we will decide upon the moment. But the moment is performance-based. So I cannot give you a timeframe. It is not around the corner, I would say, as we speak, as far as, of course, Ukraine and Georgia are concerned. We are intensifying our relationship, as you know, through the NATO-Ukraine Commission, the NATO-Georgia Commission, but I do think that enlargement in this sense is not around the corner, but I can't be more specific here in that regard".
"If there is a Russian-Ukrainian dispute on energy security I think NATO allies should pick that up. Not because we have any ambition, or we pretend to play any role. Please, no! There was a Czech presidency which immediately was proactive and involved. That was the European Union involved. Other people were involved. Certainly not NATO. But that does not mean that those subjects are irrelevant for NATO, if you agree with me that NATO is a political military organization".
"I think Russia cannot afford to have a non-dialogue with NATO, and NATO cannot afford to have a non-dialogue with Russia".
"Of course I'm discussing protecting pipelines in times of crisis. I said protecting pipelines is first and foremost a national responsibility. And it should stay like that. NATO is not in the business of protecting pipelines. But when there's a crisis, or if a certain nation asks for assistance, NATO could, I think, be instrumental in protecting pipelines on land".
"NATO is not in the energy business. So if in a situation like we had over the past weeks NATO allies are totally deprived of gas you will not see a NATO Secretary General stepping forward, raise his finger and tell the Europeans or the Russians or the Ukrainians for that matter, listen, guys, you have to stop this. We have other international organizations, other people to do this, and certainly not a NATO Secretary General, the European pres... the European Union presidency, rather, or others.
So we are not in the energy business, but of course when a nation is for a long time deprived of all gas, or all energy, in the North Atlantic Council, and quite rightly so, when a nation raises its finger and says, Secretary General, we would like to discuss the energy situation, should NATO then say no, that's none of our business? I don't think so. Although you'll not see us in the forefront in the energy business because we are not in the energy business. We're in the security business.
And I say again, we usually use the word energy security. And that's our business".
"We have seen how the need for reliable energy supply is transforming from a mainly economic question into a central security issue. For many nations, being cut off from energy is a matter of national survival. The recent quarrel between Russia and Ukraine was only the latest reminder of this. This latest crisis showed how a bilateral dispute can have a powerful knock-on effect, both in terms of the heat in houses and a chill in international relations".
"Clearly, no one gets a veto over NATO enlargement. That process is central to our aim of consolidating Europe as an undivided and democratic security space and it is not negotiable. The pace and direction will be of our choosing. But the NATO-Russia relationship is too valuable to be stuck in never-changing arguments. We need a positive agenda, one that befits the importance of both Russia and NATO".
"Considering the political, security and energy issues that run through Central Asia and the Caucasus, I believe we need stepped up focus on those regions as well. I think NATO should consider its role in energy security much more seriously. There is, to my mind, clear added value for the Alliance".
"It is simply not enough to have Heads of State and Government provide NATO with a mandate in energy security, yet to have Allies hesitate to use NATO as a forum for discussion during crises".
"The Bucharest decision was rather clear, or was very clear, I should say, and as I said in my introductory remarks, we will set the pace and we will decide upon the moment. But the moment is performance-based. So I cannot give you a timeframe. It is not around the corner, I would say, as we speak, as far as, of course, Ukraine and Georgia are concerned. We are intensifying our relationship, as you know, through the NATO-Ukraine Commission, the NATO-Georgia Commission, but I do think that enlargement in this sense is not around the corner, but I can't be more specific here in that regard".
"If there is a Russian-Ukrainian dispute on energy security I think NATO allies should pick that up. Not because we have any ambition, or we pretend to play any role. Please, no! There was a Czech presidency which immediately was proactive and involved. That was the European Union involved. Other people were involved. Certainly not NATO. But that does not mean that those subjects are irrelevant for NATO, if you agree with me that NATO is a political military organization".
"I think Russia cannot afford to have a non-dialogue with NATO, and NATO cannot afford to have a non-dialogue with Russia".
"Of course I'm discussing protecting pipelines in times of crisis. I said protecting pipelines is first and foremost a national responsibility. And it should stay like that. NATO is not in the business of protecting pipelines. But when there's a crisis, or if a certain nation asks for assistance, NATO could, I think, be instrumental in protecting pipelines on land".
"NATO is not in the energy business. So if in a situation like we had over the past weeks NATO allies are totally deprived of gas you will not see a NATO Secretary General stepping forward, raise his finger and tell the Europeans or the Russians or the Ukrainians for that matter, listen, guys, you have to stop this. We have other international organizations, other people to do this, and certainly not a NATO Secretary General, the European pres... the European Union presidency, rather, or others.
So we are not in the energy business, but of course when a nation is for a long time deprived of all gas, or all energy, in the North Atlantic Council, and quite rightly so, when a nation raises its finger and says, Secretary General, we would like to discuss the energy situation, should NATO then say no, that's none of our business? I don't think so. Although you'll not see us in the forefront in the energy business because we are not in the energy business. We're in the security business.
And I say again, we usually use the word energy security. And that's our business".
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Europe wants action, not talks. While the President of Ukraine was visiting Brussels, he was criticized in Strasbourg.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted the resolution on the state of investigation of a murder of Ukrainian journalist Georgiy Gongadze, mentioned in my previous post. Here is the press release with some highlights: PACE wants action to bring to justice those who ordered murder of Georgiy Gongadze. One more interesting thing about the Council I'd recommend to read is a speech of Terry Davis, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (January 26, 2009).
The same time the President of Ukraine held talks in Brussels, giving a lot of attention to the issue of gas supply to Europe. Here is the interview of Mr. Yushchenko to the Financial Times, given during the visit. “The myths cranked out by the Russian government or Gazprom are apparently aimed at discrediting Ukraine as a reliable gas transport partner, to get political and commercial control of the Ukrainian gas system,” he said, talking to the FT correspondent.
One of the results of the visit - the scheduling of a high-level conference on March 23 in order to find investments for the modernization of Ukrainian system of gas transit pipelines. Some details of the Brussels talks are given here in the article of the Guardian.
At a joint press conference with Jose Manuel Barroso Viktor Yushchenko said also that the Gongadze case has to be solved as soon as possible. "I hope that using our joint efforts, including those of Interpol, we will find this criminal and finalize this case. This is a priority for me. I promise that Ukraine will devotedly and transparently do all it can to solve this case as soon as possible," he added.
The same time the President of Ukraine held talks in Brussels, giving a lot of attention to the issue of gas supply to Europe. Here is the interview of Mr. Yushchenko to the Financial Times, given during the visit. “The myths cranked out by the Russian government or Gazprom are apparently aimed at discrediting Ukraine as a reliable gas transport partner, to get political and commercial control of the Ukrainian gas system,” he said, talking to the FT correspondent.
One of the results of the visit - the scheduling of a high-level conference on March 23 in order to find investments for the modernization of Ukrainian system of gas transit pipelines. Some details of the Brussels talks are given here in the article of the Guardian.
At a joint press conference with Jose Manuel Barroso Viktor Yushchenko said also that the Gongadze case has to be solved as soon as possible. "I hope that using our joint efforts, including those of Interpol, we will find this criminal and finalize this case. This is a priority for me. I promise that Ukraine will devotedly and transparently do all it can to solve this case as soon as possible," he added.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Time Bomb. According to the new Russian gas price formula, with the recovery of a world economy, the economy of Ukraine will feel worse.
In the comment to my last post, Leopolis mentioned (very reasonably) that the reliance on a cheap gas has harmed Ukraine’s energy security. It harmed Ukrainian economy as well. Yes, that’s true that Ukraine lost a lot of time, not taking any significant measure to ensure the development of energy saving programmes. As a result, Ukrainian industry is extremely energy consuming, and Ukrainian economy is one of the most energy intensive on the continent. But it is not a fault of Viktor Yushchenko as a President (though he could do something in this field instead of just talking). The problem is that Ukrainian and foreign (mostly Russian) oligarchs who privatised big powerful plants and factories – at a very low price actually – didn’t care at all about any energy saving during all the 17 years of independence of Ukraine. These people, together with Ukrainian politicians, just used low gas prices to earn millions, or even billions of dollars. Business climate is so co-dependent with political situation in Ukraine that it’s really more reasonable for businessmen to have a fast profit today than to invest in an uncertain future.
Anyway, to switch to the market gas prices at the peak of the world economy crisis is also an evil for the country. Ukrainian industry simply doesn’t have time and financial strength for quick modernization and re-equipment. As a result, thousands of workers will lose jobs, provoking the social crisis. It opens a room for some radical or extremist ideas to override the common sense, which is really dangerous.
But the main problem with Russia-Ukraine gas agreement is that it contains a delayed-action bomb – according to the gas price formula, with the recovery of a world economy, Ukrainian economy will feel worse. Everyone noticed that the base gas price for that formula (which nobody have seen) is $450 per tcm. So, de facto Ukraine agreed for the raise of the price of Russian gas almost in three times – in December 2008 Kiev still paid $179.5 per tcm of gas from Russian pipeline.
$450 is really a very high level, taking to the account the geographical closeness of Ukraine to Russia. For example, in the first quarter-2009 Germany will pay $470/tcm, but the cost of transit of gas from Russia-Ukraine border to Germany costs not less than $50/tcm (only Ukrainian transit fee is around $20/tcm). One more example: according to the information of the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, Hungary will pay for Russian gas only $400/tcm in the first quarter-2009. Romania pays $470, but buys only around 4 bcm of gas every year.
So, if we take these “European averages” together, we will have a base price for Ukraine around $400-420, but not $450.
Ukraine will not suffer a lot from the new gas price in 2009, as it will be presented with 20% discount. Meanwhile, it is still not clear, how much will Kiev pay in average during the year. Gazprom officials made public only the price for the first quarter 2009 – $360/tcm, and mentioned that the average price “may be less than $250”. The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko said that the average figure is $228.8. It’s still $50 more than a price-2008, but Ukraine will definitely survive.
Well, Ukrainian industry will survive in 2009, but not develop. European industry instead will have a unique opportunity to use low gas prices for future growth of its potential. Ukrainian plants and factories will definitely lose their market competitiveness. I have to mention here that – according to the Moscow agreements – the GazpromSbytUkraine Company will control up to 25% of the domestic industry gas market of Ukraine, so, Russians will have a possibility to support loyal and “punish” competitive Ukrainian enterprises.
But the most important changes are expected not in short-term, but in mid-term prospects. What will happen, when the world economy will start recovering from the current crisis? Oil price will grow. As oil price will grow, gas for Ukraine will be more and more expensive. I would like to inform that the gas price of $450 corresponds not with a peak oil price of 2008 - $140/barrel – but with the price of Brent at the level of $111,4, according to the Naftogaz source. So, in 1,5-2 years time Ukraine will unfortunately face its own big economy crisis. …But it’s not an important question for Ukrainian politicians: all the worst is going to happen AFTER the presidential election.
Anyway, to switch to the market gas prices at the peak of the world economy crisis is also an evil for the country. Ukrainian industry simply doesn’t have time and financial strength for quick modernization and re-equipment. As a result, thousands of workers will lose jobs, provoking the social crisis. It opens a room for some radical or extremist ideas to override the common sense, which is really dangerous.
But the main problem with Russia-Ukraine gas agreement is that it contains a delayed-action bomb – according to the gas price formula, with the recovery of a world economy, Ukrainian economy will feel worse. Everyone noticed that the base gas price for that formula (which nobody have seen) is $450 per tcm. So, de facto Ukraine agreed for the raise of the price of Russian gas almost in three times – in December 2008 Kiev still paid $179.5 per tcm of gas from Russian pipeline.
$450 is really a very high level, taking to the account the geographical closeness of Ukraine to Russia. For example, in the first quarter-2009 Germany will pay $470/tcm, but the cost of transit of gas from Russia-Ukraine border to Germany costs not less than $50/tcm (only Ukrainian transit fee is around $20/tcm). One more example: according to the information of the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, Hungary will pay for Russian gas only $400/tcm in the first quarter-2009. Romania pays $470, but buys only around 4 bcm of gas every year.
So, if we take these “European averages” together, we will have a base price for Ukraine around $400-420, but not $450.
Ukraine will not suffer a lot from the new gas price in 2009, as it will be presented with 20% discount. Meanwhile, it is still not clear, how much will Kiev pay in average during the year. Gazprom officials made public only the price for the first quarter 2009 – $360/tcm, and mentioned that the average price “may be less than $250”. The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko said that the average figure is $228.8. It’s still $50 more than a price-2008, but Ukraine will definitely survive.
Well, Ukrainian industry will survive in 2009, but not develop. European industry instead will have a unique opportunity to use low gas prices for future growth of its potential. Ukrainian plants and factories will definitely lose their market competitiveness. I have to mention here that – according to the Moscow agreements – the GazpromSbytUkraine Company will control up to 25% of the domestic industry gas market of Ukraine, so, Russians will have a possibility to support loyal and “punish” competitive Ukrainian enterprises.
But the most important changes are expected not in short-term, but in mid-term prospects. What will happen, when the world economy will start recovering from the current crisis? Oil price will grow. As oil price will grow, gas for Ukraine will be more and more expensive. I would like to inform that the gas price of $450 corresponds not with a peak oil price of 2008 - $140/barrel – but with the price of Brent at the level of $111,4, according to the Naftogaz source. So, in 1,5-2 years time Ukraine will unfortunately face its own big economy crisis. …But it’s not an important question for Ukrainian politicians: all the worst is going to happen AFTER the presidential election.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Ukraine-Russia gas transit and supply contracts: Europe will not suffer from gas-cut during next 10 years, gas price for Ukraine still in shadow.
First of all, I would like to thank Tammy Lynch, Bakinets, and Anonymous reader for their comments to my gas posts. Well, I have to confess that my price prognosis has appeared to be rather pessimistic. I will be really happy, if I am wrong: the less the gas price is, the better it is for Ukraine and its economy.
Why I suggested that the gas price for Ukraine will be around $320 per tcm in 2009? My thoughts were based on three things:
1. Ukrainian negotiators were insisting on fixed gas price (I was pleasantly surprised when I’ve heard today that the gas price formula has been worked out for Ukraine).
2. The Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin, President Dmitri Medvedev and the head of Gazprom Alexei Miller were declaring the “European price” for Ukraine at the level of $450 per tcm (last time Mr. Putin told that on Saturday, 17 January).
3. Gazprom has just switched to some “European formula” in his relations with Turkmenistan, and the price of Turkmen gas for Russians in the first quarter of 2009 will be about $300 per tcm.
It seemed logical to assume that the gas price for Ukraine should be at least more than $300. It is really great if the today’s statement of Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko is true, and Naftogaz will pay only around $235-250 per tcm. (She also told that the 20% discount will save $5 billion, which is possible when the price is $220). It would be like a miracle, if the average price for Ukraine were $199 as was suggested by the Secretariat of Ukrainian President. But we have to think, why Moscow agreed for such a low price level, as the Gazprom is clearly not a charity foundation, especially at crisis times.
Anyway, it is still difficult to say, how much Ukraine will pay for gas in 2009. There is not much information about the gas supply contract at all. Here is all I know today:
a) Gas supply and gas transit contracts are signed for 10 years;
b) Starting from 2010, the transit fee and the gas price will be calculated on a base of a clear formula (I hope this “Ukrainian formula” does already exist);
c) In 2009 there will be a fixed gas price for Ukraine, based on “average European gas price minus 20%”;
d) Transit fee in 2009 will stay at the level of 2008 – $1.7 per tcm for 100 km;
e) There will be no mediators in gas trade between Ukraine and Russia (but I think it’s early to say good bye to RosUkrEnergo as a player on European gas market).
Yulia Tymoshenko promised to make the new gas price public “in one-two days”, and it seems that the price is not agreed yet, despite of any paper signed. As the Russian TV reported, after signing the documents and press briefing Mrs. Tymoshenko went to the Gazprom office for some extra negotiations.
Talking about the gas price in 2010, I would like to propose a link, which leads to the fresh prognosis of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., forecasting “swift and violent rebound” in energy prices in the second half of the 2009.
Oil prices may have reached their lowest point already, after falling to $32.40 in mid-December, and are expected to rise to $65 by the end of this year, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. commodity analyst Jeffrey Currie said at a conference in London today. A recent tactic of using supertankers to store crude oil to take advantage of higher prices later this year is “difficult” to profit from and is “near the end of this process” anyway, the Goldman analyst said.
New York crude futures for delivery in December, trading near $56 a barrel, currently cost some $15 a barrel more than March futures, a market situation known as contango, where prices are higher for later delivery. The contango is likely to flatten as supply cuts by OPEC and other producers take effect, reducing the availability of oil for immediate delivery, Mr. Currie said.
Why I suggested that the gas price for Ukraine will be around $320 per tcm in 2009? My thoughts were based on three things:
1. Ukrainian negotiators were insisting on fixed gas price (I was pleasantly surprised when I’ve heard today that the gas price formula has been worked out for Ukraine).
2. The Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin, President Dmitri Medvedev and the head of Gazprom Alexei Miller were declaring the “European price” for Ukraine at the level of $450 per tcm (last time Mr. Putin told that on Saturday, 17 January).
3. Gazprom has just switched to some “European formula” in his relations with Turkmenistan, and the price of Turkmen gas for Russians in the first quarter of 2009 will be about $300 per tcm.
It seemed logical to assume that the gas price for Ukraine should be at least more than $300. It is really great if the today’s statement of Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko is true, and Naftogaz will pay only around $235-250 per tcm. (She also told that the 20% discount will save $5 billion, which is possible when the price is $220). It would be like a miracle, if the average price for Ukraine were $199 as was suggested by the Secretariat of Ukrainian President. But we have to think, why Moscow agreed for such a low price level, as the Gazprom is clearly not a charity foundation, especially at crisis times.
Anyway, it is still difficult to say, how much Ukraine will pay for gas in 2009. There is not much information about the gas supply contract at all. Here is all I know today:
a) Gas supply and gas transit contracts are signed for 10 years;
b) Starting from 2010, the transit fee and the gas price will be calculated on a base of a clear formula (I hope this “Ukrainian formula” does already exist);
c) In 2009 there will be a fixed gas price for Ukraine, based on “average European gas price minus 20%”;
d) Transit fee in 2009 will stay at the level of 2008 – $1.7 per tcm for 100 km;
e) There will be no mediators in gas trade between Ukraine and Russia (but I think it’s early to say good bye to RosUkrEnergo as a player on European gas market).
Yulia Tymoshenko promised to make the new gas price public “in one-two days”, and it seems that the price is not agreed yet, despite of any paper signed. As the Russian TV reported, after signing the documents and press briefing Mrs. Tymoshenko went to the Gazprom office for some extra negotiations.
Talking about the gas price in 2010, I would like to propose a link, which leads to the fresh prognosis of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., forecasting “swift and violent rebound” in energy prices in the second half of the 2009.
Oil prices may have reached their lowest point already, after falling to $32.40 in mid-December, and are expected to rise to $65 by the end of this year, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. commodity analyst Jeffrey Currie said at a conference in London today. A recent tactic of using supertankers to store crude oil to take advantage of higher prices later this year is “difficult” to profit from and is “near the end of this process” anyway, the Goldman analyst said.
New York crude futures for delivery in December, trading near $56 a barrel, currently cost some $15 a barrel more than March futures, a market situation known as contango, where prices are higher for later delivery. The contango is likely to flatten as supply cuts by OPEC and other producers take effect, reducing the availability of oil for immediate delivery, Mr. Currie said.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Double-cross. New gas agreement with Russia will cost Ukraine from 3 to 4 billion dollars.
Today (at night actually) the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko reached a preliminary agreement with the Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin on gas supply to Ukraine in 2009-2010: Ukraine will switch to “European price” with the 20% discount, and the gas transit fee will stay at the previous level.
In my previous post I gave the main figures of Russia-Ukraine gas trade. I mentioned that if Ukraine had agreed for Russian December proposal of gas price of $250 per tcm and unchanged transit fee of $1.7 per 1 tcm for 100 km, Kiev would pay to Russians around $3.85 billion more in 2009. But in new reality the losses of Ukrainian economy will be much more significant.
If the “average European price” is $400 per 1 tcm (Russian authorities have previously declared that it may be up to $460), Ukrainian price for this year would be around $320 per tcm. Ukraine consumes 55 bcm of gas every year, this amount costs $17.6 billion. So, this year Ukraine will overpay the price-2008 on $7.727 billion.
Direct loss of a non-signing of gas supply contract on conditions, proposed by Russia in December, is $3.877 billion (if the price-2009 is $320 per tcm). Even if the price will be different – higher or lower – Ukraine will lose from 3 to 4 billion dollars of budget money. The extra losses of January gas conflict: the cut of budget revenues due to the stoppage of work of more than 20 biggest plants and factories, further gas price raise on the internal market, and a dramatic damage of image of Ukraine as a business partner and predictable democratic country. And how can we call this if not the betrayal of the State interests?
It will be possible to smooth over the budget damage if Ukraine have the permission to perform re-export of gas to Europe (at European prices): financial crisis decreased the gas consumption, Ukraine also has significant amounts of gas in storages, and it can just sell the excesses. But there is no information, if Gazprom will give to Naftogaz Ukraine the re-export permission.
The agreement on gas supply to Ukraine in 2009-2010 is supposed to be signed on 19 December.
In my previous post I gave the main figures of Russia-Ukraine gas trade. I mentioned that if Ukraine had agreed for Russian December proposal of gas price of $250 per tcm and unchanged transit fee of $1.7 per 1 tcm for 100 km, Kiev would pay to Russians around $3.85 billion more in 2009. But in new reality the losses of Ukrainian economy will be much more significant.
If the “average European price” is $400 per 1 tcm (Russian authorities have previously declared that it may be up to $460), Ukrainian price for this year would be around $320 per tcm. Ukraine consumes 55 bcm of gas every year, this amount costs $17.6 billion. So, this year Ukraine will overpay the price-2008 on $7.727 billion.
Direct loss of a non-signing of gas supply contract on conditions, proposed by Russia in December, is $3.877 billion (if the price-2009 is $320 per tcm). Even if the price will be different – higher or lower – Ukraine will lose from 3 to 4 billion dollars of budget money. The extra losses of January gas conflict: the cut of budget revenues due to the stoppage of work of more than 20 biggest plants and factories, further gas price raise on the internal market, and a dramatic damage of image of Ukraine as a business partner and predictable democratic country. And how can we call this if not the betrayal of the State interests?
It will be possible to smooth over the budget damage if Ukraine have the permission to perform re-export of gas to Europe (at European prices): financial crisis decreased the gas consumption, Ukraine also has significant amounts of gas in storages, and it can just sell the excesses. But there is no information, if Gazprom will give to Naftogaz Ukraine the re-export permission.
The agreement on gas supply to Ukraine in 2009-2010 is supposed to be signed on 19 December.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Transit myth. The raise of the fee for gas transit via Ukrainian pipeline system will not make up the extra-expenses for European level gas prices.
According to the info we’ve got now, the Gas summit in Moscow ends without any significant result – at least in frames of bilateral Gazprom-Naftogaz negotiations on gas supply to Ukraine. Nevertheless Europeans may count on re-establishment of gas flow next week, but Ukraine is not likely to sign any contract today for its own energy needs. Though Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov told yesterday that today Mrs. Tymoshenko will achieve the total agreement with her Russian counterpart. At the time I’m writing these words Yulia Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin are still talking in private somewhere in Russian White House, and my story will not be about them. I would like to say a couple of words to unveil a very popular statement of Ukrainian top politicians, claiming that Ukraine will gain super-profits after switching to European level of gas transit prices. That’s not true.
I wrote about the transit-fee-myth in the Ukrainian Ekonomicheskie izvestia (Economic News) newspaper in 2004 and especially in 2005, when – after Orange revolution – the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and people from Government started to declare their will to move to the European level of prices for gas from Russia. I guess they hadn’t read my articles or just didn’t care about profits of Ukraine, and the “fruitful” negotiations with Russians ended in ruining of the existed agreement on gas price for Ukraine of $50, established until 2009. The transit fee rose from $1.09 per 1 tcm (thousand cubic meters) for 100 km to $ 1.6 ($1.7 in 2008), but that hadn’t influence the harm for Ukrainian economy. Today Ukrainian officials are actively declaring again that the raise of the transit fee to the European level will be profitable for Ukraine.
Here are some figures. In 2008 Ukraine transported around 120 bcm (billion cubic meters) of Russian gas to Europe. The length of Ukrainian export pipelines is up to 120 km (let’s take the average – 110 km). So, last year (not taking to the account the fact that some amounts of transit money went for old-debts-payments) Ukraine received from Russia approximately $2.057 billion. The same time Ukraine bought 55 bcm of gas from Russia, paying $179.5 per tcm – the check was $9.873 billion.
Ok. Let’s imagine that Ukraine raises the transit fee to the average European level. The President of Russia told it’s $3.4 per 1 tcm for 100 km. As a result Ukraine will receive twice more transit money from Russia – $4.114 billion. But the price of gas will be raised also; it will be from 350 to 450, as I can understand the Russian Gazprom’s mathematics. So, Ukraine will have to pay not around 10, but around 20 billion dollars, gaining 2 billion from transit-fee-raise. If Ukraine agreed for Russian proposal of gas price $250 with transit fee of $1,7, it would have to pay to Russia (literally – RosUkrEnergo) twice less – around $3.85 billion more. I would like to remind here that Ukraine has to pay more every year since it declared the will to move to European level of gas prices during three years.
I wrote about the transit-fee-myth in the Ukrainian Ekonomicheskie izvestia (Economic News) newspaper in 2004 and especially in 2005, when – after Orange revolution – the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and people from Government started to declare their will to move to the European level of prices for gas from Russia. I guess they hadn’t read my articles or just didn’t care about profits of Ukraine, and the “fruitful” negotiations with Russians ended in ruining of the existed agreement on gas price for Ukraine of $50, established until 2009. The transit fee rose from $1.09 per 1 tcm (thousand cubic meters) for 100 km to $ 1.6 ($1.7 in 2008), but that hadn’t influence the harm for Ukrainian economy. Today Ukrainian officials are actively declaring again that the raise of the transit fee to the European level will be profitable for Ukraine.
Here are some figures. In 2008 Ukraine transported around 120 bcm (billion cubic meters) of Russian gas to Europe. The length of Ukrainian export pipelines is up to 120 km (let’s take the average – 110 km). So, last year (not taking to the account the fact that some amounts of transit money went for old-debts-payments) Ukraine received from Russia approximately $2.057 billion. The same time Ukraine bought 55 bcm of gas from Russia, paying $179.5 per tcm – the check was $9.873 billion.
Ok. Let’s imagine that Ukraine raises the transit fee to the average European level. The President of Russia told it’s $3.4 per 1 tcm for 100 km. As a result Ukraine will receive twice more transit money from Russia – $4.114 billion. But the price of gas will be raised also; it will be from 350 to 450, as I can understand the Russian Gazprom’s mathematics. So, Ukraine will have to pay not around 10, but around 20 billion dollars, gaining 2 billion from transit-fee-raise. If Ukraine agreed for Russian proposal of gas price $250 with transit fee of $1,7, it would have to pay to Russia (literally – RosUkrEnergo) twice less – around $3.85 billion more. I would like to remind here that Ukraine has to pay more every year since it declared the will to move to European level of gas prices during three years.
Friday, January 16, 2009
FKPtt Universal Swissland – brand-new item in the Russia-Ukraine gas puzzle.
Igor Pukshyn, Deputy Head of the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, issued a statement today, indirectly accusing the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko in lobbying her own business interests in current gas conflict with Russia. Mr. Pukshyn claims that there is a need in a careful examination of the possible “wish of the Head of the Government to include the company, which is close to her, in the scheme of gas supply to Ukraine”.
With reference on “media sources” and “statements of the parliamentary opposition”, Igor Pukshyn assumed that “Yulia Tymoshenko, using the authority of her position, is making significant efforts to put into the European gas market an affiliated company – FKPtt Universal Swissland (the spelling of President’s press-service. – T.V.), registered in Switzerland – which have to receive significant amounts of Russian fuel. The information stating that the co-owners of this company are odious Viktor Medvedchuk (ex-Head of the Administration of Leonid Kuchma. – T.V.) and Igor Bakai (a famous gas tycoon close to President Kuchma, and the first Head of Naftogaz Ukraine until 2000. – T.V.) also worth attention”.
In this context, Mr. Pukshyn mentioned “the active opponency of Mrs. Tymoshenko to the activities of the gas trader RosUkrEnergo, which is a direct rival of the mentioned Swiss company, and the absence of the contract signed between the Naftogaz Ukraine and Gazprom on direct gas supply”. The Security Service of Ukraine and the General Prosecutor’s Office will examine all the mentioned accusation, the President’s aide informed.
With reference on “media sources” and “statements of the parliamentary opposition”, Igor Pukshyn assumed that “Yulia Tymoshenko, using the authority of her position, is making significant efforts to put into the European gas market an affiliated company – FKPtt Universal Swissland (the spelling of President’s press-service. – T.V.), registered in Switzerland – which have to receive significant amounts of Russian fuel. The information stating that the co-owners of this company are odious Viktor Medvedchuk (ex-Head of the Administration of Leonid Kuchma. – T.V.) and Igor Bakai (a famous gas tycoon close to President Kuchma, and the first Head of Naftogaz Ukraine until 2000. – T.V.) also worth attention”.
In this context, Mr. Pukshyn mentioned “the active opponency of Mrs. Tymoshenko to the activities of the gas trader RosUkrEnergo, which is a direct rival of the mentioned Swiss company, and the absence of the contract signed between the Naftogaz Ukraine and Gazprom on direct gas supply”. The Security Service of Ukraine and the General Prosecutor’s Office will examine all the mentioned accusation, the President’s aide informed.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Parliamentary Control. Starting from today, a special Investigation Commission of MPs will follow the gas negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.
Today the Parliament of Ukraine has founded a Temporary Investigation Parliamentary Commission to follow all the developments of current gas crisis. The Committee is going to examine the actions of Ukrainian officials in the sphere of gas supply and gas transit in 2008, and also will follow the negotiations with Russian Gazprom in 2009. The questions of signing the new gas supply and transit contracts – including financial issues, like gas price – will be under everyday control of the Commission.
222 MPs voted in favour of the Commission’s founding: 174 members of the Party of Regions (total size of faction – 175 MPs), 27 members of Communist party (total size – 27), and 19 members of the Block of the Speaker Lytvyn (total size – 19). The Block of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) and all the faction Our Ukraine – People Self-Defence (OU-PSD) didn’t support the idea of establishing the parliamentary control of gas problematic.
The new-elected Head of the Temporary Investigation Commission Inna Bogoslovska (member of the Party of Regions) promised to give the information on its findings to press every three days. “Our task is to speed up the signing of two contracts”, Inna Bogoslovska explained. On 6 February the preliminary report of the Commission will be presented in Parliament. The Commission (according to the size of every faction, it comprises 4 MPs from the Party of Regions, 3 MPs from the BYT, 2 MPs from the OU-PSD, 1 MP from BL and one Communist) is going to work during two months.
“It may well happen that, according to the results of this Commission’s activities, the question on the impeachment of President and the resignation of Government will be raised”, Inna Bogoslovska said. The leader of the Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych went further today, calling for the immediate Government resignation. The Communist party on its turn proposed to start the impeachment procedure as soon as possible.
P.S. I’m not going to comment a lot the today’s “blockade” of Russian gas transit to Europe as I still think that this “problem” is staged by some forces from Russia AND Ukraine. I would only add one point concerning the gas interests of Russia. It is important to pay attention to one interesting figure the Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin mentioned during his meeting with foreign journalists last week. He told that Russia might pay for the Middle Asian gas “on average $375 per tcm” in 2009. As the European gas prices (in most of the EU countries) are linked to the oil prices, and the oil prices are still falling despite of all the Russian efforts and the statements of the OPEC countries, it is reasonable for Moscow just to win time for extra negotiations, in particular, with the successor of Turkmenbashi. But I have to say that Russia will have to re-start gas export to Europe in a very short time – there are simply not enough of gas storage facilities on the Russian territory. In a while Moscow will face only two choices: to transit the gas to Europe or to burn it (or to close some gas wells), losing money Gazprom needs too much today.
222 MPs voted in favour of the Commission’s founding: 174 members of the Party of Regions (total size of faction – 175 MPs), 27 members of Communist party (total size – 27), and 19 members of the Block of the Speaker Lytvyn (total size – 19). The Block of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) and all the faction Our Ukraine – People Self-Defence (OU-PSD) didn’t support the idea of establishing the parliamentary control of gas problematic.
The new-elected Head of the Temporary Investigation Commission Inna Bogoslovska (member of the Party of Regions) promised to give the information on its findings to press every three days. “Our task is to speed up the signing of two contracts”, Inna Bogoslovska explained. On 6 February the preliminary report of the Commission will be presented in Parliament. The Commission (according to the size of every faction, it comprises 4 MPs from the Party of Regions, 3 MPs from the BYT, 2 MPs from the OU-PSD, 1 MP from BL and one Communist) is going to work during two months.
“It may well happen that, according to the results of this Commission’s activities, the question on the impeachment of President and the resignation of Government will be raised”, Inna Bogoslovska said. The leader of the Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych went further today, calling for the immediate Government resignation. The Communist party on its turn proposed to start the impeachment procedure as soon as possible.
P.S. I’m not going to comment a lot the today’s “blockade” of Russian gas transit to Europe as I still think that this “problem” is staged by some forces from Russia AND Ukraine. I would only add one point concerning the gas interests of Russia. It is important to pay attention to one interesting figure the Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin mentioned during his meeting with foreign journalists last week. He told that Russia might pay for the Middle Asian gas “on average $375 per tcm” in 2009. As the European gas prices (in most of the EU countries) are linked to the oil prices, and the oil prices are still falling despite of all the Russian efforts and the statements of the OPEC countries, it is reasonable for Moscow just to win time for extra negotiations, in particular, with the successor of Turkmenbashi. But I have to say that Russia will have to re-start gas export to Europe in a very short time – there are simply not enough of gas storage facilities on the Russian territory. In a while Moscow will face only two choices: to transit the gas to Europe or to burn it (or to close some gas wells), losing money Gazprom needs too much today.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
High Treason – II. Some conclusions from the Cold War started by Russia-Ukraine gas dispute.
The Gas Cold War 2009 caused by the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute has not finished yet, but we can already make some important conclusions. Sitting in the cold Kiev flat (we’ve got very low pressure in central heating system), I will try to give my point of view as briefly as possible.
Conclusion 1. The indisputable winner of the Gas Cold War 2009 is Russia and Russian Gazprom.
I would not agree with some observers who say that the image of Russia as a reliable gas supplier and the Gazprom as a relevant business partner suffered a lot. Europe and Europeans may think and feel whatever they want, but it is really impossible to replace more than 160 billion of cubic meters of Russian gas with some alternative source of energy. So, Europe will stay dependent on Russian gas supply, whatever the image of Russia will be.
Actually Russian Gazprom has already received a lot of profits from the Cold War:
1. Gas prises. European consumers were predicting the Russian gas average prices for Europe to fall to around $320 per tcm (thousand cubic metres) in 2009 due to the low oil prices level. New Cold War led to rise of the oil demand in Europe as of the alternative energy resource, and this will prevent the significant fall of gas prices.
2. Alternative pipeline projects. Gazprom currently has two new gas pipelines projects: the Nord Stream pipeline, which runs under the Baltic sea from Russian Vyborg to German Greifswald, and the South Stream, which will cross the Black Sea to Bulgaria and then split in the direction of Austria and Greece. Both pipelines will definitely get bigger support of the European companies, as the alternative for “non-adequate” Ukrainian route. (Though Ukrainian route cannot be eliminated as it transports around 80% of Russian gas export to Europe).
3. Punching Ukraine. Undermining the image of Ukraine and its President Viktor Yushchenko was a “pleasant revenge” of Russia and its top-authorities for Orange Revolution, support of Georgia, and Holodomor festivities. After this crisis nobody (except of some ultra-pro-Ukrainian-idealists) in Europe would think seriously about the possibility for Ukraine to join the EU earlier than in 100 years, and nobody in NATO would seriously consider future Ukrainian full membership in the Alliance.
4. Extra money. The crises appeared to become the real opportunity to rise gas prices for Ukraine and to get extra-profits.
Conclusion 2. The Gas Cold War was artificially organized.
Of course, Ukraine could sign the gas supply agreement with Russia before the New Year and prevent the crisis. Gazprom proposed the price of $250 per tcm, which is acceptable for Ukraine and its economy (in case of proper management of the State Oli and Gas Company Naftogaz Ukraine and fair distribution of up to 18 billion cubic meters of gas the Ukraine is producing by itself every year. The price of $250 is logical: last year Ukraine was paying $179,5 per tcm, and there is an agreement that the price will raise gradually to the European level during three years. It is approximately plus $70-80-90 every year, so, Russians should charge $250 or even more, and it was predictable.
But the gas agreement with Russia was not signed, and the Ukrainian officials who refused to sign the documents were consciously provoking the gas crisis. No agreement – no supplies, even a schoolboy may predict such a situation. Some Naftogaz officials said that the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko prohibited signing of this agreement. It sounds unconvincing, as at that time nobody, including the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko, made any rough statement on this point. It is also very naïve to think that the Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukraine really have communication problems and cannot reach a deal on gas supply to Ukraine. It’s unbelievable even if we take to the account the fact that the Head of Naftogaz Oleg Dubyna is flying in one plane with his Gazprom counterpart Aleksei Miller.
So, the gas crisis was surely staged by Kremlin and by some high authorities in Ukraine. Viktor Yushchenko is not among them, though he didn’t do anything (he could do a lot) to prevent the Gas Cold War. I would also add that the Head of Naftogaz Ukraine Oleg Dubyna was appointed to his position by the Yulia Tymoshenko’s quota, and that he is in very close relations with the Industrial Union of Donbass business group, which has permanent conflict of interests with “gas trade middleman” Dmytro Firtash who controls half of the “RosUkrEnergo” intermediate company.
Conclusion 3. In frames of Ukrainian domestic politics the gas crisis played not in favour of President Yushchenko.
Everyone might notice that the President of Ukraine was trying not to be involved into the gas crisis from the very start. He was mentioned a lot by all the participants of the negotiations (in positive and negative manner), he made some phone calls to his counterparts in Europe and to Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev, but he was avoiding to get inside the negotiations and discussions by himself. Why? It seems that he has a very vulnerable position, when one is talking about the gas supply question. During his Presidency, Mr. Yushchenko has been accused a lot of times in having some profits from the work of the RosUkrEnergo. In particular some people were accusing Mr. Firtash in paying some bills for Kateryna Chumachenko, the wife of the President. These accusations were never proved, but also never dishonoured, though Viktor Yushchenko could for example appeal to courts. If these accusations were true (even semi-true), Viktor Yushchenko is going to lose one of the main sources of his financial support before the Presidential election. By the way, some of the money may be re-transferred in favour of Mrs. Tymoshenko, if we just hypothetically assume that the Itera Company of Igor Makarov may come back to the big gas-supply scene as some people say.
Conclusion 4. The main loser of the Cold War is Ukraine as a country, its economy, and the State oil and gas company Naftogaz Ukraine (but not the current management of this company).
In the geopolitical sense the image of Ukraine as a country (and as a democratic country in particular) has suffered a lot. The New Cold War has demonstrated that Ukraine is totally unpredictable, since the actions of its authorities and state companies are based on the today’s interests of domestic politics, rather than on long-term programmes or interests of the country. Despite of the declarations about the dedication to the democratic ideals and the European course of current leaders of Ukraine, they showed up as a real threat to Europe, European economy and even to the health of the citizens of the European States.
The State Oil and Gas Company Naftogaz Ukraine is close to bankruptcy today. Though I am sure that with normal management this company may easily become a mail financial supplier of Ukrainian budget. (I was trying to make some calculations earlier, and maybe will publish the results here one day, of course, after careful self-proof-reading).
Conclusion 5. The intermediate gas supply company RosUkrEnergo may seem to be a loser, but is not.
The intermediate company RosUkrEnergo also may be considered as a loser in the New Cold War as it will probably be eliminated from Russia-Ukraine gas trade scheme. But I don’t think this statement is true, taking to the account billions dollars of profit RosUkrEnergo had received during the last four years, operating in the sphere of the re-export of gas from Russia to Ukraine and Europe (Hungary, Romania, Poland and Slovakia) and gas trade inside the domestic market of Ukraine. Half owned by Gazprom, RosUkrEnergo was founded as a temporary source of profits, and now it’s just a time for something new. I will not be surprised if Mr. Firtash would be among founders of a new gas trade company who will operate on European – and Ukrainian – markets in coming years.
Conclusion 6. The Europe, still suffering from lack of gas supply, may be considered as a loser also, and the object of manipulation as well.
Conclusion 7. The Cold War is an evidence of a betrayal of the interests of Ukraine by its highest authorities – President, Prime Minister, and Head of State Oil and Gas Company. Their actions and failure to act as well may be called as a high treason with all the consequences it should cause.
Conclusion 1. The indisputable winner of the Gas Cold War 2009 is Russia and Russian Gazprom.
I would not agree with some observers who say that the image of Russia as a reliable gas supplier and the Gazprom as a relevant business partner suffered a lot. Europe and Europeans may think and feel whatever they want, but it is really impossible to replace more than 160 billion of cubic meters of Russian gas with some alternative source of energy. So, Europe will stay dependent on Russian gas supply, whatever the image of Russia will be.
Actually Russian Gazprom has already received a lot of profits from the Cold War:
1. Gas prises. European consumers were predicting the Russian gas average prices for Europe to fall to around $320 per tcm (thousand cubic metres) in 2009 due to the low oil prices level. New Cold War led to rise of the oil demand in Europe as of the alternative energy resource, and this will prevent the significant fall of gas prices.
2. Alternative pipeline projects. Gazprom currently has two new gas pipelines projects: the Nord Stream pipeline, which runs under the Baltic sea from Russian Vyborg to German Greifswald, and the South Stream, which will cross the Black Sea to Bulgaria and then split in the direction of Austria and Greece. Both pipelines will definitely get bigger support of the European companies, as the alternative for “non-adequate” Ukrainian route. (Though Ukrainian route cannot be eliminated as it transports around 80% of Russian gas export to Europe).
3. Punching Ukraine. Undermining the image of Ukraine and its President Viktor Yushchenko was a “pleasant revenge” of Russia and its top-authorities for Orange Revolution, support of Georgia, and Holodomor festivities. After this crisis nobody (except of some ultra-pro-Ukrainian-idealists) in Europe would think seriously about the possibility for Ukraine to join the EU earlier than in 100 years, and nobody in NATO would seriously consider future Ukrainian full membership in the Alliance.
4. Extra money. The crises appeared to become the real opportunity to rise gas prices for Ukraine and to get extra-profits.
Conclusion 2. The Gas Cold War was artificially organized.
Of course, Ukraine could sign the gas supply agreement with Russia before the New Year and prevent the crisis. Gazprom proposed the price of $250 per tcm, which is acceptable for Ukraine and its economy (in case of proper management of the State Oli and Gas Company Naftogaz Ukraine and fair distribution of up to 18 billion cubic meters of gas the Ukraine is producing by itself every year. The price of $250 is logical: last year Ukraine was paying $179,5 per tcm, and there is an agreement that the price will raise gradually to the European level during three years. It is approximately plus $70-80-90 every year, so, Russians should charge $250 or even more, and it was predictable.
But the gas agreement with Russia was not signed, and the Ukrainian officials who refused to sign the documents were consciously provoking the gas crisis. No agreement – no supplies, even a schoolboy may predict such a situation. Some Naftogaz officials said that the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko prohibited signing of this agreement. It sounds unconvincing, as at that time nobody, including the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko, made any rough statement on this point. It is also very naïve to think that the Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukraine really have communication problems and cannot reach a deal on gas supply to Ukraine. It’s unbelievable even if we take to the account the fact that the Head of Naftogaz Oleg Dubyna is flying in one plane with his Gazprom counterpart Aleksei Miller.
So, the gas crisis was surely staged by Kremlin and by some high authorities in Ukraine. Viktor Yushchenko is not among them, though he didn’t do anything (he could do a lot) to prevent the Gas Cold War. I would also add that the Head of Naftogaz Ukraine Oleg Dubyna was appointed to his position by the Yulia Tymoshenko’s quota, and that he is in very close relations with the Industrial Union of Donbass business group, which has permanent conflict of interests with “gas trade middleman” Dmytro Firtash who controls half of the “RosUkrEnergo” intermediate company.
Conclusion 3. In frames of Ukrainian domestic politics the gas crisis played not in favour of President Yushchenko.
Everyone might notice that the President of Ukraine was trying not to be involved into the gas crisis from the very start. He was mentioned a lot by all the participants of the negotiations (in positive and negative manner), he made some phone calls to his counterparts in Europe and to Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev, but he was avoiding to get inside the negotiations and discussions by himself. Why? It seems that he has a very vulnerable position, when one is talking about the gas supply question. During his Presidency, Mr. Yushchenko has been accused a lot of times in having some profits from the work of the RosUkrEnergo. In particular some people were accusing Mr. Firtash in paying some bills for Kateryna Chumachenko, the wife of the President. These accusations were never proved, but also never dishonoured, though Viktor Yushchenko could for example appeal to courts. If these accusations were true (even semi-true), Viktor Yushchenko is going to lose one of the main sources of his financial support before the Presidential election. By the way, some of the money may be re-transferred in favour of Mrs. Tymoshenko, if we just hypothetically assume that the Itera Company of Igor Makarov may come back to the big gas-supply scene as some people say.
Conclusion 4. The main loser of the Cold War is Ukraine as a country, its economy, and the State oil and gas company Naftogaz Ukraine (but not the current management of this company).
In the geopolitical sense the image of Ukraine as a country (and as a democratic country in particular) has suffered a lot. The New Cold War has demonstrated that Ukraine is totally unpredictable, since the actions of its authorities and state companies are based on the today’s interests of domestic politics, rather than on long-term programmes or interests of the country. Despite of the declarations about the dedication to the democratic ideals and the European course of current leaders of Ukraine, they showed up as a real threat to Europe, European economy and even to the health of the citizens of the European States.
The State Oil and Gas Company Naftogaz Ukraine is close to bankruptcy today. Though I am sure that with normal management this company may easily become a mail financial supplier of Ukrainian budget. (I was trying to make some calculations earlier, and maybe will publish the results here one day, of course, after careful self-proof-reading).
Conclusion 5. The intermediate gas supply company RosUkrEnergo may seem to be a loser, but is not.
The intermediate company RosUkrEnergo also may be considered as a loser in the New Cold War as it will probably be eliminated from Russia-Ukraine gas trade scheme. But I don’t think this statement is true, taking to the account billions dollars of profit RosUkrEnergo had received during the last four years, operating in the sphere of the re-export of gas from Russia to Ukraine and Europe (Hungary, Romania, Poland and Slovakia) and gas trade inside the domestic market of Ukraine. Half owned by Gazprom, RosUkrEnergo was founded as a temporary source of profits, and now it’s just a time for something new. I will not be surprised if Mr. Firtash would be among founders of a new gas trade company who will operate on European – and Ukrainian – markets in coming years.
Conclusion 6. The Europe, still suffering from lack of gas supply, may be considered as a loser also, and the object of manipulation as well.
Conclusion 7. The Cold War is an evidence of a betrayal of the interests of Ukraine by its highest authorities – President, Prime Minister, and Head of State Oil and Gas Company. Their actions and failure to act as well may be called as a high treason with all the consequences it should cause.
Monday, January 5, 2009
The High Treason. Non-settled gas dispute with the Russian Gazprom is leading Ukraine to energy bankruptcy and deep economy problems.
On 1 of December Russian Gazprom cut off gas supply to Ukraine. This news was among the top-3 in the entire world media during the New Year holidays. I think it would be first if there was no war in sector Gaza. The reasons of Gazprom’s actions are totally legitimate: unpaid debt for gas supply to Ukraine in 2008 and non-existence of a supply contract for 2009. Such a confusing situation seems to be not a terrible negligence of Ukrainian authorities, but a carefully planned scheme. The goal is to take the case to state of total mess, and then to re-divide the scheme of control of profits from gas supply to Ukraine. As a side effect, the State oil and gas company Naftogaz Ukraine may go bankrupt and Ukraine may lose control of its huge gas transportation system in favour of Russia or some Russia-leaded consortium.
These actions of Ukrainian officials can definitely be qualified as a high treason. But nobody will be charged for that.
There is no need to remind here the very details of the debt-dispute Russia and Ukraine had in late December 2008 – the media explained it very good. Talking in general, the Naftogaz Ukraine failed to pay off a debt for gas shipped from Russia in 2008: it paid $1.52 billion just one day before the New Year, but Gazprom claimed the total debt was $2.1 billion (including $450 million of penalties for the late payment for November and December gas shipments).
Current situation differs from the gas problems of early 2006. Now Ukraine has significant amounts of gas saved in storages: about 17 billion cubic metres (bcm) is owned by Naftogaz Ukraine, and the intermediary RosUkrEnergo (I’ll talk about this company later) has extra 11 bcm. That’s why there is no evidence of harm for Ukraine caused by the gas cut-off. Yet. But the gas battle with Gazprom will definitely influence the crisis-hit Ukrainian economy, pushing it down. World economy crisis reduced the industrial energy consumption in Ukraine almost by a quarter, and the main problems may be laid on shoulders of Ukrainian citizens. Higher gas prices will lead to rise of a gas fees for the households, which are heavily subsidising by the state.
The problem is that a dramatic raise of gas prise was not planned in the budget of Ukraine for 2009, approved by Parliament and signed by President before the New Year holidays. Moreover, a gas-supply part of the budget had been highly criticised even before problems with Gazprom went too far. The Deputy Head of the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine Oleksandr Shlapak said on 29 December that the 1.6 billion hryvnias, the budget assigned for Naftogaz Ukraine to keep low gas prises on the internal market, is not enough at all. “If we even manage to keep a gas price at $179.5 per 1,000 cubic meters (tcm) during the talks with our Russian partners, and the Ukrainian hryvnia’s rate to dollar stay at 7.5, there will be a need to compensate for Naftogaz Ukraine up to 9.2 billion hryvnias. Feel the difference”, he informed.
This means that in 2009 somebody will go bankrupt: either Naftogas, or Ukrainian citizens, or even Ukrainian state.
The gas price for Ukraine is really a painful question for years. In 2008 Naftogaz Ukraine had to pay $179.5 per tcm for gas from Russia, which is almost 3 times less than EU countries were paying. Due to the agreement to switch to market prices “step by step”, Gazprom offered the price rise to $250 per tcm for 2009. But it was already too high for Ukraine: it was going to pay not more than $201 per tcm (according to budget plans of the Government). As a result, Ukrainian officials didn’t sign even temporary agreement and left the country without contracted gas supply at all. Can somebody imagine such a thing to happen on a state level in any other European country?
It’s obvious that something is standing behind this artificially made conflict. It seems that the real source of Ukrainian gas problems, which may easily ruin the country’s economy, is a fight for the profits from gas transit and supply to Ukraine. As for this moment the only party of gas-supply scheme didn’t lose a cent from this situation is the RosUkrEnergo, the gas-trading intermediary between Russia and Ukraine. This company is making profit “buying” huge amounts of Russian gas on Ukrainian border and re-selling it to Ukraine (working also indirectly on Ukrainian domestic market) and some Eastern European countries (like Hungary and Romania). So, everyone who is in charge of RosUkrEnergo has guaranteed billions of profit. As for today, Russian Gazprom owns 50% of RosUkrEnergo, another half is under control of the commercial structures of Ukrainian-born businessman Dmytro Firtash. By the way, he also is linked with Ukrainian Nadra bank, which was accused by Yulia Tymoshenko in fraud with hryvnia rate in December (here is a link to my post about this matter).
That’s all I have time to write today. To be continued…
These actions of Ukrainian officials can definitely be qualified as a high treason. But nobody will be charged for that.
There is no need to remind here the very details of the debt-dispute Russia and Ukraine had in late December 2008 – the media explained it very good. Talking in general, the Naftogaz Ukraine failed to pay off a debt for gas shipped from Russia in 2008: it paid $1.52 billion just one day before the New Year, but Gazprom claimed the total debt was $2.1 billion (including $450 million of penalties for the late payment for November and December gas shipments).
Current situation differs from the gas problems of early 2006. Now Ukraine has significant amounts of gas saved in storages: about 17 billion cubic metres (bcm) is owned by Naftogaz Ukraine, and the intermediary RosUkrEnergo (I’ll talk about this company later) has extra 11 bcm. That’s why there is no evidence of harm for Ukraine caused by the gas cut-off. Yet. But the gas battle with Gazprom will definitely influence the crisis-hit Ukrainian economy, pushing it down. World economy crisis reduced the industrial energy consumption in Ukraine almost by a quarter, and the main problems may be laid on shoulders of Ukrainian citizens. Higher gas prices will lead to rise of a gas fees for the households, which are heavily subsidising by the state.
The problem is that a dramatic raise of gas prise was not planned in the budget of Ukraine for 2009, approved by Parliament and signed by President before the New Year holidays. Moreover, a gas-supply part of the budget had been highly criticised even before problems with Gazprom went too far. The Deputy Head of the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine Oleksandr Shlapak said on 29 December that the 1.6 billion hryvnias, the budget assigned for Naftogaz Ukraine to keep low gas prises on the internal market, is not enough at all. “If we even manage to keep a gas price at $179.5 per 1,000 cubic meters (tcm) during the talks with our Russian partners, and the Ukrainian hryvnia’s rate to dollar stay at 7.5, there will be a need to compensate for Naftogaz Ukraine up to 9.2 billion hryvnias. Feel the difference”, he informed.
This means that in 2009 somebody will go bankrupt: either Naftogas, or Ukrainian citizens, or even Ukrainian state.
The gas price for Ukraine is really a painful question for years. In 2008 Naftogaz Ukraine had to pay $179.5 per tcm for gas from Russia, which is almost 3 times less than EU countries were paying. Due to the agreement to switch to market prices “step by step”, Gazprom offered the price rise to $250 per tcm for 2009. But it was already too high for Ukraine: it was going to pay not more than $201 per tcm (according to budget plans of the Government). As a result, Ukrainian officials didn’t sign even temporary agreement and left the country without contracted gas supply at all. Can somebody imagine such a thing to happen on a state level in any other European country?
It’s obvious that something is standing behind this artificially made conflict. It seems that the real source of Ukrainian gas problems, which may easily ruin the country’s economy, is a fight for the profits from gas transit and supply to Ukraine. As for this moment the only party of gas-supply scheme didn’t lose a cent from this situation is the RosUkrEnergo, the gas-trading intermediary between Russia and Ukraine. This company is making profit “buying” huge amounts of Russian gas on Ukrainian border and re-selling it to Ukraine (working also indirectly on Ukrainian domestic market) and some Eastern European countries (like Hungary and Romania). So, everyone who is in charge of RosUkrEnergo has guaranteed billions of profit. As for today, Russian Gazprom owns 50% of RosUkrEnergo, another half is under control of the commercial structures of Ukrainian-born businessman Dmytro Firtash. By the way, he also is linked with Ukrainian Nadra bank, which was accused by Yulia Tymoshenko in fraud with hryvnia rate in December (here is a link to my post about this matter).
That’s all I have time to write today. To be continued…
Monday, December 22, 2008
What’s up, Ukraine? 15-21 December 2008.
Falling currency . On Thursday, 18 December the Ukrainian hryvnia dropped to its historical low against the US dollar – 10-10.5.
Less than a half of the year ago US dollar cost around 4.8 hryvnias. The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko declared that the hryvnia’s value felt down due to “a special speculative operations planned at the currency market of Ukraine, and organized with the assistance of the National Bank (Central bank) and some other banks of Ukraine”, in particular, Nadra bank.
“The bank that was just bought for 600 million dollars, received from the National Bank financial resources of 7 billion 100 million hryvnias”, Yulia Tymoshenko said, adding that “the bribes made up from 3% to 7% of the total amount of financing”. Yulia Tymoshenko pointed out that Ukrainian businessman Dmytro Firtash (owner of the Group DF holding, which is famous also for a scandal around the financial support of the British Conservatives) and the Presidential Secretariat are standing behind the Nadra bank. “They need to tumble the hryvnia’s value to dollar”.
Getting closer. The U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko signed the U.S. – Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership.
The joint U.S. – Ukrainian declaration called a “Charter on Strategic Partnership”, signed in Washington on 19 December, appeals for the expanding of the economic and security ties between two countries, and strengthening of the cooperation in energy, trade and other areas.The document does not have a legally binding status.
The declaration states that the United States intends to open a diplomatic post in the Autonomy Republic of Crimea, a region that is highly influenced by Russia (there are many ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people with Russian passports), and is hosting Russia's Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol (under a lease agreement until 2017). ”Ukraine welcomes the United States' intention to establish an American diplomatic presence (American presence post) in Simferopol, the capital of Crimea”, said the joint declaration.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has already said the Crimean diplomatic post would be a small one, dedicated to the organising of cultural events and doing political reporting. Mr. McCormack denied any intentions to provoke Russia by establishment of this post. ”This is about U.S.-Ukraine bilateral relations. If the Russian government chooses to be upset by ... my stating that we're considering opening up… a one-person or two-person American presence post, well, there's not much I can do about that,” he added. Russian officials haven’t made any statements on this point, but analysts are saying that this answer may be given in more sharp position of Moscow in gas-trade dialogue with Ukraine. Minister Ohryzko told reporters the post “probably will be done next year”.
Also Washington promised to help to strengthen the candidacy of Ukraine for NATO membership, which is another painful question for the official Russia. Nevertheless, U.S. would work within the NATO-Ukraine Commission to agree on a plan for training and equipping Ukrainian armed forces. “We plan to undertake a program of enhanced security cooperation intended to increase Ukrainian capabilities and to strengthen Ukraine's candidacy for NATO membership,” the document said.
Washington also promised to help Ukraine with “rehabilitating and modernizing the capacity of Ukraine's gas transit infrastructure”, cooling down Russian dreams to fort a consortium for the exploiting of Ukrainian gas lines.
Fitch Ratings: The credit outlook for the Ukrainian energy and utility sector during 2009 is negative.
The report issued on Thursday 18 December lists the main problems of the Ukrainian energy and utility sector: a funding crisis in the state-controlled power generation sector, downward pressure on regulated tariffs due to a severe recession, restricted access to bank lending and debt capital markets, and continued turmoil at NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine (‘B’/Rating Watch Negative). Fitch expects an economic recession in Ukraine in 2009 to drive down power demand, providing only temporary respite to falling capacity reserve margins.
Fitch expects liquidity and refinancing risk to remain high for the Ukrainian energy and utility sector through most of 2009, as foreign banks and markets remain effectively closed to Ukrainian issuers. Naftogaz will continue to confront major challenges in 2009, including a lack of transparency, potentially insufficient state subsidisation for its loss-making residential business, higher import prices, accumulating gas payables and restricted access to external financing. However, Fitch continues to view Naftogaz as an important strategic asset for the Ukrainian government (Ukraine rated at ‘B+’/Outlook Negative) and factors state support into the company’s rating.
The 2009 credit outlook, entitled "Ukrainian Energy and Utilities – 2009 Outlook”, is available on the agency's public website http://www.fitchratings.com/.
Eternal problem. Russia blocks Ukrainian famine-genocide resolution at the United Nations.
Russia blocked Ukraine-initiated UN resolution claiming Holodomor in the Soviet Union in early 1930s was famine-genocide aimed against Ukrainians, rather than a common tragedy of many nations in the country. “We succeeded to bloc the inclusion of the item into the agenda of the current UN General Assembly,” Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said on Thursday, 18 December, according to the Russian media.
The Ambassador also added the United States and Great Britain backed the Ukrainian motion, which “ended in nothing.” Mr. Churkin said Russian representatives were active in explaining the history of Holodomor to foreign partners. As a result, nine EU countries did not sign the Ukrainian declaration, although “EU members usually act in a consolidated manner”.
Less than a half of the year ago US dollar cost around 4.8 hryvnias. The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko declared that the hryvnia’s value felt down due to “a special speculative operations planned at the currency market of Ukraine, and organized with the assistance of the National Bank (Central bank) and some other banks of Ukraine”, in particular, Nadra bank.
“The bank that was just bought for 600 million dollars, received from the National Bank financial resources of 7 billion 100 million hryvnias”, Yulia Tymoshenko said, adding that “the bribes made up from 3% to 7% of the total amount of financing”. Yulia Tymoshenko pointed out that Ukrainian businessman Dmytro Firtash (owner of the Group DF holding, which is famous also for a scandal around the financial support of the British Conservatives) and the Presidential Secretariat are standing behind the Nadra bank. “They need to tumble the hryvnia’s value to dollar”.
Getting closer. The U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko signed the U.S. – Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership.
The joint U.S. – Ukrainian declaration called a “Charter on Strategic Partnership”, signed in Washington on 19 December, appeals for the expanding of the economic and security ties between two countries, and strengthening of the cooperation in energy, trade and other areas.The document does not have a legally binding status.
The declaration states that the United States intends to open a diplomatic post in the Autonomy Republic of Crimea, a region that is highly influenced by Russia (there are many ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people with Russian passports), and is hosting Russia's Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol (under a lease agreement until 2017). ”Ukraine welcomes the United States' intention to establish an American diplomatic presence (American presence post) in Simferopol, the capital of Crimea”, said the joint declaration.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has already said the Crimean diplomatic post would be a small one, dedicated to the organising of cultural events and doing political reporting. Mr. McCormack denied any intentions to provoke Russia by establishment of this post. ”This is about U.S.-Ukraine bilateral relations. If the Russian government chooses to be upset by ... my stating that we're considering opening up… a one-person or two-person American presence post, well, there's not much I can do about that,” he added. Russian officials haven’t made any statements on this point, but analysts are saying that this answer may be given in more sharp position of Moscow in gas-trade dialogue with Ukraine. Minister Ohryzko told reporters the post “probably will be done next year”.
Also Washington promised to help to strengthen the candidacy of Ukraine for NATO membership, which is another painful question for the official Russia. Nevertheless, U.S. would work within the NATO-Ukraine Commission to agree on a plan for training and equipping Ukrainian armed forces. “We plan to undertake a program of enhanced security cooperation intended to increase Ukrainian capabilities and to strengthen Ukraine's candidacy for NATO membership,” the document said.
Washington also promised to help Ukraine with “rehabilitating and modernizing the capacity of Ukraine's gas transit infrastructure”, cooling down Russian dreams to fort a consortium for the exploiting of Ukrainian gas lines.
Fitch Ratings: The credit outlook for the Ukrainian energy and utility sector during 2009 is negative.
The report issued on Thursday 18 December lists the main problems of the Ukrainian energy and utility sector: a funding crisis in the state-controlled power generation sector, downward pressure on regulated tariffs due to a severe recession, restricted access to bank lending and debt capital markets, and continued turmoil at NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine (‘B’/Rating Watch Negative). Fitch expects an economic recession in Ukraine in 2009 to drive down power demand, providing only temporary respite to falling capacity reserve margins.
Fitch expects liquidity and refinancing risk to remain high for the Ukrainian energy and utility sector through most of 2009, as foreign banks and markets remain effectively closed to Ukrainian issuers. Naftogaz will continue to confront major challenges in 2009, including a lack of transparency, potentially insufficient state subsidisation for its loss-making residential business, higher import prices, accumulating gas payables and restricted access to external financing. However, Fitch continues to view Naftogaz as an important strategic asset for the Ukrainian government (Ukraine rated at ‘B+’/Outlook Negative) and factors state support into the company’s rating.
The 2009 credit outlook, entitled "Ukrainian Energy and Utilities – 2009 Outlook”, is available on the agency's public website http://www.fitchratings.com/.
Eternal problem. Russia blocks Ukrainian famine-genocide resolution at the United Nations.
Russia blocked Ukraine-initiated UN resolution claiming Holodomor in the Soviet Union in early 1930s was famine-genocide aimed against Ukrainians, rather than a common tragedy of many nations in the country. “We succeeded to bloc the inclusion of the item into the agenda of the current UN General Assembly,” Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said on Thursday, 18 December, according to the Russian media.
The Ambassador also added the United States and Great Britain backed the Ukrainian motion, which “ended in nothing.” Mr. Churkin said Russian representatives were active in explaining the history of Holodomor to foreign partners. As a result, nine EU countries did not sign the Ukrainian declaration, although “EU members usually act in a consolidated manner”.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
What’s up, Ukraine? (15-22 November 2008)
Eternal Memory. Ukraine commemorates the 75th anniversary of Holodomor.
On 22 November Ukraine marked the anniversary of the start of a Soviet-era artificially organised famine – Holodomor – that killed millions of people in Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan in 1932-33. The terrible cruel famine had a goal to force peasants to join collective farms. As a "breadbasket" of the Soviet Union, Ukraine suffered the most. Holodomor killed from 3 to 10 million of people. "This was not death through hunger – this was murder of people through hunger," the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko said in his speech. Among the guests at the event were President of Poland Lech Kaczynski, President of Latvia Valdis Zatlers, President of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus, President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili, speakers of foreign parliaments, representatives of international organizations, foreign state officials, and diplomats.
Parliamentary holidays. The Parliament of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada) decided to make a break until the 2nd of December.
On 20 November Ukrainian MP’s were supposed to elect new Speaker, following the dismissal of Arseniy Yatseniuk. But that didn’t happen. Instead, the plenary was closed and a new one was scheduled on 2 December.
“Topping” for crisis. The price of Russian gas for Ukraine may be more than $400 per 1,000 cubic meters.
Ukraine received an answer from the Russian authorities for non-friendly statements and media interviews. The President of Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev said that if Ukraine does not repays the $ 2.4 billion debt, direct gas supplies to Ukraine will be cut off. The Head of Russian gas monopoly Gasprom Alexei Miller added also that the price for natural gas for Ukraine may rise from the current $179.5 per 1,000 cubic meters to over $400.
Naftogas Ukraine (“Oil and Gas of Ukraine”) company rejected the mentioned amount of debt, and said in a statement on Friday there is actually $1.267 billion of debt, but it is owed not to Gazprom, but to an intermediary company RosUkrEnergo. “Naftogaz Ukrainy points out that in 2008, the only supplier of natural gas imported to Ukraine is RosUkrEnergo Company,” press service of Naftogas Ukraine informs.
Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko previously declared that Ukraine had reached an agreement with Russian Federation to switch to market gas prices step by step during next three years. The Head of Naftogas Ukraine Oleg Dubyna predicted that the gas price for Ukraine will not grow more than to $250-300 for 1,000 cubic meters.
The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko has immediately accused Tymoshenko in “irresponsible actions” that permitted the accumulation of the debt. “I want to warn that such practice leads to colonization of Ukraine,” he declared at the country’s Security Council meeting on 21 November. One should fight corruption in the gas sphere, and move to transparent contracts, not to transfer all the responsibility to Government”, answered Yulia Tymoshenko the same day, being with official visit in Sweden.
The ghost from Kiev. Viktor Yanukovych visited Moscow.
The Party of Regions has almost ruined a years of work of its PR officers to eliminate the party's strictly pro-Russian image on the West. On 20 November the Head of the Party Viktor Yanukovych visited Moscow to take part in the 10th Congress of the United Russia party and to meet the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
On 22 November Ukraine marked the anniversary of the start of a Soviet-era artificially organised famine – Holodomor – that killed millions of people in Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan in 1932-33. The terrible cruel famine had a goal to force peasants to join collective farms. As a "breadbasket" of the Soviet Union, Ukraine suffered the most. Holodomor killed from 3 to 10 million of people. "This was not death through hunger – this was murder of people through hunger," the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko said in his speech. Among the guests at the event were President of Poland Lech Kaczynski, President of Latvia Valdis Zatlers, President of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus, President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili, speakers of foreign parliaments, representatives of international organizations, foreign state officials, and diplomats.
Parliamentary holidays. The Parliament of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada) decided to make a break until the 2nd of December.
On 20 November Ukrainian MP’s were supposed to elect new Speaker, following the dismissal of Arseniy Yatseniuk. But that didn’t happen. Instead, the plenary was closed and a new one was scheduled on 2 December.
“Topping” for crisis. The price of Russian gas for Ukraine may be more than $400 per 1,000 cubic meters.
Ukraine received an answer from the Russian authorities for non-friendly statements and media interviews. The President of Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev said that if Ukraine does not repays the $ 2.4 billion debt, direct gas supplies to Ukraine will be cut off. The Head of Russian gas monopoly Gasprom Alexei Miller added also that the price for natural gas for Ukraine may rise from the current $179.5 per 1,000 cubic meters to over $400.
Naftogas Ukraine (“Oil and Gas of Ukraine”) company rejected the mentioned amount of debt, and said in a statement on Friday there is actually $1.267 billion of debt, but it is owed not to Gazprom, but to an intermediary company RosUkrEnergo. “Naftogaz Ukrainy points out that in 2008, the only supplier of natural gas imported to Ukraine is RosUkrEnergo Company,” press service of Naftogas Ukraine informs.
Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko previously declared that Ukraine had reached an agreement with Russian Federation to switch to market gas prices step by step during next three years. The Head of Naftogas Ukraine Oleg Dubyna predicted that the gas price for Ukraine will not grow more than to $250-300 for 1,000 cubic meters.
The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko has immediately accused Tymoshenko in “irresponsible actions” that permitted the accumulation of the debt. “I want to warn that such practice leads to colonization of Ukraine,” he declared at the country’s Security Council meeting on 21 November. One should fight corruption in the gas sphere, and move to transparent contracts, not to transfer all the responsibility to Government”, answered Yulia Tymoshenko the same day, being with official visit in Sweden.
The ghost from Kiev. Viktor Yanukovych visited Moscow.
The Party of Regions has almost ruined a years of work of its PR officers to eliminate the party's strictly pro-Russian image on the West. On 20 November the Head of the Party Viktor Yanukovych visited Moscow to take part in the 10th Congress of the United Russia party and to meet the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
In 2009 gas prices may rise to $700 and more
Today I have read very interesting article in FT. Basing on the axiom “Gas prices follow the pri+ce of oil with a lag about 9 months”, the experts of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera), a US-based consultancy, predict the “gas price rising (in Europe – T.V.) from about $350 per thousand cubic metres at the start of the year to about $730 by April 2009”.
Ukraine has declared that its intentions to move to market-rules-based relationship with Russia, the main oil and gas supplier of Ukrainian economy. So, in 2009 Ukrainian businessmen and citizens may face the price around $600-700. Even $500 is deadly price for most Ukrainian enterprises that produce some goods.
Dramatic rise of gas prices will be dramatic for Ukraine and its independence.
Ukraine has declared that its intentions to move to market-rules-based relationship with Russia, the main oil and gas supplier of Ukrainian economy. So, in 2009 Ukrainian businessmen and citizens may face the price around $600-700. Even $500 is deadly price for most Ukrainian enterprises that produce some goods.
Dramatic rise of gas prices will be dramatic for Ukraine and its independence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
