Russia China Gas Talks Stymied

Russia and China ended 2012 no closer to a gas deal than when they began it.  The two countries continue to squabble over the construction of two natural gas pipelines designed to bring 68 billion cubic meters (bcm)    
to the Middle Kingdom.  The pipelines have been on the drawing boards for over 3 years, and Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that Eastern markets will be a focal point of Russian natural gas development.  Talks fell apart in 2011, however, when China increased its purchases from Turkmenistan.

In late April 2012, Chinese officials signaled optimism that the talks might resume.  Liu Tienan, head of China's National Energy Administration, told reporters China had  a new model for gas cooperation.  He did not specify what the new model was.  "Now all that remains is the question of prices," he said.  Tienan said Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang had presented Moscow with "a completely new model of development of cooperation...and received a positive assessment from the Russian side."  Tienan said both sides were interested in having private corporations from the two countries begin consultations.  Jiang Jiemin, the chairman of China National Petroleum Corporation, sounded upbeat as he explained that most of the key points to a gas deal had been agreed upon.  Putin also sounded conciliatory, "We are looking for compromises and are finding them," he said.  In an op-ed piece he wrote in June for a Chinese newspaper, Putin declared cooperation to be a Russian strategic goal:  "The energy-sector dialogue between our two countries also has a strategic dimension.  Our joint projects have a big impact in shaping the global energy market's entire configuration.  They offer China more reliable and diversified energy supplies for its domestic needs, and offer Russia the chance to open up new export routes to the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region."

According to Li Lifan of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, however, when Germany renounced nuclear energy following the Japanese nuclear accident at Fukushima, Russia believed European demand for its hydrocarbons would increase.  The Russians refused to make compromises on the price question with the Chinese because Russia felt no need.

In June, Gazprom produced a new idea of its own: swapping production fields.  Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said, "Gazprom offered to let the Chinese participate in development of fields on Russian territory on the condition that Gazprom could participate in the development of fields on Chinese territory."  The asset swaps would be factored into the price of Russian gas shipments.  Gazprom CEO Alexander Medvedev said chances for an agreement in 2012 were very good.  "The talks are going on uneasily, but we have an understanding," he said.

In September 2012, Novak again reported progress.  He said Russia was requesting China pay in advance for natural gas from the proposed $14 billion Altai pipeline, up to 40% of the construction costs.  Matthew Hulbert commented that Russia remained unwilling to offer the price discounts the Chinese wanted.  Russia wanted $350-$400 per thousand cubic meters (tcm), while China wants to pay only $200-$250 tcm.

Putin ended the gas year making the same call for Eastern exports that he did at the beginning.  "The priorities should be supplies to the domestic market, our own economy and our enterprises, as well as diversification of markets to account for the prospective Asian segment and means of delivery," he said.

With cooperation between the two countries  uncertain, in September 2011 China signed an agreement with Kazakhstan increasing the capacity of the China Kazakh pipeline by 80% to 25 bcm.  They also signed an agreement to double pipeline capacity with Turkmenistan.  The Turkmen agreement will bring an additional 60 bcm to China by 2015, almost the same amount as the proposed Russian pipelines.  Beijing is also awaiting the completion of the trans-Burma pipeline for another 14 bcm.  Even Uzbekistan's tiny gas production is headed for China.  In May 2012, Tulagan Zhurayev, head of Uzbektransgas, said they were ready to start shipping gas immediately, as soon as some legal issues were settled.  "We haven't started shipping gas yet," he said.  "We pan this year to supply between 2 bcm and 4 bcm.  We have the gas and everything is ready."  The Uzbeks began their gas flows in August.  In short, while the talks stall Russia is losing market share to its competition.

Ukraine's Days Numbered as Natural Gas Conduit

Ukraine continues to argue that repair of its aging pipeline structure is an economical alternative to construction of the more costly South Stream pipeline.  According to Uralsib's Chris Weafer, however, such an alternative is a non-starter from Russia's point of view.  Weafer argues that repairs would continue to deprive Russia of control over the delivery of Russian oil, would remove Russia's ability to extend its economic interests into countries to be serviced by South Stream, and it would provide Central Asian gas a viable alternative transit route to Europe--thereby depriving Gazprom of its Eurasian monopoly. 

Russia could overcome one of these objections if it owned or controlled the pipeline network.  An unidentified Ukrainian  Presidential aide reported that Gazprom had offered $4 billion for the system.  The Ukrainians refused to transfer ownership of the pipelines, however, and various proposals for joint operations remained unconfirmed.  In December, 2011, Kommersant-Ukraine quoted an unnamed official in the Ukrainian Energy and Coal ministry as saying Ukraine and Russia had agreed to form a group to handle the pipelines.  The only real disagreement was that Russia wanted the new unit to be formed bilaterally, while Ukraine was hoping for European participation.  According to Ukrainian Ambassador Viacheslav Kniazhnytsky, however, "I have no information about this kind of consortium.  Besides, Ukrainian legislation doesn't provide for a consortium within which Gazprom can run Ukraine's pipeline."

To force the ownership issue, Russia is trying to use transit pricing as a weapon.  In December 2011, Prime Ministers Putin of Russia and Azarov of Ukraine failed to agree on a Ukrainian-demanded reduction in the price of gas, because Ukraine would not give Gazprom a stake in the pipeline network.  Gazprom CEO said Kyiv was demanding a $9 billion annual reduction in price, while citing the cost of modernization of the network between $3-8 billion.  Kyiv estimated the value of the system as roughly $20 billion, but Miller speculated the value could drop significantly once South Stream had been constructed. 

In reply, Ukraine announced it would reduce the volume of gas it would purchase from Russia from 40 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2011 to 27 bcm in 2012 unless the price came down.  An angry Miller replied that gas sales to Ukraine were on a "take or pay" basis, and the price would be the same (based on 33 bcm per year) regardless of the quantity Ukraine imported.  "We are working strictly in line with the contract, strictly in line with this volume, " Miller told reporters.  Gazprom spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov added, "The time for discussion on contract volumes in the new year has passed.  And, unfortunately, we must remind our Ukrainian friends again that the terms of gas delivery are determined only by contract, and cannot be changed unilaterally by this or that letter."  Kuriyanov believed that time was on the side of the Russians:  "South Stream to full capacity, Nord Stream with additional lines and our existing capacity through Belarus and the Black Sea will reduce Ukraine's importance for transit to zero," he wrote in an email.

Ukraine may have felt pressured to procure a lower gas price because of pressure on its balance of payments position.  Deputy prime minister Serhiy Tigipko said that if the Russians did not agree to a lower price, the country would be forced to raise household gas fees by 30 percent.  Renaissance Capital's Anastasia Golavach explained:  "It is becoming crucially important for Ukraine either to reduce the volumes of the gas it buys or renegotiate the price, otherwise there will be huge pressure on its balance of payments, which are especially strained in the current global environment."  Golavach predicted it was only a matter of time before Ukraine gave in to Russian demands and sold the pipelines.  "The government realizes it's high time to sell the network because Russia has already launched one alternative pipeline and is planning construction of another.  But they won't do it before the elections because the move would be too unpopular domestically."  In the end, the government did not raise the rates.

Ukraine decided to up the ante by exploring alternative sources for its energy needs.  In January 2012, Minister of Energy and Coal Industry Yuriy Boiko told journalists he had entered into negotiations with Turkey for gas shipments via a new route.   There were also reports of plans to purchase LNG from Azerbaijan.  Prime Minister Azarov discussed plans to buy the gas from Germany.  No one addressed how any of these purchases would take place, since there was no direct pipeline connection with any of these countries, and Ukraine lacked a gasification plant if it tried to buy LNG.

In the midst of the controversy, Russia reduced the flow of natural gas to Western Europe because of a spike in domestic demand caused by an abnormally cold winter.  The Kremlin blamed the shortage on the Ukraine, arguing that the transit country was stealing the gas destined for Europe.  Ukraine denied the charges.  (See my blog entries "Kyiv Pulling Away from Moscow" and "Russia-Ukraine Price Dispute" for additional details.)

As Moscow threatened to cease using Ukraine for any gas transport, the European Union weighed in on the side of Ukraine.  EC spokeswoman Marlene Holzner demanded Ukrainian officials develop a plan to maintain their crucial role."The unique geographical location of Ukraine and its gas storage capacities mean that Ukraine can offer increased flexibility of gas supply.  The European Commission is convinced that Ukraine needs to elaborate a long-term strategy to ensure its position as the leading gas transporting country."  To help, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development agreed to a $308 million dollar loan for emergency repairs, but only if the state energy firm Naftogaz agreed to a restructuring.

The Ukrainian parliament agreed to the breakup to the company in March 2012, lifting a previous ban on any reorganization of the company.  The law required, however, that the successor gas companies to be fully state owned--which would prevent Kyiv from selling shares to Gazprom, according to Reuters.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych held out hope for a new gas deal with Russia, but IHS Global Insight analyst Andrew Neff said such a deal "would probably be part of an agreement that would give Gazprom a stake in or control over Ukraine's gas transmission system."  Russia cranked up the pressure, with Gazprom confirming they were redirecting gas to the newly-opened Nord Stream and through Belarus. Gazprom spokesman Kupriyanov e-mailed, "We are at the start of a big move to redistribute gas transit volumes from Ukraine to our Beltransgas unit and new undersea pipelines."  Naftogaz's deputy CEO Vadym Chuprun admitted at the end of March that gas-transit flows to Europe had been halved. 

In April, the Ukrainian National Commission of Energy Regulation announced the gas distribution and storage system would be open to any gas producer, Ukrainian or foreign.  In theory, this removed the monopoly held by Gazprom; in practice, however, without alternative sources of gas, nothing changed. 

Gazprom then agreed to make an advance payment of $2 billion to Naftogaz so the company could purchase sufficient gas to fill its storage facilties.  "If Ukraine needs more money to fill up underground storage facilities in order to live through the next winter without any issues, we will consider providing these additional funds,"  said Gazprom's Miller.  Such actions would indicate that, while the Russians continue to pressure Ukraine by reducing gas flows, they are not abandoning the transit route entirely.  It is unclear that this money was ever received, however; as President Putin in December 2012 said Russian would have filled the system with fueld if Ukraine had agreed to its offer to lease the pipeline network--implying that it had not occured.

In a July meeting with Russin President Putin, Ukrainian President Yanukovich held out a possible compromise:  instead of giving Gazprom ownership rights in the transit network, Ukraine would consider a different Russian request--Ukraine might join a Customs Union with Moscow.  "We are not saying 'No', we are thoroughly and seriously studying these integration processes," he said. 

Such words were not backed up by action, however.  Instead of pulling closer economically to Russia, in August Ukraine passed over the Russian oil company Lukoil in favor of ExxonMobil and Shell for an $8.1 billion project to develop the Skifska hydrocarbon field in the Black Sea.  Prime Minister Azarov expressed confidence that Ukraine could become energy independent.  He predicted domestic gas production would increase 25% over the next three years, and opined that hydrolic fracturing technology could cover all of Ukraine's needs.  (There is an estimated 5.5 trillion cubic meters (tcm) of shale gas in Ukraine, of which 1.18 would be recoverable using current technology).

Boyko announced the country had begun importing gas from Germany, at a price 20 percent cheaper than Gazprom.  He also said there were plans to build an LNG terminal on the Black Sea, to be completed by 2015.  Buying gas from Germany is a reversal of gas flows, which traditionally have been East to West.

Azarov again brought up the possibility of a trilateral consortium (Ukraine, Russia, Europe) as a way to modernize the pipelines, He proposed transferring control of the network to the group, which would then involve all members in the projected 4.5 billion Euro modernization project. The EC's Holzner's response was coy, stating no specific proposals had been presented.  She then offered qualified support to the idea:  "The EU has consistently emphasised that it is up to Ukraine to decide how to manage its gas transmission system and should Ukraine and other parties be willing to move in the direction of a consortium, including the EU gas industry, the European Commission is ready to play a facilitiating role, provided that the application of EU and international law, including as enshrined in the Energy Community Treaty, is guaranteed."

Putin claimed that Russia supported the consortium, and that Ukraine had ultimately rejected t.  "It was a strategic error on the part of Ukraine to turn down an offer by Russia and its European partners to lease its gas pipeline network without breaching the Ukrainian legislation and providing for it to remain Ukrainian property," he said.

In the end, the two countries appear to be in a lose-lose situation.  Ukraine wants to remain the main transit route for Russian gas, but only if Russia will sell gas to that country at rates significantly below those stipulated in the 2009 project.  Russia refused, and Ukraine unilaterally announced a reduction in the amount of Russian gas it would take.  In retribution, Russia reduced the amount of gas it was selling--to the levels Ukraine had previously unilaterally set.  Russia, on the other hand, wants to buy or lease the Ukrainian network, a demand Ukraine has refused.  In the meantime, the valuable transit route continues to age, without sufficient money to effect necessary repairs.

Russia Accelerates Oil Sales to the East

With the December 2012 opening of the second leg of the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline, analysts have begun to focus on Russia's turn to the Pacific Basin--and what it means to Europe.  Russia's interest in its oriental frontier is not new, however;  it was the whole purpose behind building ESPO in the first place.  "We will have a future of accelerated growth when we have two strong legs:  not just one in Europe, but one in Europe and the other in Asia," said Igor Shuvalov, the Russian first deputy prime minister for economic affairs.  Then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in August 2010 said the project created "notable competition" to European deliveries.

The first leg of ESPO began shipping East Siberian oil to the Chinese city of Daqing in January 2011, but the last leg of the Russian pipeline--to the port city of Kozmino on the Pacific Ocean--was delayed.  Oil shipments to the Pacific had to complete the last leg of their journey aboard railroad cars.  In January 2011, however, Russia began sending ESPO oil to the United States when the Trans Alaskan pipeline was shut down after developing a leak.  To make up the shortfall of product to their West Coast refineries, BP contracted the tanker Nelga Spirit to take 100,000 metric tons (700,000 barrels) of oil to the United States.

With the opening of ESPO's Daqing connection, the transfer of oil sales to the East was felt almost immediately in Russia's major oil port, Novorossiysk.  Chris Weafer, chief strategist at UralSib Financial Corporation, said "Investors are shy of Novorossiysk stock right now because there is uncertainty over how long the gap between losing oil and picking up other cargos will last.  Jonathan Kollek, vice president of TNK-BP for sales, trading and logistics, said the Black Sea route would probably bear the brunt of falling crude flows as ESPO came on line.  Elena Sakhnova, a transportation analyst at VTB Capital, predicted that oil volumes at the port would probably decline at a rate of between 3 and 6 percent for a couple of years before stabilizing (presumably at the lower level.)

The pipeline has a tremendous capacity.  Oil exports can be increased from the current level of 15 million tons annually, to 50 million tons.  The total estimated capacity of Russian oil exports to the region is 80 million tons, according to Vladimir Feigin, general director of the Institute of Energy and Finances.  The question becomes, from where will the oil come?  Until now, ESPO oil has come primarily from Rosneft's Vankor oil field, but production there is only expected to increase next year from approximately 80,000 metric tons to 90,000 metric tons.  "It would be quite a challenge for Russia to fill the pipeline.  And some of the east Siberian fields have not been performing as expected,"  said UBS oil expert Julius Walker.

Without easy access to sufficient East Siberian oil, Russia is turning to the West Siberian fields that send oil to Europe.  The Moscow Times reports that a first-quarter loading schedule shows that Russia will cut Europe-bound oil supplies, with the biggest decline (20%) expected at the Baltic port of Ust-Luga.  "There is just enough East Siberian for the existing pipeline," said Sberbank analyst Valery Nesterov.  "But expanding this pipeline further would be impossible without West Siberian oil - and that oil is already meant to go west."  Alfa Bank senior analyst Alexander Kornilov added, "Of course, there is a risk of oil-flow cuts to Europe."  The cuts could be based on economics, or on political considerations as remarks from Transneft CEO Nikolai Tokarev demonstrate."We do not owe a single EU country a thing, and we are certainly not obligated to account for ourselves,"  he said.  "If they want to hold a normal proper conversation, they should change their approach to such a dialogue." 

Tokarev outlined who the main customers for the new oil flow would be, and led off the list with the United States.  "The American market will receive 35 percent of Kozmino oil.  Around 30 percent will go to Japan and 28 percent to China.  The rest will go to Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea."

Tokarev's predictions do not take into account the effect of the fracking revolution in the United States.  Oil production in the United States for the week ending 4 January 2013 is up almost 15 percent over the same time a year ago, and the country met 83% of its energy needs in the first 9 months of 2012 from domestic production, according to the Washington Post.  As a result of the increase in US production, the International Energy Agency is predicting that the US could surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's leading oil producer by 2020.  Should Russia divert its oil shipments to the Pacific, it might find its markets have been flooded already with cheap, American product.



 

TAPI Support Slowly Growing

Turkmengaz, the Turkmenistan state-owned corporation responsible for building the TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) natural gas pipeline, held a series of meetings in September 2012 with potential investors in Singapore, New York and London.  Sakhatmurad Mamedov, the company CEO, announced the project had been "successfully put forward."  At least one oil company, Shell, has begun to review the project, according to Indian sources.  Other companies who have attended the meetings includeCitigroup, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Macquarie Bank, and the US Export Import Bank.

Mamedov believes that TAPI will lead to stability throughout Central Asia.  "The realization of the TAPI project will give an impulse to the development of the countries taking part in the project and will also strengthen stability in the region as well as creating new jobs," he said.

Mamedov's optimism is supported by the United States.  At a conference held in Ashgabat in November, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Lynne Tracy, stated Washington welcomed the progress made on the pipeline.  "The road ahead is long for this projects, but the benefits could be significant and are certainly worthy of the diligence demonstrated by these four countries so far," she said.

Such positive developments has convinced at least one additional country to express interest in joining TAPI, Bangladesh; but no official request has been made, according to Turkmenistan's acting Minister of Oil and Gas Industry and Mineral Resources, Kakageldy Abdullaev.  "There is a request from Bangladesh to join the project," he reported.  "We require official note, which will be considered by all four governments."

Beside the obvious security problem of running a pipeline through war-torn Afghanistan, however, the proposed pipeline continues to face difficulties.  According to an unnamed Indian oil ministry official, global pipeline companies do not want to invest in the project until Turkmenistan changes its rules and allows the companies to buy into the country's onshore oil and gas fields.  According to Pakistan's Minister of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Asim Hussain, Turkmenistan is meeting the demands.  "Turkmenistan has now agreed to have some form of agreement in the upstream side."  This observation was not confirmed, however, by Turkmenistan's Minister of Oil, Kakageldi Babdulayev, who confined his comments to describing discussions as an "ongoing process."

Another difficulty is that the regional energy superpower, Russia, does not support the construction of TAPI.  According to unnamed European diplomats, Russia cannot conceive of a project that lead to gas export to regions other than to its main market, Europe.  As a result, Moscow has not backed TAPI, which the Europeans characterized as a US proposal to check Russian intentions.

TANAP meets EU criteria

In November 2012, the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) opened a representation office in Brussels.  EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger attended the event, and signaled his potential support for the Trans Anatolian Gas Pipeline (TANAP).  Oettinger said the European Commission continued to back the classic Nabucco pipeline through Turkey, but "the TANAP pipeline which SOCAR now promotes may also be able to satisfy the criteria of capacity requirements, dedicated infrastructure, transparency and scalability.  We are therefore eagerly waiting for the necessary agreements to be ratified by both Turkey and Azerbaijan."

The proposed pipeline has undergone several changes since it was originally proposed as a 16 billion cubic meter (bcm) gas pipeline owned 80% by SOCAR and 20% by Turkish operators.  The Azerbaijan state oil fund has agreed to co-finance the project, according to fund chief Shakhmar Movsumov.  Additional funds are being raised by diluting SOCAR's share of the project.  According to SOCAR chief Rovnag Abdullayev, BP and Statoil have each agreed to acquire a 12% share of the project, and Total will purchase 5%.  BP's involvement was confirmed by spokeswoman Tamam Bayatly.  "BP is working with other paraticipants of the project in order to speed up technical and commercial aspects of its implementation," she said.

The project will also have scalability.  According to Gulmira Rzayeva of the Azerbaijani Center for Strategic Studies, the pipeline will be built in three stages.  Each stage will increase the amount of gas that can be carried to European markets.  "It will start with 16 bcm, continue with 20 to 30 bcm and at the end reach 60 bcm.  This is a long-term perspective.  It will also allow for the connection to Central Asian gas."  Rzayeva added that TANAP's headquarters would be in the neutral location of the Netherlands.  This has the possibility of bringing the consortium under the control of the European Union, which would guarantee increased transparency of its operations.

South Stream: Plans Still Premature

Russian President Vladimir Putin travelled to the town of Anapa on the coast of the Black Sea, to participate in the inauguration of the South Stream pipeline.  On December 7, 2012, the first two sections of the long-awaited, multinational, natural gas pipeline were welded together under the gaze of various industry leaders and heads of state.  This fulfilled Putin's December/January directive to Gazprom leader Alexey Miller that the pipeline had to be launched by the end of 2012.  "Today we are attending a very important event, an event that is important not only for Russian energy but for European energy as well," said the Russian President.

Putin's congratulations may be a bit premature.  There are still a number of issues surrounding the proposed pipeline that have yet to be addressed.  The biggest issue, in the middle of the shale gas revolution, is that the pipeline has a capacity that dwarfs any projected European need for Russian gas.  Mikhail Korchemkin, founder and managing director of East European Gas Analysis, noted that once the annual 63 billion cubic meters of South Stream gas is added to Russian current capacity, Gazprom would have the ability to deliver 318 bcm to Europe, twice what the company has promised to Europe by 2020.  "Gazprom has abandoned its guiding principle--sell gas before building expensive infrastructure," he said.   These large infrastructure projects are beginning to pay a toll:  Nordstream is only transporting 30% of its capacity, and Blue Stream is only at 37% of capacity, according to members of the Bulgarian right-wing opposition.

Gazprom currently lacks the supplies to build the pipeline.  According to Jonathan Stern, head of the Natural Gas Research Program at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Gazprom has not yet ordered pipe or organized barges for the pipeline.  He predicts that the offshore section of the pipeline cannot begin until at least 2014.

The gas is being shipped to the European Union, and so the project must meet the demands of the European Commission.  They have not done so, and European Union Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger did not attend the ceremony.  Oettinger had previously referred to the pipeline as a "phantom project."

The Commission has, of course, read in the press that South Stream will pass through the Turkish economic zone in the Black Sea, make landfall in Bulgaria, and then proceed though Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria and Italy.  The reaction from the EC has been telling.  Guenther Oettinger's press spokeswoman Marlena Holzner said, "For the moment we have not seen a plan for South Stream.  We take note of all the media reports but neither our experts nor Commissioner Oettinger have seen a plan where it says South Stream will start here, it will deliver gas to this entry point and it will go exactly following this route and it will deliver gas from Russia.  We have not seen this."  Holzner expanded her comments:  "To the European Commission, it has never been communicated that there is a final route...There is no environmental impact assessment for the whole route.  As far as we can see it, we don't regard this as a final investment decision."  

By 16 February 2013, Russia needs to submit to the EC copies of the intergovernmental agreements it has negotiated with the transit states, and the EC then has nine months to express its concerns.  In addition, before construction can truely get underway each country involved must submit both environmental impact studies, and social impact studies.  Bulgaria, in particular, must submit an environmental impact study on the pipeline's landfall. Countries who are not party to the agreements but who are adjacent to the route also need to weigh in on a transboundary assessment.   Russia appears to be aware of these issues, as the Russian-European Chamber of Commerce President Sergei Shuklin confirmed the 7 December ribbon cutting was only a signal of Russian seriousness about the project.  "Everything will be concluded (according to EU legislation), especially since Russia just became a member of the World Trade Organization."

As of this writing, South Stream consists of two pieces of pipe welded together on Russian soil, with no permission to extend that pipe into European territory.
 

Competing Visions for Turkmen Gas

The legal status of the Caspian Sea continues to divide energy analysts' views on the future of Turkmenistan's gas production.  A senior Turkmen official who refused to be identified by name said the country plans to begin production next year in the Galkynysh (South Iolotan) field, the second largest gas field in the world.  "Right now, three gas-processing plants are being built, and two of them are certain to be ready in January or February," he said.  Such plans again raises the question as to who will buy the oil.  The Turkmen official said the government was holding out for some long-term agreements.  "We would like to receive guarantees on transit and purchase (volumes).  We need to come to a principle agreement on this."

In the West, the United States, Turkey and the European Union appear united that the energy should flow toward the Atlantic.  Patricia Flor, EU representative for Central Asia, urged Turkmenistan "to reach agreement with EU energy companies on a commercial contract."  Such contracts would require the construction of the Trans-Caspian Pipeline (TCP).  Turkey has thrown its support solidly behind this.  On September 3, 2012, Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Taner Yildiz announced that Turkey intended to import and transport Turkmenistan's gas through the proposed TCP and TANAP pipelines.  Turkmenistan President Berdymuhamedov repeated his country's interest in selling to Europe through the TCP.

Russia, however, continues to oppose construction of the TCP.  According to the Russian envoy to the European Union, Vladimir Chizhov, in 2007 the presidents of the five littoral states of the Caspian Sea adopted a binding resolution at the Second Caspian Summit that all major decisions dealing with that body of water would require the consensus of all. The United States disagrees.  Lynne Tracy, deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian Affairs, said that if Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan agree on a pipeline that crosses only their territorial waters, "no other country has veto power over that decision."

Looking at the controversy and other factors, the energy consultants Wood Mackenzie conclude that Turkmen energy will go to China instead of Europe.  In a Reuters report, WoodMac's senior gas supply analyst is quoted as saying "The practicalities of the project are challenging and without any significant progress in the last decade, the proposed pipeline has been overtaken by competing projects....We forecast that China will have around 50 bcm of gas demand in 2020 that needs to be satisfied by additional imports, and Central Asan gas could play a key role in meeting this demand."

China has another advantage that might prevent the TCP from being constructed:  it finances pipelines headed East and there does not appear to be a white knight on the TCP horizon.