Kazakhstan's oilfields, disputes and settlements with oil majors
The move is the latest in a string of claims, disputes and settlements in recent years which saw international firms cede control of oilfields to the state or reach cash settlements.
Following are details on Kazakhstan's main oilfields and pipelines and the main disputes and settlements since the late 2000s.
KASHAGAN
The giant offshore field in the North Caspian Sea was discovered in 2000 and remains one of the biggest discoveries in recent decades, as well as one of the costliest. Oil production started in 2013.
The field produced around 378,500 barrels per day (bpd) in 2024, lower than its initially forecast capacity of 400,000 bpd.
Its development plans aim to increase output capacity to 450,000 bpd.
Kashagan is operated by the North Caspian Operating Company (NCOC) that includes Eni (ENI.MI), opens new tab (16.81% stake), Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab (16.81%), TotalEnergies (TTEF.PA), opens new tab (16.81%), ExxonMobil (XOM.N), opens new tab (16.81%), KazMunayGaz (KMGZ.KZ), opens new tab (16.88%), Inpex (1605.T), opens new tab (7.56%) and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC.UL) (8.33%).
KARACHAGANAK
The Karachaganak gas-condensate field was discovered in 1979 in northwest Kazakhstan, covering an area of more than 280 square km (108 square miles). Production started in 1984.
The field is operated by the Karachaganak Petroleum Operating (KPO) consortium which includes Eni (29.25%), Shell (29.25%), Chevron (CVX.N), opens new tab (18%), Lukoil (LKOH.MM), opens new tab (13.5%) and KazMunayGaz (10%)
Oil production reached around 263,000 bpd in 2024.
TENGIZCHEVROIL
The Chevron-led Tengizchevroil (TCO) consortium operates the Tengiz and Korolev fields. Tengiz, Kazakhstan's largest oilfield and one of the world's deepest, was discovered in 1979.
Chevron holds a 50% stake in TCO, while KazMunayGaz has 20%, Exxon 25% and Lukoil 5%.
It produced around 606,000 bpd in 2024.
CPC
More than 80% of Kazakhstan's crude is exported via the 935-mile (1,500-km) Caspian pipeline linking TCO, Karachaganak and other fields to the Russian port of Yuzhnaya Ozereyevka, close to Novorossiisk, which supplies around 1.2% of global oil demand.
The main shareholders in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) are Russian pipeline operator Transneft (TRNF_p.MM), opens new tab with a 24% stake, Kazakhstan's KazMunayGaz with 19%, and the Chevron Caspian Pipeline Consortium Company with 15%.
DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENTS
In 2023, Kazakhstan launched claims against companies developing Kashagan and Karachaganak oilfields for $13 billion and $3.5 billion, respectively, over disputed costs.
In 2020, Kazakhstan reached a $1.9 billion settlement, opens new tab with the Karachaganak partners that brought to an end a years-long dispute over profit-sharing from the giant field.
In 2012, partners in the Kashagan consortium agreed to cover $1 billion of Kazakh state energy company KazMunayGaz's extra costs to settle a dispute over the project.
A year earlier, the Karachaganak field consortium led by Eni agreed to give the Kazakh government a 10% stake in the field, valued at $1 billion, as part of a dispute resolution.
It is harder to put a value on other concessions won in Kazakhstan's legal wranglings, such as the addition of some long-term payments, obligations to sell gas to a state entity or non-reimbursement of some historic costs.
In 2008, Kazakhstan doubled its stake in Kashagan to 16.8% as part of a settlement with international oil majors over delays in development of the field.
here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Nothing just or orderly about transitioning to the dole
As deals go, it was fairly uncontroversial and did no raise much publicity, but it, perhaps, further illustrates Aberdeen's steep economic decline. For the Woodbank is currently owned by Shell and has 21 bedrooms, seven meeting rooms, private dining rooms and a sports centre. Only Shell staff and executives could use the facility and was widely used as thousands of workers started moving to the North-east during the height of the oil boom. But now it is surplus to requirements by the oil giant which like other industry majors are turning their back on the North Sea due to dwindling reserves and punitive taxes that make it not worth their while drilling for it. Last year, US oil giant Chevron announced it will close its office in Aberdeen, as it leaves the North Sea after more than 50 years. The multinational energy corporation is active in 180 countries, and boasted revenues of $200billion (£145bn) in 2023. Last year, Chevron announced that it would sell its remaining North Sea assets amid declining production. Chevron was one of the first companies to invest in North Sea oil, with drilling beginning in the early 1970s. How bad things have got was recently highlighted with figures showing that more than 13,000 Scots oil and gas jobs have been lost in the space of just one year, while more than 40% of the UK's energy needs is being imported. BrewDog pub closures should act as a warning to Starmer Nothing about the A9 dualling project suggests momentum Ms Hyslop Scotland needs more workers - here's how we attract them It is high time that irresponsible campervan users are taxed off the NC500 I have walked amongst Scotland's largest seagulls - and they are a menace According to the trade association Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), the number of jobs both directly and in the broader supply chain in North Sea oil and gas has dropped by nearly half since 2013, from 117,900 to just 60,700 in 2023. In the last full year tracked, there was a loss of 13,400 jobs, with hundreds more expected to be shed with the closure of Scotland's only oil refinery. Aberdeen's main thoroughfare Union Street currently has one in four shops lying empty as highly paid workers leave the city for greener pastures. Is this what politicians mean when they refer to a just transition? I'm not sure the near 60,000 people who have lost their jobs in the industry over the past decade at the altar of Net Zero would say anything about it being just for them. According to the official definition, a 'just transition' refers to a shift towards a sustainable, low-carbon economy that is fair and inclusive, ensuring that no one is left behind in the process. But while all the jobs have been lost in the North Sea, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) analysis for the first quarter of this year shows that net energy import dependency, which measures how much the UK needs to buy in after accounting for exports, is at 47%. This is nearly 10% more than in 2019 – when net import dependency was at 38.7%. Overall, energy production in the first three months of this year is 25% lower than in the pre-pandemic year of 2019. It is no surprise then that the offshore energy industry trade group has called on UK ministers to give greater support for North Sea production, insisting it is not incompatible with net zero aims – contrary to environmental group narratives. But the UK Government has been standing firm on the denial of future oil and gas exploration licences, which it was felt was required to meet global warming targets. This steadfast principle has partly led to Scotland losing on average 37 oil and gas jobs every day. So much for the old adage that we're all in this together. The OEUK has told the UK Government that issuing no new oil and gas licences for the exploration of new fuels will result in the UK being more reliant on imports of oil and gas to meet energy demands. They warned in a briefing: 'This is not in the national interest, and undermines UK energy security and climate goals.' Their analysis says that UK Government advisers, The Climate Change Committee (CCC), estimate the UK will require 13-15 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent (boe) in the period 2025 to 2050 to meet its energy needs. But they say the North Sea Transition Authority forecasts the UK to produce only four billion barrels of oil and gas in the period 2025 to 2050, less than one third of the 'balanced path' for net zero transition. They warn that importing energy takes away support for production at home to supply the Scottish and UK economy, with the spin-off of endangering jobs and therefore less tax to the Treasury. But it also says that relying on imported energy instead of domestic North Sea supplies can increase the carbon footprint by up to four times, because it has to be transported. Oil workers pay quite a bit of tax too and certain specialists will have simply moved away to other oil producing areas and pay tax there instead. In the midst of this, artists including Paloma Faith, Lola Young and The Cure's Robert Smith have urged the Prime Minister to reject future drilling at Rosebank in the North Sea. In a letter addressed to Sir Keir Starmer, the musicians argued that further development of the oil field north west of Shetland would undermine the UK's climate commitments and the sustainability of the cultural sector. The letter urges the Government to follow the science and states, 'any new application to exploit Rosebank's reserves must be refused'. Sadly, give the form of previous administrations, ministers will probably put more weight on the opinions of singers rather than their own advisors and the industry. Everyone knows the world must wean itself off fossil fuels and great strides gave already been made but it's not an overnight quick fix. We still have to get it from somewhere - so why not here? Once these jobs have gone, they've gone and there is nothing just or orderly about it.
Times
17 hours ago
- Times
Who is Gareth Sheridan, the ‘pharma-bro' hoping to be Ireland's president?
G areth Sheridan arrives at the Radisson Blu Hotel in Stillorgan just a few minutes late, without his wife Heidi, who has attended all his other media commitments. It is a glorious Friday afternoon and the sun is splitting the summer skies, but he seems just a little preoccupied. It has been a bruising few days for Ireland's youngest aspiring presidential candidate, who has been forced to answer questions on everything from his own business dealings, to social housing planning objections lodged by his mother, to a business partner's reported links to Russian oligarchs. His interview with The Sunday Times was originally due to take place in his home, with his family around him. But there is a last-minute change of location to a hotel, and he arrives on his own.
Spectator
a day ago
- Spectator
The 12 minutes of the Trump-Putin summit that shook the world
The Trump-Putin press conference in Anchorage was 12 minutes that shook the world. Putin got precisely what he wanted, which was full personal rehabilitation as a respectable world leader. Donald Trump literally rolled out the red carpet for Putin and at the presser said that he had 'always had a fantastic relationship with President Putin, with Vladimir.' And though no deal was done over Ukraine, what Putin achieved was something far more valuable – a re-set of relations between Russia and the US. Putin admitted that bilateral ties had fallen to the 'lowest point since the Cold War' but called for both sides to move on. 'Not far from here lies the international date line where one can literally step from yesterday into tomorrow,' said Putin. He spoke of a 'constructive atmosphere of mutual respect,' of 'mutually beneficial and equal ties' and twice called the newly reset relationship with America 'businesslike'. Trump, for his part, praised both Putin and his team of 'tremendous Russian business representatives.' True, a planned lunch for the two delegations and a second, expanded round of talks was cancelled. Three of the five senior economics officials that Putin had brought didn't get to sit down with their US counterparts. But that was because the Russians decided that they had already got what they had come for. 'The way that it felt in the room… like Putin came in and steamrolled,' reported Fox News correspondent Jacqui Heinrich. Putin 'got right into what he wanted to say and got his photo next to the president and then left.' Though no deal was reached, Putin did come away from the summit with one very significant practical victory. The Anchorage summit effectively swept away all of Trump's previous ultimatums and threats of 'severe consequences' and replaced them with an open-ended negotiation framework that buys Putin time. More, Putin was able to pretend to be seeking peace and negotiation while in reality escalating offensive operations in Ukraine. And perhaps most important of all Putin made clear that he was not interested in a ceasefire but rather a comprehensive peace deal to be negotiated even as his forces continue their grinding advance in Donbas. And Putin clearly believes that Trump will be a pushover at the negotiating table. 'Trump may sincerely want to end the war, but he does not have the mental capacity to negotiate with Putin,' wrote Janis Kluge of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. 'You can't be tough if you don't understand the nuances of the issue you are negotiating. The result is that [Trump] gets manipulated.' What was striking was how carefully the Kremlin had planned the choreography of the summit. The very location of Alaska – loaded with symbolism not only of a lost Russian Empire but also of second world war US-Soviet cooperation – was the idea of veteran Russian diplomat Yury Ushakov. Meeting at the point of the North Pacific where Russia and America nearly touch also allowed Putin to greet Trump as his 'dear neighbour'. Enroute to the summit Putin stopped off at the former Gulag town of Magadan and there laid flowers at a monument to Soviet and American soldiers who were killed ferrying thousands of American planes gifted under Lend-Lease to the Soviet war effort. The symbolism was clear. Putin was honouring the men who died 'for our common victory' over Nazism, he told reporters. By implication, the US and Russia could unite again to oppose the supposedly Nazi regime in Kyiv. Putin's talking points were also precisely measured. He knows exactly what to say to please Trump, from confirming that the war would not have started if Trump had been president in 2022, to agreeing with Trump that Russian electoral interference in the 2016 US election was a 'hoax'. Appealing to Trump's greed, Putin spoke of the 'tremendous potential' for business cooperation. And to the outrage of many Ukrainians, Putin called the war that he himself started a 'terrible tragedy for us' and a 'wound' and insisted that Russians considered Ukrainians a 'brotherly nation'. That is a clear echo of a common Russian narrative that the war was fomented by western interference in Kyiv's affairs. It was also clear that the Kremlin's position has barely changed since 2022. When Putin speaks of the 'root causes' of the conflict he is saying that he sees an independent Ukraine that has the ability to defend itself is a fundamental threat to Russia. When he calls for a 'fair balance of security' Putin means restrictions on Nato deployments in the Baltics, Poland and Romania. Small wonder that ultranationalist Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin called the summit 'excellent… the best result that we could expect!' Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orbán wrote that 'the world is a safer place today than it was yesterday' as a result of the summit. The big question now is whether Trump will follow up by putting more pressure on Russia – or more pressure on Ukraine to capitulate. Trump will meet with Zelensky on Monday in the Oval Office to discuss what Trump called 'points that we negotiated [with Putin] and points that we largely have agreed upon. I think we have agreed on a lot… Ukraine has to agree to it, maybe they'll say no.' For Zelensky, the choice will be to agree to the terms Trump negotiated over his head – or refuse, and try to fight on with European help. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Putin doesn't seem to care whether the endgame of the war plays out on the negotiating table or the battlefield. Putin believes that he can win either way.
