Canadian
Help in Ukraine-Russia Gas Crisis Welcome
By Ihor Ostash,
Printed
in Embassy, January
14, 2009
The
Ukraine-Russia crisis over the transit of natural gas to European markets is
still unresolved, and now the rest of Europe has
been pulled into the dispute.
It has been Ukraine’s
position since President Victor Yushchenko came to power in 2005 that we want
to be a reliable transit partner for both oil and natural gas between Europe and Russia. We
also want to create a fair, transparent and modern international gas transit
system based on Western models, with fixed, long-term agreements with Russia for our
own gas as well as for the proper transit of gas to Europe. We
want to cut out middlemen, such as RusUkrEnergo, who have been siphoning off
billions of dollars from the gas transit system with no benefit or value added
in return.
In 2008, Ukraine was
finally able to achieve three interim agreements in the field of gas. These
agreements envisage a gradual three-year transition to world market prices for
gas and gas transit, as well as the elimination of all intermediaries such as
RusUkrEnergo.
Whereas the Ukrainian side has strictly adhered to the above
agreements, and used them as the basis of its negotiations with Russia,
Gazprom, at the instruction of [Russia’s] Prime Minister, put forward
conditions that contradict the above bilateral agreements, and also contradict
current market conditions in Europe.
While almost all market gas-price formulas quite logically
include an oil price reference constituent, and, as we know, recently oil
prices have dropped significantly, surprisingly Russia proposed gas prices to
Ukraine that were almost triple that of 2008 prices—in contradiction to the
agreements above, which called for the price increase to be phased in over
three years. At the same time, Gazprom has proposed to keep the transit price
for gas through Ukraine’s
territory at the old level—less than half current market prices.
Russia also
raised the issue of the current debt of [Ukraine’s]
Naftogaz to Gazprom for recently purchased gas, and as a precondition, demanded
the immediate payment of the debt before any contract could be concluded for
2009. The Ukrainian side fully paid this debt on Dec. 23, despite the fact that
it was entitled to defer the payment. But this fact did not stop further
stories by the Russian side on this subject—suggesting that another $600
million was owing—nor did it resolve the negotiations for the price of gas for
Ukraine for 2009. Instead, the issue of privatisation of the Ukraine’s
natural gas transmission infrastructure seemed to be of main interest for the
Russian side, which is not acceptable for Ukraine.
As a result of Russia’s
blackmail and bad faith negotiations, gas supplies have been jeopardised not
only to Ukraine, but
to many countries of the European Union. Russia
unilaterally cut off gas to Ukraine on Jan. 1, 2009. Ukraine used
its own domestic and stockpiled gas to continue to guarantee the regular
transit of gas supply through Ukraine to the
EU. But at 7:45 a.m. on
Jan. 6, gas supplies to Ukraine were
stopped by the Russian side, alleging that “Ukraine had
illegally siphoned off Russian gas intended for transit.”
This allegation was completely untrue, but the subsequent
reduction of gas at the Russian border substantially decreased the gas pressure
in the pipelines, making it technically impossible for Ukraine to
provide transit to the EU.
Despite the events of the last weeks, Ukraine has
attempted to continue negotiations with the Russian side in order to resolve
this political brinksmanship in a proper, business-like manner.
Ukraine has
met with representatives of Russia and
the EU, including travelling to Brussels at
various times over [January’s] first eight days, and on Jan. 9 in Moscow,
trying to conclude an agreement with Gazprom. Moreover, Ukraine has
invited the European Union to monitor both such negotiations and the subsequent
fulfillment by the parties of their obligations. Ukraine also
proposed, as an immediate measure, that EU observers physically monitor the
amount of gas coming into Ukraine across
the Russian border, and the amount of gas exiting Ukraine at its
western borders, in order to verify that it is not Ukraine that
is at fault in delivering Europe’s gas
supplies across its territory.
Ukraine would
welcome Canada’s help
in this matter, as a mediator, as an honest broker and a respected
international actor [player].
Ukraine is
also very interested in Canada’s
expertise in the transportation of energy resources and gas pipeline
maintenance. Canada has
some of the largest oil and gas pipelines in the world, operating over great
distances and across international borders, operated without interruption, with
fair transit fees and transparent pricing structures.
It is our hope that this Canadian expertise could be useful
in helping Ukraine not
only to resolve its dispute with Russia, but
also, to establish a fair, transparent and modern international gas transit
system in Ukraine based
on Western best practice models.
His Excellency Ihor Ostash is Ukraine's
Ambassodor to Canada