By Vladimir Socor
According
to Yildiz, the price of Russian gas has risen by 39 percent in the last 29
months, apparently driven by the link to the world price for oil in the
Gazprom-Botas contracts. For Turkey, a price cut it is not a matter of
“saving,” but of containing losses. Turkish Prime Minister, Regep Tayyp
Erdogan, raised this issue with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin during Erdogan’s latest Moscow visit in March of this year.
The Russian side did not budge, however.
Immediately
at stake after Yildiz’s warning is the delivery of 6 bcm of Russian gas per
year to Turkey through the “Western pipeline,” which enters Turkey from its
Balkan neighbors. This contract between Gazprom and Botas, dating back to 1986,
runs out in December 2011. Moscow wants to renew the contract, with minimal
re-negotiation. The Turkish government will allow the contract to expire and
seek other solutions, unless the Russian side makes a better offer. Ankara is
prepared to remove the state-owned Botas from these negotiations, and invite
several Turkish private companies to take over any new contract for Russian
supplies through the Western pipeline.
Ankara
apparently feels that it holds some negotiating leeway, despite Russia’s
overwhelming dominance in the Turkish market. This leeway might prove effective
in the short term. Turkey is potentially oversupplied with gas under multiple
contracts that, in the aggregate, exceed Turkey’s current demand. This explains
Yildiz’s confidence that Turkey would not experience a gas deficit, in the
event of a [temporary] halt in Russian supplies through the Western pipeline.
The Turkish economy and consumers would not be affected in that event
(EurActiv, Anatolia news agency, September 29).
Turkey is currently committed to importing 30
billion cubic meters (bcm) of Russian gas per year, under several long-term
contracts. Most of that amount is covered by take-or-pay guarantees to Gazprom
(importer’s obligation to pay for the full contracted volume, even if the
importer does not take the full volume on offer) and by the gas price-oil price
indexation. According to Gazprom, it only sold 18 bcm of gas to Turkey in 2010.
Turkey intends in 2011 to take delivery of at least 75 percent [23 bcm] from the
contracted volume, so as to avoid take-or-pay penalties (EurActiv, September
29).
On
top of Russian supplies, Turkey currently imports 6.6 bcm per year from
Azerbaijan, and can choose to import some 10 bcm annually from Iran through the
existing pipeline. Additionally, Turkey imports 4 bcm from Algeria and 1.2 bcm
from Nigeria via LNG shipments (Mert Bilgin, “Energy and Turkey’s Foreign
Policy: State Strategy, Regional Cooperation, and Private Sector Involvement,”
Turkish Policy Quarterly, September 2011).
Thus,
Ankara might negotiate effectively with Russia in the short term; and provided
that it isolates negotiations over that 6 bcm contract from the other contracts
with Gazprom. For example, Moscow and Ankara are considering an increase in
supplies through the Blue Stream pipeline, on the seabed of the Black Sea. Blue
Stream currently operates at 8 bcm annually, which is one half of its design
capacity.
Turkey’s
overall supply picture may allow some tactical flexibility vis-à-vis Russia,
but little if any strategic leeway. Turkey is Russia’s second-largest gas
customer in terms of volume (after Germany), and the biggest customer in
proportionate terms at 64 percent of the national gas consumption. Thus,
overdependence on Russia remains a long-term challenge to Turkey.
Gazprom
seems willing to negotiate for some adjustment to the contract terms, ahead of
the December expiry. Russian Gas Society president Valery Yazev (who is also a
vice-chairman of the Duma, and dubbed “Gazprom’s chief lobbyist”) predicts that
“we will bargain, and the contract will be signed.” In the same breath,
however, Yazev portrays Turkey as an unreliable partner for seeking to change
contract terms, and he warns the European Union against relying on Turkey as a
transit country for energy supplies (Interfax, September 29). The two
situations are hardly comparable, however. Yazev’s reaction resembles Russian
attempts to discredit Ukraine as a transit country.
This report was published in Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume: 8,
Issue: 180, 30/09/2011
No comments:
Post a Comment