List of Rosneft contractors. Arkady Rotenberg will build a pipe for Rosneft

The Mostotrest construction holding, controlled by Arkady Rotenberg and his partners, won a contract to Rosneft for the construction of a branch to its Komsomolsk oil refinery.

One of the largest Russian infrastructure builders, Mostotrest, is entering new market. The company won a contract for the construction of a branch from the Eastern Siberia - Pacific Ocean (ESPO) oil pipeline to the Komsomolsk Oil Refinery owned by Rosneft. As noted on the government procurement website, the oil company entered into a contract with a subsidiary of the construction company Transstroymekhanizatsiya LLC for project adjustments and construction.

The volume of the contract is 46.89 billion rubles. The length of the branch is about 350 km, the pumping capacity is about 8 million tons per year. Along with the allotment, the company will also have to build an oil storage facility, associated transport infrastructure, production sites and communications. The completion date is August 2016.

OJSC Mostotrest is one of the largest Russian contractors in the field of infrastructure construction. Largest shareholder the company with a share of 38.6% of the shares is the offshore Marc O "Polo Investment, the beneficiaries of which are Arkady and Igor Rotenberg and top managers of the N-Trans transport group Konstantin Nikolaev, Nikita Mishin and Andrey Filatov. At the end of 2013, revenue amounted to 116.7 billion rubles, net profit - 2.3 billion rubles.

This is the first such project of Mostotrest. Prior to this, the company worked exclusively in the market for the construction of roads and related infrastructure facilities. In particular, Transstroymekhanizatsiya is currently working on contracts for the construction of sections of the Moscow-St. Petersburg toll highway and reconstruction highway M-11 "Narva". As a general contractor, the company is reconstructing the airports of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Vnukovo, Sheremetyevo and a number of other facilities.

Victory in the fight for this contract is a positive factor for the construction company, notes Alexandra Serova, an analyst at Renaissance Capital Investment Company.

Alexandra Serova (analyst at Renaissance Capital Investment Company)

“In a context of slowing economic growth, the company is looking for opportunities for diversification and other areas where it can apply its experience and assets. Mostotrest has no experience in the pipeline construction sector. In-house work with the company's average margin can be about 20-30% of the project, but the company will have to engage subcontractors for a larger share of the project. This, in turn, will reduce the project’s margins.”

Initially, it was assumed that the construction of the branch would be carried out by the structures of Transneft, which is the operator of ESPO. The companies even signed a corresponding agreement in 2012. Then the deadline for construction was set at 2017. According to the original agreement, Rosneft was supposed to compensate the partner’s costs through a long-term tariff for transporting oil through this pipe.

However, last year between state companies Several conflicts occurred. The reason for one of them was the assessment of the cost of the allotment. Transneft valued this project at 53 billion rubles. The oil company was not satisfied with this assessment.

Igor Sechin

“They use some coefficients that have not been approved by anyone. We will prove that we are right,<…>We will take into account the interests of both Transneft and our consumers,” said the head of oil company Igor Sechin.

Thus, dissatisfied with the stated price, the state-owned company began to look for alternative contractors for the construction of the branch.

A representative of the oil pipeline monopoly confirmed that the company did not submit its application for the competition.

According to unofficial data, Stroytransgaz of Gennady Timchenko was also interested in the contract, another construction company Arkady Rotenberg "Stroygazmontazh" and a number of other players.

In the absence of a diversion, Rosneft has been supplying raw materials to the plant for several years railway. The use of the pipeline will allow the refinery to reduce transportation costs by almost half, the partner notes consulting company RusEnergy Mikhail Krutikhin.

Mikhail Krutikhin (partner of the consulting company RusEnergy)

“In the context of restrictions on access to Western capital markets Russian companies will pay more attention to efficiency and look for opportunities to reduce investment programs. However, large contracts are likely to be distributed predominantly to companies also subject to sanctions.”

Contractors for the construction of the next sections of the Power of Siberia gas pipeline have already been identified, Gazprom Chairman of the Board Alexey Miller said on Tuesday. According to the government procurement portal, a decision on the second and third sections of the highway should be made no later than October 9.

Miller explained that this decision was made taking into account the suspension of work on the Southern Corridor system; the released forces will be directed to the Power of Siberia. The main contracts for the Southern Corridor were awarded to ZAO Stroytransgaz and Stroygazmontazh.

Yakutsk and Irkutsk gas production centers

Gas production in Yakutia (based on the Chayandinskoye field, gas reserves - 1.2 trillion cubic meters) will be developed in a single complex with production in the Irkutsk region (based on the Kovyktinskoye field, gas reserves - 1.5 trillion cubic meters), resource base which will be connected in the next step.

Gas transportation system

“Power of Siberia” will become a common gas transportation system for the Irkutsk and Yakutsk gas production centers and will transport gas from these centers through Khabarovsk to Vladivostok.

At the first stage, the main gas pipeline “Yakutia - Khabarovsk - Vladivostok” will be built; at the second stage, the Irkutsk center will be connected by a gas pipeline to the Yakutsk center.

The route of the GTS route will run along the route of the existing main oil pipeline "Eastern Siberia - Pacific Ocean", which will allow optimizing costs for infrastructure and energy supply. The GTS route will cross, among other things, swampy, mountainous and seismically active areas.

The gas pipeline will be built almost entirely from domestically produced pipes. About 11,700 specialists will be involved in the construction of the first stage of the Power of Siberia, and about 3,000 more people will operate the gas pipeline.

The GTS received its name based on the results of a competition.

Investment decision

In October 2012, the Management Board of OJSC Gazprom (since July 17, 2015 - PJSC Gazprom) made the final investment decision on the project for the development of the Chayandinskoye field, construction main gas pipeline"Yakutia - Khabarovsk - Vladivostok", as well as gas processing facilities in Belogorsk.

Specifications

length - about 4000 km (Yakutia - Khabarovsk - Vladivostok - about 3200 km, Irkutsk region - Yakutia - about 800 km);
diameter - 1420 mm;
operating pressure - 9.8 MPa (100 atm.);
productivity - 61 billion cubic meters. m of gas per year.

Project implementation timeframe

Commissioning of the first part of the Power of Siberia gas transmission system - the main gas pipeline "Yakutia - Khabarovsk - Vladivostok" - end of 2017.

Socio-economic development

The expansion of Gazprom's activities in Yakutia is a serious incentive for increasing the level of socio-economic development of the region. In particular, the construction of gas transmission facilities on its territory will provide the opportunity to develop gasification. The Yakutia - Khabarovsk - Vladivostok gas pipeline will pass, among other things, through the southern regions of Yakutia. The gas pipeline route was chosen in such a way as to provide gasification to the maximum possible number of settlements.

In addition, the creation of the Yakut gas production center will increase the level of employment local population. When operating the gas pipeline and Gazprom's production facilities on the territory of the republic, it will be necessary to involve about 3,000 specialists. Today, Gazprom organizes the training of specialists, including residents of Yakutia, in Russian specialized educational centers, and stimulates the development of new educational programs.

Export potential

A powerful resource base in the East of Russia, the consistent formation of large gas production centers and the creation of the necessary transport corridors will make it possible to organize here a new center for export supplies of Russian gas, focused on the Asia-Pacific region.

The start of the development of the Chayandinskoye field and the implementation of the project for the construction of the Yakutia - Khabarovsk - Vladivostok main gas pipeline made it possible, along with the "western" route of pipeline gas supplies, to begin negotiations with China on the "eastern" route.

On May 21, 2014, Chairman of the Management Board of OJSC Gazprom (since July 17, 2015 - PJSC Gazprom) Alexey Miller and President of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) Zhou Jiping signed a contract for the supply of Russian pipeline gas to China. The 30-year contract provides for the export of 38 billion cubic meters to China. m of Russian gas per year.

Sberbank CIB analysts named Gazprom's largest contractors as the main beneficiaries of the construction of export pipelines.

They estimated the costs of the Power of Siberia, Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Stream at $93.4 billion

The main conclusion made by Sberbank CIB analysts Alex Fak and Anna Kotelnikova in their May report on Russian oil and gas companies is that the main beneficiaries of Gazprom’s projects for the construction of three export gas pipelines to China (“Power of Siberia”) and Europe (“Nord Stream 2” and Turkish Stream) are not its shareholders, but contractors, including Stroygazmontazh of Arkady Rotenberg and Stroytransneftegaz (about 50% owned by Gennady Timchenko and his family).

According to the calculations of investment bank experts, investments in these projects are low-profit. “We find that Gazprom's decisions become entirely understandable if we assume that the company is managed in the interests of its contractors rather than for commercial gain,” the report said.

“This review is a commercial product that is not distributed to the general public and is intended only for qualified investors who are clients of Sberbank CIB. We do not comment on the details of commercial relationships with clients,” a representative of Sberbank CIB told RBC. Two bank clients confirmed to RBC the authenticity of the analytical report. Alex Fak declined to comment. ?

A representative of Arkady Rotenberg, co-owner of Stroygazmontazh, told RBC that this company is not a beneficiary of Gazprom’s investment program, since the constructed Power of Siberia gas pipeline will remain the property of Gazprom and it will be the one who will receive the final benefit from the implementation of the investment project. “SGM participates in this project as a general contractor and carries out construction and installation work on a paid basis within the framework of concluded contracts,” she added. A representative of Stroytransneftegaz did not respond to RBC’s request. A Gazprom representative declined to comment.

"Power of Siberia" instead of "Altai"

When discussing specific projects, Sberbank CIB analysts write, in particular, about high cost construction of the Power of Siberia against the backdrop of the previously considered alternative - the Altai project - and they doubt the benefits of the contract for the supply of 38 billion cubic meters. m of gas annually, which Gazprom concluded with the Chinese CNPC in May 2014, with an average oil price of $65 per barrel.

“Power of Siberia” was chosen despite the fact that “Altai” was much cheaper: $55.4 billion versus $10 billion, Sberbank CIB experts note.

Sberbank CIB analysts claim that the Chinese were ready to sign a contract for Altai back in 2010. The length of the Altai would be comparable to the Power of Siberia - about 3 thousand km, but the gas would come from the existing fields of Nadym in the Pur-Taz province and would be purified at existing Gazprom plants - there would be no need to build new capacities, the authors of the report argue.

The choice of Power of Siberia, in their opinion, could be due to the benefits of Gazprom’s main contractors - Stroytransneftegaz and Stroygazmontazh, which divided “almost equally” the main contracts for this project. “The larger the project, the more profitable the contracts,” the report says. “Unfortunately, none of these companies are publicly traded, so you cannot invest in them.”

Gas supply via the Power of Siberia involves the development of the Chayandinskoye and Kovyktinskoye fields for $20 billion. Construction of the Amur Gas Processing Plant, which will process gas before sending it to China, will cost another $14 billion (Gazprom’s latest estimate) to almost $20 billion ( Energy Minister Alexander Novak's assessment) is indicated in the report. NIPIGazpererabotka, associated with Sibur, will operate at the Amur GPP, which received a contract for 790.6 billion rubles. Among the shareholders of Sibur is Timchenko, who also owns a stake in Stroytransneftegaz, the authors of the report recalled.

In addition, the binding gas contract with China, oil prices have a negative impact on profitability, according to Sberbank CIB experts. With oil prices at $110 per barrel, a contract for 38 billion cubic meters. m of gas per year was estimated at $400 billion. Accordingly, Gazprom will sell gas at 10–11% of the price of oil, Fak and Kotelnikova calculated. This means that with oil at $60 per barrel, gas will cost $6–6.6 per 1 million British thermal units (MBTU). “Even with an average oil price of $65 per barrel, the net present value (NPV, shows the expected return on investment. - RBC) of this project will be negative and amount to about $11 billion,” stated the authors of the report.

The Power of Siberia project most likely has a rate of return lower than Gazprom's cost of capital (the company's cost of raising funds), which means it has a negative impact on the company's shareholder value, agrees Ildar Davletshin, leading oil and gas analyst at Wood & Co.

But Gazprom previously talked about the “undoubted” profitability of the Power of Siberia.? “We have no doubts about the profitability of the gas pipeline. The price formula, which is spelled out in the contract with China, allows us to feel absolutely confident at current hydrocarbon prices,” said Gazprom Chairman Alexey Miller in an interview with the Russia 1 channel in February 2018.

There were objective reasons for choosing Power of Siberia instead of Altai, Uralsib Capital analyst Alexey Kokin argues with his colleagues: in the west of China, where Altai would come, the demand for gas is much less due to supplies from Central Asian countries than in the east (gas will be supplied to eastern China via the Power of Siberia). At current oil and gas prices (on Thursday, May 17, Brent oil exceeded $80 per barrel for the first time since November 2014), a minimum acceptable return on investment for the Power of Siberia project can be ensured, but everything will depend on its final cost, concluded He.

A co-owner of one of the Gazprom contractor companies claims that the construction of the Altai project has so far been abandoned “not because of the whim of the contractors, but because it was unprofitable for the Chinese to buy gas at the end point of the project: they preferred to buy this gas cheaper in Turkmenistan.” “Today, taking into account Gazprom’s policy, many large contractors in certain sections of gas pipeline construction are generally at a loss,” stated another source in the Gazprom contractor company. “The era of high earnings on Gazprom projects is long gone.”

Low profit streams

The construction of gas pipelines to Europe bypassing Ukraine - "Turkish Stream" and "Nord Stream 2" - is also beneficial primarily for contractors due to the high costs of onshore infrastructure in Russia, although the pipelines are considered offshore, according to the report by Fack and Kotelnikova . In particular, the pipeline to Turkey involves a significant expansion of Gazprom’s gas pipeline system in the south. The total cost of the project, according to Sberbank CIB, will exceed $20 billion, while $3.5 billion has been invested so far - more than half has been spent in Russia. In February 2018, Andrey Kruglov, deputy chairman of the company’s board, estimated the cost of the project at €7 billion.

Nord Stream 2, according to Sberbank CIB, will cost $17 billion - this amount also includes onshore approaches to the gas pipeline (Gazprom estimated the cost of the project at €9.5 billion). A contract for the construction of one of these approaches worth 74.6 billion rubles. Stroytransneftegaz recently received it without a competition, analysts recall.

Although both projects do not involve entering new markets (Gazprom already supplies gas to Europe through Ukraine and other routes), their main financial advantage, according to Gazprom, is savings on transit through Ukraine after 2019, when the contract ends. experts remind. According to their calculations, in the case of Nord Stream 2 we're talking about about $800 million, with the Turkish Stream - about $500 million per year?

While maintaining gas exports through Ukraine, additional costs for Gazprom to transport 30 billion cubic meters. m would amount to $25–42 billion over 25 years, Miller said in June 2016: gas transit through Ukraine is 20% more expensive than through Nord Stream 2.

However, the implementation of both projects will not allow us to completely abandon transit through Ukraine, according to Sberbank CIB experts: “This will happen only if Gazprom’s exports to Europe decrease by about 20% compared to last year’s level (or by almost 40 billion cubic meters ). According to their estimates, Turkish Stream “will not break even for almost 50 years, even without taking into account inflation,” its negative NPV will be $13 billion. And Nord Stream 2, with 60% capacity utilization, “will not pay for itself within 20 years".

If Nord Stream 2 is used only as a replacement for Ukrainian transit without attracting new contracts in Europe, then, of course, it will be unprofitable, says Davletshin. But if Gazprom manages to attract new contracts, especially against the backdrop of favorable conditions on the gas market, then we can talk about a rate of return of 7–8%, which is also not attractive enough for investors, he concludes. Nord Stream 2 will not significantly increase revenue, notes Alexey Kokin. But the project should not be viewed only from this point of view: the pipe is a replacement pipe due to political reasons (the conflict with Ukraine) and issues of supply stability: the Ukrainian gas pipeline system has historically been underinvested, he noted.

20–50 years is a good payback period for infrastructure project, says the co-owner of one of the Gazprom contractor companies. And in addition to the financial advantages, gas pipelines bypassing Ukraine have technical and geopolitical benefits, adds an interlocutor at one of Gazprom’s largest construction contractors: the gas supplier does not depend on the dictates of transit prices and is insured against the risks of problems with the failure of the Ukrainian gas transmission system, which has not been modernized for a long time.

We talked about Igor

Sberbank CIB analysts are known for their critical attitude towards the largest oil and gas state companies. In October 2017, Alex Fack, Valery Nesterov and Anna Kotelnikova sent clients a report on the Russian oil and gas sector, in which one of the chapters was called Rosneft: We Need to Talk About Igor (“Rosneft”: we need to talk about Igor). In this chapter, analysts criticized Rosneft's strategy, pointing out that after buying TNK-BP in 2013, the company spent $22 billion "on acquisitions without a clear focus." “The problem is that organic growth will be too slow to satisfy the ambitions of the CEO [Igor Sechin],” the document said.

Rosneft reacted sharply to this report. “There is a feeling that the people who compiled the report are on the verge of pathology. I would very much like the management of the systemically important bank of Russia to provide them with all possible assistance,” said company press secretary Mikhail Leontyev. Sberbank CIB later withdrew this report and issued new version, softening some of the wording and removing critical remarks addressed to Sechin. Investment Bank also apologized to Rosneft. Its director, Igor Bulantsev, noted that the first version of the report contained “ gross violations accepted Sberbank CIB analytics quality standards,” namely, “established compliance procedures were not followed.”

In early May, Rosneft's board of directors approved changes to the strategy, which include, in particular, reducing capital expenditures and reducing debt this year by about $8 billion, or about 10%. “This can be perceived as an answer to the questions that we raised in our report in October 2017,” Sberbank CIB analysts wrote in a May report

Pipes instead of dividends

Sberbank CIB analysts are not the first to pay attention to the cost of Gazprom’s large-scale construction projects. “One gets the impression that for some reason the company does not work for shareholders, not for consumers, not for the state, but in fact for contractors who build various facilities for them,” the director of Prosperity Capital (minority) complained to President Vladimir Putin about Gazprom Gazprom shareholder) Alexander Branis at the VTB Capital forum in October 2016. Then Putin admitted that this was a “very serious issue” and promised to meet with representatives by the end of the year largest companies with state participation and then give “assessments of the performance of a particular company.”

Last year, the Association of Professional Investors approached the government with a proposal to increase the size of Gazprom’s dividends, its executive director Alexander Shevchuk told RBC. “It is obvious that with low return on projects, it is more profitable for the state as the main shareholder and the company itself to increase dividends rather than invest in new construction projects,” he adds.

On May 16, Gazprom's board of directors recommended approving dividends at last year's level - about 190 billion rubles, or 26% of net profit according to IFRS. This is half what the Ministry of Finance expected. A company representative explained that this dividend size takes into account the need to “preserve high degree financial stability"and the implementation of "priority strategic projects“, among which is the construction of export pipelines.