What the loss of Crimea means for Ukrainian energy

RB: We could see some positive developments courtesy of the Russian maneuvering. There may be more impetus to invest in Ukraine's shale development once the dust settles on the Crimea debacle. We'll hear a lot of rhetoric for the next six months or so, but then the Crimea incident will be largely forgotten.

Ukraine is a great place to operate, and now it will be more transparent, so the sector should be opened up to more investment, which will happen as energy independence assumes a higher priority on the government's agenda. The country has 14 per McF gas prices, which is very attractive. But Ukraine has to take the first step—and there is a lot to do.

Clearly, Ukraine cannot be happy with the progress made by Shell and Chevron in the shale development process. The process has been open and transparent, but only on two enormous blocks. To truly get shale development in the country, Ukraine needs to auction off multiple blocks of shale acreage, and the best way to do that would not be through a data-room process in Kiev, but in Houston or Denver, where a majority of the shale industry is located. Ukraine needs about 15-20 oil and gas companies developing shale, not just Shell and Chevron.

JS: What are the prospects for getting liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Ukraine?

RB: If you can get it through the Turkish-controlled Bosphorus Strait, you would have an endless supply of LNG going to Ukraine. The US now is pushing very hard to open up new LNG facilities in the US to get US shale gas/LNG shipped to Ukraine--but that won't happen for five years, if it happens at all. Ukraine can't wait for that.

But the moment you have access to the Bosphorus you have LNG delivery in Ukraine approximately a year after that. There has been a lot of conversation between the Ukrainian and Turkish governments. It's all rhetoric on both sides, from my point of view. Until the Turks are shown that LNG is a safe commodity to pass through the Bosphorus, which it is; until they're shown undeniably from a third party, that's when they will sign off.

LNG is safe and we have a study to show that. At present, LPG [liquid petroleum gas] passes through the Bosphorus, and LPG is significantly more dangerous. From an environmental standpoint, oil is significantly more dangerous than gas. Let's not forget that naval warships also pass through the Bosphorus, which is by far the most dangerous thing that is ever going to pass through this strait.

One thing the study shows is that LNG passes through the Houston ship channel, Rotterdam port, Chesapeake bay, ports of New Jersey--all without incident. I'm very respectful of those who are wary of LNG passing through the Bosphorus, but this fear is not based on fact. It's based on what they believe, and we have facts that prove otherwise; and at that point we would hope that the larger potential here for all involved would outweigh these erroneous beliefs.

JS: How would Ukraine receive gas coming through the Bosphorus?

RB: Given that Crimea no longer exists—at least from a Ukrainian perspective—an FSRU [floating storage and regasification unit] would sit off the coast of Odessa, most likely, or around that region, which would still remain in the Ukrainian Black Sea. That's where you would gasify the LNG and put it into the Ukrainian pipeline system.

JS: Does Ukraine have this capability yet?

RB: Ukraine already has an FSRU, for all intents and purposes. The only thing we are waiting on is access to the Turkish-controlled Bosphorus. At that moment, Ukraine's purchases the FSRU and then we're only about a year away from LNG gas sales. It's that close. This was all done under former energy minister and former vice-prime minister Yuri Boyko. The only thing Boyko was missing was access to the Bosphorus. The barge is ready. The facility exists and is waiting to be purchased from a Houston-based company. There are traders with LNG just waiting for an order.