In other words, the objective of these agreements is to completely eliminate any hint of a risk of fuel shortages in the country and to limit the growth of retail fuel prices. Currently, the volumes of supply to the domestic market are determined directly by exchange regulations and indirectly by export bans. As for retail prices at gas stations, it has been previously stated that they should not rise above the inflation rate; however, this has not been officially documented. Historical agreements between the government and oil companies regarding the fuel market have existed before, but they were generally in the form of gentlemen's agreements rather than official documents. The main distinction of the new agreements is that they are expected to officially establish both the price ceilings for gasoline and diesel and the necessary supply volumes of various types of fuel to the domestic market. They only need to be finalized, and the very concept of "agreements" implies that a compromise must be reached between the government and oil companies, resulting in mutual benefits for the participants.
The aim of these agreements is to reduce the risk of fuel shortages in the country and limit the growth of retail prices.However, there is another potential scenario in which companies may simply attempt to assert their position, justifying this decision with political necessity. Our fuel market is currently influenced by the conflict in the Middle East, causing prices for oil and petroleum products to rise, and by unscheduled repairs at our oil refineries (refineries) linked to UAV strikes, as well as supply difficulties due to sanctions.
The exchange prices for gasoline and diesel are far from historical highs, but they have risen by 21% and 23% respectively since the beginning of the year. Retail growth is more moderate, as prices are under strict control by the Ministry of Energy and FAS, but the rise in gasoline prices exceeds the inflation rate. According to Rosstat data, as of April 27, AI-92 gasoline has increased in price by 3.7%, while inflation stands at 3.2%.
This indicates that there are grounds for strict decisions. As noted in a discussion with "RG," Dmitry Prokofyev, director of NEFT Research for external communications, mentioned that this represents a qualitatively different level of intervention. The soft agreements of the past, often interpreted by oil companies as "suggestions," are being replaced by legally binding agreements with clear parameters. This is no longer a gentlemen's agreement, but a comprehensive contract with a set of direct obligations and, importantly, reciprocal proposals from the government. This marks a transition to direct manual regulation of the industry, according to the expert.
This paradigm is further illustrated by the government's decision not to extend the moratorium on nullifying the dampener for oil companies. The dampener serves as partial compensation to oil companies from the budget for supplying fuel to the domestic market at prices lower than export prices. The size of these payments is calculated based on the difference between the export value of the fuel and the indicative domestic price, as established legally. The dampener is nullified if, at the St. Petersburg exchange, the price for AI-92 gasoline exceeds the indicative price by 20%, and for diesel fuel (DT) by 30%. Since October 1 of last year, this rule was suspended as a measure of assistance to oil companies due to tightening US sanctions. However, starting May 1 of this year, the rule for nullifying the dampener has come back into effect.
According to energy expert Kirill Rodionov, in general, the cancellation of the moratorium eliminates "ambiguity" in the regulation of the fuel market, where export bans were intended to encourage oil companies to curb exchange prices, yet the dampener payments did not account for their real dynamics.
Experts believe that the measures taken will help avoid significant price increases at gas stations during periods of high demand.Returning to the agreements, Prokofyev remarked that the new mechanism constitutes a direct administrative contract. The Ministry of Energy has gained the right to impose specific quotas for fuel supplies to the domestic market (from the total processing volume), while the FAS will oversee their implementation.
Obligations should not be one-sided, insists Dmitry Gusev, deputy chairman of the Supervisory Board of the "Reliable Partner" Association and member of the Expert Council of the "Gas Stations of Russia" competition. If there is an obligation to supply a certain amount of fuel to the domestic market, there must also be an obligation for someone to purchase it. Oil companies must also be granted some advantages, he argues.
As Prokofyev points out, the government cannot directly order refineries how much and to whom to sell, but it has created conditions that are extremely difficult to ignore, according to the expert. In exchange for a guarantee of stable sales and a predictable price level, companies obtain certain preferences from the government. In return, the Ministry of Energy establishes minimum indicative indicators (quotas) for each plant regarding the supply of gasoline and diesel to the domestic market. Essentially, this is a market negotiation, but the government is sitting at the negotiation table.
However, our primary interest lies in whether the new mechanism will indeed help contain price growth at gas stations. Gusev believes that large gas station networks, especially those with state participation, will keep prices in check. He has significant doubts regarding private companies. At the same time, he emphasizes that the focus should not solely be on fuel prices, as they do not rise arbitrarily; rather, it is about building an energy-efficient fuel policy.
In the opinion of Sergey Tereshkin, General Director of Open Oil Market, the increase in retail prices for gasoline will likely exceed the "inflation minus" benchmark, while the diesel segment will adhere to this rule—at least until autumn. Overall, the regulation of the industry heavily relies on "gentlemen's" agreements, which may only yield temporary effects: the issue of price growth will eventually necessitate new agreements. This is a storyline that will undoubtedly repeat itself.
Prokofyev shares a similar view. The effect is likely to be temporary. Such fuel agreements function as a one-time remedy: they alleviate acute pain but do not cure the chronic disease. In the long term, this approach only exacerbates disparities, making oil refining even more dependent on administrative inflows and ultimately diluting market incentives for enhancing efficiency. Companies find it far more advantageous to secure guaranteed domestic sales at a fixed price than to invest in modernization to compete on the export market. This is less an economic measure than a political compromise aimed at smoothing peak burdens during the season. It may provide a respite, but it does not address the structural problem indefinitely. The government and oil companies have found a way, through mutual concessions, to patch the gap in the summer fuel balance. However, this model, if it becomes permanent in the long run, will only increase the budget's dependence on manual regulation of the sector. In an environment where stability takes precedence over efficiency, such a choice appears logical. However, it of course does not resolve the systemic issue of rising fuel prices.
Source: RG.RU
