western energy equipment and technology trade with the …

CHAPTER 6

Western Energy Equipmentand Technology Trade With

the U.S.S.R.

CONTENTS

Page

EAST-WEST TRADE IN ENERGYTECHNOLOGY ANDEQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

NUCLEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..174Western Exports. . .................174Foreign Availability of Nuclear

Equipment and Technology. . .......176Summary and Conclusions. . ..........177

COAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......177

PageForeign Availability of Coal

Technology and Equipment. . . . . . . . .180Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . .180

ELECTRIC POWER, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181Western Exports. . .................181Foreign Availability of Electric Power

Equipment and Technology. . .......183Summary and Conclusions. . ..........183

OIL AND GAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184Western Exports. . .................177 Western Exports. . .................184

.

Page

Foreign Availability of Oil and GasIndustry Equipment andTechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Technology Transfer and “ForeignAvailability” . . . . . . . . .............200

Summary and Conclusions. . ..........204

APPENDIX A. Energy CorporationAffiliations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..205

APPENDIX B. Trade by Company. .. .209

APPENDIX C. Suppliers of EssentialEquipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..219

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

UN SITC Energy-RelatedEquipment Codes. . ..............170Industrial West Exports to theU. S. S. R., Selected Countries. .. ....172Soviet Energy-Related ImportsFrom Selected Western Countries. .. 172Energy-Related Exports to theU.S.S.R. by Selected Countries. .. ..174Soviet Imports From SelectedWestern Nations. ... , . ...........179U.S. Oil and Gas Equipment TradeWith U.S.S.R. Relative Percentageof Each Technology Area. . . . . . . . . .186Comparison of U.S. and FrenchSeismic Equipment. . . . . . . . .......192Manufacture of Siesmic Equipmentby Country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Non-U.S. Offshore EngineeringFirms , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .. .199

B-1. Trade by Company–Oiland Gas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209

B-2. Trade by Company–Coal. . .......217C-1. Suppliers of Nuclear Grade

c-2

c-3

Pip& and Tubes Outsidethe United States. . .............219Suppliers of Welding EquipmentOutside the United States. . ......219Suppliers of Steam GeneratorsOutside the United States. . ......220

c-4.

c-5.

C-6.

c-7.

C-8.

c-9.

Page

Suppliers of Pumps Outside theUnited States. . ................220Suppliers of Valves Outside theUnited States. . ................220Suppliers of ContainmentStructures Outside theUnited States. . ................221Suppliers of Control SystemsOutside the United States. . ......221Essential Equipment for CoalMining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..221West European and JapaneseSuppliers of Essential CoalMining Equipment. . ............222

C-10. West European and JapaneseProducers of ElectricTransmission Equipment. . ......225

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Soviet Imports of Western Energy “Equipment and Technology, by -

Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173U.S. Energy-Related Exports tothe U. S. S. R., by Industry. ... , .. ...174Western Energy Trade WithU.S.S.R.–Welding Equipment. .. ..175Coal-Related Equipment Exportsto the U. S: S. R.. . ................178Electric Power Equipment Exportsto the U. S. S. R.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..182U.S.S.R. Imports of Oil and GasEquipment ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185U.S. Oil and Gas Equipment TradeWith U.S.S.R. by TechnologyArea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187Western Energy Trade WithU.S.S.R. Automated DataProcessing Equipment. . ..........188Western Energy Trade WithU.S.S.R. Pumps for Liquids. . ......189Relative Importance to SovietEnergy Industries of Computer-Related Technologies in Which theU.S.S.R. Lags the United States. .. .203

.

CHAPTER 6

Western Energy Equipment andTechnology Trade With the U.S.S.R.

—.—-

The previous four chapters have discussedthe impact of Western energy technologyand equipment on Soviet energy productionin qualitative terms. This chapter examinesthe nature and extent of Soviet energy-related purchases from the West. Usingavailable trade data, it seeks t. ascertain the

magnitude and sources of this trade, toanalyze identifiable patterns and trends, andto illuminate the role of the United States inproviding material assistance to Sovietenergy industries. In the latter context, thechapter addresses the issue of “foreign avail-ability," i.e., the extent to which the UnitedStates is the sole or preferred supplier ofenergy equipment and technologies that theSoviet Union has purchased in the last 5years or is likely to seek during the presentdecade.

The methodology employed in this chap-ter is as follows: OTA used the surveys ofthe Soviet oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and elec-tricity transmission industries which appearin chapters 2 through 5, together with in-formation on common Western practice, tocompile a broad list of important energytechnologies, items of equipment, and serv-ices.1 This list was refined by using tradestatistics to identify those areas in which theU.S.S.R. has made purchases from the Westin the past 5 years. Major items were thensubjected to a foreign availability analysis inwhich OTA attempted to ascertain whichWest European and Japanese firms manu-facture similar equipment or possess exper-tise comparable to those companies that ac-tually supplied the U.S.S.R.—

1No attempt has been made here to distinguish between“technology” and “products” or “equipment”. For a discus-sion of this subject, see OTA, Technology and East-WestTrade (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1979), ch. VI.

Foreign availability is a highly subjectiveconcept. As chapter 13 discusses in detail,there is no universal agreement on theparameters that define the degree of equiva-lency necessary to constitute foreign avail-ability, on how the parameters should beweighted, or indeed on how equivalencyitself can and should be measured. Given thelimitations of this study, no attempt wasmade to conduct an exhaustive worldwidesearch for all alternative sources for eachitem; in most cases identification of two orthree suppliers was deemed sufficient.

Nor did OTA construct a rigorous frame-work for defining and measuring foreignavailability. Information on energy tech-nologies and equipment was collected fromindustry sources in a number of countriesand evaluated by independent technicians.These evaluations were supplemented by in-terviews with representatives from energy-related companies in the United States andwith members of the intelligence commu-nity. The criteria of comparability werequality, price, and technical capabilities (i.e.,speed, capacity, precision). OTA did not in-vestigate the potential manufacturing ca-pacity of alternative suppliers or evaluatethe willingness of firms to sell to theU.S.S.R. The latter are both issues thatwould have to be taken into account in an ex-haustive foreign availability analysis.

Although the results of the analysis car-ried out here are limited, they can be used toindicate those areas in which the UnitedStates enjoys a significant technologicaledge over other Western nations in an ener-gy-related process, system, or piece of equip-ment important to the oil, gas, coal, nuclear,or electric power industries of the U.S.S.R.

169

170 • Technology and Soviet Energy Availability

A variety of statistical systems were ex-amined in the course of this study, no one ofwhich provided an ideal data base. OTA hasdealt elsewhere with the problems associatedwith measuring and reporting trade,2 but abrief review of the data sources employedhere can provide a sense of the limitations ofthe analysis that follows and of the strengthof the generalizations that may legitimatelybe drawn from it.

This chapter relies most heavily on theUnited Nations’ Standard InternationalTrade Classification (SITC). This schemesummarizes trade information for thousandsof different items by organizing them intocommodity groupings of up to seven digits,The SITC system is the only readily avail-able statistical source that reports data forall of the Western countries examined duringthe course of this assessment. The disadvan-tage of SITC lies in the fact that it is highlyaggregative, i.e., its codes encompass itemsthat are not specifically energy related. Con-sequently, many of the values shown are in-flated, and should be understood to repre-sent relative orders of magnitude ratherthan precise amounts of energy-related ex-ports. OTA has collected data for thoseSITC codes believed to consist largely, albeitnot exclusively, of energy-related items.These codes are shown in table 40. The dataare best used for comparative purposes—toidentify the relative importance of suppliersof particular items to the U. S. S. R., forexample.

In some cases a more discrete analysisthan that possible from SITC data seemedwarranted. Here three other data bases wereemployed: Schedules B and E from the U.S.Department of Commerce,3 and the Euro-pean Economic Community (EEC)’s No-menclature of Goods for the External TradeStatistics of the Community and Statis-tics of Trade Between Member States

Table 40.—UN SITC Energy-RelatedEquipment Codes

SITC code

571 1

571.2, 571.2

6294

642.93655.92

678, 672.9695.24

711.1

711.2

711.7714.3

714.92

718.42

718.51

719.21719.22

719.23, 712.31

719.31

722.1

722.2

723.1

723.21729.52

729.92

732.4

735.92

735.93861.81, 729.51

861.91

86199

Description

Propellent powders and other preparedexplosivesSafety and detonating fuses, percussionand detonating caps, igniters, etc.Transmission, conveyor or elevator belts ofvulcanized rubberGummed or adhesive paper in strips or rollsTransmission, conveyor or elevator belts oftextiled materialTubes, pipes and fittings of iron and steelRock drilling bits; tools and bits forassorted hand toolsSteam and other vapor generating boilersand parts, n.e.s.Auxiliary plant for use with steam and othervapor generating boilersNuclear reactors and parts thereof n.e.s.Automatic data processing machines andunits thereof; magnetic and opticalreaders and machines for processingdataParts, n es. of and accessories for ADPand other calculating machinesSelf-propelled shovels and excavators,self and nonself propelled Ievelling,tamping, boring, etc., machinery andparts thereofMachinery for sorting, screening,separating, washing, crushing, etc.,for earth, stone, ores and other mineralsPumps for Iiquids and parts thereofAir and vacuum pumps and air or gascompressors and parts thereofFiltering and purifying machinery andapparatus for liquids and gasesOther Iifting, handling, Ioading andunloading machinery, n.e.s.Rotating electric plant and parts thereof;transformers, converters, rectifiers,Inductors and parts.Electrical apparatus for making or breakingelectrical circuitsInsulated electric wire, cable, bars, stripand the IikeElectrical Insulators of other materialsElectrical measuring, checking, analysingor controlling Instruments, n.e.s.Electric welding, brazing, soldering andcutting machines and apparatus andparts thereof, n e s.Special purpose motor Iorries, vans,crane Iorries, etc.Light vessels, floating cranes and otherspecial purpose vessels, floating docksFloating structures other than vesselsGas, Iiquid, and electricity supply orproduction meters.Surveying, hydrographic, etc., andgeophysical Instruments (nonelectrical)Parts, n.e.s., of meters and counters;nonelectrical and electrical measuring,checking, etc., instruments of SITC729.52, 861.8 and 861 97

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Ch. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R. ● 171

(NIMEXE). The former were useful in pro-viding a clearer sense of the role of energy-related items in U.S. exports; the latter ful-filled the same role for West European coun-tries. Cross-checking Western export withSoviet import data proved impossible. Thisphenomenon is not unique to the energy sec-tor; it reflects different classification sys-tems and data reporting criteria.

It must be noted that U.S. export statis-tics do not include the value of Western tech-nology and equipment sales that originatefrom U.S. subsidiaries or licensees abroad;nor will the category of U.S. exports to theU.S.S.R. include items that are first destinedfor third countries. Corporations that exportenergy technology and equipment are oftenmultinationals or at least have internationalcorporate affiliations in other countries.Some sense of the international nature ofthis industry can be gleaned from appendixA, which shows a partial list of energy cor-

poration affiliations worldwide. The com-plexity of these relationships makes it ex-tremely difficult, if not impossible, to alwaysattribute technology sales to the true coun-try of origin. The data collected here, there-fore, very likely understate the contributionof American technology to the U.S.S.R.

Finally, export statistics are ill-suited toidentifying such technology transfers as thesale of licenses or turnkey plants. For thisreason, OTA supplemented its statisticaldata bases with a comprehensive search ofSoviet Business and Trade, a biweeklypublication that reports major trade dealsbetween the U.S.S.R. and the West.4 TablesB-1 and B-2 in appendix B summarize ener-gy-related transactions reported in this pub-lication between 1975 and 1980.

EAST-WEST TRADE IN ENERGY TECHNOLOGYAND EQUIPMENT

Although Soviet trade with the West hasgrown markedly in the past decade, it has re-mained a relatively small part of world tradeas a whole. Except for sales of agriculturalcommodities (i.e., grain), the United Stateshas captured relatively small market sharesof this trade compared to other nations inthe Industrial West (IW, defined here asCanada, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands,Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UnitedKingdom, the United States, and West Ger-many). 5 Table 41, which shows total Sovietimports from the IW, demonstrates thatwhen agricultural commodities are excluded,in 1979 the United States lagged behindWest Germany, Japan, and France in in-dustrial exports to the U.S.S.R.

Table 42 shows the value of Soviet im-ports of items in the energy-related SITCcodes listed in table 40. From these data,

5 See OTA, op cit., ch. 111.

OTA estimates that energy-related itemsconstituted about 25 percent of total Sovietimports from the IW in 1975, and about 22percent in 1979. When total imports are ad-justed to omit agricultural commodities, therelative importance of energy-related tradeincreases slightly. In 1979, about 28 percentof Soviet nonagricultural imports from theWest consisted of energy equipment andtechnology.

It is clear from table 42 that the vastpreponderance of the U.S.S.R.’s energy-related imports are destined for its oil andgas industries, a fact that is demonstratedgraphically in figure 11. The oil and gas sec-tor in 1979 took up 77 percent of such im-ports. Assuming that a similar proportion ofmultiarea items—i.e., those that could beemployed in more than one energy in-dustry—were destined for the oil and gas in-dustries, approximately 81 percent of allSoviet purchases of energy equipment and


Table 41 .—industrial West Exports to the U. S. S. R., Selected Countriesa 1975-1979 (million U.S. dollars)

Total Industrial United West UnitedYear West a States Japan France Germany Italy Kingdom Other— . —

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15,255 $3,604 $2,461.0 $2,007 $3,619 $1,220 $694 $1650.4Industrial. . . . . . . . . 12,151 1,319 2,461 1,791 3551 1,191 655 1,183,1Agricultural . . . . . . 3,104 2,285 0.2 216 68 29 39 467,3

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,419 2,249 2,502 1,455 3,141 1,133 665 1,274Industrial. . . . . . . . . 10,485 804 2,501 1,408 3,128 1,084 615 945Agricultural . . . . . . 1,934 1,445 1 47 13 49 50 329

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,788 1,624 1,934 1,496 2,789 1,228 607 1,110,1Industrial. . . . . . . . . 9,411 747 1,934 1,369 2,765 1,218 602 776Agricultural . . . . . . 1,377 877 0 127 24 10 5 334

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,051 2,306 2,252 1,118 2,685 981 432 1,277Industrial, . . . . . . . . 9,005 946 2,252 977 2,659 974 427 770Agricultural . . . . . . 2,047 1,360 0 141 26 8 5 507

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,092 1,834 1,625 1,147 2,824 1,020 464 1,178Industrial. . . . . . . . . 8,469 720 1,625 1,059 2,816 996 459 794Agricultural . . . . . . $1,623 $1,114 $ 0 $ 88 $ 8 $ 24 $ 5 $384

a l ndus t r ia l i zed W e s t e r n n a t i o n s In c l u d e C a n a d a F r a n c e I t a l y J a p a n t h e N e t h e r l a n d s N o r w a y S w e d e n S w i t z e r l a n d t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m t h e U n i t e d S t a l e s a n d W e s t

Germany

SOURCE: OECD, Stastitics of Foreign Trade Series B Paris (Annual).

Table 42.—Soviet Energy-Related Imports From Selected Western Countriesa

(million U.S. dollars)

Electric MultiareaYear Oil/qas Coal Nuclear power commodities Total

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,652.5 $255.9 $84.1 $279,3 $155.1 $3,427

1978 ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,321,0 237.0 70.4 3319 134.8 3,095

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,991.7 174.4 98.8 252.6 103.4 2,621

1976 ......, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,250,0 202.8 70.2 157.0 86,5 2,767

1975 ......, . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,989.5 $212.5 $90.5 $117,6 $90.3 $2,500

a l nc ludes Canada France I ta ly Japan, the Netherlands Norway Sweden, Switzer land the United Kingdom the United States and West Germany

NOTE Data here IS for the SITC codes Iisted in table 40

SOURCE Un i t ed Na t i ons S ITC da ta

technology were used to find, produce, anddeliver oil and gas. The share of the nuclearpower sector was less than 3 percent; that ofcoal 7 percent; electric power, 8 percent; andother multiarea items, 1 percent.

The role of the United States in thisenergy-related trade has been small, both interms of its share in U.S.-Soviet trade as awhole, and in comparison to the relative

shares of energy-related equipment and tech-nology in the Soviet trade of America’sallies. As table 43 displays, the value of U.S.exports to the U.S.S.R. in energy-relatedSITC codes for 1979 was $237.6 million. Thisconstituted some 6.6 percent of America’stotal and about 18 percent of its industrialexports to the Soviet Union in that year.Table 43 also shows that in 1979, the valueof U.S. energy-related exports to the

Ch. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the US.S.R. ● 173

Figure 11 .—SovietEquipment and

Imports of Western EnergyTechnology, by Industry

U.S.S.R. was lower than those of Japan,West Germany, France, and Italy. Japanwas by far the largest energy equipment sup-plier to the U. S. S. R., its exports totallingabout one-third of all Soviet purchases inthis area. West Germany was a close second.France and Italy both recorded exportsabout double those of the United States. In1979, the United States accounted for under7 percent of energy-related exports to theU.S.S.R. of the Western countries examined.

on which this analysis is based seriously in-flates the export figures by including itemsnot destined for the Soviet energy sector,this percentage may actually be evensmaller. U.S. trade statistics as of this writ-ing are available only through October 1980,but these suggest that U.S. energy-relatedexports plummeted in 1980, the result of thepost-Afghanistan technology embargo.

The composition of the Soviet Union’spurchases from the United States reflectsthe same pattern as its energy-related im-ports from the West as a whole, i.e., they arelargely composed of items destined for theoil and gas industries. This pattern is shownin figure 12. But although U.S. sales havenot been high in dollar amounts, or particu-larly impressive as a percentage of totalSoviet energy-related imports, it has beencontended that their importance to theU.S.S.R. is greatly magnified by the factthat they have been composed of criticalitems, some of which are unavailable else-where in the world. The remainder of thischapter will investigate this assertion, exam-ining sector by sector the composition and

n

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

Year

SOURCE Table 42

magnitude of Soviet imports in each of thefive energy industries under consideration,and identifying the sources of these imports.Where U.S. firms have been active traders,an attempt has been made to ascertainwhether or not comparable items areavailable elsewhere in the West.

174 ● Technology and Soviet Energy Availability

Table 43.—Energy-Related Exports to the U.S.S.R. by Selected Countriesa (million U.S. dollars)——— .

United West United Total energyYear States Japan France Germany Italy Kingdom Other exports— — —

1979 . . . . . . . $2376 $1,0971 $474.4 $906.1 $408,2 $90.5 $213.1 $3,4271978 . . . . . . . 1598 1,0675 391.4 8393 390.6 113.8 133.0 3,0951977 . . . . . . 211.7 5999 418.6 7454 447,5 49,7 148.2 2,6211976 . . . . . . . 2847 9044 3083 627.8 4384 46.3 156.7 2,7001975 . . . . . . $2183 $4795 $3344 $854.8 $4338 $38.4 $140,3 $2,500

— —a i nc ludes Canada, F rance, I ta ly , Japan, Nether lands , N o r w a y , S w e d e n , S w i t z e r l a n d , U n i t e d K i n g d o m , U n i t e d S t a t e s , a n d W e s t G e r m a n y

SOURCE: United Nations SITC Data

Figure 12.—U.S. Energy Related Exports to theU. S. S. R., by Industry

140

130

120

110

10090

8070

60

50

40

30

20

10

5

A

SOURCE U S Department of Commerce

NUCLEAR

WESTERN EXPORTS The latter code clearly incorporates a broad

Two SITC codes relate particularly to therange of equipment that can also be utilizedby other industries.

nuclear industrv:.Little Soviet trade in nuclear reactors

711.7

729.92

Nuclear reactors and parts thereof. and parts has been recorded—exports of$448,700 from the United States in 1978 and

Electric welding, brazing soldering$329,000 from West Germany in 1976. OTAhas been unable to find any unclassified ac-

and cutting machines and appara-tus and parts thereof.

counts that provide further information oneither of these figures. There have been


report that the U.S.S.R. may be consideringthe purchase of reactors from Italy, but asyet no such deal has been completed. (Itmust be noted that the U.S.S.R. has also ex-ported nuclear reactors to the West.) How-ever, the limitations of using and difficultiesin interpreting trade statistics may be il-lustrated by the fact that a $47 million con-tract purportedly signed with the Italianfirm Breda Termomeccanica in 1976 for thedesign and building of reactor manufactur-ing facilities at Atommash and Izhora does

Figure 13.— Western Energy Trade With

not appear in this SITC code.6 It is possiblethat this deal was not consummated or thatit is reflected elsewhere in the trade data,

SITC code 729.92 covers electric welding,brazing, soldering, and cutting machines andapparatus and parts. IW trade in this areaamounted to over $90 million in 1975 andover $84 million in 1979, but as figure 13 in-dicates, U.S. shares have been falling since

6 Soviet Business and Trade,

U.S.S.R.—Welding Equipment

I United Kingdom

l \ \ \

Nov. 24, 1976, p. 4.

(SITC 729.92)

\

West Germany

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

Year

SOURCE United Nations SITC Data


1975. In 1979, less than 10 percent of thewelding equipment supplied to the U.S.S.R.by the IW came from the United States,while West Germany and Italy together sup-plied nearly half.

In addition to the items contained in thesetwo codes, several purchases that may havebeen destined for the nuclear industry havebeen noted in Soviet Business and Trade.These include a hydraulic press purchasedfrom Japan;7 pumps from a United Kingdomfirm, 8 and various valves, shutters, andplugs from West Germany and Canada.9

Velan Engineering Co. of Canada is a majorsupplier of valves for the Soviet oil, gas,chemical, and nuclear industries.

F O R E I G N A V A I L A B I L I T Y O FN U C L E A R E Q U I P M E N T A N D

T E C H N O L O G Y

Aside from complete reactors, chapter 4has identified some areas in which, shouldthey decide to step up their nuclear-relatedpurchases, the Soviets might usefully turnto the West to supplement their own manu-facturing capabilities. These areas includenuclear grade tubing and pipes, welding andbrazing equipment, steam generators,pumps and casings (to circulate coolantthrough the reactor), nuclear valves, andcomputers, software, and automatic control.It must be stressed that at present theU.S.S.R. imports very little, if any, suchequipment. Indeed, analysis of the tradedata has confirmed chapter 4’s generaliza-tion that the Soviet nuclear power industryhas been virtually self-sufficient. Assumingfor purposes of argument that the U.S.S.R.might reverse its policy, OTA sought todetermine in which, if any, of these areas the

————— ——“i${)/itJt Bu,sinc,s,s art[i Tru~ie, No\T. 24, 1976. T h i s , t o g e t h e r

with Italian large boring and milling machines, Germanmachine tools, and U.S. welding and X-ray equipment, wasdestined for Atommash. See also Nucleonics Week, Nov. 8,1979, p. 12.

‘1 la~’w.ard ‘1’a?rlor & (’o., 1,td. .Sf)[ ‘ict };u.sin~).s.s IIn(i ‘/’ra(ie,

1+’et). 17, 1975.“.%)fict l~u.iillf~s,s IIHfi ‘1’r[~tlf, P’eh. 1 l’, 1 975; Apr . 2H, 1975:

and I)ec. 6, 1978.

United States might be considered a sole orpreferred supplier to the U.S.S.R.

OTA’s “foreign availability analysis” forthe nuclear industry was based on informa-tion from industrial trade journals and inter-views with representatives of U.S. firms(Westinghouse, Rollmet, Ransome), OakRidge National Laboratories, the NuclearRegulatory Commission, and the U.S. De-partment of Energy. The results of thisanalysis are reported in tables C-1 throughC-7 of appendix C. It can be seen from thesetables that firms in a variety of countriescould potentially supply the U.S.S.R. withthe kind of nuclear equipment and tech-nology it is most likely to seek.

There is one area in which the UnitedStates could be a strongly preferred sup-plier. The United States is the acknowledgedworld leader in many areas of computer tech-nology. Computers are normally used at nu-clear power stations for rather mundanetasks—data acquisition and simple processcontrol—and the U.S.S.R. presently reliesheavily on domestically produced computersat its nuclear stations. If greater power sta-tion automation is planned, however, moresophisticated systems might be necessary.

The United States is also a world leader indeveloping and mass-producing exotic, high-strength materials (zircalloy, and high nickelcontent stainless steel). These are useful inthe nuclear industry, particularly for ad-vanced breeder reactors. Such technologyhas been fairly widely diffused. Indeed, themeans by which nuclear technology is spreadthroughout the world may be illustrated byseveral examples: The U.S.-based Westing-house Electric Co. exports nuclear grade tub-ing to Mitsubishi in Japan, Framatone inFrance, and ENSA in Spain, and each ofthese companies constructs nuclear reactorsunder a Westinghouse license. Toshiba andHitachi of Japan are General Electric licens-ees.10 The reactor in the state-owned plant at

10 Mans Lonnroth and William Walker, T’he Viahilit J’ oft h e (’ivil N u c l e a r IndustrJr, ” Internat ional Consultati~e(;roup on Nuclear Flnergy (The Rockefeller l’oundation,1979),

Ch. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R • 177

Krsko, Yugoslavia, was purchased from nuclear plants. Should it reverse its policyWestinghouse. and begin seeking Western imports in this

area, it would find numerous potential sup-S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S pliers in several nations.

The U.S.S.R. is presently self-sufficient inthe design, manufacture, and operation of its

COAL

WESTERN EXPORTS

The U.N. SITC codes that contain equip-ment applicable to coal mining are asfollows: ‘ ‘

571.1

571.2

629.4

655.92

695.24

718.42

718.51

Figure

Propellent powers and other pre-pared explosives.

Safety and detonating fuses, per-cussion, and detonating caps,igniters, etc.

Transmission, conveyor and ele-vator belts of vulcanized rub-ber.

Transmission, conveyor and ele-vator belts of textile materials.

Rock drilling bits: tools and bitsfor assorted hand tools.

Self-propelled shovels and exca-vators, self and non-self-pro-pelled leveling, tamping, bor-ing, etc., machinery and partsthereof.

Machinery for sorting, screen-ing, separating, washing, crush-ing, etc., for earth, stone, ores,and other minerals.

14 summarizes trade in each ofthese categories for the period 1975-79. Itshows that the U.S.S.R. has purchased nofuses or explosives from any IW nation(SITC 571.1 and 571.2) since 1977. During1975 and 1976, U.S. exports in these cate-gories were very small ($5,000 to $28,000).Japan and West Germany led the sale of

transmission, conveyor, and elevator belts ofvulcanized rubber (SITC 629.4) to theU.S.S.R. in 1975-79; Soviet purchases fromthe United States were a weak third orfourth (behind Italy). These sales totaledabout $48.7 million for all countries duringthe entire period. Sales in the category655.92 were negligible.

In sales of rock drilling bits and tools, andbits for assorted hand tools (SITC 695.24) tothe U. S. S. R., the United States lagged WestGermany, Japan, France, Italy, and theUnited Kingdom. Indeed, the U.S. marketshare here has fallen precipitously since 1975when sales of $1.3 million were recorded—in1979 only $13,000 of such goods were pur-chased from the United States. Because thisequipment might equally well be destined forthe oil and gas sector, it is discussed in moredetail below.

The Soviet Union buys considerableamounts of self-propelled shovels and ex-cavators, leveling, tamping, and boring ma-chinery (SITC 718.42). However, the finerbreakdowns available from U.S. Scheduled Band E and NIMEXE data reveal that mostof the purchases here are for items probablydestined for the oil and gas industries. Coal-relevant subcategories from Schedule B andSchedule E include draglines, dragline buck-ets, coal cutting machines, continuous min-ing machines, longwall mining machines,and excavating machines (including attach-ments). No exports from the United Statesto the U.S.S.R. whatsoever have been re-ported in any of these subcategories.

In 1979, the U.S.S.R. bought $81.8 millionworth of machinery for sorting, screening,


Figure 14.—Coal-Related Equipment Exports to U.S.S.R. (million U.S. dollars)

130-

1 2 5 -

1 2 0 -

1 1 5 -

1 1 0 -

1 0 5 -

1 0 0 -

9 5 -

8 0 -

6 5 -

8 0 -

7 5 -

7 0 -

6 5 -

6 0 -

5 5 -

5 0 -

4 5 -

4 0 -

3 5 -

3 0 -

2 5 -

2 0 -

1 5 -

l o -

5 -

0 -

126.0—

Othel119.6—Otho—

UK—

Italy

—

v Oe

—

Japaf

—

ram

—

us

—

Othe! N Ge—

UK 110.7

106.4

99.7

—N GGI

Oth#

7s—

Ma!)—UK

—Fran<—

Jbpa

—

v Ge

—

—

‘m-m Otue—

UK

T&—us

Franc4

w 501

Italy

82.4

UK—

w G@

France

usus

—

64.963.5

Othe,

—%anc{—Italy

—

N GOI

—

us

OttwrItalyT

France

Swttz

W Ger

us

51.0

Otilel—

JaPM

us

w GIN

1976

N Ger

aaan

21.4

& ,8.IOther

w Ger

‘$-

Othel

JapanOlhef France

France ~apa,,

w tam

us

12.4Japan

France

— —19?7 1 9 7 8 19781975 1976 1977 19?8 1079 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

SITC 695.24

1977 1976 19791975 1975

SITC 571.1, 571.2628.4, 655,92

SITC 718.42 SITC 718.42

SOURCE United N a t i o n s , S I T C d a t a

Ch. 6—Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R. ● 179

separating, washing, and crushing (SITC718.51) from West Germany. Imports fromthe United States in the same category cameto less than $2.4 million, mostly for crush-ing, pulverizing, and grinding machines andparts. West Germany has carried most ofthis market since 1976.

In sum, it would appear that Soviet pur-chases from the West for its coal industryhave been relatively modest and that be-tween 1975 and 1979 little of these camefrom American firms. Soviet import statis-tics corroborate this broad conclusion. Al-though the Soviet method of reporting com-modity trade differs from that employed inthe West—in commodity groupings, valu-ation, coverage, and the method used foridentifying trade partners—data from theU.S.S.R. reflect the same patterns as West-ern export statistics.

Table 44 shows official Soviet import dataon items that may have an impact on coal-related activities, These data indicate that inrecent years, Soviet purchases from WestGermany and Japan have been much largerthan those from the United States. For ex-ample, in 1978, the figures show imports of$115.4 million of sorting machinery fromWest Germany, but only $6 million from theUnited States. West Germany ($30.4 million)also led the United States ($4.2 million) in ex-ports of mechanical shovels and excavators.Although the only Soviet imports of ships,derricks, and cranes reported in 1977 and1978 come from the United States, the dollaramounts ($891 ,000 and $5.7 million) arerelatively small. The U.S.S.R. purchased$58.6 million and $92.4 million worth ofthese goods from Japan in 1976 and 1975,respectively.

A search of Soviet Business and Trade fortransactions that might not have appearedin the SITC codes indicates that the mostimportant category of U.S. exports likelydestined for the Soviet coal industry wastransportation. Approximately 100 trucks(ranging in size from 100 to 200 tons) pur-chased from the Unit Rig & Equipment Co.of Tulsa, Okla., for about $70 million were

Table 44.—Soviet Imports From SelectedWestern Nationsa

-——.1978 1977 1976 1975 —

U.S.S.R. imports of machinery for sorting

United States . . 6 ,096 26 ,287 32 ,900 24 ,110

West Germany 115,423 30,780 7,573 4,555

1978 1977 1976 1975

U.S.S.R. Imports of mechancial shovels and excavators

United States . . 4,169 9 1 7 9 , 6 9 2 1 0 , 9 2 3

West Germany . 30 ,444 11 ,799 9 ,262 28 ,516

France . . . . . . . . 2,790 1,157 13,299 5,522

1978 1977 1976 1975

U.S.S.R. imports of ships, derricks and cranes

United States . . 5,677 891 266 10 ,424

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . — — 3,693 16,068

United Kingdom 110 037 2,758 3,700

Japan . . . . . . . . . — — 58 ,646 92 ,403

aOTA collected Soviet data for France, Italy, Japan, the United K Ingdom, Uni tedStates West Germany and West Berlin. Only those areas that showed trade in a

given category are presented here

SOURCE CIA based on Soviet trade data

for use in coal-related activit ies.12 O t h e rAmerican deals have included $14 millionworth of slurry pumps from Ingersoll-Randb e t w e e n 1 9 7 4 a n d 1 9 7 6 ;13 a n d f r o n t - e n dloaders contracted for $1 million from theClark Equipment Co. in 1978, and for $2.9million from Dart Division of Paccar, inc. in1979. 14

Between 1974 and 1980 Japanese firms in-volved in the South Yakutian DevelopmentCorp. were responsible for sales totaling ap-proximately $450 mil l ion,15 most of whichconsisted of shovels and other surface min-ing equipment. In addit ion, in 1976 and1975, respectively, the U.S.S.R. reportedlycontracted for $500,000 worth of equipmentfor excavation in underground mines from


the United Kingdom, and a similar amountin front tunneling machines and loaders fromWest Germany.16

F O R E I G N A V A I L A B I L I T Y O FC O A L T E C H N O L O G Y A N D

E Q U I P M E N T

As chapter 3 has indicated, the U.S.S.R.is well able to design, test, and manufactureits own coal mining equipment. Soviet equip-ment is heavier and somewhat less sophisti-cated than U.S. equipment, but it is ade-quate. A common Soviet practice has been tobuy items applicable to a specific phase ofcoal mining and reproduce them. Soviet-made continuous miners, for example, arecopies of West German, English, and Frenchmodels. Drill bits that were formerly pur-chased from Western Europe are now do-mestically produced. Equipment for Siberiansurface mining was originally purchasedfrom Marion in Japan.

In short, like the nuclear industry, theSoviet coal mining industry has been essen-tially self-sufficient. In an attempt to ascer-tain whether a reversal of past Soviet prac-tice with respect to coal-industry equipmentimports would focus on items in which theUnited States is a sole or preferred supplier,OTA assembled a list of essential equipmentfor coal mining operations, and attempted tolocate suppliers of this equipment in West-ern Europe and Japan. The results may befound in tables C-8 and C-9 of appendix C.Outside of the few deals discussed above,there is no evidence that any of the com-panies listed here have actually supplied orintend to supply equipment to the U.S.S.R.Nevertheless, it is clear from table C-9 thatthere exist many European and Japanesesuppliers of coal mining equipment.

Comparison of the items available fromthese companies and those produced in theUnited States reveals substantial differ-ences between underground and surface min-ing capabilities. The majority of Soviet un-——

16 Soviet Business and Trade, Nov., 22, 1978; June 6, 1979.

derground mining utilizes longwall tech-niques not widely employed in the UnitedStates. Longwall mining was invented in the1950’s in West Germany; in fact, the UnitedStates is heavily dependent on Britain andWest Germany for longwall research and de-velopment, and it also imports substantialamounts of European longwall equipment.(The U.S.S.R. has attempted to export itsown longwall systems to the United States.)Much of the underground coal mining equip-ment manufactured in large quantities in theUnited States is therefore of little or no useto the U.S.S.R. Undercutter are availableonly from the United States, but these arenot necessary for longwall mining opera-tions. There are also differences in geologicformations that render much U.S. equip-ment inapplicable in the U.S.S.R.; e.g., thenarrow seams in many Soviet mines do noteasily lend themselves to mechanization.

A different situation pertains with respectto surface mining, which, as chapter 3 haspointed out, will become increasingly crucialto Soviet coal production as the decade pro-gresses. The United States is a world leaderin surface mining equipment and technol-ogy, and produces items that could be ofgreat use to the U.S.S.R. One example is thedragline. This is the only piece of surfacemining equipment in continuous operation,and coal output is heavily affected by itsspeed in removing overburden. U.S. drag-lines and excavators have the largest capac-ities currently available. Increased excava-tion capacity would allow Soviet surfacemining to become more productive, and big-ger draglines would facilitate deeper surfacemining. U.S. firms also produce trucks,power shovels, and excavators with capac-ities much larger than any available fromWestern Europe or Japan. These items,though not vital to the ability to mine coal,could help to increase output.

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S

Both Soviet and Western trade data showthat the U.S.S.R. has purchased relativelylittle coal mining equipment and technology

Ch. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R • 181

from the West, perhaps less than 10 percentof its total equipment needs. With the possi-ble exception of transport vehicles, Amer-ican market shares in this trade are smallerthan those of other Western countries, espe-cially West Germany and Japan. The onlycoal mining technology that OTA could es-tablish as unique to the United States isundercutter, but these are not used inthe U.S.S.R. American underground miningtechnology is unlikely to be particularly at-tractive to the Soviet Union.

ELECTRIC

WESTERN EXPORTSFigure 15 shows export statistics for the

following SITC codes containing equipmentused for the generation and transmission ofelectric power:

711.1 Steam generating boilers.711.2 Auxiliary plant for use with steam

and other vapor generatingboilers.

722.1 Rotating electric plant and partsthereof; transformers, conver-ters, rectifiers, inductors andparts.

722.2 Electrical apparatus for makingor breaking electric circuits.

723.1 Insulated electric wire, cable,bars, strip and the like.

723.21 Electrical insulators and othermaterials.

1979 statistics for SITC 722.1 indicatethat Japanese, French, and West Germanfirms supplied the U.S.S.R. with $15.2 mil-lion, $11.9 million, and $11.1 million worth oftransformers, converters, rectifiers, induc-tors, and parts thereof, respectively. Pur-chases from the United States in this cate-gory amounted to only $1.35 million. Muchthe same situation has prevailed since 1977.Similar patterns hold for electrical appara-tus used in making or breaking electrical cir-cuits (SITC 722.2). From 1975 to 1979,Soviet imports from the United States ($3

While no surface mining technologiesseem to be unique to the United States, U.S.firms do produce the largest capacity trucks,draglines, and excavators in the world.Chapter 3 has maintained that the future ofSoviet coal production rests on expandingits surface mining operations. Should theU.S.S.R. depart from past practice and beginto import large quantities of Western sur-face mining equipment, the United Stateswould—all other things being equal—be thepreferred supplier.

POWER

million) have been dwarfed by imports fromFrance ($59.2 million), Japan ($51.7 million),West German ($11.3 million), and Italy($13.6 million). The Soviet Union does notpurchase many electrical insulators (SITC723.21). Most of its 1979 purchases camefrom the United States, but these amountedto only $666,000. Even this was an anomaly.Between 1975 and 1979, no Soviet purchasesfrom any country exceeded $48,000.

A similar aberration can be seen in thedata for SITC 711.1, steam generatingboilers. The $19 million recorded in thiscategory for U.S. exports in 1979, althoughnot a large amount in absolute terms, repre-sented a departure from Soviet practice overthe past 5 years in two ways. The UnitedSta tes had not be fore been the l a rges tWestern supplier of this equipment, and theamount was significantly greater than anyrecorded previously for a single country in asingle year. OTA has been unable to discoverany details of the transaction or transactionsthat accounted for these expor ts . S ITC711 .2 conta ins aux i l i a ry p lant for suchboilers. Except for large U.S. sales in 1976and 1977 ($9.4 and $22.7 million), for whichOTA has been unable to obtain more infor-mation, Soviet purchases in this categoryhave come almost exclusively from France inamounts ranging between about $.2 and $5million per year.


Figure 15.—Electric Power Equipment Exports to the U.S.S.R. (million U.S. dollars)

180 -

175-

170-

165-

mo-

155-

150-

145-

140 “

135-

130-

125-

120 -

115-

110-

105-

100-

9 5 -

90“

85-

so-

75-

70 -

65”

6 o -

5 5 -

5 0 -

45-

40-

35-

3 0 -

25-

20-

M

t o - -

5 -

0 -1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

SITC 711.1 SITC 711.2 SITC 722.1

SOURCE United Nat Ions, SITC data

am

—Ux

—

Japan

W. Ger.

4 1 &

1975

106.9—Other

U.K.—U.S.

—

Japan

—

Italy

—

33.7

Other W. Ger.

U.K.U.S.

Italy

W. Ger

France

France

—

Japan

1976 1977

SITC 722.2

72.’—

Other

U.S.

U.K.—

Italy

.

W. Ger.

.

France

Japan

1978

148.6

Other—

U.S.—

U.K.

—

W. Ger,

.

Italy,

—

Japan

France

1979

59.4

48.2

other

W. Ger.

Italy

France

Japan

—1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

SITC 723.1,723.21

Ch. 6—Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R. * 183

It was not possible to determine the pro-portion of the equipment in these codes thatwas actually destined for the Soviet electricpower industry. Soviet Business and Tradenoted only one relevant deal over the past 5years, a Soviet purchase of cable for theSiberian power grid from Siemans AG ofIndia and West Germany. 1 7

F O R E I G N A V A I L A B I L I T Y O FE L E C T R I C P O W E R E Q U I P M E N T

A N D T E C H N O L O G Y

The U.S.S.R. does not purchase very largeamounts of electric generation or transmis-sion equipment from the West. As in the coaland nuclear sectors, however, Soviet policycould change. OTA, therefore, attempted todetermine whether competing firms inEurope and Japan could supply the U.S.S.R.with electrical transmission technology.

American industry representatives havemaintained that technology for the produc-tion of most of the necessary equipment forelectricity generation and transmission iswidespread and available in the open liter-ature. Interviews with General Electric(GE), Westinghouse, the Electric Power Re-search Institute (EPRI), and the BonnevillePower Administration produced a consensusview that European-produced equipmenttypically costs less than American equip-ment, and that the quality and capacity ofthe equipment produced by West Europeanand Japanese companies compare favorablywith U.S. items. A representative from GEclaimed that the West Europeans were at———.—

‘‘L5’{)({Pt B(t.sttte.vs an(i 7’ra(le, Sept. 29, 1976.

least on par with, and possibly ahead of, theUnited States in high voltage transmission,and a representative from the BonnevillePower Administration told OTA that WestGermany, Sweden, and Japan equal theUnited States in producing high capacityunderground cable technology and equip-ment,

West European and Japanese firms thatproduce electric generation and transmissionequipment are listed in tables C-3 and C-10of appendix C. Licensing agreements be-tween Mitsubishi and Siemens exist formany of the items used in transmission,Moreover, the U.S.S.R. itself produces sometransmission components for export. TheSoviet trading organization, Energomash,has sales agents in Australia, Austria, Ar-gentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, West Ger-many, and the United States. Among theproducts it markets are coupling capacitorsfor high voltage transmission lines, three-phase power transformers, and circuitbreakers for use in substations.

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S

While the Soviets buy some electricalequipment from the West, these purchasesare relatively modest and no corroboratingevidence is available to link them to electrictransmission. The sole exception is pur-chases of cable (from Siemens of West Ger-many). International sales representativesfor General Electric and Westinghouse, andelectric transmission experts who havevisited the U.S.S.R. agree that the Sovietsdesign and produce virtually all their owntransmission equipment.


OIL AND GAS

WESTERN EXPORTS

Figure 16 shows United Nations data forthe most important oil and gas related SITCcodes:

Exploration714.3

714.92

861.91

861.99

Drilling695.24

732.4

Automatic data processing(ADP) machines and unitsthereof; magnetic and opticalreaders and machines for proc-essing data.

Parts and accessories for ADPand other calculating ma-chines.

Surveying, hydrographic, etc.,and geophysical instruments(nonelectric).

Parts of meters and counters;nonelectric and electricalmeasuring, checking, etc., in-struments.

Rock drilling bits; tools andbits for assorted hand tools.

Special purpose motor lorries,vans, crane lorries, etc. (in-cludes rigs).

~>roductionlcom ple tiOn/t7-anSpOrta tion

678,679.2

642.93

719.21

719.22

719.23,712.31

719.31

Tube-s, pipes, and-fittings ofiron and steel.

Gummed or adhesive paper instrips or rolls (for pipe insula-tion).

Pumps for liquids and partsthereof.

Air and vacuum pumps and airor gas compressors and partsthereof.

Filtering and purifyingmachinery and apparatus forliquids and gases.

Ships, derricks, cranes andmobile lifting cranes andparts; other lifting, handling,and loading and unloadingmachinery.

Offshore735.92 Light vessels, floating cranes

and other special purposevessels, floating docks.

735.93 Floating structures other thanvessels.

Multiarea729.52 Electrical measuring, checking,

analyzing, or controlling in-struments.

861.81, Gas, liquid, and electricity729.51 supply or production meters.

The codes presented here are clearly un-suitable for any precise analysis of Soviet oiland gas industry imports. They includemany items that may have been destined forother energy sectors or for another part ofthe Soviet economy altogether, and they failto reflect known important transactions—the U.S. sale by Dresser Industries of a drillbit plant, for instance. For this reason, OTAhas supplemented the SITC data with De-partment of Commerce Schedules B and Estatistics—which provide detailed informa-tion about U.S. exports–the EEC NIMEXEsystem, and information about specifictransactions gleaned from Soviet Businessand Trade. These sources have allowed arather more detailed, albeit sometimes quali-tative, discussion of the nature, extent, andsource of Western exports in the Soviet oiland gas industry.

The Department of Commerce data shownin table 45 indicate that U.S. oil and gasequipment trade with the U.S.S.R. nearlytripled between 1975 and 1979, from about$31 million to about $90 million. This growthhas been largely due to increases in the valueof computers and parts, drill rigs and parts,and pumps. The data also show that whilethe share of Soviet purchases of explorationequipment has declined slightly, that of drill-ing-related equipment has grown enormous-ly, largely at the expense of well completionand production items. This may partly re-flect a shift in Soviet emphasis away from


Figure 16.— U.S.S.R. Imports of Oil and Gas Equipment (million U.S. dollars)

1900-

1850-

1600-

1750-

1700-

1650-

1600-

1550.

1500-

1450-

1400-

1350-

1300-

1250-

12043-

1150-

1100-

1050-

1000-

950-

9oo -

850-

8oo-

750-

700-

650-

600-

550-

500-

450-

4oo-

350-

3oo -

Offshore!.’,6

,IWl%

197519761977 19781979 1975 19761977 1978 1979

SITC 735.92, 735.93 SITC 729.52,661.81/728.51

Oil and gas completion

250

200I

150i

Exploration Drilling

011 and gas pipelines

“u;

production‘(excluding pipe)

0250

F1Otttn

Lm

“

u

?80R-

%

,“.

Italy

—

Japan,

W . G e r .

—

,4:(

~—

Q

,*”.

—

w,

—

W. Ger.

—

—

*),..

=II.—

,,,,,

—

,,*,

—

! 0“

.,..

.

1975 1976 1977 19781979 1975 1976197719761979 1975 1976197719781979 1975197619771978 1979

SITC 714.3, 714.92. SITC 732.4 SITC 64293, 71921, 71922, SITC 678/6729861.91. 861.99 71923171237, 719.31

SOURCE United Nations SITC data


Table 45.—U.S. Oil and Gas Equipment Trade With U.S.S.R. Relative Percentage ofEach Technology Area (thousand U.S. dollars)

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

Total 30,818.0 68,418.8 33,882.8 59,652.7 89,741.0

ExplorationGeophysical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,282.0

Computers & pts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,282.0

Total exploration . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . 10,569.8

Percent of total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 %

Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,9

Rigs and pts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,477.0

Total drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,696.9

Percent of total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Well completion/production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,657.4

Pump parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,928.8

Gas compressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765.3

Oil and gas sep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199.8

Total comp/prod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,551.3

Percent of total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%

983.1

16,215.0

17,198.1

25%

2,821.0

—

6,513.0

9,334.0

13.6%

22,220.1

8,235.6

10,445.6

685.4

41,886.7

61%

480.7

3,643.4

4,124.1

12.2%

1.9

147.2

8,272.0

8,421.1

24.8%

3,674.3

11,743,9

5,432.3

487.1

21,337.6

63%

862.5

17,578.3

18,440.8

31%

404.7

—

33,247.9

33,652.6

56.4%

1,241.9

242.9

5,937.8

136.7

7,559.3

12.7%

SOURCE Department of Commerce

the use of U.S. electric submersible pumps infavor of gaslift techniques that are availablefrom non-U.S. sources (see below).

According to these data, the UnitedStates captured only 3.3 percent of the 1979estimated Western sales in the oil and gassector reported in table 42 above. It must benoted, however, that the Department ofCommerce statistics underrepresent the fullvalue of the U.S. equipment and technologypurchased by the U.S.S.R. For instance,neither SITC nor DOC trade statistics showany U.S. contributions in the area of offshoreequipment. Yet, a recent survey of Sovietoffshore rigs revealed drilling equipment of

2,022,6

22,311.0

24,333.6

27%

579.2

—

37,235.3

37,814.5

42%

9,979.7

17,613.2

—

—

27,592,9

30,7%

U.S. origin.” This apparent contradictionmay be attributed to the fact that althoughthe U.S.S.R. has purchased its rigs fromother nations, these suppliers themselveshave imported U.S. drilling equipment for in-stallation on the rigs. The U.S. sale will ap-pear as an export to the third country.19

Similarly, although U.S. statistics show nosales in the area of refining, U.S. firms areknown to have supplied engineering andtechnical services to West European andJapanese companies engaged in the con-——

18 1980-81 Directory of Marine Drilling Rigs, pp. 19-172.“American technology reexported from third countries is

still subject to U.S. export control laws.

Ch. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R. • 187

struction of petroleum refineries in theU . S . S . R . 20 These t rans fers o f know-how–like the sale of the Dresser drill bit plant–are not recorded in Schedule B/E data andare thus not reflected in table 45 or figure 17.

These data problems limit the precision ofany conclusions that can be drawn fromWestern export statistics. Nonetheless,some generalizations about Western exportsto the U.S.S.R. in a number of oil and gas in-dustry sectors are possible.

ExplorationMost of the exploration equipment ex-

ported to the U.S.S.R. has consisted of com-puters and geophysical equipment. Figure18, for instance, illustrates Soviet purchasesof automated data processing equipmentfrom selected Western countries. This figureshows that the primary exporters of this ex-ploration-related computer equipment werethe United States, France, and West Ger-many. Through 1978, the United Statestended to supply the majority of the hard--—

20 Soviet Business and Trade, Jan. 1, 1979

Figure 17.— U.S. Oil and Gas Equipment Trade WithU.S.S.R. by Technology Area

100r

1 1 1 I I I1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

ware and the French to specialize in soft-ware.21 The post-1978 decline in such exportsmay be due to tighter multilateral exportcontrols on computers, or to improvementsin the Soviet hardware base.

The Control Data Corp. (CDC) has been byfar the leading exporter of American com-puters capable of processing the large quan-tities of data associated with seismic survey-ing. In recent years, CDC has sold threeCyber 172s and a Cyber 73 to various Sovietministries engaged in seismic exploration.IBM has also sold two S/370-148 computersfor geophysical applications. AnotherAmerican firm, Geosource, Inc. of Houston,had by 1979 sold 13 Command II field proc-essing systems that are used to preprocessseismic data in the field.22 This sale alone,valued at $6 million, accounted for nearly 30percent of total U.S. sales of computers andcomputer parts in 1979. The French firmsFerney-Voltaire and CIE Generale Geo-physique (CGG) have provided the majorityof the specialized software used with theCDC computers. 23

The United States and France are also theU.S.S.R.’s leading Western suppliers ofgeophysical equipment. NIMEXE and DOCd a t a s h o w t h a t b e t w e e n 1 9 7 5 a n d 1 9 7 9French sales in this area have increased,while those from the United States havebeen erratic, ranging from as high as $2.2million to as low as $480,000. CGG was amajor supplier of geophysical equipment, in1976 alone selling to the U.S.S.R. $14 millionworth of digital seismographic recorders,magnetometers, gravity meters, and hydro-phones. The equipment was used to equiptwo geophysical ships that were built for theSoviet Union by Mitsubishi of Japan.24

Geosource is the largest American sup-plier of geophysical equipment, and it soldapproximately $30 million worth of equip-ment to the U .S .S .R . be tween 1975 and

SOURCE Table 45

2 1Soviet Business andi Trade, Apr. 11, 1979.22 Ibid,23 Ibid., and Mar. 18, 1979.24 Soviet Business and Trade, Sept. 29, 1976.

188 . Technology and Soviet Energy Availability

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 18.— Western Energy Trade With U.S.S.R. Automated Data Processing Equipment

;

Switzerland ,

I l l

Sweden ~ .

The Nethariands

Canada

I

L

1975 1976

SOURCE United Nations SITC Data

1979.25 Geosource has supplied the U.S.S.R.with a wide array of geophysical prospectingequipment, including 13 photodot auto-mated digital display systems that are usedin conjunction with the Command I I system.

DrillingThe major Soviet imports in this area have

been drill pipe and casing. Soviet imports ofdrill pipe and casing have come predom-inantly from Japan, West Germany, France,and Italy. Within these countries, importantsuppliers have been Mannesmann (WestGermany); Vallourec (France); and Finsider(Italy). The U.S.S.R. has also sporadicallypurchased packers, mud additives, power

1977 1978 1979

Year

tongs, and heavy drilling equipment fromthe West. The Soviets have purchased anumber of packers from both Technip inF r a n c e a n d L y n e s International in theUnited States. 26

U.S. exports of drill pipe and casing to theU.S.S.R. totaled less than $1 million over thelast 3 years. These relatively low levels are atleast partially due to a rapid increase in U.S.drilling activity, which caused U.S. demandfor drill pipe and casing to exceed domesticsupply. The American shortfall has largelybeen made up with pipe and casing importedfrom Japan. The majority of U.S. drilling-related exports to the U.S.S.R. are drillingrigs and parts for drilling rigs. While the

25 Soviet Business and Trade, Feb. 14, 1979.

Ch.. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R. ● 189

United States has not been a major supplierof complete rigs–-approximately 12 U.S. rigshave been sold to the Soviet Union over thelast 10 years–the Soviets are purchasingU.S. drilling rig parts in significant dollarvalues.

U.S. firms account for most of the non-Communist world’s production of drill bits,and U.S. bits are of significantly higherquality than Soviet counterparts. The So-viets, however, have purchased fewer than100 U.S. drill bits over the last 5 years. In-stead they have opted to purchase the de-sign and equipment for a drill bit plant fromDresser Industries. Nor have drill bit im-ports from Western Europe been large. TheNIMEXE system classifies drill bits intoboth bits made of base metal and metal car-bide. EEC exports of both types have beeninconsequential.

Well Completion/ProductionFigure 19 shows a steady growth in Soviet

imports of pumps for liquids. The leading ex-porters of these items have been France,West Germany, and the United States.While it is not clear that West German andFrench pumps are used in the production ofoil and gas, Schedule B/E data show thatalmost all of the U.S. trade is in oil well andoilfield pumps. This is confirmed by articlesin Soviet Business and Trade that indicatethat U.S. companies such as TRW-Reda,Centrilift, and Oil Dynamics have been ma-jor exporters of electric submersible pumpsfor Soviet oilfields.

Finally, Western trade activity in pipehandlers and gas lift equipment was not as-certainable from the trade data due to prob-lems of aggregation. It was apparent from

Figure 19.— Western Energy Trade With U.S.S.R. Pumps for Liquids

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

.

. United States

.

France

}-

West Germany

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

Year

SOURCE United Nat Ions SITC D a t a


articles in Soviet Business and Trade,however, that these items have been ex-ported to the Soviets by the United States,Japan, and France: gas lift equipment pre-dominantly by the French, and pipelayersprimarily by the United States and Japan.Technip of France has sold gas lift equip-ment for over 2,000 wells. Pipelayers havebeen sold to the U.S.S.R. by Caterpillar andInternational Harvester in the United Statesand Komatsu in Japan.

The Soviet Union has made sporadic pur-chases of enhanced recovery equipment andtechnology. Among the transactions thathave appeared in Soviet Business and Tradehave been the sale of two carbon dioxide(co 2) plants by Borsig of West Germany,two surfactant plants by Pressindustria ofItaly, a surfactant plant as well as chemicalsfrom Sanyo Chemical Industries of Japan,and an alpha-olefin plant from Davy Inter-national in Great Britain.27

Transportation

The most important commodities in thissector have been large diameter pipe and gaspipeline compressor stations. SITC codes678 and 672.9 contain a number of subcate-gories and cover a wide variety of tubes andpipes. Figure 16 shows that in each category,Japan, West Germany, and France are themajor Soviet suppliers, and the UnitedStates is by far the smallest. In the categoryof tubes, pipes, and fittings of iron and steel,for instance, 1979 Japanese exports wereworth approximately $0.75 billion and WestGermany’s over $0.5 billion, while U.S. salesamounted to a little over $1 million. Some ofthis pipe may have been used in the nuclearindustry, but it is probably safe to assumethat a large portion of it went to the oil andgas sector. The principal companies supply-ing the pipe are Sumitomo (Japan), Mannes-mann (West Germany), Vallourec (France),and Finsider (Italy). The United States does

“Soviet Business and Trade, Aug. 15, 1979.

not produce the 56-inch diameter pipe thatthe Soviets use to construct gas pipelines.28

Compressor stations for gas pipelines areanother active commodity. The largest ex-porters of compressor stations to theU.S.S.R. have been Italy, West Germany,and the United States, with Nuovo Pignoneof Italy and GE of the United States themajor suppliers.29

Refining

The U.S.S.R. has purchased refineries andrefinery equipment from Japan, Italy, andFrance, the tendency being to import entirerefineries rather than component parts. Theprimary contribution of the United States inthis area has been through Fluor Corp.,which provided design and engineering serv-ices to Italian and Japanese constructionfirms. 30

Offshore

Trade in this area has consisted primarilyof sales of offshore drilling rigs and auxiliaryvessels and equipment, and the principalsuppliers have been Japan and the Nether-lands. 31 Rauma-Repola Oy of Finland wasrecently granted a contract to build threedynamically positioned drill ships for theSoviet Union, to be delivered in 1981 and1982. The United States has supplied aux-iliary equipment for rigs sold to the Soviets,but Soviet purchases in this area have beenboth moderate and sporadic.32

Conclusions

Examination of trade data reveals thatthe U.S.S.R. has been very selective in thekinds of Western equipment and technologyit has purchased to supplement its domestic

28 Interview with J. 13rougher, Bureau of East-W’est Af-fairs, Department of Commerce.

“’.SO[ !iet Business and Trade, Nov. 10, 1976.‘(’Sot’iet Business and Trade, Jan. 31, 1979.“So[’iet Z?usines.s and Trade, July 15, 1980; May 21, 1980.“1980-81 Directory of Marine Drilling Rigs, pp. 19-172.

Ch. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R, . 191

oil and gas equipment. Indeed, the relativelymodest imports of may items lead one tosuspect that the U.S.S.R. has been sup-plementing domestic equipment stocks attimes of peak demand and/or purchasing thebest available product for particularly dif-ficult application. It is equally probable thatsome items have been procured for labor-atory examination and duplication, or toserve as guides to correct specific prob-lems. 33 The most prominent exception hereis Soviet imports of Japanese and WestEuropean large diameter pipe, which havebeen consistently large and which seem to berequired because of insufficient domesticproduction capacity.

Interestingly, the U.S.S.R. has not pur-chased many items basic to the petroleum in-dustry. These include magnetometers, gravi-meters, mud-pumps, drilling mud, casingcement, engines, pipe insulation, separationequipment, and offshore floating productionplatforms. These omissions or gaps in tradewith Western countries can be interpreted ina number of ways: that the U.S.S.R. and itsCMEA partners have an adequate industrialbase to supply their needs, even if the resultis inefficient by Western standards; that in-sufficient hard currency has forced priority-setting among Western imports; or that theU.S.S.R. has made a policy decision to be asindependent as possible of supplies from theWestern countries in certain critical seg-ments of the oil and gas industries. It ismost likely that a combination of such fac-tors is at work.

Be that as it may, the following gener-alizations seem warranted by the data:

• In value terms, by far the largest Sovietpurchases from the West have been inthe area of iron or steel seamless pipesand tubes (including the large diameterpipe used in Soviet oil and gas lines).Purchases in this area from the United

33 There is substantial evidence of duplication. 1 n an inter-

view with OTA, a Vice President of TRW-Reda Pump, Inc.,asserted that when one of his technicians toured a Sovietpump plant in 1979, he saw 20-year-old Reda models beingproduced.

States have been negligible. By far thelargest suppliers have been Japan andWest Germany.The U.S.S.R. has also purchased sub-stantial amounts of various pumps andgas compression equipment. Here, theUnited States has had larger marketshares. The U.S.S.R. has made only afew large purchases in the area of lightvessels, floating docks, etc., which in-cludes offshore drilling rigs. None of thevessels themselves have come from theUnited States. In 1979, Japan andSweden were the only large exporters inthis category.The U.S.S.R. has purchased very fewdrill bits from the West, apparently pre-ferring to acquire its own additionalmanufacturing capacity in the form ofan entire plant.

FOREIGN AVAILABILITY OF OILAND GAS INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT

AND TECHNOLOGY34

Much oil and gas technology originated inthe United States, but that technology haslost its American identity over the yearsthrough licensed production, wholly ownedsubsidiaries overseas, and employment ofU.S. commodities and expertise worldwide.Other sophisticated technology was devel-oped elsewhere. For example, Schlumbergerof France first developed electric well log-

34 This section is based on trade journals, industry cata-logues. Sov ie t Bus iness and Trade, T h e C o m p o s i t e C a t a l o g u e

of Oil Field Equipmcnt and Services (Houston, Tex.: GulfPublishing Co., 1980), and inter~.iews with representati~res ofthe following firms: Gulf Oil Exploration & Production CO.,(ieosource, Inc. , Dresser Industr ies , BW”T M’orld T r a d e ,Cameron Iron Works, Inc., Hughes Tool Co., TRW-Redapump, Inc., Brown & Root, Inc., and Williams Bros. Engi-neering Co. Representatives of these firms provided candid,forthright observations of their past deal ings with theU. S. S. R., insight gained during country visits and an ap-praisal of their foreign competitors. These visits, coupledwith the other reported U.S.S.R./Western trade deals, pro-vided a basis on which to judge the availability of Western oiland gas technology. While these sources could not providecomplete identification of all possible suppliers, OTA believesthat it was acquainted with the most significant suppliersand the strongest competitors to U.S. firms.


ging equipment that is recognized today asthe world’s standard. Likewise, the steel in-dustries in Western Europe and Japan gen-erally produce products that are as good as,if not better than, those available from theUnited States–and at lower prices. Tech-nological leads are perishable with time.Licensed manufacturers frequently improveupon designs or manufacturing processesbased on local conditions and equipment.Wherever the original development workand design may have been done, ideas soonbecome general knowledge. The followingsections discuss the foreign availability ofenergy technology that would be useful tothe U.S.S.R. in the various phases of oil andgas production and delivery.

Exploration

As noted above, the American firm Geo-source has been very active in Soviet trade.Sercel of France has been a strong com-

petitor to Geosource for sales of field datacollection and preprocessing centers. Table46 compares basic parameters of Geosource,Texas Instruments (another U.S. firm), andSercel products used in seismic work. Thetable shows that the equipment, althoughnot identical, is similar.

Table 47 identifies the major items ofseismic surveying equipment and suppliersaround the world. Most items are producedby firms in Western Europe and Japan, andmany are available in the Eastern Bloc,although the quality of the latter is ques-tionable and Western equipment tends to bemore advanced. The United States may leadtechnically in one or two items, but thegeneral consensus is that products fromSercel, for example, are capable of perform-ing similar functions. On the other hand,only the United States is able to supply thefull range of equipment.

Table 46.—Comparison of U.S. and French Seismic Equipment

Geosource MDS-10 Texas Instruments DFSV Sercel 338 B

Data Sample Packing Data Auxiliary Samplechannels Interval (MS) density channels channels rates

24 ½ 1,600 SEG-B 24 Channels @ 1, 2, 4 msData 24 1 800 or 1,600a To 24 4 1, 2 or 4 ms

24 2 800 or 1,600a 28 2 1, 2 or 4 ms24 4 800

Channels 48 1 1,600 48 4 1b, 2 or 4 ms 48 Channels @ 2, 4 ms48 2 800 or 1,600a 60 2 2 or 4 ms48 4 800 or 1,600a 96 4 2 or 4 ms96 2 1,600 120 4 2 or 4 ms96 4 800 or 1,600a 240 4 4 ms

Solid state stacking available at Packing density 800 or 1,600 bpiall sample rates except (1) 1,600 bpi only.

Packing density 1,600 1,600maximumBPI

Number of bits 14 bits plus sign bit 14 bits plus sign bit4 bit gain word 3 bit gain word

Frequency 2 to 1,000 Hz 3 to 256 Hzresponse

Distortion 0.1 0/0 maximum @ 0.050/00.53V RMS input

Tape speed Unknown 10 to 120 ipsrange

—

96 Channels @ 4 ms

1,6006,250 for 338lR(IBM recorder)

14 bits plus sign bit

Unknown

Less than 0.1 0/0 @.05V input

20 to 92 ips

a800 BPI NRZI optionalb 1 ms at extra cost to 56 channels

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

Ch. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R, ● 193

Table 47.—Manufacture of Seismic Equipment by Country

Vibrator

Vibrator control

Shooter explosive

Recorder field

Tape transport

Camera CRT

Cables

Connector

Geophone

Airgun (marine)

Marine streamer

Marine positioning

Seismic computer

Array transformprocessor

Plotter

,

xxx

x

xxxxxxxx

x

xx

NOTE No Inferences as to quality or comparability can be made from


Seismic survey data must ultimately beprocessed by large mainframe, third genera-tion computers with floating point and arrayprocessors. The United States has approvedthe sale of six large computers, with some-what restricted array processors, for use inthe major hydrocarbon producing regions inthe U.S.S.R. Two French firms, Ferney -Voltaire and CGG, are known to have sup-plied sophisticated geophysical software( c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s ) used on the U .S .machines to analyze seismic survey results.An IBM sale included American software.

In sum, the equipment to perform seismicsurveys and record seismic data are gener-ally available worldwide. U.S. firms areunique, however, in being able to providesystems displaying the full range of equip-ment and know-how. U.S. firms also lead inthe accuracy of some equipment; and theUnited States has a substantial lead in com-puters that process the seismic data. Soviet

this table which merely shows the existence of commercial manufacturers

capabilities in this area are generally 5 to 15years behind the West and purchases of suchequipment would certainly enhance theU.S.S.R.’s seismic work. The degree towhich this would necessarily lead to increas-ed oil production in the present decade isunclear, however.

Drilling

The U.S.S.R. has purchased 15 portabledrilling rigs from Tamrock Oy of Finland.Canadian sales of $12 million to $32 millioneach year between 1975 and 1979 were prob-ably also portable rigs, which are known tobe produced by the Canadian firm Foremost.Mobile equipment capable of drilling to20,000 ft is also available from Romania,although it may not perform to advertisedspecifications.

The U.S.S.R. has imported drill pipe al-most entirely from firms in Western Europe


and Japan. Prominent suppliers have beenVallourec and Creusôt-Loire of France; Man-nesmann of West Germany; Italsider andEFIM of Italy; and Mitsubishi, Mitsui,Sumitomo, Japan Steel Works, and NipponKokan of Japan. Japanese pipe is generallyconsidered to be equal to, if not better than,U.S. pipe and is available at a significantlylower price. It is manufactured by the latestmethods including inertial welding of thetool joints on the ends of the pipe, and U.S.drillers are buying Japanese pipe to supple-ment U.S. production capacity.

The United States is the predominant pro-ducer of drill bits in the West, with theAmerican firms Hughes, Dresser, Smith,and Reed supplying the vast majority of bitsused outside the Communist world. Thesefirms produce the greatest diversity of high-quality bit types for varying undergroundrock strata. A few diamond bits and core bitsare produced by Diament-Boart of Belgiumand Tsukimoto Seiki in France, but thesecannot substitute directly for rock drill bits.While Tsukimoto produces both diamondand metal bits, its total annual production isvery small, approximately 5,000 bits. Euro-pean bits have a more limited operatingcapability than their U.S. counterparts andtheir quality does not match U.S. standards.Creusôt-Loire, SMF Division of France, hasrecently been purchased by Hughes Tool Co.and the drill bit plant is being modernized toU.S. standards.

The Soviet Union is itself a prodigous pro-ducer of drill bits, and it has not purchasedWestern bits in large quantities. A greatdeal of publicity has accompanied the sale byDresser Industries of a tungsen carbide jour-nal bearing drill bit plant to the U. S. S. R., thecapabilities of which are discussed in chapter2. The export license for this plant wasrecently revoked, but all the technologyrelating to production machinery, manufac-turing processes and metallurgical specifica-tions has already been transferred. Therevocation mainly prohibits Dresser fromproviding onsite training of Soviet tech-nicians once the manufacturing plant is com-

pleted. The U.S.S.R. will therefore be forcedto resort to trial and error to duplicateDresser-achieved quality. In sum, theUnited States enjoys a significant lead inboth quality and quantity of rock drill bits.But the U.S.S.R. does not purchase signifi-cant quantities of such bits and the sale ofthe American advantage—if the plantachieves its rated capacity of high-qualitybits.

Most of the well-logging equipment cur-rently employed in the U.S.S.R. is copiedfrom U.S. Halliburton “Jeep” single con-ductor logging tools acquired as part of lend-lease equipment after World War II. Thecurrent technology in the West employsmultiple conductors (up to seven) to obtainall the desired information on a single pass inthe borehole. These multiple conductors sig-nificantly expedite complete logging opera-tions. The Soviets have purchased well-log-ging tools from several U.S. firms (Halli-burton, Dresser, Gearhart-Owens) but havenot allowed experienced Western firms toenter the U.S.S.R. to provide logging serv-ice. The world’s leading logging firm,Schlumberger, has a policy of selling onlyservices, not equipment, and it performs 80percent of the logging services outside theCommunist world. Other logging servicesexist in France, United Kingdom, and WestGermany. These firms are generally small,however, without Schlumberger’s reputationfor quality of service. In sum, the U.S.S.R.substantially lags in logging equipment, butthe technology is available outside theUnited States.

Well Completion/Production

The process of completing a well entailsthe installation of equipment necessary toisolate the producing zones in the well, ex-tract, and contain the crude oil or gas–wellhead assemblies (christmas trees, chokes,valves), downhole packers (for both singleand multiple zone completion in a singlewell), and artificial lift equipment (sucker rodpumps, electrical submersible pumps, andgas lift equipment).

Ch. 6—Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R, ● 195

The literature reveals few exports of wellcompletion equipment to the U.S.S.R. Salesof well head assemblies have been made byHübner-Vamag AG in Austria; FMC Europe(Luceat), Cameron de France and Creusôt-Loire of France; EFIM of Italy; producers inRomania; and BWT World Trade, CAMCO,Otis Engineering, Cameron Iron Works,FMC Petroleum Equipment Co., and BakerOil Tools, Inc. of the United States. U.S. in-dustrial representatives generally agree thatequipment available overseas provides satis-factory service except under severe condi-tions, i.e., high pressure and corrosive at-mospheres. These problems are usually bestserved by U.S.-supplied equipment. Butsuch conditions are found infrequently in themajor Soviet oil and gas producing regions—less than 5 percent of the time and then prin-cipally only in the North Caucasus, the Cas-pian, and Sakhalin.

Artificial lift equipment is less generallyavailable outside the United States thanwellhead equipment. The Soviets are knownto produce their own sucker rod pumps andelectric submersible pumps. U.S. technicianswho have seen Soviet submersible pumpsreport that they appear to be exact copies ofpumps produced by Reda in the UnitedStates shortly after World War II. None ofthe pumps observed were estimated atgreater than 200 horsepower (hp). This maybe compared to the up to 1,000 hp pumpsavailable in the United States. Soviet pumpsalso have a considerably shorter life in thewell than their U.S. counterparts. Within theU. S. S. R., Soviet pumps reportedly operate30 to 90 days in the hole while pumps im-ported from the United States last 120 to360 days. (American pumps routinely oper-ate in excess of 1 year in U.S. wells beforethey require service. ) U.S. pumps that fail inthe U.S.S.R. are often not returned to serv-ice. The Soviet Union has consistency re-fused to allow American service techniciansinto the field, and the Soviets themselveshave insufficient trained personnel and sup-plies of replacement parts. In the West, aspecific pump is “fine tuned” by the manu-

facturer at the site to optimize usage. Sincethis has been made impossible in theU. S. S. R., the pumps probably operate ineffi-ciently.

Excluding the U. S. S. R., the world supplyof submersible pumps is provided by fourU.S. firms. They are TRW-Reda, Hughes-Centrilift (formerly Borg-Warner/Byron-Jackson), Baker-Kobe (formerly FMC), andOil Dynamics, Inc. Prices of U.S. pumpsrange from approximately $10,000 for thosewith small diameters and low power, to$200,000 for the largest and most powerful.Soviet purchases have averaged approxi-mately $100,000 per unit, suggesting thatthey are supplementing their own produc-tion with the larger units available only inthe United States. The U.S.S.R. purchasedabout 1,500 pumps from the United Statesbetween 1974 and 1978, but none have beenimported since. This suggests that theSoviets are now supplying their own needsor using other techniques to remove fluidfrom wells.

One such technique is gas lift, which theU.S.S.R. has in fact used to augment its sub-mersible pumps. The Soviets made a majorpurchase of gas lift equipment–enough toequip almost 2,400 wells—in 1978 fromTechnip of France. They have also pur-chased gas compressors from Dresser In-dustries and gas lift equipment fromCAMCO in the United States. Gas lift ismore expensive than pumps per unit volumeof oil produced because it requires com-plicated compression equipment to handlethe large volumes of gas it employs. The gasdistribution valves and their proper sequenc-ing are the most critical technology requiredin this technique. These are generallyavailable outside the United States.

Sucker rod pumps, such as those seen dot-ting the Midwestern and Western UnitedStates, are also used to lift oil. Until about 15years ago, Soviet-made models were com-monly beset with bearing failures and crack-ing of the rods. Through improved metal-lurgy, the U.S.S.R. seems to have solved


these problems and it does not import in thisarea.

Transportation

The expansion of Soviet pipelines for bothoil and gas has benefitted extensively fromimports from the West. The Soviets havepurchased a seamless pipe manufacturingplant with a capacity of 170,000 metric tonsper year from Creusót-Loire in France and aWest German group composed of Mannes-mann-Demag-Meev. The plant uses theFrench Vallourec process. The U.S.S.R. hasalso purchased extensive quantities offinished pipe from Mannesmann and Kloeck-ner of West Germany; Cie de St. Gobain-Point-a-Mousson in France; Finsider inItaly; and Mitsui, Sumitomo, Nippon, Seiko,Nippon Kokan, Kawasaki, and Itoh ofJapan. Japanese steel plate is also used forrolling into pipe in the U.S.S.R. The SovietUnion has purchased pipeline valves fromHubner-Vamag in Austria; HoneywellGmbh, Borsig Gmbh, and Klaus Union inWest Germany; Petrovalves, WAGI SpA,and Grove Italia in Italy; and Kobe Steel andJapan Steel Works in Japan. Clearly thistechnology is available worldwide.

Pipeline booster pumping stations for oiland gas compressor stations and their

related components have been supplied tothe U.S.S.R. by Honeywell-Austria Gmbh inAustria; AEG-Kanis Turbinenfabrik, KlausUnion, Cooper Vulkan Compressor Gmbh inWest Germany; Kongsberg Turbinfabrik inNorway; Nuovo Pignone and WorthingtonSpA of Italy; Sumitomo and Hitachi ofJapan; Thomassen of the Netherlands; andJohn Brown Engineering of Scotland. Sev-eral U.S. firms, including Ingersoll-Rand,Dresser, GE, Cooper Industries, and Inter-national Harvester, have also exported com-pression and pumping equipment. GE wasselected as a major supplier of compressionequipment for the Orenberg gas pipeline, but75 percent of GE Orenberg order was filledby firms outside the United States undersubcontract to GE. Compression equipmentis manufactured worldwide. Some of themore modern designs are derivatives of jetaircraft engines, but the technology is notadvanced and is available in Western Europeand Japan.

The U.S.S.R. has also purchased pipelinelaying equipment from the West. This usu-ally consists of a crawler tractor with side-mounted support to lower the pipe into aprepared trench. Fiat-Allis ConstructionMachinery, Inc., of Finland has suppliedspare parts for both bulldozers and pipe-

Photo credit Oil and Gas Journal

Equipment for work on large diameter pipelines


layers, Caterpillar-Mitsubishi and Komatsuof Japan have also exported pipelayers, ashas Bunsar in Poland (an International Har-vester licensee). International Harvester andCaterpillar have been the major U.S. sup-pliers of similar equipment. Foremost ofCanada has also supplied heavy pipe carry-ing vehicles. The technology requirementsfor these vehicles are not advanced and aregenerally available outside the UnitedStates. Although American firms may pro-duce the largest machines and Americanmodels may be better suited to work in coldclimates, alternative models, especially fromJapan, could fulfill Soviet requirements. Noinformation was collected on productioncapacities in any country. The Soviets seemto be buying these commodities due to short-falls in their own production.

U.S. firms, namely CRC International andPerry Equipment Corp., have won contractsto supply the U.S.S.R. with pipeline inspec-tion robots, or “pigs,” but competitive bid-ding to supply this type equipment for theOrenberg gas pipeline included Mannes-mann and Prenatechnik of West Germany;Primaberg and OeMV of Austria; GeneralDescaling of the United Kingdom; NipponKokan of Japan; and Aveary Lawrence ofSingapore. Both Prenatechnik and GeneralDescaling have previously sold pipeline in-spection pigs to the U.S.S.R. OTA’s assess-ment of the general capabilities of these pigsindicated that foreign equipment is compar-able to U.S. models.

In sum, well completion/production equip-ment, blowout preventers and wellhead as-semblies (Christmas trees) designed for veryhigh pressure and/or highly corrosive condi-tions are available only from U.S. firms. Butthese types of equipment would be requiredfor only a small percentage of the wellsdrilled in the U.S.S.R. The United Statesdoes maintain a monopoly on quality electricsubmersible pumps, but the U.S.S.R. hasnot purchased these for the past 2 years. Itis purchasing large quanities of pipe andpipeline equipment–which are available inWestern Europe and Japan.

Secondary/Tertiary Recovery

The Soviets have been experimenting withseveral enhanced recovery techniques. Asnoted above, the U.S.S.R. has purchased twoCO2 recuperation/liquefaction plants with acombined capacity of 400,000 tons/year fromBorsig Gmbh, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bab-cock AG, and a chemical surfactant plant(alkyl phenol) with a 100,000-ton/yr capacityfrom Fried Uhde Gmbh, both of West Ger-many. A plant capable of producing 250,000tons of surfactant per year was obtainedfrom Pressindustria in Italy, and other dealshave been broached with firms in Japan andEngland. It is not clear when these facilitieswill be brought online. In any event, the con-tribution to overall production will benegligible. The benefits of tertiary recoverytechniques are still being explored throughtesting and experimentation in the West aswell as in the U.S.S.R.

More enhanced recovery experience re-sides in the major oil and service companiesoperating in the United States than any-where else in the world. U.S. firms couldprobably aid the U. S. S. R., if it would allowforeigners to provide technical services.There has as yet been no sign of Soviet in-terest in such services.

Offshore

After the initiation of the Soviet-Japanesecooperative project on Sakhalin Island (seech. 11), the U.S.S.R. approached the GulfCorp. regarding the use of its highly so-phisticated survey ship, the Hollis Hedberg.The Soviet Union, however, prohibited theuse of an American crew in Soviet waters,and Gulf declined to participate. Instead, theU.S.S.R. leased a French survey ship withcrew from CGG for 6 months during thesummer of 1976. The Soviets also procuredfrom CGG sufficient geophysical equipmentto completely outfit two geophysical ships.In the same year, they purchased two shipsfrom Mitsubishi of Japan, and another com-pletely equipped geophysical survey shiphas reportedly been bought from Serete En-gineering of France. GECO of Norway was


hired in 1978 to conduct an offshore surveyusing 48-channel equipment in the Baltic Seaoff the East German-Polish coast. A similarship, ordered from GECO in 1977, performedsurveys during the summer of 1978 in theBarents Sea. These transactions suggestthat the U.S.S.R. has been able to acquiresubstantial Western expertise to develop itsoffshore fields, with little to no direct par-ticipation from the United States.

The United States has, however, provideda third-generation main frame computer, aCDC-Cyber 172, suitable for seismic anal-ysis. This is installed in a computer center onSakhalin Island. The software for the CDCcomputer, and for another installed else-where in the U. S. S. R., was purchased fromthe French firms CGG and Ferney-Voltaire.The Sakhalin Island computer facility isused to analyze the marine seismic data ac-quired by at least two of the Soviet geo-physical ships equipped with CGG instru-mentation and equipment.

Offshore exploratory drilling in the Sakha-lin region was initially performed in 1977with a semisubmersible rig leased from aNorwegian firm, Fred Olsen & Co. This wassubsequently replaced by a Mitsubishi-builtsemi, the Hakuryu II. Additionally, theJapanese consortium has provided severaljackup rigs for exploratory drilling offSakhalin. The drilling rigs are operated byJapanese-trained Soviets, and a Japanesedrilling supervisor remains with each rig.

The U.S.S.R. obtained its first mobile off-shore rig in 1966 from IHC in the Nether-lands. This rig, which was for use in the Cas-pian Sea, has become the prototype forSoviet domestically produced rigs. Equip-ment used on Soviet domestically producedoffshore rigs is also reported to be of Sovietorigin.

In 1976, Armco Steel (U. S.) was grantedan export license to provide Rauma-RepolaOy of Finland the necessary technical datato produce three semisubmersible drillingrigs that were to be sold to the U.S.S.R. andassembled at the Astrakhan shipyards on

the Caspian Sea. The first semi, the Kasp-morneft, was completed for sea trials inAugust 1979, but is not yet operational. Thesecond, the Shelf-1, was ready for sea trialsin 1980. The third semi is being modified atthe yard based on experience with Kasp-morneft. The Soviets have now ordered threedynamically positioned drill ships, also fromRauma-Repola Oy, for exploratory drilling inthe Barents and Kara Seas. The dynamicpositioning systems are being providedby Kongsberg Vaapenfabriken of Norway.Other competitors included Simrad A/S ofNorway and Honeywell of the United States.

The drill ships, as well as many of theother assembled offshore rigs supplied to theU. S. S. R., are largely outfitted with draw-works, prime power, rotary tables, subseablowout preventors, mud pumps, and cranesmade by U.S. firms and their overseas sub-sidiaries and licensees. Dominant U.S. sup-pliers are National Supply, Ideco, Continen-tal Emsco, Oilwell, and Gardner-Denver. Themain structural platforms for these rigs aremade in many shipyards around the world,but U.S. firms produce the majority of themobile offshore designs. Major U.S. firmshere are Bethlehem Steel, Marathon LaTour-neau, Livingston, Avondale, Todd, McDer-mott, and Ingalls. Significant quantities ofrigs are also produced in the Netherlands byVerolme, IHC, Rhine-Schelde-Veroime; inCanada by Davie, Halifax and Scott-Lith-gow; in Finland by Rauma-Repola Oy; inJapan by Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Hitachi,Sumitomo, IHI, and Nippon Kokan; in Nor-way by Aker, Nylands, Trosvik and Nor-marig; and in France by CFEM. Lesser sup-pliers may be found in Taiwan, Italy, UnitedKingdom, West Germany, Venezuela, Scot-land, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia,Sweden, Korea, and Spain. In the Com-munist world, rigs have been constructed bythe People’s Republic of China, Romania,and the U.S.S.R. These are usually copies ofWestern rigs.

The prime power used on the rigs is usu-ally diesel-electric, and the suppliers includeall the world’s major diesel manufacturers:


General Electric/EMD, Caterpillar, Fair-banks-Morse, Detroit Diesel Allison, SACMand Alsthom-Atlantique/SEMT Pielstick(France), and Paxman and MTU (West Ger-many). Dynamic positioning control systemshave been supplied to the U.S.S.R. byHoneywell and Delco in the United States,Simrad A/S and Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikenin Norway and CIT Alcatel in France. Me-chanical anchoring systems and cranes havebeen provided by U. S., Japanese, West Ger-man, Norwegian, and French firms. Divingequipment on the rigs has been most fre-quently provided by COMEX in France, butOcean Systems (U. S.) has also exported inthis area. Subsea blowout preventers appearto be available only from U.S. suppliers, in-cluding Cameron Iron Works, Hydril, andNL Industries. These firms are also the solesuppliers of subsea well completion stacks.A leading U.S. supplier indicated that hisfirm had provided subsea blowout preven-tors for all Soviet offshore rigs and ships.

The offshore oil and gas industry is aclassic example of the worldwide nature ofthis technology. While the earliest offshoreactivities were concentrated off the Gulf andCalifornia coasts of the United States, the in-dustry is now active in other parts of theCaribbean, off Brazil, West Africa, theNorth Sea, Asia, and the North Slope ofAlaska and Canada, The most stringent re-quirements for offshore technology are rep-resented by North Sea and North Slope ac-tivities, and both U.S. and European firmsare benefiting from this experience. In sum,while the U.S.S.R. sorely needs offshoreequipment, with the exception of draw-works, rotary tables, mud pumps, subseablowout preventers, and well completionstacks—the narrow range of items in whichthe United States still maintains a monopolyor lead—it can acquire quality items inWestern Europe and Japan.

Engineering firms are perhaps the mostcritical element in successful offshore opera-tions. U.S. firms clearly have the greatestbreadth of experience in this area, but nu-merous foreign companies can supply most

individual aspects of the know-how. Table 48lists major foreign offshore engineeringfirms that are able to perform all or part ofthe engineering design required in definingand establishing a new offshore producingfield and providing associated equipment.

Teamed together, the firms listed in table48 could provide the same capability that isresident in U.S. firms like Brown & Root,Inc., and J. Ray McDermott. In fact, therehas been substantial teaming for the NorthSea and the Beau fort Sea.

Refining

Although current capacity seems to sup-ply current needs, improved refining tech-nology and equipment may well be requiredin the U.S.S.R. during this decade. Increasednatural gas production will require process-ing of vast amounts of natural gas. Gas proc-essing complexes have been sold to theU.S.S.R. by Technip and ConstructionMetalliques de Provence in France and theJapan Steel Works, Nichiman Jitsugyo &Co., Ltd., and Mitsubishi in Japan. TheFluor Corp. of the United States has pro-

Table 48.—Non-U.S. Offshore Engineering Firms

Norway:Aker, Kvaener

Netherlands:Herrema

United KingdomWorleyAdkinsHalgrove-EubankMatthew-HallDavey PowergasWilleyLawrence & Allison

France:E.T.P.M.U.I. E.Serete

Italy:TechnomareSaipemSnamergetti

Mexico:Protectors

Spain:— I n i t e l .

SOURCE Brown and Root, Inc.—.


vialed engineering services and technicalassistance on at least two Japanese sales.

Mitsubishi has sold an oil refinery to theU.S.S.R. Competitors for that sale were re-ported to be Linde AG in West Germany andC-E Lummus in the United States. OtherSoviet imports of oil refining equipment dur-ing the period 1975-78 have included dealsworth over 190 million rubles from Japan,165 million rubles from East Germany, 76million rubles from France, 43 million rublesfrom Czechoslovakia, 1.5 million rubles fromItaly, and 1 million rubles from the UnitedKingdom. The U.S.S.R. will probably con-tinue to seek assistance in this area, but thetechnology to produce and operate an ade-quate refinery is not advanced and is avail-able on a worldwide basis. (This includes theuse of hydro and catalytic cracking to break

up the heavy hydrocarbon molecules to formthe lighter molecules in motor fuels and avia-tion gasoline. ) Modern U.S. and WesternEuropean refineries now have sophisticatedcomputer controls, which the Soviets lack.These controls improve efficiency but arenot generally integral to the basic tech-nology. In short, the technology required forrefining crude oil is available in severalWestern countries, and the U.S.S.R. is cer-tainly not dependent on the United Statesfor refining technology to meet its near-termneeds.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND“FOREIGN AVAILABILITY”

Until recently, the United States had beenthe sole source of “state-of-the-art” tech-nology in virtually all technological areas.

Photo credit TASS from SOVFOTO

Separation installations at a West Siberian gas compression station


America’s technological lead was largely at-tributable to two factors: it outspent mostother countries in research and developmentand the wealth of technological “know-how;”and equipment produced by U.S. R&D hadremained resident in U.S. corporations. Therise of the multinational corporations duringthe 1960’s altered this state of affairs.

In their quest for expanded markets andhigher profit margins, the multinationalshave transferred significant quantities of ad-vanced technological know-how and equip-ment. This process is nowhere more evidentthan in the oil industry, where the first truemultinationals emerged. The internationalnature of oil and gas exploration and produc-tion provided a natural incentive for oil in-dustries to adopt a global approach to thedispersion of know-how and equipment. Asfar back as the 1940’s, oil companies per-ceived a need for local sources of equipmentand technology. Transfers of technology be-tween U.S. firms and other Western con-cerns have taken place in nearly all of thekey technological areas of the oil and gas in-dustry. The data also show several transfersof American technological know-how direct-ly to the Soviets; i.e., the Dresser drill bitplant and the Armco licensing of offshorerigs. The result of these transfers has been tosignificantly reduce the number of areas inwhich the United States is a sole source ofsupply.

The three principal vehicles for transfer oftechnology are wholly owned subsidiaries,affiliates, and licensing of production proc-esses and know-how. Parent corporationshave availed themselves of all threemethods. Each provides varying levels oftechnology transfer, and differing amountsof control which the parent organization re-tains over the end use of technology.

Transfers of technology have affected theposition of the United States as sole sourcein two ways. An initial technology transferspreads U.S. know-how throughout theworld. Once a foreign concern acquires atechnological base, it can expand upon this

base and develop similar product lines on itsown. One example of this process in the caseof GE licensing of compressor technologyto Nuovo Pignone of Italy. Shortly after ac-quiring the technology, Nuovo Pignone wasproducing its own gas pipeline compressorstations in competition with GE line. In1976 Nuovo Pignone won a large Soviet con-tract for pipeline compressors over a com-peting bid from GE. Nuovo Pignone is nowan important supplier of this type ofequipment.

The United States still leads in some areas,however. These are discussed in the follow-ing sections.

Exploration

In exploration, the United States holds aunique position in that it is able to providethe complete set of equipment, computers,and software needed to model subsurfacestructures and locate oil and gas. The lead ofAmerican firms in this area may be attrib-uted to the fact that their international sub-sidiaries, affiliates, and licensees do the vastmajority of exploration in the West. Many ofthe components of these systems areavailable elsewhere, especially from theJapanese, but the most advanced expertiseresides in the United States. The UnitedStates also has a slight edge in hydrophoreand geophone accuracy.

Although other sources exist for the latesttechnology in integrated circuits, the UnitedStates currently is the only source of mini-computers used to rapidly process and ini-tially analyze seismic data in the field. Thiscapability allows up to 24-hour turnaroundfor initial seismic results (v. a more normal90-day turnaround of complete results froma central data processing center) to alert thefield crew to particularly promising locationsor to inadequate data that should be re-peated. This is “state-of-the-art” technol-ogy, however, and is still used by only asmall number of firms, even in the UnitedStates.

Several U.S. firms manufacture advancedgeophones and hydrophores that exhibit


small, incremental advances over itemsavailable in the United Kingdom, France, orGermany. The foreign models, however, cancertainly perform the necessary tasks.

Computers

In the United States, computers havebecome an integral part of the business offinding, extracting, processing, and deliver-ing energy. Computers do not play as per-vasive a role in the U.S.S.R. both becausetheir value was recognized later and becauseof systemic problems in organizing andrealizing the production of hardware andsoftware. Soviet energy industries haverelied extensively on indirect transfers,although a number of direct transfers haveplayed an appreciable role in selected areas,most notably in geophysical processing.

OTA has isolated a number of key areaswhere the Soviets lag behind the UnitedStates in computing. These are summarizedin figure 20. The first is hardware. Althoughother Western nations, notably Japan, cansupply equivalents, the United States stillleads in supplying integrated systems forthese applications. The United States alsoholds a commanding lead in software andsoftware development techniques, althoughthe French have supplied the U.S.S.R. withsome geophysical software. It is in thedevelopment of integrated systems and soft-ware that Soviet systemic problems havehad the greatest impact.35 Because of the im-proving Soviet hardware base, there will beless overt pressure to buy from the West,but indirect Soviet reliance on Western, andin particular, American developments willvery likely continue.

Other Oil and Gas Equipment

U.S. drill bit manufacturers have the mostextensive variety of bits in the world and anear monopoly on bit sales outside the Com-munist countries. Only a few small bit sup-pliers exist outside the United States, Most

35 S. E. Goodman, "Soviet Software: Progress and Prob-1ems" Advances inComputers, vol. 18, 1979,

of these specialize in diamond-coated bitsthat have a relatively narrow range of appli-cation. In any case, the experience base ofU.S. firms and the proven quality and dura-bility of their products clearly establishthem as world leaders. Even with the sale ofa U.S. bit manufacturing plant to theU. S. S. R., it is doubtful that the Soviets canproduce comparable quality bits without ex-tensive one-on-one training by U.S. techni-cians in the manufacturing steps and qualityassurance provisions. Sustaining high-qual-ity metallurgical raw materials will also benecessary to achieve a capability equal tothat of the United States. The requiredknowledge and experience can be gainedthrough trial and error, but several yearsmay be required to achieve the capabilitythat a few months of onsite training mightprovide.

The world’s major purveyor of well log-ging services is Schlumberger, a Frenchfirm, and logging equipment was first devel-oped in France. Nevertheless, U.S. firms doexcel in the electronic technology and inter-pretation experience necessary to obtainhigh-quality well-logging survey results, andimprovements made in the United States,with U.S. technology and based on the ex-tensive U.S. drilling and logging experience,have been important.

In well completion and production, severalitems appear to be unique to the UnitedStates: blowout preventers and wellheadassemblies designed for either very high--pressure service (above 10,000 psi) or for usein highly corrosive hydrogen sulfide en-vironments, and electric submersible pumps.Although firms outside the United Statescan provide less capable units, oil fieldspecialists everywhere recognize U.S.blowout preventors and Christmas trees asthe ultimate in quality. The electric submer-sible pumps needed to produce high volumewells are exclusively available in the UnitedStates. U.S. pumps have proven down-holelongevity when properly tailored to the welland served with reliable power. The sizerange of 25 to 1,000 horsepower exceeds by a

——

Ch. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R, ● 203

Figure 20.— Relative Importance to Soviet Energy Industries of Computer-Related Technologiesin Which the U.S.S.R. Lags the United States

I II Ill IV v VI VlII Vlll lX

Very large computers

Array processors

Microprocessor production

High density storage

Multi-level process control

Micro/Mini-computer systems softwareI

I

Software engineering

I. Software tools I l l1 I I I

Legend I GeophysicaI Precessing V Economic ManagementI I Oil and Gas Production (Oil and Gas )I I I Refining and PetrochemicalsI v Pipelines

wide margin the range of pumps produced inthe U.S.S.R.

The area of enhanced recovery equipmentand know-how is difficult to evaluate. TheSoviet Union has purchased entire plants toproduce chemical surfactants and CO, to aidin the extraction of heavy oil or oil tightlybound in rock. Soviet literature has alsoreported experimentation with hot waterand steam injection, fire flooding, and evenunder-ground nuclear explosions to achieveimproved recovery of oil from a reservoir.These techniques are still not in widespreadcommercial use even in the United States.Nevertheless, the United States has hadmore experience with technical approachesto achieve improved recovery of crude oilthan any other nation. I t is reasonable toconclude, therefore, that the United States isthe sole source of substantial experience intertiary recovery methods-if the U.S.S.R.

VI Coal MiningVII Economic Management (Coal)VIII Electric Power Process ControlIX Electric Power and Grid Management

were to seek that type of service. Thus far, ithas not.

The final area where the United States is asole source supplier is in subsea blowoutpreventers, marine draw-works, mud pumps,rotary tables, and wellhead completion as-semblies used in offshore operations. Anysuch items with significant capacity ratingsare available only from U.S. manufacturers.But the current proliferation of licensees forthe manufacture of platform drilling equip-ment; i.e., draw-works, mud pumps, rotarytables, etc., may soon effectively removethose items from the sole source list.

In sum, of the thousands of pieces ofequipment used to find, extract, and produceoil and gas, only a handful are unique to theUnited States. This finding reflects the dis-persal of technology that occurs with multi-national companies and the worldwide na-ture of the petroleum business.

204 “ Technology and Soviet Energy Availability

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSIn 1979, the Soviet Union devoted some

$3.4 billion, approximately 22 percent of itstrade with its major Western trading part-ners, to energy-related technology andequipment. The vast majority of its pur-chases—worth about $2.7 billion—was des-tined for the Soviet oil and gas industries.These imports clearly have played importantroles in compensating for production short-falls and poor quality of Soviet domesticallyproduced equipment. With the exceptions ofsophisticated computers and software, andsome aspects of offshore development, how-ever, there is little reason to believe that theU.S.S.R. uses these imports to acquire tech-nologies hitherto beyond its own capabil-ities.

The Soviet coal, nuclear, and electric pow-er sectors have been largely self-sufficient. Itis the oil and gas industries that have beenmost characterized over the years by the in-volvement of the West, and there is no doubtthat the industry would benefit substan-tially from Western imports on a massivescale. Whether from lack of hard currency, adeliberate policy of self-reliance, the reluc-tance or inability of Western firms to sell, orall three, Soviet purchases have generally re-mained relatively modest and strategicallytargeted. An important exception is largediameter pipe, an item that will be crucial toenergy development in the present decade.Here, the U.S.S.R. is quite dependent onfirms in Japan and West Germany. TheUnited States does not produce pipe in thediameter required by the U.S.S.R.

Indeed, the United States is not thepredominant supplier of most energy-relateditems recently imported by the SovietUnion. The foreign availability sections ofthis chapter have identified numerous for-eign firms supplying oil and gas equipmentto the U. S. S. R., reinforcing the theme of theinternational nature of the major oil and gascompanies. Newly developed technology hasgenerally been diffused throughout theworld through an extensive network of sub-sidiaries, affiliates, and licensees.

There are a few items of oil and gas equip-ment which are either solely available fromthe United States or for which the UnitedStates is generally considered a preferredsupplier: integrated computer systems andsoftware; rock drill bits; electric well loggingequipment; blowout preventers; and well-head completion assemblies for high pres-sure, corrosive or subsea applications; ma-rine draw-works; mud pumps; rotary tables;electric submersible pumps; and a substan-tial experience base in tertiary recoverytechniques. With the exception of com-puters, however, the U.S.S.R. is either notpurchasing these items, is on its way to ac-quiring the capacity to produce them domes-tically, or has demonstrated that they arenot essential to oil and gas production.

This study reinforces the international ex-tent of the oil and gas industry. The spreadof technology that was originally developedin the United States has been enhancedthrough the growth of multinational com-panies that supply equipment to all users.This results in relatively few items thatremain exclusively available from U.S.sources. The United States continues torepresent the ultimate in quality or capabil-ity in some equipment, but the extent of thatlead is diminishing. The United States stillleads in exploration, drilling, offshore, wellcompletion, enhanced recovery, and opera-tions in extreme geologic conditions. But theitem most badly needed by the U.S.S.R.—large diameter pipe–is available fromJapan, West Germany, France, and Italy.The United States retains the best reputa-tion as the supplier of pipeline pumping andcompressor stations, and, in particular, forthe turbine drive units that power them. Butthe Soviet Union can and does obtain mostof what it needs for continued developmentof its oil and gas resources from sources out-side the United States. In short, U.S. in-dustry could assist the U. S. S. R., but to makea significant impact the assistance wouldhave to be massive—and unprecedented.

Appendix A. – Energy Corporation Affiliations7

Parent company Country Products Divisions Subsidiaries Licenses

ITT

Texas International

Marion Power Shovel Co

Deutsche Babcock & WIICOX

Studebaker-Worthington, Inc

Int’1 Systems & ControlsCorp.

George Kent Group

Harnischfeger

Bucyrus-Erie

Baker Trading Corp.

TRW

Creusôt-Loire S.A.

Joy Manufacturing Co.

ASEA

United Oil seal equipment Gallino (Italy)States

United Oil seal equipment, Rockwell MachineStates High speed presses Tool Ltd. (Britain)

Matrix EngineeringLtd. (Scotland)

United Crawler cranes, pile drivers, Sumitomo (Japan)States Mining shovels, large

diameter pipes, steel piping,compressor equipment

West Ball valves for pipelines Borsig GmbHGermany

United Booster pumps, concrete Worthington SpAStates pumps, high pressure (Italy) Division of

pumps Worthington PumpInc. (U. S.)

United Natural gas filtration Black, SyvalloStates equipment and Bryson

United Turbine meters, readout Kent France S.A.Kingdom instruments

United Crawler cranes, pile drivers Kobe Steel (Japan)

States Crawler cranes, pile drivers Komatsu (Japan)

United Wellhead equipment, Baker Division Lynes Inc.States testing equipment for

wildcat well heads,workover rigs, drillingtest equipment

United Submersible pumping TRW-Reda PumpStates units, pumps, cable Inc.

TRW CrescentWire andCable Division

France Seamless pipe plant

United PowertongsStates

Sweden Welding line (automatic)

Creusôt-LoireEnterprises(Licensee ofSMF Interna-tional Member)

Hillman-Kelly

ESAB

205



J. Ray McDermott & Co. United Propane coolers, pipeline Hudson ProductsStates coolers Corp. Licensee

of Creusôt-Loire(France), HudsonItaliana SpA(Italy)

Cooper-Besemer Co.

Finmeccanica SpA

Borg-Warner Corp.

W-K-M Valve Group

Dresser Industries

Grove Valve & Regulator Co

Armco Steel

U.S. Steel

International Harvester Co.

VOP Inc.

Perry Equipment Co.

Rockwell International

Westinghouse Elec. Co.

Big Three Industriesof Houston

Stewart & Stevenson

Cameron Iron Works

FMC Corp.

Schenck GmbH

McNally-PittsburghManuf. Corp.

UnitedStates

Italy

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

West

Valves

Submersible pumps

Gate valves, wellheads

Mining shovels and blasthole drills; compressorsfor pipe line

Gate and ball valves

Machine for semisubmer-sible offshore drilling rigs,semisubmersible rigs

Oilwell cementing

Standby power generatingequipment turbines

Large dry gas scrubbers

Pig launching/receivingstation

Pipeline metering stations

Compressor stations

Welding positioners

Blow-out preventioncontrols

Christmas trees, stainlesssteel wellhead equipment

Christmas trees, stainlesssteel wellhead equipment

Screens for coal washingGermany plant

United Flo-driersStates

Marion PowerShovel, ClarkDivision

Chiyoda Co. Ltd.(Japan)

WAG I InternationalSpA (Italy)

Centrilift Inc.

Hubner-Vamag AG& Co. (Austria)

National Supply

Western Rock Bitand Oilwell Supply

Solar

VOP Ltd., U.K.

Robsa (Neth.)

Sumitomo HeavyIndustries

Japan Steel Works

U.S.S.R. Ministryof Shipbuilding

Sirtech (Italy)

Mitsubishi

Ransome Co.

Koomey Division

Cameron DeFrance

FMC Europe(Luceat)

Japan KurimotoIron Works Co.

Sumitomo HeavyIndustry

Ch. 6— Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R. • 207


General Electric United Compressors, gas General Electric Nuovo PignoneStates pipeline, turbines, of Britain (Italy)

automation equipment, Mitsubishi Heavycompressor stations Ind.

AEG-Kanis (FRG)John BrownEngineering Ltd.(Scotland)

Thomassen Holland(Neth.)

AEG-Telefunken(FRG)

Mannesmann (FRG)Hitachi (Japan)

All these associ-ates have workedwith G.E. on gasturbines. Underthe agreement,G.E. supplied rotat-ing parts and theassociates suppliedstationary partsand compressorto G.E. specs.

Mannesmann sup-plied engineeringand design, pro-curement,Installation andtraining services

Smith Int'l Inc.

Kendavis IndustriesInt’l, Inc.

Cooper Industries Inc.

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

Crutcher Resources Corp. UnitedStates

Honeywell-Bull, Inc.

Fiat Group

Geosource Inc.

UnitedStates

Italy

UnitedStates

Vertical drill

Triple-joining plants forwide-diameter pipemining dump trucksM-200s

Centrifugal compressors

Spare parts - largediameter pipeline andwelding equipmentleases weldingsystems

Control and measuringdevices

Caldwell Division

Mid-ContinentalEquipment Co.Unit Rig andEquipment Co.

Cooper Energy Cooper-Vulkan Creus8t-LoireServices Compressor (France)

GmbH Kawasaki Heavy(W. Germany Industries, Ltd.Joint Venture) (Japan)

CRC CroseCRC AutomaticWeldingCRC Int’l

Honeywell AustriaGmbH (Austria)

Flexible hose, flexible hoseexpansion joints

Digital display system ET L/Mandrel Iseismic field recorder Products Divisionphoto dot digital Petty Rayplotting system Geophysical

Gilardini SpA(Member)



Grove Valve & Regulator United Flex-flo valves Italian Affiliateco. States

Caterpillar Tractor Co. United Spare parts - bulldozers Fiat-AllisStates and pipelayers Construct ion

Machinery, Inc,(Witractor)(Finland)

Appendix B. – Trade by Company

The following table presents a sampling of thedealings of various Western companies involvedin the export of energy-related equipment to theU.S.S.R. The data was obtained from a search ofthe bimonthly publication Soviet Business andTrade (SB&T) for the period 1975-80.

SB&T draws on a variety of sources, includingthe Soviet News Agency TASS, to gather in-formation on Soviet trade. The staff ensures theaccuracy of the reported deals through a systemof cross-checking sources and phone verificationwith U.S. companies.

According to its publisher, fully one-half of thesubscribers of SB&T are found in countries out-side the United States, especially WesternEurope and the Soviet Union. The subscribersprovide feedback as to the accuracy of the report-ing. A concerted effort is made by the editorialstaff to provide a representative sample of Sovietpurchases across the spectrum of both techno-logical areas and supplying countries.

U.S. Government agencies, such as the Depart-ment of Commerce, the Central IntelligenceAgency, and the Department of Energy, also sub-scribe to SB&T. U.S. industry representativeshave indicated that information about theirfirms’ activities is generally accurate, and theyare usually contacted in advance of publicationregarding the accuracy of a reported item.

No attempt has been made to validate totalauthenticity or completeness of the trade datacontained in SB&T. OTA is confident that themajor trade deals from SB&T referred to in thecourse of this study are factual and accuratelyrepresent the availability of energy technologyand commodities from sources outside the UnitedStates. It is possible, however, that transactionsrecorded here may not have been consummated,or that their terms may have changed.

Table B-1 .—Trade by Company—Oil and Gas

Equipment area Exploration

Suppliers Country Product

Foremost Industries

Potter Test

Serete Engineering

Ferneg - Voltaire

CIE GeneraleGeophysique

ClE GeneraleGeophysique

CIE GeneraleGeophysique

Stere

Comex

Mitsubishi Corp.

Geosource Inc.

Control Data Corp.

Control Data Corp.

Canada

Canada

France

France

France

France

France

France

France

Japan

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

73 tracked geophysical survey vehicles [undersubcontract to Geosource (U.S.)]

Portable production testing equipment

1 geological survey ship

Geophysical software to be used on CDCs Cyber 172s

Special geophysical software used on the CDCCyber 172s

6 month lease of a complete geophysical ship and crew

Digital seismographic recorders, magnetometers,gravity meters, cables and hydrophores for 2geophysical ships

Underwater prospecting equipment

Deep sea diving equipment

2 geophysical ships (using the geophysicalequipment bought from CIE above)

Command II field processing systems

2 Cyber 172-4 computers

1 Cyber 73; 1 Cyber 172 computer

Year Value

1979

1980 $113 million

1979

1979

1976

1976 $14 million

1975

1976 $2.5 million

1979 $6 million

1979 $12.1 million

209


Table B-1 .–Trade by Company–Oil and Gas (Continued)

Equipment area Exploration

Suppliers Country Product Year Value

Geosource Inc.

Gearhart-Owen, Inc.

Magnavox Labs

Geosource Inc.

Petty Ray GeophysicalDivision of Geosource

Geospace Corp.

Lynes Inc.

Mertz Inc.

IBM Trade DevelopmentS.A. with WesternGeophysical

Schlumberger S.A.Halliburton Services Inc.Dresser Industries

Maschinenfabrik

Tamrock Oy

Airan

Drilling

Heid

SMF International

Vallourec Export

Wotan Werke

Japanese Consortium

Sodeco

Baker Trading Co,

Farr International

Halliburton Services

Joy Manufacturing

Ekel Manufacturing Co.

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStatesFrance

FranceUnitedStates

Austria

Finland

Finland

France

France

WestGermany

Japan

Japan

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

13 photodot automated digital display 1979

Cooperative agreement on the production of direct 1978digital well logging equipment

5 navigation systems for satellite pinpointing of 1975geological teams

Seismic field recorder (manufactured by Geosource, 1975Inc., ETL/Mandrell Products Division)

Photodot digital plotting system 1975

Seismic plotting system with geophones 1975

Testing equipment for wildcat wellheads 1975

24 servo-hydraulic vibrator systems

IBM 370-148 and an array processor

Help locate hydrocarbon reserves

Machine tools for making couplings and adaptersfor oilwell casing and drill pipe

15 crawler mounted drilling rigs

Drilling equipment

400 kellies

Well head casing

Heavy drilling equipment

200,000 tons of seamless pipe for oil wells; to bedelivered between October 1980 and March 1981

Casing, drill pipe, bits and clay

Drilling test equipment

10 power tongs and a diesel/hydraulic powersystem for each

Cementing systems

Power tongs

20 power tongscompetitors: Farr International (U. S.)Joy Manufacturing Co. (U. S.)

1979

1978

$7 million

$370,000

$300,000

$250,000

$2.5 million

$6 million

1979 Sch 150 million

1978

1975 $100,00019781975

1980 R4 million

1980

1976 $2 million

1979 $1.6 million

1979 $1 million

1978 $3 million

1978

1978

Ch. 6—Western Energy Equipment and Technology Trade With the U.S.S.R, ● 211

Table B-1 –Trade by Company—Oil and Gas (Continued)

Equipment area Drilling


Dresser Industries Inc.

Hercules Inc.

Stewart & Stevenson’sKoomey Division

Drilco

Well

Hübner-Vamag AG

Hübner-Vamag AG

Hübner-Vamag AG

Hübner-Vamag AG

Hübner-Vamag AG

Hübner-Vamag

Honeywell AustriaGmbH

Dresser Industries Ltd.

United Equip a new addition to an existing rockStates drill bit plant

United Mud additivesStates

United 6 blow-out prevention controlsStates

United Degasser and pipe inspectorStates

Com~ietion/Production

Austria

Austria

Austria

Austria

Austria

Austria

Austria

Canada

Foremost Industrles Ltd. Canada

Flat-AlIis Construction FinlandMachinery, Inc. (Witractor)

Vallourec France

Entrepose S.A. France

CIE Francaise d’Etudes Francede Constructions (Technip)

Cie de St. Gobain-Point-a- FranceMousson & Vallourec

Export S.A.

FMC Europe (Luceat) and FranceCameron de France

Honeywell GmbH WestGermany

Borsig GmbH WestGermany

Klaus Union WestGermany

AEG-Kanis Turbinenfabrik WestGermany

130 complete oil well head assemblies

155 natural gas drill hole plugs and production vanes

1,000 single slab gate valves for pipelines andwell heads

80 well heads

702.5 meter diameter ball valves for dutydown to -55° C

Ball cock and tilt check valves for gas pipelines

129 units of control and measuring devices forOrenberg line equipment built by British Sereck

Controls Ltd.; UK)

42 compressor units21 - used for gas lift21 - used in fire flooding

30 metric ton payload husky 8 vehicles (pipe carriers)

Spare parts for bulldozers and pipelayers

152,000 tons of large diameter pipe in 1980

Line pipe (actually supplied by Vallourec Export S. A.)

Gas lift equipment for 2,371 wells

Steel line pipe

Christmas trees and stainless steel wellheadequipment

Large diameter pipeline valves

Large diameter pipeline valves

Pipeline fittings and ball valves

17 gas compressor stations

1978

1978

1975

1975

1979

1979

1978

1978

1976

1976

1976

1978

1976

1978

1980

1978

1978

1977

1975

1980

1980

1979

1978

$147 million

$14.5 million

$11.5 million

Sch 100 million

$5.2 million

$9 million

$30 million

$4 million

R241,000

Fr 835 million

$70 million

$6 million

DM 1.3 million


Table 6-1 —Trade by Company –Oil and Gas (Continued)

Equipment area Well Completion/Production

Suppiers Country Product Year Value

Klaus Union

Borsig GmbH

Mannesmann RohrwerkeAG

Cooper-VulkanCompressor GmbH

Gebr Windhosst

Kloeckner

Hudson Italiana SpA

Nuovo Pignone

Petrovalves SpA

WAGI SpA

Worthington SpA

Nuovo Pignone

Finsider

Finsider

Grove Italia

Mitsui & Co,

Kobe Steel, Ltd.

Sumitomo Corp.

WestGermany

WestGermany

WestGermany

WestGermany

WestGermany

WestGermany

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Japan

Japan

Japan

Sumitomo Metal IndustriesNippon Seiko JapanNippon KokornKawasaki Steel

C. Itoh & Co., Ltd. Japan

Yamamoto Suiatsu JapanKogyosho, Ltd.

Hitachi Ltd. Japan

Japan Steel Works Japan

Caterpillar-Mitsubishi Japan

Sumitomo Corp. Japan

20 multipurpose pumps

200 ball valves for pipelines

3.5 million tons of wide diameter steel pipe

15, RF2BB-30 centrifugal compressors (a jointventure with Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau undMaschinenfabrik)

Fire prevention gear for Orenberg line 123 units

32,000 tons of large diameter pipe

32 propane coolers for severe climatic conditions

1. Automation equipment; gas compression plant2. Remote control equipment for gas gathering and

transmission system3. 5 compressor stations

400 check valves for oil and gas pipelines, withdiameters from 1,000 to 700 MM

Pipeline valves

20 booster pumps for pipeline

35 compressors for Orenberg line

2,5 million tons of large diameter pipe

Large diameter pipe

Ball valves for oil and gas pipelines

200,000 tons of 70 kg/mm2 grade steel plates forproduction of wide diameter pipe

230 large diameter ball valves for gas pipelines

Steel piping, pumping and compressor equipment,large diameter pipe

500,000 tons 1,400 mm steel pipe for pipelines

Wide diameter steel pipe

Pipe binding equipment

Five 10,000 kW gas turbine compressor units

56” valves for Orenberg line (subcontract to Perry)

193 D-6 bulldozers/pipelayers

400,000 metric tons of pipes, both largediameter and seamless

1977

1976

1976

1976

1976

n.a.

1978

19781978

1978

1978

1978

1976

1976

1975

1974

1979

1979

1979

1978

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1975

1980

$200,000

$8.8 million

$3.2 million

$1.5 million

$150 million

$6 million

$1.5 billion

Y20 billion

$6.8 million

$130 million

$4.3 million

$9 million

$16 million


Table B-1 —Trade by Company —Oil and Gas (Continued)



Robsa

Thomassen

Kongsberg Turbinfabrik

Bunsar

John Brown Engineering

TRW-Reda Pump, Inc.

Ingersoll-Rand Co.

Baker World Trade

Cameo

Otis Engineering

ODI Inc.

TRW-Reda Pump, Inc.and Borg Warner

011 Dynamics

TRW-Reda Pump, Inc.

Centrilift Inc.

Occidental Int’l Eng. Co.

CRC International

Otis Engineering

Cameron Iron Works

Netherlands Pipeline metering stations, using Perry (U. S.)flow measuring equipment (Robsa is a subsidiary ofRockwell International; U. S.)

Netherlands 10 turbines for Orenberg (under subcontract to GE.)

Norway

Poland

Scotland

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

Standby turbine generators for Orenberg line(a subcontract for Nuovo Pignone - Italy)

34 pipe layers (International Harvester Co. supplieddimensions, metallurgical specs, tooling andmachinery techniques, quality control andassembly methods. International Harvester receivesa royalty on each vehicle sold to a third party )

33 gas turbine compressor units for Orenberg line(J.B.E. as a manufacturing associate of G.E.)

90 submersible pumps

Gas pipeline compressors

Down-hole completion equipment, including wire-Iine, packers, safety valves and primary cementingequipment for 31 gas wells. About half are designed forextreme cold weather operations (-65°) for largediameter, large volume production.

2,216 gas lift and completion units and 80 wire line units

Down-hole completion and wire line equipmentfor 101 gas wells

Submersible oil pumps

Submersible oil pumps



188 submersible pumps (built in the firm’s Torontoplant). Note: This sale brought total number ofcentrilift pumps in the U.S. S, R. to 600

Design and construction of a pipeline

internal line-up clamps, clean and wrap machines,pipe benders; pigs

Completion equipment

40 well heads

1976

1975

1976

1976

$5 million

$10 million

1976 $47 million

1979 $10.5 million

1979

1979 $2,5 million

1979

1979

1978

1978

1978

1978

1978

1978

1978

1978

1978

$36.1 million

$7 million

$2 million

$33.5 million

$2 million

$10.5 million

$23 million

$300 million

$3 million


Table B-1 .—Trade by Company—Oil and Gas (Continued)

Equipment area Well Completion/Product/in


FMC PetroleumEquipment Division &Cameron Iron Works

TRW-Reda Pump, Inc.

International Harvester

General Electric

Crutcher Resources Corp.

Roscoe Brown SalesCo. Inc.

Cooper Industries


Grove Valve &Regulator Co.

F. H Maloney Co,

Health Consultants Inc.

E. H Wachs Co.

Perry Equipment Corp.

Baker Oil Tools Inc.

Mertick Engineering

CRC Automatic Welding

Mid-Continent PipelineEquipment Co,

Ransome Co.

Deuma

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

Christmas trees

350 pumps

500 TD-25C bulldozers and pipelayers

Hot gas rotating components of the compressorsfor the Orenberg line

Spare parts for large diameter pipeline weldingequipment

Pipeline augers

73 RF2BB-30 centrifugal compressors

Standby turbine generators for Orenberg line

The smaller valves for Orenberg line (asubcontractor for Perry)

Pig signalers (subcontract to Perry)

Pig locaters (subcontract to Perry)

Pipe cutters

Entire complement of pig launching/receivingstations for Orenberg pipeline

Competitors: Mannesmann - FRGPrenatechnik - FRG*Primaberg - AustriaOeMV - AustriaGeneral Descaling - U.K. ●

N,K,K. - JapanAvery Lawrence - Singapore● Have sold pigs to U.S.S.R. before.

20 sets of gas well completion equipment,2 wire line units, and inflatable packers

Equipment for welding 12 to 25mm diameter pipe

Lease of its proprietary automatic welding systemto Hungary and Poland for Orenberg line

2 triple jointing plants for 42, 48, and 56 inch pipe;mandrills, clamps, cleaning, lining and coatingequipment

9 welding positioners

4 welding positioners

1978

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1976

1975

1975

1975

1975

1975

$64 million

$200,000

$250,000

$250,000

$250,000

$300,000

$27,650,000$9 millionfrom Perry

$700,000

$5 million

$200,000

—


Table B-1 .—Trade by Company –Oil and Gas (Continued)




General Electric Co.

TRW-Reda Pump, Inc.

TRW-Reda Pump, Inc.

Borg-Warner

Mission Manufacturing

General Electric

C-E Lummus & Co.

FMC Petroleum

Creusôt-LoireEnterprises with

Mannesmann-Demag-Meev Group

Creusôt-LoireHudson Italiana SpA

Caterpillar Tractor Co.

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

France

WestGermany

FranceItaly

Unitedand Caterpillar-Mitsubishi States

Japan

Bulldozers and pipe layers

Gas turbines for pipelines

137 electrodynamics submersible pumping units

Submersible pumps


Submersible pumps

65 MS3002, two-shaft turbines rated at 14,500 hp(all are being built under GE license in 6different countries)

Pipeline coolers

Stainless steel wellhead equipment

A seamless pipe plant using the Vallourec processwith a capability of 170,000 metric tons per annum

Pipeline coolersPipeline coolers

50 Caterpillar pipelayers and 2 years ofspare parts

Secondary/Tertiary Recovery

Fried Uhde GmbH West 100,000 ton per year alkyl phenol plantGermany (used as a surfactant)

Borslg GmbH West C 02 recuperation plantGermany

Offshore

Rauma-Repola Oy Finland Build the hull for the semi below

UIE & ETPM France An offshore oil platform fabrication yard at Baku

Serete France Floating drilling platforms

Blohm & Voss West Self-propelled crane to position offshore rigsGermany

Blohm & Voss AG West Rebuild a shipyard at Astrakhan for assemblingGermany jackups and semi-submersible rigs

Modec Japan Class III 3-legged jackup rig; design by LevlngstonShipbuilding (U.S.); drilling equipment by NationalSupply (U.S.); blowout preventor stacks and controlsfrom N.L. Petroleum (U.S.)

1975

1975

1975

1975

1975

1975

1974

1978

1978

1979

1978

1976

1978

1979

1976

1980

1975

1976

1979

1979

$17 million

$20 million

$250 million

$1 million

$230 million

DM 50 million

$15 million

$40 million

$35 million


Table B-l —Trade by Company —Oil and Gas (Continued)

Equipment area Offshore

Product Year ValueSuppliers Country

Sanwa Kizai Co. Ltd. Japan

IHC Netherlands

IHC Netherlands

Ulstein Hatlo A/S Norway

14 augers used for pile driving 1976

Seagoing pipe layer 1971

Jackup rig 1967

3 ships to tow exploration and production 1976drilling platforms

Kongsberg Vaapen NorwayFabrikk A/S

3 dynamic positioning systems for the 3-drill ships 1979built by Rauma-Repola Oy

Competitors:Simrad A/S (Norway)Honeywell (U. S.)

Simrad A/S Norway 1979

1978

1979 $3.8 million

1978

1976 $25 million

Dynamic positioning system for the Armco semibuilt for U.S.S.R.

Armco, Inc. UnitedStates

Equipment for a jackup being built by Mitsui OceanDevelopment & Engineering Co. Ltd.

Lynes International Inc. UnitedStates

11 strings of drill stem testing equipment foroffshore facilities


License for semisubmersible rigs built by Rauma-Repola Oy for Soviets

National Supply UnitedStates

Provide most of the machinery for asemisubmerisble rig being builtby Rauma-Repola Oy


License for production of semi’s in U.S.S.R. 1976

Refining

Tech nip France

France

15,000 cubic meter per annum natural gas

28 natural gas purification stations

1975 $230 million

1975

1975

1979

1976 $250 million

1978

ConstructionsMetalliques de Provence

Walworth AloycoGrove International

Italy 1,580 ball valves for oil refineries

Japan Steel Works Japan

Japan

Japan

Manufacturing for the above plant

Nichimen Jitsugyo 3 plant gas processing complex

Mitsubishi Corp. Primary oil refining equipmentCompetitors: Linde AG - FRG

C-E Lummus - U.S.

Fluor Corp. UnitedStates

Designs, engineering, procurement, and fieldtechnical advisory services for plants to convertnatural gas into ethane, methane, pentane, liquidpropane, gasoline and other products

1979

Fluor Corp. UnitedStates

Provide engineering and technology assistancefor the three plants above

1976

1978Mitsubishi Heavy JapanIndustries United

States

Gas processing complex

Japan Steel Works Japan& Fluor Corp. United

States

Gas processing complex 1978 $250 million

—-


Table B-2.—Trade by Company—Coal

Equipment

Suppliers

area Exploration

Country Product Year Value

Plategods Co Norway

Preparation

South Yakutian Coal JapanDevelopment Corp.

Marubeni Corp. Japan

Sumitomo Heavy JapanIndustr les

Transportation from

Komatsu Ltd. Japan

Unit Rig & Equipment Co UnitedStates

Unit Rig & Equipment Co. UnitedStates

Ingersoll-Rand UnitedStates

Ingersoll-Rand UnitedStates

Unit Rig & Equipment Co. UnitedStates

Surface Mining Excavation



Rock drilling equipment

Coal preparation equipment

33 large screens for coal washing plantNote built by Kurimoto Iron Works Co under aIicense from Schenck GmbH (FRG)

Four 600 ton/hour flo-driers (under license from McNallyPittsburgh Manufacturing Corp. (United States)

Mine

30 120 ton capacity heavy mining trucks

30 M-200 vehicles for use in coal fields

Heavy duty dump trucks

Slurry pumps powered by a 3,000 HP engine

Slurry pumps

54 M-200s Note To be built by the Canadian

Kent France S A

Orensteim und Koppel

Sumitomo HeavyIndustr ies

Sumitomo Corp.

South Yakutian CoalDevelopment Corp.


Paccar Inc.

France

WestGermany

Japan

Japan

Japan

Japan

Japan

Japan

UnitedStates

Clark Equipment Co UnitedStates

10 electric mining shovels

3 large and 1 small excavator for open castIignite mines

Division

20 cubic meter bucket, hydraulic mining dhovels

10 self-propelled 20 cubic meter bucket, miningShovels

10 “Super Front” mining shovels used in strip mining

Coal development equipment

10 crawler-mounted blast hole drillsNote Built under a Marion Power Shovel Iicense

5 “Super Front” mining shovelsNote Built under Iicense from Marion Power Shovel,Division of Dresser Industries

7 Dart D-600 15 cubic yard front-end loaders

3 Model 475 B front-end loaders

1975

1978

1978

1978

1979

1976

1975

1975

1974

1979

1975

1980

1978

1976

1975

1974

$25 mil l ion

Y1.2 billion

$30 million

$40 million

$13 million

$14 million

DM 220 million

$450 million

1979 $286 mil l ion

1978 $1 million


Table B-2.–Trade by Company—Coal (Continued)

Equipment area Transportation at Underground Mine Site

Suppliers Country Product Year Value— .

Ohlemann GmbH West 36 underground mining vehicles 1979Germany

Komatsu Ltd. Japan 30 120-ton capacity heavy mining trucks 1979 $30 million

Linden Alimak Sweden Mine shaft hoists 1979 SKr 5 million

Appendix C. – Suppliers of Essential Equipment———— —

Table C-1 .—Suppliers of Nuclear Grade Pipes and Tubes Outside the United States

Austria Austr iatomVereinigte Edelstahlwerke Voest-Alpine

Canada Chase NuclearDominion Bridge CoFinnan Engineered ProductsNoranda Metal IndustriesR IO Algorn (Atlas Alloys DI V. )

France

Great Britain

Creusôt-LoireDelattre-LevivierMetaux Inoxydables OuvresVallourec

Cabot Alloys EuropeCameron Iron WorksFine TUbesPipework EngineeringRGB PipelinesTioga Pipe Supply International

Developments

Netherlands

Japan IHIJapan Steel WorksKawasaki Steel Corp.Kobe SteelKubota

Ameron BVKawecki-Billiton MetaalindustrieTrent TubeVan MulIekomVan Wijk & Boerma

Sweden Avesta JernverksNyby UddeholmSandvik

Switzerland Zschokke Wartmann AG

West Germany Klockner-WerkeMannesmannroehren-Werke AGSchmoele, R.&G. Metallwere GmbH

Table C-2.—Suppliers of Welding Equipment Outside the United States

Canada

France

Great Britain

Bata Engineerlng

P o l y s o u d e

Sciaky S. A.

Cunnington & CooperNEl Clarke Chapman Power

EngineeringSciaky Electric Welding Machines

Italy

Japan

Tioga Pipe Supply InternationalVickers ShipbuiIding Group

Breda TermomeccaniaCorradi, Franco

IHIKawasaki Heavy industriesKobe Steel

219


Table C-3.—Suppliers of Steam Generators Outside the United States

Austria Austr iatomSimmering-Graz- PaakerVoest-Alpine

Canada Babcock & W IICOX CanadaDavie ShipbuildingNoranda Metal Industries

France Creusôt-LoireFramatomeStein IndustrieSulzer

Great Britain Babcock PowerNEI Clark Chapman Power

EngineeringNEI International CombustionRNC Nuclear

Italy Breda TermomeccanicaConstruzioni MeccanicheFranco TO SiNIRA

—SOURCE NEI International Buyers GuiIde, 1980

Table C-4.—SuppIiers of Pumps

Austria

Canada

France

Great Britain

Italy

Japan

Netherlands

Sweden

Switzerland

Outside the United States

West Germany

SOURCE NEI International Buyers

AndritzAustr iatom

Finnan Engineered ProductsHayward Gordon

Creusôt-LotreDresser EuropeFramatomePompes Guinard

GEC Reactor EquipmentHaskelHayward Tyler & CoHolden & BrookeWeir Pumps

Fiat TTGFranco TO Si

IHIKawasaki Heavy IndustriesTorishima Pump Manufacturing CoToshiba

Borg-Warner Corp.Delaval-Stork

Karlstads Mekaniska Werkstad

Eschler UraniaK. Rutschi, Ltd.Sulzer Brothers

InteratomKlein, SchanzlinOrlita

G u i l d e , 1 9 8 0

& Becker

Japan IHIKawasaki Heavy IndustriesKobe SteelMitsubishi Heavy IndustriesToshiba

Netherlands NeratoomRoyal ScheideRSV-A

Spain Babcock & W IICOX EspanolaEquipos Nucleares

Sweden Uddcomb Sweden

Switzerland Sulzer Brothers

West Germany Babcock-Brown Boveri ReaktorDeutsche BabcockGHH SterkadeKlockner-Werke

Table C-5.—Suppliers of Valves

Canada

France

Great Britain

Italy

Japan

Netherlands

Sweden

Switzerland

West Germany

Outside the “United States

Canadian Worcester ControlsCurran Valve SupplyEPG Energy Products GroupFisher Controls Co of CanadaVelan Engineering

Alsthom-Atlant iqueNeyrpic Pont-a-MoussonTrouvay & Cauvin

Adams, GebruderGEC-Elliott Control ValvesHattersley HeatonHindle ValvesHopkinsons

Fiat TTG

Japan Steel WorksOkano Valve Mfg. Co.Utsie Valve Co.

Borg-WarnerG. Dikkers & Co,

Karlstads Mekaniska Werkstad

Alfred Batt igSulzer Brothers

Gebruder AdamsARF Armaturen-VetriebDeutsche BabcockStahl-Armaturen Persta

SOURCE: NEI International Buyers Guide, 1980


Austria

Canada

France

Great Britain

Italy

Japan

Switzerland

Table C-6.—Suppliers of Containment StructuresOutside the United States

RFBVeost-Alpine

Can atomDavie Shipbuilding

Bignier Schmid-LaurentCreusôt-LoireNeypicSpie-Batignolles S.A.

Babcock PowerFairey EngineeringGEC Reactor EquipmentSir Robert McAlpine & Sons, Ltd.

Bosco Industrie Mecca nicheFochi

I HIKawasaki Heavy lndustr ies

Kobe SteelShimizu Construct Ion Co

Bureau BBRBussSulzer BrothersWoolleyZschokke Wartmann

West Germany Krupp FriedMaschinenfabr ik Augsburg-NurnbergL. & C. Steinmuller

SOURCE: NEI International Buyers Guide, 1980

Table C-8. —Essential

Preparation123456789

10

Agitators, Conditioners, MixersCrushers

Table C-7.—Suppliers of Control SystemsOutside the United States

Canada

France

Great Britain

Italy

Japan

Sweden

Switzerland

AG

West Germany

SOUR CE NEI International

AutomatecCanadian General ElectricEnercorp InstrumentsFischer & PorterThermo Electric

CGEE AlsthomFichet-BaucheLeanordSODETEGSpie Batignolles

Ferranti Computer SystemsFoxboro-Yoxal lHoneywellKent Process ControlR.P. Automation

ELSAGMarelli, Ercole & Co.Montedel

F UJI Electric CoKawasaki Steel Corp.Sukegawa Electric Co.Toshiba

A SEATekniska Rontgencentralen

Bachofen

Equipment for Coal Mining

Brown Boveri & CieHigh Energy & Nuclear EquiprnentSulzer Borthers

Brown Boveri & CieKarftwerk UnionNuclear DataSiemens —Buyers Guide, 1980

14 Bulldozers15 Front-end Loaders16 Scrapers

Flotation Machines and ReagentsGrinders Transportation at Surface Mine Site

Pulverizers 17. Coal Haulers (100 ton)

Separators Underground Mine ExcavationWashers 18 Continuous MinersCleaning Breakers 19 Loading MachinesBlending Machines 20 Longwall EquipmentElectrostatic Precipitators 21 Bul ldozers

Surface Mining Excavation11 Draglines12 Drills

22 Coal Cutters23 Heading Machines24 Undercu t te r

13 Power Shovels

SOURCE C. Simeons, Coal Its Role in Tomorrow's Technology (New York Pergamon Press 1978I

222 ● Technology and Soviet Energy Availability—

1.

2.

3.

Table C-9.—West European and Japanese Suppliers of Essential Coal Mining Equipment

Agitators, Conditioner and Mixers

FranceFives-Call Babcock

EnglandAPV-Mitchell (Dryers), Ltd.GEC Mechanical Handling, Ltd.Johnson-Progress, Ltd.Joy Manufacturing Co.

JapanKawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Crushers

EnglandAveling-Beuford, Ltd.British Jeffrey DiamondMagco, Ltd.Newell Dunford Eng., Ltd.Pegson, Ltd.Underground Mining Machinery, Ltd.

West GermanyBuckan-Wolf Maschinenfabrik AGBuhler-MiagEsch-Werke AGHazemag GmbH & CoIBAG International Baumaschinenfabrik AGKrupp GmbH

FranceAlsthom Atlant iqueDragon SA AppareilsFives-Call BabcockJoy SAStephanoise de Constr

Japanlshikawajima-Harima Heavy IndustriesKawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.Kurimoto Iron Works, Ltd.

Flotation Machines and Reagents

EnglandMachines

Joy Manufacturing CoReagents

Century OiIs, Ltd.

West GermanyMachines

KHD Industrianlagen AGKrupp GmbH, Fried, Krupp IndustrielLurgi Gesel lschaften

JapanMachines

Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.Reagents

Sanyo Chemical Industries, Ltd.

4.

5.

6.

Grinders

EnglandBeryllium Smelting Co, Ltd.Chapman, Ltd.GEC Mechanical Handling, Ltd.Head Wrightson & Co, Ltd.Helipeds, Ltd.Joy Manufacturing CoNewell Dunford Eng., Ltd.Pegson, Ltd.Simon-WarmanWilkinson Process Linatex Rubber Co, Ltd.

FranceAlsthom Atlant iqueDragon SA AppareilsFives-Call BabcockStein Industrie

West GermanyBuhler-MiagEsch-Werke AGIBAG International Baumaschinenfabrik AGKHD Industrianlagen AGKrupp GmbH, Fried, Krupp IndustrieKulenkampff GebruderO&K Orenstein & Koppel AGPolysius Werke

Japanlshikawajima-Harima Heavy IndustriesKawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.Kabe Steel, Ltd.Kurimoto Iron Works, Ltd.Mitsubishi Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Pulverizers

EnglandBritish Jeffrey Diamond

West GermanyKHD Industrianlagen AGKrupp GmbH, Fried, Krupp Industrie

Japanlshikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries

Separators

EnglandBoxmag-Rapid, Ltd.GEC Mechanical Handling, Ltd.

FranceFives-Cail BabcockSaulas & CiIStein Industrie

West GermanyBavaria Maschinenfabrik GmbH & CoKHD Industrianlagen AGKrupp GmbH, Fried, Krupp IndustriePolysius Werke

Ch. 6— Western Energy— —

7.

8.

9.

Equipment and Technology Trade With the U S S R . 223

Table C-9.–West European and Japanese Suppliers of Essential Coal Mining Equipment (Continued)

Japanlshikawajima-Harima Heavy IndustriesKawasaki Heavy Industries. Ltd.Kobe Steel Ltd.Kurimoto Iron Works Ltd.

Washers

EnglandAveling Barford Ltd.

GEC Mechanical Handling, Ltd.

FranceAlsthom Atlant iqueDragon SA Appareils

West GermanyBavaria Maschinenfabrik GmbH & CoEsch-Werke AGIRAQ International Baumascninenfabrik AGKHD Industrianlagen AG

JapanKurirnoto Iron Works Ltd.

Cleaning Breakers

EnglandBritish Jeffrey DiamondCompair Construction & Mining Ltd.GEC Mechanical Handling, Ltd.Gullick Dobson, Ltd.Mining Supplies, Ltd.Padley & VenablesUnderground Mining Machinery, Ltd.

FranceFives-Ca[l BabcockStephanoise de Constr. Mecaniques. S o c .

West GermanyDeutsche Montabert GmbHKHD Industrianlagen AGOrenstein & Koppel AGWestfalia Lunen

JapanFurukawa Rock Drill Sales Co Ltd.lshikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries

Blending Machines

EnglandBabcock-Moxey. Ltd.Babcock & WIICOX , Ltd.

FranceFives-Call BabcockRealization Equipments Industriels

West GermanyBuckau-Wolf Maschinenfabrik AGDemag Lauchammer Masch

Japanlshikawajima-Harima Heavy

10. Electrostatic Precipitators

EnglandHead Wrightson & Co Ltd.

& Stahlbau GmbH

Industries

West GermanyKHD Industrianlagen AGLurgi Gesellschaften

Japanlshikawajima-Harlam Heavy industriesKawasaki Heavy lndustries Ltd.

11. Draglines

EnglandRansomes & Rapier Ltd.Ruston-Bucyrus Ltd.

FrancePoclainRealization Equiprnents Industriels

West GermanyAumund-Forderbau GmbHDemag AG. ABT BergwerksmachinenDemag Lauchhammer Masch & Stahlbau GmbHDemag Verdichtertechnik GmbHKrupp GmbH, Fried, Drupp lndustril Una StahlbauLiebherr Hydraulikbagger GmbHMaschinenfabr ik Augsburg-Nurnberg AGOrenstein & Koppel AG

JapanHitachi Construction Machine Co. Ltd.lshikawajima-Harima Heavy IndustriesKawasaki Heavy IndustriesKobe Steel Ltd.

12. Drills

EnglandBoart, Ltd.Compair Construction & Mining. Ltd.Eimco, Ltd.English Drilling Equipment Co., Ltd.Euro-Drill Equipment, Ltd.Hydraulic Drilling Equipment. Ltd.Mining Dev., Ltd.Underground Mining Machinery, Ltd.

13. Power ShovelsSee DragIines

14. BulldozersSee Draglines

FranceMaco-Meudon

West GermanyDemag AG, ABT BergwerksmachinenDemag Drucklufttechnik GmbHDemag Verdichtertechnik GmbHDeutsche Montabert GmbHFlottman-Werke GmbHWerth & Co

JapanFurukawa Rock Drill Sales CoKoken Boring Machine CompanyMitsubishi Steel Mfg. Co Ltd.Mitsui Shipbuilding & Eng. Co, Ltd.


Table C-9.—West European and Japanese Suppliers of Essential Coal Mining Equipment (Continued)

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Front-end Loaders

EnglandAveling-Barford,Eimco, Ltd.Matbro, Ltd.Mining Dev., Ltd.

FranceFrance Loader

20.

Ltd.

Realization Equipment Industriels

West GermanyAumund-Fordererbau GmbH

21.

Deilmann-Hanill GmbHEickhoff Maschinf bk-U Eisengiesserei Mb 22.Gutehoffnungshuttl Sterkrade AGOrenstein & Koppel AGSalzgitter Maschinen AGWestfalia Lunen

JapanFurukawa Rock Drill Sales CoHiltachi Construction Machine Co., Ltd.Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.Kobe Steel, Ltd.Komatsu, Ltd.Mitsuboshi Belting, Ltd.Shinko Electric Co, Ltd.

ScrapersSee Draglines

Coal HaulerSee Draglines 23.

Continuous Miner

EnglandBabcock & WIICOX , Ltd.Dasco Overseas Eng., Ltd.

West GermanyDemag AG, ABT BergwerksmachinenDemag Verdichtertechnik GmbH

Loading Machine 24.See Front-end Loaders

Longwall Equipment

EnglandBritish Jeffrey DiamondUnderground Mining Machinery, Ltd.

FranceMinex Mine-Expert

West GermanyEilckhoff Maschinf bk-U Eisengiesserei MbWestfalia Lunen

BulldozerSee Draglines

Coal Cutters

EnglandBabcock & Wilcox, Ltd.Bntish Jeffrey DiamondDosco Overseas Eng., Ltd.Mining Supplies, Ltd.Underground Mining Machinery, Ltd.

FranceMinex Mine-ExpertStephanoise de Constr. Mecaniques

West GermanyEickhoff Maschinf bk-U Eisengiesserei MbThyssen Industrie AG

Titanit Bergbau TechnikWestfalia Lunen

Heading Machines

EnglandEimco, Ltd.Gullick Dobson, Ltd.Mining Dev., Ltd.Thymark Thyssen Group

West GermanyBecorit Grubenausbau GmbHSalzgitter Maschinen AGWestfalia Lunen

UndercutterSee Draglines

—SOURCE C Simeons Coal Its Role In Tomorrow s Technology (New York Pergamon Press, 1978)

Table C-10.—West European and Japanese Producers of Electric Transmission Equipment—

Country Company Country Company -

— —

West Germany Siemens Sweden ASEA (High Voltage TransformersAEG and DC Equipment)

England English Electric Switzerland Brown- BoveriGEC

Japan MitsubishiFrance Thomson-Brandt

Alstom-Atlantique Netherlands Philips

DEL (High Voltage Circuit Breakers)


western energy equipment and technology trade with the …

Documents