Mai poate alege Romania intre gazele neconventionale si cele lichefiate ? (II)Can Romania Still Choose Between Unconventional and Liquefied Gas? (II)

Nu putini sunt specialistii care considera proiectul AGRI ((Azerbaidjan-Georgia-Romania Interconnection), drept un “balon politic de sapun”, tocmai din cauza costurilor extrem de ridicate, pe care nici una din tarile semnatare nu si le poate permite. Si totusi, o strategie energetica realista ne-ar putea ajuta sa alegem intre exploatarea gazelor neconventionale (de sist) pe teritoriul Romaniei si valorificarea gazelor lichefiate, care ne-ar reduce dependenta de gazul rusesc.

Romania a demarat studiile pentru construirea unui terminal de gaze lichefiate la Constanta inca din anii 1994-1995, cand nici nu se punea problema reducerii dependentei de gazele importate din Rusia. Evident, s-au cheltuit niste bani pe aceste studii, dupa care s-a renuntat la proiect, pana in 2008, cand USTDA (Agentia SUA pentru comert si dezvoltare) a acordat companiei romanesti Romgaz un grant in valoare de 1,6 milioane dolari, pentru realizarea unui studiu de fezabilitate in vederea construirii unui terminal de gaze lichefiate la Constanta. Nu se stie cum au fost cheltuiti banii, caci studiul nu a fost finalizat nici in ziua de azi.

Terminal de gaze lichefiate la Marea Neagra au vrut sa faca si bulgarii, printr-o inselegere cu Qatar, dar nici ei nu au reusit sa depaseasca stadiul de bune intentii, evident, tot din cauza costurilor foarte ridicate. De asemenea, Polonia a semnat un acord de finantare cu BERD (Banca Europeana pentru Reconstructie si Dezvoltare), tot pentru un studiu de fezabilitate al unui terminal cu o capacitate de 5 miliarde metri cubi de gaze, in timp ce Ucraina si-a anuntat si ea intentia de a finanta primul sau terminal de gaze lichefiate in zona Marii Negre, tot cu o capacitate de 5 miliarde de metri cubi. Acest interes pentru gazele lichefiate nu este totusi intamplator.

La ce pret ar ajunge gazele?

In momentul de fata, la nivel mondial exista circa 70 de terminale de gaze lichefiate (pentru regazificare) si in jur de 20 de unitati de lichefiere. Proiectul AGRI presupune transportul gazelor naturale din Azerbaidjan spre Georgia, prin conducte, care ar urma sa fie lichefiate aici intr-un terminal ce trebuie insa construit. Din Georgia, gazele lichefiate urmeaza a fi transportate pe mare, cu vapoare de mare capacitate (care nu exista inca), pana la Constanta, unde ar trebui regazificate (si aici trebuie construit un terminal) si livrate apoi unor tari europene tot prin intermediul conductelor de transport.

Daca lucrurile ar decurge conform planului, inclusiv tara noastra ar putea beneficia de aceste gaze, inlocuind importurile din Rusia. Numai ca, investitiile pentru contructia celor doua terminale (din Georgia si Romania) ar face ca pretul gazelor naturale livrate pietei sa fie poate chiar mai scumpe decat cel al gazelor naturale din Rusia, ceea ce nu le-ar face atractive pentru pietele europene, cu atat mai putin pentru piata romaneasca.

Si totusi…

Cu toate acestea, exista suficient de multe argumente si in favoarea proiectului AGRI, cu conditia insa ca cei patru parteneri sa poata gasi sursele de finantare. Problema cea mai importanta se leaga de cantitatea de gaze ce ar urma sa fie transportata. Concret, in cazul unui volum mare de gaze ce ar urma sa fie transportat din Azerbaidjan, costurile s-ar reduce, sustin o serie de specialisti in domeniu. Conditia primordiala este ca proiectul sa fie tratat ca unul exclusiv comercial si nu ca unul politic.

Azerbaidjanul exploateaza circa 30 de miliarde de metri cubi de gaze naturale pe an si intentioneaza sa atinga in scurt timp volumul de 35 de miliarde de metri cubi, in conditiile in care rezervele estimate ale tarii sunt de 2.200 miliarde metri cubi. Un alt element pozitiv este dat de faptul ca a fost data in functiune magistrala de gaze pe relatia cu Ungaria, ceea ce va deschide pentru prima data tranzitul spre Vestul Europei. Pe de alta parte, in curand va fi data in folosinta o noua ruta de transport intre Romania si Bulgaria (Giurgiu –Ruse), care ar deschide piata si pentru sudul Europei. Concluzia, tot teoretica deocamdata, este ca ar fi si piata de desfacere, daca pretul final al gazelor ar fi unul atractiv. A number of experts see the AGRI (Azerbaijan-Georgia-Romania Interconnection) project as a ‘political bubble’, precisely because of its high costs, unaffordable for all the signatory countries. Nevertheless, a realistic energy strategy might help choosing between extracting unconventional (shale) gas in Romania and taking advantage of the liquefied gas, which would reduce the dependence upon Russian gas.

Romania started the studies for building a liquefied gas terminal in Constanta as early as 1994-1995, when reducing the dependence upon the imports from Russia was not an issue at all. Obviously, money has been spent on these studies, but eventually the project was abandoned until 2008, when the USTDA (US Trade and Development Agency) granted to the Romanian company Romgaz $1.6mn for a feasibility study concerning such a terminal. We don’t know how these funds were spent, as the study has been not completed to date.

Bulgaria also wanted to build a liquefied gas terminal at the Black Sea, by an agreement with Qatar, but the idea did not go beyond the good intentions – obviously, due to the high costs, too. Also, Poland signed a financing agreement with the EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) for a feasibility study of a terminal with a capacity of 5bn cubic meters of gas, while Ukraine declared its intention of financing its first liquefied gas terminal in the Black Sea region, with a similar capacity of 5bn cubic meters. Now this interest for the liquefied gas cannot be accidental.

What Would the Price of the Gas Be?

Actually, there are around 70 liquefied gas terminals worldwide (for regasification), and around 20 liquefaction plants. The AGRI project involves carrying the natural gas from Azerbaijan to Georgia through pipelines, and liquefying it there, in a terminal which has yet to be built. From Georgia, the liquefied gas would be shipped with large tankers (not available yet) to Constanta, where it has to be regasified again; another terminal would be necessary here. Then it could be supplied to European countries, through pipelines again.

If everything goes according to the plan, Romania too could benefit from this gas, replacing its imports from Russia. However, the investments for building the two terminals, in Georgia and Romania, would raise the market price of the natural gas, making it perhaps more expensive than the Russian gas, and thus unattractive for the European market, and more so for Romania.

And yet…

… there are sufficient arguments for the AGRI project, on the condition that the four partners are able to find financing sources. The most important issue is the amount of gas to be carried. Specifically, transporting larger gas volumes from Azerbaijan would reduce the costs, according to industry experts. The prerequisite is to deal with the project merely in commercial terms, not in political ones.

Azerbaijan extracts approximately 30bn cubic meters of natural gas per year, and it plans to reach 35bn cubic meters soon, with estimated reserves of 2200bn cubic meters. Also on the plus side, the gas pipeline to Hungary has been commissioned, opening the way for the transfer to Western Europe. On the other hand, another transport route will be commissioned soon between Romania and Bulgaria (Giurgiu –Ruse), opening the market for Southern Europe, too. The conclusion, still theoretical, is that outlets exist, if the end price of the gas is fair.