Alexander Novak: the agreement on the reduction of oil production will be effective, when will it be done 100%

Alexander Novak: the agreement on the reduction of oil production will be effective, when will it be done 100%

Moscow. 16 Feb. The signing of the agreement on the reduction of oil production by 24 countries OPEC and non-OPEC became one of the largest global events in 2016. The head of the energy Ministry of Russia Alexander Novak said in an interview how is the agreement by OPEC and non-OPEC, and to address other problems and challenges oil, gas and energy industry.

– The main result of 2016 was the achievement of agreements on the reduction of oil production from OPEC and non-OPEC. In agreement of the producers – not so much about production cuts, and even about her freezing – difficult to believe, given the difficult history of relations between key participants of the process. What was the most difficult in the negotiations? There were moments when the outcome seemed unattainable? The role of oil diplomacy played Russia?

– I agree with the fact that the agreement OPEC and non-OPEC became one of the most important events of 2016. For the first time in history unified position on oil production were 13 OPEC countries and 11 countries outside the cartel. This became possible only after the price of oil fell to $27 per barrel and investment in the sector after two years of crisis have decreased by about half a trillion dollars. Then the market participants, it became clear that OPEC will not be able to solve the issue.

Economy29 Dec 2016Новак gave a forecast on the price of oil in 2017 Housecat read more

Negotiations did not always go smoothly. As you know, in April because of disagreements within the OPEC countries to reach agreements about the freezing of the extraction failed. For us it was kind of a shock, especially since there was a lot of preliminary work, and at the negotiating table managed to gather participants from 17 countries.

The most difficult thing was to renew negotiations and believe that to make such an agreement is still possible. The situation began to change after the energy Minister of Saudi Arabia has appointed Khalid al-falih, who managed to establish a constructive dialogue. Russia and Saudi Arabia as the two largest oil-producing nation in the world has agreed upon to participate in the agreement on production cuts the maximum number of countries. This work was carried out during August and throughout the autumn of 2016. Russia with several other countries has assumed a coordinating role in the preparation of the agreement, but I wouldn’t specifically name anybody: all countries have contributed to the implementation of the transaction. It was collegial and voluntary decision. Let me just say that without Russia, such a deal probably would not have taken place. Yes, and OPEC is unlikely would decrease without the participation of other oil-producing countries.

– In early February, you said that oil production in Russia in January fell by 117 thousand. How come this figure?

– Figure 117 thousand barrels per day is the average monthly decline in January, according to CDU TEK, which uses a specific methodology and collection of information. In addition, you should take into account the peculiarities of translation into barrels that CDU TEK holds for each Deposit depending on the chemical composition, density of oil and so on. Simple multiplication by a factor of 7.3 to transfer data from tonnes to barrels can not be sure, because the oil in Russia is very different.

– How to decrease daily oil production in February and March? Will it be reduced with the same ahead of schedule, in January?

– When we collected the data of companies that it considered that they can reach the target value of 300 thousand barrels of oil per day at an accelerated pace by the end of April. This will allow in may-June to get the oil as 300 thousand b/d less than in October last year. It was planned that in January, the reduction will be 50 thousand b/d in February and by 100 thousand b/d in March – about 150-200 thousand b/d in April – 200-300 thousand b/d. In fact, in January, the decline was somewhat more than planned of the company. This is due to various factors, including the weather: the first days of winter in many regions of Russia was very cold. However, the company is now keeping that rate of decline, and even slightly increase. I think that in February, the reduction will be more than 100 thousand b/d.

Accordingly, in March, is slightly more than the previously planned reduction of 150 thousand b/d?

– Yes, we expect that there will be more. But to go directly to a reduction of 300 thousand b/C we can not because of the technological features of oil production in Russia. Firstly, winter is the growing production and consumption of gas, but the gas is extracted together with the condensate, which in the statistics is taken into account together with oil production. And it gives a certain growth of oil production. Second, fulfilling an agreement on production cuts, company or close unprofitable wells, or decide to abandon the drilling of new. The effect of the last decision extended time.

– Whether energy rating, how much it may cost the companies closing the wells and other facilities involved with production cuts?

– We are talking about a fraction of the cost, and in case of refusal from drilling of new wells, this may even lead to a small reduction of investment at the same time increasing revenues from existing wells due to rising prices.

– That show the results of the meeting of the Russian monitoring team production, there is a known issue and the pads? What to do with “Bashneft” developing a production in January and “Gazprom oil” which strongly reduced it in January due to bad weather and promising further growth?

– The rate of decline of oil production should be all about the same. Every large company has a lot of its subsidiaries and divisions. We are monitoring the production levels in the holding company. If within the holding company decides that one subsidiary will increase production, and the other to cut – it is a right. Yes, “Bashneft” production is growing, but in General the group of companies Rosneft’s oil production decreases. In January, all of the company executed its plans to reduce production, and many exceeded.

– It is obvious that the company, choosing where to cut production will give preference to fields with not the most favourable tax regime. There is a danger that as a result of budget revenues (abstracting from oil prices, which reduction, of course, affects positively) decline stronger than the decline itself is the prey?

– These are incomparable things. Indeed, if you reduce daily production by 117 thousand barrels of oil, this will lead to a shortfall in budget revenues. But the effect of the price increase is many times higher. Without an agreement on production cuts, the oil price could be $35-40 per barrel, while now it is about $55 per barrel. This difference of $10-15 budget and gives companies a minimum of $110 million of additional income per day. If we translate this into rubles, and projecting for a year, then the budget may receive about 1.5 trillion rubles of additional income, and the company – another 700 billion. And this is without counting the positive effect that had on the oil market negotiations between countries within and outside OPEC in 2016.

– Is there a clear understanding who companies will reduce the supply of oil to the domestic market, and some for export?

– Monitor broken down into import and supply to the domestic market no need. This issue was discussed at the meeting of the monitoring group the Ministers of OPEC and non-OPEC. It is important to look first for oil production, as this is the basis of a proposal of hydrocarbons. The oil itself is not an object of consumption – it is first processed, so each country produces, has a choice in what form to implement the oil – in the form of raw materials or petroleum products.

The decline in production reduces raw material for processing, which ultimately leads to a reduction in the supply of hydrocarbons to the market. So look at the export of only oil, without affecting the processing wrong.

– Have you faced while working in the monitoring Committee so that someone from countries not fulfilling the agreement or nedovolnye your plan to reduce production? Raises concerns from OPEC countries, Libya and Nigeria, which received favorable terms in the transaction, began to significantly increase production?

– Increase of oil production by Libya and Nigeria are not directly associated with the agreement on production cuts. The political situation in these countries is now slightly improved, they have restored the operation of oil and gas fields, production began to grow. We will monitor the situation.

If to speak about the results of the first meeting of the monitoring Committee of 22 January as a whole, according to preliminary data, the country-participants of the agreement have reduced oil production in January relative to October last year, around 1.4 million b/d. production Data of each country in OPEC and non-OPEC, we will analyze in February, the technical Advisory Council. The monitoring Committee in conjunction with the OPEC Secretariat will prepare a report which will be sent to all countries participating in the agreement. I do not exclude that some countries of the cartel may not perform, some to surpass the plan to reduce production. Within OPEC is valid.

Analysts and market experts in one voice say that the execution of agreements on the reduction of oil production to at least 70% would be a positive signal for the market. But we assume that the transaction only be effective when is executed at 100%.

Immediately after reaching an agreement on production cuts, the price of oil topped $55 per barrel. How long can you continue this forward trend? Still, the energy Ministry puts the price point by the end of 2017 the level of $60 per barrel or the Ministry is ready to increase the forecast? Was reduced if the world’s oil reserves in the first months, as the rapidly growing demand for oil?

In my opinion, the price of $55 per barrel that is emerging now on the market, unbiased and balanced relative to the current picture of supply and demand. We see that the excess oil began to leave the market. Moreover, the demand exceeded the supply. Throughout January the price was around the current level with small fluctuations in the 2-3 dollar to the downside or growth. Obviously lower volatility. I think the price we will see during the year, maybe she will grow a bit in the end of the year. That is my prediction has not changed: $55-60 per barrel. But for us it’s not about the price of oil, and the stability, low market volatility, the recovery of the investment attractiveness of the industry, the confidence and comfort of exporters and importers of oil.

– Under what circumstances Russia would support the prolongation of the agreement on production cuts for another six months?

– Now early to speak about it. To understand how will be the balance of supply and demand, the agreement on production cuts should remain in effect for several months. This issue could be discussed in April and may.

– What are the energy Ministry forecasts oil exports in 2017?

– We continue to upgrade the refinery, so our strategy will continue the reduction of the feedstock. The depth of oil refining in the past year grew more rapidly than planned. So, originally, we provided for 2016, the level of depth of oil refining to 75%, and was in fact 79% (according to TSDU TEK). Production of oil in 2017 will be reduced by 8.5 million tons, gasoline and diesel fuel will continue to rise. This means that we are released from processing a portion of the extracted oil, so there may be a small increase in exports. This year exports may reach 265-269 million tonnes (at the end of 2016 254,8 million tons).

– The Ministry of energy has previously noted that the main priority for the industry is to maintain production at current levels. In the last versions of Strategy until 2035 increased production to 550-555 million tons. So which scenario is interesting: production growth or stabilization?

– Save the “shelf” to solve the basic strategic tasks: provision of the internal market, energy, manufactured using our own advanced technologies, and stable export of raw materials and products deep processing. In this case, even preserving the “shelf” is a difficult task. We have a lot of fields in Western Siberia are depleted, the annual production decline in this region is 2-3%. And this decline will continue. To compensate, you need to master the new and challenging regions, go to the shelf, to develop hard-to-recover deposits.

– You mentioned the work on the shelf. How relevant is the question about the possibility of expanding access to the Russian shelf private companies, prescribed in the Strategy? When possible, for whom and on what terms, given the low oil prices?

– Offshore development requires a long-term and large investments. The drilling of one offshore wells can cost $500 million and above, and not the fact that it will indicate the presence of hydrocarbon reserves. Therefore, by selecting which new projects to direct cash flow, consider the shelf at the last turn. Now, given the General decline in investment activity and difficulties in attracting funding, offers of admission of private companies to the Russian shelf was much less.

On the other hand, the shelf for Russia is a promising direction that must be addressed. In the strategy we have described a formulation that allows in the future, if necessary, to return to the question of the admission of private companies to the Russian shelf.

– The crisis in the oil market indicated that the current “patchwork” tax system was very flexible and allowed oil companies safely through the peak of low prices. Maybe this system is a “special tax our way”, and it is not necessary to change the taxation of the additional income (NDD)? What is the current work on the PDM with the Ministry of Finance?

– The main problem that needs to be solved is the creation of economic incentives for the intensification of existing fields. For example, in Western Siberia has field mastered only at a quarter capacity. The remaining reserves are not developed, as under the current system the tax is calculated from tons mined and not from the economic result. Drilling new wells in these fields unprofitable. This plot can give the following benefits, but ultimately, creates a system, which is simply impossible to administer. In addition, the development of the PDM system, the objective was to move away from targeted exemptions on export duties for new fields in Eastern Siberia.

The main risk, according to the Ministry of Finance, is the possibility of overestimation of costs from oil companies that may lead to a reduction of the tax base. But I believe that under the current system of monitoring such costs, this risk is minimal.

– Meanwhile, the oil companies have been slow to submit projects under the pilots for PDM. Earlier, the energy Ministry of Finance planned to calculate the system PDM on projects with a total production of 15 million tons, but until applications are submitted for projects with a production of 7 million tons…

– Participation in the experiment is the choice of each company. Believe me, you can do this experiment on projects with a total production of 7 million tons, the figure does not matter, it is important that it was operating fields in Western Siberia.

The parameters of the new bill about the experiment on introduction of the PDM system between Ministry of energy and Ministry of Finance agreed, including providing them with the choice: to stay in the current tax system or move to PDM.

– That is, with the Ministry of Finance fundamental differences there?

– The Ministry of energy has had a few issues, but at a recent meeting with the Ministry of Finance in all positions, agreements were reached. Now we should Polish off the bill.

– The Ministry of environment took the initiative to provide benefits of mineral extraction tax for gas fields with an oil rim. How do you feel about this idea?

In General, we support this proposal. This is one of the ways to stimulate oil production at gas fields, unprofitable under the current system. In Russia there are many fields, the production potential is quite large. Now together with the Ministry of environment we are working in this direction, including the calculation of the criteria to be classified lightroomo group.

If you managed to Refine the cost calculation to determine the exit point of the projects on the margin of 16.3% for the preservation of privileges on duty? Oil companies proposed to raise the threshold internal rate of return for exemptions on the duty from 16.3% to 18.3 percent, discussed this question?

– In General, the approach to calculating costs to determine the exit point projects on the profitability of 16.3% in the calculation of benefits on the export tariff remains the same, because we consider it economically feasible. But we are a little specified the procedure for calculating the reasonableness of capital and operating costs in order to be able to compare the actual costs of specific companies with the average values. Simultaneously, we determined the order of calculating the average costs and provided the ability to calculate internal rate of return projects, using the actual ratio of bbl difference (conversion rate of crude oil from barrels to metric tonnes in the implementation). This will take into account the real situation with export of oil via pipelines.

A certain threshold internal rate of return 16.3% for the termination of exemptions from duty is sufficient, and its increase is inappropriate.

The government instructed the energy Ministry to elaborate the energy strategy of Russia until 2035 with the development of different variants of the fuel and energy sector, including considering elements of state regulation. What does it mean? In addition, what are the interests of independent gas producers should consider a modified version of the energy Strategy?

– In the sector of gas transportation through gas pipelines and the provision of services for the storage of gas in underground storage used by independent producers of gas, provides for government regulation. Will improve the technique of definition of tariffs for services of UGS in terms of increasing transparency and validity of the calculations, common approaches to all gas suppliers and improve the efficiency of the transmission system.

The energy strategy provides for the preservation of the uniform channel of export of gas network. But if there is a need to accelerate growth and the expansion of pipeline export, the question of the possibility of gas supply by independent producers via the unified export channel will be considered.

– The energy Ministry has prepared a draft waiver regulation of prices of gas for export LNG projects and gas chemistry. Which is focused on this bill, under which projects have been written if he could suggest the possibility of discounts on gas such as he could be in the future?

– Work on this bill has been drafted on behalf of the government and primarily aimed at stimulating the development of petrochemical projects, for example, processing of gas into methanol. The bill will provide an opportunity for resource providers to negotiate with buyers on a fair price for gas. Today, unfortunately, due to the lack of the ability to establish market prices and commercial interest of the suppliers of gas, in particular, many projects remain unfulfilled.

– If to speak about the price of gas in Europe, Poland recently blocked part of capacities of the OPAL gas pipeline, prices in Europe have soared. How critical for Russia this situation, and will the energy to try to take her under his control, conduct negotiations with the Polish colleagues or with the European Commission on this issue?

– Of course, we are in contact with the European Commission and has already discussed this issue with European Commissioner for energy maroš Šefčovič. And the Russian side and the European Commission considered that Poland has no legal grounds to cancel the decision of the German regulator. The Polish side asked for the issue to court, but we believe that all decisions were taken by the German regulators and the European Commission, in line with the European legislation. The European Commission confirms this. Gazprom , for its part, has also filed an application for consideration of this issue in the European court in Luxembourg. In this proceedings the company will defend its interests.

– Has it already been determined the scheme of participation of foreign partners in the financing of the project “Northern stream-2”?

– This issue is being discussed by the companies that plan to participate in the project. All foreign partners have confirmed their interest, and they are now considering funding options.

– As the question of the implementation of gas “Sakhalin-1”? The energy Ministry has determined for themselves which option is more profitable: 3rd place in the framework of the “Sakhalin-2” or the construction of the far Eastern LNG? What are the costs for each of the options?

– Strategically, we are interested in the construction of the third stage of an LNG plant “Sakhalin-2” and in the project “Rosneft” and ExxonMobil’s “far East LNG” aimed at the use of gas “Sakhalin-1”. Currently, the operators of projects “Sakhalin-2 and Sakhalin-1” are negotiating on the terms of gas supplies and its price.

– Does the energy transition proposal “NOVATEK” the four sections of “Gazprom” on Yamal to expand the resource base of future LNG projects?

Is a commercial issue that is solved in the framework of agreements between the two companies. Yamal is the most promising region of gas production, where significant reserves of gas, which can and should be monetized. Therefore, from the perspective of energy, these four fields need to be developed. And given the fact that the region has already created the infrastructure for liquefaction of gas built the port, the works to deepen the Gulf of Ob, etc., using these fields as a resource base for LNG projects may be the most effective. Now we discussed various options, including the establishment of a joint venture “NOVATEK” and “Gazprom”. But I emphasize that all negotiations go in a commercial plane, whether these deposits are sold to the “NOVATEK”, whether will be “Gazprom” to master them yourself if you want to create a joint venture depends on the economic benefits. I hope the companies will find a mutually acceptable, mutually beneficial way.

– You recently held talks in Spain with the participation of heads of NOVATEK, GasNaturalFenosa and Repsol. It is known that Repsol was interested in participation in the Yamal LNG project, but not included. Asked whether the company’s new LNG project of NOVATEK – “Arctic LNG 2”? If GasnaturalFenosa interested in purchasing from your new project?

The project “Arctic LNG 2” is being discussed with companies from many countries: Spain, Japan, China and so on. However, at this stage more important are the negotiations not to participate in the project and for funding it. As for Spanish companies, they are more interested in joint trading, including liquefied natural gas, Yamal LNG. “NOVATEK” is also interesting, as the company intends to expand its scope of activities in sales and distribution of LNG.

The last trilateral talks with Ukraine and EU gas ended on the fact that you gave the Commission a letter about the concerns of the Russian side the decision of the Economic court of Kiev on the penalty to “Gazprom” of $6.6 billion for violation of the Antimonopoly legislation of Ukraine. What was the answer?

We received a response from EU Commissioner for energy, Mr Šefčovič. In the letter, he listened carefully to our objections. He also wrote that it was possible to discuss with the Ukrainian side. In particular, according to Šefčovič, the Ukrainian side assured him that will not take any action with respect to the property of Gazprom, including gas transit through Ukraine to Europe, in the framework of the decisions of this court. We took note of this letter because it indicates a certain position of the European Commission. It is, of course, warms the soul, but it has no legal force. We understand that the decision of the court can be used at any time.

We still insist that this issue should be considered in the Stockholm arbitration court, as stipulated in the contract “Gazprom” and “Naftogaz”. Adopted by the Economic court of Kiev the decision is unprecedented and defies any logical explanation. Gas transportation system of Ukraine belongs to the Ukrainian “Naftogaz”. It was he who in this case is a monopoly, not Gazprom, that acts as a user of these pipelines.

Economics17 January 2017 Gazprom has put Ukraine account for $5.3 billion according to the rule of “take or pay”Read more

– Ukraine in the period of 2016-2017 years, have not bought gas from Russia, but failed due to the reverse supply to pump into its underground storage facilities the gas, which, in fact, is Russian. Russia has some leverage, the tools to stop the reverse flow?

– Of course, everyone understands that we are talking about artificial reverse gas to Ukraine comes not from Austria or Slovakia, and gas station city of Velke kapusany on the Slovak-Ukrainian border, which goes through transit of Russian gas to Europe. Russian gas, Ukraine purchased only through European intermediaries. Moreover, if we analyze the balance of Russian gas supplies to Europe, we can see that its exports to Slovakia and other European countries last year grew by about the same amount, as reduced gas supplies to Ukraine. That is, the balance of Russian exports of preserved.

To legally influence in this process we can not, because the possibility of using gas pipelines in the reverse mode is provided by the European legislation.

But maybe that’s not strictly necessary if Ukraine wants to buy gas at higher price from European mediators, it is more a problem of the Ukraine. In the end, it is consumers overpay for gas, and significantly.

It should also be noted that in Ukraine, gas consumption fell. Previously, the country consumed about 50 billion cubic meters of gas, now about 30-35 billion cubic meters. Therefore, in the Russian balance transfers, a decrease in proportion to the drop in demand in Ukraine.

– Why the negotiations with Belarus to pay for gas in 2016 has stalled? As now is the communication of Russia and Belarus on this issue and what solutions are considered?

Economy28 Jan 2017Белоруссия owed Russia for gas is about $550 menchetti read more

– This problem has arisen due to the fact that Belarus has unilaterally ceased to fully pay for Russian gas, its own way of interpreting the intergovernmental agreement between the governments of the two countries in 2011. According to the Belarusian side, the price of gas should be lower than contract until the end of 2017. Meanwhile, the contract price is calculated according to the formula that was used for many years.

We tried to find compromises all the second half of 2016. The negotiations concerned not only the prices for 2016-2017, it was about the further deliveries for the period up to 2025 when you have created a single gas market of the Eurasian economic Union. The key point of the negotiations is the commitment of Belarus to repay debt for Russian gas deliveries in 2016. This is necessary in order to restore the status quo. I wouldn’t say that the talks have stalled. They are quite active, together with colleagues we continue to look for solutions.

– Is there a clear understanding of how much oil we will supply to Belarus in the second quarter, will also go on a reduced schedule, as in the first quarter?

– While early to speak about the second quarter, as an indicative balance of oil supply is formed in the last month of the previous quarter. The figures for exports for the second quarter will be released in March. Much will depend on the technical capacity of supply and the overall situation on the market.

– What is the status at the moment is the dialogue between Moscow and Ashgabat in the gas sector? Gas purchases and the courts suspended, and it suits everybody? Or is the intention to resume the purchase/delivery and to adjust the contract? What are the conditions for a peaceful settlement of an arbitration dispute? With the payment of compensation, or simply the withdrawal of the suit?

– In August of last year “Gazprom” and “Turkmengaz” agreed on the establishment in the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018 “commercial break” (the absence of mutual obligations on delivery of the Turkmen gas selection), on the suspension of proceedings and waiver of presentation to each other of any claims under the contract.

– What projects in Iran, a claim of “LUKOIL” and “Gazprom” after the first round of negotiations in Iran? And when can a PSA be signed with Russian companies?

– Routine work of our companies with the national Iranian oil company (NIOC). We provide assistance in the framework of the intergovernmental Commission. This is a normal process when companies meet, get information, stipulate the terms of the transaction. “Gazprom Neft” and “Zarubezhneft” has already signed a Memorandum to investigate the possibility of working on several fields. “LUKOIL” and “Rosneft” conduct their negotiations on specific projects.

– Move on to the electric power industry. At the end of last year, the energy Ministry has formulated several payment options TSO shortfall in income at the last mile. Made the solution, how to do it?

– Indeed, this problem exists because in 2013, changes were made to the legislation to eliminate the “last mile”. Of course, in some regions the transition of large customers for a lower rate should have been accompanied by losses of distribution networks. Payment was to be made by reducing costs, increasing efficiency, indexation of tariffs.

In addition, in 2013, it was expected that in the future, electricity consumption will grow. However, this did not happen, the electricity consumption remained at the level of 2013. As a result, the last mile problem exists in 14 regions.

The energy Ministry has prepared proposals as to smooth out the situation, and sent them to the government. In particular, in some regions it is proposed to extend the period of smoothing of the output of “crossroads” at the last mile. Under the law, the period of transition from the “last mile” is three years in some regions five years, according to the regions of the Far East – up to 15 years. We propose to extend the deadlines for the regions of Central Russia, but leaves the far East.

In addition, there is a proposal to prohibit to connect consumers to the networks of “Federal grid company” in order to Orient them to connect to distribution networks. This will allow to increase capacity of distribution networks to reduce the burden on the remaining consumers and to reduce the shortfall in income. There are a number of proposals.

We are trying to solve this question without attraction of means of the Federal budget and, together with consumers looking for internal reserves. The final decision is no, the question is on consideration in the government.

– Is there any solution to offer consumers a unilateral termination of the contract for supply of power under long-term lack of supply after the crash?

Such proposals were received, but we do not support them. To terminate the agreement unilaterally not quite right, since the investor has invested his money. Of course, the company should be penalized for failure to supply power to the market. Such a possibility is stipulated by the contract, although this is not penalties, and reduced payment capacity. According to the regulations of the market, now this decrease reaches 100%. However, to completely abandon the PDM is impossible.

When and where will start the “pilots” on the “alternative boiler house”? When a new mechanism will be extended to the entire country?

– The law regards the possibility of participation in the implementation of a new system of relations in the field of heat supply at the level of municipalities. I think that talking about specific regions we after the enactment of the law. To declare in advance the regions would be wrong, moreover, that interest in this project was expressed by municipalities, not regions as a whole. Such municipal education is in the Krasnoyarsk region, Altai region, Tatarstan and other regions. Now a bill passed by the state Duma in the first reading, considering the amendments for the second reading.

The bill will allow to attract investments, significantly reduce losses and improve efficiency, quality and reliability of heat supply to the population and commercial consumers.

But do we understand it correctly that the first pilot projects could be launched is not this, but next year?

– If the law is passed this year, the municipalities may enter into pilot projects from January 1, 2018.

– When the energy Ministry plans to hold a tender to select a contractor for construction of TPP in Taman? As we plan to optimize the conditions of competition to attract investors?

– We will announce the contest as soon as possible. Overall, the regulatory framework has already been adopted, but the necessary adjustments taking into account additional requirements, including for equipment, for gas supply and the scheme of distribution of power.

– These adjustments make it possible to count on attraction of investors to the project?

– Of course, investors would be interested in participating in the project because it guarantees the return of investment.

– What penalty can pay, “RusHydro” for the delay of the input thermal power plant in the far East?

– The current agreement stipulates that in case of delay of input of objects in operation fined. The amount of the fine will be determined by the government.