Dueling Scenarios on the Gazprom State

Choose your scenario: Portraits in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times today provide starkly different measures of Russia's energy might.

The Journal’s Guy Chazan chronicles a fresh set of agreements that, if carried out, will double the size of Gazprom’s proposed South Stream natural gas pipeline. The pact was co-signed by Paolo Scaroni, CEO of Italy’s ENI, a frequent partner of Gazprom’s whose company will help build the line. Standing with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Scaroni succinctly described the reason for South Stream: "Most of this gas will substitute gas currently crossing Ukraine, and some new gas."

In other words, South Stream is meant to extract Ukraine from Europe’s natural gas equation. Fair enough – from Russia’s point of view, that's perhaps the only way to end once and for all its annual tugs-of-war with Ukraine over natural gas payments and the resulting gas cutoffs to Europe.

Raising the financing actually to build South Stream is another matter. Yet, despite the plunge in global energy prices and the financial crisis, Russia’s aims seem the same: To reinforce the weight -- its energy heft -- behind its restored global voice.

In the Times, however, Andrew Kramer delivers a page-one, above-the-fold story with basically the opposite message: The Kremlin’s efforts to use Gazprom to “restore Russian influence in the world are now backfiring, slashing both its profits and its influence.” The culprit is the price plummet.

Kramer backs up his lead with detail on the losses being absorbed by Gazprom on its long-term natural gas supply deal with Turkmenistan. Gazprom is paying the Central Asian nation $340 per 1,000 cubic meters for gas that the Russian giant sells on to Europe for $280, or a $60 loss on each 1,000 cubic meters. This has helped to crater Gazprom profits, Kramer writes: The company’s 2008 profits were $30.8 billion on revenues of $160.5 billion, according to annual results released this month. This year, Troika Dialog, a Moscow investment bank, has estimated that Gazprom’s profits will drop to $16.7 billion on revenues of $104 billion.

There is a bit of confusing data -- Kramer says the price received by Turkmenistan is based on a six-month delay; in other words, Turkmenistan is being paid today according to world prices last year (I’ve actually heard that the delay is eight months, but the principle remains the same). If that’s the case, the loss would work its way through the system soon enough: Turkmenistan would eventually start receiving payment based on the dirt-cheap, current price of natural gas.

Whatever the case, another section of the story is key. Kramer suggests that Gazprom has lost ground politically, noting that last week, the European Union signed another agreement vowing to build Nabucco, a rival natural gas pipeline to South Stream. Azerbaijan, Georgia, Egypt and Turkey were present for the accord.

The piece, however, does not note who wasn’t there to sign: Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, the key natural gas suppliers. Nor does it note that there is every chance that Azerbaijan will sell much of its natural gas to Russia, which continues to offer to buy all of Azerbaijan’s supply. (Neither does it mention the South Stream signature agreement.)

For now at least, it seems to me that the Chazan scenario is more credible: Gazprom has its problems: It is failing to invest in arresting the depletion of its Russian fields. All the while, natural gas demand is plummeting.

Yet it’s early to suggest that Russian influence in its backyard or Europe has declined with it.