Talk:Gazprom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gazprom press release

"GAZPROM" ENDED THE DELIVERIES OF GAS IN THE UKRAINE
Tooday (1.01.2006) starting from 10 am, in connection with the refusal of "Naftogaz Of Ukraine" from the signing of supply agreement of gas in 2006 with "Gazprom", it ended the delivery of gas to the users of the Ukraine. The corresponding warning was officially directed to the Ukrainian side on 31 December, 2005.

Information:

On 31 December, 2005, to Ukrainian side was made proposal preserve the delivery specifications and transit of Russian gas on the territory of the Ukraine in the first quater of 2006 at the level of 2005 (price of gas - 50 dollars. for thousand of cu. m and transit tariff - 1,09 dollars. in 1000 cu. m on 100 km). In this case it was proposed to place to the Ukraine during this period as much gas, it was as necessary to Ukrainian economy. From the second quarter of 2006 had to be used the formula of price, which corresponds to European principles and European tariff on the transport of gas. Signed "Gazprom"; contracts were officially directed to Ukrainian side. However, Ukrainian side rejected these unprecedented comfortable conditions.

CONTROL ACCORDING TO WORK WITH THE MEDIA JOINT STOCK COMPANY OF "GAZPROM"

---

ORYGINAL MESSAGE:

(1.01.2006 15:16) «ГАЗПРОМ» ПРЕКРАТИЛ ПОСТАВКИ ГАЗА НА УКРАИНУ

Сегодня начиная с 10.00 в связи с отказом НАК«Нафтогаз Украины» от подписания контракта на поставку газа в 2006 году, ОАО«Газпром» прекратило поставку газа потребителям Украины. Соответствующее предупреждение было официально направлено украинской стороне 31 декабря 2005 года.

Справка: 31 декабря 2005 года украинской стороне было сделано предложение сохранить условия поставки и транзита российского газа по территории Украины в первомквартале 2006 года на уровне 2005 года (цена газа – 50 долл. за тыс. куб. м и транзитный тариф -- 1,09 долл. за 1000 куб. м на 100 км.). При этом было предложено поставить Украине в этот период столько газа, сколько было необходимо украинской экономике. Со второго квартала 2006 года должны были применяться формула цены, соответствующая европейским принципам и европейский тариф на транспортировку газа. Подписанные «Газпромом» контракты были официально направлены украинской стороне. Однако украинская сторона отвергла эти беспрецедентно комфортные условия.

УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ПО РАБОТЕ СО СМИ ОАО "ГАЗПРОМ"

---

Source of oryginal information: Gazprom.ru added and translated through Babelfish by MonteChristof 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Russia-Ukraine gas struggle

Ukrainian "Naftogaz" refused to sign of supply agreement of gas in 2006 increasing fees. Russian "Gazprom" ended delivery. Politicians, and journalists threets it as a rather political act, kind of punishment for Ukraine for "sailing in the other way - independence" (see: Free Ukraine). "Gazprom" officials claimed that it had purely business reasons for the increase, as Ukraine was buying gas at prices lower than most of the other countries "Gazprom" exported to. "Though gas prices have nearly doubled in Europe in the past five years, Ukraine continued to pay $50 for Russian gas when the net price (the basic market price minus transportation costs) topped $160." RIA Novosti. Vladimir Putin - president of Russia in 2001-2003 has shown his strong influences on "Gazprom". "Gazprom" initially made an offer to sell gas at the price of $160 per 1000 cubic meters, but after Ukranian officials repeatedly refused to sign the agreement, "Gazprom" raised its demands to $230 per 1000 cubic meters in a highly controversial move.

An agreement was finally reached that Ukraine purchases gas from the company called RosUkrEnergo at the rate of $95 per 100 cubic meters, while RosUkrEnergo buys gas at the rate of $230 from Gazprom and at the rate of $50 from the Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan) EEG Analysis.

During few days also European countries, being also receivers of "Gasprom", such as France or Poland steel can feel lower preassure of gas. Some of people comments that as a show of political strenght, that is a warning to the other Europeans governments. --MonteChristof 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Reserves

This article states "...and with reserves of 17,800 km³, it controls 25% of the world's gas reserves." However this source claims that Gazprom controls 28,006 bcm (1 bcn = 1 cubic kilometre) and that it is 15.5% of the total world reserves. --Bjarki 00:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, and your source is credible, too - Gazprom's own press release and data sources. I'll correct it. -- Marcika 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sibneft page merge

I am removing the proposal to merge the Sibneft page into the Gazprom page. No one has come forward on the talk pages to state why it should be merged yet, and in my opinion a separate Sibneft article is perfectly fine to illustrate the history of Sibneft in the 10 years where it existed as an independent company (as it does at the moment). -- Marcika 18:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of comments

I am surprised by the lack of any talk about Gazprom. If the Russian government does own the majority of the company, it can easily use its power for its own doing, making it a political football. Other countries in Europe need this gas, so if they do something that Russia doesn't like, it could possibly cut off supplies to them. Think Ukraine, except for an extended period of time. This could sharply raise the cost of the fuel, damaging the economies of any countries that rely on natural gas over other forms of energy. BirdValiant 04:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

3rd largest company in the world? who's ass did he/she pull that out of?

It's true, see http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HE26Ag01.html and many other sources. Gazprom is now larger than Microsoft. Only ExxonMobil and General Electric have higher market values.Tnapoleao 06:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worlds_largest_companies

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/18/06f2k_The-Forbes-2000_Rank.html

i think i trust forbes more than a hong-kong based tabloid that advertises their senior writers with screenshots of google search results.

No, no, you got it all wrong. We are talking strictly about market capitalization. The Forbes ranking is based on a neat composite for sales, profits, assets, and market value. Read their site carefully. If you don't trust the Hong Kong paper, here you have Germany's leading and most respected magazine to back it:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,432414,00.html

Tnapoleao 14:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization

Uh, Gazprom is #53 in the first list and #7 in the second, as of right now. Maybe volatile statistics like this shouldn't be in the article at all, completely disregarding one's opinion about whether the statistic is meaningful in the first place. And maybe Wikipedia is not a list of ephemeral codes. --70.131.90.151 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BirdValiant,State ownership is 38 % of shares. It s not a majority. ( majority is 50 % + 1 share. a control packet of shares is 75% + 1 share). Learn math, buddy! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.37.150 (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong—you don't need 75% share to control a company. And about the governmental stake in Gazprom, the Russian Government's stake in Gazprom is over 50% through Rosimushchestvo, Rosneftegaz, and Rosgazifikatsiya—all are wholly state-owned holding companies.Beagel (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Help Updating Statistics

At the beginning of the Article it says that Gazprom controls 16% of the World's Gas Reserves. But that stat is outdated. Current amount is 27.5% according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. I would update it but i'm not exactly sure how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.188.64 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we stick to either imperial or SI units? The opening paragraph refers to cubic metres and cubit feet. Markb (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New data needed

As Gazprom gets more and more influential politically, I think it is worth putting some more information about Russia-Belarus and Russia-Georgia gas disputes into the article (or creating separate articles). Besides, we should probably make some reference to the controversial project of Gazprom skyscraper building in St. Petersburg paid from the city budget and write articles about important subsidiaries of Gazprom (Gazfond, Gazprombank etc.) and the members of the Management Committee and the Board of Directors. Any ideas? Colchicum 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Malodorous

It is, in fact, very difficult to form a clear picture of the going-ons described in the article. The overall impression I get is of Enron on crack; an example of massive Russian veniality and political manipulation. Is this a correct impression, or could someone make a fair case that Gazprom is a competent and responsible corporation, but that its scale and diversity make it a naturally hard case study?--Philopedia 02:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is important to remember that Gazprom's employees get a LOT of benefits, including housing, high-tech healthcare and tons of other services. Accordingly, they get payed a LOT more than the average Russian citizen. So I think that is considerably responsible company that cares for its workers, which number about 400,000. And as for competence, I think it is also present. How else would they have managed to keep those profits so high if they were not competent?

All the other articles about oil companies in the Supermajor group include sections on controversies. Why not this one? I find it hard to imagine that the largest Russian company has no bones it its closet. Most of the article seems dedicated to listing every single subsidiary. --The Dark Side 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Listing every single subsidiary of Gazprom is mission impossible. Even Gazprom's shareholders don't have full list as some of subsidiaries (particularly registered in the Virgin Islands) for some reasons are not included in the list. This list of subsidiaries in this article includes mainly subsidiaries related to the oil and gas industry or other significant subsidiaries. All minor stakes in banks, real estate, media etc are excluded.Beagel 05:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Subsidaries

Do we really need that big list? IMO there should be a seperate article 'list of Gazprom subsidaries' and then have this one focus more on the company itself and its....reputation--Josquius 12:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to List of Gazprom's subsidiaries. Beagel 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

SVG logo

there exists one in german part of wiki SVG logo Chamieiniibet 05:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-serving statistic.

As measured by its market capitalization [...]

Why exactly are we measuring by market capitalization, anyway? It does not figure in liabilities, and is generally a naive statistic that is only quoted to make a company appear more valuable than it actually is. It would be more reasonable to measure by total unlevered equity, net tangible assets, book value. That is a realistic metric of a company's worth. The article is speaking of "size" as if it means something here, even metaphorically. But it doesn't. I'm confused why it's in the article at all, really. Gazprom is a nationalized corporation, essentially an arm of the Russian government. There is no such thing as a free market if the government is allowed to be a shareholder. --70.131.90.151 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because market capitalisation is the best measure for what you call 'total unlevered equity' - I.e. what the 100% of the shares of the company would sell for in an arms-length transaction. Market cap would be irrelevant if a company would be 100% family-owned or 100% state-owned; but since state ownership is not 100%, market cap is the bast way to state the value of a company in monetary terms. -- Marcika (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gazprombank

I don't quite understand this. In the Shareholders section it says that Gazprombank owns 41% of the shares. But on the GazpromBank article it says Gazprom is the parent company and controls at least 63% of Gazprombank. So, who controls who? --74.56.172.169 (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gazprombank is just a nominee holder means it's keeping shares(as an account) and introducing bank services for owner and stocks. 87.224.249.18 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article includes lot of information, but it is not sure if all of this belongs here. By my understanding, it needs a cleanup. Also some information needs an update. Beagel (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

removal

Removed "it is the largest oil and gas company in the world" statement was unsourced and also unclear (ie, largest by total holdings? total revenue? etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nigaz

There should be mention of Gazprom's new venture with Nigeria "Nigaz". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8118721.stm --Conor Fallon (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What information is missing?

Any comments about my recent edits? What information do you think we should add next? Offliner (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In Russia, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the pending construction of a Gazprom corporate tower in St. Petersburg, which will ruin the skyline of the city.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2007/gb20070925_345436.htm "The new Gazprom building, as designed, will be a twisting 396-meter tower, no less than eight times as high as the current official limit for new buildings in the city's beautifully proportioned historic center." -Businessweek http://www.rferl.org/content/Skyscraper_Plans_In_St_Petersburg_Spark_Controversy/1848502.html http://www.cisoilgas.com/news/gazprom-headquarters/ http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-09-23/gazprom-tower-skyscraper-controversy.html

The history section

The history section looks quite messy at the moment. Does anyone object if I try to do a major rewrite and summarize the contents? Offliner (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article should focus on the present

I think the article should focus more on the present day company instead of its history. We should move the "history" section down and begin with the "operations", "market capitalization", etc. sections. We should also add more info about reserves and production, and create tables out of that info. What do you think? Offliner (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The history section is what makes this topic so highly interesting. Keep it there please and even expand it. Cvnunavik

I'm not saying that we should remove anything from the history section. What I mean is that we should expand the material about the firm's current state and operations. For example, I think it would be very interesting (both regarding the company and in a geographical perspective) to have detailed info of Gazprom's production from various fields. We should also place the current material such as "operations" first in the article (the history chapter should come after that.) Offliner (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The usual practice is, that the history section is the first section after lead, followed by operations etc sections. Of course, there are exceptions. Beagel (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of that practice at all, and I don't think we should apply it here, especially since the history section in this article is so huge. Information about the present day is the most important, and I believe this is what most readers are looking for here. Therefore it should come first. Offliner (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wrote that history section back in 2005, and I tried to include as much information about the "present" as it was known then into the article -- of course what was "present day" back then is now just the next paragraph in the history section -- that's the way things happen. - Marcika (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

European Commission-related resource?

Russia's Gazprom Defends Pacts, Hits Raids by EU in 29.september.2011 WSJ (page B4) by Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen, Subsidiaries. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OAO placement

Should OAO come before or after Gazprom? There seems to be an inconsistency between the prose and the infobox. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Fracking position

Surely there should be some coverage of Gazprom campaign against frackin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.52.71 (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What is Gazprom doing in sustainability engineering?

I would like the major fossil fuel company articles to indicate how they intend to transition to carbon-neutral fuels such as this work and "power to gas." I need to know whether they support emerging chemical engineering research such as catalysts for carbon-neutral transportation fuels, whether they are working on compressed air energy storage such as [1] and [2], airborne wind turbines such as [3], and on extracting carbon from seawater such as this PARC method in order to solve their long-term corporate viability issues. I do not believe it is possible to have a truly balanced article on a fossil fuel company without some indication of their long term prospects. Tim AFS (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I also need to know whether they are developing electrical grid energy storage in their existing expended oil and gas caverns along with mineshafts and mines for pumped-storage hydroelectricity where ordinary hydroelectric power is unavailable. Tim AFS (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

Maaş beklentisi mülakatta belirlenecektir. 500ytl+SSK+servis yada dolmuş parası+öğle yemeği a:m:8:00 p:m=17:00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.63.10 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)