Dialogue with Greenpeace, continuation …
In August of this year I turned to Greenpeace with questions on their activities. The main theme of my address - why the organization so selectively fights against oil development in the north, attacking only Russia and ignoring the other countries in this question. It should be noted that my request wasn’t ignored and the dialog was entered by the Head of the Energy Department Greenpeace in Russia Vladimir Chuprov, who tried to answer the questions. A few days ago came another response from Vladimir, so it was necessary to wait it for a long time because of my participation in the elections to the city council of the city Murmansk, as Greenpeace feared that our correspondence can somehow affect the results.
Well, we got our first points of agreement:
- Oil is not always good, and even on the contrary,
- Energy efficiency isn't so bad as it seems,
- The Arctic Region and oil spills, oil and fishery are badly compatible things.
- Specific requirements for NSR to prevent tragedies such as the Kola is also good.
Your questions go into the details. It is a pity that they are going in the direction of "foreign agents" and wages in Greenpeace.
In turn on our questions we don't receive responses that looks quite incorrectly (psychological warfare experts would call it "put the enemy in the situation warrants").
As to a question of public campaigns in the field of power efficiency. Of course we work in both directions - the stage of oil production and final consumption. And certainly the principal direction is the second (here our points of view are absolutely same). If you type keywords of "Greenpeace Efficiency" and «Greenpeace Energy» in any searcher, you will find the answer and will dispel your doubts.
And there are good news. Oil consuming in the Old World was stabilized and falls. It is connected with the saturation of the car market, changing of behavioral stereotypes in the USA and more stringent standards for vehicles. Small but growth far is provided by China and other high-growth countries. But there is coming (possible) changes. First of all connected with global crisis and the fall in growth in China.
About fools (why if the Arctic oil is such expensive to the company and the governments are torn to the Arctic region). It probably the most crucial question.
The Arctic oil race is very politicized. It is possible to say that it is based primarily on the initiative of governments (see the appropriate policies of the Arctic countries.) Why are the companies conducted in this race?
First, we won't receive all responses never, and what is behind the decisions of Exxon or Shell in the Arctic region, we hardly don’t know.
But that it is possible to tell precisely. It is impossible to call all companies as "fools".
- The company Cairn has left in 2010 from the shelf of Greenland, not finding commercial reserves of hydrocarbons. The development of expertise costed about half a billion dollars (the cost of exploration in 2010). However, apparently, the company wants to go back to Greenland shelf. But time will judge us.
- The Conoco Philips company has a few years ago left the joint venture with Lukoil after production on Southern Hylyuyuysk field (depreciation of the company's approximately half a billion dollars) failed.
- In July 2012, BP announced that the Liberty project puts to Baffort's see due to economic inability to fulfill the safety requirements for project.
- The output of Stait oil from Shtokman (to the question of how the Norwegians are torn to the Arctic region) - losses are over 300 million dollars.
- One more news from Canada. On September 6, 2012 were announced competition totals in the tender for the lease on the Beaufort Sea oil exploration - about 1 million hectares. As a result, competition for land is the only applicant was a small company, consisting of two persons, registered in a village near Oxford in the UK with a capital of several million dollars. Any large company in the end did not show interest in the area exposed to the oil exploration.
- April, 2012 - the actual failure of one of the largest (correct, maybe the largest) insurer in the world - the Lloyd company - from insurance of oil and gas projects in the Arctic region. And it is a signal to all insurance companies. And insurance is a condition without which the Arctic projects simply can not taken place …
- An unexpected position to the Total company, which has refused oil projects on the Arctic shelf. "We are concerned about the consequences of an oil spill in these areas. Accidents can always happen, even with the best technology, "Monsieur de Viviès, Total's senior vice president, exploration and production northern Europe. "There are many places in the world we can drill, and the Arctic is not a place we want to be. That's why we aren't drilling off Greenland, for example, "concludes Monsieur de Viviès.
And here it is already (in conjunction with Lloyd) seriously.
Another important thing which needs to be known. Cost and profit depend on the level of capitalization - how much are the shares of the company cost in the market. This cost is influenced by in many respects shown stock rate (in our case of oil and gas).
I have no exact assessment, but you can check the impact on the assessment of Exxon access to Kara gas fields. I am sure that in a short period of time (the first years), Exxon has won. In this case, as you know, the timing of the strategic planning of business companies are calculated to the months, at the best the first years.
Also note the difference in the estimates of what will be the investment in the joint venture with Exxon from the exon and politicians (Putin). Total investment to the East-Prinovozemelsky blocks, according to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, could possibly reach as high as $500 billion, though ExxonMobil's officials said that in the near term, it is likely that investments will reach only tens of billions of dollars. (Сramer, Andrew E. (30 August 2011). "Exxon Reaches Arctic Oil Deal With Russians". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 September 2011). Difference on an order.
The important detail - the deal between Rosneft and Exxon was based on the exchange of assets. The best option for hedging of Russian political risk does not come up.
I am more than confident that the Arctic fever will ends in a few years, when it becomes clear already today known fact that before the Arctic oil and gas to wait until at least 2030 (see my first answer). Passions will cool, and we will hear absolutely other rhetoric in exchange to present promotion which creates the myth about infinite inventories of the Arctic oil - " Come and take it."
Moreover, already hear the voices of experts who are beginning to question the whole victorious rhetoric about Arctic oil and gas. According to Statistics Norway (SSB) and Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) staff, extracting these resources will only account for between 8 and 10 percent of global production in 2050. This is despite beliefs the Arctic contains around a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas resources. Extracting oil and gas elsewhere is cheaper. Recovery in the Arctic in the future will only therefore represent a small proportion of the world's oil and gas production, the joint report states.
But in the end as a result of the Arctic epic will benefit:
- service companies and contractors,
- policies (here everything is obvious, and I hope that your choice as future politician will be not in favor of politicians who play the Arctic oil).
Pay attention that I deliberately did not include the population of the oil-producing regions in the list. Experience of Sakhalin, the NAO, the Komi shows that these regions do not get a harmonic prosperity, the maximum that they get are symptoms of the Dutch illness at the regional level
From promises of the oil companies before the start of the project "Sakhalin-2": "Creation of the local gas supply, particularly in the south of Sakhalin, will stop pollution from the combustion of liquid fuels, coal and wood. It is especially important for saving beautiful nature of Sakhalin. Moreover, the excess gas can be exported to obtain hard currency, much of which will be aimed at the development of the region.” " It is necessary to consider the fact that by the early operation of the facilities will be built ports, roads, power lines, stretched bond, built homes. We will also conduct training of the local population to work in the fields.
Plus to everything, there will be growth in the service sector. And, in addition to all this, a lot of money will be credited to you for the right of maintenance of fields. "(source: What is "Shell?", the newspaper Soviet Sakhalin. Oct. 12, 1991. "We hope that the citizens of Sakhalin will support us, we look forward to success." Newspaper Soviet Sakhalin. September 20, 1991.).
And here from the analysis of the situation in Sakhalin after the beginning of oil and gas exploration: According to federal tax system, 95% of all taxes from the sale of gas go to the federal budget, and only 5% go to the regional (as well will be in case of the implementation of "Shtokman" project).
Besides, the region didn't receive any gas preferences, on the contrary – area buys gas for own needs at world market prices and continues to depend on supply of coal. Statistics also showed that during implementation of gas projects on Sakhalin the quantity of average special and higher educational institutions, and also number of students on the island didn't grow, and, on the contrary, was reduced. There is a large gap in wages between employed in the mining industry and workers in other sectors. Regional budget deficit has not disappeared, but has grown - from 5 to 14% by 2011.
According to Korsakov employment center from 4,500 people who have submitted their resumes in organizations involved in the construction of the plant on liquefaction of gas in the city Korsakov in the south Sakhalin in 2004 were hired only 172 people.
(Sources: Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography. N.M.Knipovicha • «What to expect from the Murmansk region Shtokman project?" [Electronic resource]. -14.02.2011. Http://www.pinro.ru / n22/index. php/ru/news/newssmi/188-2011-02-14-02-57-55 Retrieved 4/10/2012, 9 negative impact LNG ("Sakhalin-2") on the community residents of Korsakov and local infrastructure. A group of residents' knowledge - force "[electronic resource]. - December 4, 2004. http://www.sakhalin.environment.ru/search.html?x=4224 Retrieved 04/10/2012)
Of course there is the example of Norway, which gives hope for the weak - "but we will be different, will be in Norwegian."
You as future politician if want to take place in a politics, shall (at least for yourself personally) accurately to realize that in Norway and in Russia in the next 1-2 decades won't be. If you believe that Russia will repeat the Norwegian success and speak publicly about it, you are the dishonest politician.
As for Norway. Here are two of the thesis.
The first - Norway has symptoms of the Dutch illness. An economy distortion in an oil and gas sector, the high prices for everything within the country (despite the fact that the resources - here they are). By the way according to one expert, who should be trusted, this is the reason why the Norwegian oil and gas industry pays taxes partly by barter (construction of the same roads).
Nothing good on what to invest in Norway initially expensive and risky Arctic project isn’t present (the situation is different with the North Sea from the Arctic to the worst). If this continues, the country has all chances to get behind a few decades.
In addition, all the victorious news from Norway should be considered very carefully. The Minister of Energy of the country of fjords Ola Borten Moe amid triumphant achievements of the Norwegian oil and gas industry said: “New areas will be opened up. There is no reason to stop now. Norway’s present boundaries end almost right up at the North Pole.”4
The response to such a strange statement was immediate - Prime Minister of Norway Jens Stoltenberg actually disavowed the statement by the Minister, saying that this is not their current policy. The Government’s policy remains unchanged. The policy is expressed in the petroleum message and administration plan for the Barents Sea - Lofoten, and does not imply oil drilling in the North Pole5.
So be more vigilant when you hear about another Norwegian project in the Arctic region.
The second thesis - the size of our countries. In terms of each citizen of Norway produces about 20 tons of oil. In Russia this index about 4 tons on the person. In this thievish Russian economy and bloated military-industrial complex (both signs are in part a consequence of the scale of the country) are not in favor of Russia in comparison with the Norwegian situation. (I'm not a politician, but as I remember, there is such a relationship - the smaller the country, the better to fight corruption (if there is such desire - to fight against it). The same applies to the MIC - a large country with enormous human potential, territories and resources traditionally doomed to claim for the status of the world power, with all that it implies).
Situation is also mitigates that Statoil (actually called StatoilHydro) is one of the largest generating companies in the renewable energy (hydropower energy of Norway, which provides over 90% of electricity in the country.) By the way here a counter question to you - if we copy the Norwegian experience why we do not take their experience in the renewable energy across the country? Norway will be anyway stimulated to diversify the economy as in due time it made Finland, having left from a role of the world supplier of the wood. While at Norway is where to develop. Not to us certainly to decide, but the country, for example, can become a part of the project on the development of wind power in the region of the North Sea. It is not just a provider of wind power, but as a country that can provide the accumulation of wind and solar energy forexample Germany (through PSP).
Let’s return to our country with a government project in the Arctic. The key question - which will cost investments, which (I'm more than sure, seeing the experience of how to build Sochi 2014 or 2012 APEC) to be used by more than 100%? Whether payback will take place?Which markets will be implemented Arctic oil and gas?
Or we will receive the second (or the third, the fourth...) BAM (actually unnecessary and budgetary wasteful)?
Apparently, we are on the way of the next BAM.
According to Doctor of Geographical Sciences Valery Livshits (St. Petersburg State University), and the candidate of economic sciences Catherine Fedorova (Non-profit partnership "Far Eastern Law Center"): "... By 2018, planned to double the existing capacity the enterprises for gas liquefaction, and mainly focused on the Asian market. At the same time the U.S. in LNG projects go cheap shale gas in Saudi Arabia and Qatar - more expensive raw materials which, however, aren't obviously possible for using in national economy will go. And in this competitive field is going to work "NOVATEK" and "Gazprom", based on hard deposits in the polar regions, the Arctic Ocean, ignoring the danger of large ice channeling methane carriers and tankers, as the apotheosis, requiring all of this tax relief. "
And here is the opinion of the Chairman of the Duma Committee on Energy Grachev (I quote not word-for-word, its short, but shocking performance at conference of institute of Adam Smith "Oil and gas the russian Arctic" in April, 2012): the cost of the Arctic project - $ 1 trillion, show us the markets in which we will return this trillion? answer isn’t present yet.
I suggest you to join us to look for the answer to this question (not in Norway, and not in the data of the Ministry of Justice about Greenpeace), and in the expert community (preferably unaffiliated political clichés about the future of Russia, which lies in the Arctic Ocean).
Partially the response on payback of the Arctic shelf gives recent actual closing of the Shtokman project (transfer for an indefinite term), and also meeting of the government of Russia on August 2 on which the program on mastering of a continental Russian shelf was wrapped.
According to the prime minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev, by 2030 oil production on all shelf (not only Arctic) shall grow by 50 million tons to 66,2 million tons, is planned to increase gas production by 170 cm3 to 230 cm3.
However, in according to the program from the 66 million tons of oil Arctic shelf must provide 13.5 million tons of oil. And here is how the head of Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation Andrey Belousov commented at digit meeting on oil: "Considering that in Russia as a whole about the country we plan to extract about 510 million tons, it means that in 20 years - from 2010 to 2030 - at us the oil production gain at the expense of a shelf will make less than 10 % from volume of extracted resources. It is enormous a little in comparison with those investments - more than 9 trillion rubles - which is planned to enclose there", - he emphasized.
It may be added that the Arctic shelf will provide less than 3% of the current oil production. If oil of all shelf is evaluated as enormously small value how oil of the Arctic shelf shall be evaluated?
The situation with gas is not better: from 170 billion m3 of the shelf gas, planned to produce according to the Program, stopped Shtokman project was to provide about 100 billion m3 (differently the program for gas already half did not take place, at least in the proposed dates.) The Arctic program of gas production on a shelf is based on the 2 large projects – Shtokman and the Kara Sea which in the amount give about 140 billion m3 of gas and provide over 80% of the gas part of the program. That is according to the Program, in case of Shtokman's complete leaving, practically all Arctic shelf from the point of view of gas is a joint project of Rosneft and Ekson. And if it for any reasons doesn't take place, all shelf gas project will fail.
Following the results of meeting the program was sent to completion. According to messages of mass media, Ministry of Economic Development and Trade suggests to finish the draft of the program of investigation and mastering of a continental shelf, having provided higher rates of increase in oil production by 2030.
The truth how to increase that does not exist or it is not clear whether there is it is unclear. The government can actually appear in a situation of search of a black cat in a dark room which there isn't present .
Also I will not be tired to repeat - don't forget a key problem - climate change. Each ruble, krone or dollar enclosed to the Arctic are means which left on aggravation of a problem of climate, including on thawing of the Arctic ices. And it is not 63 million rubles of Russian Greenpeace (by the way, cost of several apartments in the Moscow superheated market of real estate). These are trillion rubles which will make our climate even more unpredictable and unfavorable for our comfortable existence.
Sincerely, Vladimir Chuprov
P.S. Just came news that the holding of the presidential International Arctic Forum in October this year (Salekhard) postponed without explanation indefinitely. I dare to assume that the cooling of the Arctic race started much earlier than I expected. That and to you I wish – to look at the Arctic race and Norwegian-American "successes" more soberly and quietly.
Unfortunately, the answers to all my questions it was not possible to receive, therefore, a lot of things remained unclear. But the fact of dialogue and discussion such important for our country, and the whole world of a subject very much pleases.
- Почасовая неверность
- Рождественскую норвежскую кухню оценили мурманчане и гости города
- "StatoilHydro" столкнулся с проблемами
- "Вас тут не будет!"
- Сделать из туфты "конфетку"