{
"authors": [
"Mikhail Krutikhin"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"East Asia",
"China",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade",
"Climate Change",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
The secretive nature of the gas agreement between Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corp may show that the contract contains something the Russian negotiators could not be proud of in the limelight of Russian public opinion.
Russian negotiators certainly made a very big concession to their Chinese counterparts when they announced on May 21, more than ten years after talks started, that Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) reached an agreement on terms of a gas contract. They had to do it. Vladimir Putin has been urging Gazprom to accelerate its eastern projects since October 23, 2012, when he admitted during a session of the presidential energy commission that Russia was losing the race for a sizeable niche on the global gas market because of the shale revolution in the United States, gas trade liberalization in Europe, and the emergence of new producers of liquefied natural gas.
Creating an Asian outlet for Russian gas became a geostrategic goal for the Russian president—especially in view of Moscow’s worsening relations with the west.
The terms of the contract have not been disclosed, and the secrecy may show that the contract contains something the negotiators could not be proud of in the limelight of Russian public opinion. They could have promised the Chinese a stake in gas production or transportation projects, or the basic price of gas under the contract could be below its costs, or they could have pledged future gas deliveries against a huge loan… whatever.
Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller announced that the price of the 30-year contract totaled 400 billion dollars. To get that money, however, Gazprom will have to start spending heavily on development of untapped gas reserves in the east of Russia and on new pipelines. Given the unknown—and therefore questionable—rate of return on these investments, the gas monopoly will remain a big spender rather than earner for at least a couple of decades, destroying its corporate value.
According to estimates of Gazprom planners, it will take the company at least five years to first bring gas to the Chinese border, and the annual volume in 2020 cannot be larger than 12 billion cubic meters (7-8 billion from Sakhalin and four billion from Yakutia). Another ten years will be needed to increase the capacity of gas fields and pipelines to the desired benchmark of 38 billion cubic meters a year. Will the prices of gas on the Asian-Pacific market in 2030 justify the costs, expected to exceed 60 billion dollars? So far, the prices have been showing a tendency to decline for the past two years…
To make even worse the impact of the project on the Russian economy, the bill for the pipelines under the Chinese project, in the neighborhood of 55 billion dollars, will be picked up by the National Prosperity Fund, as Minister of Economic Development Alexey Ulyukayev said on May 22 at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum.
Observers are beginning to wonder whether domestic gas prices will be raised to finance a portion of the ambitious Chinese project of Gazprom, too.
Mikhail Krutikhin is a partner at the independent RusEnergy consulting agency.
Mikhail Krutikhin
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.
Konark Bhandari