Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Fossil Fuels in a Carbon-Constrained World Read chapter Read first chapter

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

11. On the New Paradigm of International Energy Development: Risks and Challenges for Russia and the World on the Way to the Low-Carbon Future

Author : Andrey Konoplyanik

Published in: The Palgrave Handbook of Managing Fossil Fuels and Energy Transitions

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter analyses an objective character of the shift in the key paradigm of international energy development from the perception of ‘peak supply’ to ‘peak demand’. Though most researchers couple this mental shift with the climate agenda, namely with 2015 Paris Agreement (COP-21), Professor Andrey Konoplyanik argues that the preconditions of this shift refer to previous international developments, of almost half a century ago. The key reason for pushing the international energy economy towards this shift appears in the early 1970s with the radical increase in international oil prices. The following ‘domino effects’ of world economy adaptation to the new oil price levels and pricing mechanisms created, in a few decades, accumulated structural effects on world economy in its shift from being ‘energy-wasteful’ before the 1970s to increasing focus on ‘energy-efficiency’ today. And it is only based on this development with diminishment of the GDP energy intensity worldwide that the climate agenda has added another dimension to the trend, by increasing in significance such factor as ‘carbon intensity’, like it has been ‘energy intensity’ as a dominant issue since early 1970s. As the shift from an energy-wasteful to energy-efficient economy creates risks and challenges for different states due to their competitive advantages and disadvantages under ‘old’ and ‘new’ economic structures globally and nationally, the same will be the story with low-carbon development. This set of issues will be analysed in this chapter with particular attention to Russia.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Transitioning to a Low Carbon Economy: Is Africa Ready to Bid Farewell to Fossil Fuels?
next chapter The Role of German Regime Actors and Trade Unions in the Energy Transition: Agency and Power
Footnotes
1
Views expressed in this chapter do not necessarily reflect (may/should reflect) and/or coincide (may/should be consistent) with the official position of Gazprom Group (incl. Gazprom JSC and/or Gazprom export LLC), its stockholders and/or its/their affiliated persons, or any Russian official authority, and are the full personal responsibility of the author of this chapter.
 
2
This chapter is prepared by the author on the basis of his research undertaken, inter alia, within the research project ‘Influence of new technologies on global competition at the raw materials markets’ (Project N 19-010-00782) which is financially supported by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research.
 
3
This author called it the ‘Chevalier’s Fracture/Turning Point’ in reference to the French energy economist who first, according to this author’s knowledge, provided this thesis at least as a hypothesis (see more on this further below).
 
4
Meanwhile, the hike in oil prices started earlier (it dates back to 1969 when OPEC countries finally forced the companies of International Oil Cartel to step-by-step slightly increase posted prices), and the first oil crisis, as argued by Chevalier (1973, 1975), took place in 1970.
 
5
Such transfer of energy-intensive industries to developing, primarily, Asian countries, has predetermined, to some extent, their later economic growth based on the industrialised model of economic growth imported with the corresponding technologies from the industrialised states.
 
6
These ‘petrodollars recycling’ mechanisms differs slightly within two waves of such recycling in two periods of high world oil prices: under the high oil prices of 1970–1980s petrodollars recycling was aimed mostly to the material sphere and under high oil prices of the 2000s and 2010s to the financial sphere (Bushuev et al., 2013; Konoplyanik, 2013a).
 
7
Outside the sphere of the defense industries and narrow technological advanced undertakings from the manufacturing industries and/or intellectual services.
 
8
The remaining energy resources are unconventional in the author’s terminology: the distinction between traditional and non-traditional resources does not follow the physical and chemical, geological or natural climatic differences, but their final key economic difference according to the actual profitability of developing certain energy resources, under the given economic and political conditions. In other words, the entire set of associated risks of production and delivery/trade shall be taken into account; and it is ultimately the result of the technology applied (the factor of STP) and the price level (the factor of the current economic situation).
 
9
Especially a state company of the exporting country acting as the economic agent of its sovereign state such as the ‘Russian Federation—Gazprom PJSC’ conjunction, where RF Law ‘On Gas Export’ defines Gazprom as a monopoly exporter of Russian pipeline gas.
 
10
According to The Economist, “few business people have done as much to change the world as George Mitchell” (The Economist, 2013). “The rise [in shale gas] has been helped along by a variety of factors … But the biggest difference was down to the efforts of one man: George Mitchell, … who saw the potential for improving a known technology, fracking , to get at the gas. Big oil and gas companies were interested in shale gas but could not make the breakthrough in fracking to get the gas to flow. Mr Mitchell spent ten years and $6m to crack the problem (surely the best-spent development money in the history of gas). Everyone, he said, told him he was just wasting his time and money” (The Economist, 2012). In this author’s view, the role of George Mitchell in modern energy (in terms of the practical implementation of energy innovations which generated revolutionary and irreversible changes not only in the US, but in the global economy) is so great that he could have been short-listed for the annual ‘Global Energy Prize’, established by a group of Russian energy companies a few years ago (as an analogue to the Nobel Prize in energy to some extent). This author was a member of International Expert Committee of the Global Energy Prize in 2012–2015 and thus was not allowed to nominate candidates during this period. This is why, and since Mr Mitchell passed away in 2013 (the premium is not awarded posthumously), it was not possible to float this suggestion, voiced in 2014, because of procedural considerations (Konoplyanik, 2016a).
 
11
Note that Oil Economy, the oldest Russian industry magazine, used to be named Oil and Shale Economy in the early 1920s.
 
12
“No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2°C goal, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed… Almost two-thirds of these carbon reserves are related to coal, 22% to oil and 15% to gas” (IEA, 2012: 3).
 
13
Within the technological chains leading from production/well-head to end-use of any separate type of NRES (coal, liquid fuel, gas) in each energy/non-energy area of their use.
 
14
For the author’s position on the nature of transit risks, where ‘political’ risks, i.e. the name of transit country is the last in the hierarchy of legal, regulatory, contractual, technical and only then (finally) political risks (see Konoplyanik, 2014b, 2018a, b).
 
15
I have been involved in the Energy Charter process in different capacities since its very beginning, two weeks after the then Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers presented on the 25 June 1990 (on behalf of the EU) the ‘Lubbers’s plan’ for development of the common European energy space.
 
16
When politicians and/or civil servants see, in practical terms, that the potential end of negotiations is coming closer and closer, and it is possible to report soon this positive news—successful finalisation of the negotiations and signing the final agreement, they began to push negotiators to speed up with the aim to immediately report (and definitely within their term in office) successful results.
 
17
Of course, one should not overlook the internal political factors arising at this stage, when the upcoming ratification of an international agreement, especially a multilateral one, on issues that the voters hear so much about (such as environmental protection and/or climate change); these may become an element (sometimes a bargaining chip) of the internal political struggle in a given country, especially on the eve of parliamentary or presidential elections.
 
18
Radicals speak of the dominant use of RES, extremists speak of a full-scale replacement of fossil fuels by RES (author’s use of terminology).
 
19
BP estimates global CPRR oil at 1.7 trillion barrels. Since these estimates were made for the price margin existing at the moment, at the level of US$110/bbl over the entire first half of the current decade, the present author placed a hypothetical supply curve within the rectangle of respective coordinates to indicate the competitive advantages of the main competing states in this market.
 
20
For example, in the 1980s/1990s the costs of offshore deep-sea oil production off board semi-submersibles of new types (free of stationary bases) on the Brazilian shelf with water depths below 1 km appeared to be lower than those of the North Sea stationary platforms (either pile or gravitational) at water depths of less than 200 metres.
 
21
Citation from The Beatles’ ‘The Long and Winding Road’ song from their 1970 album ‘Let It Be’.
 
22
In particular, one may consider present-day practical development of the Arctic shelf employing existing technologies, i.e. those achievements of evolutionary STP, which prevent Russia from reaching further than the shallow-water arctic coasts, so far, at certain environmental risks (Konoplyanik et al., 2015). Such a pause would allow one to concentrate on the relevant achievements of the revolutionary STP. It should be understood though (consider the example of the US shale revolution) that the innovation and investment cycle for breakthrough technologies, such as robotised underwater and subglacial technologies, may be quite long in duration: the US shale gas revolution took about 30 years (Konoplyanik, 2016a).
 
23
This author has long been a steady opponent to the current fiscal-oriented, non-differentiated tax system, which is not project-based but rather corporate-based. This type of Russian subsoil taxation has been developed since the early 1990 under the dominant pressure of the Russian Ministry of Finance. This author has developed (as a head of drafters) an alternative tax regime for Russia’s subsoil use based on production-sharing agreement (PSA) experience. This regime was passed into law, but due to later developments only three projects have been developed today in Russia under a PSA regime: Sakhalin 1 and 2 and Khariaga (Konoplyanik, 2013d).
 
24
Cf. Konoplyanik (2016b, c, 2017b).
 
25
These and other materials of WS2 GAC can be found at http://​www.​fief.​ru/​GAC.​htm.
 
26
As the contractual responsibility for proper delivery of Russian gas, in terms of time, volume, quality, etc. to delivery points in the EU falls on the supplier.
 
27
Justified then under the USSR GOSPLAN philosophy ‘one market—one pipe’ when all Soviet gas export deliveries to Western Europe were under the control of corresponding Soviet authorities from the well-head deep in the USSR to the delivery points at the EU-COMECON border.
 
28
Which now reflects the diversification principle of improving reliability of supplies and energy security where ‘diversification of routes’ favours both the importing and exporting states and provides them free choice to select (if geographically and politically possible) the preferential routes uniting them either directly (without transit) or through this or that transit state(s). Since supply responsibility lies with the exporter, it is their legal right (which is in line with the EU legislation of the unbundled internal EU gas market) and preference/priority to select the least risky route to the destined market. A transit state has no legal rights to demand that exporter shall define for transit the territory of this particular transit state—it can only persuade the exporter by providing them with the least risk and best economic conditions for transit compared to alternative routes which the exporter will assess within their own system of arguments regarding transit risks (Konoplyanik, 2014b, 2018a, b, f, g, h).
 
Literature
Aksyutin, O. 2018. Future Role of Gas in the EU: Gazprom’s Vision of Low-Carbon Energy Future. 26th Meeting of GAC WS2, Saint-Petersburg, July 7, 2018. www.​fief.​ru/​GAC.
Aksyutin, O., Ishkov, A. and Romanov, K. 2018. Potential of Natural Gas Decarbonization: Russian View of the Cross-Border Gas Value Chain. 27th Meeting of GAC WS2, Brussels, December 7, 2018. www.​fief.​ru/​GAC.
Bushuev, V.V., Konoplyanik, A.A. and Mirkin, Y.M. 2013. Oil Prices: Analysis, Trends, Forecast. Energiya Publishing House (in Russian).
Chevalier, J-M. 1973. Le nouvel enjeu petrolier. Paris: Calman-Lévy.
Chevalier, J-M. 1975. Oil Crisis. Moscow: Mysl Publishing House (In Russian).
Dale, S. 2017. BP Energy Outlook 2017: Presentation in IMEMO RAS at the ‘Oil & Gas Dialogue’ Seminar, February 7, 2017.
Hotelling, H. 1931. The Economics of Exhaustible Resources. Journal of Political Economy 39(2): 137–175.CrossRef
Hubbert, M. K. 1956. Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels. Presented before the Spring Meeting of the Southern District Division of Production American Petroleum Institute Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas March 7–9, 1956. Publication No. 95, Shell Development Company, Exploration and Production Research Division (Houston, Texas, June 1956).
Konoplyanik, A. 2004. Energy Security and the Development of International Energy Markets. In: Barton, B., Redgwell, C., Ronne, A. and Zillman, D.N. (Eds.) Energy Security: Managing Risk in a Dynamic Legal and Regulatory Environment. Oxford: International Bar Association/Oxford University Press, pp. 47–84.CrossRef
Konoplyanik, A. 2013a. Global Oil Market Developments and Their Consequences for Russia. In: Goldthau, A. (Ed.) The Handbook of Global Energy Policy. Wiley-Blackwell Publication, Chapter 28: pp. 477–500.
Konoplyanik, A.A. 2013b. The Unipolar Oil World Is a Real Prospect. Economic Policy: Expert Channel, September 5 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A.A. 2013c. The Evolution of Oil and Gas Markets: Patterns of Movement from Physical Markets to Paper Energy Markets. In: Маkarov, А.А. (Ed.) The Seventh Melentiev Readings. Collect. Sci. Proc. Мoscow: Institute for Energy Research RAS, pp. 163–178, 2013. (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2013d. Alternative Investment Regimes for Direct Foreign and Domestic Investments in Russian Subsoil. The Harriman Review Occasional Paper 19(1).
Konoplyanik, A.A. 2014a. American Shale Revolution: The Consequences Are Inevitable. ECO 5: 111–126 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2014b. Economic Background of the Gas Problems Within the Triangle Russia—The EU—Ukraine and Possible Ways to Solve Them. Institute for Macroeconomic Forecasting RAS, Open Scientific Seminar ‘Economic Problems of Energy Industries (A. S. Nekrasov Seminar),’ 152th Meeting, October 21, 2014, Moscow, 2014 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2015a. Whether Low Oil Prices Put an End to Oil Indexation in Gas? What Are Alternative Ways & Means to Obtain Maximum Marketable Resource Rent in Term Gas Contracts? Presentation at the 8th ENERGETIKA-XXI: Economy, Policy, Ecology International Conference (Saint-Petersburg, 11–12 November, 2015).
Konoplyanik, A.A. 2015b. ‘Kudrin’s Scissors,’ Siluanov’s ‘Sickle,’ What’s Next? Oil of Russia 10: 18–24 (Part 1); 11–12: 10–15 (Part 2) (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A.A. 2015c. Accounting Arithmetic or Development Economics: Budgetary Problems from the Point of View of Taxation of the Oil and Gas Industry. ‘NG-Energy’ Monthly Supplement to ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta,’ October 11, 2015 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A.A. 2015d. To the Agenda of the Presidential Commission on Energy. Oil and Gas Vertical 20: 52–55 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, А. 2016a. The US Shale Gas Revolution and Its Economic Impacts in the Non-US Setting: A Russian Perspective. In: Hunter, T. (Ed.) Handbook of Shale Gas Law and Policy. Intersentia, pp. 65–106.
Konoplyanik, А. 2016b. The Paris Climate Agreement (COP-21): New Challenges for the Global and Russian Energy Industry. Invitation to Discussion. Presentation at a Meeting of the Academic Council of the Institute for Energy and Finance Foundation, Moscow, December 15, 2016 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, А. 2016c. US LNG vs Russian Pipeline Gas in the EU: To Get Rid of the Rival? Presentation at the Free Webinar ‘US LNG and European Gas Market,’ Organized by Vostok Capital Prior to ‘LNG 2017 Congress Russia’, Moscow–London, October 26, 2016.
Konoplyanik, A. 2017a. Counter ‘Domino Effects’. Oil of Russia 5–6: 4–11 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2017b. EU ‘Sanitary Cordon’ on the Way of Hydrocarbons (Attempts to Regulate European Market of ‘Blue Fuel’ Leads to the Limitations of Presence of Domestic Companies in the ‘Old World’). NG-Energy’, Monthly Supplement to ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’, October 10, 2017, 12–13 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2017c. Clearing of the Market: How They Would Like in the EU to Change the Rules of Purchasing Russian Gas. RBC-Daily, July 31, 2017 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik A. 2017d. One Way Drive. Oil and Gas Vertical 15–16: 52–57 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2017e. EU Quo Vadis: A Theoretical Exercise with an Anti-Russian Flavour? Global Gas Perspectives, October 19.
Konoplyanik, A. 2017f. Quo Vadis: An Assessment of the Efficiency of the Third Energy Package or Preparation of the New ‘Curzon Line’? Oil, Gas and Law 4: 42–53; 5: 47–56; 6: 51–59 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2017g. An Assessment of the Efficiency of Implementation of the Third EU Energy Package and the European Commission’s Project Quo Vadis. Gas Industry Special Issue 4(75): 36–46 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A.A. 2018a. A View on the Evolution of Russia’s Gas Export Strategy Within Changing Global Economic and Gas Landscape. Presentation at the ‘GECF Monthly Gas Lectures’ Series, Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), Qatar, Doha, October 15, 2018.
Konoplyanik, A.A. 2018b. A View on the Evolution of Russia’s Gas Export Strategy Within Changing Global Economic, Political & Gas Landscape. Presentation at the 3rd World Gas & LNG Conference-Exhibition, ‘Novotel Sheremetievo’ Hotel, Moscow, Russia, October 18–19.
Konoplyanik, A. 2018c. Positive Discrimination: What Is the Role of LNG from the USA on the European Gas Market. RBC-Daily, October 23, 2018 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2018d. Liquefied Gas—A New Geopolitical Factor (The US Is Trying to Use Blue Fuel to Strengthen Its Dominance in the World). ‘NG-Energy’ Monthly Supplement to ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’, November 13, 2018, pp. 12–13 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2018e. The LNG Market Is a Driver of Change (The Development of Trade in Liquefied Natural Gas Leads to Significant Transformations in the Economic and Political Spheres). Oil and Gas Vertical 23–24: 37–44 (Part 1 of a Cycle of Four Articles) (in Russian).
Konoplyanik A. 2018f. Russian Gas: Why New Pipelines to Europe Are Needed. Presentation at the American Chamber of Commerce Energy Committee Meeting, Moscow, April 10, 2018.
Konoplyanik, A. 2018g. Russian Gas to Europe: From the Linear (Radial) to the Radial-Ring Supply System—And the New Role of Transit. Presentation at the 14th Russian Oil and Gas Congress (RPGC) as Part of the 15th International Exhibition ‘Oil and Gas’ (MIOGE), Moscow, June 19, 2018 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2018h. Evolution of the Russian Gas Strategy in the European Direction in the Context of Changes in the International Gas Markets and in Global Competition (see the Author—An Invitation to the Discussion). Presentation at the Conference-Seminar ‘Global and Local Markets of Oil, Gas and Petroleum Products: Analysis and Forecasting, Pricing, Trade Flows’, Moscow, September 20, 2018 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2018i. Fourth EU Energy Package? What Gazprom Should Be Prepared for in Europe. Oil and Gas Vertical 3: 26–36 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2018j. EU’s Fourth Energy Package. Gazprom in Europe: What to Prepare For. Oil and Gas Vertical 2(4): 16–25.
Konoplyanik, A. 2018k. On Competitive Markets and Anti-competitive Behavior on the Example of US LNG Against Russian Pipeline Gas in Europe. Energy Policy 6: 18–27 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2019a. From New Record to New Normality? To the Results of the Poll of Gas Industry Representatives at the 12th European Gas Conference. Oil and Gas Vertical 5: 70–77 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2019b. New Russian Gas Export Record to Become a New Standard. Global Gas Perspectives, March 20, 2019.
Konoplyanik, A. 2019c. When America Is Always First and Foremost… (Attempts to Squeeze Russian Gas Out of Europe in Favor of American LNG Have an Exclusively Pragmatic Economic Background on the Part of the United States and Its Political Implementation Tools). Oil and Gas Vertical 1–2: 87–94 (Part 2 of the Cycle of Four Articles) (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2019d. The Great Milestones. How Washington Is Trying to Promote Its LNG to Europe and Prevent the Russian Pipeline Gas from Reaching There. Oil and Gas Vertical 3–4: 60–68 (Part 3 of the Cycle of Four Articles) (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2019e. Hacking in to Europe. The United States Are Using Any Means to Push Its LNG into the European Gas Market. Oil and Gas Vertical 5: 61–69 (Part 4 of the Cycle of Four Articles) (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2019f. Prospects of Further Monetization of Russian Gas in the European Direction, Obstacles on this Way and Possibilities to Overcome Them. Master-Class at the Programme ‘Oil & Gas Trading’, Module 5 ‘Natural Gas & LNG’, School of International Business of Russian State Gubkin Oil & Gas University, Moscow, May 31, 2019 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A. 2019g. On the Prospective Role of Russian Natural Gas in EU Decarbonisation. Presentation at the ‘Energy Transition Forum’, IENE/ECE, Vienna, June 6–7, 2019.
Konoplyanik, A. 2019h. Evolution of EU Low-Carbon Policy/Vision—And Prospects of Russia-EU Cooperation Within GAC WS2: Challenges & Bifurcations. 28th GAC WS2 Meeting, Brussels, ENTSOG, March 29, 2019.
Konoplyanik, A. and Borchardt, K.D. 2018. The EU, Russia and the Fair Gas Trade Debate. Global Gas Perspectives, July 6, 2018.
Konoplyanik, A. and Sung, J. 2016. Does American LNG Have a Chance? The Fall in Oil Prices Has Led to a Change in the Balance of Competitiveness of the Two Pricing Models for Liquefied Gas in the APR Countries. Oil of Russia 5–6: 11–19 (in Russian).
Konoplyanik, A., Buzovsky, V., Popova, Yu. and Troshina, N. 2015. The Impact of Anti-Russian Sanctions on the Development of the Oil and Gas Potential of the Russian Arctic Shelf—And the Bifurcation of Russia’s Energy Policy // M., Vostok Capital 2015 (in Russian).
Kopytin, I. 2011. Oil Price Risks. Scientific Practical Conference Gazprombank—IMEMO RAS ‘Oil as a Special Class of Assets—Current Trends and Risks’, Moscow, November 13, 2011 (in Russian).
Kuhn, M. and Romanov, K. 2017. Comments on the DBI Study and Further Joint Actions Proposals on Carbon Track. Presentation at the 22nd meeting of the EU-Russia Gas Advisory Council, Vienna, February 14, 2017.
Kurenkov, Yu. and Konoplyanik, A. 1985. Dynamics of Production Costs, Prices and Profitability in the Global Oil Industry. World Economy and International Relations 2: 59–73 (in Russian).
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens III, W.W. 1972. The Limits to Growth. A Report to The Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books, A Potomac Associates Book.
MIT. 2011. The Future of Natural Gas. An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 163.
Neha, K. 1973. On the Economics of Non-renewable Resource, in ‘Economics Interactions with Other Disciplines. In: Gowdy, J.M. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Oxford: Eolss Publishers. http://​www.​eolss.​net.
Prins, N. 2014. All the President’s Bankers. The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power. New York: Nation Books, Perseus Books Group.
Yergin, D. 1991. The Prize. The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power. New York: Free Press.
Zhukov, S.V. 2011. Oil as a Financial Asset. Scientific Practical Conference Gazprombank—IMEMO RAS ‘Oil as a Special Class of Assets—Current Trends and Risks’, Moscow, November 13, 2011 (in Russian).
Zhukov, S. and Zolina, S. 2016. USA: Financial Markets and the Development of Non-conventional Oil Sector. World Economy and International Relations 60(11): 14–24 (in Russian).CrossRef
Metadata
Title
On the New Paradigm of International Energy Development: Risks and Challenges for RussiaRussia and the World on the Way to the Low-Carbon Future
Author
Andrey Konoplyanik
Copyright Year
2020
Book
The Palgrave Handbook of Managing Fossil Fuels and Energy Transitions

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28075-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-28076-5

Copyright Year: 2020

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28076-5_11