For both Nord Streams to work, it is necessary to break the Gazprom monopoly

Gazprom runs the risk of finally losing its monopoly status as an exporter of blue fuel abroad. Earlier, two other large companies, Rosneft and NOVATEK, have already received the right to operate in the LNG market. Now Igor Sechin asks to allow Rosneft, headed by him, to the pipeline system. The media loyal to Alexei Miller's team are shouting "guard", predicting untold calamities for the country if Gazprom's monopoly is destroyed, but is this really so? What is more in this, fears for the fate of the Fatherland or the banal fear of losing the exclusive right to control the "gas-dollar" flow?

Less than two decades ago, there were many different exporters of "blue fuel" in Russia, but in 2006 the authorities passed the Law "On Gas Export", according to which Gazprom received a monopoly. This was motivated by the fact that this is the only way to keep uniform and high gas prices in order to guarantee the receipt of dollar proceeds to the budget. It was also pointed out that the state corporation bears an additional financial burden in the form of the need to ensure gasification of Russian regions. We will go over this issue below, but in general we will note that the creation of an artificial monopoly does not correspond very much to the principles of the "free market" with its "invisible hand" declared by the systemic liberals in the government.



For some reason, no one, except the management of Rosneft and NOVATEK, was puzzled by this apparent contradiction. However, they continued to undermine Gazprom's exclusive position and in 2013 were able to secure the right to export LNG. It should be noted that NOVATEK turned out to be much more agile than the state monopoly and quickly managed to grab a significant share of the liquefied natural gas market both in Southeast Asia and in Europe. Perhaps the success of the private company is due to the fact that its large co-owners are the Russian subsidiary of Deutsche Bank and the French energy company Total.

So, Gazprom is the only exporter of “blue fuel” through the pipeline system. However, the Europeans tried to correct this situation by making amendments to the norms of the EU's Third Energy Package. In accordance with the changes, 50% of the pipeline capacity, including offshore, should be reserved for some other suppliers. It is clear that this was done to ensure the possibility of competition. The unfinished Nord Stream 2, and along with it the first Nord Stream, remained half loaded. This means that the payback periods of projects are shifted to the right at least twice. It is customary to write in the domestic press about this that there is no other alternative supplier for Nord Stream 2 in nature, but this is sheer craftiness, which Igor Sechin recently recalled again. The head of Rosneft made it clear that his company is ready to supply Europe with at least 10 billion cubic meters of gas per year, which will partially solve the problem of filling the idle pipeline. Moreover, Rosneft can supply gas to those consumers with whom Gazprom does not work, that is, expand the sales market.

It would seem that this is the solution, simple and elegant, to allow Rosneft, and then NOVATEK and Lukoil, to the second empty string of both gas pipelines, and that's it, the problem is solved, and Russia will fulfill the antimonopoly requirements of the Third Energy Package. But here lobbyists of "Gazprom" start to work, who pour out some dubious arguments like that it is easier for the state to control financial flows from one corporation than from several. Is this in our age of digitalization and total tax control?

They also say that Gazprom bears the “heavy burden” of gasification of Russian regions. Well, if the state corporation did all this at its own expense, then it really could be pitied, but everyone who faced the need to connect to gas knows that there is no smell of “charity” here. Tell me, who is hindering, in exchange for access to the pipeline system, to oblige Rosneft, NOVATEK and Lukoil to gasify those regions where the hand of our “national heritage” has not reached? And there are many of them in Russia.

Finally, the argument that alternative suppliers will allegedly knock down the price for Gazprom is somewhat “touching”, which will cause the federal budget to receive less foreign exchange earnings. It sounds rather strange, because it is not clear why the management of Rosneft or NOVATEK would voluntarily give up super profits themselves? You haven't heard of such a phenomenon as cartel agreement? Here, of course, we may be objected that the state cannot force private business to do anything. Let's hide a smile and put forward a counterargument: why, in exchange for the right to export, the government of the Russian Federation, represented by its structures, should not increase its share in these companies? Thus, 40% of Rosneft is owned by Rosneftegaz, which is 100% owned by the state, which makes it the largest owner. According to the shares, the income of the oil and gas company is also distributed. If someone for some reason believes that this is not enough to determine the price policies "Rosneft", so bring this share to 51%.

It turns out that the arguments of supporters of Gazprom's export monopoly, to put it mildly, are not entirely consistent. The preservation of the exclusive right to access foreign markets and the construction of pipeline infrastructure is profitable, rather, not for the whole country, but for the management of the state corporation. If, in exchange for access to both Nord Streams, Rosneft and NOVATEK at least gasify remote Russian regions at their own expense, this will already be a great blessing. Isn't competition one of the staples of the market economics, what are the gentlemen of the systemic liberals teaching us? So let them themselves be consistent in their views and actions.