Interview by Alexey Miller with TV Rossiya 24
Anchorman: The issue raised in The Australian newspaper is discussed all over the world.
For several years now we’ve been threatened by the fact that industrial and vehicle emissions cause the greenhouse effect, which results in the global warming and its horrible consequences, namely: the glaciers melting, an ocean level rise, the cities at risk of coastal flooding such as Amsterdam, Taganrog, London and St. Petersburg. Nobody wanted to listen to the arguments advanced by the Russians, Chinese and Americans who noted that the call for emissions reduction should not harm industrial development.
The Australian’s publication caused a sensation: it says that Radjendra Pachauri, Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the main activist for the fight against the global warming revealed there had been no temperature rise for as long as 17 years.
Moreover, the millions of Russians and Europeans evidence that the past two or three winters were not mild, the snow fell for several days in a row and the frost was heavy. It looks like right were those who suspected some scientists of garbling: the things were said in order to boost the budget subsidies and sales of rather shady (economically) solar batteries, and something under cover of the struggle against emissions. Nevertheless, the future is still with oil, coal, natural gas and peat.
It’s the first link between Australia and Russia, particularly the Vladimir Region producing peat, which has lately been treated as a mankind enemy.
Whether tomorrow is with hydrocarbons, so why did Gazprom commence the Bolivian project these days and ignore the Cyprus offshore offer? What does it evidence?
Firstly, it evidences one important thing that was previously mentioned by Andrey Kostin, President and Chairman of the Management Board of VTB Bank – the offers regarding the offshore development and bases submitted by the Cypriots in Moscow were poorly outlined. Secondly, it contradicts the logic of quite numerous publications by the western reporters.
For instance, according to London-based The Daily Mail, “in case Putin captures the Cyprus, the West will lose the first battle of the new cold war”. Nevertheless, the Londoners themselves commented that it was a paralogism.
If there were any imperialistic intent, we would clutch at both bases and offshore, but we decided just to discount the loan interest for the Cypriots and made sure that the European Commission left alone the Russian bank registered in Cyprus. It’s appeared that the Cyprus challenge turned to be a compromise, and oil and gas have again avoided ‘label sticking’ in Europe, but that were exactly the days to reveal the old sore in Russian-European oil and gas relationships, namely Ukraine.
Ukraine has been supplied with Eastern gas (both Russian and Turkmen) for decades. But presently the Ukrainian authorities, cheered by Russophobes, have declared that the gas had first come to Ukraine from the West. It looks like European ports take Qatar LNG and USA shale gas, which are then supplied to Ukraine via pipelines across Poland and Slovakia. But whose gas is that? Alexey Miller, the Gazprom’s head, clarified the matter in his interview.
Alexey Miller: We’re aware of the reverse gas supplies from the EU to Ukraine, but we suspect that no reverse supplies are supposed; instead they want to use Gazprom’s gas and some virtual reverse source.
Anchorman: Gazprom’s gas comes to Europe and then to Ukraine, doesn’t it?
Alexey Miller: It does, however, it does not simply come, but it’s subject to looping at the border and gas metering station indicates that certain gas volumes are allegedly supplied to Europe in the reverse mode, and such a layout resembles some dodgy designs. It just needs investigation.
Anchorman: How strong does American shale gas influence upon your European supplies strategy? You planned to deliver gas to America for 5 years ahead, but now the USA emerged to be your rival.
Alexey Miller: No, the USA is not our rival. We are very skeptic about shale gas. We don’t face any risks. Firstly, the United States still suffers gas deficiency. Secondly, we aren’t currently aware of any project showing profitability of shale gas wells. Absolutely all wells are unprofitable. It is sometimes treated as a ‘soap bubble’ to burst soon. We have the same technologies as well. Gazprom, for instance, produces gas from the Kuzbass coal beds. The USA is evidently the biggest gas market because it consumes more gas than any other country. According to the experts’ assessments, shale gas production volumes just correspond to natural gas production decline in the United States.
Anchorman: No shale gas supplies of forecasted volumes from the USA to Europe have happened. No Ukrainians’ dreams of reverse supplies of other-than-Gazprom gas from Europe are coming true due to Qatar has shifted its LNG delivery from Europe to more profitable Asia during the last weeks. Have you agreed with Qatar upon the matter?
Alexey Miller: Nothing was agreed with Qatar. It’s a clear market behavior of suppliers and the trend initiated last year. Qatar LNG supplies to the EU reduced by 30 per cent during 2012. As to Ukraine and its dreams of gas purchases somewhere at the European spot-hubs, all these hubs currently feature higher prices than Gazprom’s long-term contracts do. Gas was quoted as high as USD 800 at the British hub last week.