Gazprom Comes to the U.S.

For several years, Gazprom has had surpassingly bad PR -- worse even than Exxon, which since the 19th century heyday of John D. Rockefeller has almost proudly disdained the opinion of the world at large. The main problem has been Gazprom's intrusion into the lives of its neighbors -- its routine shutoff of gas to Georgia in the 1990s, for example, and its long reluctance to lease pipeline space for the export of natural gas from land-locked Kazakhstan, both actions that happen to coincide with the desire of Moscow to keep a foot on the throat of these former Soviet republics. But this blog has also noted Gazprom's distinction of being the only energy company on the planet with a record of elevating utility disputes to geopolitical events -- its legendary natural gas rows with Russian neighbor Ukraine have shut off the winter heat to Europe three times since 2006. Though Ukraine has paid its latest Gazprom bill in full, one would be a fool to bet against the prospect of a fourth cutoff this winter, as Jerome a Paris notes over at the European Tribune; indeed, Michael Kahn and Anna Mudeva at Reuters report that central Europe is carrying out actual infrastructure changes in case the yearly dustup recurs. Recently, Gazprom has been attempting to spruce up its image with a $250,000-a-month contract with Ketchum, a skilled PR agency with offices in London and Washington.

But this isn't the news. Instead, it is an ingenious Gazprom strategy of parlaying its market power in Europe -- the company supplies 25% of Europe's natural gas -- into a beachhead in the hyper-competitive U.S. Gazprom's goal: to supply 10% of the U.S. market within a decade.

It's an audacious play, but not outlandish. Take a look at the details in a story I wrote for this week's BusinessWeek. Last month, the company's Houston office opened with the main aim of marketing liquid natural gas from Sakhalin II (recall that Gazprom strong-armed its way into a controlling share of the project in 2007), on Russia's East Coast, in California. This goal hasn't gone off so well as yet, and probably won't soon -- U.S. gas prices are simply too low, and because of a glut of shale gas, prices aren't likely to rise much at least in the medium term. So Gazprom has sold all its LNG so far in Asia.

But a companion component of the strategy has succeeded remarkably. It's in pure gas trading. Though the trading side of the U.S. market is crowded with sophisticated actors stepping on one another to find and sell the fuel, Gazprom managed to corral and sell 350 million cubic feet a day in its first month of operation. That's a fraction of its goal -- the sale of 6 billion cubic feet a day. But it's a respectable start.

How did it do so? Gazprom says it's swapping gas with companies that are long in the U.S. -- meaning they have a comparable surplus of gas here -- and want to sell it in Europe, where Gazprom is long. It's a matter of convenience, Gazprom suggests -- it has excess gas in Europe, other companies have excess gas in the U.S., and the two effectively just swap supplies.

But consider the one deal that Gazprom has disclosed -- with the French utility Electricite de France (EDF). Under the deal, Gazprom will deliver 50 million cubic feet a day of gas to an EDF operation in Britain, and in exchange Gazprom will take possession of the same volume of EDF gas in the U.S. Simple, right?

But there's a wrinkle: EDF, hungry to secure long-term supplies, is also seeking to secure a percentage in Russia's planned South Stream, a natural gas pipeline that would bypass nettlesome Russian neighbors and carry gas directly to European customers. The U.S. and some Europeans have vigorously opposed South Stream, which they say will further cement what they regard as excessive existing Russian clout in Europe. But EDF is among those that not only approve of South Stream, but want a piece of it.

So, as others have done before it with different degrees of success -- including BP and Italy's Eni -- EDF is making nice with Gazprom. As EDF CEO John Rittenhouse told Reuters, "We are looking forward to expanding our relationship with Gazprom."

Pipeline Politics: Europe's Stubbornness, and the Virtues of Shale

On the heels of the Obama-Medvedev-Putin summit, five nations will sign what they are calling a breakthrough agreement for a long-troubled natural gas pipeline meant to change the energy equation in Europe. That's code language for reducing a perceived threat of increased Russian influence on the continent.

As Sylvia Westall and Orhan Coskun at Reuters suggest, don’t crack the champagne yet.

The background is this: Washington and the EU are troubled by Russia's domination of Europe's natural gas market; Gazprom provides some 25% of the gas supply, and the West perceives that Moscow will use that market power for political advantage. Russia denies any such intention. Yet the West's persistent concerns are the logic behind Nabucco, a proposed pipeline that would help to diversify Europe's gas supply.

Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria – countries through which Nabucco would pass – will be the signatories to the agreement Monday. Though Nabucco’s devisers have been struggling for years, the formula for building a pipeline is actually quite simple: If you have a sufficiently large reserve of natural gas, financiers will probably pay for the construction of a pipeline to sell it. Conversely, if you lack that gas, bankers will tell you to come back when you get some.

The latter is the situation for the European Union and Washington, Nabucco’s primary backers.

Turkmenistan – originally, Nabucco was meant to build on U.S. efforts to provide Central Asia with an alternative transport route to Russia – has balked at contracting with any serious western players for any fields on-shore, where the large volumes of natural gas are situated. Azerbaijan -- a possible backup player until Turkmenistan possibly changes its mind – last week signed a deal with Russia for its volumes from the super-giant Shah Deniz field.

The re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the bloody crackdown that has followed, suspends hopes for the medium term at least for Iran becoming that source of natural gas. Iraq is also mentioned, but that’s only a reality in the event of a deal between the Kurds and the central government, a long-shot indeed. The question is why the pro-Nabucco forces persist in pushing on a proverbial wet noodle. While the physics of inertia carry them forward, they might pay attention to other developments acting to diversify Europe’s natural gas.

As No Hot Air blogs, one is new technology that makes shale gas possible and economical to extract from convenient places like Germany, Hungary and Poland. Closer at hand in terms of availability is liquefied natural gas, which has come on stream in large volumes out of Qatar; but Europe must build the infrastructure to handle it.

Will Europe and the U.S. shift their focus to these very real alternatives?

Putin, Sakhalin, and The Lion's Purr

A narrative familiar to all oilmen with long exposure to Russia is under way: With cash reserves running down and insufficient economic relief in sight, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, his growl turned into a purr, is welcoming back Western oil companies to work Russia's natural gas fields.

So how should Shell and Total -- both of them the recipients of Putin's renewed niceness -- respond? Are Putin's past revocations of deals, expulsions from fields at knock-down rates, and ho-hum attitude toward shakedowns reason not to do business with him now that Russia is trouble?

Specifically, Shell is being offered an unspecified role in the highly complex, offshore Sakhalin 3 and Sakhalin 4 natural gas projects (BP walked away from the latter last month after drilling dry holes). Total signed a smallish, $900 million deal to work with Russia's independent Novatek on the Termokarstovoye natural gas field, and Putin says it's "entirely possible" that the French company will be permitted to work on future stages of the supergiant Shtokman natural gas field.

The subtext is a World Bank projection last week that Russia's economy won't recover to pre-crisis growth until at least 2012; and an International Energy Agency forecast this week that any global oil supply shortage -- and thus a possible return to $100-plus-a-barrel prices -- isn't likely before 2013.

The necessity for the involvement of foreigners who still have access to credit -- such as Big Oil -- seems plain: Shtokman's developers said in December that the global credit crisis may delay field development.

In other words, for Russia there's little noticeable light at the end of the tunnel. And Moscow needs to be sure that Gazprom can remain the country's most powerful economic driver.

More subtext: O&G readers recall that in 2006, Russia unleashed environmental regulators onto Shell in order to persuade it to relinquish its majority stake in Sakhalin-2 to Gazprom for what many analysts at the time regarded as a comparative firesale price of $7.6 billion. The same year, Total had a similar experience when Rosneft canceled a $3 billion partnership in the Vankor oilfield. Exxon Mobil has been forced to sell the natural gas from its Sakhalin I project at cut-rate prices within Russia rather than as it had planned in higher-paying China, as Paul Ausick reports at 24/7 Wall Street. And then there's long-suffering BP, which, in a series of fresh indignities this year while the Kremlin has stood by, has been powerless as its Russian partners in TNK-BP have steadily swallowed control of the oil-rich venture.

David Lee Smith at Motley Fool suggests that Shell's apparent agreement to let bygones be bygones and embrace the extended hand is "goofy." But Tim Newman, a Briton who lives on Sakhalin and blogs at White Sun of the Desert, writes that Shell will be wise to demand international bank guarantees in exchange for fresh investment. Short of that, Newman says, expect "another round of blubbering and hurt feelings in five years time." Over at TPRR, Tim Pendry argues that the totality of events reflects Russia's "complex gamble on events."

Pendry and Newman are both right. While seeking foreign investment at home, and failing to arrest serious depletion of its domestic fields, Gazprom still hasn't abandoned its geopolitically driven global dealmaking. In addition to continuing to promise to build new multi-billion-dollar gas pipelines into Europe, it signed a deal with Nigeria last week promising $2.5 billion in exploration investment there.

Meanwhile, another natural gas row is on the near horizon between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine has a $4.2 billion bill coming due to Gazprom on July 7th, and lacks the money to pay. As Carl Mortished at The Times of London reports, the European Union is attempting to get some emergency money for the Ukrainians from the International Monetary Fund or the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The good news is that the latest dust-up is not occurring in the dead of winter.



Whether or not another jump in the deep end is wise, in the end Russia is a prime example of Big Oil's history of returning for more to the scene of its greatest debacles. The reason is the usual one: These behemoths need to book fresh reserves, and they are hard to come by.

In Total's case, for instance, the French company capitalized on an alliance not only with Gazprom, which owns 19% of Novatek, its local partner, but with oil-trading king Gennady Timchenko, a favored old KGB friend of Putin's, who owns 18% of the company.

In perhaps a touch of irony, Total CEO Christophe de Margerie said after the signing, "I don't think it's difficult to work in Russia. One only needs to learn to work efficiently with Gazprom, Novatek and Rosneft."

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.

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right

Why has Russia's natural gas dispute with Ukraine stretched out so long?

A key reason is the subtext from Russia's side: an effort once and for all to tar and discredit much-detested neighbors who have become darlings of the West, and end the West's intrusion into Moscow's claimed sphere of influence.

Despite some self-inflicted damage, the gambit so far has been relatively successful.

In the fall, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and his junior partner, President Dmitry Medvedev, managed through skillful public relations to turn their full-scale invasion of Georgia into a reflection on the sanity of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. It was one of those kernel-of-truth cases -- Saakashvili in fact is a rash, immature leader (and may indeed have initiated the original fighting in South Ossetia that preceded Russia's invasion of Georgia proper).
Saakashvili's personality flaws hardly justified Russia's seizure of the Georgian port of Poti and the bombing of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline route, and Putin and Medvedev suffered black eyes. Yet Saakashvili's image in the West and at home was severely -- and perhaps permanently -- damaged. (And, not incidentally, the U.S. was revealed to be largely impotent in what it had hubristically claimed as a pro-Western new region.)

Now, Putin and Medvedev have in their sights another primary local irritant -- Ukraine and its independent-minded president, Viktor Yushchenko. In the latest part of this effort, the Russian leaders are trying to recruit Europe into a strategy of reducing their new dispute with Ukraine to this: Ukraine is a country-size thief.

On its face, what we have is a simple pricing dispute. Ukraine wants to pay close to today's price for its 2009 natural gas supplies, or about $180-$235 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. But Russia wants Ukraine to agree to what its other European customers are paying based on long-ago negotiated contracts, or about $400 per 1,000 cubic meters.

We've previously discussed the role of personal gain in confounding a settlement to what elsewhere is usually a utility dispute. The two sides seem no nearer to resolving the central pricing disagreement, but increasingly cold Europe has stepped in to at least restore the flow of gas.

Here's where the charges of thievery enter. Russia says it won't restart the general flow of gas because Ukraine is siphoning off volumes for itself; Ukraine denies the accusation, and says it's simply isolating a bit of the gas -- so-called technical gas -- in order to get pressure into the line. Today, Putin and Medvedev met with Europeans in Moscow in an ostensible attempt to break the logjam, but failed.

Here's what Russia proposes: a consortium of European countries will "buy" the technical gas, and thereby "share the risk" with Russia. Italy, Russia's usual partner in its energy-based geopolitical strategies, is the sole foreign recruit thus far.

What would be the outcome of such a consortium if it does fully materialize? It would give de facto international validation to Russia's claim that Ukraine is so untrustworthy that a European consortium is required to mitigate the risk of doing business with it.

It would come again with some damage -- the dispute will go on until the two sides agree on a price, and meanwhile Putin, Medvedev Gazprom and Russia itself would look unreliable.

Yet, strategically Russia would also bring disrepute on a neighbor that until now has enjoyed an irritatingly good image outside the region.

If any of Europe's most important nations were still seriously considering either Ukraine or Georgia as potential members of NATO, these last few months will have made them less open to the idea.

Ukraine and Russia: The Role of a Middleman

Russia has prickly relations with several of its neighbors, but all pale in comparison with its friction with Georgia and Ukraine. Last August, the former resulted in a full-fledged war, and pessimism about the security of the U.S.-backed oil and natural gas corridor connecting the Caspian Sea with the West. Now, the latter -- Russia's long antagonism with Ukraine -- is provoking a similar recalibration of energy security, this time about natural gas supplies to Europe.

I have pointed out the pricing dispute that's raised the temperature between Russia and Ukraine. But Ed Chow, whose activities in Russia on behalf of Chevron in the 1990s I recounted in The Oil and the Glory, thinks something more is afoot. Namely, Chow thinks the issue separating the sides is at least partly who personally stands to gain from a new deal.

Chow and Jon Elkind, another veteran of the 1990s diplomatic conflict with Russia over the Caspian as a member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council, detail the underside of the Russia-Ukraine natural gas game in the latest issue of the Washington Quarterly.

The article notes the role of an opaque middleman company called RosUkrEnergo in the deal. We have discussed RosUkrEnergo at O&G; The Wall Street Journal's Glenn Simpson has done the best ground-breaking work on the company. Half-owned by Gazprom and two Ukrainian businessmen, RosUkrEnergo is the equivalent of a maitre d' who performs no principal role but controls access to the best tables. RosUkrEnergo owns no gas, or pipelines, yet earns a flat 20% take off the top of all the gas sold by Russia to Ukraine.

RosUkrEnergo takes that gas, and sells it. That amounted to a staggering $4.3 billion in proceeds to RosUkrEnergo in 2007, according to Chow and Elkind. How that money is divided has never been explained.

In a phone conversation, Chow notes that Gazprom and Ukraine at one point were just $15 apart in their negotiations -- Russia was demanding $250 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas this year, while Ukraine was offering $235. "If that was the only difference, why couldn't they make a deal?" Chow asks. "I suspect the difference was the role that RosUkrEnergo would play."

Chow and Elkind call RosUkrEnergo "shady." "The company’s role is a political bone of contention in that an entity with no assets, no track record, and no transparency was placed at the very center of the Ukrainian gas economy," they write.

Russia-Ukraine: A Market Dispute

Are the Russians and Ukrainians simply fated to go to the mat every year about this time, causing grief to their neighbors? Or is something else at work in their antagonism?

The philosophical answer is that, while it's hard to imagine these two former Soviet states living as friendly neighbors any time soon, the current dispute is a separate matter.

It can be reduced to a difference of outlook: Do you expect oil prices to rise to $60 a barrel this year, or to drop back down to between $30 and $40 a barrel? (Oil has surged in the last two trading days to about $46 a barrel because of the fighting in Gaza.)

In Europe, natural gas prices follow oil, and Russia is clearly of the consensus view that oil will average somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 a barrel this year. That corresponds to a natural gas price of about $350 per 1,000 cubic meters. (Here's the loose formula to get the natural gas price: divide the oil price by six, then multiply the result by 35.3).

Hence the claim by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that the demand by Gazprom, Russia's natural gas behemoth, for $250 per 1,000 cubic meters from Ukraine this year amounts to a "humanitarian gesture."

Ukraine, however, has embraced oil's most recent price band. It's arguing that oil will average $40 a barrel this year, or $235 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas. That's precisely what Ukraine has counter-offered to Gazprom.

(As a separate matter, if Europe truly is paying $500 per 1,000 cubic meters, as Gazprom has claimed, it is seriously overpaying. That corresponds to $84-a-barrel oil.)

(Another baffling issue is Russia's claim that it's owed a $600 million late fee on top of the $1.5 billion natural gas bill that Ukraine already has paid. That's a 40% penalty, and Ukraine is only a month late.)

The subtext is the nature of the two countries' contract, which is based not on the spot price of natural gas, or a forecast, but a formula that lags current prices by eight months. In other words, when Gazprom is retorting that it in fact could charge Ukraine $418 per 1,000 cubic meters if it so wishes, that's Russia's estimate of the price of natural gas last May.

In the end, look for the two countries to settle some place in the middle, say at $50 a barrel oil, which would entitle Gazprom to charge $294 per 1,000 cubic meters. But don't be surprised if Ukraine bends a bit more toward Russia's demand than a down-the-middle compromise; indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine agrees to Gazprom's offer of $250 per 1,000 cubic meters.

The dispute has more bite than previous rows because of the economic times. Ukraine is in an economic fix, as is Gazprom.

Regarding the latter, Gazprom's troubles go far. It doesn't produce much of the gas it ships to Europe, but markets gas it buys mostly from the Central Asian state of Turkmenistan. In order to obtain long-term rights to that gas, and not have it siphoned off by a covetous West, Gazprom has agreed to pay the Turkmen about $340 per 1,000 cubic meters.

Given market prices, that means that Gazprom might be forced to sell to Europe this year at a loss, unless it unilaterally cuts the price it pays to the Turkmen, who in that case could respond by withholding supplies.

"Gazprom is in a tough spot," says Kenneth Medlock, a natural gas expert at Rice University's James A Baker Institute for Public Policy, who helped me with the calculations for this article. If Gazprom loses the Turkmen supplies, Medlock said, "they are going to have trouble meeting their contractual commitments" to Europe.

The Sweep of Georgia's Impact

I'm just back from two weeks in Kazakhstan, looking at the ripples from the events in Georgia. The short takeaway is that Russia's short, victorious war will be felt for years to come all the way from Central Asia to western Europe. Here is the piece in this week's Business Week.



What doesn't seem to be much appreciated is that the main problem isn't really Georgia. It's that Georgia is the thread hanging off the tattered sweater; you pull it, and the sweater falls apart. Not counting the suddenly transformed politics of the Eurasian continent, but just economics, will Azerbaijan and Georgia manage to widen the Caucasus energy corridor to accommodate another 1.5 million barrels a day of Kazakh oil over the coming years, as Kazakhstan would like? What of hopes to diversify Europe's natural gas supply? The answer to both is "perhaps," but that Russia will have to be accommodated.

What would Russia want in exchange for allowing the corridor expansion to go through? For starters, as it's made plain, it wants all of the Azerbaijan state's natural gas supply, the very same volumes that the State Department is pushing President Ilham Aliyev to ship to Europe. As for Kazakhstan, it's not clear what it will be asked -- President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the balancer of great powers, has already been so deferential to Vladimir Putin that one wonders what more there is to surrender. From Europe, Putin would like continued demand for Russian gas at current or greater volumes.

One thing that's sure is that Russia doesn't have to use its Army again. Having deployed it once, Putin has made his point. Besides, Russian energy pipelines provide it all the leverage it needs without its army.

Russia's Achilles Heel

Over the last couple of days, the post-mortems have begun to roll in from big-thinkers on Russia. The prescriptions advised in order to bring about status-quo ante in Georgia -- ejecting Russia from G-8, distancing Moscow further from global trade treaties -- add up to a consensus of "Oh Dear, Oh My." Non-membership in G-8 and WTO no doubt is provoking snickers in the Kremlin.

Contrary to these views, however, the West and the U.S. in particular do have one very real lever, one that Karl Rove might recognize -- Russia's very strength.

Russia's Achilles Heel is its petro-power. It's a message that both senators Barack Obama (and his running mate Joe Biden) and John McCain should keep in mind as they prepare to deal with Russia.

For more than a year, O and G has been describing progressive U.S. setbacks in what I've called the Pipeline War, the struggle with Russia for energy-driven political influence in Europe. We've also been writing here during that period about the growing tensions between Russia and Georgia.

In a nutshell, Russia understands that power in a large swath of the world -- Europe, the former Soviet Union and parts of the Middle East -- can be exerted from control of oil and natural gas pipelines. That's how the U.S. has inserted its power into Russia's backyard -- through the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline that crosses the country of today's conflict, Georgia. Now, Vladimir Putin intends to build on Russia's restored power by erecting two gigantic new natural gas pipelines into Europe, which already relies on Russia for almost a third of its gas.

Here's where the Achilles Heel comes in. One of these pipelines -- South Stream -- would pass through nations like Bulgaria, Hungary, Serbia and Austria. These are countries in which the U.S. has influence.

If the U.S. wants Russia's attention, persuade these countries and others -- for instance Germany, the main European partner on the second pipeline, called Nord Stream -- to freeze their support for the lines until it's satisfied that Georgia's sovereignty is no longer compromised.

Energy, and specifically Nord Stream and South Stream, are a Russian strength, and a genuine vulnerability.

Anything Goes In Russia: What a President Obama or McCain Should Do

John McCain said it best the other day, quoted by The Washington Post's David Broder: "We have to deal with them, negotiate with them, especially in light of their hoard of petrodollars. But we can't sit by and watch a country murder people in England."

McCain was referring to the 2006 murder of KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko. As you recall, someone slipped a nuclear isotope into Litvinenko's tea at a London hotel, and Britain has filed murder charges against another former Russian intelligent agent who's now a member of the country's Parliament. Moscow refuses to extradite the man, whose name is Andrei Lugovoi.

Much is made of Russia's muscular attitude surrounding its oil. As McCain suggested, the rise of oil prices has given Russian leaders Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev a megaphone abroad -- where the world largely ignored Russia when it was down economically through the 1990s, it now feels almost obligated to give Moscow an ear because of the petro-leverage it exerts, especially in Europe. That the Russians appear again to be pushing a Western oil company out the door -- this time BP -- seems somewhat troubling to the market. But, since other oil companies have had their assets squeezed previously, no one is shocked. It seems more like, Well, there the Russians go again. That reaction is appropriate. But using the leverage of its energy resources for political gain in Europe is another matter.

I am often asked who I think would handle Russia better starting next year -- Obama or McCain. I reply that both would do well. Whether one comes from right of center or left of center, one will reach the same place, which is that Russia is going to pursue interests that are contrary to the West's. That is especially the case in oil.

One thing I learned over again during the last 18 months or so in researching Putin's Labyrinth is that, when Russia pursues its interests, its approach is "anything goes." That is, Russia will go to any length to achieve its aims. That's why, when someone decided to murder Alexander Litvinenko, he or she did not order him pushed off a subway platform or shot with a pistol; it was decided that he would be poisoned with a nuclear isotope.

When the next president is sitting in front of Russian interlocutors, he cannot underestimate Moscow. Because in its view, anything goes.

Labyrinth with The American Entrepreneur

I spoke with Ron Morris -- "The American Entrepreneur." Here is the recording. (Ignore the Moody Blues at the beginning.)

Ripple From Russia: R.I.P. BP?

The stewards of Big Oil have to be watching the latest brawl in Russia with a sense of dread. For their brother, BP, is fighting not merely to save its assets in Russia; it's fighting for its life.

BP itself is rapidly becoming vulnerable as an acquisition target. And for the handful of companies of Big Oil, that's a picture of their own possible future.

For months now, we've been treated to a spectacle of three or four Russian oligarchs making BP miserable. These fellows -- the billionaire oligarchs and BP -- are 50-50 partners in a highly lucrative oil concern that they call TNK-BP. The company accounts for a full quarter of BP's entire global production, and a fifth of its reserves.

The oligarchs want something from the Brits, and the result has been the usual Russian treatment: visits from countless inspectors, summonses to the prosecutor's office, visa trouble.

Yet the TNK-BP dustup no longer has the ring of expropriation as usual.

In the latest development, the concern's BP-appointed CEO, Robert Dudley, fled Russia in secret and is now hiding out in some undisclosed place, prepared, according to BP, to continue running TNK-BP from a distance. I asked a BP adviser why Dudley is behaving so mysteriously. Couldn't he have set up shop like a normal CEO in London? Perhaps this is part of the antagonists' PR war? "I do not know anything about the location except that he is operating as CEO for both [the Russians and BP], and London might not be the most appropriate location," he emailed me in response.

After some three decades of petro-nationalism in the Middle East and elsewhere, Big Oil is accustomed to the puffed-out chest, the boot, and picking up the pieces. It has found a modus vivendi in most cases.

Recall previous bouts of trouble in Russia: In December 2006, Shell responded to a similar onslaught at Sakhalin II -- at the time the world's largest combined oil and natural gas project -- by going to the Kremlin and crying uncle. The response was some advice -- sell half your shares at below-market rates to Gazprom. The result is that Shell, now with 27% of Sakhalin II instead of 55%, is still in business in Russia. And just six months later, BP was forced to sell out entirely from Kovytka, a supergiant natural gas field. BP sold its expulsion publicly as a fair deal, considering that in exchange it was embarking on a worldwide partnership with Gazprom. This partnership was crucial, because BP and the rest of Big Oil is finding it almost impossible to acquire new reserves to replenish what they pump each year; combinations with national energy companies like Gazprom are one way of maintaining one's bulk.

But not so fast. That BP-Gazprom partnership has yet to materialize. Indeed, BP's hopes for this partnership seem not just wishful, but hubristic. Because part of its calculus appeared to be ceding control of TNK-BP to Gazprom, which ostensibly would buy out the oligarchs while leaving BP with a sizeable remaining chunk.

TNK-BP was never a stable grouping, and seems always to have been bound for divorce court. But BP's talks with Gazprom appear to have accelerated the estrangement. The oligarchs seem to have believed that BP planned to sell them out in exchange for a global lifeline from Gazprom.

And, as Yulia Latynina, the respected Russian commentator puts it, the oligarchs responded "in the most brutal manner. They effectively said ..., 'We're the big guys around here.' [What followed] was a shoot-out. The other side shot better."

Here is where the gunfight appears to diverge from Big Oil's prior confrontations in Russia. Previously, the Kremlin has halted the hostilities once a targeted Big Oil company surrenders. But not in this case: BP has made clear that it's prepared to surrender control to one of the state-owned Russian companies, yet that's not been enough.

One is led to the conclusion that control in fact isn't good enough. It looks like Russia may want all of TNK-BP. And it also may not mind Big Oil understanding that, even if the state stands aside in a turf battle, the BPs of the world aren't tough enough to hold their own in Russia's brutal business environment. It may be a warning to all foreigners doing business there.

Richard Gordon, an experienced observer of Russian oil, sees it slightly differently. He told me last week that the Russians want BP to reduce its share considerably -- to 25% or less. At that point, Gordon said, it's up to BP to decide whether it has faith that TNK-BP would be run well enough, and, "if they don't have faith in the company, why remain a partner?"

In The Guardian today, Oppenheimer's Fadel Gheit, one of Wall Street's most seasoned oil analysts, advised BP to get out. "It's a bit like Manchester United losing Ronaldo," Gheit said. "It would take time to recover -- a blow but not fatal."

What happens next? Wall Street would pummel BP's share price were it to lose or leave TNK-BP, which would make the company a highly attractive target for acquisition. In that case, Gheit thinks that ExxonMobil is the only Big Oil company with deep enough pockets to buy BP.

But both Gordon and Gheit think that BP might act first and seek out its own merger partner because, as Gordon put it, it's better to "do a deal than be done to." Gheit told The Guardian that a logical BP partner would be Shell, "with [BP CEO] Tony Hayward running both companies."

Yet why are the Big Oil companies the only perceived merger partners? As Big Oil seeks access to China and the Middle East, wouldn't their national companies and sovereign wealth funds seek equal treatment?

Harvard Business School will no doubt chronicle the brawl as a case for how the game of energy is changing. But Big Oil is observing more closely, because this is its own future.

Photo: lawkeven
Rights: Creative Commons

The British Experience: Oil and Murder

The end game looks near for the British in one of their pair of bouts of brinksmanship with Russia.

The two countries have been circling one another for months over oil and murder -- in one case, over who will control TNK-BP, the rich Russian oil company; and in the second, over whether British citizens can be murdered with impunity, allegedly by Russian visitors.

The latter issue, over the 2006 nuclear poisoning in London of KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko, may never be resolved. But the former question is highly active at the moment. It involves an attempt by a trio of Russian oligarchs to squeeze BP in their highly lucrativem five-year-old TNK-BP oil partnership. Those observing the dustup debate what the objective is, but there's no doubt that matters took a turn against BP today, when Russian bureaucrats barred Robert Dudley, BP-appointed head of TNK-BP, from working in the country. Visa officials are siding so far with the oligarchs, who in their effort to push Dudley out of the company have said his employment contract has expired.

But that's just the beginning. Last week, 16 senior Russian managers at TNK-BP filed suit for alleged discrimination. These are not billionaires -- they would not have done so were they not fairly sure of cover. Either they are certain that the oligarchs are going to emerge triumphant; they were recompensed generously for possibly risking their jobs; or they are certain they cannot be retaliated against. Whatever the case, things generally go bad for the foreign partner in the former Soviet Union as soon as the issues hit the courtroom.

In a story over the weekend by Andrew Kramer at The New York Times, unnamed analysts suggest that we are watching a new tactic in a now-accustomed Russian strategy of exerting state control over the country's prime energy assets. In this case, the article suggests, the Kremlin has effectively directed the oligarchs to do their worst, the aim being a renegotiation of the 2003 deal.

Indeed, according to my own sources in BP, the company has already resigned itself to losing control of TNK-BP; only, it wants to hand over that control to the state, and not to the oligarchs, who it thinks will simply raid the assets, as they did in a previous dustup in the late 1990s.

I think that's true too -- the Russian state at some point soon will take control of the majority of TNK-BP's assets. The questions are what is going on in the meantime, and how much will BP lose? The prevailing wisdom is that the company will keep most of its share. But is that definite? Will the oligarchs be completely out of the arrangement?

While the New York Times piece is interesting, I don't find it ultimately convincing. Over the last eight years of oil nationalism, Vladimir Putin has made a deliberate attempt to make the country appear governable again. Tax inspectors have swooped in, along with environmental bureaucrats, but the objective was clear, and the targeted Big Oil companies knew what it was; once they elected to surrender control, the rest was quite orderly. That's not the case here. And I find it hard to believe that the Kremlin is now going in reverse, and intentionally making Russia look entirely unmanaged by encouraging the oligarchs to run rampant over BP.

A more compelling argument, made earlier on O and G, is that the Kremlin is simply in turmoil and hasn't decided yet which power group will be the winner of assets such as TNK-BP; will it be Gazprom or Rosneft?

Photo: revjim5000

Rights: Creative Commons

Russia's Double Nelson

When the Czech Republic signed a deal this week to host U.S. anti-missile radar, Russia's Dmitri Medvedev said he was "extremely upset." He added, “We will not be hysterical about this, but we will think of retaliatory steps.”

Yesterday the Czechs -- like the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Georgians before them -- learned what that means. The Czechs say that the flow of oil from Russia -- their main supplier -- has suddenly slowed. Instead of about 120,000 barrels of oil a day, the Czechs are receiving about 70,000 barrels a day, and apparently will do so through all of July, according to an Interfax report quoting Euro Online, a Czech publication.

The development undercuts recent efforts by both Medvedev and his predecessor, Vladimir Putin, to assuage the West about Gazprom's growing market power in Europe. Both they and Gazprom chairman Alexei Miller have said that Russia is a reliable partner, and dismissed critics who say the country uses oil as an economic and political lever.

As Andrew Kramer at the New York Times notes, Moscow cut supplies to Ukraine in January 2006 in a dispute over prices, and later in the year stopped shipping oil to Lithuania when it sold an important refinery to a Polish buyer rather than Russia. In addition, Georgia, which has had a long, acrimonious relationship with Moscow -- has suffered numerous cutoffs of natural gas from Gazprom over the years.

This is nothing new. Such cutoffs seemed coincidentally to spring up during the Soviet period too.

Photo: crotchsplay

Rights: Creative Commons

In the Interrogation Room with Gazprom

Police have used the tactic for centuries -- good cop, bad cop. After a few hours of roughing up by a nasty interrogator, a suspect warms to the coffee and banter brought by a seemingly sympathetic officer. Then the suspect throws himself on the mercy of the court.

One sees at least a bit of that strategy in the tandem of Russia's Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. After years of nastiness by Putin, Europeans were feeling warm and fuzzy after Friday's European Union annual summit, where they were treated to Medvedev's good cop approach: "being nice to them," as The New York Times' Stephen Castle described it.

I raise this not because it's surprising -- a lot of us see Medvedev as Putin with a nice face; we shall watch how Europe responds.

But it's interesting in combination with a great example of journalistic initiative (also on Friday) by the Financial Times' Carola Hoyos and Ed Crooks. It was a strong email interview the pair managed to land with Gazprom's gonzo CEO Alexei Miller. The paper devoted space on page one, in which Miller says that Gazprom will eclipse Exxon and become "the most influential [company] in the energy business," and dismisses OPEC as no longer relevant. It ran a second article on page three, in addition to a full transcript on-line, in which Miller expands on what's been a self-evident strategy toward which foreign oil companies get new energy deals in Russia: those willing to help Gazprom in its quest to become "a global player on the energy market."

Miller also defended his recent prediction that world oil prices will hit $250 a barrel.

While Russian energy titans are prone to flights of bloated rhetoric, this is not empty talk. Given its vast stores of natural gas, Gazprom may already be the most important energy player in Europe, and Miller says it is striking new deals ranging from Nigeria to North America. In the U.S., Miller is interested in the talk of new natural gas pipelines in Alaska.

In terms of big geopolitics, Miller predicts outright that South Stream, Russia's weapon to defeat Washington in the natural gas pipeline war in Europe, will definitely be built. In the remote chance that the U.S.-backed Nabucco pipeline is also erected, he says, it will pose no threat to Russia's South Stream.

So O and G readers should look for more, not less, Russian assertiveness in global energy. It will simply be quieter.

Photo: Independentman

Rights: Creative Commons

Guest Column: Khanna Explains The Second World

Today we have the pleasure of helping to launch a terrific new book. It's The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order, by Parag Khanna, director of the Global Governance Initiative at the New America Foundation. I asked Parag to write for the blog today not only because of the quality of his book, but because his travels took him through our turf, and he came away with a different take from my own in some cases, in particular about Gazprom. Without further ado, here is Parag's posting:

Thanks very much to Steve (with whom I share a terrific editor at Random House) for allowing me to post an introductory note on this esteemed blog about my book, which has been released today.

The book covers my travels through about 40 countries to look at their changing and increasingly multi-directional leanings, and focuses on societies that are increasingly divided socially, politically, and economically between haves and have-nots, winners and losers, first- and third-worlders -- hence the "second world." It's a happy coincidence that the countries of interest to O&G readers used to be called the "second world" until the term fell out of use. I spent quite some time in Ukraine, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and the like for my research.

I want to jump into two ongoing debates: Gazprom/Europe and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization/Afghanistan.

Very often Gazprom diplomacy and Russian diplomacy are taken as synonymous, and recently the two have appeared as well-coordinated as Chinese synchronized divers. But we should not forget last year's tiffs with Belarus, and the current bickering in Ukraine, both of which serve as examples of corporate logic undermining diplomatic logic.

Gazprom's demand that Belarus -- Russia's only major ally in the former Soviet Union (alongside perhaps Armenia and Tajikistan) -- pay market prices didn't win it friends other than those who saw bankruptcy and incorporation into a State Union with Russia as desirable. It also woke up EU members to the need to diversify fast.

And in Ukraine, the creation of RusUkrEnergo to continue Gazprom's bullying for constant pay-outs on amounting arrears has only alienated wider segments of Ukraine's leadership. One can only imagine that the population is as well, meaning that future election outcomes may not be as close a split between Russian and Western -leaning sides as has been the case to date. Gazprom logic would care little for such an outcome. But an increasingly Russia-skeptical Ukraine could abandon caution and welcome overtures from NATO more than it has to date -- making Putin's worst fear a reality. Diplomacy is about making friends, while corporations exist to make money. Unless Russia balances the two, oil and glory may not be forever connected.

Furthermore, the argument that Russia has Europe permanently over a barrel on gas supply assumes a long-term Russian stability while ignoring that it is Europe that can invest in diversification over the long term, drawing more oil/gas from North Africa, for example, thus gradually increasing its leverage over Russia.

The other issue is the recent talk of NATO reaching out to China (perhaps via the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, known as SCO, though Russia for obvious historical reasons wants no part in any Afghan operations) to potentially run a Provisional Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan, or run one jointly with other nations, even the U.S. Apparently the offer was made, and China was enthusiastic, but their letter to the State Department is said to have gone unanswered for lack of coordination with NATO or a decision on how exactly to respond. So the U.S. may have dropped the ball. (Any updates/insights on this would be appreciated.)

Across the 'Stans, it's only a matter of time before NATO and SCO mingle ever more closely, and friction possibly occur. Rumors from on the ground (yet again) that the Kyrgyz might demand a shutting of America's Manas base have such maneuvering at their root. So concrete outreach between the two "alliances" beyond mundane briefings in Brussels would be where geopolitics and diplomacy intersect today. That could be quite exciting to watch unfold as NATO stands on the brink of failure in Afghanistan while Chinese and Iranian infrastructure projects -- such as in Tajikistan and Afghanistan -- move forward across the region, eventually allowing the two to connect safely overland.

Will it be the new Great Game or new Silk Road? I predict both: America continues to support political liberalization in the region, meaning some opening to greater cross-border flows, while also hoping to maintain lily-pad like bases across the region. From China's view, it too requires open borders to facilitate its exports while importing energy, and through the SCO sees itself ever more as a contributor to regional stability. Throw in Russia and Europe and you have a recipe for all the intrigue and mystery that characterized both the Silk Road and Great Game eras.

The Why's of Pipeline Politics

One thing highly unlikely to change under Dmitri Medvedev is Moscow's hard-line energy policy. Indeed, one sometimes gets the impression that Russia wants the West to build pipelines that go around it.

As evidence, take a look at two disputes: Chevron's long-frustrated efforts to ship more oil through a pipeline that technically was built exclusively for its use; and Gazprom's cutoff of natural gas today to Ukraine.

The California company is nothing if not patient and persistent. It's hard to believe that its travails with Moscow have gone on for almost two decades, but it was 1989 when the California-based company first laid eyes on the Tengiz oilfield. The western Kazakhstan field, right next to the Caspian, contains 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves or more, a considerable volume in an industry that regards a 1-billion-barrel field as a supergiant. The final contract awarding Chevron 50% of the field was signed in 1993.

Since then, it's been one stumbling block after another from Russia, which has seen it in its interest to keep Tengiz bottled up. It took eight years before a long-planned dedicated pipeline from the field -- known as CPC -- finally was running. But, while CPC has been producing 320,000 barrels of oil a day, Chevron has always seen Tengiz as at minimum a 700,000-barrel-a-day field, and more reasonably capable of 1 million barrels a day of exports. As of later this year, Chevron is ready for a mid-range production increase to 540,000 barrels a day.

Only, that would require an expansion of CPC, and Russia has blocked it. As the years have gone by, Transneft, which does the negotiating for the Kremlin, has seemed always to have a new demand. When that's met, there's been another. This time, it seems to want Chevron and its partners to finance another pipeline -- a line connecting the Black and Mediterranean seas overland from Bulgaria to Greece.

This isn't public, but Transneft is currently circulating a compromise. People who have received the Transneft memo tell me that Russia is willing to allow Chevron and its partners to raise exports through a process called "de-bottlenecking," which basically means getting the kinks out. The companies could modernize existing pumping stations, but add no new ones. Exports would rise from the current 28 million tons a year to around 38 million tons; that's far less than the 67 million tons a year that the companies seek.

There's no word on whether Chevron and its partners will accept -- they have 30 days to answer -- but it seems unlikely they'll reject it. But what is the ultimate impact of Russia's intransigence? Well, what happens when water is blocked from one drain? It seeks an outlet elsewhere. So look for a greater push for a trans-Caspian oil pipeline from Central Asia to Baku.

Meanwhile, Russia's Gazprom today cut off some 35% of its natural gas supplies for Ukraine. It says its neighbor owes some $600 million for exports this year. Ukraine Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko disputes the figures. Given that the accounting books are closed to the public, and are disputed by those to whom they are open, there's no way of knowing for sure.

But, while they talk, both Gazprom and Ukraine say their dispute won't again disrupt supplies to Europe (Europe receives more than 30% of its natural gas from Russia, and most of that flows through Ukraine), as they did in 2006. I wouldn't bet on that. Jitteriness in Europe is Ukraine's best leverage over Gazprom.

That's the point of a current natural gas pipeline competition between Russia and the West. Because of its repeated conflicts with Ukraine and others, Russia wants to build a completely new set of natural gas pipelines to supply Europe. But such deepened reliance on Russia makes Europe and the U.S. nervous. So they have mounted a plan to diversify the European supply by going completely around Russia.

Gazprom's latest cutoff will only redouble the European-U.S. effort.

The End of Big Oil

For those interested in the history and future of Big Oil, I've got a piece in The New Republic this week on how one or two of the companies might survive despite their stubborn resistance to change. TNR is a pay site but if you take a free trial subscription you can read the whole piece, plus a few other items that look interesting this week. Here are the first few paragraphs.


When historians one day dissect the long arc of humankind’s use of fossil fuels, they may very well zero in on October 9, 2006, as a turning point for Big Oil. That’s when it became clear that the major oil companies—the giants that had survived numerous predicted extinctions and gone on to ever-greater profit and influence—were undergoing a tectonic shift and would either reinvent themselves or die. It’s the day Moscow dashed the hopes of five major oil companies from three countries and announced that Russia itself, and not they, would develop the biggest new natural gas field on the planet, an undersea Arctic reservoir called Shtokman.

Shtokman is the oilman’s Angelina Jolie: much-coveted but out of reach. Experts believe it contains the carbon fuel equivalent of 23 billion barrels of oil—that in an industry that considers a field of one billion barrels gigantic. Shtokman alone contains sufficient energy to power all of Europe for several years, and the world’s big oil companies had sought rights to it for years.

In another time, Russia’s declaration that its natural gas behemoth, Gazprom, would develop such a field would have set off peals of laughter among Western oilmen. Gazprom lacked the know-how to keep production at its current fields from declining; how would it manage a technological feat under the deep, icy waters of the Barents Sea? But there was nothing humorous about Russia’s plans. Gazprom knew it wasn’t capable of drilling the field; instead, it planned to hire Big Oil to do so. Big Oil would be its employee.

That notion flew in the face of oil-industry orthodoxy, which says that big potential profits accrue to those who assume big risks. If a company developed an oilfield, it was rewarded with the gold star used by Wall Street to measure oil company value—the rights to “booked reserves,” in industry parlance. Booked reserves consist of how much oil and natural gas a company controls, and thus can sell at some point at, say, $95 per barrel or $260 per 1,000 cubic meters. The Securities and Exchange Commission measures booked reserves, and investors regard them as the main determinant of a company’s fundamental worth. Yet now Gazprom was suggesting stripping the Western oil giants of that incentive—they would be unable to book Shtokman’s natural gas. The industry mood has become even more somber over the last half-year as two European companies—France’s Total and Norway’s StatoilHydro— actually agreed to Russia’s terms.

The truth is that any of the oil majors—with the possible exception of Exxon Mobil—eventually would have. Why? Because oilmen know that, despite recent unprecedented profits—Exxon alone reported a record $11.7 billion in net income for the fourth quarter of 2007—they are on the decline. The combined booked reserves of the world’s biggest five companies have shrunk by almost 20 percent on average since 1999, according to a paper by Rice University’s James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy. Shtokman is a blueprint for how the major oil companies are increasingly being treated around the world. Today, state oil companies and ministries from countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia control somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent of the world’s known oil and natural gas reserves. And, over the next two decades and beyond, those countries are going to ask foreign oil companies to serve as their contract employees in the same way that Gazprom brought on Total and Statoil.

Big Oil, then—the indomitable giant symbolized by the pitiless John D. Rockefeller—is dying. At the very least, it will soon have to fundamentally change the way it does business. But the shock of Shtokman is merely a tremor compared with the coming revolutionary transition to a non- carbon energy economy. Big Oil could transcend its current woes and weather that future revolution—perhaps even lead it—if it reinvented itself as Big Energy, striving to develop renewable power sources like wind and solar, or even to deliver the industry’s holy grail: a clean energy mechanism that renders fossil fuels obsolete. True, no one yet knows what the revolution
will look like; but the odd thing is that, for the most part, the oil companies don’t seem to care.

continued (free trial subscription required)

Another Death in England

England is seeming less and less safe for its multitude of political exiles. The latest death is a colorful Georgian businessman named Badri Patarkatsishvili (whom I will call Badri). British authorities say they expect to finish a post-mortem on the 52-year-old Badri today after he was found dead yesterday of a possible heart attack in the county of Surrey. As is their routine in unexpected deaths, they have handed over the case to their major crimes investigation unit. (Photo by Reuters' David Mdzinarishvili)

Badri’s possible enemies list isn’t short. Just a few short weeks ago, he lost in an election for president of Georgia against Mikheil Saakashvili. He has been charged there with plotting a coup and planning a ``terrorist attack'' on a government official. He denied the charges.

But Badri was best known as the main business partner of Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, who himself lives in England in political exile. That has put both Badri and Berezovsky on a black list in Russia. Both men have been charged with fraud there for allegedly stealing cars in the mid-1990s from AvtoVAZ, a company they controlled.

If the British deem foul play to have been involved, Badri's business dealings would also be in question. In his 2000 book on Berezovsky, American journalist Paul Klebnikov described Badri as Berezovsky's "primary emissary to the traditional underworld."

In a BBC report, Berezovsky said he had seen Badri yesterday. He said that Badri wasn’t sick but did complain about his heart. "I have lost my closest friend," Berezovsky said.

Pipeline War Watch—Russia’s Vladimir Putin has astutely assembled most of the pieces for a Gazprom triumph in its battle with the West to control Europe’s natural gas market, and win the political leverage that goes with it. By appearances, he’s got the main player on board – Turkmenistan, which has all the natural gas. And he also has the main countries along the route of his proposed South Stream pipeline – Bulgaria, Austria and even Serbia.

Now, Putin seems to be moving in to harden the market victory by tying up the second-tier buyers of Turkmen gas, the objective being to completely submerge the West’s comparatively amateurish, rival pipeline plans. The key second-tier buyers of Turkmen gas are Hungary, Slovakia and Poland.

Readers of The Oil and the Glory know that when middlemen show up, deals get murky. That’s the situation with this latest turn in the pipeline war. I’m told that two middleman companies – a Hungarian firm named Millander International, and a shadowy Ukrainian-Russian company called RosUkrEnergo – are working to seal a long-term contract selling Turkmen natural gas to Hungary. The deal would be signed by these two firms, Gazprom, Turkmenistan and Hungary. I am told that it could happen as early as this week.

Currently, no Western oil company has obtained rights to any Turkmen gas fields, so there’s no guaranteed natural gas to feed into the West’s proposed trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines.

Such Gazprom deals mean to keep it that way.

Putin, Utility Bills and Missiles

One still marvels at the notion of the president of a country announcing the successful settlement of a utility bill.

But that’s the way it is in the former Soviet Union, where the failure to pay one’s heating bill is regarded so seriously that the cutoff of service to entire other countries can result. Such as to much of Europe.

With minutes to spare before Russia planned to sever a quarter of the natural gas supply to Ukraine, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Yuri Yushchenko today announced that they had resolved their differences. Ukraine would begin to pay off somewhere over $1 billion in overdue bills to the Russian behemoth Gazprom. So, unlike in Russia's 2006 cutoff of gas to Ukraine, Ukraine's and Europe's winter heat will be spared.

That dialogue between nations at the highest levels can be disrupted over such matters is notable to say the least. It’s even more so when one looks just underneath the surface and finds the interest of a shadowy middleman company that, at least so far, Russia is highly resistant to push out of the picture.

This company, called Rosukrenergo (for Russia-Ukraine Energy company), is the official supplier of Turkmenistan’s natural gas to Ukraine. It’s half-owned by Gazprom and only partly unidentified private Ukrainian businessmen.

Who are these men? One has come forward -- a billionaire named Dmitry Firtash. But neither he nor anyone else will confirm who his partners are. One name that appears frequently is mobster Semyon Mogilevich, who before his recent arrest in Moscow was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, and sought by other countries as well.

It can only be conjectured why actually two layers of middlemen – Gazprom and Rosukrenergo – are required to sell Turkmen gas to Ukraine. It’s also a mystery why Ukraine and Gazprom won’t identify who specifically is controlling – and earning the profit from – half of Ukraine’s natural gas supply.

The mystery is broader because Rosukrenergo also sells Turkmen gas on to Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.

Gazprom has said that, sure, you can cut out Rosukrenergo, but if you do, your gas bill is going to go up. Despite that warning, Yushchenko said today that a committee has been formed to unwind Rosukrenergo’s involvement. He expects it to be completed within a year. Having Putin at his side, he could speak with confidence on the full settlement of this utility issue.

For an excellent backgrounder on this company and its personalities, read pages 49-57 in this 2006 report by Global Witness.

More Missile Diplomacy: In the same news conference, Putin also raised the specter of a fresh missile dispute with the West. He said that, if Ukraine proceeds with the idea of joining NATO, and that if as part of that agreement an anti-missile shield goes up in Ukraine, “This would prompt Russia to take retaliatory action." Specifically, he said that Russia might point its missiles at Ukraine.

I have not heard of a public proposal to make Ukraine a part of the U.S.-proposed missile shield -- which has not yet been proven to work -- but according to a BBC report, Putin said, "I am not only terrified to utter this, it is scary even to think that Russia, in response to a possible deployment of... [parts of the] missile shield in Ukraine... would have to target its offensive rocket systems at Ukraine."

Photo: JeffK
Rights: Creative Commons

Try That in Russia, Exxon

One lesson of recent years in Big Oil is that while most of the industry zigs, Exxon zags.

So it was last week, as the company won attention for court victories that froze some $12 billion in Venezuelan state assets abroad. This involves its dispute with Hugo Chavez over his demand for control over oilfields in the country. Exxon also got a judge to seize hundreds of millions of dollars due to Venezuela in a bond deal.

Is such confrontation wise corporate strategy? The rest of the industry – sitting conspicuously on the sidelines as spectators in this rumble – wants to know, too.

Some analysts have read the news as a warning to all the petro-nationalists out there that Exxon at least won’t be pushed around. And if Exxon is successful, the others might follow suit.

One sign that Exxon’s muscle-flexing is a limited tactic, and not a strategy, however, is its experience with its giant natural gas project in Russia, called Sakhalin-I.

Over the last year, the other big companies working in Russia – Shell, Total, BP – have all caved in to Russia’s demand for a controlling share of their projects. (In Venezuela, too, the other companies involved – Chevron, BP, France’s Total and Norway's Statoil – went along with the state demands and are still operating there)

So far Exxon alone hasn’t been forced to compromise. Specifically, the company is insisting on allegiance to an entirely reasonable contractual clause allowing it to sell Sakhalin’s gas to whomever it wants. It has seemed to want that customer to be China.

Russia’s behemoth Gazprom, however, has other ideas – it wants the gas. And according to a report by Reuters’ Denis Dyomkin, Gazprom at least believes it will get its way. The article quotes Gazprom's deputy head, Alexander Ananenkov, as reporting to Russia’s next president – Gazprom Chairman Dmitri Medvedev – that he expects to sign the deal with Exxon in April or May. In case there was any doubt previously, that means Exxon would be going head-to-head with the Kremlin.

Exxon knows the history of companies going to court to get their way in the former Soviet Union – despite “victories,” they mainly end up empty handed. The FSU states simply don’t honor the courts’ rulings, and leave it to the companies to figure out what to do next.

The distinction is that Russia is not Venezuela, and Vladimir Putin (and probably Medvedev) is not Hugo Chavez. Indeed, Putin and Exxon are fairly similar – both have been disagreeable about being pushed around.

Photo: ynskjen
Rights: Creative Commons

The Shadowy Game of Natural Gas

Russia is again threatening to cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine. It says the reason is accumulated debt on the part of its neighbor. Gazprom, the Kremlin’s stalking horse, says Tuesday morning is the deadline – pay $1.5 billion, or lose a quarter of your supply. Talks are supposed to be going on in Moscow.

No one is opening up his accounting books, so we don’t know the true state of affairs on the two countries’ balance sheet. But there are enough dribs and drabs to get a picture of what’s at least partly going on.

This partial answer is Rosurkenergo. An entirely opaque go-between company – half-owned by Gazprom, and the other half by Ukrainian businessmen – Rosurkenergo buys natural gas from Turkmenistan sells it on to Ukraine.

Ukraine says it will pay off whatever debt it owes if the deal with Rosurkenergo is severed. But last week, a Gazprom official named Ilya Kochevrin told the Financial Times that, if that happens, Ukraine should expect a steep hike in its bill.

That line is probably not straight out of Mario Puzo, but it could be. One might rationally ask why a joint Gazprom-Ukrainian company is more capable of negotiating cheap gas than Gazprom and Ukraine directly.

One thing to note is that it has seemed that the Kremlin is attempting to get a lot of its financial house in order before the ascension of Dmitri Medvedev to the Russian presidency in next month’s elections.

Vladimir Putin, for example, has been peripatetic in his efforts to get Gazprom's pipeline deals with Central Asia and Europe sealed fast.

It’s also been a principal suspicion in the recent arrest of Russian mobster Semyon Mogilevich, an internationally hunted fugitive who lived for years in plain sight in Moscow before Russian authorities miraculously charged him last month with tax evasion. Mogilevich has been linked as a possible shareholder in Rosurkenergo, which if true could mean that his arrest was related to the company, and how and with whom the proceeds are shared.

This is all Kreminology. At the intersection of commerce, crime and geopolitics, such questions in the end get resolved. But what of the collateral victims, such as Europe? Gazprom claims this is just between Russia and Ukraine, and has assured Europe – which receives 80% of its Russian gas through Ukraine – that its supply won’t be affected.

Does anyone really believe that Ukraine won’t pass on the crunch to Europe in order to build up leverage?

Photo: dbking
Rights: Creative Commons