Вот тексты писем, опубликованных The Financial Times. Я сейчас в дороге, поэтому тексты без перевода и без комментариев. Переводы наверняка можно найти.
Uneconomic Russian gas pipelines
Published: February 11 2011
From Mr Mikhail Korchemkin.
Sir, Marcel Kramer, head of the South Stream, believes Russian gas pipeline construction plans are driven by economics (“South Stream chief seeks EU level playing field”, FT.com February 4). He says: “Russia has many projects to spend its money on and would not spend it on a pipeline system that might not be economical.”
This is not correct. Russia does spend money on gas pipelines that are not economical. Gazprom commissioned one in 2007. The official purpose of the Sokhranovka-Oktyabrskaya pipeline (56in, 310km, 80MW compressor station, total cost more than $1bn) was to exclude the transit of Russian gas through Ukrainian territory while transporting it to consumers in southern Russia. Note that Gazprom was paying Ukraine up to $40m of transit fees a year. The operating expenses of the new billion-dollar bypassing pipeline are much higher than that.
East European Gas Analysis,
Malvern, PA, US
Pipeline ensures necessary gas supply
Published: February 17 2011
From Mr Sergei Kuprianov.
Sir, Mikhail Korchemkin (Letters, February 11) questions the economic rationale of Gazprom’s Sokhranovka-Oktyabrskaya pipeline. Mr Korchemkin misses a number of relevant points.
The fact that Gazprom constructed a pipeline that circumvents Ukraine to bring Russian gas to Russian consumers in the south of the country is by no means uneconomic. First, the return on investment is more than convincing – 12 per cent a year. Second, Mr Korchemkin’s suggestion that Gazprom could save money by sticking to a transit system that is not always reliable reflects a rather short-sighted view that disregards the interests of Gazprom’s shareholders and customers.
The gas transit crises in early 2006 and especially in 2009, when Ukraine shut down its transit system, preventing Russian gas from reaching our European customers, made clear how exposed Gazprom – and Europe – were to transit risks in third countries. The three weeks of shutdown in 2009 cost our company $2bn. Ensuring security of gas transit by investing in the diversification of our supply routes, be it through the South Stream project, or the Sokhranovka-Oktyabrskaya pipeline, is not only economically sound, but absolutely necessary.
Finally, following Mr Korchemkin’s logic, the European Union’s political drive to support the construction of new pipelines and interconnectors on the national energy markets would also qualify as “uneconomic”.
I wonder whether he would be equally critical of these multibillion programmes with uncertain economic perspectives and lack of guaranteed supplies?