Gazprom’s LNG offensive: a demonstration of monopoly strength or impetus for Russian gas sector reform?

Henderson, James; Moe, Arild

doi:10.1080/14631377.2016.1203206

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, a risk can be viewed as uncertainty and unwanted difficulties that arise due to the operated activity [45]. Therefore, business risk is an opportunity for inaccuracy, meaning that the achieved results shall deviate from the pursued goal [17]. In fact, both internal and external environments of the business enterprise are prompting the risk, and the entire activity of the organization is related to risk and its manifestation [43].…”

Section: The Concept Of Business Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These business risks are a particularly new reality to states, which have only recently opened their energy markets shifting from monopolized and regulated to free supply-demand mechanism-driven market structure and are in the future for Eastern Europe [16]. Here, due to the need of significant input of primary investments and long capital's payback period, the economic experts assumed the energy sector as a natural monopoly to be regulated, in which competitiveness and the entrepreneurial activity and efficiency it stimulates, as well as pressure for the final price of the product and openness of the market, seemed impossible [17,18]. However, lately this attitude is shifting rapidly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research is to distinguish business risks that affect natural gas trading companies operating in the liberalized natural gas market and to assess them according to the potential impact on the aforementioned gas trading companies. To achieve this, a study of international scientific literature and empirical research was conducted, as well as the methods of expert survey, Analytical Hierarchy Process with different measurement scales and logical investigation. The research of the business risks of natural gas trading companies reflected that natural gas trading companies in the liberalized market distinguish in significantly different business risks’ portfolios from those that operate under monopoly conditions. It was also found that it is difficult to evaluate the business risks’ importance for the natural gas trading companies acting in liberalized markets because they characterize in a hierarchical structure, which means that they are prone to cascading effects.

show abstract

Section: The Concept Of Business Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…81 The Shtokman project, which involved establishing a special purpose company, demonstrated how expensive setting up a joint venture that ends in nothing can be. 82 Norwegian deal-making gives the impression of tediousness and complexity, whereas Russia has demonstrated a preference for simplicity in contractual relations. However, such simplicity has not always been advantageous for practical project Unitization of petroleum fields in the Barents Sea: Towards a common understanding?…”

Section: Norwegian and Russian Approaches: Overlaps Or Inconsistencies?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unitization of Petroleum Fields in the Barents Sea: Towards a Common Understanding?

Fjærtoft¹,

Moe²,

Smirnova

et al. 2018

Arctic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The expected discovery of petroleum fields that cross the new boundary between Russia and Norway in the Barents Sea could mean that both parties will lay claim to the same subsoil resources. The Treaty on Maritime Delimitation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean (Barents Treaty) prescribes that such fields should be developed as one unit, governed by a unitization agreement between the two governments and a joint operating agreement between license holders on the respective sides of the border. Norway has more than 40 years' experience from the unitization of cross-border fields in the North Sea with the United Kingdom. Russia's experience with crossboundary petroleum field development is limited to Kazakhstan in the Caspian Sea and onshore, where bilateral resource management has been governed by other principles and institutions. While the Barents Treaty text clearly reflects the Norwegian way of managing offshore fields, it does not preclude the Russian way of doing so. We find reason to believe that both parties will enter negotiations over a cross-boundary field in the Barents Sea believing their understanding reflects the true concept of unitization. Despite objective differences between Norwegian and Russian legislation and practice, there is evidence that the two nations have more in common than not in their underlying principles. Discussions are likely to arise regarding the practicalities of implementing field unitization, and arriving at a common understanding will probably require some time.

show abstract

“…However, despite proposing a number of different projects, including Shtokman in the Barents Sea, Vladivostok LNG on the Pacific coast, and Baltic LNG near St. Petersburg, the company has failed to bring any major LNG development to fruition. Russia's only LNG production comes from the Sakhalin 2 project in the Far East, where Gazprom is a controlling partner but where Shell was the lead operator as the scheme was constructed (Henderson and Moe 2016).…”

Section: Lng As a Driver For Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other analyses have shown light on how changes in Russia's core gas markets in Europe have affected the monopoly exporter Gazprom and also how negative foreign policy developments influence the gas sector (e.g., Henderson and Pirani 2014). Increasing criticism of Gazprom's inefficiency and its inability to expand Russia's role in the global gas market, especially in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) field but also in the key growth market of Asia, have led to calls for reform of the company and the sector as a whole (Henderson and Moe 2016). In particular, the ability of two companies, Novatek and Rosneft, to compete successfully with Gazprom in the domestic market over the past five years has raised the question as to whether they should be given a broader role.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Russia’s gas “Triopoly”: implications of a changing gas sector structure

Henderson

Moe

2017

Eurasian Geography and Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth strategies of the two largest so-called independent Russian gas producers-Novatek and Rosneft-as well as developments in international markets and changing domestic energy needs-have put pressure on the present Russian gas sector model dominated by Gazprom. The three companies are involved in a struggle over export liberalization as well as the conditions in the domestic market. An analysis of the resource base of the two Independents indicates that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is top priority for Novatek and that Rosneft's main gas focus is on eastern Russia and Asia, but there is still room for considerable tension with Gazprom. The government is faced with a dilemma, as it both wants to improve Russia's position in export markets and maintain stable domestic supplies, including to socially disadvantaged regions and institutions. Gazprom is insisting that if further access to export markets is granted to the Independents, then they must take greater responsibility for domestic market obligations, while on the other hand the key Independents seem intent on stopping or slowing down their expansion in the domestic market in order to prioritise export sales, and will certainly not take broader domestic supply responsibilities without better access to export markets. The balancing of policies will be difficult since it involves strong players on the Russian economic and political scene, all with ties to the Kremlin.

show abstract

Gazprom’s LNG offensive: a demonstration of monopoly strength or impetus for Russian gas sector reform?

Cited by 19 publications

References 9 publications

Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic

Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic

Unitization of Petroleum Fields in the Barents Sea: Towards a Common Understanding?

Russia’s gas “Triopoly”: implications of a changing gas sector structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About