The work of networks: Embedding firms, transport, and the state in the Russian Arctic oil and gas sector

Abstract

The “network” has gained widespread acceptance within economic geography as a metaphor for economic interaction. Consistent with a global production network (GPN) approach, extractive industries are deeply embedded in political structures, physical infrastructure, and environmental conditions. We advocate for a GPN framework that emphasizes the co-operation of multiple, differentiated networks at each stage of a production network. Furthermore, the physical geography of sub-national spaces as well as trans-national spaces linking resources with destination markets imposes critical constraints on the structure and operation of oil and natural-gas extraction. We attempt to move beyond notions of a singular network encompassing all aspects of production by contextualizing extractive activities within the geopolitical economy of Arctic Russia. Our aim is twofold: to develop a more carefully articulated conception of networks based on the different economic principles and political regulation at work within different types of networks, and to show how the Russian Arctic oil and gas sector can only be adequately understood with such a nuanced approach. The Arctic case illustrates well the complex entanglement of the state and political actors in networks of firms and specialized transport systems. We first deconstruct the network concept to establish the economic principles, actors, and spaces that comprise the extractive production network, and then examine the extractive hydrocarbon networks active in Arctic Russia through this analytical lens.

Spatial Differentiation of Variegated Capitalisms: A Comparative Analysis of Russian and Australian Oil and Gas Corporate City Networks

“…Moreover, Russia adapted by reorienting its technological and financial relationships toward the Middle East and Asia seeking a stake in expanding global gas market (Lavrov and Aleksanyan 2017; Visenescu 2018; Vatansever 2020). For example, Novatek continues firming up relations with China, enabling the participation of Chinese major oil and gas corporations in Russia's major LNG projects, although it is the state who plays a major role in determining who participates in energy networks (Stephenson and Agnew 2016).…”

Climatic Responses to Future Trans‐Arctic Shipping

“…In addition to enhancing the risk of oil spills in ice‐covered waters, shipping enables extraction of new Arctic hydrocarbon resources, accelerating warming and delaying the transition toward a low‐carbon energy system. For example, investment in ice‐class carriers is often cited as a prerequisite for further development of Russian Arctic oil, gas, and mineral projects along the Northern Sea Route, such as Yamal LNG and Norilsk Nickel (Orttung & Reisser, ; Stephenson & Agnew, ). As shipping will likely contribute a minor share of the total Arctic aerosol emissions by midcentury (Browse et al, ), BC from such coastal sources may counteract the cooling effect from enhanced clouds.…”

Finland’s Dependence on Russian Energy—Mutually Beneficial Trade Relations or an Energy Security Threat?

“…In the oil sector, the difficulty in brownfield projects is to retain current volumes. In greenfield projects, the development of new projects has slowed down or been postponed due to difficulties in cooperation [95,97], although the use of non-Western technology has helped slightly [98]. It is also worth noting that in addition to sanctions, the Third Energy Package of the EU with the key strategic goal of liberalising the natural gas market has forced Gazprom to unbundle distribution from production [3].…”

“…On the Russian side, they collaborate with the mostly state-owned companies Rosneft, Gazprom, and Rosatom. The Russian state has been cautious with regard to allowing foreign companies to operate in sectors it considers strategic, namely the energy sector [98], but Finnish companies are somewhat of an exception to this. However, there could be a possibility of trade with small enterprises, e.g., in biomass with less political risk, as they are mostly private businesses [99].…”