« First « Previous Comments 4 - 43 of 171 Next » Last » Search these comments
The circling of the toilet continues:
Ukraine wins battle with Gazprom in contract clash
....
A three-year clash between Russia and Ukraine over the terms of a gas contract signed in 2009 has reached its critical point. In a move marking a major defeat of Russian state-controlled gas monopoly Gazprom, a Stockholm arbitration tribunal ruled in favor of Ukraine's Naftogaz, satisfying its claim to review disadvantageous conditions of the gas deal with Russia.
The arbitration rejected the claim by Gazprom to apply the so-called take-or-pay clause, which stipulates that Naftogaz pay for the annual gas supplies envisaged by the contract even if the company in fact purchased less gas than the contract terms had assumed. Gazprom demanded that Ukraine pay as much as $34.5 billion (30.6 billion euros) under this clause.
...
In a reciprocal move, Naftogaz requested a review of contractual gas prices. According to the agreement, the price Ukraine was paying for the Russian gas was bound to oil prices. As a result, during the years when oil prices were high, the gas price for the country was significantly above that for Gazprom's customers in Europe. In its claim with the court, Naftogaz demanded $18 billion in compensation for this price gap. The company also asked that a ban on re-exporting excess gas volumes stipulated in the gas deal with Russia be lifted. In its decision, the court satisfied these two claims as well.
...
Timothy Ash of BlueBay Asset Management suggested the court might oblige Gazprom to pay a significant award to its Ukrainian partner, "and I can't see Gazprom not paying." Ash also said that the ruling was rebalancing the relationship between Gazprom and its customers.
In a note for investors, Russian bank VTB Capital said the cancellation of the take-or-pay clause "looks like a loss for Gazprom, which tried to defend it as an important part of any long-term gas delivery contract." Its analysts also suggested this might have additional consequences for Gazprom's other contracts with consumers in Europe.
According to Krutikhin, the Russian gas monopoly "will have to acknowledge the existing reality." Ukraine has not been buying Russian gas for more than a year now, relying on reverse gas supplies from Europe, he noted, adding that the country "is managing well without [Russian gas]."
http://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-wins-battle-with-gazprom-in-contract-clash/a-39101679
So what happened? Why is a company with the world’s largest gas reserves, operating in a country bordering China and the European Union – two of the world’s top energy consumers, performing so badly?"
It's something socialists can't understand. The value of a company, oil, gas is determined by the market.
Gassyprom does not innovate. It is dependent on the market only. Just like OPEC.
American innovative giants like Google, Apple, and Amazon rely on the best of what America offers......Capitalism.
Gassyprom does not innovate. It is dependent on the market only. Just like OPEC.
It's even worse: Gazprom is basically an arm of Russian government used for (misguided) political ends.
"Gazprom's defeat had been in fact "pre-programmed" by the company itself, suggested Mikhail Krutikhin, a partner with Moscow consultancy RusEnergy. In an interview with DW, he said that in 70 percent of cases over the last four years, consumers of Russian gas in Europe had succeeded in getting the terms of their contracts with Gazprom reviewed, including requirements envisaged by the take-or-pay clause. In all those cases, the Russian company made concessions in out-of-court settlements. Gazprom, however, demonstrated "an absolute inflexibility" in its deal with Ukraine, Krutikhin said.
Krutikhin believes that Russia's tough position in this case has political reasons: "What was going on in relations between Gazprom and Naftogaz is a purely political situation. Gazprom acted as the Kremlin's political instrument, and not as a normal company."
Yes, this all makes sense. Gazprom is only worth 51B while doing 100B of revenue and paying 6% dividend. Chevron is worth 245B while doing 134B in revenue and paying 4% dividend. How are those companies different again besides being located in different countries?
So sad. Damn Americans........why did they develop fracturing?
Burn million year old carbon quickly,no consequences.
US considering sanctions on Nord Stream 2 firms: report
If Russia hadn't bullied Poland, and others, so much, they wouldn't have to build this pipeline.
If Russia hadn't bullied Poland, and others, so much, they wouldn't have to build this pipeline.
Booger saysIf Russia hadn't bullied Poland, and others, so much, they wouldn't have to build this pipeline.
The idea behind these "bypass" pipelines is to open the door to full-blown attack on Ukraine. As things stand now they can't do it because the transit pipeline would most definitely be blown up in many places thus effectively ending Russian gas exports to Europe.
Because a pipeline in the Baltic can't be attacked???
Russians would not blow up pipeline in Baltic, but provide they have alternative means of gas transport they will blow up pipeline in Ukraine themselves (via their proxies in E. Ukraine).
What's stopping someone from attacking a pipeline in the Baltic?
rd6B saysRussians would not blow up pipeline in Baltic, but provide they have alternative means of gas transport they will blow up pipeline in Ukraine themselves (via their proxies in E. Ukraine).
What's stopping someone from attacking a pipeline in the Baltic?
What does this mean for the Iranian Oil Bourse? Will it still replace the USD in Energy Trades with the CoronaRenMenBi?
Yeah, have been reading about this at ZH for ten years now. Soon, very soon all oil trade will be denominated in [rubles], or [dinars], or [kauri seashells], and US of A economy will die a flaming death.
Gassyprom does not innovate. It is dependent on the market only. Just like OPEC.
« First « Previous Comments 4 - 43 of 171 Next » Last » Search these comments
"
How Russian energy giant Gazprom lost $300bn.
It was not too long ago that Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled energy conglomerate, was one of the Kremlin’s most powerful weapons. But those days now seem like a distant memory. Today, Gazprom is a financial shadow of its former self.
The speed of Gazprom’s decline is breathtaking. At its peak in May 2008, the company’s market capitalisation reached $367bn (£237bn), making it one of world’s most valuable companies, according to a survey compiled by the Financial Times. Only fellow Exxonmobile and PetroChina were worth more. Gazprom’s deputy chair Alexander Medvedev repeatedly predicted that within a decade the Russian energy giant could be worth $1 trillion.
That prediction now seems foolhardy. Since 2008, Gazprom’s value has plummeted. In early August it had a market capitalisation of $51bn – losing more than $300bn. No company among the world’s top 5,000 has suffered a bigger collapse, Bloomberg Business News reported in April 2014, and by the end of the year net income had fallen by an astonishing 86%.
Though share prices have rallied slightly since, indicators suggest Gazprom has further to fall. Lingering uncertainty raises questions about whether it can survive, with production continuing to tumble downward.
So what happened? Why is a company with the world’s largest gas reserves, operating in a country bordering China and the European Union – two of the world’s top energy consumers, performing so badly?"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/07/gazprom-oil-company-share-price-collapse