Created: 8/16/1973

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible



Contribution to International

cooperation in

AttachedE contributions on US-Soviet cooperative programs in the fields of oil and gas, hydroelectric power, and high voltage transmission, submitted in accordance with the proposed formats.

Attachment as stated.

Technical^ pescription of Cooperative Programs

Oil and


Interior (Lead Agency)


There are no knownrograms in the field of oil and gas in which US or other international cooperation has been sought. There are, however, someooperative ventures in liquefied natural gac underby Soviet and US firms. In addition, there are areas of petroleum technology and equipment manufacture in which the US leads the world and that arc of considerable interest to the USSR. These include items in the exploration, production, and pipelining phases of tho industry, especially seismic equipment, computerized playback centers, blowout preventers, mud pumps, nnd large compressors and valves.

Technical poseription of Coopcrative Programs

Oil and


Interior (Lead Agency)

D. Candidate Foreign Programs for USG Cooperation

Title: Liquefied Natural GasG)

Scope and Duration; Program involves cooperation by US firms in construction of facilities for pipelining and liquefaction of Siberian natural gas and delivery of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the US forears beginning.

Estimate of Expenditures Involved: Tho ventures now under consideration would involve dollar investments of5 billion in West Siberia and5 billion in East Siberia.

Assessment of value: These ventures gorograms but the know-how and equipment provided by US firms would enable tho USSR to develop their own energy resources more quickly andower cost. In return the US woulduch-nodded"source of energy for use in majorareas

5. Parties involved: 1) In West SiberiaSoviet Ministry of the Gas Industry and Tenneco, Texas Eastern Transmission, and Brown and Root; 2) in East SiberiaMinistry of the Gas Industry and Occidental Potrolcum Corporation and El Paso Natural Gas Company (possibly with Japanese firms).



Oil and Gas (Technology Area)

A. nilateral vs. Multilateral Cooperation

Negotiations are underway between US firms and the USSR for development of Soviet gas reserves in West Siberia with subsequent delivery of LNG to the US east coast, but no contracts have been signed. This cooperative venture willommercial deal with, as yet, onlymplications. imilar venture is also being considered by US and Japanese firms for delivery of gas (in the form of LNG) from East Siberian deposits to Japan and to the US east coast.

USG involvement to date has been one of cautioun negotiations with Soviet officials with no decision reached for approval or disapproval of the program. The USSR, on the other hand, seeks most-favored nation treatment from the US before undertaking the projects.

to be interested in cooperatingfirms in the East Siberian project because of the

need tources of imported energy, participation in the financial obligations of the deal is preferred by US firms involved.

of US Industry in Foreign Cooperative


No information is available on private domestic or privaten this subject.

of Trade and Technology Transfer Implications

US technology in this field ranks with the best in the world, although France has more experience in the design and operation of LNG plants. Canada and the US are the only countries besides the USSR that have had practical experience in laying gas pipelines in permafrost conditions.

US technology would be employed in constructionas pipeline in the Siberian permafrost and in theof an LNG plant. The investment in thesehas been estimated at7 billion plus ruble construction costs equivalent to aboutillion. The supply of Soviet LNG to the US would providef US east coast gas supply and perhapsf west coast gas supply0 ot tho proposed rates of delivery.

Tho net flow of technology in cither of these LNG dealw would be from the US to the USSR.

US business would benefit from the sale of equipment and technology involved in these projects. Also, anticipated as part of the doal with the Tenneco consortium is the sale

0 million worth of US consumer goods to the USSR for resale to help finance the ruble construction costs.

5. Over the tenure ofyear period of thedeal with the Tenneco consortium the USSR would have net earnings of someillion which would be available for purchase of goods and services from the US.


Technical Description of Cooperative Programs

Oil and USSR


* Interior (Lead Agency)

D* Candidate Foreign Programs for OSG Cooperation

Title: Optimum Development of Energy Resources

Scope and Duration: Torogram for the balanced, long-range development of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) in the USSR. To evaluate the technical, economic, and logistic factors necessary for exploiting Soviet energy resources, onshore and offshore.

Estimate of Expenditures Involved: Unknown -

Assessment of Value: Economic and technical models forrogram would permit an orderly development of energy resources and enable the US to assess the Soviet roleong-range supplier of energy,

Parties Involved: Soviet and US members of the scientific and academic communities and governmentconcerned with the energy industries in both countries.



Coal,_Oil, andechnology Area)

vs. Multilateral cooperation

No bilateral or multilateral cooperation exists in this field but high-level Soviet officials have expressed an interestuel optimization program to officials of US oil companies. Although one or more major international oil companies would be interested in conducting sucheans, perhaps, of securing long-range supplies of Soviet oil or gas for the US market, it wouldevelation Of Soviet data that are now jealously guarded as state secrets.

of US Industry in Foreign cooperative

This types conductedegular basis by the major international oil companies for the areas they serve andeans of assessing the world energy market.

C. Balance of Trade and Technology Transfer Implications

US technology and experience in this field is equal to or exceeds that in any other part of the world. Any benefit from the use of such technology would be derived by the USSR.

There is no way to assess the benefits' US business might obtain from such cooperation, although it is likely that sizable sales of equipment and services could result.

Technical Description of Cooperative Programs

High Voltage


ead" Agency)

D. Candidate Foreign Programs for USG Cooperation

1- Title: Alternating Current Transmission0 kilovolts.

and Duration: Development and designand transformer stations and construction ofoperational line during theears.

of Expenditures Involved: Not- Assessment of Value: Unknown.

5. Parties Involved: inistry of Power and Electrification;eneral Electric Company, Westinghouse Electric Company or others.

Direct Current Transmission0 kilovolts.

and Duration: Development and design ofand converter stations and construction of tholine during the0 years.

Estir-itc of Expenditures Involved: Not available.

Assessment of Value: Unknown.

Involved: inistry ofeneral Electric Company,or others.

USSR (Country)

High Voltage Transmission (Technology Area)

vs. Multilateral Cooperation

The US-USSR Joint Working Group on Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Field of Energy is considering projects in this area for cooperative work.

of US Industry in Foreign Cooperative

domestic research is being conducted in

this field by Westinghouse Electric Company, General Electric Company, the Electric Research Council, and possibly other companies. Details are not known.

USSR is conducting research and developmenthigh voltage transmission at several researchthe Lenin All-Union Electrotechnical Instituteand the Highurrent Institute Soviet technicians are working in particulardevelopment0 KV alternating currenturrent transmission. The current Sovietcalls for construction to begin on theine, which willistanceNorth Kazakhstan to the Central European area, as well

as on the0 KV ac line, from Itafc to Novokuznetsk in Siberia.

American Electric Power system, Ohio Brass,Svenska Elektriska Akti4bols>get (ASEA) ofcarryingoint research program to determineand economic feasibilityransmissionvolts and above.

A conference is to be held in the fall3 in Philadelphia between General Electric and Soviet specialists on the technology of extra high voltage, direct current transmission. Dr. Thomasice president of General Electric, suggestedooling of efforts might speed up the engineering designs of an economical high voltage transmission system.

of company proprietary informationa problem in these programs.

C. Balance of Trade and Technology Transfer Implications

1. In the field of alternating current and high voltage transmission Soviet technology io equal to and possibly somewhat ahead of US technology. In direct current transmission, Soviet technology is behind that of the US, and Soviet technicians apparently need some technical

assistance in certain aspects, such as the production of solid state cells.

The use of very high voltage transmission makes it possible to move largo amounts of electric power over long distances. This would enable greater exploitation of hydro resources in remote areas, and the transmission of electric powor to areas of high demand.

There would be mutual benefit resulting from joint development, but the net flow of technology probably would be from the US.

US business might benefit from the sale of certain items of equipment for high voltage transmission lines.

No information is available to assess the value of international trade associated with this technology.

Technical Description of Cooperative Programs

Gas Turbine


Interior (Load Agency)

D. Candidate Foreign Programs for USG Cooperation

Title: Large Gas Turbines for Peak Power Production.

Scope and Duration: Development, design, andof gas turbinesegawatt capacitytart-up time of no moreinutes.

Estimate of Expenditure Involved: Not available.

Assessment of Value: Unknown.

Parties Involved: inistry of Heavy, Power, and Transport Equipment.


Gag Turbine Technology (Technology Area)

vs. Multilateral Cooper jn

1. Tho US-USSR Joint Workingjp on Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Fie1 of Energy is considering projects for cooperativeas turbine technology.

of US Indu cy in Foreign Cooperative




C. Balance of Trade and Technology Transfer implications


the Soviet Union has mode important

advances in the development of compressors, one .of theof gan turbines,made advances in the

The US has many gas turbines in operation lor peak-load production of electric power, mostly with capacities ofo" The Soviet Union hasas turbines operating for the production of electric power, one of whichapacityW, but it does not yet meeteak load unit. Joint efforts in tho developmentW gas turbine could offer benefits to both sides.

turbines are very efficient for use in periods

of peak production of electric power, because they can be


started up and stopped in/very short time. For this reason theyreat saving of fuel, in contrast to athermal powerplant, which takes many hours to start up, and also to shut down.

The net flow of technology would probably be to the USSR, because of the greater experience in the US in the production and operation of gas turbines.

US business might benefit from the sale of gasas tho USSR needs more gas turbines than it has the capability to produce in the next few years.

No assessment is possible on tho value of inter-national trade associated with this technology.


Technical Description of Cooperative Programs



Interior (Lead Agency)

D. Candidate Foreign Programs for USG Cooperation

There are no known orooperativein the field of hydroelectric power involving the USSR. However, the Soviet Union leads the world inin this field and could contribute beneficially to the US.

USSR (Country)

Hydroelectric Power (Technology Area)

vs. Multilateral Cooperation

2. The US-USSR Joint Working Group on Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Field of Energy is considering projects in this area for cooperative work.

of US Industry in Foreign Cooperative



Considerable research and development work has been carried out in the USSR in the field of hydroelectric power, particularly on exploitation of resources in high mountain areas; the development of very large hydro turbines, for use at sites such as those on the rivers in Siberia; the development of bulb-type generating units for useow-head dam; and the development of tidal power plants.

of Trade and Technology Transfer The Soviet Unionreat deal of experience in

building large hydroelectric power stations, has produced the largest hydro turbines now in operation, and is ahead of the US in hydro technology.

The use of modern technology in theof unexploited hydro resources, particularly in the north-west part of the US, could help to alleviate energy shortages.

The net flow of technology would be to the US.

The US would not be likely to benefit from the sale of equipment, services, or material to tho USSR in this area of technology. The USSR has contracts for the sale of hydro-electric generating equipment to Canada and several South American countries, and is endeavoring to sell such equipment to the US. However, sales of Soviet equipment

to the US would have no significant effect on the US-Soviet balance of trade.

Original document.

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: